按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
parental right to command； as well as all claim to repayment for their
previous care and trouble； for which care and trouble； after the
process of education is complete； they can only appeal to the
children； by way of any claim； on the ground of the obligation of
gratitude as a duty of virtue。
From the fact of personality in the children； it further follows
that they can never be regarded as the property of the parents； but
only as belonging to them by way of being in their possession； like
other things that are held apart from the possession of all others and
that can be brought back even against the will of the subjects。
Hence the right of the parents is not a purely real right； and it is
not alienable （jus personalissimum）。 But neither is it a merely
personal right； it is a personal right of a real kind； that is； a
personal right that is constituted and exercised after the manner of a
real right。
It is therefore evident that the title of a personal right of a real
kind must necessarily be added； in the science of right； to the titles
of real right and personal right； the division of rights into these
two being not complete。 For； if the right of the parents to the
children were treated as if it were merely a real right to a part of
what belongs to their house； they could not found only upon the duty
of the children to return to them in claiming them when they run away；
but they would be then entitled to seize them and impound them like
things or runaway cattle。
TITLE III。 Household Right。 （Master and Servant）
30。 Relation and Right of the Master of a Household。
The children of the house； who； along with the parents； constitute a
family； attain majority； and become masters of themselves （majorennes；
sui juris）； even without a contract of release from their previous
state of dependence； by their actually attaining to the capability
of self…maintenance。 This attainment arises； on the one hand； as a
state of natural majority； with the advance of years in the general
course of nature； and； on the other hand； it takes form； as a state in
accordance with their own natural condition。 They thus acquire the
right of being their own masters； without the interposition of any
special juridical act； and therefore merely by law （lege）； and they
owe their parents nothing by way of legal debt for their education；
just as the parents； on their side； are now released from their
obligations to the children in the same way。 Parents and children thus
gain or regain their natural freedom； and the domestic society；
which was necessary according to the law of right； is thus naturally
dissolved。
Both parties； however； may resolve to continue the household； but
under another mode of obligation。 It may assume the form of a relation
between the bead of the house； as its master； and the other members as
domestic servants； male or female； and the connection between them
in this new regulated domestic economy （societas herilis） may be
determined by contract。 The master of the house； actually or
virtually； enters into contract with the children； now become major
and masters of themselves； or； if there be no children in the
family； with other free persons constituting the membership of the
household； and thus there is established domestic relationship not
founded on social equality； but such that one commands as master；
and another obeys as servant （imperantis et subjecti domestici）。
The domestics or servants may then be regarded by the master of
the household as thus far his。 As regards the form or mode of his
possession of them； they belong to him as if by a real right； for if
any of them run away； he is entitled to bring them again under his
power by a unilateral act of his will。 But as regards the matter of
his right； or the use he is entitled to make of such persons as his
domestics； he is not entitled to conduct himself towards them as if he
was their proprietor or owner （dominus servi）； because they are only
subjected to his power by contract； and by a contract under certain
definite restrictions。 For a contract by which the one party renounced
his whole freedom for the advantage of the other； ceasing thereby to
be a person and consequently having no duty even to observe a
contract； is self contradictory； and is therefore of itself null and
void。 The question as to the right of property in relation to one
who has lost his legal personality by a crime does not concern us
here。
This contract； then； of the master of a household with his
domestics； cannot be of such a nature that the use of them could
ever rightly become an abuse of them； and the judgement as to what
constitutes use or abuse in such circumstances the is not left
merely to the master； but is also competent to the servants； who ought
never to be held in bondage or bodily servitude as slaves or serfs。
Such a contract cannot； therefore； be concluded for life； but in all
cases only for a definite period； within which one party may
intimate to the other a termination of their connection。 Children；
however； including even the children of one who has become enslaved
owing to a crime； are always free。 For every man is born free； because
he has at birth as yet broken no law； and even the cost of his
education till his maturity cannot be reckoned as a debt which he is
bound to pay。 Even a slave； if it were in his power； would be bound to
educate his children without being entitled to count and reckon with
them for the cost； and in view of his own incapacity for discharging
this function； the possessor of a slave； therefore； enters upon the
obligation which he has rendered the slave himself unable to fulfil。
Here； again； as under the first two titles； it is clear that there
is a personal right of a real kind； in the relation of the master of a
house to his domestics。 For he can legally demand them as belonging to
what is externally his； from any other possessor of them； and he is
entitled to fetch them back to his house； even before the reasons that
may have led them to run away； and their particular right in the
circumstances； have been juridically investigated。
SYSTEMATIC DIVISION OF ALL THE RIGHTS CAPABLE OF
BEING ACQUIRED BY CONTRACT。
31。 Division of Contracts Juridical Conceptions
of Money and a Book。
It is reasonable to demand that a metaphysical science of right
shall completely and definitely determine the members of a logical
division of its conceptions a priori； and thus establish them in a
genuine system。 All empirical division； on the other hand； is merely
fragmentary partition； and it leaves us in uncertainty as to whether
there may not be more members still required to complete the whole
sphere of the divided conception。 A division that is made according to
a principle a priori may be called； in contrast to all empirical
partitions； a dogmatic division。
Every contract； regarded in itself objectively； consists of two
juridical acts： the promise and its acceptance。 Acquisition by the
latter； unless it be a pactum re initum which requires delivery； is
not a part； but the juridically necessary consequence of the contract。
Considered again subjectively； or as to whether the acquisition； which
ought to happen as a necessary consequence according to reason； will
also follow； in fact； as a physical consequence； it is evident that
I have no security or guarantee that this will happen by the mere
acceptance of a promise。 There is； therefore； something externally
required connected with the mode of the contract； in reference to
the certainty of acquisition by it； and this can only be some
element completing and determining the means necessary to the
attainment of acquisition as realizing the purpose of the contract。
And in his connection and behoof； three persons are required to
intervene… the promiser； the acceptor； and the cauti