>Here's a question: Since Genertela's agricultural fertility is really
>handicapped due to the death of Genert (requiring elaborate fertility
>rituals), shouldn't the human fertility rate be similarly handicapped?
I thought that the "handicapping" was to bring Genertela's fertility down to the level of our own world? In the Green Age, crops sprang up all around you with no need for work, and ripe fruit just fell into your hand. But now, "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." So human fertility should also be much the same as ours.
As for childbirth statistics in pre-industrial societies, the following comes from Maureen Waller's _1700: Scenes from London Life_. Bear in mind that survival and fertility rates in 17th century London were probably rather *worse* than those in a mediaeval agricultural community.
For each live birth, there was a 2.35% chance of the mother dying. Over the whole course of her life, a woman had a 6.5% chance of dying in childbirth.
Even a birth that the mother survived could have nasty and harmful effects on her future health - maybe rendering her infertile. (It's to be hoped that Gloranthan midwives with healing affinities are rather better at their job than pre-modern Earthly doctors, though).
The average London woman reached menarche at age 16-17, and menopause in her early 40s. During these 25 or so years of fertility, she would have over a dozen miscarriages or stillbirths and perhaps four living children.
Half of those living children would be dead before the age of 15 - about half of those dying in the first year of life.
Poorer women would have their pregnancies spaced at least two years apart, because of lactational amenorrhea (children were breast-fed for at least two years). General poor nutrition and hard work (leading to exhaustion and lack of free time) meant that most ordinary couples would have even fewer pregnancies than that. Wealthy women could hire a wet-nurse, and so might often have children ten months apart.
A few notes on customers surrounding childbirth, which could be adapted to a Gloranthan setting:
English custom at the time was for the mother to be attended by all her close female relatives and friends - called 'gossips' (God-siblings) from which we get our modern verb to gossip. As well as moral support, they were also there as witnesses in case the child was born dead and the mother accused of infanticide (a capital crime). After the birth, the mother was expected to remain in her bedroom for a month - for the first two weeks, lying down in bed in the darkness tended by the gossips and not allowed to see anyone else. After that time, the curtains were opened, the bedlinen changed (!) and visitors allowed in. The baby would already have been christened in church, with god-parents standing in for the absent mother. After a month, the mother was allowed out - her first trip being to church to be ritually purified from the 'taint' of childbirth, and to give thanks for her survival.
Hiring wet-nurses to feed the child was very popular among the rich, but frowned upon by many. It was believed that the child could absorb the wet-nurse's character along with her milk, and since most wet-nurses were poor and low-class women, this was a Bad Thing. However, it was widely believed that sex with a nursing mother was unwise, since it could curdle her milk: so importunate husbands were often only too happy to pay for a wet-nurse! (Bear in mind that sex during pregnancy was believed to damage the child in the womb, so was also frowned upon).
Stephen
Powered by hypermail