I am afraid that I am going to stick to my guns, however much my view of romance is contrary to the long history of romance in world literature, I thinking that, Ovid and Chaucer to the contrary, love is understood until Jane Austen as it was with Dante’s Francesca and Paolo, who resided in the second circle of Hell because they were people separated by a mad passion from social life rather than integrated with one another and into society. Romance is not part of human nature and so there as long as there have been people. To the contrary, it was invented much more recently, even after the American and French revolutions. What Jane Austen invented in the second decade of the Nineteenth Century was that real romance meant that the couple would find their mutual devotion by coming to deeply understand their characters and would also find a way for the lovers to find the social situation that suited them and that the couple could emotionally prosper by being part of social life rather than isolated from it, which is also the idea that marriage counselors will say. This revolution was so powerful that the previous dispensation was suffused in its light even if Twentieth Century critics reinvent the Dante idea of love as the real meaning of love, but such are the avenues and lanes whereby cultural adaptations evolve, ever tracking back on themselves as they claim to be doing something new, as happens when politicians think they are inventing new ways to be free when they are repeating cliches of previous generations.