GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980862949


From: (William Addams Reitwiesner)
Subject: Re: "Natural child"
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:55:49 GMT
References: <004f01c08a96$8606e460$8fb53bcb@leo>


(Leo van de Pas) wrote:

<snip>

>I have been told that the English language is precise as well as a living
>language. I also find it peculiar that a bastard is called a natural son, as
>though the legitimate one is not.

The difference is not between "natural" and "unnatural". It's an old
religious distinction.

Humans can enter into unions (called "marriages") which have been
sanctified by God. Animals cannot. While humans and animals both
procreate in the same way, one (the human) can be blessed, and therefore in
a state of grace, while the other (the animal) remains in a state of
brutish nature.

If a human chooses to procreate outside the boundaries of a sacred union
(i.e., outside of his marriage vows), then his action is no different from
that of a dog or a horse, and the resulting child is born in a condition of
nature, rather than a condition of grace. Hence "natural".


William Addams Reitwiesner


"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."

This thread: