WIND

我想在洛克的概念中,有两套法律体系:一套是自然法,上帝是立法者,每个人都拥有担当审判者和执行人的平等权利;一套是制定法,法律的运作划分为三权:立法权力,司法权力和执行权力(行政权力).而前者是后者的基础,后者并不 ...
WIND 发表于 2011-7-1 20:48

在洛克这篇文章中,positive law其实还不是今天所赋予它的那种含义。洛克在接下来的一节中，将法律分为两种，一种是未形成公民社会（政治社会）所统治的法律——自然法，另一种是形成公民社会之后人类所制定的法律即公民法（civil law）.相应的，我认为将civilized society译为文明的社会并不太恰当，一个表面上有所谓法律的社会便称之为文明社会，有极大的误导性。

WIND

§59. This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.
§59．这一点在人所置身的所有的法律——不论是自然法还是公民法——中，都是站得住脚的。一个人是否处于自然法的约束之下？是什么使他享有那种法律下的自由？又是什么给与了他在自然法的范围之内依据他自己的意志处置其财产的自由？我的回答是，是假设他能够理解那种法律的成熟状态，这样他才可能让他的行为不超越这种法律的界限。当他进入那种状态，便假设他知道那种法律在多大的程度上可以作为他的指引，以及他可以在多大的程度上使用他的自由，从而享受自由；而在此之前，其他人必须引导他，假设此人知道法律在多大的程度上允许自由。如果这样的理性状态，这样的审慎年龄使他获得自由，那么同样的理由应当使他的儿子获得自由。一个人是否处于英格兰法律的约束之下？是什么使他享有那种法律之下的自由？即在英格兰法律许可的范围之内，依据他自己的意志处置他的行为和财产的自由？答案是理解英格兰法律的能力；英格兰法律假定在年满21岁时便具有这种能力，在某些情况下还早一些。如果这可以使父亲获得自由，那么也应当使儿子获得自由。在此之前我们知道，这种法律允许儿子没有意志，而只能由他的父亲或监护人的意志来引导，他们为他进行理解。如果父亲死亡，而又没有找到他所信任的替代的人；如果他没有提供一个私人教师在他儿子未成年缺乏理解力的时候来管教他，法律将来照看这件事；其他人必须管教他，并成为他的意志，直到他进入自由状态，他的理解力能够管理他自己的意志。但是之后，父亲与儿子便同等的自由了，如同成年之后的私人教师和学生；他们都平等的服从于同样的法律，父亲对儿子的生命，自由或财产便没有任何的统治权了，无论他们仅仅处于自然法之下的状态，还是置身于一个已经建立起来的政府的肯定性法律之下。

WIND

§60. But if, through defects that may happen out of the ordinary course of nature, any one comes not to such a degree of reason, wherein he might be supposed capable of knowing the law, and so living within the rules of it, he is never capable of being a free man, he is never let loose to the disposure of his own will (because he knows no bounds to it, has not understanding, its proper guide) but is continued under the tuition and government of others, all the time his own understanding is uncapable of that charge. And so lunatics and idiots are never set free from the government of their parents; children, who are not as yet come unto those years whereat they may have; and innocents which are excluded by a natural defect from ever having; thirdly, madmen, which for the present cannot possibly have the use of right reason to guide themselves, have for their guide, the reason that guideth other men which are tutors over them, to seek and procure their good for them, says Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sec. 7. All which seems no more than that duty, which God and nature has laid on man, as well as other creatures, to preserve their offspring, till they can be able to shift for themselves, and will scarce amount to an instance or proof of parent’s regal authority.
§60. 但是如果，因为超出通常的自然进程所发生的缺陷，以致某人不能达致可以假定他能够理解法律并在法律的规则之内生活的理性程度，那么，他也不能成为一个自由的人，不能放松让他按其意志行事（因为他不知道其行为的边界，没有理解力和恰当的引导）而只能在他自己的理解力不能担当那种责任的时间内继续处于他人的教导和管理之下。所以，有精神疾病的人和有精神障碍的人从来不能脱离他们父母的管理；胡克在（Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sec. 7）说，尚未成年的孩童；因为自然缺陷而被排除的缺乏理解力的人；第三，发疯的人，在当时无法使用正确的理性来引导他们自己，只能以他人的理性做他们的引导，来为他们寻求和获得好处。所有这些都没有超过这样一种责任，即上帝和自然负与人——其它生物也一样——保存他们后代的责任，直到他们自己能够接替，而很少可以作为父母享有帝王一样的权力的例子或证明。

WIND

(插一段不太相关的信息,以前在看《英格兰法律解释》的时候，曾经追溯过一个问题，像美国宪制中的最高法院这种机构，对应的是英国中的那种呢？后来发现是贵族院的一种兼职功能。刚才偶然发现2005年的宪制改革法案（constitutional reform act 2005）,据此成立了与美国最高法院更为接近的联合王国最高法院（Supreme Court of the United Kingdom），不过类似于美国最高法院那样的对立法机构的违宪审查权力，不知如何操作？)

WIND

§61. Thus we are born free, as we are born rational; not that we have actually the exercise of either: age, that brings one, brings with it the other too. And thus we see how natural freedom and subjection to parents may consist together, and are both founded on the same principle. A child is free by his father's title, by his father's understanding, which is to govern him till he hath it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of discretion, and the subjection of a child to his parents, whilst yet short of that age, are so consistent, and so distinguishable, that the most blinded contenders for monarchy, by right of fatherhood, cannot miss this difference; the most obstinate cannot but allow their consistency: for were their doctrine all true, were the right heir of Adam now known, and by that title settled a monarch in his throne, invested with all the absolute unlimited power Sir Robert Filmer talks of; if he should die as soon as his heir were born, must not the child, notwithstanding he were never so free, never so much sovereign, be in subjection to his mother and nurse, to tutors and governors, till age and education brought him reason and ability to govern himself and others? The necessities of his life, the health of his body, and the information of his mind, would require him to be directed by the will of others, and not his own; and yet will any one think, that this restraint and subjection were inconsistent with, or spoiled him of that liberty or sovereignty he had a right to, or gave away his empire to those who had the government of his nonage? This government over him only prepared him the better and sooner for it. If any body should ask me, when my son is of age to be free? I shall answer, just when his monarch is of age to govern. But at what time, says the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6. a man may be said to have attained so far forth the use of reason, as sufficeth to make him capable of those laws whereby he is then bound to guide his actions: this is a great deal more easy for sense to discern, than for any one by skill and learning to determine.
§61. 这才是我们生来自由的意思，就像我们生来理性一样；并不是说我们实际上能够运用两者：年龄带来自由，也同时带来理性。这样我们看到自然自由和服从父母是如何并存的，它们都基于同样的原则。一个孩童靠他父亲的资格，靠他父亲的理解力而获得自由，它将管理他直至他拥有自己的理解力。一个懂事年龄的成年人的自由与尚未成年的孩童对其父母的服从，如此的前后一致，又区别明显，以致于以父权利来为君主制辩护的最瞎眼的人，也不能回避这种区别；最顽固的人也不得不承认它们的一致性：因为如果他们的学说是成立的，如果已经知道亚当的正当的继承人，然后据此确立他为君主，被授予一切“绝对的无限制的权力”（Sir罗伯特•费尔迈所说）；假如亚当的继承人一出生他就死了，难道不管其继承人是多么的不自由，多么的不由自主，就无需服从他的母亲，保姆和私人教师，直到年龄和教育为他带来理性和能力去统治他自己和他人？他生命的必需品，他身体的健康，以及他思想的指导都要求他由他人而不是他自己的意志来引导；然而是否有人认为，这种限制和服从与他的自由和王权相冲突，或将他的帝国让给了他未成年时期的监护人？这种对他的管理仅仅是为了更好更快的预备他。如果谁问我，我的儿子什么时候可以获得自由？我会回答，正是他的君主统治的年龄。明智的胡克（在Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6中）说，但是究竟什么时候才可以说他达到了运用理性的程度，足够使他掌握那些他必须用来引导其行为的法律：这用感觉来识别比任何人用技能和知识来决定都要容易得多。

WIND

§62. Commonwealths themselves take notice of, and allow, that there is a time when men are to begin to act like free men, and therefore before that time require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance, or other public owning of, or submission to the government of their countries.
§62．共同体自身注意到且允许人们在某个时间之后才开始像自由的人一样行动，因此在此之前并不要求忠诚的誓言，或其它公开表示的对他们国家的政府的承认或服从。

§63. The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free; but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched, and as much beneath that of a man, as theirs. This is that which puts the authority into the parents hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this care on their offspring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as His wisdom designed it, to the children's good, as long as they should need to be under it.
§63．那么，人的自由及根据他自己的意志行动的自由，便是建立在他具备理性的基础之上的，理性能够教导他据以管理他自己的法律，并使他知道他能够在多大的程度上任由自己的意志自由。在他拥有理性可引导自身之前，便放松给与其无限制的自由，其实不是给与他一种本性应当自由的特权；而是把他猛推到野兽之中，弃他于一种恶劣的状态之中，远比人的状态要恶劣。这便是将这种权力交到父母手中以管理他们的孩子的未成年期的原因。上帝将用心照看他们的后代规定为他们自己的事情，并赋予他们适当的温柔和挂念的意愿来平衡这种权力，只要他们的孩子必须处于这种权力之下，他们便可以按照祂的智慧所设计的那样，为了孩子们的利益来运用这种权力。

§64. But what reason can hence advance this care of the parents due to their off-spring into an absolute arbitrary dominion of the father, whose power reaches no farther, than by such a discipline, as he finds most effectual, to give such strength and health to their bodies, such vigour and rectitude to their minds, as may best fit his children to be most useful to themselves and others; and, if it be necessary to his condition, to make them work, when they are able, for their own subsistence. But in this power the mother too has her share with the father.
§64．但是有什么理由能够因此而将父母对他们后代的这种关心上升到一种父亲的绝对和肆意的统治权力，他的权力不能超越这样的界限，即通过他所知道的最有效的管教方式，给与孩子的身体力量与健康，给与孩子的思想活力与正直，以使他的孩子成为对自身和他人最有用的人；并且，如果有必要的话，可以使孩子在有能力工作的时候，为他们自身的生存而工作。不过在这种权力上母亲与父亲是共同分享的。

WIND

§65. Nay, this power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them, he loses his power over them, which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed; and it belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child, as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue; if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father. And what will become of this paternal power in that part of the world, where one woman hath more than one husband at a time? or in those parts of America, where, when the husband and wife part, which happens frequently, the children are all left to the mother, follow her, and are wholly under her care and provision? If the father die whilst the children are young, do they not naturally every where owe the same obedience to their mother, during their minority, as to their father were he alive? and will any one say, that the mother hath a legislative power over her children? that she can make standing rules, which shall be of perpetual obligation, by which they ought to regulate all the concerns of their property, and bound their liberty all the course of their lives? or can she inforce the observation of them with capital punishments? for this is the proper power of the magistrate, of which the father hath not so much as the shadow. His command over his children is but temporary, and reaches not their life or property: it is but a help to the weakness and imperfection of their nonage, a discipline necessary to their education: and though a father may dispose of his own possessions as he pleases, when his children are out of danger of perishing for want, yet his power extends not to the lives or goods, which either their own industry, or another's bounty has made their's; nor to their liberty neither, when they are once arrived to the infranchisement of the years of discretion. The father's empire then ceases, and he can from thence forwards no more dispose of the liberty of his son, than that of any other man: and it must be far from an absolute or perpetual jurisdiction, from which a man may withdraw himself, having license from divine authority to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife.
§65. 不但如此，这种权力很少基于特别的自然权利，而仅仅因为他是孩子的监护人而赋予父亲，因而当他不再关照他们的时候，他便丧失了对他们的这种权力， 此权力是与他们的喂养和教育连在一起的，不可分离；一个弃婴的养父所获的权力与另一婴儿自然的父亲一样多。单纯的生孩子给与一个人对这个孩子的权力是非常少的；如果他此后不再关照孩子，那么他只不过是生了孩子的父亲而已。在世界上某些地方，一个女人同时拥有几个丈夫，或者在美洲一些地方，经常发生丈夫和妻子分离的事情，孩子留给母亲，跟随母亲，完全由母亲来照看，那么，这种父权力会变成什么样呢？如果父亲在孩子未成年的时候死亡，难道孩子不要在成年之前同样的服从他们的母亲吗？这种服从与父亲在世时对他的服从是一样的。难道有人会说，母亲对他的孩子拥有立法权？她能够制定持续有效的规则，成为永久性的责任，孩子们一辈子都依此来调整他们的财产并约束他们的自由？又或者她能够以死刑来强制它们得到遵守？因为这是社会管理者的恰当权力，对此父亲连这种权力的影子都没有。他对孩子的命令不过是暂时的，而且不涉及他们的生命或财产：它不过是对他们未成年时期的脆弱和缺陷的一种帮助，对他们教育的一种必要管教：虽然在孩子们没有死亡危险的时候，父亲可以随意处置他自己的财产，然而他的权力不能延及孩子们的生命或财产，不管是孩子们自己挣得还是他人赠与；当孩子们达到懂事的年龄拥有公民权的时候，也不能延及他们的自由。父亲的“帝国”到此便结束了，从此以后他对他儿子的自由的干涉，不超过其他人对他儿子的干涉程度：父权力与一种绝对的或永久的管辖权一定是非常遥远的，一个男子可以从这种权力中退出来，神圣的权力许可他离开父亲和母亲，而与他的妻子结合。

WIND

§66. But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and command of his father, as the father himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else, and they are each under no other restraint, but that which is common to them both, whether it be the law of nature, or municipal law of their country; yet this freedom exempts not a son from that honour which he ought, by the law of God and nature, to pay his parents. God having made the parents instruments in his great design of continuing the race of mankind, and the occasions of life to their children，as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourish, preserve, and bring up their offspring; so he has laid on the children a perpetual obligation of honouring their parents, which containing in it an inward esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions, ties up the child from any thing that may ever injure or affront, disturb or endanger, the happiness or life of those from whom he received his; and engages him in all actions of defence, relief, assistance and comfort of those, by whose means he entered into being, and has been made capable of any enjoyments of life: from this obligation no state, no freedom can absolve children. But this is very far from giving parents a power of command over their children, or an authority to make laws and dispose as they please of their lives or liberties. It is one thing to owe honour, respect, gratitude and assistance; another to require an absolute obedience and submission. The honour due to parents, a monarch in his throne owes his mother; and yet this lessens not his authority, nor subjects him to her government.
§66. 但是虽然到了某个时间，孩子便无须服从他父亲的意志和命令，如同父亲无须服从任何他人的意志一样，他们除了需要服从共同的自然法或他们国家的自治法律之外便没有别的限制了；然而，这种自由并不能免除一个孩子对父亲应有的上帝与自然的法律所规定的尊重。上帝既已在祂那伟大的延续人类的计划中将父母作为媒介，作为孩子的生命来源，同时祂也负与他们喂养，保存和带大他们的孩子；因此，孩子便负有一种永久的尊重他们父母的责任，它包括了所有外在表达形式所表明的内心的敬重，约束孩子们在任何时候都不得伤害或冒犯，打搅或危及他们获取自身生命的来源——父母——的幸福或生命；并参与保护，救济，帮助和安慰给与他们生命从而使他们能够享受生命的父母的行动：没有一个国家，没有一种自由能够免除孩子们这种责任。但是这离赋与父母一种命令孩子的权力或一种制定法律可随意处置孩子的生命或自由的权力还很远。一种是给与尊重，感激和帮助；另一种是要求一种绝对的服从。尊重父母，一个王位上的君主也应当尊重他的父母；然而这并不减少他的权力，也不是叫他服从她的统治。

feilian

§66. But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and command of his father, as the father himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else, and ...
WIND 发表于 2011-7-10 11:20

翻译才是真正精读，细嚼，趣味大于功利

WIND

§67. The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government, which terminates with the minority of the child: and the honour due from a child, places in the parents a perpetual right to respect, reverence, support and compliance too, more or less, as the father's care, cost, and kindness in his education, has been more or less. This ends not with minority, but holds in all parts and conditions of a man's life. The want of distinguishing these two powers, viz. that which the father hath in the right of tuition, during minority, and the right of honour all his life, may perhaps have caused a great part of the mistakes about this matter: for to speak properly of them, the first of these is rather the privilege of children, and duty of parents, than any prerogative of paternal power. The nourishment and education of their children is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children's good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it: and though the power of commanding and chastising them go along with it, yet God hath woven into the principles of human nature such a tenderness for their off-spring, that there is little fear that parents should use their power with too much rigour; the excess is seldom on the severe side, the strong bias of nature drawing the other way. And therefore God almighty when he would express his gentle dealing with the Israelites, he tells them, that though he chastened them, he chastened them as a man chastens his son, Deut. viii. 5. i.e. with tenderness and affection, and kept them under no severer discipline than what was absolutely best for them, and had been less kindness to have slackened. This is that power to which children are commanded obedience, that the pains and care of their parents may not be increased, or ill rewarded.
§67．一个未成年人的服从交给了父亲一种暂时的统治权，它随同孩子的未成年期一起结束：孩子应有的尊重给与了父母一种永久的获得敬重，帮助和顺从其意志的权利，这种权利或多或少与父亲在孩子的教育中所花的关照，花费和善意相当。这种权利并不随着孩子的成年而结束，而是在一个人的有生之年的所有情况下都存在的。缺乏对这两种权力的区别，即父亲在孩子未成年年期行使教育权利中的权力与他有生之年获得尊重的权利，可能是引起这种事情的巨大误解的原因：更恰当的说，前者更多的是孩子的特殊权利和父母的责任，而不是父权力的特殊形式。喂养并教育他们的孩子是为了孩子的利益负与父母的职责，什么也不能免除父母操心这件事：虽然命令和责罚孩子的权力会与之相随，然而上帝既已将人性的原则诸如对后代的慈爱交织进来，那么便不用害怕父母会过于严格的使用这种权力；过分之处很少趋向严格的一端，强烈的自然倾向倒常常走向另一端。所以，全能的上帝当祂表示要温柔的对待以色列人的时候，祂告诉他们，虽然祂管教他们，却如同一个人管教儿子一样（申命计：8：5），是怀着慈爱之心的，对他们的管教绝对是最有好处的，纵容反倒不够善意。这便是要求孩子服从的权力，使他们的父母的辛劳和操心不至于增加，或得到错误的回报。

WIND

§68. On the other side, honour and support, all that which gratitude requires to return for the benefits received by and from them, is the indispensable duty of the child, and the proper privilege of the parents. This is intended for the parents advantage, as the other is for the child's; though education, the parents duty, seems to have most power, because the ignorance and infirmities of childhood stand in need of restraint and correction; which is a visible exercise of rule, and a kind of dominion. And that duty which is comprehended in the word honour, requires less obedience, though the obligation be stronger on grown, than younger children: for who can think the command, Children obey your parents, requires in a man, that has children of his own, the same submission to his father, as it does in his yet young children to him; and that by this precept he were bound to obey all his father's commands, if, out of a conceit of authority, he should have the indiscretion to treat him still as a boy?
§68．另一方面，尊重和帮助，所有感激要求为自己获益于父母而有所回报的东西，是孩子必须的责任，也是父母恰当的特殊权利。这是为了父母的利益，如同另一种是为了孩子的利益；虽然教育，父母的责任，看起来拥有更多的权力，因为孩童的无知和脆弱需要限制和矫正；这是一种可见的规则的行使及一种统治权。而理解为尊重的那种责任，较少的要求服从，虽然这种责任对成年的孩子较未成年时更为强烈：因为谁能认为“孩子们，服从你们的父母”的命令是要求已有孩子的人服从于他的父亲像他尚未成年的孩子对自己的服从一样？如果他的父亲出于权力的狂妄，仍然将他视为一个孩童，那么依据这条诫律他必须服从他的父亲所有的命令吗？

WIND

§69. The first part then of paternal power, or rather duty, which is education, belongs so to the father, that it terminates at a certain season; when the business of education is over, it ceases of itself, and is also alienable before: for a man may put the tuition of his son in other hands; and he that has made his son an apprentice to another, has discharged him, during that time, of a great part of his obedience both to himself and to his mother. But all the duty of honour, the other part, remains never the less entire to them; nothing can cancel that: it is so inseparable from them both, that the father's authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right, nor can any man discharge his son from honouring her that bore him. But both these are very far from a power to make laws, and enforcing them with penalties, that may reach estate, liberty, limbs and life. The power of commanding ends with nonage; and though, after that, honour and respect, support and defence, and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a man to, for the highest benefits he is naturally capable of, be always due from a son to his parents; yet all this puts no scepter into the father's hand, no sovereign power of commanding. He has no dominion over his son's property, or actions; nor any right, that his will should prescribe to his son's in all things; however it may become his son in many things, not very inconvenient to him and his family, to pay a deference to it.
§69．因此，父权力或不如说责任的首要部分便是属于父亲的教育，这种教育到达一定的时间便终结了；当教育的事情结束之后，父权力也随之终止，而之前父权力也是可以转让的：因为一个人可以将教导儿子的责任委托给他人；一个使自己的儿子成为别人的学徒的人，便是在学徒期内，解除了大部分对自己和其母亲的服从。但是所有尊重父母的责任却不会减少仍全属于他们；什么也不能取消：它与他们都如此不可分离，以至于以父亲的权力也不能剥夺母亲的这种权利，任何人都不能解除儿子尊重生他的母亲的责任。但是，这两者距离制定法律并附带惩罚——可以延及财产，自由，肢体和生命——以强制其实施的权力都非常遥远。这种命令的权力随着成年的到来而终止；虽然从此以后，尊重，帮助与保护，以及感激能够责成一个人为他所自然得到的才能而做的一切，一个儿子对他的父亲总是应当的；然而所有这些并不是将权杖交给父亲，没有命令的统治权力。他对他的儿子的财产或行为没有统治权；他也没有权利依其意志规定儿子所有的事情；虽然在许多事情上，对于儿子和他的家庭不太方便，他也可能顺从父亲的意志。

WIND

教育,其本质上是孩童的父母委托教师来进行,并支付一定的报酬.所以,教师是不能根据某种莫名其妙的东西来改造孩子的灵魂的.一个教师能够怎样对待学生,与一个身为父母的教师想怎样对待自己的孩子是一样的.

WIND

§70. A man may owe honour and respect to an ancient, or wise man; defence to his child or friend; relief and support to the distressed; and gratitude to a benefactor, to such a degree, that all he has, all he can do, cannot sufficiently pay it: but all these give no authority, no right to any one, of making laws over him from whom they are owing. And it is plain, all this is due not only to the bare title of father; not only because, as has been said, it is owing to the mother too; but because these obligations to parents, and the degrees of what is required of children, may be varied by the different care and kindness, trouble and expence, which is often employed upon one child more than another.
§70．一个人可以——尊重老人或有智慧的人；保护他的孩子或朋友；救济和帮助遭受痛苦的人；感激救助者——到这样一种程度，即尽其所有或尽其所能都不足以补偿：但是所有这些都没有给与应得这些的人一种针对他制定法律的权力或权利。很明白，这一切不仅仅是基于父亲的身份；不仅因为，如前所述，它也属于母亲；而且因为，这些属于父母的责任及孩子们所要求的程度，可能会由于有差异的关照和善意及麻烦和花费而有所不同，它们常常用在一个孩子的身上多于另一个孩子。

WIND

§71. This shews the reason how it comes to pass, that parents in societies, where they themselves are subjects, retain a power over their children, and have as much right to their subjection, as those who are in the state of nature. Which could not possibly be, if all political power were only paternal, and that in truth they were one and the same thing: for then, all paternal power being in the prince, the subject could naturally have none of it. But these two powers, political and paternal, are so perfectly distinct and separate，are built upon so different foundations, and given to so different ends, that every subject that is a father, has as much a paternal power over his children, as the prince has over his: and every prince, that has parents, owes them as much filial duty and obedience, as the meanest of his subjects do to their's; and can therefore contain not any part or degree of that kind of dominion, which a prince or magistrate has over his subject.
§71．这就说明了如何会发生如下情况的原因，即身处社会中的父母，他们自己作为社会的臣民，仍然对他们的孩子保留了一种权力，他们要求孩子服从的权利与那些身处自然状态的人一样多。这就不可能说，所有的政治权力都只是父权力，它们实际上是一回事：因为这样的话，如果所有的父权力都置于君主手中，那么臣民自然就没有了。但是这两种权力——政治权力和父权力，如此的完全不同，基于不同的基础而建立，赋予了不同的目的，以至于每个人身为父亲的臣民，对其孩子的父权力与一个君主对他的孩子的父权力是一样多的：每个拥有父母的君主，对他们所应尽的作为儿女的责任和服从，与他最卑微的臣民是一样的；所以，父权力不能包含任何的那种统治权力，这是一个君主或社会管理者对他的臣民所拥有的权力。

WIND

§72. Though the obligation on the parents to bring up their children, and the obligation on children to honour their parents, contain all the power on the one hand, and submission on the other, which are proper to this relation, yet there is another power ordinarily in the father, whereby he has a tie on the obedience of his children; which though it be common to him with other men, yet the occasions of shewing it, almost constantly happening to fathers in their private families, and the instances of it elsewhere being rare, and less taken notice of, it passes in the world for a part of paternal jurisdiction. And this is the power men generally have to bestow their estates on those who please them best; the possession of the father being the expectation and inheritance of the children, ordinarily in certain proportions, according to the law and custom of each country; yet it is commonly in the father's power to bestow it with a more sparing or liberal hand, according as the behaviour of this or that child hath comported with his will and humour.
§72．虽然父母抚养他们孩子的责任与孩子尊重他们父母的责任，一方完全拥有权力，另一方必须服从，对这种关系而言是恰当的，然而父亲通常还有另一种权力，由此而可以约束他的孩子的服从；虽然这种权力每个人都有，然而表现它的机会几乎只发生在父亲们的私人家庭中，而其它的场合很少有这样的例子，且很少被注意到，因而也被作为父权力的一部分。这是一种人们普遍所拥有的将其财产给与最讨他们喜欢的人的权力；父亲的财产，根据每个国家的法律和习俗，通常会以一定的比例成为孩子们的期待和继承物；然而又通常会以父亲的权力，根据这个或那个孩子的行为是否符合他的意志和性情而少给或多给。

WIND

§73. This is no small tie on the obedience of children: and there being always annexed to the enjoyment of land, a submission to the government of the country, of which that land is a part; it has been commonly supposed, that a father could oblige his posterity to that government, of which he himself was a subject, and that his compact held them; whereas, it being only a necessary condition annexed to the land, and the inheritance of an estate which is under that government, reaches only those who will take it on that condition, and so is no natural tie or engagement, but a voluntary submission: for every man's children being by nature as free as himself, or any of his ancestors ever were, may, whilst they are in that freedom, choose what society they will join themselves to, what common-wealth they will put themselves under. But if they will enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they must take it on the same terms their ancestors had it, and submit to all the conditions annexed to such a possession. By this power indeed fathers oblige their children to obedience to themselves, even when they are past minority, and most commonly too subject them to this or that political power: but neither of these by any peculiar right of fatherhood, but by the reward they have in their hands to inforce and recompence such a compliance; and is no more power than what a French man has over an English man, who by the hopes of an estate he will leave him, will certainly have a strong tie on his obedience: and if, when it is left him, he will enjoy it, he must certainly take it upon the conditions annexed to the possession of land in that country where it lies, whether it be France or England.
§73. 这对孩子的服从不是一种无足轻重的约束：因为享用土地总是附加了对这片土地所属国家的政府的服从；所以通常假设父亲能够迫使他的后代服从他自己作为其臣民的政府，他的契约也能约束他们；然而这仅仅是土地——此政府之下的不动产继承物——附带的一个必要条件，涉及的只是那些在此条件下将接受遗产的人，所以这不是一种自然的约束或约定，而是一种自愿服从：因为每个人的孩子就其自然属性来说都是和他或他的任何一个祖先一样自由的，在他们处于那种自由之中时，都可以选择他们想加入的社会，以及自愿服从的共同体。但是如果他们想享用他们祖先的遗产，他们必须接受他们祖先已经接受的条件，服从这样的财产附带的所有条件。实际上，即使孩子们到了成年期，父亲们可以通过这种权力迫使他们服从自己，而且很通常的使他们服从这种或那种政治权力：但是这都不是基于任何父亲身份的特殊权利，而是通过他们手中所拥有的报酬来强制和奖赏这样的顺从；这并不比一个法国人对英国人所拥有的权力更多，这个英国人靠法国人将留给他一份不动产继承物的期待，当然可以强烈的约束他的服从：而在他留给他之后，如果他想享用，他必须接受所在国家土地财产所附带的条件，不管是在法国还是在英国。

WIND

§74. To conclude then, tho' the father's power of commanding extends no farther than the minority of his children, and to a degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age; and tho' that honour and respect, and all that which the Latins called piety, which they indispensably owe to their parents all their life-time, and in all estates, with all that support and defence is due to them, gives the father no power of governing, i.e. making laws and enacting penalties on his children; though by all this he has no dominion over the property or actions of his son: yet it is obvious to conceive how easy it was, in the first ages of the world, and in places still, where the thinness of people gives families leave to separate into unpossessed quarters, and they have room to remove or plant themselves in yet vacant habitations, for the father of the family to become the prince of* it; he had been a ruler from the beginning of the infancy of his children: and since without some government it would be hard for them to live together, it was likeliest it should, by the express or tacit consent of the children when they were grown up, be in the father, where it seemed without any change barely to continue; when indeed nothing more was required to it, than the permitting the father to exercise alone, in his family, that executive power of the law of nature, which every free man naturally hath, and by that permission resigning up to him a monarchical power, whilst they remained in it. But that this was not by any paternal right, but only by the consent of his children, is evident from hence, that no body doubts, if a stranger, whom chance or business had brought to his family, had there killed any of his children, or committed any other fact, he might condemn and put him to death, or other-wise have punished him, as well as any of his children; which it was impossible he should do by virtue of any paternal authority over one who was not his child, but by virtue of that executive power of the law of nature, which, as a man, he had a right to: and he alone could punish him in his family, where the respect of his children had laid by the exercise of such a power, to give way to the dignity and authority they were willing should remain in him, above the rest of his family.
§74. 那么结论就是，虽然父亲命令的权力不能超越他的孩子的未成年期，并只能到适合那个年龄的管教的程度；虽然敬重及所有拉丁人所称的“piety”的东西，必须属于他们的父母在有生之年所享有，所有的不动产和所有他们应得的帮助和保护，并不给与父亲统治的权力，即针对孩子制定法律并实施惩罚；虽然靠这一切他对他儿子的财产或行为都没有统治权：然而很明显可以设想，在世界的初期，在某些地方人口稀少仍然容许家庭分离到未被占有的角落，他们可以迁移或定居到尚未有人定居的地方，这样家庭的父亲便很容易成为一个君主；他从他的孩子一来到这个世界开始便作为一个统治者：由于没有某种统治他们很难在一起生活，那么极可能的情况是，当孩子们长大的时候，基于他们明确表达或默认的同意，将统治权授予父亲，对此看起来没有任何改变，只是一切照常而已；实际上，对父亲的这种统治权力所要求的，不过是允许父亲在他的家庭中单独行使自然法的执行权力而已，这种权力每个自由的人都自然的拥有，只要他们仍然留在这个家庭之中，基于这种允许便转让给了父亲一种君主性的权力。但是这并不是基于任何父权利，而仅仅基于他的孩子们的同意，由此很明显，没有人会怀疑，如果一个外来人意外或因事来到他家，杀了他的一个孩子或犯了其它的罪行，他可以对他进行谴责并处死，或以其它方式惩罚他，对他自己的任何一个孩子也是这样；在这件事上，对于一个不是他孩子的人的惩罚，显然不可能依据任何父权力，而只能依据自然法的执行权力，这种权力，只要是一个人便有权利去做：而在他家中只有他能够惩罚他，是因为孩子们的敬重将这样一种权力的行使让给了父亲，他们愿意将那种尊严和权力交给父亲从而使他居于家庭中其余的人之上。

WIND

§75. Thus it was easy, and almost natural for children, by a tacit, and scarce avoidable consent, to make way for the father's authority and government. They had been accustomed in their childhood to follow his direction, and to refer their little differences to him, and when they were men, who fitter to rule them? Their little properties, and less covetousness, seldom afforded greater controversies; and when any should arise, where could they have a fitter umpire than he, by whose care they had every one been sustained and brought up, and who had a tenderness for them all? It is no wonder that they made no distinction betwixt minority and full age; nor looked after one and twenty, or any other age that might make them the free disposers of themselves and fortunes, when they could have no desire to be out of their pupilage: the government they had been under, during it, continued still to be more their protection than restraint; and they could no where find a greater security to their peace, liberties, and fortunes, than in the rule of a father.
§75. 因此，孩子们很容易并且几乎是自然经由默许——几乎不可避免的同意——为父亲的权力和统治奠定了道路。他们在孩童时期习惯于遵循他的引导，以及将他们之间小小的争议提交到他那里，当他们成人之后，谁更适合来统治他们？他们之间少量的财产和小小的贪心很少会引起更大的争议；而当发生争执的时候，他们能够从哪里找到一位比用他的操心支持和抚养了每个人的父亲更适当的裁判人呢？谁对他们所有人拥有一种慈爱的情怀？因而他们不对未成年和成年作出区别便毫不稀奇了；当他们并不期待脱离被保护的状态，那么也不会去关注21岁或任何其它可作他们自身和财产的处置人的年龄：他们身处的统治，依然是保护多于限制；他们无法找到一个比父亲统治之下能够获得更大和平，自由和财富的保障的地方。

WIND

§76. Thus the natural fathers of families, by an insensible change, became the politic monarchs of them too: and as they chanced to live long, and leave able and worthy heirs, for several successions, or otherwise; so they laid the foundations of hereditary, or elective kingdoms, under several constitutions and mannors, according as chance, contrivance, or occasions happened to mould them. But if princes have their titles in their fathers right, and it be a sufficient proof of the natural right of fathers to political authority, because they commonly were those in whose hands we find, de facto[in fact], the exercise of government: I say, if this argument be good, it will as strongly prove, that all princes, nay princes only, ought to be priests, since it is as certain, that in the beginning, the father of the family was priest, as that he was ruler in his own household.
§76. 这样，一些家庭自然的父亲，经过不知不觉的变化，也成了他们政治上的君主：而如果他们碰巧寿命长，留下了能干且值得尊重的后代，经过几代的继承，或别的方式；因而奠定了继承制或选举制王国——经由意外，发明或机会所塑造的若干种宪制形式——的基础。但是如果君主们是以其父权利而获得拥有君权的资格，所以足以证明父亲们拥有政治权力的自然权利，因为我们发现实际上他们通常是那些行使统治权力的人；我要说，如果这种说法不错的话，它也同样可以有力的证明，所有的君主，也只有君主才应当成为神父，因为最初，一家之父担当神父与他是一家的统治者是可以同样肯定的。

WIND

Chapter VII.
Of Political or Civil Society.
第七章 论政治社会或公民社会

§77. GOD having made man such a creature, that in his own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it. The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children; to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added: and though all these might, and commonly did meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family; each of these, or all together, came short of political society, as we shall see, if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these.
77.上帝将人造成为这样一种被造物，在他自己看来，独居不好，将他置于强烈的必要的责任，便利性和意愿之下，以驱使他进入社会，同时相应的给与他理解力和语言来继续并享受这一过程。最初的社会是丈夫与妻子之间，并由此诞生父母与孩子之间的社会；然后及时的添加了主人与仆人之间的社会：虽然所有这些关系可能且通常汇合在一起组成一个家庭，其间男主人或女主人拥有某种与家庭相称的统治权；然而，下文我们可以看到，这其中任何一种社会关系，或者所有的家庭关系，如果我们考虑到每种社会关系不同的目的，约束和边界的话，都不存在政治社会。

WIND

§78. Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho' it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.
78.夫妻社会基于男人和女人之间的自愿契约组成；虽然它主要包含这样一种为着它主要的生殖目的而拥有彼此的身体的权利；然而，它也引出了互相支持和帮助，以及利益共享，这不仅是他们的关心和感情融合的必要，也是他们共同的后代所必需的，他们的孩子有权利要求他们抚养，直到他们能够独立生存为止。

WIND

§79. For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves. This rule, which the infinite wise maker hath set to the works of his hands, we find the inferior creatures steadily obey. In those viviparous animals which feed on grass, the conjunction between male and female lasts no longer than the very act of copulation; because the teat of the dam being sufficient to nourish the young, till it be able to feed on grass, the male only begets, but concerns not himself for the female or young, to whose sustenance he can contribute nothing. But in beasts of prey the conjunction lasts longer: because the dam not being able well to subsist herself, and nourish her numerous off-spring by her own prey alone, a more laborious, as well as more dangerous way of living, than by feeding on grass, the assistance of the male is necessary to the maintenance of their common family, which cannot subsist till they are able to prey for themselves, but by the joint care of male and female. The same is to be observed in all birds, (except some domestic ones, where plenty of food excuses the cock from feeding, and taking care of the young brood) whose young needing food in the nest, the cock and hen continue mates, till the young are able to use their wing, and provide for themselves.
79.就男女结合的目的来说，并不仅仅是生殖，而是人类的延续；这种男女之间的结合即使在生殖之后仍应当持续，只要抚养和支持后代还有必要，他们就应当由生他们的人支持，直到他们能够改变这种状况独立生存为止。无限智慧的造物主所赋与祂亲手创造的作品的这条规则，我们发现那些低等生物也是固定的遵守的。在那些以草为食的胎生动物中，雌雄的结合在交配之后就不再持续了；因为母兽的奶足够抚养幼小，直到它能够吃草为止，雄性仅仅传种，但不再关心雌性和幼小，对它们的生计它没有贡献。但是在猎食动物中这种结合就要持续的长些：因为母兽仅仅依靠它自己的捕猎不能支撑它自己的生存并抚养众多的后代，谋生的道路比那些草食动物需要更多的劳动也存在更多的危险，雄性的帮助对于维持他们共同的家庭成为必要，若没有雌雄共同的努力捕猎，它们的家庭就不能够存在下去。同样的，在所有的鸟类中也可以看到这种情况，（除了某些家禽，由于足够的食物，雄性无需喂养关照幼小）它们的幼小在巢中需要食物，雌雄继续配合，直到幼小能够飞翔并独立生存为止。

WIND

§80. And herein I think lies the chief, if not the only reason, why the male and female in mankind are tied to a longer conjunction than other creatures, viz. because the female is capable of conceiving, and de facto[in fact] is commonly with child again, and brings forth too a new birth, long before the former is out of a dependency for support on his parents help, and able to shift for himself, and has all the assistance is due to him from his parents: whereby the father, who is bound to take care for those he hath begot, is under an obligation to continue in conjugal society with the same woman longer than other creatures, whose young being able to subsist of themselves, before the time of procreation returns again, the conjugal bond dissolves of itself, and they are at liberty, till Hymen at his usual anniversary season summons them again to chuse new mates. Wherein one cannot but admire the wisdom of the great Creator, who having given to man foresight, and an ability to lay up for the future, as well as to supply the present necessity, hath made it necessary, that society of man and wife should be more lasting, than of male and female amongst other creatures; that so their industry might be encouraged, and their interest better united, to make provision and lay up goods for their common issue, which uncertain mixture, or easy and frequent solutions of conjugal society would mightily disturb.
§80. 我想，这里存在着主要的理由——如果不是唯一的理由的话——为什么人类中男女结合在一起比其它动物更为长久，换言之，在之前的孩子尚不能脱离他父母的支持并独立生存之前，他从他的父母那里得到帮助，然而由于女人的怀孕能力，实际上通常又会怀孕并生出一个孩子来：于是，必须照料那些他所生的孩子的父亲，便置于一种责任之下来与同一个女人延续比其它动物更长的夫妻社会，而其它动物在生殖季节再度到来之前，一旦它们的幼小已经能够独立生存，它们的夫妻关系就自动解除了，直到通常的来年海门（Hymen, 古希腊神话中司婚姻的神）再度召唤它们选择新配偶之前，它们都处于自由状态。在此，人不能不赞美那伟大的造物主的智慧，祂给与了人类一种预见和能力，不但能满足眼前的需要也能够为将来做些准备，这就是使如下规则成为必要——夫妻社会应当比其它动物的配偶关系持续得更为长久；他们的劳作应当得到鼓励，他们的利益应当结合得更好，以为他们共同的后代提供和储备物品，而配偶社会中不确定的混杂关系，或者轻易和频繁改变的方式都将强烈的扰乱他们后代的生活。

WIND

§81. But tho' these are ties upon mankind, which make the conjugal bonds more firm and lasting in man, than the other species of animals; yet it would give one reason to enquire, why this compact, where procreation and education are secured, and inheritance taken care for, may not be made determinable, either by consent, or at a certain time, or upon certain conditions, as well as any other voluntary compacts, there being no necessity in the nature of the thing, nor to the ends of it, that it should always be for life; I mean, to such as are under no restraint of any positive law, which ordains all such contracts to be perpetual.
§81. 不过，虽然这些都是加诸人类的约束，使人的夫妻关系比其它动物更加牢固和持久；然而，人们仍然有理由问，这种让生殖和教育得到保障并考虑到继承的契约，为什么不可以基于双方同意，或者在一确定的时间，或者在一确定的条件下终止，如同任何其它的自愿性契约一样？因为就其自身属性和目的来说，终身并非必要；我的意思是，对这类事情并没有任何肯定性的法律，来规定所有这类契约是终身制的。

WIND

§82. But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger. But this reaching but to the things of their common interest and property, leaves the wife in the full and free possession of what by contract is her peculiar right, and gives the husband no more power over her life than she has over his; the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch, that the wife has in many cases a liberty to separate from him, where natural right, or their contract allows it; whether that contract be made by themselves in the state of nature, or by the customs or laws of the country they live in; and the children upon such separation fall to the father or mother's lot, as such contract does determine.
§82. 但是丈夫与妻子，虽然他们只有一个共同的家庭所关心，然而却有不同的理解，不可避免的有时候会有不同的意志；所以，最后的决定，即统治，便有必要有所归属；它自然的落到了更能干更强壮的男人身上。但这只限于他们共同的利益和财产的事情，由契约完全留给妻子支配的财产则是她独有的权利，给与丈夫支配妻子生命的权力与妻子支配丈夫生命的权力相当；因为丈夫的权力与绝对君主的权力相去甚远，所以妻子在许多情况下拥有自由可以与丈夫分离，这是一种自然权利，或者为他们的契约所允许；他们的契约无论是在自然的状态中由他们自己订立，还是由他们所生活的国家的习俗或法律确定；他们分离之后孩子由父亲或母亲抚养，依他们的契约确定。

WIND

§83. For all the ends of marriage being to be obtained under politic government, as well as in the state of nature, the civil magistrate could not abridge the right or power of either naturally necessary to those ends, viz. procreation and mutual support and assistance whilst they are together; but only decides any controversy that may arise between man and wife about them. If it were otherwise, and that absolute sovereignty and power of life and death naturally belonged to the husband, and were necessary to the society between man and wife, there could be no matrimony in any of those countries where the husband is allowed no such absolute authority. But the ends of matrimony requiring no such power in the husband, the condition of conjugal society put it not in him, it being not at all necessary to that state. Conjugal society could subsist and attain its ends without it; nay, community of goods, and the power over them, mutual assistance and maintenance, and other things belonging to conjugal society, might be varied and regulated by that contract which unites man and wife in that society, as far as may consist with procreation and the bringing up of children till they could shift for themselves; nothing being necessary to any society, that is not necessary to the ends for which it is made.
§83. 既然政治统治之下能达至的所有婚姻的目的，如同自然的状态，那么，公民的管理者便不能限制缩减任何一方为着那些目的所自然必要的权利或权力，即当他们在一起时生殖和互相支持帮助；而只能裁定夫妻间产生的有关这些权利权力的争议。否则，生死的绝对统治权力自然的属于丈夫，并成为夫妻社会中的必要条件，那么在那些丈夫并未允许有这样的绝对权力的国家就没有婚姻关系了。但是婚姻的目的并不需要丈夫有这样的权力，夫妻社会的条件并未将其赋与丈夫，在那种状态中这完全没有必要。没有这种权力夫妻社会也能够维持并达成它的目的；不仅如此，财产共有，处置财产的权力，互相帮助和支持，以及其它属于夫妻社会的事情，可以由将男女结合成夫妻社会的契约来变更和调整，只要与生殖并抚养孩子直到他们能够独立的目的相一致；凡是对结成任何社会的目的并无必要的，对于这种社会就没有必要。

WIND

§84. The society betwixt parents and children, and the distinct rights and powers belonging respectively to them, I have treated of so largely, in the foregoing chapter, that I shall not here need to say any thing of it. And I think it is plain, that it is far different from a politic society.
§84. 父母与孩子之间的社会，以及分属双方的清晰的权利和权力，我已在前一章详加论述，在此无需重述。我认为很明白：它与政治社会相去甚远。

WIND

§85. Master and servant are names as old as history, but given to those of far different condition; for a freeman makes himself a servant to another, by selling him, for a certain time, the service he undertakes to do, in exchange for wages he is to receive: and though this commonly puts him into the family of his master, and under the ordinary discipline thereof; yet it gives the master but a temporary power over him, and no greater than what is contained in the contract between them. But there is another sort of servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters. These men having, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with it their liberties, and lost their estates; and being in the state of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of civil society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of property.
§85. 主人与仆人的称谓与人类的历史一样古老，但是所指的关系却有很大的不同；就一个自由人而言，他成为另一个人的仆人，是通过出卖他自己为他人服务一段确定的时间，以换取一定的工资：虽然这通常将他置于他主人的家庭之中，并受通常的管教约束；然而这只是给与主人对仆人一种暂时性的权力，这种权力以不超过他们之间的契约所约定的为限。但是还有另外一种仆人，它有一个特有的称谓叫奴隶，他们在正当的战争中被俘，依自然的权利而臣服于他们的主人的绝对统治和专断权力。依我说，这些人既已丧失生命，也就随之丧失了自由和财产；既然处于没有任何财产的奴役状态，也就不能被认为是公民社会的一部分；公民社会的主要目的是财产的保护。

WIND

§86. Let us therefore consider a master of a family with all these subordinate relations of wife, children, servants, and slaves, united under the domestic rule of a family; which, what resemblance soever it may have in its order, offices, and number too, with a little common-wealth, yet is very far from it, both in its constitution, power and end: or if it must be thought a monarchy, and the paterfamilias the absolute monarch in it, absolute monarchy will have but a very shattered and short power, when it is plain, by what has been said before, that the master of the family has a very distinct and differently limited power, both as to time and extent, over those several persons that are in it; for excepting the slave (and the family is as much a family, and his power as paterfamilias as great, whether there be any slaves in his family or no) he has no legislative power of life and death over any of them, and none too but what a mistress of a family may have as well as he. And he certainly can have no absolute power over the whole family, who has but a very limited one over every individual in it. But how a family, or any other society of men, differ from that which is properly political society, we shall best see, by considering wherein political society itself consists.
§86. 所以，让我们在家庭之内的规则之下来考虑家庭的主人与所有妻子，孩子，仆人和奴隶的从属关系；家庭，无论在它的秩序，各种职务以及人数方面多么的类似于一个小国家，然而在它的宪制，权力和目的方面与国家是相去甚远的：或者如果一定要把它想成一个君主国，家长是绝对君主的话，这个绝对君主国也仅仅拥有零碎和短暂的权力，因为根据前面的论述，很明白，家庭主人对其余人的有限权力，无论在时间上还是在范围上与君主的权力都是截然不同的；因为除了奴隶，他没有对任何人的生命和死亡拥有立法的权力，女主人也同样没有。主人对于家庭中的每个单独的人仅仅拥有非常有限的权力，他对整个家庭当然就没有绝对权力。但是一个家庭，或者任何其它的社会关系究竟如何与一个恰当的政治社会不同，我们在考虑政治社会本身构成时将会很好的看到。