Thanks for the question, Rosie, and for being a Regency Reader!
I think this is a big and tough question, worthy of a dissertation amount of research. However, I have tried to condense what scholars have suggested, as well as what I have observed from my decades of research into the era.
The Romantic movement, or romanticism, is highly affiliated with the Regency era, filling many tomes of literature and philosophy, as well as informing visual arts. Romanticism emphasized the individual, irrational, emotional, and transcendental among other things, emphasizing the beauty of nature and focusing on senses rather than intellect. Contrasted with industrialization and rapid urbanization was the sense of loss people were grappling with as they left the countryside and agricultural livelihoods to dense, urban centers where living conditions were highly unregulated and often unsanitary. Throughout the many mediums of art, Regency people (at least the priveleged and literate) would have been exposed to these themes that favored pleasure, beauty, and emotion over rational acting. In this way, there was significant cultural influence to think about making a love match.
Perhaps the most notable of romantics was Lord Byron, who said of love, “Friendship may, and often does, grow into love, but love never subsides into friendship.” Wordsworth, too, sad “Love is like a wild rose-briar; Friendship is like a holly-tree. The holly is dark when the rose-briar blooms, but which will bloom most constantly.” It is clear in romantic poetry that there are a variety of loves expressed, but I have highlighted here a marked difference between the love of friendship and romantic love.
However, romanticism was arguably not the introduction of romantic love to literature. We only have to look at long regarded influential works, like that of Shakespeare, to understand that romantic love has long had a place in the imaginations, if not lives, of people. During the Regency, the gothic novel would promote in a titillating way the romantic concepts of heroism, love, and nature so that many impressionable readers would find themselves longing for such sweeping, grand and treacherous loves. Austen was in many ways (and not just Northanger Abbey) a response to the gothic novel and romanticism, bringing realism into the mundane but with a comic flair that has kept her also long regarded as an influential author. Austen portrayed love in many forms, romantic, friendship, and kinship, although she had fun poking at the more dramatic, gothic types of love. Marianne could have been a tragic figure, but is redeemed by the more solid, persistent love of Col. Brandon. In this portrayal, we see an infatuation type of love (Willoughby) compared with a more mature love (Brandon). Or in the case of the favorite Elizabeth we get a look at three possible trajectories with love and marriage (Wickham, arguably infatuation), Collins (practical, convenience) and Darcy (true love). In a brilliant adaptation of Northanger Abbey, heroine Catherine in the 2007 film seems to be experiencing an erotic awakening through gothic novels. Her own growth is realized through startling mundane and realistic insights, which finally restore her to a position of earning true love with Henry. This is juxtaposed with the scheming interests of Miss Thorpe, who tries to climb the ladder of successful matches through her sexuality and wits, ultimately leaving her a ruined woman. She is ruined precisely because she ignores the mundane and the real in favor of fantasy, a lesson Catherine is well to pay heed.
I am not sure if the distinction is universally as you have stated being in love = infatuation and loving someone = real love. I do know the Ancient Greeks had at least nine different words for different types of love, including eros (sexual), philia (soul connection), agape (unconditional) , philautia (self-love), storge (devoted), pragma (mature), and xenia (hospitality). This would have been understood and known by many. I think thinking about these themes with reference to Austen’s works is a good way to mull over how she situates her main characters, particularly with respect to love and marriage. There are certainly the Charlotte Lucas’ of the world, who chose convenience and protection over love. But we have Fanny (Mansfield Park) who agonizes over a long standing, unconditional love compared with a more infatuation type love.
Equally understood, at least in privileged classes, was the concept of an arranged marriage based on wealth building or creating dynastic connections. This was not uncommon throughout history, and certainly not during the long Regency. There were the Charlotte Lucas’ and Miss Steeles and Miss Thorpes, who would make matches for pecuniary reasons. But there were also the true heroes and heroines who would seek out inspiration, deep understanding, and connection.
Writers like Balogh have a good understanding of the cultural context in which they write and play, particularly as someone who has written in the genre for decades. There is an authenticity in her world building that speaks to real love. This is why so many authors and aspiring authors relish Jane Austen. There is a realism in her works and a legacy from her letters that suggest that love was a complex thing that Austen wanted to remove from the gothic melodrama and plant squarely in the world that existed between gentlemen and ladies.
Love is such a peculiar thing, a nonsensical thing, a magical thing that I think its endured as a complex, nearly unknowable thing throughout human history. During the Regency era, this was heightened by not only romanticism but also by a changing world, where love could serve as an anchor.
I do think that contemporary historical authors do not write with absolute historical accuracy. While I love authenticity and detail in the historical romance I read, I also appreciate that the mechanism of time and time period is used to help readers work out themes in their own lives. How an author situates modern dilemmas against a different time period is one that needs to be done with care and caution. And even greats like Balogh sometimes get it wrong.
But I think its safe to say that notions of being in love and loving someone are not much different than they were in the Regency. The greatest difference are likely social pressures and circumstance, as well as a relative empowerment of women to vote, to earn a living, to have their own money, that have changed the reasons why people marry as well as whether or not they can divorce.
Thanks for the opportunity to visit this topic, I hope my answer provides something to think on. As always, I welcome debate in the comments below.
More Reading:
Abed, A. L. H. T. (2024). The True Love in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Nanar journal for Humanities and social scienes, 1(1).
Andrzejczuk, N. (2023). Different approaches to love and marriage in Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen.
Biajoli, M. C. P. (2017). Jane Austen, heroine: Looking for love. Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal On-Line, 38(1).
Brown, L. W. (1973). Jane Austen and the feminist tradition. Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 28(3), 321-338.
Karandashev, V. (2017). Love During the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. In: Romantic Love in Cultural Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42683-9_6
Victorian LOVE REVEALED: Marriage Evolution in 19th Century England
