The most important fact about such extreme matriarchal con ditions is that even there the principle of social legitimacy holds good ; that though the father is domestically and economically almost superfluous, he is legally indispensable and the main bond of union between such matrilineal and matrilocal consorts is par enthood. We see also that the economic side can have a symbolic, ritual significance—the gift-exchange functions as token of affec tion—it marks thus a sociological interdependence, while it has hardly any utilitarian importance.
1o. Marriage as an Economic Contract.—This last point, together with the foregoing analysis of the household and family economics, allows us to frame the conclusion that while marriage embraces a certain amount of economic co-operation as well as of sexual connubium, it is not primarily an economic partnership any more than a merely sexual appropriation. It is as necessary to guard against the exclusively economic definition of marriage as against the over-emphasis of sex. This materialistic view of marriage, to be found already in older writers such as Lippert, E.
Grosse, Dargun, appears again in some recent important works. Criticising the exaggeration of sex, Briffault says about marriage : "The institution, its origin and development, have been almost exclusively viewed and discussed by social historians in terms of the operation of the sexual instincts and of the sentiments con nected with those instincts, such as the exercise of personal choice, the effects of jealousy, the manifestations of romantic love. The origin, like the biological foundation, of individual marriage being essentially economic, those psychological factors are the products of the association rather than the causes or conditions which have given rise to it." And again : "Individual marriage has its founda tion in economic relations. In the vast majority of uncultured so cieties marriage is regarded almost exclusively in the light of economic considerations, and throughout by far the greater part of the history of the institution the various changes which it has undergone have been conditioned by economic causes." (The Mothers, vol. ii., p. I ; the italics are those of the present writer.) This is a distortion of a legitimate view. Marriage is not en tered upon for economic considerations, exclusively or even mainly; nor is the primary bond between the two parties estab lished by the mutual economic benefits derived from each other. This is best shown by the importance of matrimonial bonds even where there is neither community of goods nor co-operation nor even full domesticity. Economics are, like sex, a means to an end, which is the rearing, education and dual parental influence over the offspring. Economic co-operation is one of the obligations of mar riage and like sexual cohabitation, mutual assistance in legal and moral matters it is prescribed to the married by law and enjoined by religion in most cultures. But it certainly is not either the
principal end or the unique cause of marriage.
The presents given at marriage should always be considered as a link—sometimes very important, sometimes insignificant—in the series of services and gifts which invariably run throughout marriage. The exchange of obligations embraces not only the husband and the wife, but also the children, who under mother right are counted as one with the mother while under father-right they take over the father's obligations. The family and clan of the wife, and more rarely of the husband, also become part of the scheme of reciprocities. The presents offered at marriage by the husband are often made up of contributions given him towards this end by his relatives and clansmen (Banaka, Bapuka, Thonga, Zulu, Xosa, Bechwana, Madi of Africa; Toradjas, Bogos of In donesia; Buin, Mekeo, Roro, Trobrianders of Melanesia), and are not all retained by the girl's parents but shared among her rela tives and even clansmen (Achomawi, Delaware, Osage, Araucan ians of America; S.E. Bantu, Swahili, Pokomo, Turkana, Bavili, Ewhe, Baganda, Masai, Lotuko of Africa; Ossetes, Samoyeds, Aleut, Yakut, Yukaghir of Siberia ; Koita, Mekeo, S. Massim, Buin of Melanesia). The giving of presents is thus a transaction binding two groups rather than two individuals, a fact which is reflected in such institutions as the inheritance of wives, sororate, levirate, etc. A correct understanding of the initial marriage gift. can be obtained only against the background of the wider eco nomic mutuality of husband and wife, parents and children, maternal and paternal families and clans.