4 But compare para. 85, where Locke insists that the master'servant relationship is contractual, even then however talking of service rather than labour, and service certainly carried the implications which we have described. In para. 28 Locke is far from being specific, for the labour owned is not the servant's alone, but the master's (the last mentioned) and his horses'. Will Macpherson maintain that a horse can alienate his labour to his master? The whole alienation argument (‘Locke has separated life and labour’) with all its implications for our own day, is very insecurely based on this passage and on those cited to buttress it from Locke's other works. It still seems to me, if hairs must be split, that Locke may have intended to distinguish labour as the propensity to work, inalienable, and the product of labouring over a specific period, which could be bargained for: certainly the connotation of the word ‘labourer’ in Stuart society bears this out. Dr Martin Seliger of the University of Jerusalem, and Mr Gordon Shochet of Cambridge are at present at work on the patriarchal element in Locke and the others, an element which Macpherson seems unable to allow for.