| Abstract: | This paper looks at 2 main issues: 1) Henry's definition of natural fertility--that which is not controlled within marriage in a parity-specific way; and 2) the use of standard age-specific marital fertility schedules to measure the extent of fertility control. The authors note a number of conceptual difficulties inherent in Henry's definition and which detract from its usefulness. In particular, prolonged lactation and taboos against sexual intercourse are capable of depressing fertility within marriage, while still allowing it to be described as natural. This paper explores some of the consequences of the identified difficulties for the measurement of fertility control within marriage. Regional as well as temporal variations are to be expected in the pattern of marital fertility. The factors affecting natural fertility may be broadly divided into the physical and the psychological. Needed are a variety of standard marital fertility schedules specific to the underlying fertility conditions of the particular population under investigation. The universal applicability of a single standard is placed in doubt. The greatest problem, however, with the application of the idea of natural fertility to historical populations is that its definition rests upon a number of behavioral characteristics amongst a population, whereas its identification must normally proceed in reverse, arguing backwards from the pattern observed to the behavioral processes and conditions which might have produced that pattern. The arguments presented are illustrated by a detailed example drawn from the fertility patterns of Britain, Denmark and Sweden. |
