"true" before love, some definition is attempted in ordinary conversation.
When an Englishman speaks of "true love," he usually means something that
has no passion at all; he means a perfect friendship which grows up
between man and wife and which has nothing to do with the passion which
brought the pair together. But when the English poet speaks of love, he
generally means passion, not friendship. I am only stating very general
rules. You see how confusing the subject is, how difficult to define the
matter. Let us leave the definition alone for a moment, and consider the
matter philosophically.

Some very foolish persons have attempted even within recent years to make
a classification of different kinds of love--love between the sexes. They
talk about romantic love, and other such things. All that is utter
nonsense. In the meaning of sexual affection there is only one kind of
love, the natural attraction of one sex for them other; and the only
difference in the highest for of this attraction and the lowest is this,
that in the nobler nature a vast number of moral, aesthetic, and ethical
sentiments are related to the passion, and that in lower natures those
sentiments are absent. Therefore we may say that even in the highest forms
of the sentiment there is only one dominant feeling, complex though it be,
the desire for possession. What follows the possession we may call love if
we please; but it might better be called perfect friendship and sympathy.
It is altogether a different thing. The love that is the theme of poets in
all countries is really love, not the friendship that grows out of it.

I suppose you know that the etymological meaning of "passion" is "a state
of suffering." In regard to love, the word has particular significance to
the Western mind, for it refers to the time of struggle and doubt and
longing before the object is attained. Now how much of this passion is a
legitimate subject of literary art?