According to the second set of theories, the capture is not real, but simulated, and may be accounted for by psychological reasons.  Fustel de Coulanges, in La Cite Antique,[68] discussing simulated marriage by capture among the Romans, mentioned the view that it was “a symbol of the young girl’s modesty,” but himself regarded it as an act of force to symbolize the husband’s power.  He was possibly alluding to Herbert Spencer, who suggested a psychological explanation of the apparent prevalence of marriage by capture based on the supposition that, capturing a wife being a proof of bravery, such a method of obtaining a wife would be practised by the strongest men and be admired, while, on the other hand, he considered that “female coyness” was “an important factor” in constituting the more formal kinds of marriage by capture ceremonial.[69] Westermarck, while accepting true marriage by capture, considers that Spencer’s statement “can scarcely be disproved."[70] In his valuable study of certain aspects of primitive marriage Crawley, developing the explanation rejected by Fustel de Coulanges, regards the fundamental fact to be the modesty of women, which has to be neutralized, and this is done by “a ceremonial use of force, which is half real and half make-believe.”  Thus the manifestations are not survivals, but “arising in a natural way from normal human feelings.  It is not the tribe from which the bride is abducted, nor, primarily, her family and kindred, but her sex”; and her “sexual characters of timidity, bashfulness, and passivity are sympathetically overcome by make-believe representations of male characteristic actions."[71]

It is not necessary for the present purpose that either of these two opposing theories concerning the origin of the customs and feelings we are here concerned with should be definitely rejected.  Whichever theory is adopted, the fundamental psychic element which here alone concerns us still exists intact.[72] It may be pointed out, however, that we probably have to accept two groups of such phenomena:  one, seldom or never existing as the sole form of marriage, in which the capture is real; and another in which the “capture” is more or less ceremonial or playful.  The two groups coexist among the Turcomans, as described by Vambery, who are constantly capturing and enslaving the Persians of both sexes, and, side by side with this, have a marriage ceremonial of mock-capture of entirely playful character.  At the same time the two groups sometimes overlap, as is indicated by cases in which, while the “capture” appears to be ceremonial, the girl is still allowed to escape altogether if she wishes.  The difficulty of disentangling the two groups is shown by the fact that so careful an investigator as Westermarck cites cases of real capture and mock-capture together without attempting to distinguish between them.  From our present point of view it is quite unnecessary to attempt such a distinction.  Whether the capture