이런 논의에서 세상에 굳어진 말과 명칭을 문제 삼는 것은 쓸데없는 말꼬리 잡기라고 비판받을 수 있다. 그러나 오래된 말이 사람을 잘못 이끌기 쉽다면 새로운 말을 제안하는 것도 나쁘지 않다. ‘부권’이라는 말은 부모가 자녀에게 행사하는 권력을 전적으로 아버지에게만 두고 어머니에게는 아무 몫도 없는 듯 보이게 해 왔다. 하지만 이성과 계시를 살피면 어머니에게도 동등한 권원이 있음을 알 수 있다.
그러므로 이를 ‘부모권’이라고 부르는 편이 더 정확하지 않은지 물을 수 있다. 자연과 출생의 권리가 자녀에게 지우는 의무는 출생의 두 원인인 아버지와 어머니 모두에게 똑같이 향해야 한다. 그래서 신의 명시적 법도 자녀의 복종을 명할 때 언제나 둘을 함께 묶는다. “네 아버지와 어머니를 공경하라”, “아버지나 어머니를 저주하는 자”, “각 사람은 어머니와 아버지를 경외하라”, “자녀들아, 부모에게 순종하라”가 구약과 신약의 말투이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 52. IT may perhaps be censured as an impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world: and yet possibly it may not be amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal power probably has done, which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title.
This may give one reason to ask, whether this might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature and the right of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. 12. Whosoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1. is the stile of the Old and New Testament.
이 한 가지만 제대로 생각했어도 부모의 권력에 관해 사람들이 빠진 큰 오류를 피할 수 있었을 것이다. ‘부권’이라는 이름 아래 아버지에게만 귀속된 것처럼 보일 때는 그것을 절대적 지배권과 왕권이라 불러도 그럴듯해 보였을지 모른다. 그러나 자녀에 대한 그 절대적 권력을 ‘부모권’이라 불렀다면 그 권력이 어머니에게도 속한다는 사실이 이름에서 드러나 그 주장의 모순이 곧 밝혀졌을 것이다. 부권의 절대적 권위에서 한 사람의 군주정을 끌어내려는 이들에게, 그 근본 권위가 한 사람이 아니라 두 사람에게 공동으로 놓여 있다는 사실은 도움이 되지 않는다. 다만 명칭의 문제는 여기서 접어 두자.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 53. Had but this one thing been well considered, without looking any deeper into the matter, it might perhaps have kept men from running into those gross mistakes, they have made, about this power of parents; which, however it might, without any great harshness, bear the name of absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father, would yet have founded but oddly, and in the very name shewn the absurdity, if this supposed absolute power over children had been called parental; and thereby have discovered, that it belonged to the mother too: for it will but very ill serve the turn of those men, who contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it, that the mother should have any share in it; and it would have but ill supported the monarchy they contend for, when by the very name it appeared, that that fundamental authority, from whence they would derive their government of a single person only, was not placed in one, but two persons jointly.
But to let this of names pass.
앞서 모든 인간은 본성상 평등하다고 말했지만, 그것이 모든 종류의 평등을 뜻할 수는 없다. 나이나 덕은 정당한 선후를 만들 수 있고, 뛰어난 능력과 공적은 어떤 사람을 보통 수준보다 높일 수 있다. 출생·인척 관계·은혜는 자연이나 감사 또는 다른 이유에 따라 누군가에게 존중을 표할 의무를 지울 수 있다. 그러나 이 모든 차이는 서로에 대한 관할권이나 지배권에서는 모든 사람이 평등하다는 사실과 양립한다. 내가 말한 평등은 바로 각 사람이 다른 사람의 의지나 권위에 복속되지 않고 자연적 자유를 누릴 동등한 권리이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 54. Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.
아이들은 완전한 평등 상태로 태어나지는 않지만, 그 상태를 누릴 자격을 가지고 태어난다. 부모는 아이가 세상에 나온 뒤 일정 기간 그를 다스리고 관할하는 권한을 갖지만 이는 일시적이다. 이 복종의 끈은 유아기의 약함을 받쳐 주는 포대기와 같다. 성장하면서 나이와 이성이 그 끈을 느슨하게 하고 마침내 완전히 벗겨, 사람을 자기 판단에 맡긴다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they are wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.
아담은 신체와 정신의 힘과 이성을 온전히 갖춘 성인으로 창조되었으므로 처음부터 자신을 부양하고 보존하며 신이 심어 둔 이성의 법에 따라 행동을 다스릴 수 있었다. 그러나 그의 후손들은 모두 지식과 이해 없이 약하고 무력한 유아로 태어났다. 이 미완성 상태의 결함이 성장과 나이로 해소될 때까지 아담과 하와, 그리고 그 뒤의 모든 부모는 자연법에 따라 자신이 낳은 자녀를 보존하고 양육하며 교육할 의무를 졌다. 자녀는 부모가 만든 작품이 아니라 부모도 책임을 져야 하는 전능한 창조자의 작품이기 때문이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 56. Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him.
From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.
아담을 다스리는 법은 그의 모든 후손을 다스릴 이성의 법과 같았다. 그러나 후손들은 자연적 출생을 통해 무지하고 이성을 사용하지 못하는 상태로 세상에 들어왔으므로 태어나자마자 그 법 아래 있는 것은 아니었다. 공포되지 않은 법 아래에는 누구도 있을 수 없으며, 이 법은 오직 이성을 통해 알려지기 때문이다.
법은 자유롭고 지적인 행위자를 자기 이익으로 이끄는 지침이지 단순한 제한이 아니다. 법의 목적은 자유를 없애거나 억누르는 것이 아니라 보존하고 확대하는 것이다. 법이 없는 곳에는 자유도 없다. 자유란 타인의 억제와 폭력에서 벗어나는 것이며, 자신이 속한 법이 허용하는 범위에서 신체·행동·소유물과 전체 재산을 자기 뜻대로 처분하고, 다른 사람의 자의적 의지에 복속되지 않는 것이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 57. The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason.
But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam’s children, being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier without it, the law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices.
So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
부모가 자녀에게 갖는 권한은 미성숙한 어린 시기에 자녀를 돌보아야 하는 의무에서 나온다. 자녀가 필요로 하고 부모가 맡아야 하는 일은, 이성이 자리 잡을 때까지 아직 무지한 미성년자의 정신을 가르치고 행동을 다스리는 것이다. 자기 의지를 인도할 이해가 없는 동안에는 그를 대신해 이해하는 사람이 그를 대신해 의지를 정하고 행동을 규제해야 한다. 그러나 아버지를 자유인으로 만든 상태에 아들이 도달하면 아들도 자유인이 된다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood.
To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under.
But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.
이 원칙은 자연법과 시민법 모두에 적용된다. 사람이 자연법을 알고 그 경계 안에서 행동할 수 있을 만큼 성숙하면 자기 재산을 자기 뜻에 따라 처분할 자유를 갖는다. 그때까지는 법이 허용하는 자유의 범위를 안다고 추정되는 다른 사람이 그를 인도해야 한다.
영국법 아래에서도 마찬가지다. 법을 알 능력이 있다고 간주되는 스물한 살, 경우에 따라 그보다 이른 나이에 행동과 소유물을 자기 뜻대로 처분할 자유가 인정된다. 그 전에는 아버지나 후견인의 의지에 따라 인도된다. 아버지가 후견인을 정하지 못하고 죽으면 법이 대신 돌볼 사람을 세운다. 그러나 성숙 뒤에는 아버지와 아들이 같은 법 아래 동등하게 자유롭고, 아버지에게 아들의 생명·자유·재산에 대한 지배권은 남지 않는다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
자연의 통상적 과정에서 벗어난 결함 때문에 어떤 사람이 법을 이해하고 그 규칙에 따라 살 수 있을 정도의 이성에 이르지 못한다면, 그는 자기 의지에 완전히 맡겨질 수 없고 다른 사람의 보호와 통치 아래 계속 놓인다. 로크가 인용한 후커의 말처럼, 아직 필요한 나이에 이르지 못한 아이, 자연적 결함으로 이성을 갖지 못하는 사람, 일시적으로 올바른 이성을 사용할 수 없는 사람은 자신의 선을 구하도록 후견인의 이성에 의해 인도된다. 이것은 부모의 왕권을 증명하기보다 자녀가 스스로 살아갈 수 있을 때까지 보존해야 한다는 의무를 보여 줄 뿐이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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 ideots 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 parents regal authority.
우리는 이성적으로 태어나는 것과 같은 의미에서 자유롭게 태어난다. 곧 태어날 때 실제로 두 능력을 행사한다는 뜻이 아니라, 나이가 들며 이성과 자유를 함께 갖게 된다는 뜻이다. 따라서 자연적 자유와 부모에 대한 어린아이의 복종은 같은 원리에 기초하며 서로 양립한다.
판단 연령에 이른 성인의 자유와 그 전 아이의 부모에 대한 복종은 분명히 구별된다. 설령 필머의 주장처럼 아담의 정당한 상속자가 절대 권력을 가진 군주라고 해도, 갓 태어난 그 상속자는 스스로와 타인을 다스릴 이성을 갖출 때까지 어머니·유모·후견인에게 복종해야 한다. 그 통치는 그의 주권을 빼앗는 것이 아니라 오히려 그가 그것을 행사할 준비를 하게 한다. 아들이 언제 자유인이 되는가라는 질문에는, 군주가 통치할 나이가 되는 바로 그때라고 답할 수 있다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
정치공동체도 사람이 자유인으로서 행동하기 시작하는 때가 있음을 인정한다. 그래서 그때가 되기 전에는 충성이나 복종의 맹세, 또는 정부에 대한 공개적인 승인과 복종을 요구하지 않는다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 62. Common-wealths themselves take notice of, and allow, that there is a time when men are to begin to act like free men, and therefore till that time require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance, or other public owning of, or submission to the government of their countries.
인간의 자유와 자기 의지에 따라 행동할 자유는 자신을 다스릴 법을 배우고, 자기 의지에 맡겨진 범위를 알 수 있는 이성에 기초한다. 이성을 갖추기 전에 무제한의 자유에 내버려 두는 것은 자유의 특권을 허용하는 것이 아니라 짐승들 사이에 던져 인간 이하의 비참한 상태에 버리는 것이다. 이 때문에 부모에게 미성년 자녀를 다스릴 권한이 주어진다. 신은 부모에게 자녀를 돌보는 일을 맡기고, 이 권한이 자녀의 선을 위해 사용되도록 애정과 염려의 성향도 심어 두었다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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 their’s. 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.
그러나 자녀를 돌보는 의무에서 어떻게 아버지의 절대적이고 자의적인 지배권이 나올 수 있겠는가. 부모의 권한은 가장 효과적인 훈육을 통해 자녀의 몸을 건강하게 하고 정신을 바르고 강하게 길러 자신과 타인에게 유익한 사람이 되게 하는 범위를 넘지 않는다. 필요하다면 스스로 생계를 유지할 수 있을 때 일하게 할 수 있지만, 이 권한에는 어머니도 아버지와 함께 몫을 가진다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
이 권한은 아버지의 특별한 자연권이 아니라 자녀의 보호자라는 지위에서 나온다. 돌봄을 포기하면 권한도 잃으며, 그 권한은 양육과 교육에 분리할 수 없이 붙어 있다. 버려진 아이를 돌보는 양부에게도 친부와 같은 권한이 생긴다. 단순히 아이를 낳았다는 사실만으로는 거의 아무 권력도 주어지지 않는다.
아버지가 없는 경우나 자녀가 어머니의 돌봄 아래 있는 사회를 생각해도 마찬가지다. 어머니도 미성년 자녀에게 복종을 요구할 수 있지만, 자녀의 평생을 구속하는 법을 만들거나 사형으로 집행할 입법권은 없다. 그것은 통치자의 고유 권력이며 아버지에게도 그 그림자조차 없다. 부모의 명령권은 일시적이고 자녀의 생명·재산·성년 뒤의 자유에 미치지 않는다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
성인이 된 자녀는 아버지의 의지와 명령에서 벗어나지만, 그렇다고 신과 자연의 법에 따라 부모에게 드려야 할 공경 의무에서 벗어나는 것은 아니다. 부모는 인류의 지속을 위한 도구이자 자녀에게 생명을 준 계기이므로 자녀는 부모를 해치거나 모욕하지 않고, 그들의 생명과 행복을 지키며 방어·구제·도움·위로를 제공할 지속적인 의무를 진다.
그러나 공경·존중·감사·도움을 빚졌다는 것과 절대적 복종을 요구받는 것은 다른 일이다. 왕좌에 앉은 군주도 어머니를 공경해야 하지만, 그렇다고 그의 권위가 줄거나 어머니의 통치 아래 들어가는 것은 아니다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
미성년자의 복종은 자녀의 미성년과 함께 끝나는 일시적 통치권을 부모에게 둔다. 반면 자녀가 부모에게 드려야 할 공경은 돌봄과 비용과 친절의 정도에 따라 존중·부양·협조를 받을 지속적 권리를 부모에게 준다. 이 둘을 구별하지 못한 것이 부권에 관한 오류의 큰 원인이다.
양육과 교육은 엄밀히 말해 자녀의 특권이며 부모의 의무이지, 부권의 특권이 아니다. 명령하고 징계할 권한이 수반되지만 그것은 자녀의 선을 위한 돌봄이다. 신이 이스라엘을 자녀처럼 징계한다고 말한 것처럼, 이 권한은 애정과 온화함으로 절제되어야 한다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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 byass 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.
공경과 부양, 곧 받은 은혜에 감사하여 돌려주는 모든 것은 자녀의 필수 의무이자 부모의 고유한 권리이다. 교육은 자녀를 위한 부모의 의무이고, 공경은 부모를 위한 자녀의 의무이다. 성인 자녀의 공경 의무는 더 강할 수 있지만 미성년자의 복종과 같지는 않다. 이미 자기 자녀를 둔 성인이 아버지의 모든 명령에 소년처럼 복종해야 한다고 볼 수는 없다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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?
부권의 첫 부분, 더 정확히는 교육의 의무는 일정한 때에 끝나며 그 전에 다른 사람에게 맡길 수도 있다. 아들을 도제로 보낸 아버지는 그 기간에 자신과 어머니에 대한 복종의 큰 부분을 다른 사람에게 넘긴다. 그러나 공경의 의무는 부모 모두에게 온전히 남고 누구도 없앨 수 없다.
교육과 공경은 어느 쪽도 생명·자유·신체·재산에 미치는 법을 만들고 형벌로 집행할 권력을 주지 않는다. 명령권은 미성년과 함께 끝난다. 성년 뒤에도 감사에 따른 존중·부양·방어가 계속되지만, 이것이 아버지 손에 왕홀이나 주권을 쥐여 주는 것은 아니다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
사람은 노인이나 현자에게 공경을, 자녀나 친구에게 방어를, 곤궁한 사람에게 도움과 부양을, 은인에게 감사를 빚질 수 있다. 그 의무가 매우 커서 가진 모든 것으로도 갚지 못할 수 있지만, 어느 것도 상대에게 자신을 지배할 법을 만들 권위를 주지는 않는다. 부모에게 드려야 할 의무도 단순히 ‘아버지’라는 명칭에서만 생기는 것이 아니며 어머니에게도 향한다. 또한 부모가 각 자녀에게 들인 돌봄·친절·수고·비용에 따라 그 정도가 달라질 수 있다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
이 구분은 정치사회에서 부모 자신이 신민이면서도 자녀에 대한 권한을 유지하는 이유를 설명한다. 정치권력이 곧 부권이라면 모든 부권은 군주에게 있어야 하고 신민인 아버지에게는 아무것도 남지 않아야 한다. 그러나 정치권력과 부모의 권한은 기초와 목적이 완전히 다르다. 신민인 아버지는 군주가 자기 자녀에게 갖는 것과 같은 부모권을 갖고, 부모가 있는 군주는 가장 낮은 신민과 마찬가지로 부모에게 자녀의 의무를 진다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
부모의 양육 의무와 자녀의 공경 의무가 이 관계에 고유한 권한과 복종의 전부이지만, 아버지는 보통 다른 방식으로 성년 자녀의 순응을 이끌 힘을 갖는다. 이는 본래 다른 사람들도 가질 수 있는 힘이지만 가족 안에서 아버지가 행사할 기회가 많아 부권의 일부로 오해된다. 바로 자기 재산을 마음에 드는 사람에게 줄 수 있는 힘이다. 자녀는 관습과 법이 정한 몫을 기대하지만, 아버지는 자녀의 행동이 자기 뜻과 성향에 맞는 정도에 따라 더 적게 또는 더 후하게 줄 수 있다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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 tho’ 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.
상속 기대는 자녀의 순응을 강하게 묶을 수 있다. 토지 소유에는 그 토지가 속한 국가의 정부에 복종하는 조건이 붙기 때문에 아버지가 후손을 자신이 속한 정부에 묶는다고 여겨지기도 했다. 그러나 이는 토지와 상속에 붙은 조건일 뿐이며 그 조건으로 상속을 받아들이는 사람에게만 미친다. 자연적 구속이 아니라 자발적 복종이다.
자녀는 본성상 조상과 마찬가지로 자유로우므로 어느 사회와 정치공동체에 들어갈지 선택할 수 있다. 다만 조상의 유산을 누리려면 조상이 가졌던 조건대로 받아들이고 그 소유에 붙은 조건에 복종해야 한다. 이 힘은 부권에서 나오는 것이 아니라 아버지가 쥔 보상에서 나온다. 외국인이 유산을 약속해 다른 나라 사람의 순응을 끌어낼 때와 본질적으로 다르지 않다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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 commonwealth 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.
결론적으로 아버지의 명령권은 자녀의 미성년과 그 시기에 필요한 훈육 범위를 넘지 않는다. 평생 부모에게 드려야 할 공경과 부양도 자녀의 재산과 행동을 다스리는 법과 형벌을 만들 권력을 주지 않는다.
그럼에도 초기 사회에서 가족의 아버지가 군주가 되기 쉬웠던 이유는 이해할 수 있다. 인구가 적어 가족들이 떨어져 살 수 있던 곳에서 아버지는 자녀의 유아기부터 지도자였고, 성년 자녀들이 명시적 또는 묵시적으로 동의하여 그가 계속 가족을 다스리게 할 수 있었다. 이것은 아버지라는 자연권이 아니라, 모든 자유인이 가진 자연법 집행권을 가족 구성원들이 그에게 맡긴 결과였다.
낯선 사람이 가족 안에서 범죄를 저질렀을 때 아버지가 그를 처벌할 수 있었다면, 그것은 그 낯선 사람의 아버지이기 때문이 아니라 인간으로서 가진 자연법 집행권 때문이었다. 가족 안에서 그만 그 권력을 행사하게 된 것은 다른 구성원들이 그 권한을 스스로 행사하지 않고 그에게 양보했기 때문이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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, but 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.
자녀들이 거의 피할 수 없는 묵시적 동의로 아버지의 권위와 통치를 계속하게 된 것은 자연스럽다. 어린 시절부터 그의 지시를 따르고 사소한 다툼을 그에게 맡겨 왔으므로, 성인이 된 뒤에도 그보다 더 적절한 통치자를 찾기 어려웠다. 재산이 적고 탐욕도 작아 큰 분쟁이 드물었으며, 분쟁이 생겨도 자신들을 길러 주고 모두에게 애정을 가진 아버지가 가장 알맞은 중재자였다.
그들은 미성년과 성년을 구별하거나 스물한 살 같은 기준을 찾을 이유가 없었다. 그 통치는 구속보다 보호였고, 평화·자유·재산을 지키는 데 아버지의 통치보다 더 안전한 것을 찾기 어려웠기 때문이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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.
이처럼 가족의 자연적 아버지는 거의 알아차릴 수 없는 변화로 정치적 군주가 되었다. 오래 살며 유능한 상속자를 여러 세대 남겼는지, 또는 다른 사정이 있었는지에 따라 우연·계획·필요가 여러 헌정과 관습을 빚었고 세습왕국이나 선거왕국의 기초가 놓였다.
그러나 통치의 실질을 아버지들이 처음 행사했다는 사실만으로 부권이 정치권력의 자연적 권원이라고 증명한다면, 같은 논리로 모든 군주는 사제여야 한다고도 증명해야 한다. 초기 가족의 아버지가 집안의 통치자였던 만큼 사제이기도 했다는 사실도 똑같이 분명하기 때문이다.
영문 원문 보기
Sect. 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 manners, 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, 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 houshold.