The evidence of the existence of marriage by capture is furnished by folk-lore. It is not necessary, nor is this the place to review that evidence; but the survivals of this form of marriage which are recorded in the _Romane Questions_ must be mentioned. The Romans, Plutarch says (_R. Q._, 29), "_would not permit the new wedded bride to passe of herself over the door-sill or threshold, when she is brought home to her husband's house, but they that accompanie her must lift her up between them from the ground, and so convey her in_."[98] That the Romans themselves were dimly conscious of the real origin of this custom is implied in the first solution suggested by Plutarch, viz., that the ceremony was "in remembrance of those first wives whom they ravished perforce from the Sabines;" and Rossbach, in his great work on Roman marriage,[99] sees in the custom a survival from times when the bride, captured by force, was conveyed against her will into the house (or den) of her captor. Parallels to the Roman custom are to be found elsewhere. Among the modern Greeks the bride is lifted over the threshold, as it would be most unlucky if she touched it in crossing.[100] It is the most important wedding-guest among the Servians,[101] the bride's nearest relation in Lorraine,[102] who carries her in his arms from the waggon into her new home. Among the North Frisians the "bride-lifter" (_bridlefstr_) is a regular wedding-official.[103] The ceremony seems to have been known to the ancient Hindoos also.[104] The Finnish-Ugrians, whether they borrowed or lent, or independently developed the custom, uniformly practise it.[105] It is further noteworthy that the Finnish-Ugrians agree with the Romans, the Hindoos, and the Russians in this, viz., that the bride is not only carried over the threshold by some of the bridal party (not by the bridegroom) but is then caused by them "to sit upon a fliece of wooll."[106] The meaning and object of this strange proceeding were quite unknown to the Romans, who practised it in Plutarch's time, as they are to the Finnish-Ugrians and Russians who still observe the custom. Rossbach rightly compares the ancient Roman custom of making the _flamen_ and _flaminica_, when married _per farreationem_, sit upon the fleece of the sheep that was slaughtered during the wedding ceremonies;[107] he then refers to the Roman practice of sitting for a short time after prayer in silent meditation, and this he thinks explains the custom in question. But surely it leaves unexplained just that which requires explanation. Granted, that the Romans showed more reverence than, say the Scots whom Dr. Boyd can remember; still, are we to imagine them so rapt into "the mind's internal heaven" that they could sit down in the grease and the gore of a freshly-slaughtered sheep's fell, "nor heed nor see what things these be"? Why did they not sit down somewhere else?