, Volume 95, Issue 4, pp 523–541

Why is la Belle Dame sans Merci? Evolutionary Psychology and the Troubadours



The findings of recent research into the psychology of sexuality, including those of evolutionary psychology, can shed light on many of the paradoxes of troubadour poetry. A central feature of human sexuality is a fundamental asymmetry of sexual desire, the fact that men want sex more than women. Men and women also have different criteria for mate selection: men prefer women whose youth and beauty signal health and fertility, whereas women prefer men who possess resources and a willingness to devote those resources to the rearing of offspring. The troubadour love song is based on a clash of volitions opposing the amorous desires of the lover and the resistance of his lady, mirroring the asymmetry of desire observed in real men and women. Women’s power to determine whether sexual relations will take place is expressed figuratively in terms of medieval social hierarchy, resulting in the “feudal metaphor.” The lady’s resistance is reinforced through external obstacles to the relationship, notably same-sex competition in the form of jealous husband and rivals. The love song represents a fictional act of courtship that seeks to overcome that resistance, appealing to an essential criterion for women’s mate selection by stressing the sincerity of the lover’s commitment to the relationship.


Courtly love Evolutionary psychology Gender Sexuality Troubadours 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akehurst, F. R. (1973). Les Étapes de l’amour chez Bernard de Ventadour. Cahiers de Civilisation MÉdiÉvale, 16, 133–147.Google Scholar
  2. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Social psychology, social exchange, and sexuality. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Social psychology and human sexuality (pp. 1–28). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2001). The social dimension of sex. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bec, P. (1968). La Douleur et son univers poétique chez Bernard de Ventadour. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 11, 545–571.Google Scholar
  7. Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics (M. E. Meek, Trans.). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love’s anatomy: Or, whatever happened to old-fashioned lust? In Sternberg & Barnes 1988 (pp. 359–374).Google Scholar
  9. Blakeslee, M. R. (1989). La Chanson de femme, les Héroïdes et la canso occitane à voix de femme: Considérations sur l’originalité des trobairitz. In Farai chansoneta novele: Hommage à Jean-Charles Payen (Essais sur la liberté créatrice au Moyen Age) (pp. 67–75). Caen: Université de Caen.Google Scholar
  10. Bloch, R. H. (1991). Medieval misogyny and the invention of western romantic love. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boyd, B., Carroll, J., & Gottschall, J. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution, literature, and film: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burns, E. J. (1985). The man behind the lady in troubadour lyric. Romance Notes, 25, 254–270.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M. (1992). Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition. In Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby 1992 (pp. 249–266).Google Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Buss, D. M. (Ed.). (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Carroll, J. (1995). Evolution and literary theory. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
  18. Carroll, J. (2004). Literary Darwinism: Evolution, human nature, and literature. NewYork: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Carroll, J. (2005). Literature and evolutionary psychology. In Buss 2005 (pp. 931–952).Google Scholar
  20. Cholakian, R. C. (1990). The troubadour lyric: A psychocritical reading. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cropp, G. M. (1975). Le Vocabulaire courtois des troubadours de l’époque classique. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
  22. Cropp, G. M. (1991). Les expressions mans jonchas et a (de) genolhos dans la poésie des troubadours. In Il Miglior fabbro …: Mélanges de langue et de littérature occitanes en hommage à Pierre Bec (pp. 103–112). Poitiers: Université de Poitiers.Google Scholar
  23. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: Murry.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Darwin, C. (1972). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York: Heritage Press.Google Scholar
  25. Davenson, H. (1961). Les Troubadours. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  26. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DeLamater, J. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dronke, P. (1968). Medieval Latin and the rise of European love-lyric (2 Vols., 2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: evaluative mechanisms in women. In Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby 1992 (pp. 267–288).Google Scholar
  30. Fisher, H. E. (1987). The four-year itch. Natural History Oct. 22–33.Google Scholar
  31. Fisher, H. E. (1992). Anatomy of love: The natural history of monogamy, adultery, and divorce. New York: Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  32. Fisher, H. E. (1995). The nature and evolution of romantic love. In Jankowiak 1995 (pp. 23–41).Google Scholar
  33. Fisher, H. E. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  34. Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  35. Foucault, M. (1978–1986). The history of sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.) (3 Vols.). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  36. Frappier, J. (1959). Vues sur les conceptions courtoises. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 2, 135–156. Repr. in J. Frappier (1973), Amour et Table Ronde (pp. 61–96). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
  37. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  38. Gaunt, S. (1995). Gender and genre in medieval French literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gay-Crosier, R. (1971). Religious elements in the secular lyrics of the troubadours. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ghil, E. M. (1986). The seasonal topos in the Old Provençal canso: A reassessment. In Keller et al. 1986 (Vol. 1, pp. 87–99).Google Scholar
  41. Ghil, E. M. (1995). Imagery and vocabulary. In F. R. P. Akehurst & J. M. Davis (Eds.), A handbook of the troubadours (pp. 441–466). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gottschall, J., & Wilson, D. S. (Eds.). (2005). The literary animal: Evolution and the nature of narrative. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hatfield, E. (1988). Passionate and companionate love. In Sternberg and Barnes 1988 (pp. 191–217).Google Scholar
  44. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and history. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  45. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huston, T. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R. M. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships, 2: Developing personal relationships (pp. 53–88). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Jankowiak, W. (Ed.). (1995). Romantic passion: A universal experience?. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jankowiak, W., & Fischer, E. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31(2), 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  50. Kanin, E. J., Davidson, K. D., & Schreck, S. R. (1970). A research note on male-female differentials in the experience of heterosexual love. Journal of Sex Research, 6, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kasten, I. (1986). Frauendienst bei Troubadors und Minnesänger im 12. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  52. Kay, S. (1990). Subjectivity in troubadour poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Keller, H. E., et al. (Eds.). (1986). Studia occitanica in memoriam Paul Remy (2 Vols.). Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Köhler, E. (1964). Observations historiques et sociologiques sur la poésie des troubadours. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 7, 27–51.Google Scholar
  55. Köhler, E. (1987). “Vers” und Kanzone. In E. Köhler, U. Mölk, & D. Rieger (Eds.), Grundriss der romanischen Literaturen des Mittelalters, II/1/3, Les Genres lyriques (pp. 45–176). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  56. Lazar, M. (1964). Amour courtois et “fin’ amors” dans la littérature du XIIe siècle. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  57. Lejeune, R. (1956). Formules féodales et style amoureux chez Guillaume IX d’Aquitaine. In Atti del VIII congresso internazionale di studi romanzi, Firenze, 1956, 2 Vols. (Vol. 1, pp. 227–248). Florence: Sansone. Repr. in R. Lejeune (1979), Littérature et société occitane au moyen âge (pp. 103–120). Liège: Marche Romane.Google Scholar
  58. Lerch, E. (1943). Trobadorsprache und religiöse Sprache. Cultura Neolatina, 3, 214–230.Google Scholar
  59. Leube-Fey, C. (1971). Bild und Funktion der “dompna” in der Lyrik der Trobadors. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  60. Liebowitz, M. R. (1983). The chemistry of love. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  61. Monson, D. A. (1986). Lyrisme et sincérité: Sur une chanson de Bernart de Ventadorn. In Keller et al. 1986 (Vol. 1, pp.143–159).Google Scholar
  62. Monson, D. A. (1991). Bernart de Ventadorn et Tristan. In Il Miglior fabbro.: Mélanges de langue et de littérature occitanes en hommage à Pierre Bec (pp. 385–400). Poitiers: Université de Poitiers.Google Scholar
  63. Monson, D. A. (1994). Les Lauzengiers. Medioevo Romanzo, 19, 219–235.Google Scholar
  64. Monson, D. A. (1995). The troubadour’s lady reconsidered again. Speculum, 70, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Monson, D. A. (1999). The troubadours at play: Irony, parody and burlesque. In S. Gaunt & S. Kay (Eds.), The troubadours: An introduction (pp. 197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Monson, D. A., & Paden, W. D. (2002). The troubadour’s lady: An exchange. Exemplaria, 14, 485–517.Google Scholar
  67. Murphy, J. J. (1974). Rhetoric in the middle ages: A history of rhetorical theory from St. Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  68. Paden, W. D. (1999). The troubadour’s lady as seen through thick history. Exemplaria, 11, 221–244.Google Scholar
  69. Paden, W. D., et al. (1975). The troubadour’s lady: Her marital status and social rank. Studies in Philology, 72, 28–50.Google Scholar
  70. Pellegrini, S. (1944–1945). Intorno al vassallaggio d’amore dei primi trovatori. Cultura neolatina 45, 21–36. Repr. in S. Pellegrini (1964), Studi rolandiani e trobadorici (pp. 178–191). Bari: Adriatica.Google Scholar
  71. Pillet, A., & Carstens, H. (1933). Bibliographie der Troubadours. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  72. Press, A. R. (1970). The adulterous nature of fin’ amors: A re-examination of the theory. Forum for Modern Language Study, 6, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reynaud, M. (2005). L’Amour est une drogue douce…en général. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
  74. Ridley, M. (1993). The red queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Rieger, D. (1976). Gattungen und Gattungsbezeichnungen der Trobadorlyrik: Untersuchungen zum altprovenzalischen Sirventes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  76. Sakari, A. (1965). Le Thème de l’amour du ric om au début de la poésie provençale. In Actes et mémoires du III e Congrès International de Langue et Littérature d’Oc (Bordeaux, 38 Sept 1961), 2 vols. (Vol. 2, pp. 88–94). Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  77. Scheludko, D. (1935, 1937). Religiöse Elemente im weltlichen Liebeslied der Trobadors. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 59, 402–421; 60, 18–35.Google Scholar
  78. Scheludko, D. (1936). Zur Geschichte des Natureinganges bei den Trobadors. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 60, 257–334.Google Scholar
  79. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In Buss 2005 (pp. 258–291).Google Scholar
  80. Seignobos, C. (1934). L’amour est-il une invention moderne? In C. Seignobos (1934), Etudes de politique et d’histoire (pp. 286–289). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, N. B. (1989). Games troubadours play. In M. Lazar & N. J. Lacy (Eds.), Poetics of love in the middle ages (pp. 3–15). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. L. (Eds.). (1988). The psychology of love. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Storey, R. (1996). Mimesis and the human animal: On the biogenetic foundations of literary representation. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In Buss 2005 (pp. 292–343).Google Scholar
  85. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptation of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Tennov, D. (1999). Love and limerance: The experience of being in love (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarborough House.Google Scholar
  88. Valency, M. (1961). In praise of love. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  89. Walsh, A. (1991). The science of love: Understanding love and its effects on mind and body. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  90. Wechssler, E. (1902). Frauendienst und Vassalität. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 24, 159–190.Google Scholar
  91. Wechssler, E. (1909). Das Kulturproblem des Minnesangs. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  92. Wilson, D. S. (2005). Evolutionary social constructivism. In Gottschall & Wilson 2005 (pp. 20–37).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of William and MaryMount VernonUSA

Personalised recommendations