Where did romance come from?

Question

Was there romance in the proverbial "caveman" days? If so, how has it changed and what was its (evolutionary/psychological) purpose? How has it changed? If not, where did it come from?

Answer 1

Joseph Campbell's writings, I think, show very clearly the evolution of romance, he uses the term chivalry but in my mind the line can be drawn between the two, it's interesting to me the roll of the troubadours & how it was an almost political, social and personal struggle. …………………………………….

Campbell recognized that chivalry wasn’t stodgy or absurd. As he points out, prior to the Middle Ages, women (and men too) were largely puppets of familial necessity — they had little influence over their own destiny when it came to establishing romantic relationships or choosing life-partners. But in a world where marriage was primarily a means of establishing geographic or economic bonds between two clans, chivalry helped to tear down the centuries-old social customs that made wives little more than property and husbands political pawns.

In fact, Campbell explains that the troubadours (i.e., professional storytellers) of the Middle Ages weren’t just telling mindless tales of romance and dalliance, they were spreading a radical, almost subversive concept: That men and women could pursue their own destinies, fall in love and relate to one another as equals under a groundbreaking concept known as “courtly love.”

Here’s how Campbell explains chivalry’s revolutionary influence on 12th century culture:

The troubadours were the nobility of Provence and then later other parts of France and Europe. In Germany they’re known as the Minnesingers, the singers of love. Minne is the medieval German word for love. The period for the troubadours is the 12th century. The troubadours were very much interested in the psychology of love. And they’re the first ones in the West who really thought of love the way we do now — as a person-to-person relationship.

Before that, love was simply Eros, the god who excites you to sexual desire. This is not the experience of falling in love the way the troubadours understood it. Eros is much more impersonal than falling in love. You see, people didn’t know about Amor. Amor is something personal that the troubadours recognized.

The troubadours recognized Amor as the highest spiritual experience. With Amor we have a purely personal ideal. The kind of seizure that comes from the meeting of the eyes, as they say in the troubadour tradition, is a person-to-person experience. That’s completely contrary to everything the Church stood for (in medieval Europe).

You know, the usual marriage in traditional cultures was arranged for by the families. It wasn’t a person-to-person decision at all. In the Middle Ages, that was the kind of (impersonal) marriage that was sanctified by the Church. And so the troubadour idea of real person-to-person Amor was very dangerous.

When so many people today think of “chivalry” as a concept associated with antiquated social customs, it’s interesting to realize that the Code of Chivalry was originally a radical concept that shook the very foundations of European society and, in some ways, helped pave the way for the enlightened, humanistic attitudes of the Renaissance. Although the concept of courtly love that’s contained in the true medieval tradition of chivalry may seem tame, or even dowdy by 21st century standards, Campbell reminds us that the Code of Chivalry helped break down the repressive gender roles that existed at the time. As Bill Moyers surmised:

The point of all these pioneers in love is that they decided to be the author and means of their own self-fulfillment, that the realization of love is to be nature’s noblest work, and that they were going to take their wisdom from their own experience and not from dogma, politics, or any current concepts of social good.

Answer 2

Romance is just another form of developing a relationship with an object whether it be a person or a thing. When I was just a piece of genetic material I had a romance with other genetic materials in a way that the romance evolved into a bonding that is still effective today where I have had romances with many a person and then later a romance with my intrinsic ideas of superior quality forms of ascending to different levels of understanding.

Answer 3

The evolutionary psychological purpose of romance is competition.
To be romantic with someone is to be biased toward them, such that
one favors their survival and prosperity above that of others, and
potentially at the expense of others. Romance is related to reproduction,
so it makes evolutionary sense to be biased toward the other parent of
one's offspring.

Answer 4

Yes there was. If there was no romance, how did we all get here? Romance leads to both emotional and sexual intimacy, which helps in aiding sexual reproduction. In fact, cave women were just as dominant and wanted sex as much as the cave men did. Muy intersante!

Answer 5

Romance was there since the Adam and Eve days.It has changed with time because with time everything changes,this is the rule of nature.

Answer 6

..



Yes, there was romance. For the other 3
questions, I have to say I don't know.

I have to wonder if you're implying that
scientific analysis is cold. Science is
science, the arts or the arts.


..