could, of their own accord and actuated by modesty and bashfulness manifest such a coy aversion to marriage that force has to be resorted to, is manifestly absurd.  In attributing their antics to modesty, Crantz made an error into which so many explorers have fallen—­that of interpreting the actions of savages from the point of view of civilization—­an error more pardonable in an unsophisticated traveller of the eighteenth century than in a modern sociologist.

If we must therefore reject Herbert Spencer’s inference as to the existence of primitive coyness and its consequences, how are we to account for the comedy of mock capture?  Several writers have tried to crack the nut.  Sutherland (I., 200) holds that sham capture is not a survival of real capture, but “the festive symbolism of the contrast in the character of the sexes—­courage in the man and shyness in the woman”—­a fantastic suggestion which does not call for discussion, since, as we know, the normal primitive woman is anything but shy.  Abercromby (I., 454) is another writer who believes that sham capture is not a survival of real capture, but merely a result of the innate general desire on the part of the men to display courage—­a view which dodges the one thing that calls for an explanation—­the resistance of the women.  Grosse indulges in some curious antics (105-108).  First he asks:  “Since real capture is everywhere an exception and is looked on as punishable, why should the semblance of capture have ever become a general and approved custom?” Then he asks, with a sneer, why sociology should be called upon to answer such questions anyhow; and a moment later he, nevertheless, attempts an answer, on Spencerian lines.  Among inferior races, he remarks, women are usually coveted as spoils of war.  The captured women become the wives or concubines of the warriors and thus represent, as it were, trophies of their valor.  Is it not, therefore, inevitable that the acquisition of a wife by force should be looked on, among warlike races, as the most honorable way of getting her, nay, in course of time, as the only one worthy of a warrior?  But since, he continues, not all the men can get wives in that way, even among the rudest tribes, these other men consoled themselves with investing the peaceful home-taking of a bride also with the show of an honorable capture.

In other words, Grosse declares on one page that it is absurd to derive approved sham capture from real capture because real capture is everywhere exceptional only and is always considered punishable; yet two pages later he argues that sham capture is derived from real capture because the latter is so honorable!  As a matter of fact, among the lowest races known, wife-stealing is not considered honorable.  Regarding the Australians, Curr states distinctly (I., 108) that it was not encouraged because it was apt to involve a whole tribe in war for one man’s sake.  Among the North American Indians, on the other hand, where, as we saw in the chapter on Honorable Polygamy, a wife-stealer is admired by both men and women, sham capture does not prevail.  Grosse’s argument, therefore, falls to the ground.