[541] Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, I, 389; cf. Dargun, op. cit., 130.
[542] Dargun, op. cit., 130, 131; cf. Schroeder, op. cit., 72-78.
[543] In the Brautlauf "eine Beziehung auf den Frauenraub ist anzunehmen, ebenso wie beim analogen Ausdruck 'Brautjagd' in Lothringen, beim altnordischen 'qvânfang, konfang, verfang,' d. h. Frauenfang für Ehe und beim gothischen 'quên liugan' das Weib verhüllen, verschleiern, binden für Heiraten, sowie beim gleichbedeutenden mittelhochdeutschen: 'der briute binden.'" Dargun, op. cit., 130; cf. Schmidt, Hochzeiten in Thüringen, 40; Düringsfeld, op. cit., 155 ff.
[544] Dargun, op. cit., 130, 131. Weinhold, op. cit., I, 384 ff., gives many examples of similar wedding customs, and Schmidt, Jus primae noctis, 126-46, discusses the Brautlauf and like practices, citing the sources in detail. Cf. Grimm, Rechtsalterthümer, 419; idem, Wörterbuch, II, 336 ff.
[545] McLennan, op. cit., I, 10, criticises Müller, Doric Races, Book IV, chap, iv, sec. 2, who accounts for the sign of rape in the Spartan ceremony on the ground of coyness. See also Rossbach, Die römische Ehe, 328, who holds the same view; and Rawlinson's notes, Herodotus, Book VI, 65; Finck, Primitive Love, 123 ff., who rejects Spencer's theory.
[546] Of course, Spencer's reply to McLennan, already mentioned, is most important; and his argument has not been overthrown: Principles of Sociology, I, 652-56. Cf. Westermarck, Human Marriage, 388, who favors Spencer's view; and Grosse, Die Formen der Familie, 107, 108, who accepts coyness as a partial explanation, though he believes that the symbol of capture may also be due in some cases to the honor of having wives taken in war, while frequently it may represent in a realistic way the release of the woman from paternal authority and her subjection to the husband's power. Hellwald, Die mensch. Familie, 287 ff., rejects Spencer's explanation, regarding the forms of ceremonial rape as survivals of real capture, marking the transition to wife-purchase and the paternal system; and Lippert, Kulturgeschichte, II, 86 ff., 92 ff., holds a similar position.
[547] Starcke, Primitive Family, 218, 262. He refers especially to the joint or communal family—the "alpha and the omega" of the community. But his explanation can hardly be accepted as sufficient in all cases.
[548] Cf. Letourneau, L'évolution du mariage, 117, 128, who holds that the ceremonial of capture especially symbolizes the subjection of woman "achetée ou cédée par les parents; il sanctionnait les droits, presque toujours excessifs, que l'époux acquérait sur l'épousée."
[549] Ibid., 117. Compare the suggestions of Abercromby, that "marriage with capture—by which he understands capture of a bride, associated with some other form of marriage, such as that by purchase—may be regarded rather as a result of the innate universal desire to display courage, than as a survival of a still older practice of taking women captive in time of war."—Westermarck, op. cit., 388, citing Abercromby's "Marriage Customs of the Mordvins," Folk Lore, I, 454. Cf. Letourneau, op. cit., 128.
[550] Mystic Rose, 368, 370. In harmony with his theory of sexual taboo, he declares that it is "not the tribe from which the bride is abducted, nor, primarily, her family and kindred, but her sex."