The Traditional Games of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Vol 2 of 2) / With Tunes, Singing-Rhymes, and Methods of Playing etc.

by Alice Bertha Gomme

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.