[19] I know of one nut which was preserved and shown to admiring boys as a conqueror of 1000.
Other games of skill are those played by two or more players on diagrams or plans. Many of these diagrams and plans are found scratched or carved on the stone flooring or walls of old churches, cathedrals, and monastic buildings, showing that the boys and men of the Middle Ages played them as a regular amusement—probably monks were not averse to this kind of diversion in the intervals of religious exercise; plans were also made on the ground, and the games played regularly by shepherds and other people of outdoor occupation. We know this was so with the well-known “Nine Men’s Morris” in Shakespeare’s time, and there is no reason why this should not be the case with others, although “Nine Men’s Morris” appears to have been the favourite. These diagram games are primitive in idea, and simple in form. They consist primarily of two players trying to form a row of three stones in three consecutive places on the plan; the one who first accomplishes this, wins. This is the case with “Kit-Cat-Cannio” (better known as “Noughts and Crosses”) “Corsicrown” and “Nine Men’s Morris.”
Now, in “Noughts and Crosses” the simplest form of making a “row of three,” where only two players play, and in another diagram game called “Tit-Tat-Toe,” it is possible for neither player to win, and in this case the result is marked or scored to an unknown or invisible third player, who is called “Old Nick,” “Old Tom,” or “Old Harry.” In some versions this third player is allowed to keep all the marks he registers, and to win the game if possible; in others, the next successful player takes “Old Nick’s” score and adds it to his own. Here we have an element which needs explanation, and it is interesting to remind oneself of the primitive custom of assigning a certain proportion of the crops or pieces of land to the devil, or other earth spirit, which assignment was made by lot. It seems to me that a game in which an invisible player takes part must come from an era in which unknown spirits were believed to take part in people’s lives, the interpretation of such part being obtained by means of divination.
Again, in the games played with ball (hand) are remains of divination, and the ball games played by two opposite parties with bats and sticks, the origin of our modern cricket and football, have been developed from those early contests which have played such an important part in parish and town politics. Even in the simple game of “Touch” or “Tig” a primitive element can be found. In this game, as in many others, it is one of the fundamental rules, now unfortunately being disregarded, that the player who is “he” or “it” must be chosen by lot; one of the “counting out” rhymes is said until all the players but one are counted out—this one is then “he.” This “he” is apparently a “tabooed” person; he remains “he” until he succeeds in touching another, who becomes “tabooed” in turn, and the first is then restored to his own personality. There would be no necessity for this deciding by lot unless something of an ignominious or “evil” character had been originally associated with the “unnamed” or “tabooed” player. In some games the player who is counted out is the victim of the rough play or punishment, which is the motive of the game. It is possible that the game of “Touch” has developed from the practice of choosing a victim by lot, or from tabooing people suffering from certain diseases or subjected to some special punishment.
The “counting out” rhymes of children are in themselves an interesting and curious study. They contain the remains in distorted form of some of the early numerals. The fact of a counting-out rhyme being used in the games is of itself evidence of antiquity and old usage. For those interested in this branch of study I can refer to the valuable book on this subject by Mr. H. Carrington Bolton, which contains hundreds of these rhymes collected from various sources.
I mention these instances of possible connection between the games of skill and ancient belief and custom, to show that the anthropological significance of traditional games is not absent from what might perhaps be considered quite modern games. This is important to my argument, because when I turn to the dramatic section of children’s games there is so much evidence of the survival of ancient custom and belief, that I am supported in the arguments which I shall advance by the fact that the whole province of children’s play, and not particular departments, contribute to this evidence. It will be seen from the classification that many customs are dramatised or represented in a more or less imperfect form in a large number of games, and that these customs have been those which obtained a firm hold on the people, and formed an integral part of their daily life. Courtship, love, and marriage form the largest number; then the contest games for the taking of prisoners and of territory are the next in point of numbers. Funerals appear as the next most widely spread, then harvest customs, while the practice of divination, the belief in ghosts and charms, well-worship, tree-worship, and rush-bearing, witches, and child-stealing, are fully represented. Next come imitations of sports (animal), and contest games between animals, and then a number of games in which “guessing” is a principal feature, and a large number dealing with penalties or punishments inflicted for breach of rules.
A survey of the classification scheme of traditional games introduces the important fact that games contain customs; in other words, that games of skill and chance have come down from a time when practices were in vogue which had nothing originally to do with games, and that dramatic games have come down from times when the action they dramatise was the contemporary action of the people. It becomes important, therefore, to work more closely into the details of these games, to ascertain if we can what customs are preserved, to what people or period of culture they might have belonged. In many instances enough is said under each game to show the significance of the conclusions, but when brought together and compared one with another these conclusions become more significant. The fact that marriage custom is preserved in a given form becomes of immense value when it is found to have been preserved in many games. I shall not go further into the games of skill and chance, but confine myself to the important class of dramatic games.
By the dramatic game I mean a play or amusement which consists of words sung or said by the players, accompanied by certain pantomimic actions which accord with the words used, or, as I prefer to put it, of certain definite and settled actions performed by the players to indicate certain meanings, of which the words are only a further illustration.
To take the method of play first, I have found five distinct and different methods:—
(1) The line form of game, played by the children being divided into two sides of about an equal number on each side, with a space of ground of about eight or ten feet between the two lines. Each line joins hands, and advances and retires in turn while singing or saying their parts.
(2) The circle form, played by the children joining hands and forming a circle, and all walking or dancing round together when singing the words.
(3) The individual form, where the children take separate characters and act a little play.
(4) The arch form, in which two children clasp each other’s hands, hold their arms high, and so form a kind of arch, beneath which all the other players run in single file.
(5) Winding-up form, in which the players, clasping hands, wind round another player until all are wedged closely together, and then unwind again, generally assuming a serpentine form in so doing.
It will be well, in the first place, to arrange the games played under each of these methods:—
The arch form of game, or tug-of-war as it is usually called, subdivide into two methods:—
The first or line form of games is characterised by no one player being distinguished above his fellows; there are no distinct or separate characters to be played. All the players on one line say the same words and perform the same actions; all advance together and retire together. Each line stands still while the other line advances, retires, and has its “say.” In this way questions are asked and answers are given. Questions and answers form an essential part of the line form of game. The one line of players imply action of a party composed of several persons who are of the same opinion, and the line on the opposite side is a party who hold different opinions, and express these in words and by actions; so that in no game played in line form do we get unanimous action of all the players, but half and half.
These line games represent in the main a contest, and there are contests of different kinds; that is, war between the people of two different locations, between parishes or border countries of different nationalities, and contests for wives, of a more or less friendly nature. That the lines or sides indicate people who come from one country or district to another country or district is shown, I think, by the fact that a line is drawn in the middle of the ground, which line separates the territory of the two sides. Players can go as far as the line on their own side, but one step over lands them in the enemy’s territory. In a marriage game of the line form, the girl when unwilling is pulled across the line, and when willing she walks across to the opposite side. It is also clear that in the marriage games the party on one side represents young men, and on the other side young women.
In the second group, the circle form, all the players join hands to form a circle. They all perform the same actions and say the same words. This circle form is used in three ways.
In the first or simplest class all the players perform the same actions, sing the same words all together. There is no division into parties, and no individual action or predominance. This method is adopted when a certain recurring custom is celebrated or a special event is commemorated. The event is described in pantomimic action, and accompanied with dance and song.
In the second class the circle is formed, the players all clasp hands, dance round together, and sing the same words; but the action is confined to first one and then two players, who are taken by “choice” from those forming the circle. This class principally consists of courtship, love-making, and marriage games. The two principal parties concerned usually have no words to say, though in some “love” games the centre player does express his or her own feelings in verse. The fact that this form is used for love and marriage games accounts for the much larger number of games in this class and their greater variety.
In the third class of the circle game the players form the circle to act the part of “chorus” to the story. There are also two, three, or four players, as required, who act parts in dumb show suitable to the character personified. In this class the circle personate both animate and inanimate objects. The circle is stationary—at least the players forming it do not dance or walk round. They sometimes represent houses; a village, and animals are usually represented rather than people.
The circle games I consider to be survivals of dramatic representations of customs performed by people of one village or of one town or tribe—representations of social customs of one place or people, as distinct from the “line” form of games, which represent a custom obtaining between two rival villages or tribes. Thus I am inclined to consider the joining of hands in a circle as a sign of amity, alliance, and kinship. In the case of the line games hands are clasped by all players on each side, who are thus in alliance against those on the opposite side. When hands are joined all round so that a circle is formed, all are concerned in the performance of the same ceremony. There is no division into parties, neither is difference of opinion shown either by action or words in circle games.
In the third class of game there are several distinct characters, and the game partakes more of the nature of what we should call a play proper, and may be considered an outcome of the circle play. There are several characters, usually a mother, a witch or old woman, an elder daughter and several younger children, a ghost, and sometimes animals, such as sheep, wolves, fox, hen, and chickens. The principal characters (not more than two or three) are played by different children, and these having each a part allotted to them, have also a certain amount of dialogue to say, and corresponding actions to perform. The remaining characters, whether children or animals, merely act their part when action is required, all doing the same thing, and have no words to say. The dialogue in these games is short and to the point. It has not been learnt from written sources, but orally, and as long as the main idea and principal incidents are not departed from, the players may, according to their capacity, add to or shorten the dialogue to heighten the situation. There is no singing in these games, though there is what perhaps might be called the remains of rhyme in the dialogue.
The fourth form, that of the arch, is played in two ways. In the first, two children clasp their hands and hold them up to form an arch. Under this all the other players run as if going through an arch or gateway, and the players are generally stopped by the two who form the arch. Then a circle is formed, and all the players join hands and dance round together. In the second way, the arch is formed as above, and all the players run under. These players are then caught one by one within the arch, and have to choose one of the two leaders, behind whom they stand. A tug-of-war then ensues between the two leaders and their followers.
The first of these, that ending with the circle or dancing, indicates the celebration of an event in which all the people join, and all are of one way of thinking—differing from this group of customs celebrated by the simple circle game by each person in turn performing a ceremony, signified in games by the action of going under or through an arch.
The second way, when the “tug” follows, represents a contest, but I do not think the contest is of the same kind as that of the line form. This rather represents the leaders of two parties who are antagonistic, who call, in the words of the rhymes, upon the people of a town, or faction, to join one of the two sides. The fact that each player in the line or string is caught by the leaders, and has to choose which of them he will fight under, together with the tug or pulling of one side over a marked line, by the other side, indicates a difference in the kind of warfare from the line contests, where territory is clearly the cause of the struggle and fight. The line contest shows a fight between people of different lands; and the arch contest, a method of choosing leaders by people living in one land or town.
In the fifth form, “winding up games,” the players join hands in a long line, and wind round and round one player at the end of the line, usually the tallest, who stands still until all are formed in a number of circles, something like a watch spring. They then unwind, sometimes running or dancing, in a serpentine fashion until all are again in straight line. These games probably refer to the custom of encircling trees, as an act of worship. They differ from the circle game in this way: The players in a circle game surround something or some one. In the “winding up” game they not only surround, but attachment or “hold” to the thing surrounded has to be kept.
The fact that these games lend themselves to such treatment, and the fact that I am obliged to use the terms, district, tribe, localities, obliged to speak of a state of contest between groups, of the sacred encircling of a tree, and of other significant usages, go far to suggest that these games must contain some element which belongs to the essential part of their form, and my next quest is for this element. I shall take each class of game, and endeavour to ascertain what element is present which does not necessarily belong to games, or which belongs to other and more important branches of human action; and it will depend on what this element is as to what can ultimately be said of the origin of the games.
Of the games played in “line” form, “We are the Rovers” is the best representative of pure contest between two opposing parties. If reference is made to the game (vol. ii. pp. 343-356), the words will be found to be very significant. In my account of the game (pp. 356-60), I suggest that it owes its origin to the Border warfare which existed on the Marches between England and Scotland and England and Wales, and I give my reasons, from analysing the game, why I consider it represents this particular form of contest rather than that of a fight between two independent countries. Both sides advancing and retiring in turn, while shouting their mutual defiance, and the final fight, which continues until all of one side are knocked down or captured, show that a deliberate fight was intended to be shown. I draw attention, too, to the war-cry used by each side, which is also significant of one of the old methods of rallying the men to the side of their leader—an especially necessary thing in undisciplined warfare. This game, then, contains relics of ancient social conditions. That such a contest game as this is represented by the line form combining words, singing, and action, is, I submit, good evidence of my contention that the line form of game denotes contest. This game, then, I consider a traditional type of contest game.
It is remarkable that among the ordinary, now somewhat old-fashioned, contest games played by boys there should be some which, I think, are degenerate descendants of this traditional type. There are a number of boys’ games, the chief features of which are catching and taking prisoners and getting possession of an enemy’s territory—as in the well-known “Prisoner’s Base” and “Scots and English.”’s “Prisoner Base” (ii. pp. 80-87) in its present form does not appear to have much in common with games of the type of “We are the Rovers,” but on turning to Strutt we find an earlier way of playing (ibid. p. 80). Now, this description by Strutt gives us “Prisoner’s Base” played by two lines of players, each line joining hands, their homes or bases being at a distance of twenty to thirty feet apart. That the line of players had to keep to their own ground is, I think, manifest, from it being necessary for one of the line to touch the base. There is no mention of a leader. Thus we have here an undoubted form of a contest game, where the taking of prisoners is the avowed motive, played in almost the same manner as the line dramatic game. When the dramatic representation of a contest became formulated in a definite game, the individual running out and capturing a certain player on the opposite side would soon develop and become a rule of the game, instead of all on one side trying to knock down all on the other side. It may be a point to remember, too, that in primitive warfare the object is to knock down and kill as many of the enemy as possible, rather than the capture of prisoners.
In other games of a similar kind, the well-known “Scots and English” (ii. p. 183), for example, we have the ground divided into two parts, with a real or imaginary line drawn in the middle; the players rush across the line and try to drag one of the opposite side across it, or to capture the clothes of the players.
In other boys’ games—“Lamploo,” “Rax,” “King of Cantland,” “King Cæsar,” “Stag”—there are the two sides; the players are sometimes all on one side, and they have to rush across to the other, or there are some players on each side, who rush across to the opposite, trying to avoid being taken prisoner by a player who stands in the middle between the opposite goals. When this player catches a boy, that boy joins hands with him; the next prisoner taken also joins hands, and these assist in capturing others. This is continued until all the players are caught and have joined hands in a long line, practically reverting to the line form of game, and showing, according to my theory of the line game, that all joining hands are of one side or party. If the line gets broken the players can run back to their own side. There are many other games which are played in a similar way (see Contest Games), though farther removed from the original form. In most of these we have practically the same thing—the sides have opposite homes, and the leader, though individual at first, becomes merged in the group when the line is formed, and the game ends by all the players being on one side. It must be mentioned, too, that in these boys’ games of fighting, the significant custom of “crowning,” that is, touching the head of the captured one, obtains. If this is omitted the prisoner is at liberty to escape (see “Cock,” “King of Cantland”).
Although there is no dialogue between the opposing parties in these contest games, there are in some versions undoubted remains of it, now reduced to a few merely formal words called a “nominy.” These “nominys” must be said before the actual fight begins, and the remains are sufficient to show that the nominy was originally a defiance uttered by one side and answered by the other. For these nominys, see “Blackthorn,” “Chickidy Hand,” “Hunt the Staigie,” “Scots and English,” “Johnny Rover,” “Shepherds,” “Stag,” “Warney,” &c.
The next most important games in line form are marriage games. In the well-known “Nuts in May” (vol. i. p. 424-433) there is a contest between the two parties, but the contest here is to obtain an individual for the benefit of the side. A line is drawn on the ground and a player is deliberately sent to “fetch” another player from the opposite side, and that this player is expected to conquer is shown by the fact that he is selected for this purpose, and also because the ceremony of “crowning” prevails in some versions. The boy, after he has pulled the girl across the line, places his hand on her head to complete the capture and to make a prisoner. This custom of “crowning” prevails in many games where prisoners are made, and I have already mentioned it as occurring in the boys’ contest games. If the crowning is performed, the capture is complete; if not performed, the prisoner may escape.
The evidence of this game, I consider, points to customs which belong to the ancient form of marriage, and to what is technically known as marriage by capture.
In the game of the “Three Dukes” (vol. ii. p. 233-255), it will be noticed that the actions are very spirited. Coquetry, contempt, and annoyance are all expressed in action, and the boys imitate riding and the prancing of horses. I must draw special attention to the remarks I have made in my account of the game, and for convenience in comparing the line marriage games I will repeat shortly the principal points here.
In some versions, the three dukes each choose a wife at the same time, and when these three are “wived” or “paired” another three do the same. In another version “five” dukes each choose a wife, and all five couples dance round together. But most significant of all is the action of the dukes after selecting the girl, trying to carry her off, and her side trying to prevent it.
In this game, then, I think we have a distinct survival of or remembrance of the tribal marriage—marriage at a period when it was the custom for the men of a clan or village to seek wives from the girls of another clan—both belonging to one tribe. The game is a marriage game of the most matter-of-fact kind. Young men arrive from a place at some distance for the purpose of seeking wives. The maidens are apparently ready and expecting their arrival. They are as willing to become wives as the men are to become husbands. It is not marriage by force or capture, though the triumphant carrying off of a wife appears. It is exogamous marriage custom. The suggested depreciation of the girls, and their saucy rejoinders, are so much good-humoured chaff and banter exchanged to enhance each other’s value. There is no mention of “love” in the game, nor courtship between the boy and girl. The marriage formula does not appear, nor is there any sign that a “ceremony” or “sanction” to marry is necessary, nor does “kissing” occur. Another interesting point about this game is the refrain, “With a rancy, tancy, tee,” which refrain, or something similar, accompanies all verses of all versions, and separates this game from others akin to it. This refrain is doubtless a survival of an old tribal war-cry.
The game of “The Three Knights from Spain” (ii. pp. 257-279), played in the same way as “Three Dukes,” may appear at first to be a variant of the “Three Dukes”; but it is significant that the form of marriage custom is different, though it is still marriage under primitive conditions of society. The personal element, entirely absent from the “Three Dukes,” is here one of the principal characteristics. The marriage is still one without previous courtship or love between two individuals, but the parental element is present here, or, at any rate, if not parental, there is that of some authority, and a sanction to marry is given, although there is no trace of any actual ceremony. The young men apparently desire some particular person in marriage, and a demand is made for her. The suitors here are, I think, making a demand on the part of another rather than for themselves. They may be the ambassadors or friends of the would-be bridegroom, and are soliciting for a marriage in which purchase-money or dowry is to be paid. The mention of “gold” and “silver” and the line, “She must be sold,” and the offering of presents by the “Knights,” are important. These indications of purchase refer to a time when the custom of offering gold, money, and other valuables for a bride was in vogue. While, therefore, the game has traces of capturing or carrying off the bride, this carrying off is in strict accord with the conditions prevalent when marriage by purchase had succeeded to marriage by capture. There is evidence in this game of a mercantile spirit, which suggests that women and girls were too valuable to be parted with by their own tribe or family without something deemed an equivalent in return.
In another line game, “Here comes Three Sailors” (ii. pp. 282-289), there is still more evidence of the mercantile or bargaining spirit. Here the representative of the parental element or other authority selects the richest and highest in rank of the suitors, and a sum of money is given with the bride. The suitors are supposed to have performed some actions which have gained them renown and entitled them to a wife. The suitors are accepted or rejected by a person having authority, and this authority introduces an interesting and suggestive feature. The suitors are invited to stay or lodge in the house if accepted, probably meaning admission into the family. The girl is to “wake up,” and not sleep, that is, to rouse up, be merry, dress in bridal array, and prepare for the coming festival. She is given to the suitors with “in her pocket one hundred pounds,” and “on her finger a gay gold ring.” This is given by the “mother” or those having authority, and refers, I believe, to the property the girl takes with her to her new abode for her proper maintenance there; the ring shows her station and degree, and is a token that she is a fit bride for a “king.” Curious, too, is the “Here’s my daughter safe and sound,” which looks like a warrant or guarantee of the girl’s fitness to be a bride, and the robbery of the bride may also have originally related to the removal of the bride’s wedding-dress or ornaments before she enters on her wifely duties.
Following these definite marriage games in line form, in which previous love or courtship does not appear, we have several games formerly played at weddings, practically as a part of the necessary amusement to be gone through after a marriage ceremony by the company present, amusements in which are the traces of earlier custom.
“Babbity Bowster” (i. pp. 9-11) is an old Scottish dance or game which used to be played as the last dance at weddings and merrymakings. It was danced by two lines of players, lads on one side, girls on the other. A lad took a handkerchief—in earlier times a bolster or pillow—and danced out in front of the girls, singing. He then selected a girl, threw the handkerchief into her lap or round her neck, holding both ends himself, and placed the handkerchief at her feet on the floor. His object was to obtain a kiss. This was not given without a struggle, and the line of girls cheered their companion at every unsuccessful attempt the boy made. When a girl took the handkerchief she threw it to a boy, who had to run after and catch her and then attempt to take a kiss. When all had done thus they danced in line form. This dance took place at the time when bride and bridegroom retired to the nuptial chamber. It is probable the bride and bridegroom would first go through the dance, and after the bridegroom had caught his bride and they had retired the dance would be continued in sport. The chasing of the bride in sport by her new-made husband at the close of the marriage festivities is mentioned in old ballads.
In the “Cushion Dance” (i. pp. 87-94) we have an instance of another similar old English game sang and danced at weddings. The “Cushion Dance,” though not played in line form, has two other elements of “Babbity Bowster.” The description is so interesting, I will repeat it shortly here. The company were all seated. Two young men left the room, and returned carrying, one a square cushion, the other a drinking horn or silver tankard. The young man carrying the cushion locked the door, taking the key. The young men then danced round the room to a lively tune played by a fiddler, and sang the words of the dance. There is a short dialogue with the fiddler, in which it is announced that “Jane Sandars won’t come to.” The fiddler says “She must come, whether she will or no.” The young men then dance round again and choose a young woman, before whom they place the cushion and offer the horn or cup. The girl and the young man kneel on the cushion and kiss. Here there is no capturing or chasing of the girl, but her reluctance to be brought to the cushion is stated by another person, and the locking of the door is evidently done to prevent escape of the girls.
Other line games contain the element of courting, some versions of “Green Grass,” for instance (i. pp. 161-62), show boys on one line, girls on the other, inviting girls to come and dance, and promising them gifts. After the boys have selected a girl, she is asked if she will come. She replies first No! then Yes! “Pray, Pretty Miss,” is similar to these (vol. ii. pp. 65-67).
The remaining line form of marriage games are probably degenerate versions of “Three Dukes,” “Three Knights,” except “Here Comes a Lusty Wooer” (i. 202) and “Jolly Hooper” (i. 287-88). Ritson records the first of these two in “Gammer Gurton’s Garland,” 1783; the second is probably a degenerate version of the first or similar version. They are both demands for a bride.
The other important line games are “Jenny Jones” (i. 260-283), “Lady of the Land,” and “Queen Anne.” I refer here to the Scotch version of “Jenny Jones,” quoted from Chambers, given in vol. i. p. 281, where “Janet Jo” is a dramatic entertainment amongst young rustics. Two of the party represent a goodman and a goodwife, the rest a family of daughters. One of the lads, the best singer, enters, demands to court Janet Jo. He is asked by the goodwife what he will give for Janet Jo. His offers of a peck o’ siller, a peck of gold, are refused; he offers more and is accepted, and told to sit beside his chosen one. He then has a scramble with her for kisses. Versions of this game which indicate funeral customs will be treated under that head; but love and courtship appear in the game, and the courting appears to be that of a young man or young men, to whom objection is made, pretended or real; the suitors are evidently objects of suspicion to the parental authority, and their sincerity is tested by the offers they make.
In “Queen Anne,” vol. ii. pp. 90-102, I have attempted a conjectural rendering of what the game might have been, by putting together the words of different versions. If this conjectural restoration be accepted as something near the original form, it would suggest that this game originated from one of the not uncommon customs practised at weddings and betrothals, where the suitor has to discriminate between several girls all dressed exactly alike, and to distinguish his bride by some token. This incident of actual primitive custom also obtains in folk-tales, showing its strong hold on popular tradition. Many a lost bride in the folk-tales proves her identity by having possession of some article previously given as a token, and this idea may account for the “ball” incident in this game. (See also “King William.”)
From these games, when thus taken together, we have evidence of the existence of customs obtaining in primitive marriage, and the fact that these customs, namely, those of marriage by capture, marriage by purchase, marriage by consent of others than those principally concerned, in other words, marriage between comparative strangers, occur in games played in line form, a form used for contest and fighting games, tends to show that the line form is used for the purpose of indicating the performance of customs which are supposed to take place between people living in different countries, towns, and villages, or people of different tribes or of different habits and customs. The more imperfect games of this type, though they have lost some of the vigour, have still enough left to show, when placed with the others, a connection with customs performed in the same manner.
In “Lady of the Land,” for instance (vol. i. pp. 313-20), the words indicate a lady hiring a poorer woman’s daughters as servants, and, no doubt, originates from the country practice of hiring servants at fairs, or from hirings being dramatically acted at Harvest Homes. The old practice of hirings at fairs is distinctly to be traced in local customs (see p. 319), and is a common incident in folk-tales. In this game, too, actions would be performed suitable to the work the players undertake to do.
It is not necessary to mention in detail any of the remaining line games, because they are fragmentary in form, and do not add any further evidence to that already stated.
In considering this group of games it is obvious, I think, that we have elements of custom and usage which would not primarily originate in a game, but in a condition of local or tribal life which has long since passed away. It is a life of contest, a life, therefore, which existed before the days of settled politics, when villages or tribal territories had their own customs differing from each other, and when not only matters of political relationship were settled by the arbitrament of the sword, but matters now considered to be of purely personal relationship, namely, marriage. While great interest gathers round the particular marriage customs or particular contests indicated in this group of games, the chief point of interest lies in the fact that they are all governed by the common element of contest.
I will now turn to the circle games. Like the line games, this form contains games which show marriage custom, but it is significant that they all show a distinctly different form of marriage. Thus they all show courtship and love preceding the marriage, and they show that a distinct ceremony of marriage is needful; but this ceremony is not necessarily the present Church ceremony. The two best examples are “Sally Water” (vol. ii. pp. 149-179) and “Merry-ma-tansa” (vol. i. pp. 369-367).
In “Sally Water” the two principal characters have no words to say, but one chooses another deliberately, and the bond is sealed by a kiss, and in some instances with joining of hands. The circle of friends approve the choice, and a blessing and good wishes follow for the happiness of the married couple, wishes that children may be born to them, and the period of the duration of the marriage for seven years (the popular notion of the time for which the marriage vows are binding). I have printed a great many versions of this game (about fifty), and note that in the majority of them “Sally” and “Water” are conspicuous words. In fact they are usually taken to mean the name of the girl, but on examining the game closely I think it is possible, and probable, that “Sally Water” may be a corruption of some other word or words, not the name of a girl; that the word “Water” is connected, not with the name of the maiden, but with the action of sprinkling which she is called upon to fulfil. The mention of water is pretty constant throughout the game. There are numerous instances of the corruption of words in the game, and the tendency has been to lose the sprinkling of water incident altogether.
The sitting or kneeling attitude, which indicates a reverential attitude, obtains in nearly all versions, as do the words “Rise and choose a young man,” and “Crying for a young man.” This “crying” for a young man does not necessarily mean weeping; rather I consider it to mean “announcing a want” in the way “wants” or “losses” were cried formerly by the official crier of a town, and in the same manner as in games children “cry” forfeits; but, losing this meaning in this game, children have substituted “weeping,” especially as “weeping” with them expresses many “wants” or “woes.” The incident of “crying” for a lover, in the sense of wanting a lover, appears in several of these games. I have heard the expression they’ve been “cried in church” used as meaning the banns have been read. The choosing is sometimes “to the east” and “to the west,” instead of “for the best and worst.” Now, the expression “for better for worse” is an old marriage formula preserved in the vernacular portion of the ancient English Marriage Service, and I think we have the same formula in this game, especially as the final admonition is to choose the “one loved best.” Then comes the very general lines of the marriage formula occurring so frequently in these games, “Now you’re married, we wish you joy,” &c.
In “Merry-ma-tansa” the game again consists of a marriage ceremony, with fuller details. The choice of the girl is announced to the assembled circle of friends by a third person, and the friends announce their approval or disapproval. If they disapprove, another choice is made. When they approve, the marriage formula is repeated, and the capacity of the bride to undertake housewifely duties is questioned in verse by the friends (p. 370). All the circle then perform actions imitating sweeping and dusting a house, baking and brewing, shaping and sewing. The marriage formula is sung, and prognostications and wishes for the birth of children are followed by actions denoting the nursing of a baby and going to church, probably for a christening. In one version, too, the bride is lifted into the circle by two of the players. This may indicate the carrying of the bride into her new home, or the lifting of the bride across the threshold, a well-known custom. In another version (Addenda, p. 444) after the ceremony the bridegroom is blindfolded and has to catch his bride.
These two games relate undoubtedly to marriage customs, and to no other ceremony or practice. They are, so to speak, the type forms to which others will assimilate.
In “Isabella” (vol. i. pp. 247-56) the actions indicate a more modern marriage ceremony. The young couple, after choosing, go to church, clasp hands, put on ring, kneel down, say prayers, kiss, and eat dinner. The clasping of hands, putting on a ring, and kissing are more like a solemn betrothal before a marriage ceremony.
In the other marriage games which show remains of a ceremony are those of the kind to which “All the Boys” belongs (vol. i. pp. 2-6). In this game, customs which belong to a rough and rude state of society are indicated. The statement is made that a man cannot be happy without a wife. He “huddles” and “cuddles” the girl, and “puts her on his knee.”
The principal thing here to be noted is the mention in all versions of this game the fact that some food is prepared by the bride, which she gives to the bridegroom to eat. This, although called a “pudding,” refers, of course, to the bridal cake, and to the old custom of the bride preparing it herself, and giving some to her husband first.
Other rhymes of this kind, belonging, probably, to the same game, are “Down in the Valley,” “Mary mixed a Pudding,” “Oliver, Oliver, follow the King,” “Down in Yonder Meadow.” In all these the making and eating of a particular “pudding” or food is mentioned as an important item; in two, catching and kissing the sweetheart is mentioned; and in all, “courting” and “cuddling”; articles for domestic use are said to be bought by the bride. The formal ceremony of marriage is contained in the verbal contract of the two parties, and the important ceremony of the bridegroom and bride partaking of the bridal food. The eating together of the same food is an essential part of the ceremony among some savage and semi-civilised peoples. The rhymes have a peculiar parallel in the rude and rough customs associated with betrothal and marriage which prevailed in Wales and the North of England.
In “Poor Mary sits a-weeping” (vol. ii. pp. 46-62) we have very distinctly the desire of the girl for a “lover.” She is “weeping” for a sweetheart, and, as in the case of “Sally Water,” her weeping or “crying” is to make her “want” known. She is told by her companions to rise and make her choice. In some versions the marriage lines follow, in others the acceptance of the choice ends with the giving of a kiss.
Others of a similar kind are “Here stands a Young Man who wants a Sweetheart” (vol. i. p. 204), “Silly Old Man who wants a Wife” (vol. ii. 196-99). This is a simple announcement of the young man’s need for a wife or sweetheart (probably originally intended to announce his having arrived at manhood, as expressed in the expression, “he ain’t a man till he’s got a sweetheart and gone a-courtin’”). These verses are followed by the marriage formula. Games of this kind are used for a kiss in the ring game, without the chasing and capturing. The ordinary kiss in the ring games are probably relics of older custom. These consist of one person going round the assembled circle with a handkerchief and choosing another of the opposite sex, after saying a nominy or form of set words. This was probably originally something in the shape of a “counting out” rhyme, to obtain sweethearts by “lot.” A chase follows, and capture of the girl, and the giving and receiving of a kiss in the circle. This was a method of choosing sweethearts which prevailed until quite a late period at country festivals and fairs, but at an earlier period was a serious function. It is still customary on Easter and Whit-Monday for this game to be played on village greens, and the introduction thus afforded is held sufficient to warrant continued acquaintance between young people.
In connection with this class of games I must point out that a game such as “Hey, Wullie Wine” (vol. i. pp. 207-210), though it cannot be considered exactly a marriage game, points to the matter-of-fact way in which it was customary for young people to possess sweethearts. It seems to have been thought not only desirable, but necessary to their social standing. A slur is cast on the young man or young woman who has no lover, and so every facility is given them to make a choice from among their acquaintances. In the game “King William” is a remnant of the disguising of the bride among some of her girl friends and the bridegroom’s test of recognition, when that custom became one of the forms of amusement at weddings.
The remaining love and marriage games mostly consist of lines said in praise of some particular girl or young man, the necessity of him or her possessing a sweetheart, and their being married. These are probably fragments of the more complete forms preserved in the other games of this class. Marriage games, preceded by courtship or love-making, are played in the second method of the circle form.
Among the games played in the first method of the circle form, “Oats and Beans and Barley,” and “Would you know how doth the Peasant,” show harvest customs. The first of these (vol. ii. pp. 1-13) shows us a time when oats, beans, and barley were the principal crops grown, before wheat—now, and for some time, one of the principal crops—came into such general cultivation as at present. All the players join in singing the words and performing the actions. They imitate sowing of seed, folding arms and standing at ease while the corn is growing, clap hands and stamp on the ground to awake the earth goddess, and turning round and bowing, to propitiate the spirit and do reverence to her. In “Would you know how doth the Peasant” (ii. 399-401) we find actions performed showing sowing, reaping, threshing, kneeling, and praying, and then resting and sleeping. These actions are in both games accompanied by dancing round hand in hand. These two games, then, take us back to a time when a ceremony was performed by all engaged in sowing and reaping grain; when it was thought necessary to the proper growth of the crops that a religious ceremony should be performed to propitiate the earth spirit. I believe these games preserve the tradition of the formula sung and danced at the spring festivals, about which Mr. Frazer has written so fully.
“Oats and Beans and Barley” also preserves a marriage formula, and after the religious formula has been sung and danced, courting and marriage follows. A partner is said to be wanted, is chosen, and the marriage ceremony follows. The addition of this ceremony to the agricultural custom is of considerable significance, especially as the period is that of spring, when, according to Westermarck, natural human marriage, as also animal pairing, takes place. It is evidently necessary to this game for all the players to perform the same actions, and the centre player is not required until the choosing a partner occurs. There is no centre player in the other agricultural game, and no marriage occurs.
In “When I was a Young Girl” (ii. pp. 362-374) we have all players performing actions denoting the principal events of their lives from girlhood to old age. When young, enjoyment in the form of dancing is represented (in present day versions, going to school is taking the place of this), then courting, marriage, nursing a baby, and occupations which women perform; the death of the baby and of husband follows, and the woman takes in washing, drives a cart to support herself, and finally gets old. Here, again, there is little doubt that this game owes its origin to those dances originally sacred in character, in which men and women performed actions, accompanied with song and dance, of the same nature as those they wished or intended to perform seriously in their own lives. “Mulberry Bush” is another descendant of this custom. In “Green Gravel” and “Wallflowers” we have a death or funeral custom. Originally there may have been other actions performed than those the game contains now. These two are noticeable for the players turning themselves round in the course of the play so that they face outwards. It is this turning outwards, or “to the wall,” which indicates hopeless sorrow and grief, and there is some probability that the death mourned is that of a maiden, by the other maidens of the village. The game is not a representation of an ordinary funeral.