It appears, then, so far as present investigation enables us to determine, that there is not sufficient evidence for assuming that wife-capture, except in isolated cases, has generally grown into marriage by purchase. As a rule, even among the lowest races, foreign or warlike capture is an exceptional method of procuring wives; while bride-stealing at home, though the symbol may sometimes be sanctioned, is merely looked upon as illegal or even immoral;[573] and, therefore, with advancing civilization it yields to contract as the highest means of effecting a marriage.[574] [573] Among the Nez-Percés Indians, for example, runaway matches are not unknown, but "the woman is in such cases considered a prostitute, and the bride's parents may seize upon the man's property."--BANCROFT, _Native Races_, I, 277. [574] The view presented in the text should be compared with BERNHÖFT'S judgment. Granting that capture was crowded out by purchase, he does not think, with DARGUN, that it was effected through abduction by prior or subsequent payment of the composition or price; but rather that it gradually disappeared in consequence of the severe penalties imposed for breach of the law and other disadvantages; so that "in Folge dessen der schon früher durchaus übliche Kauf zur alleinigen Eheschliessungsform wurde."--"Principien des eur. Familienrechts," _ZVR._, IX, 401. _Cf._ the theory of HILDEBRAND, _Ueber das Problem_, 17-22, who thinks rape follows purchase, at least in the form of gifts, but that it is of comparatively little importance; and MUCKE, _Horde und Familie_, 111 ff., 139 ff., who reaches the same result in a different way. See also DARGUN, _Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht_. 120-22, 127, where the "illegal" nature of capture is admitted. Having now considered its relation to capture, let us next notice the significance of wife-purchase as a social institution.