Two Treatises of Government · Chapter
VII: Of Fatherhood and Property Considered Together as Fountains of Sovereignty explained
Locke examines Filmer's claim that sovereignty is founded on both fatherhood and property, showing that these two titles cannot consistently descend together after Adam's death.
What happens
Locke examines Filmer's claim that sovereignty is founded on both fatherhood and property, showing that these two titles cannot consistently descend together after Adam's death. He argues that if property and paternal power are distinct, they lead to divided sovereignty and confusion about who holds legitimate authority, undermining Filmer's theory of monarchical succession.
Themes in this chapter
Critique of Patriarchalism and Divine Right
Locke systematically dismantles Filmer's argument that fatherhood and property together form the foundation of monarchical sovereignty, exposing logical contradictions in the patriarchal theory.
Property and Labor
The chapter explores the distinction between private dominion (property) and paternal power, questioning how property rights relate to political authority.
Limited Government and Rule of Law
By showing that two independent powers cannot coexist without strife, Locke implicitly argues for a unified, limited government structure rather than absolute, inherited rule.
Characters to notice
- Adam
Adam is discussed as the original possessor of both fatherhood and property, whose death reveals the incompatibility of these two titles of sovereignty.
- Cain
Cain is considered as Adam's heir, inheriting private dominion but not paternal power over his brothers, illustrating the division of sovereignty.
- Abel
Abel is mentioned as having received distinct territory by private dominion from Adam, showing that property could be separated from paternal authority.
- Seth
Seth is referenced as another son of Adam who, along with other sons, held fatherhood equally with Cain, further dividing sovereignty.
- Noah
Noah is discussed in relation to the division of the world among his sons, raising questions about the inheritance of regal power after his death.
- Shem
Shem is considered as the eldest son of Noah, and the problem of whether regal power descended to him despite Noah's grant of territories to his brothers is examined.
Key passages
“The foundations which he lays the chief stress on, as those from which he thinks he may best derive monarchical power to future princes, are two, viz. 'fatherhood and property'”
Filmer's main pillars for justifying monarchical power are fatherhood and property.
Locke identifies the two central claims of Filmer's theory.
“If then the private dominion of Adam, i.e. his property in the creatures, descended at his death all entirely to his eldest son, his heir ... and his natural dominion, the dominion a father has over his children by begetting them, belonged, immediately upon Adam's decease, equally to all his sons who had children, by the same title their father had it, the sovereignty founded upon property, and the sovereignty founded upon fatherhood, come to be divided”
If Adam's property goes to his eldest heir but his paternal authority is shared among all sons who have children, then the two foundations of sovereignty are split.
Locke demonstrates the inherent division between property and fatherhood as titles to rule.
“All power on earth is either derived or usurped from the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whatsoever; for if there should be granted two sorts of power, without any subordination of one to the other, they would be in perpetual strife which should be supreme”
Filmer claims all power comes from fatherhood, and two independent powers would inevitably conflict.
Locke uses Filmer's own argument against him to show the absurdity of having two separate foundations for sovereignty.
