Volume 1 — MEMOIR ON THE STUDY OF CHILDREN’S GAMES

Children’s games have not hitherto been studied in the same way as customs and superstitions and folk-tales have been studied, namely, as a definite branch of folk-lore. It is well however, to bear in mind that they form a branch by themselves, and that, as such, they contribute to the results which folk-lore is daily producing towards elucidating many unrecorded facts in the early history of civilised man.

Although games have been used by Dr. Tylor and others as anthropological evidence, these authorities have mostly confined themselves to those games of skill or chance which happen to have parallels in savage life; and the particular point of their conclusions rests rather upon the parallels, than upon the substantive evidence of the games themselves.

I will first point out the nature of the material for the study. It will be seen that the greater number of games printed in these two volumes have been collected by myself and many kind correspondents, from children in the present day—games that these children have learned from other children or from their parents, and in no case, so far as I am aware, have they been learned from a printed source. To this collection I have added all printed versions of the traditional game, that is, versions of games written down by the collector of folk-lore and dialect—in some cases unconscious collectors of folk custom—from any available source. A distinctive feature of the collection is, therefore, that I have printed all versions of each game known to me which show differences of words or methods of play. The importance of having all the principal variants from different parts of the country will be obvious when definite conclusions as to the origin and significance of traditional games are being considered.

Strutt mentions many games played by boys in his day, but his remarks are confined principally to games of skill with marbles, tops, &c., and games like “Prisoner’s Base,” “Scots and English,” “Hot Cockles,” &c. He records none of those interesting dialogue games which we know now as singing games. It may be that these games were in his day, as now, the property more of girls than of boys, and he may not have looked for or thought of recording them, for it can hardly be imagined that he was unaware of their existence. He records swinging and ball and shuttlecock playing as girls’ amusements, but very little else, and it cannot even be suggested that the singing game and dialogue game have arisen since his time. Indeed, an examination of the games will, I hope, prove for them a very remote origin, showing traces of early beliefs and customs which children could not have invented, and would not have made the subjects of their play unless those beliefs and customs were as familiar to them as cabs, omnibuses, motor cars, and railways, are to the children of to-day, who use these things as factors in games which they make up.

I do not pretend to have made a complete collection of all versions of games to be found in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It will be seen from my list that some counties are entirely unrepresented; but I think examples enough have been brought together from a sufficient number of different places to show that, even could I obtain the games of every county, I could not reasonably hope to obtain any that would be completely different from those appearing here. Versions differing, more or less, in words from these would, doubtless, appear, but I do not think an entirely different game, or any variants that would materially alter my conclusions, will now be found. All those sent me during the progress of the volumes through the press—and these are a considerable number—show no appreciable differences.

A detailed examination of each game has led me to draw certain conclusions as to the origin of many of the games. These conclusions differ materially from those advanced by Halliwell, Strutt, or the earlier writers, when they have attempted to suggest the origin of a game. I also differ from Mr. Newell in many of the conclusions advanced in his admirable collection of American children’s games, although I fully recognise the importance of his method of research. I believe, too, that hitherto no attention has been paid to the manner or method in which the game is played. It is to the “method” or “form” of play, when taken together with the words, that I wish to draw particular attention, believing it to be most important to the history of the games.

I do not, of course, claim that all the games recorded in these two volumes are traditional in their present form, or have had independent origins; many of these now known under different names have a common origin. There is, probably, not one game in the same condition, especially as regards words, as it was fifty or a hundred years ago; but I consider the “form” or “method” would remain practically the same even if the words get materially altered.

All games seem primarily to fall into one of two sections: the first, dramatic games; the second, games of skill and chance. Now the game proper, according to the general idea, must contain the element of winning or losing. Thus, the games of skill and chance are played either for the express purpose of winning property of some sort from a less fortunate or skilful player, or to attain individual distinction. Games of this kind are usually called boys’ games, and are played principally by them; but beyond these generally recognised games is the important section of dramatic games, which are regarded as the property of the girls, and played principally by them.

These two sections are generally considered as the peculiar and particular property of each sex. Although this idea is borne out by a study of the traditional game, it will be found that the boys have dramatic games of their own, and the girls have special games of skill and chance. It has so happened, however, that the development in the case of the boys’ dramatic games has been in the direction of increasing the rules or laws of a game, introducing thereby so much variety that it is difficult to recognise them as descendants of the dramatic originals. This has probably been the result of their use in school playgrounds, while the girls’ dramatic games, not being utilised as a means of exercise, have been left alone, and are dying a natural death.

It will be convenient if, at this point, the games are classified as I shall use them in discussing the question of origin. The first necessary classification will relate to the incidents which show the customs and rites from which the games have descended; the second classification will relate to the dramatic force of the games, as it is from this that I hope to construct the ladder by which the game can be shown to have descended from a long past stage of culture.

The classification, according to incident, is as follows, the name of each game referring to the title-name in the dictionary:—

MARRIAGE GAMES.

All the Boys.

Babbity Bowster.

Cushion Dance.

Down in the Valley.

Galley, Galley, Ship.

Glasgow Ships.

Hear all! let me at her.

Here comes a Virgin.

Here’s a Soldier left alone.

Here stands a Young Man.

Isabella.

Jolly Miller.

King William.

Kiss in the Ring.

Mary mixed a Pudding.

Merry-ma-tanza.

Nuts in May.

Oats and Beans.

Oliver, Oliver, follow the King.

Pretty little Girl of Mine.

Queen Anne.

Rosy Apple.

Round and round the Village.

Sally Water.

Silly Old Man, he walks alone.

Three Dukes.

Three Knights.

Three Sailors.

Widow.

COURTSHIP AND LOVEMAKING GAMES.

Curly Locks.

Dig for Silver.

Gallant Ship.

Here comes a Lusty Wooer.

Here I sit on a Cold Green Bank.

Hey Wullie Wine.

Jolly Hooper.

Jolly Sailors.

Knocked at the Rapper.

Lady on the Mountain.

Paper of Pins.

Pray, pretty Miss.

Queen Mary.

Ring me Rary.

Salmon Fishers.

Shame Reel.

Soldier.

Sun Shines.

Three Old Bachelors.

Wind, The.

FORTRESS GAMES.

Barbarie, King of the.

Canlie (Addenda).

How many Miles to Babylon.

King of the Castle.

London Bridge.

Tower of London.

Willie Wastell.

FUNERAL GAMES.

Booman.

Green Grass.

Green Gravel.

Jenny Jones.

Old Roger.

Wallflowers.

HARVEST GAMES.

Oats and Beans and Barley.

Would you know how doth the Peasant?

TRADE GAMES.

Dumb Motions.

Trades.

GHOST GAMES.

Deil amo’ the Dishes.

Ghost at the Well.

Mouse and Cobbler.

WELL WORSHIP GAME.

Draw a Pail of Water.

RUSH-BEARING GAME.

Rashes.

TREE WORSHIP GAME.

Eller Tree.

WINDING UP GAMES.

Bulliheisle.

Port the Helm.

Snail Creep.

Tuilyie Wap.

Wind up the Bush Faggot.

TABU GAME.

Old Soldier.

DIVINATION GAMES.

Dan’l my Man.

Hot Cockles.

Jack’s Alive.

Keppy Ball.

’Ot millo.

Priest Cat.

Ragman.

Ringie Red Belt.

Shuttlefeather.

Swinging.

VICTIMISING OR PENALTY GAMES.

(Forms of Torture.)

Block, Hammer, and Nail.

Bonnety.

Carrying the Queen a Letter.

Cat Beds.

Cobbin Match.

Cry Notchil.

Dump.

Ezzeka.

Father’s Fiddle.

Heap the Cairn.

Hecklebirnie.

Hewley Puley.

Hickety Bickety.

Hiry Hag.

Hot Cockles.

Jack’s Alive.

Magic Whistle.

More Sacks to the Mill.

Namers and Guessers.

Priest of the Parish.

Pun o’ mair Weight.

Ronin the Bee.

Sacks.

Salt Eel.

Shoe the Auld Mare.

Wild Birds.

CHARM GAMES.

Cockeldy Bread.

Thun’er Spell.

EFFIGY GAME.

Drawing Dun out of the Mire.

IMITATION OF SPORT GAMES.

All a Row.

Cock-fight.

Hare and Hounds.

Hunting.

Knights.

Puff in the Dart.

IMITATION OF SPORTS (WITH ANIMAL) GAMES.

Badger the Bear.

Bull in the Park.

Call the Guse.

Cockertie-hooie.

Cock-fight.

Cock’s-heading.

Doncaster Cherries.

Fox.

Fox in the Fold.

Fox in the Hole.

Frog in the Middle.

Garden Gate.

Hare and Hounds.

Shue-Gled-Wylie.

Wolf.

WEIGHING GAMES.

Bag o’ Malt.

Honey Pots.

Rockety Row.

Way Zaltin’.

Weigh the Butter.

WITCH OR CHILD STEALING GAMES.

Gipsy.

Keeling the Pot.

Mother, Mother, the Pot boils over.

Old Cranny Crow.

Steal the Pigs.

Three Jolly Welshmen.

Witch.

ANIMAL CONTEST GAMES.

Chickens, come clock.

Fox and Geese.

Gled-Wylie.

Hen and Chickens.

Letting the Buck out.

Old Dame.

Shepherds and Sheep.

Who goes round my Stone Wall?

Wolf.

Wolf and Lamb.

FISHING GAME.

Catch the Salmond.

CHURNING GAME.

Churning.

CONUNDRUM GAMES.

Cross Questions.

Thing done.

Three Flowers.

GUESSING GAMES.

All the Birds in the Air.

Bannockburn.

Bird Apprentice.

Birds, Beasts, and Fishes.

Brother Ebenezer.

Buck, Buck.

Buff.

Dumb Crambo.

Fool, Fool, come to School.

Handy Croopen.

Handy Dandy.

Hiss and Clap.

Hot Cockles.

King Plaster Palacey.

Little Dog I call you.

Namers and Guessers.

Old Johanny Hairy.

Priest-Cat (2).

Religious Church.

Thimble Ring.

Trades.

CONTEST GAMES.

To take Prisoners.

Bedlams.

Blackthorn.

Buckey-how.

Canlie.

Chickidy Hand.

Click.

Cock.

Flowers.

Hornie.

Hunt the Staigie.

Johnny Rover.

King Cæsar.

King Come-a-lay.

King of Cantland.

Lamploo.

Over Clover.

Prisoner’s Base.

Range the Bus.

Rax.

Relievo.

Rin-im-over.

Save all.

Shepherds.

Stacks.

Stag.

Stag Warning.

Warney.

Prisoners and Possession of Ground.

Barley Break.

French and English.

How many Miles to Babylon (2).

Pi-cow.

Prisoner’s Base.

Range the Bus.

Rigs.

Scots and English.

Catching and Touching for “he” or “it.”

Black Doggie.

Blackman’s Tig.

Boggle about the Stacks.

Canlie.

Cross Tig.

Cutters and Trucklers.

Drop Handkerchief.

Fire on the Mountains.

Hand in and Hand out.

High Windows.

Jinkie.

King o’ the Castle.

Letting the Buck out.

Long Terrace.

Mannie on the Pavement.

One Catch all.

Push in the Wash Tub.

Puss in the Corner.

Rakes and Roans.

Round Tag.

Ticky Touchwood.

Tig.

Time.

Tom Tiddler’s Ground.

Touch.

Tres-acre.

Twos and Threes.

Tug of War.

A’ the Birdies.

Namers and Guessers.

Oranges and Lemons.

Sun and Moon.

Three Day’s Holidays.

Through the Needle ’ee.

DANCE GAMES.

(With words and singing.)

All the Soldiers in the Town.

Alligoshee.

Auntie loomie.

As I was walking.

Ball of Primrose.

Basket.

Bell-Horses.

Betsy Bungay.

Bingo.

Bold Jolly Lads.

Boys and Girls.

Carry my Lady to London.

Chicamy.

Click, Clock, Cluck.

Contrary, Rules of.

Dinah.

Duck Dance.

Duck under the Water.

Farmer’s Den.

Frincy-francy.

Galloping.

Green Grass (Addenda).

Green grow the Leaves (2).

Green grow the Leaves.

Here we go Around.

Jenny Mac.

Jingo Ring.

Leap Candle.

Leaves are Green.

Long Duck.

Lubin.

My delight’s in Tansies.

Phœbe.

Pop goes the Weasel.

Pray, pretty Miss.

Pretty Miss Pink.

Push the Business on.

Queen Mary.

Ring by Ring.

Ring o’ Roses.

Round and Round went the Gallant Ship.

Sailor Lad.

Sally go round.

Sunday Night.

Three Little Ships.

Town Lovers.

Trip and Go.

Turn Cheeses.

Turn the Ship.

Turvey Turvey.

Uncle John.

Up the Streets.

Weary.

Weave the Diaper.

DANCE AND SEE-SAW GAMES.

Cobble.

Cobbler’s Hornpipe.

Curcuddie.

Cutch-a-Cutchoo.

Harie Hutcheon.

Hirtschin Hairy.

Huckie Buckie down the Brae.

See-saw.

Skiver the Guse.

HIDE AND SEEK GAMES.

(1.) Persons—

Bicky.

Cuckoo.

Gilty Galty.

Hide and Seek (1).

Howly.

Kick the Block.

King by your Leave.

Mount the Tin.

Salt Eel.

Spy Arm.

Strike-a-licht.

(2). Objects—

Codham.

Find the Ring.

Gigg.

Hide and Seek (2).

Kittlie-cout.

Odd-man.

Peesie Weet.

Priest Cat (2).

Shuffle the Brogue.

Smuggle the Gig.

Thimble Ring.

Tip it.

LEAP-FROG AND HOPPING GAMES.

Accroshay.

Bung the Bucket.

Cat Gallows.

Foot and Over.

Half Hammer.

Hop Frog.

Hopscotch.

Leap-frog.

Loup the Bullocks.

Saddle the Nag.

Ships.

Skin the Goatie.

CARRYING GAMES.

Betsy Bungay.

Carry my Lady to London.

King’s Chair.

Knapsack.

Knights.

BLINDFOLD GAMES.

Blind Bell.

Blindman’s Buff.

Blindman’s Stan.

Buff.

Cock Stride.

Dinah.

French Blindman’s Buff.

Giddy.

Hot Cockles.

Kick the Block.

Muffin Man.

Old Johnny Hairy, Crap in!

’Ot millo.

Pillie Winkie.

Pointing out a Point.

Queen of Sheba.

FOLLOW MY LEADER GAMES.

Follow my Gable.

Follow my Leader.

Jock and Jock’s Man.

Quaker.

Quaker’s Wedding.

Religious Church.

Solomon.

The Drummer Man.

FORFEIT GAMES.

American Post.

Button.

Cross Questions.

Diamond Ring.

Fire, Air, Water.

Follow my Gable.

Forfeits.

Genteel Lady.

Jack’s Alive.

Malaga Raisins.

Mineral, Animal, Vegetable.

Minister’s Cat.

Mr. Barnes.

Old Soldier.

Turn the Trencher.

Twelve Days of Christmas.

Wads and the Wears.

BALL, HAND.

Ball.

Ball in the Decker.

Balloon.

Balls and Bonnets.

Burly Whush.

Caiche.

Colley Ball.

Cuck-ball.

Cuckoo.

Han’-and-Hail.

Hats in Holes.

Keppy Ball.

Monday, Tuesday.

Pat-Ball.

Pize Ball.

Pots.

Stones.

Teesty-Tosty.

Trip-Trout.

Tut-ball.

BALL, FOOT.

Camp.

Football.

Hood.

BALL GAMES.

(With bats and sticks played by rival parties.)

Bad.

Baddin.

Bandy-ball.

Bandy-cad.

Bandy-hoshoe.

Bandy-wicket.

Bittle-battle.

Buzz and Bandy.

Cat and Dog.

Cat and Dog Hole.

Catchers.

Cat i’ the Hole.

Chinnup.

Chow.

Church and Mice.

Codlings.

Common.

Crab-sowl.

Crooky.

Cuck-ball.

Cudgel.

Dab-an-Thricker.

Doddart.

Hawkey.

Hockey.

Hornie Holes.

Hummie.

Hurling.

Jowls.

Kibel and Nerspel.

Kirk the Gussie.

Kit-Cat.

Lobber.

Munshets.

Nur and Spel.

Peg and Stick.

Rounders.

Scrush.

Shinney.

Sow-in-the-Kirk.

Stones.

Stool-ball.

Tip-cat.

Trap-bat and ball.

Tribet.

Trippet and coit.

Troap.

Trounce hole.

Trunket.

Waggles.

GAMES OF SKILL AND CHANCE.

Aim—Throwing sticks or stones to hit particular object.

All in the Well.

Cockly Jock.

Cogs.

Doagan.

Duck at the Table.

Duckstone.

Loggats.

Mag.

Nacks.

Paip.

Pay Swad.

Peg-fiched.

Penny Cast.

Penny Prick.

Roly Poly.

Buttons.

Banger.

Buttons.

Cots and Twisses.

Hard Buttons.

Pitch and Toss.

Skyte the Bob.

Chance, or Gambling.

Chuck Farthing.

Cross and Pile.

Dab.

Davie Drap.

Hairry my Bossie.

Headicks and Pinticks.

Heads and Tails.

Hustle Cap.

Jingle-the-Bonnet.

Lang Larence.

Neivie-nick-nack.

Odd-man.

Odd or Even.

Pednameny.

Pick and Hotch.

Pinch.

Cherry Stones.

Cherry Odds.

Cherry-pit.

Paip.

Eggs.

Blindman’s Stan.

Cogger.

Jauping Paste-eggs.

Pillie Winkie.

Wink-egg.

Marbles.

Boss-out.

Bridgeboard.

Bun-hole.

Capie-hole.

Castles.

Chock or Chock-hole.

Cob.

Crates.

Dumps.

Ho-go.

Hoilakes.

Holy Bang.

Hundreds.

Hynny-pynny.

Lab.

Lag.

Long-Tawl.

Marbles.

Nine holes.

Pig-ring.

Pit-Counter.

Pits.

Plum pudding.

Pyramids.

Ring-taw.

Ship-sail.

Shuvvy-Hawle.

Span-counter.

Spangie.

Spannims.

Splints.

Stroke.

Three Holes.

Nuts on string.

Cob-nut.

Cock-battler.

Cogger.

Conkers.

Conquerors.

Jud.

Peggy nut.

On Diagram or Plan.

Corsicrown.

Fipenny Morell.

Fox and Geese (2).

Hap-the-beds.

Hickety-Hackety.

Hopscotch.

Kit-cat-cannio.

London.

Nine Men’s Morris.

Noughts and Crosses.

Pickie.

Tip-tap-toe.

Tit-tat-toe.

Tods-and-lambs.

Tray Trip.

Troy Town.

Pence.

Chuck Farthing.

Chuck Hole.

Pins.

Hattie.

Pinny-Show.

Pins.

Pop-the-Bonnet.

Push-pin.

Shuttlecock.

Shuttlefeather.

Stones and Dice.

Chance Bone.

Checkstones.

Chucks.

Dalies.

Dibbs.

Ducks and Drakes.

Gobs.

Huckle-Bones.

Jackysteauns.

Tops.

Chippings.

Gully.

Hoatie.

Hoges.

Peg-in-the-Ring.

Peg Top.

Scop-peril.

Scurran-Meggy.

Tops.

Totum.

Whigmeleerie.

With Fingers and String.

Cat’s-Cradle.

This leaves over a few games which do not come under either of these chief heads, and appear now to be only forms of pure amusement. These are:—

Blow-point.

Bob Cherry.

Bummers.

Chinny-mumps.

Cuddy among the Powks.

Dish-a-loof.

Dust Point.

Handy Dandy.

Level Coil.

Lug and a Bite.

Lugs.

Magician.

Malaga Raisins.

Musical Chairs.

Neighbour, I torment thee.

Obadiah.

Penny Hop.

Pigeon Walk.

Pinny Show.

Pins.

Pirly Peaseweep.

Pon Cake.

Poor and Rich.

Prick at the Loop.

Robbing the Parson’s Hen Roost.

Scat.

She Said, and She Said.

Stagging.

Sticky-stack.

Stroke Bias.

Sweer Tree.

Thing Done.

Troco.

Troule-in-Madame.

Truncher.

Turn Spit Jack.

Wiggle Waggle.

Wild Boar.

In order to show the importance of this classification, let me first refer to the games of skill. These are (1) where one individual plays with some articles belonging to himself against several other players who play with corresponding articles belonging to them; (2) where one player attempts to gain articles deposited beforehand by all the players as stakes or objects to be played for. These games are played with buttons, marbles, cherry-stones, nuts, pins, and pence. In the second group, each player stakes one or more of these articles before beginning play, which stakes become the property of the winner of the game. The object of some of the games in the first group is the destruction of the article with which the opponent plays. This is the case with the games of “conkers” played with nuts on a string, and peg-top; the nuts and top are broken, if possible, by the players, to prevent their being used again, the peg of the top being retained by the winner as a trophy. The successful nut or top has the merit and glory of having destroyed previously successful nuts or tops. The victories of the one destroyed are tacked on and appropriated by each victor in succession. So we see a nut or a top which has destroyed another having a record of, say, twenty-five victories, taking these twenty-five victories of its opponent and adding them to its own score. In like manner the pegs of the tops slain in peg-top are preserved and shown as trophies. That the destruction of the implements of the game, although not adding to the immediate wealth of the winner, does materially increase his importance, is manifest, especially in the days when these articles were comparatively much more expensive than now, or when it meant, as at one time it must have done, the making of another implement.

These games are of interest to the folk-lorist, as showing connection with early custom. We know that playing at games for stakes involving life or death to the winner, or the possession of the loser’s magical or valuable property or knowledge, is not only found in another branch of folk-lore, namely, folk-tales, but there is plenty of evidence of the early belief that the possession of a weapon which had, in the hands of a skilful chief, done great execution, would give additional skill and power to the person who succeeded in obtaining it. When I hear of a successful “conker” or top being preserved and handed down from father to son,[19] and exhibited with tales of its former victories, I believe we have survivals of the form of transmission of virtues from one person to another through the means of an acquired object. I do not think that the cumulative reckoning and its accompanying ideas would occur to modern boys, unless they had inherited the conception of the virtue of a conquered enemy’s weapon being transferred to the conqueror’s.

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:—

Games Played in Line Form (with singing and action).

Babbity Bowster.

Green Grass.

Hark the Robbers (one form).

Here comes a Lusty Wooer.

Here comes one Virgin on her Knee.

Jenny Jones (one form).

Jolly Hooper (only one line advance).

Lady of the Land.

London Bridge (one form).

Mary Brown (one form).

Milking Pails.

Nuts in May.

Pray, pretty Miss (one form).

Queen Anne.

Three Dukes.

Three Knights.

Three Sailors.

We are the Rovers.

Circle Form (singing and action subdivided into three methods).

(1) Green Gravel.

Jolly Miller.

London Bridge (some versions).

Lubin.

Mulberry Bush.

Nettles.

Oats and Beans and Barley.

Ring a Ring o’ Roses.

Rashes.

Wallflowers.

When I was a Young Girl.

Would You know how doth the Peasant?

(2) All the boys.

Down in the Valley.

Glasgow Ships.

Here stands a Young Man.

Isabella.

Jolly Fisherman.

Jolly Sailors.

King William.

Kiss in the Ring.

Knocked at the Rapper.

Lady on the Mountain.

Mary Brown.

Mary mixed a Pudding.

Merry-ma-tanza.

Needle Cases.

Old Widow.

Oliver, Oliver, follow the King.

Poor Mary sits a-weeping.

Poor Widow.

Pretty little Girl of Mine.

Punch Bowl.

Queen Mary.

Rosy Apple, Lemon, and Pear.

Round and Round the Gallant Ship.

Sally Water.

Silly Old Man.

Uncle John.

Wind.

(3) Booman.

Old Roger.

Round and Round the Village.

Who goes round my Stone Wall?

Individual Form (dialogue game).

Auld Grannie.

Baste the Bear.

Fox and Goose.

Ghost at the Well.

Gipsey.

Gled-wylie.

Hen and Chickens.

Honey Pots.

Jack, Jack, the Bread’s a-burnin’.

Keeling the Pot.

King of the Barbarie.

Lady on yonder Hill.

Lend Me your Key.

Mother, may I go out?

Mother Mop.

Mother, Mother, the Pot boils over.

Mouse and Cobbler.

Old Cranny Crow.

Old Woman.

Shepherds and Sheep.

Steal the Pigs.

Three Jolly Welshmen.

Witch.

The arch form of game, or tug-of-war as it is usually called, subdivide into two methods:—

Arch Form.

(1) Draw a Pail of Water.

Hark the Robbers (some versions).

How many Miles to Babylon.

London Bridge.

Long Duck.

Thread the Needle.

Through the Needle Eye.

(2) Fool, Fool, come to School.

Hark the Robbers (some versions).

Little Dog, I call you.

Namers and Guessers.

Oranges and Lemons.

Three Days’ Holidays.

Tug of War.

Winding Up, Or Serpent’s Coil Form.

Bulliheisle.

Eller Tree.

Port the Helm.

Snail Creep.

Tuilyie Wap.

Winding up the Bush Faggot.

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.

I must here refer to the game of “Rashes” (Addenda, ii. pp. 452, 453). I have not succeeded in obtaining a version played now, and fear it is lost altogether, which is, perhaps, not surprising, as the use of “rushes” has practically ceased; but, as recorded by Mr. Radcliffe in 1873, there is no doubt it represented the survival of the time when rushes were gathered and used with ceremony of a religious nature.

Even in the extremely simple “Ring a Ring of Roses” (ii. 108-111), now only a nursery game played by very young children, there can be traced a relationship to a dance, in which the use of flowers, and all the dancers bowing or falling prostrate to the ground together, with loud exclamations of delight obtained. It may well be that sneezing, an imitation of which is an essential part of the game, was actually a necessary part of the ceremonial, and sneezing was always considered of sacred significance among primitive peoples. It is not probable that children would introduce this of their own accord in a dance and “bop down” game.

The games played in the third method of this group are also representative of custom. In “Old Roger” (vol. ii. pp. 16-24), the circle of players is stationary throughout; the circle sings the words describing the story, and the other players or actors run into the circle and act their several parts in dumb show. The story, it will be seen, is not the acting of a funeral, but the planting of a tree over the grave of a dead person by relatives and friends, and the spirit connection which this tree has with the dead. The spirit of the dead “Old Roger” enters the tree, and resents the carrying away of the fruit by the old woman by jumping up and making her drop the apples. Possession of the fruit would give her power over the spirit. That the tree is sacred is clear; and I am tempted to suggest that we may possibly have in this game a survival of the worship of the sacred tree, and its attendant priest watching until killed by his successor, as shown to us by Mr. Frazer in the story of the “Golden Bough.”

“Round and Round the Village” (ii. pp. 122-143) shows us the performance of a recurring festival very clearly in the words which accompany all versions, “As we have done before.” This conveys the idea of a special event, the event in the game marriage, and I suggest that we have here a periodical village festival, at which marriages took place. It is characteristic of this, as in “Old Roger,” that the chorus or circle stand still and sing the event, while the two characters act. This acting is the dancing round the village, going in and out the windows and houses, then choosing a lover, and “follow her to London.” It is quite possible that the perambulation of boundaries with which festive dances and courtship were often associated would originate this game. The perambulation was a recurring custom periodically performed, and on p. 142, vol. ii., I have given some instances of custom which, I think, confirm this.

In “Who goes round my Stone Wall” we find the players in circle form, standing still and representing the houses of a village (the stone wall), and also animals. The game represents the stealing of sheep, one by one, from the village, by a predatory animal or thief. In this game the circle do not sing the story. That element has disappeared; the two actors repeat a dialogue referring to the stealing of the sheep from the “wall.” This dialogue is short, and is disappearing. The game is not now understood, and consequently is dying out. “Booman,” another of the same kind, represents a funeral. The grave is dug in action, Booman is carried to his grave, the dirge is sang over him, and flowers are pretended to be strewn over.

There are other circle games, which it is not needful to examine in detail. They are fragmentary, and do not present any fresh features of interest. It is, however, important to note that a few examples have evidently been derived from love ballads, drinking songs, and toasts; some of the dance games are of this origin. This may be explained by the fact that children, knowing the general form of marriage games, would naturally dance in circle form to any ballad verses in which marriage or love and courtship occurs, and in this manner the ballad would become apparently a fresh game, though it would only be putting new words to an old formula of action.

Dr. Jacob Jacobsen, in Dialect and Place Names of Shetland, tells us that all the vissiks or ballads have been forgotten since 1750, or thereby. They were sung to a dance, in which men and women joined hands and formed a ring, moving forwards, and keeping time with their hands and feet. Mr. Newell (Games, p. 78), records that “Barbara Allen” was sung and danced in New England at children’s parties at a period when dancing was forbidden to be taught in schools. “Auld Lang Syne” is a further instance.

It will easily be seen that the circle games have a distinctive characteristic compared with the line games. These, as I have already pointed out, are games of contest, whereas the circle games are games in which a homogeneous group of persons are performing a ceremony belonging entirely to themselves. The ceremony is of a religious character, as in “Oats and Beans and Barley,” or “Old Roger,” dedicated to a spirit intimately connected with the group who perform it, and having nothing belonging to any outside group. The position of the marriage ceremony in this group is peculiar. It has settled down from the more primitive state of things shown in the line marriage games, and has acquired a more social and domestic form. Except in the very significant water custom in “Sally Water,” which I have suggested (ii. pp. 176, 177) may take us back to perhaps the very oldest stage of culture, all the games in this group are evidently of a later formation. Let it be noted, too, that the circle has deep religious significance not entirely absent from the customs of comparatively later times, among which the singing of “Auld Lang Syne” is the most generally known.

But in speaking of matters of religious significance, it is important to bear in mind that we are not dealing with the religion of the Church. Everywhere it is most significant that marriage ceremony, sacred rite, social custom, or whatever is contained in these games, do not take us to the religion of to-day. Non-Christian rites can only be pre-Christian in origin, and these games therefore take us to pre-Christian religious or social custom, and this is sufficient to stamp them with an antiquity which alone would certify to the importance of studying this branch of folk-lore.

To take now the dialogue or individual form of game, the best example for my purpose is “Mother, Mother, the Pot boils over” (vol. i. pp. 396-401). Here the chorus has disappeared; the principal characters tell the story in dialogue, the minor characters only acting when the dialogue necessitates it, and then in dumb show. This is an interesting and important game. It is a complete drama of domestic life at a time when child-stealing and witchcraft were rife. A mother goes out to work, and returns to find one of her seven children missing. The game describes the stealing of the children one by one by the witch, but the little drama tells even more than this. It probably illustrates some of the practices and customs connected with fire-worship and the worship of the hearth. There is a pot, which is a magical one, and which boils over when each one of the children is stolen and the mother’s presence is necessary. A remarkable point is that the witch asks to borrow a light from the fire. The objection to the giving of fire out of the house is a well-known and widely-diffused superstition, the possession of a brand from the house fire giving power to the possessor over the inmates. The witch in this game takes away a child when the eldest daughter consents to give her a light. The spitting on the hearth gives confirmation to the theory that the desecration of the hearth is the cause of the pot boiling over. Instances of magical pots are not rare.[20]

After the children are stolen the mother has evidently a long and troublesome journey in search of them; obstacles are placed in her path quite in the manner of the folk-tale. Blood must not be spilled on the threshold. This game, then, which might be considered only as one of child-stealing, becomes, when examined on the theories accompanying the ancient house ritual, an extraordinary instance of the way beliefs and customs have been dramatised, and so perpetuated. Other games of a similar character to this, and perhaps derived from it, are “Witch,” “Gipsy,” “Steal the Pigs.”

Amongst other games classified as dialogue games are those in which animals take part. In some there is a contest between a beast of prey, usually a fox or wolf, and a hen and her chickens or a goose and her goslings; in others a shepherd or keeper guards sheep from a wolf, and in these animals of the chase are hunted or baited for sport. In the animal contest games, “Fox and Goose,” “Hen and Chickens,” “Gled-wylie,” “Auld Grannie,” “Old Cranny Crow,” all played in the dialogue form, the dialogue announces that the fox wants some food, and he arouses the suspicion of the goose or hen by prowling around or near her dwelling. After a parley, in which he tries to deceive the mother animal, he announces his intention of catching one of the chickens. The hen declares she will protect her brood, and a contest ensues. These games have of course arisen from the well-known predatory habits of the wolf, fox, and kite. On the other hand, the games illustrating the hunting or baiting of animals, such as “Baste the Bear,” “Fox in the Hole,” “Hare and Hounds,” are simply imitations of those sports. “Baiting the Bear,” a popular and still played game, has continued since the days of bear-baiting.

I may also mention the games dealing with ghosts. “Ghost at the Well,” “Mouse and Cobbler,” show the prevailing belief in ghosts. Playing at Ghosts has been one of the most popular of games. These two show the game in a very degenerate condition. I need not, I think, describe in detail any more of the dialogue games. There are none so good as “Mother, the Pot boils over,” but that was hardly to be expected. The customs which no doubt were originally dramatised in them all have in many cases been lost, as in the case of some versions of “Mother, the Pot boils over.”

The dialogue games appear to me to be later in form than both line and circle games. They are, in fact, developments of these earlier forms. Thus the “Fox and Goose” and “Hen and Chickens” type is played practically in line form, and belongs to the contest group, while the “Witch” type is probably representative of the circle form. But they have assumed a dramatic character of a very definite shape. This, as will be seen later on, is of considerable importance in the evidence of the ancient origin of games; but I will only point out here that this group has allowed the dramatic element to have full scope, with the result that a pure dialogue has been evolved, while custom and usage has to some extent been pushed in the background.

The next group is the arch form of game. This I divide into two kinds—those ending in circle or dance form, and those ending with a contest between two leaders. Of this first form there are several examples. “London Bridge” (i. pp. 333-50) is possibly the most interesting. Two players form the arch, all the others follow in single file. The words of the story are sung while all the players run under or through the arch. The players are all caught in turn in the arch, and then stand aside; their part is finished. In some cases the game begins by all forming a circle, and the verses are sung while the circle dances round. The arch is then formed, and all run through it in single file, and are caught in turn by being imprisoned between the lowered arms. Also, we find the circle-dancing following the arch ceremony. In my account of this game (vol. i. pp. 341-50), I have drawn attention to the incident of a prisoner being taken as indicative of the widespread custom known as the foundation sacrifice, because of the suggested difficulty of getting the bridge to stand when the prisoner is taken. I have given a few instances of the custom, and the tradition that the stones of London Bridge were bespattered with the blood of little children, and that the mortar was tempered with the blood of beasts. In stories where a victim is offered as a foundation-sacrifice, the victim, often a prisoner, is sometimes forced to enter a hole or cavity left on purpose in the building, which is then walled or built up, enclosing the victim. In some, recourse to lottery is had; in others, as at Siam, mentioned by Tylor (Primitive Culture, i. 97), it was customary, when a new city gate was being erected, for a number of officers to lie in wait and seize the first four or eight persons who happened to pass by, and who were then buried alive under the gate-posts. After these customs of human sacrifice had ceased to be enforced, animals were slaughtered instead; and later still the ceremony would be performed, as a ceremony, by the incident being gone through, the person or animal seized upon being allowed to escape the extreme penalty by paying a money or other forfeit; and it may be this later stage which is represented in the game. The dancing in circle form, which belongs, I think, to the original method of play, shows us a ceremony in which people of one place are concerned, and would supersede an older line form of game, if there were one, when the custom showed a real victim being taken from outsiders by force, who would resist the demand. The circle dance would follow as the completion of the ceremony. The “line” form would also be the first portion of the game to disappear when once its meaning was lost.

The game, “Hark! the Robbers” (i. 192-99) may be a portion of “London Bridge” made into a separate game by the part of the building being lost, or the children who play both games may have mixed up the method of playing; but as it ends in some places with a contest and in some with a dance, it is difficult to say which is right.

“Thread the Needle,” played by all players running through an arch and then dancing round, is a game well illustrated by customs obtaining on Shrove Tuesday in different parts of the country. All the children play “Thread the Needle” in the streets of Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, South Petherton, Evesham, besides other places, in long lines, whooping and shouting as they run through the arches they make. After this they proceed to the churchyard, and encompassing the church by joining hands, dance all round it three times, and then return to their homes. Here is the undoubted performance of what must have been an old custom, performed at one time by all the people of the town, being continued as an amusement of children. It was played at Evesham only on Easter Monday, and in three other places only on Shrove Tuesday, and another correspondent says played only on a special day. In other places where it is played the game is not connected with a special day or season. The circle dance does not always occur, and in some cases the children merely run under each other’s clasped hands while singing the words. In the places above mentioned we see it as a game, but still connected with custom. It is a pity that the words used by the children on all these occasions should not have been recorded too. “How many Miles to Babylon” (vol. i. pp. 231-238) may with good reason be considered a game of the same kind. It represents apparently a gateway of a town, and a parley occurs between the gatekeepers and those wishing to enter or leave the town. Small gateways or entrances to fortified towns were called needle’s eyes, which were difficult to enter. But notwithstanding these apparent identifications with the conditions of a fortified town, I think the practice of going through the arch in this and in the previous game relates to the custom which prevailed at festivals held during certain seasons of the year, when people crept through holed stones or other orifices to propitiate a presiding deity, in order to obtain some particular favour. This would be done by a number of people on the same occasion, and would terminate by a dance round the church or other spot associated with sacred or religious character. “Long Duck” is another probably almost forgotten version of this game.

“Draw a Pail of Water” (vol. i. pp. 100-108), though not quite in accord with the arch form in its present state, is certainly one of the same group. This game I consider to be a descendant of the custom of “well worship.” In its present form it is generally played by children creeping under the arms of two or four others, who clasp hands and sway backwards and forwards with the other children enclosed in them. The swaying movement represents, I believe, the drawing of water from the well. The incidents of the game are:—

(1) Drawing water from a well. (2) For a devotee at a well. (3) Collecting flowers for dressing the well. (4) Making a cake for presentation. (5) Gifts to the well [a gold ring, silver pin, and probably a garter]. (6) Command of silence. (7) The presence of devotee at the sacred bush. (8) The reverential attitude (indicated by the bowing and falling on the ground).

I can now add another incident, that of the devotee creeping through a sacred bush or tree (signified by the creeping under or getting enclosed within the arms of the leaders). These are all incidents of primitive well worship.

I have from many different versions pieced together the lines as they might appear in earlier versions (i. p. 107).

This restoration, though it is far from complete, shows clearly enough that the incidents belong to a ceremonial of primitive well worship. Dressing holy wells with garlands and flowers is very general; cakes were eaten at Rorrington Well, Shropshire, and offerings of pins, buttons, and portions of the dress, as well as small articles worn on the person, are very general; silence is enforced in many instances, and sacred trees and bushes are to be found at nearly all holy wells. Offerings are sometimes hung in the bushes and trees, sometimes thrown into the well. Miss Burne records in Shropshire Folk-Lore (pp. 414, 433, 434) that at Rorrington Green, in the parish of Chirbury, is a holy well, at which a wake was celebrated on Ascension Day. The well was adorned with green bowers, rushes, and flowers, and a maypole was set up. The people used to walk round the hill with fife, drum, and fiddle, dancing and frolicking as they went. They threw pins into the well for good luck, and to prevent them from being bewitched, and they also drank the water. Cakes were eaten. These were round flat buns, from three to four inches across, sweetened, spiced, and marked with a cross, and were supposed to bring good luck if kept.

Instances of similar practices at holy wells could be multiplied, and they are exhaustively examined in my husband’s book on Ethnology in Folk-Lore. Halliwell records in his nursery rhymes what is perhaps the oldest printed version of the rhyme. He says the children form a long string, hand in hand; one stands in front as leader, two hold up their clasped hands to form an arch, and the children pass under; the last is taken prisoner. Though this way of playing does not appear to be used now—no version, at least, has reached me—it is clear that the game might be played in this way, probably as a commencement of the ceremonial, and then the other positions might follow. Halliwell may not have recorded it minutely or have heard of it as a whole, or the version sent him may have been in degenerate form. It is, however, clear that the arch form here indicates a ceremonial, and not the taking of a prisoner.

“Oranges and Lemons” (vol. ii. pp. 25-35) is the best-known game of the arch form, followed by the contest or tug-of-war. In this game two players, sometimes chosen by lot, clasp hands and form an arch. They have each a name, which is secret. One is called “Orange,” the other is “Lemon.” They sing the words of the game-rhyme, and the other players run under the arch in a long line or string. At the close of the verses which ends with the line, “Here comes a chopper to chop off your head,” one of the string of players is caught and is asked which she prefers, orange or lemon. She chooses, and is told to stand behind that leader who took that name. This is repeated until all the players have been separately caught, have chosen their side, and are standing behind the respective leaders, holding on to each other by clasping each other’s waists. A line is then drawn on the ground, and both sides pull; each endeavours to drag the other over the line. The tug is generally continued until one side falls to the ground. Now this is an undoubted contest, but I do not think the contest is quite of the same kind as the line game of contest and fighting. The line form is one of invaders and invaded, and the fight is for territory. In this form it seems to me that the contest is more of a social contest, that is, between people of the same place, perhaps between parishes and wards of parishes, or burghers and apprentices (townspeople) on one side, and the followers of lords or barons (military power) on the other, or of two lords and barons. The leaders are chosen by lot. Each leader has a “cry” or “colour,” which he calls out, and the other players run and place themselves under the banner they choose.

In my account of this game I draw particular attention to the following details:—The game indicates contest and a punishment, and although the sequence is not clear, as the execution precedes the contest, that is not of particular importance in view of the power of the old baronial lords to threaten and execute those of their following who did not join their armed retainers when required. All rhymes of this game deal with saints’ names and with bell ringing. Now, the only places where it would be probable for bells to be associated with different saints’ names in one area would be the old parish units of cities and boroughs. The bells were rung on all occasions when it was necessary to call the people together. The “alarm” bell tolling quickly filled the open spaces and market-places of the towns, and it is a well-known fact that serious contests and contest games between parishes and wards of parishes were frequent. The names “oranges” and “lemons,” given to the leaders in the game, usually considered to be the fruits of these names, are, in my opinion, the names of the “colours” of the two rival factions.