Volume Ii Part 113 (1/2)

Three Days' Holidays.

Tug of War.

WINDING UP, OR SERPENT'S COIL FORM.

Bulliheisle.

Eller Tree.

Port the Helm.

Snail Creep.

Tuilzie Wap.

Winding up the Bush f.a.ggot.

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 cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s princ.i.p.ally consists of courts.h.i.+p, love-making, and marriage games. The two princ.i.p.al 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 cla.s.s and their greater variety.

In the third cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s 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 kins.h.i.+p. 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 cla.s.s 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 princ.i.p.al 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 princ.i.p.al 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 fas.h.i.+on until all are again in straight line. These games probably refer to the custom of encircling trees, as an act of wors.h.i.+p. 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 cla.s.s 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 a.n.a.lysing 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-fas.h.i.+oned, 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.” ”Prisoner's 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.