The Oxford Handbook of Human Mating

1st Edition David M. Buss

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-human-mating-1st-edition-da
vid-m-buss/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Oxford Handbook of Portuguese Politics Jorge M.

Fernandes (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-portuguese-
politics-jorge-m-fernandes-editor/

The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory

(OXFORD LIBRARY OF PSYCHOLOGY SERIES) 1st Edition
Richard M. Ryan

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-self-
determination-theory-oxford-library-of-psychology-series-1st-
edition-richard-m-ryan/

Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry 4th Edition Edition David

Semple

https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-handbook-of-psychiatry-4th-
edition-edition-david-semple/

The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical

Interpretation Paul M. Blowers

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-early-
christian-biblical-interpretation-paul-m-blowers/
The Oxford Handbook of Jane Addams Patricia M. Shields

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-jane-addams-
patricia-m-shields/

The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Competition

(Oxford Library of Psychology) Stephen M. Garcia

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
psychology-of-competition-oxford-library-of-psychology-stephen-m-
garcia/

The Oxford Handbook of Caste 1st Edition Jodhka

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-caste-1st-
edition-jodhka/

The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology (Oxford

Handbooks) Lewis Ayres

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-catholic-
theology-oxford-handbooks-lewis-ayres/

The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy 1st Edition

Corneliu Bjola

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-digital-
diplomacy-1st-edition-corneliu-bjola/
The Oxford Handbook of Human Mating
 OX F O R D L I B R A RY O F P S YC H O LO G Y

The Oxford Handbook

of Human Mating
Edited by
David M. Buss
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022941776

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​753643–​8

DOI: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780197536438.001.0001

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
CONTENTS

List of Contributors ix

​Introduction to Human Mating Strategies 1

David M. Buss

Part I • Theoretical Perspectives

1. Writing Trivers’s 1972 Theory of Parental Investment and
Sexual Selection 11
Robert Trivers
2. Sexual Selection and the Animal’s Mating Mind 16
Michael J. Ryan
3. The Interface of Sexual Selection, Conflict, and Evolutionary
Psychology: Emerging Core Themes 33
Jennifer C. Perry and Tracey Chapman
4. Extensions of Sexual Strategies Theory across Peoples, Cultures,
and Ecologies 66
David P. Schmitt

Part II • Attraction and Mate Selection

5. The Early Stages of Mate Selection 121
Norman P. Li and Bryan K. C. Choy
6. Computational Models of Mate Choice 154
Daniel Conroy-​Beam
7. ​The Logic of Physical Attractiveness: What People Find Attractive,
When, and Why 178
David M. G. Lewis, Kortnee C. Evans, and Laith Al-​Shawaf
8. Incest Avoidance Adaptations: Evolved Function and Proximate
Mechanisms 206
Debra Lieberman and Carlton Patrick
9. Parental Influence over Mate Choice 222
Menelaos Apostolou
10. Beyond Sex: Reproductive Strategies as a Function of Local Sex
Ratio Variation 240
Ryan Schacht and Caroline Uggla
11. Mating Strategies in Sexually Egalitarian Cultures 262
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Trond Viggo Grøntvedt, Andrea M. Kessler,
Steven W. Gangestad, and Mons Bendixen
12. Mating Strategy Variation by Sexual Orientation 286
David A. Frederick, Jenna C. Alley, Scott Semenyna, and Justin R. Garcia

Part III • Mate Competition

13. Contest Competition for Mates and the Evolution of Human Males 317
David Puts, David Carrier, and Alan R. Rogers
14. An Evolutionary Review of Female Intrasexual Competition 378
Maryanne L. Fisher and Jaimie Arona Krems
15. Mate Competition between the Sexes: Evidence from Two Non-​Western
Cultures 404
Scott W. Semenyna, Francisco R. Gómez Jiménez, and Paul L. Vasey

Part IV • Pair-​Bonded Relationship Dynamics

16. Evolving Connections: Attachment and Human Mating Strategies 427
Gurit E. Birnbaum
17. Archaeology of love: A Review of the Ethnographic Exploration of Love
around the World 447
William Jankoviak and Alex J. Nelson
18. Marital and Sexual Satisfaction 466
Andrea L. Meltzer
19. Sex Differences in Jealousy: The State of the Theory 483
John E. Edlund, Brad J. Sagarin, and Kristyn M. Kinner
20. Mate Guarding 502
Valerie G. Starratt and Todd K. Shackelford

Part V • Sexual Conflict in Mating

21. Deception in Human Mating 515
Gayle Brewer
22. Marriage and Monogamy in Cross-​Cultural Perspective 531
Brooke A. Scelza
23. Sperm Competition 555
Valerie G. Starratt and Todd K. Shackelford
24. Violent Mates 566
Joshua D. Duntley

vi C o n ten ts
25. The Dark Triad Traits and Mating Psychology 590
Peter K. Jonason and Vlad Burtaverde
26. Sexual Harassment 606
Kingsley R. Browne
27. Sexual Coercion 629
Joseph A. Camilleri
28. Women’s Avoidance of Sexual Assault 648
Rachel M. James, Melissa M. McDonald, and Viviana Weekes-​Shackelford

Part VI • Mating and Endocrinology

29. Hormones and Human Mating 667
James R. Roney
30. Understanding Women’s Estrus and Extended Sexuality: The Dual
Sexuality Framework 700
Steven W. Gangestad, Tran Dinh, Lauren Lesko, and Martie G. Haselton
31. Ovulatory Cycle Effects and Hormonal Influences on Women’s Mating
Psychology 739
Julia Stern and Lars Penke
32. The Impact of Hormonal Contraceptives on Women’s Sexual and
Mating Psychology 756
Katja Cunningham and Sarah E. Hill

Part VII • Mating in the Modern World

33. Mating in the Digital Age 777
Helen E. Fisher and Justin R. Garcia
34. Popular Culture and Human Mating: Artifacts of Desire 796
Catherine A. Salmon and Rebecca L. Burch
35. Evolutionary Mismatch and Human Mating: Understanding the Mating Mind
in the Modern World 814
Cari D. Goetz

Index 833

Conte nts vii

 L I S T O F CO N T R I B U TO R S
Jenna C. Alley, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Laith Al-​Shawaf, Ph.D.
University of Colorado
Menelaos Apostolou, Ph.D.
University of Nicosia
Mons Bendixen, Ph.D.
Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU)
Gurit E. Birnbaum, Ph.D.
Reichman University (IDC Herzliya)
Gayle Brewer, Ph.D., Ed.D.
University of Liverpool
Kingsley R. Browne, M.A., J.D.
Wayne State University
Rebecca L. Burch, Ph.D.
State University of New York at
Oswego
Vlad Burtaverde, Ph.D.
University of Bucharest
David M. Buss, Ph.D.
University of Texas, Austin
Joseph A. Camilleri, Ph.D.
Westfield State University
David Carrier
University of Utah
Tracey Chapman, Ph.D.
University of East Anglia
Bryan K. C. Choy, M.Phil.
Singapore Management University
Daniel Conroy-​Beam, Ph.D.
University of California, Santa
Barbara
Katja Cunningham, M.S.
Texas Christian University
Tran Dinh, M.A.
University of New Mexico
Joshua D. Duntley, Ph.D.
Stockton University
John E. Edlund, Ph.D.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Kortnee C. Evans, B.Sc.
Murdoch University
Helen E. Fisher, Ph.D.
The Kinsey Institute
Maryanne L. Fisher, Ph.D.
Saint Mary’s University
David A. Frederick, Ph.D.
Chapman University
Steven W. Gangestad, Ph.D.
University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque
Justin R. Garcia, Ph.D.
Indiana University
Cari D. Goetz, Ph.D.
California State University San
Bernardino
Francisco R. Gómez Jiménez, Ph.D.
University of Toronto Mississauga
Trond Viggo Grøntvedt, Ph.D.
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU)
Martie G. Haselton, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Sarah E. Hill, Ph.D.
Texas Christian University
Rachel M. James, M.S.
Oakland University
William Jankowiak, Ph.D.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Peter K. Jonason, Ph.D.
University of Padua and Cardinal
Stefan Wyszynski University in
Warsaw
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Ph.D.
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU)
Andrea M. Kessler, M.Sc.
Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU)
Kristyn M. Kinner, B.A.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Jaimie Arona Krems, Ph.D.
Oklahoma State University
Lauren Lesko
University of California, Los Angeles
David M. G. Lewis, Ph.D.
Murdoch University
Norman P. Li, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.A., B.A.
Singapore Management University
Debra Lieberman, Ph.D.
University of Miami
Melissa M. McDonald, Ph.D.
Oakland University
Andrea L. Meltzer, Ph.D.
Florida State University
Alex J. Nelson, Ph.D.
Appalachian State University
Carlton Patrick, J.D., Ph.D.
University of Central Florida
Lars Penke, Prof., Dr.
Georg August University Göettingen
Jennifer C. Perry, Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Sc.
University of East Anglia
x L i s t of C on tr ibutor s
David Puts, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Alan R. Rogers, Ph.D.
University of Utah
James R. Roney, Ph.D.
University of California, Santa
Barbara
Michael J. Ryan, Ph.D.
University of Texas
Brad J. Sagarin, Ph.D.
Northern Illinois University
Catherine A. Salmon, Ph.D.
University of Redlands
Brooke A. Scelza, Ph.D.
UCLA
Ryan Schacht, Ph.D.
East Carolina University
David P. Schmitt, Ph.D.
Brunel University London
Scott W. Semenyna, Ph.D.
Stetson University
Todd K. Shackelford, Ph.D.
Oakland University
Valerie G. Starratt, Ph.D.
Nova Southeastern University
Julia Stern, Ph.D.
University of Bremen
Caroline Uggla, Ph.D.
Stockholm University
Paul L. Vasey, Ph.D.
University of Lethbridge
Robert Trivers, Ph.D.
Rutgers University
Viviana Weekes-​Shackelford, Ph.D.
Oakland University
Introduction to Human Mating Strategies

David M. Buss

Abstract
In sexually reproducing species, mating success is a non-​negotiable requirement for
evolutionary fitness. Consequently, selection has created a rich array of adaptations that
are products of a long and unbroken line of human ancestors, each of whom succeeded in
the complex game of mating. This Handbook showcases the current state of knowledge
about those adaptations. These include mate preferences, tactics of attraction, forms of
mate competition, tactics for dealing with sexual conflict, modes of mate retention, mate
switching strategies, and many more. Chapters on the endocrinology of mating adaptations
provide state-​of-​the-​art knowledge about some of the key biological drivers. Chapters
on mating in the modern world highlight key ways in which mating adaptations, forged
over millions of years in environments long gone, get expressed in modern environments,
sometimes creating evolutionary mismatches. This Handbook is not the final word on
human mating strategies. Rather, it gives readers and researchers an impressive foundation
of what is known and unknown, and importantly, a roadmap for future discoveries about
what may be the most complex evolved psychology humans possess.

Key Words: human mating strategies, sexual selection, mate preferences, mate
competition, evolutionary mismatches

The scientific study of human mating strategies is one of the major success stories of
evolutionary psychology. The explosion of evolutionarily anchored theories and thou-
sands of empirical studies of human mating is unique among the social sciences in at least
two respects—​the volume of hypothesis generation and the cumulative quality of the
scientific empirical testing. This makes good theoretical sense. In all sexually reproducing
species, evolutionary processes must all pass through the rigorous filters of successful mat-
ing. Survival is not enough. Each living human comes from a long and literally unbroken
chain of ancestors, each of whom succeeded in selecting a mate, attracting a mate, being
reciprocally chosen by that mate, navigating the complexities of sexual intercourse suf-
ficient for conception, having a conceptus who survived the nine-​month hurdles to be
born, and after birth survived to reproductive age to begin the process anew.
Passing through these successive hurdles had to happen not just a dozen times but
millions upon millions of iterations going back through the distant mists of human evo-
lutionary history, our primate lineage, our mammalian lineage, and the origin of sexual
reproduction itself more than a billion years ago. If any one of our ancestors had failed in
any of these tasks, the chain would be irreparably broken and we would not be alive to read
these pages. In this important sense, we are all evolutionary success stories. As descendants
of this unimaginably long line of forbears, each us carries with us the finely honed adapta-
tions that led to our ancestors’ success. The current Handbook of Human Mating provides
an up-​to-​date summary of the current state of the science of human mating—​the modern
theories, hypotheses, predictions, and empirical findings relevant to each.

Sexual Selection Theory

Sexual selection theory (Darwin, 1871) provides the most important theoretical framework
for understanding the mating adaptations of sexually reproducing species (e.g., Andersson,
2019). Sexual selection centers on the evolution of adaptations not due to survival success but
rather due to mating success. Darwin identified two causal processes by which mating success
could be attained—​intrasexual competition and preferential mate choice. The classic example
of intrasexual competition is two male stags locking horns in combat. Winners in these physi-
cal contests gained preferential sexual access to females, and so passed on genes for attributes
that led to their success such as greater strength, agility, speed, and perhaps fearlessness and
bellicosity. The attributes of losers bit the evolutionary dust because they failed in this brutal
game of mating. Contest competition turns out to have been an extremely important sexually
selective process in humans (Puts et al., this volume).
The second process of sexual selection articulated by Darwin identified the evolution of
mating success through preferential mate choice. If members of one sex preferred certain
qualities in the other sex in mating contexts, then those who possessed the desired quali-
ties were more frequently chosen. Over evolutionary time, if there exists some degree of
consensus about the qualities desired and those qualities are partly heritable, then the
desired qualities evolve or increase in frequency.
Although Darwin envisioned intrasexual competition as pertaining primarily to males
and preferential mate choice pertaining primarily to females, when it comes to humans,
both processes apply to both sexes, as the chapters in this Handbook document. Moreover,
the modes of intrasexual competition in humans involve not just physical contests,
although it’s clear that these have been important. Rather, arenas of intrasexual competi-
tion include tactics for navigating status hierarchies and the use of language to influence
social perceptions of one’s own mating desirability and to impugn the reputation of intra-
sexual rivals (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Fisher & Krems, this volume).
Sexual selection theory itself has witnessed important theoretical developments since
Darwin’s 1871 articulation of it (see Ryan, this volume). Trivers (1972), for example, fur-
nished a major theoretical advance by identifying the relative parental investment of each
sex as a key determinant of which sex does the competing and which sex does the choos-
ing (see Trivers, this volume, on the personal context in which he developed his theory).
Sexual selection theory has also expanded to include processes such as sperm competition
(Starratt & Shackelford, this volume) and sexual coercion (see Camilleri, this volume).
The chapters in this volume showcase the “state of the art” of sexually selected human
mating strategies and the underlying psychological adaptations that give rise to them.

2 Davi d M. Buss
Sexual Conflict Theory
Another critical theoretical development since Darwin’s time has been sexual conflict
theory (Parker, 2006; Perry & Chapman, this volume). When the genetic interests of
females and males diverge, sexual conflict will ensue. There exist many domains of sexual
conflict in humans, zones in which the optimal mating strategy from a female perspec-
tive differs from the optimal mating strategy from a male perspective. It is sometimes
in a male’s best interest to initiate sex sooner, or with less investment, compared to the
optimal interests of the female. These differing fitness interests create sexually antagonistic
arms races very much analogous to those that occur between predators and prey. Each sex
evolves adaptations to influence the other to be closer to its own optimum, which creates
counteradaptations or defenses in the other to resist that influence and to manipulate the
other sex to closer to its own optimum. This form of sexually antagonist evolution is often
perpetual.
The many chapters on sexual conflict in this volume highlight the theoretical utility
of sexual conflict theory in guiding researchers to discoveries that were entirely unknown
prior to this theoretical development. These include predictable forms of deception in
mating (Brewer, this volume), infidelity and jealousy (Scelza, this volume), adaptations
for sperm competition (Starratt & Shackelford, this volume), intimate partner violence
(Duntley, this volume), various forms of sexual coercion (Brown, this volume; Camilleri,
this volume) as well as women’s defenses against sexual coercion (James et al., this volume).

Sexual Strategies Theory

Social scientists, including psychologists, typically receive no training in evolutionary
biology. Consequently, most were unaware of these key theoretical developments in evo-
lutionary theory and their potential applicability to human mating. In the last half of the
1980s and early 1990s, this started to change. Cunningham (1986) launched experimen-
tal tests of the evolution of female beauty from an evolutionary perspective. Kenrick et al.
published a paper documenting that social dominance increased the attractiveness of men
as mates but did not increase the attractiveness of women (Sadalla et al., 1987). And Buss
(1989) published the first large-​scale cross-​cultural tests of evolutionary hypotheses about
sex differences in human mate preferences.
The first major attempt to develop a more comprehensive evolution-​based psychological
theory of human mating strategies came under the rubric “sexual strategies theory” (Buss
& Schmitt, 1993). This theory, containing nine key premises and twenty-​two empirical
predictions, proposed that humans have evolved a menu of mating strategies, not a single
mating strategy. It provided a task analysis of the different adaptive problems that women
and men recurrently face in mating, cross-​cut with the temporal dimension of short-​term
mating (e.g., casual sex and brief affairs) and long-​term mating (e.g., marriage and other
temporally enduring mating relationships). It proposed that women as well as men engage
in short-​term mating, but the adaptive challenges they face when pursuing this strategy

In troduc tion to Human Mating Strate gie s 3

differ profoundly. The reproductive benefits to men of pursuing a short-​term mating strat-
egy are fairly straightforward, since men’s reproductive success is most heavily limited by
the number of fertile sex partners they can attract. Consequently, sexual strategies theory
predicted that men would desire a larger number of partners than women do, let less time
elapse before seeking sexual intercourse, and possess a host of other psychological design
features that would promote the success of a short-​term mating strategy (e.g., the male
sexual overperception bias, first predicted by Buss, 1994).
Although women generally cannot (and never could) increase their direct reproduc-
tive success through short-​term mating since adding additional sex partners would
rarely have resulted in more offspring, they could use short-​term mating to obtain key
adaptive benefits. According to sexual strategies theory, these might include (1) imme-
diate access to resources, (2) assessing several men through trial runs to determine
which would be a good long-​term mate, (3) cultivating a backup mate for insurance
should something go wrong with her long-​term relationship, (4) using short-​term mat-
ing as a tactic for “trading up” to a higher mate value partner, and perhaps (5) obtain-
ing higher-​quality genes (e.g., genes for good health) from an affair partner than she
could obtain from her regular partner. In the intervening years since the publication
of sexual strategies theory in 1993, a tremendous volume of research has focused on
testing hypotheses and predictions based on these theoretical benefits (e.g., Greiling &
Buss, 2000, on women’s perceptions of the benefits of short-​term mating; Buss et al.,
2017 on the mate-​switching hypothesis; Gangestad et al., this volume, on the good
genes hypothesis).
Sexual strategies theory also provided a task analysis of the adaptive challenges
each sex faces when pursuing a long-​term mating strategy. Women, for example, were
hypothesized to face challenges such as (1) identifying men who are able to invest in
them and their offspring, (2) identifying men who are willing to invest in them and
their offspring, (3) identifying men able and willing to protect them (e.g., from sexual
aggression from other men), (4) assessing men who give cues to long-​term commit-
ment to them, and (5) assessing men who give cues to “good dad” qualities linked with
parenting skills. Men, while facing some of these adaptive challenges in selecting their
mates for long-​term mating such as commitment and good parenting, also had to solve
additional sex-​differentiated ones: (1) choosing women likely to be sexually faithful,
thus solving the problem of paternity uncertainty (stemming from the fact that fertiliza-
tion occurs internally within women), and (2) identifying women of high reproductive
value (i.e., future reproductive capacity).
Since the 1993 publication of sexual strategies theory, a large body of empirical evi-
dence has accumulated that supports many of the specific predictions generated by it (see
Buss & Schmitt, 2019, for a review). Moreover, sexual strategies theory has been extended
in new directions to include testing hypotheses across peoples, cultures, and ecologies (see
Schmitt, this volume).

4 Davi d M. Buss
 In this Handbook, multiple chapters showcase important theoretical developments and
novel empirical extensions of the scientific understanding of human mating strategies.
In the section “Attraction and Mate Selection,’ Li and his colleagues outline the logic
and evidence of strategies in the early stages of mate selection. Conroy-​Beam provides a
novel computational model of mate selection that yields a sophisticated way of viewing
the multidimensional process of mate selection. Lewis and colleagues provide a “state
of the science” summary of theory and research on physical attractiveness using a cue-​
based approach. Lieberman and Patrick discuss theory and research on incest avoidance
adaptations. Apostolou presents arguments and evidence for the importance of parents in
influencing, and in some cases selecting, the mates of their daughters and sons. Schacht
and Uggla highlight the importance of sex ratio, which surely varied tremendously across
cultures and over time, on the mating strategies people pursue.
Kennair and colleagues discuss mating strategies in sexually egalitarian cultures such
as Norway. Although some theories, such as traditional sex role theory, predict that sex
differences should diminish or vanish in sexually egalitarian cultures, the data do not sup-
port those predictions. Indeed, some sex differences become larger, not smaller, in sexually
egalitarian cultures. The concluding chapter in this section, by Frederick and colleagues,
summarizes what is known about mating strategies as a function of individual differences
in sexual orientation such as gay men, lesbian women, and bisexual individuals.

Pair-​Bonded Relationship Dynamics

Once mate selection and mate attraction processes have been successfully implemented,
complex dynamics occur within those who form long-​term pair-​bonded mating rela-
tionships. Birnbaum examines the role of attachment within pair-​bonds. Jankoviak and
colleague articulate the importance of love as universal phenomenon within long-​term
mateships. Meltzer explores the determinants of marital and sexual satisfaction within
relationships. Edlund and colleagues examine the importance of jealousy within mate-
ships, which some have argued is as central as love in human mating (Symons, 1979).
Jealousy is an emotion often tied to mate guarding, the subject of the final chapter in this
section, written by Starratt and Shackelford.

The Endocrinology of Human Mating

All mammals have complex endocrine systems that influence, and are influenced by,
mating, and humans are no exception. These are sex-​differentiated to an important extent.
Reproductive-​age women who are not on hormonal contraceptives, for example, experi-
ence predictable endocrinological changes as they progress through their ovulatory cycle.
Roney kicks off this section by providing a broad overview of the state of the science on
hormones and human mating. However, there is currently scientific controversy about
the effects of the ovulation cycle on women’s mating strategies. Gangestad and colleagues
argue that women possess a “dual mating strategy,” suggesting that women have not “lost

In troduc tion to Human Mating Strate gie s 5

estrus” as many have argued, and moreover show preference and other mating strategy
shifts depending on whether the odds of impregnation are high or low. Sterns and Penke,
in contrast, argue that the cycle-​phase shifts are more ephemeral or absent, according to
large-​scale attempts at replication. Resolution of this ongoing debate must await further
research within this vibrant and cutting-​edge area of the evolution of human mating.
Concluding this section is a lively chapter by Cunningham and Hill who summarize the
evidence on the effects of modern hormonal contraceptives on women’s sexuality and
mating psychology.

Mating in the Modern World

The final section of the Handbook explores mating in the modern world, which has
changed dramatically from the environment in which humans spent 99 percent of their
evolutionary history. Helen Fisher and Justin Garcia explore mate choice in the digital
age, with the dramatic surge in online dating and mating. Salmon and Burch examine
popular culture in the modern world, including pornography, romance novels, and lit-
erature. Concluding this section is a chapter by Goetz, who outlines a number of key
“mismatches” between the mating environments in which humans evolved and those they
now inhabit.
I hope this Handbook provides a key reference for researchers and budding scientists
who devote their efforts to uncovering the complexities of human mating. Biologist
Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that “nothing in biology makes sense except in
light of evolution.” It may not be too far a stretch to say that “nothing in human behavior
makes sense except in light of human mating.”

Acknowledgements
This Handbook owes a great debt to Patrick Durkee, who offered suggestions through-
out its creation and provided valuable feedback on a handful of chapters. Thanks also go
to Joan Bossert, the editor at Oxford University Press who believed in the importance
of this Handbook, and to Martin Baum, editor at Oxford University Press, who helped
marshall the Handbook to completion and publication. Mostly I wish to thank the several
dozen authors who wrote sterling chapters for this Handbook.

References
Andersson, M. (2019). Sexual selection. Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1994)
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–​14.
Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Basic Books. (Original work pub-
lished 1994)
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
7(3), 395–​422.
Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-​Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis.
Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–​149.

6 Davi d M. Buss
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.
Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–​232.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual review of
psychology, 70, 77–​110.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-​experiments on the socio-
biology of female facial beauty. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(5), 925–​935.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray.
Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Women’s sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-​pair mating.
Personality and individual Differences, 28(5), 929–​963.
Parker, G. A. (2006). Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: An overview. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 235–​259.
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of per-
sonality and social psychology, 52(4), 730–​738.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the
descent of man (pp. 136–​179). Aldine. David M. Buss, August 9, 2021

In troduc tion to Human Mating Strate gie s 7

 PART
I
Theoretical
Perspectives
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The complete
works of John Gower, volume 4
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: The complete works of John Gower, volume 4

The Latin works

Author: John Gower

Editor: G. C. Macaulay

Release date: December 13, 2023 [eBook #72396]

Language: English

Credits: Ted Garvin, Stephen Rowland, Krista Zaleski and the

Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE

COMPLETE WORKS OF JOHN GOWER, VOLUME 4 ***
 Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors in punctuation have been silently corrected.
THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF
JOHN GOWER
G. C. MACAULAY
****
THE LATIN WORKS
 HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

LONDON, EDINBURGH, AND NEW YORK

MS. COTTON TIBERIUS A. IV., F. 9
(Reduced in size)
 THE COMPLETE WORKS
OF

JOHN GOWER
EDITED FROM THE MANUSCRIPTS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND GLOSSARIES

BY

G. C. MACAULAY, M.A.
FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

****
THE LATIN WORKS

De modicis igitur modicum dabo pauper, et inde

Malo valere parum quam valuisse nichil.

Oxford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1902
 Oxford
PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
 CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction vii
Epistola 1
Vox Clamantis 3
Cronica Tripertita 314
Rex celi deus etc. 343
H. aquile pullus etc. 344
O recolende etc. 345
Carmen super multiplici Viciorum Pestilencia 346
Tractatus de Lucis Scrutinio 355
Ecce patet tensus etc. 358
Est amor etc. 359
Quia vnusquisque etc. 360
Eneidos Bucolis etc. 361
O deus immense etc. 362
Last Poems 365
Notes 369
Glossary 421
Index to the Notes 428
 INTRODUCTION
LIFE OF GOWER.

To write anything like a biography of Gower, with the materials

that exist, is an impossibility. Almost the only authentic records of
him, apart from his writings, are his marriage-licence, his will, and his
tomb in St. Saviour’s Church; and it was this last which furnished
most of the material out of which the early accounts of the poet were
composed. A succession of writers from Leland down to Todd
contribute hardly anything except guesswork, and this is copied by
each from his predecessors with little or no pretence of criticism.
Some of them, as Berthelette and Stow, describe from their own
observation the tomb with its effigy and inscriptions, as it actually
was in their time, and these descriptions supply us with positive
information of some value, but the rest is almost entirely worthless.
Gower’s will was printed in Gough’s Sepulchral Monuments
(1796), and in 1828 Sir Harris Nicolas, roused by the uncritical spirit
of Todd, published the article in the Retrospective Review1 which
has ever since been regarded as the one source of authentic
information on the subject. It does not appear that Nicolas undertook
any very extensive searching of records, indeed he seems to have
practically confined his attention to the British Museum; for wherever
he cites the Close Rolls or other documents now in the Record
Office, it is either from the abstract of the Close Rolls given in MS.
Harl. 1176 or as communicated to him by some other person: but he
was able to produce several more or less interesting documents
connected either with the poet or with somebody who bore the same
name and belonged to the same family, and he placed the
discussion for the first time upon a sound critical basis. Pauli simply
recapitulated the results arrived at by Nicolas with some slight
elucidations from the Close Rolls of 6 Ric. II on a matter which had
been already mentioned by Nicolas on the authority of Mr. Petrie. As
the result of a further examination of the Close Rolls and other
records I am able to place some of the transactions referred to in a
clearer light, while at the same time I find myself obliged to cast
serious doubt on the theory that all the documents in question relate
to the poet. In short, the conclusions at which I arrive, so far as
regards the records, are mostly of a negative character.
It may be taken as proved that the family to which John Gower
the poet belonged was of Kent. Caxton indeed says of him that he
was born in Wales, but this remark was probably suggested by the
name of the ‘land of Gower’ in Wales, and is as little to be trusted as
the further statement that his birth was in the reign of Richard II.
There was a natural tendency in the sixteenth century to connect him
with the well-known Gowers of Stitenham in Yorkshire, whence the
present noble family of Gower derives its origin, and Leland says
definitely that the poet was of Stitenham2. It is probable, however,
that Leland had no very certain information; for when we examine his
autograph manuscript, we find that he first wrote, following Caxton,
‘ex Cambria, ut ego accepi, originem duxit,’ and afterwards altered
this to ‘ex Stitenhamo, villa Eboracensis prouinciae, originem
ducens.’ It is probable that the credit of connexion with the poet had
been claimed by the Yorkshire family, whose ‘proud tradition,’ as
Todd says, ‘has been and still is that he was of Stitenham,’ and we
find reason to think that they had identified him with a certain
distinguished lawyer of their house. This family tradition appears in
Leland’s Itinerarium, vi. 13, ‘The house of Gower the poete sumtyme
chief iuge of the commune place’ (i.e. Common Pleas) ‘yet
remaineth at Stitenham yn Yorkshire, and diuerse of them syns have
been knights.’ He adds that there are Gowers also in Richmondshire
and Worcestershire (‘Wicestreshire,’ MS.). The statement that this
supposed judge was identical with the poet is afterwards withdrawn;
for on a later page Leland inserts a note, ‘Mr. Ferrares told me that
Gower the iuge could not be the man that write the booke yn
Englisch, for he said that Gower the iuge was about Edward the
secundes tyme.’3
All this seems to suggest that Leland had no very trustworthy
evidence on the matter. He continued to assert, however, as we
have seen, that the poet derived his origin from Stitenham, and to
this he adds that he was brought up and practised as a lawyer,
‘Coluit forum et patrias leges lucri causa4.’ It has not been noticed
that the author’s manuscript has here in the margin what is probably
a reference to authority for this statement: we find there a note in a
contemporary hand, ‘Goverus seruiens ad legem 30 Ed. 3.’ From
this it is probable that Leland is relying on the Year-book of 30 Ed. III,
where we find the name Gower, apparently as that of a serjeant-at-
law who took part in the proceedings. It is not likely that Leland had
any good reasons for identifying this Gower, who was in a fairly high
position at the bar in the year 1356, with John Gower the poet, who
died in 14085.
Leland’s statements were copied by Bale and so became public
property. They did not, however, long pass unchallenged. Thynne in
his Animadversions acutely criticises the suggestion of Yorkshire
origin, on the ground of the difference of arms:—‘Bale hath much
mistaken it, as he hath done infinite things in that book, being for the
most part the collections of Leland. For in truth the arms of Sir John
Gower being argent, on a cheveron azure three leopards’ heads or,
do prove that he came of a contrary house to the Gowers of
Stytenham in Yorkshire, who bare barruly of argent and gules, a
cross paty flory sable. Which difference of arms seemeth a
difference of families, unless you can prove that being of one family
they altered their arms upon some just occasion.’ The arms to which
Thynne refers as those of Gower the poet are those which are to be
seen upon his tomb6; and the argument is undoubtedly sound.
Thynne proceeds to criticise Speght’s statement that Chaucer and
Gower were both lawyers of the Inner Temple: ‘You say, It seemeth
that these learned men were of the Inner Temple, for that many
years since Master Buckley did see a record in the same house,
where Geffrey Chaucer was fined two shillings for beating a
Franciscan Friar in Fleet Street. This is a hard collection to prove
Gower of the Inner Temple, although he studied the law, for thus you
frame your argument: Mr. Buckley found a record in the Temple that
Chaucer was fined for beating the friar; ergo Gower and Chaucer
were of the Temple.’
 A ‘hard collection’ it may be, but no harder than many others that
have been made by biographers, and Leland’s ‘vir equestris ordinis7’
must certainly go the way of his other statements, being sufficiently
refuted, as Stow remarks, by the ‘Armiger’ of Gower’s epitaph.
Leland in calling him a knight was probably misled by the gilt collar of
SS upon his recumbent effigy, and Fuller afterwards, on the strength
of the same decoration, fancifully revives the old theory that he was
a judge, and is copied of course by succeeding writers8. On the
whole it may be doubted whether there is anything but guesswork in
the statements made by Leland about our author, except so far as
they are derived from his writings or from his tomb.
That John Gower the poet was of a Kentish family is proved by
definite and positive evidence. The presumption raised by the fact
that his English writings certainly have some traces of the Kentish
dialect, is confirmed, first by the identity of the arms upon his tomb
with those of Sir Robert Gower, who had a tomb in Brabourne
Church in Kent, and with reference to whom Weever, writing in 1631,
says, ‘From this family John Gower the poet was descended9,’
secondly, by the fact that in the year 1382 a manor which we know to
have been eventually in the possession of the poet was granted to
John Gower, who is expressly called ‘Esquier de Kent,’ and thirdly,
by the names of the executors of the poet’s will, who are of Kentish
families. It may be added that several other persons of the name of
Gower are mentioned in the records of the time in connexion with the
county of Kent. Referring only to cases in which the Christian name
also is the same as that of the poet, we may note a John Gower
among those complained of by the Earl of Arundel in 1377, as
having broken his closes at High Rothing and elsewhere, fished in
his fishery and assaulted his servants10; John Gower mentioned in
connexion with the parishes of Throwley and Stalesfield, Kent, in
1381-211; John Gower who was killed by Elias Taillour, apparently in
138512; John Gower who was appointed with others in 1386 to
receive and distribute the stores at Dover Castle13; none of whom
can reasonably be identified with the poet. Therefore it cannot be
truly said, as it is said by Pauli, that the surname Gower, or even the
combination John Gower, is a very uncommon one in the records of
the county of Kent14.
Before proceeding further, it may be well to set forth in order
certain business transactions recorded in the reign of Edward III, in
which a certain John Gower was concerned, who is identified by
Nicolas with the poet15.
They are as follows:—
39 Ed. III (1365). An inquiry whether it will be to the prejudice of
the king to put John Gower in possession of half the manor of
Aldyngton in Kent, acquired by him without licence of the king from
William de Septvans, and if so, ‘ad quod damnum.’ This half of
Aldyngton is held of the king by the service of paying fourteen
shillings a year to the Warden of Rochester Castle on St. Andrew’s
day16.
Under date Feb. 15 of the same year it was reported that this
would not be to the prejudice of the king, and accordingly on March 9
John Gower pays 53 shillings, which appears to be the annual value
of the property, and is pardoned for the offence committed by
acquiring it without licence17.
39 Ed. III (June 23). William Sepvanus, son of William Sepvanus
knight, grants to John Gower ten pounds rent from the manor of
Wygebergh (Wigborough) in Essex and from other lands held by him
in the county of Essex18.
By another deed, acknowledged in Chancery on June 25 of the
same year, the same William Sepvanus makes over to John Gower
all his claims upon the manor of Aldyngton, and also a rent of 14s.
6d., with one cock, thirteen hens and 140 eggs from Maplecomb19.
42 Ed. III (1368). Thomas Syward, pewterer and citizen of
London, and Joanna his wife, daughter of Sir Robert Gower, grant to
John Gower and his heirs the manor of Kentwell. Dated at Melford,
Wednesday before the Nativity of St. John Baptist20.
 43 Ed. III. Fine between John Gower on the one hand, and John
Spenythorn with Joan his wife on the other, by which they give up all
right to the Manor of Kentwell, Suffolk, except £10 rent, John Gower
paying 200 marks21.
This was confirmed in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II.
By documents of previous date22 it may be shown that the manor
of Kentwell had been held by Sir Rob. Gower, doubtless the same
who is buried in Brabourne Church, who died apparently in 1349;
that it was ultimately divided, with other property, between his heirs,
two daughters named Katherine and Joanna, of whom one,
Katherine, died in 1366. Her moiety was then combined with the
other in the possession of her sister Joanna, ‘23 years old and
upwards,’ then married to William Neve of Wetyng, but apparently
soon afterwards to Thomas Syward. As to the transaction between
John Gower and John Spenythorn with Joanna his wife, we must be
content to remain rather in the dark. John Gower had in the year
before acquired Kentwell in full possession for himself and his heirs,
and he must in the mean time have alienated it, and now apparently
acquired it again. It is hardly likely that the Joan who is here
mentioned is the same as Joan daughter of Sir Robert Gower, who
was married successively to William Neve and Thomas Syward. On
the other hand it must be regarded as probable that the John Gower
of this document is identical with the John Gower who acquired
Kentwell from Thomas Syward and his wife in 1368. The
confirmation in the king’s court, 3 Ric. II, was perhaps by way of
verifying the title before the grant of Kentwell by Sir J. Cobham to Sir
T. Clopton, 4 Ric. II.
47 Ed. III (1373). John Gower grants his manor of Kentwell in
Suffolk to Sir John Cobham and his heirs; a deed executed at Otford
in Kent, Thurs. Sept. 2923.
48 Ed. III (1374). Payment of 12 marks by Sir J. Cobham on
acquisition of Kentwell and half of Aldyngton from John Gower24.
By this last document it seems pretty certain that the John Gower
from whom Sir J. Cobham received Kentwell was the same person
as the John Gower who acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans;
and he is proved to be a relation of the poet, as well as of Sir Robert
Gower, by the fact that the arms on the seal of John Gower, attached
to the deed by which Kentwell was alienated, are apparently the
same as those which were placed upon Sir Rob. Gower’s tomb at
Brabourne, and those which we see on the poet’s tomb in
Southwark25. These persons, then, belonged to the same family, so
far as we can judge; but evidently it is not proved merely by this fact
that the John Gower mentioned in the above document was identical
with the poet. We have seen already that the name was not
uncommon in Kent, and there are some further considerations which
may lead us to hesitate before we identify John Gower the poet with
the John Gower who acquired land from William Septvans. This
latter transaction in fact had another side, to which attention has not
hitherto been called, though Sir H. Nicolas must have been to some
extent aware of it, since he has given a reference to the Rolls of
Parliament, where the affair is recorded.
It must be noted then in connexion with the deeds of 39 Ed. III, by
which John Gower acquired Aldyngton from William Septvans, son
of Sir William Septvans, that in the next year, 40 Ed. III, there is
record of a commission issued to Sir J. Cobham and others to
inquire into the circumstances of this alienation, it having been
alleged that William Septvans was not yet of age, and that he had
obtained release of his father’s property from the king’s hands by
fraudulent misrepresentation. The commission, having sat at
Canterbury on the Tuesday before St. George’s day, 1366, reported
that this was so, that William Septvans was in fact under twenty
years old, and would not attain the age of twenty till the feast of St.
Augustine the Doctor next to come (i.e. Aug. 28); that the alienations
to John Gower and others had been improperly made by means of a
fraudulent proof of age, and that his property ought to be reseized
into the king’s hands till he was of age. Moreover the report stated
that John Gower had given 24 marks only for property worth £12 a
year, with a wood of the value of £100, that after his enfeoffment the
said John Gower was in the company of William Septvans at
Canterbury and elsewhere, until Sept. 29, inducing him to part with
land and other property to various persons26.
The property remained in the king’s hands till the year 1369,
when an order was issued to the escheator of the county of Essex to
put William Septvans in possession of his father’s lands, which had
been confiscated to the Crown, ‘since two years and more have
elapsed from the festival of St. Augustine, when he was twenty years
old’ (Westm. 21 Feb.)27. Presumably John Gower then entered into
possession of the property which he had irregularly acquired in 1365,
and possibly with this may be connected a payment by John Gower
of £20 at Michaelmas in the year 1368 to Richard de Ravensere28,
who seems to have been keeper of the hanaper in Chancery.
It is impossible without further proof to assume that the villainous
misleader of youth who is described to us in the report of the above
commission, as encouraging a young man to defraud the Crown by
means of perjury, in order that he may purchase his lands from him
at a nominal price, can be identical with the grave moralist of the
Speculum Hominis and the Vox Clamantis. Gower humbly confesses
that he has been a great sinner, but he does not speak in the tone of
a converted libertine: we cannot reconcile our idea of him with the
proceedings of the disreputable character who for his own ends
encouraged the young William Septvans in his dishonesty and
extravagance. The two men apparently bore the same arms, and
therefore they belonged to the same family, but beyond this we
cannot go. It may be observed moreover that the picture suggested
to Prof. Morley by the deed of 1373, executed at Otford, of the poet’s
residence in the pleasant valley of the Darent, which he describes at
some length29, must in any case be dismissed as baseless. Otford
was a manor held by Sir John Cobham30, and whether the John
Gower of this deed be the poet or no, it is pretty clear that the deed
in question was executed there principally for this reason, and not
because it was the residence of John Gower.
Dismissing all the above records as of doubtful relevancy to our
subject31, we proceed to take note of some which seem actually to
refer to the poet. Of these none are earlier than the reign of Richard
II. They are as follows:
1 Ric. II. (May, 1378). A record that Geoffrey Chaucer has given
general power of attorney to John Gower and Richard Forester, to be
used during his absence abroad by licence of the king.32
Considering that Chaucer and Gower are known to have been
personally acquainted with one another, we may fairly suppose that
this appointment relates to John Gower the poet.33
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell in Norfolk
and Multon in Suffolk to John Gower, Esquire, of Kent, and to his
heirs, by Guy de Rouclyf, clerk (Aug. 1), and release of warranty on
the above (Aug. 3)34.
6 Ric. II (Aug. 1382). Grant of the manors of Feltwell and Multon
by John Gower to Thomas Blakelake, parson of St. Nicholas,
Feltwell, and others, for his life, at a rent of £40, to be paid quarterly
in the Abbey Church of Westminster35. This grant was repeated 7
Ric. II (Feb. 1384)36.
The mention of Multon in the will of John Gower the poet makes it
practically certain that the above documents have to do with him.
17 Ric. II (1393). Henry of Lancaster presented John Gower,
Esquire, with a collar. This was mentioned by Nicolas as
communicated to him by Mr. G. F. Beltz from a record in the Duchy
of Lancaster Office. No further reference was given, and I have had
some difficulty in finding the record. It is, however, among the
accounts of the wardrobe of Henry of Lancaster for the year
mentioned37, and though not dated, it probably belongs to some
time in the autumn of 1393, the neighbouring documents in the same
bundle being dated October or November. It proves to be in fact an
order, directed no doubt to William Loveney, clerk of the Wardrobe to
the earl of Derby, for delivery of 26s. 8d. to one Richard Dancaster,
for a collar, on account of another collar given by the earl of Derby to
‘an Esquire John Gower’38. So elsewhere in the household accounts
of the earl of Derby we find a charge of 56s. 8d. for a silver collar for
John Payne, butler, ‘because my lord had given his collar to another