6/28/08

So, yesterday I was just writing down an overview of the potential paper/article ideas I had been generating through this weekly writing, and I combined two ideas in a way I found really interesting.

The homoeroticism of lyric starts to change dramatically under James I, because homosexuality now has a deep political valence. (It always had some political implications, of course, but now talking about it attracts attention.) Moreover, as Hammond shows, the work of the poets from (made-up date) 1620 on, carefully attempts to straighten out (ahem) friendship and homosexuality. Marvell is an interesting case, of course--I suppose all the cases are interesting. What I'm interested in is whether the construction of the canon that happens at around the same time is related. That is, if the peer relation charged with desire made available in the homo-eroticism of lyric has to go away, one's models for a relationship with an older male poet are friendship and succession. It's real clear that of those two options, succession ultimately wins--one can't be a friend to Virgil in the equals-of-the-same-age model; one can be Corydon to his Alexis (or is it the other way around).

What I'm interested in now is how to demonstrate this kind of argument. I'm thinking that Barnfield's Affectionate Shepherd & his defense of it are a good first step--the Barnfield--Blount relationship is something of a model for the Barnfield--Sidney relationship. From there, I need to go into Vergil & E/n pastoral's recognition of the fact that there are always other shepherds (Hobbinol, E.K., etc etc)--into Sean Keilen/The Light In Troy. What I'm weak on is the poetry of the very early 1600's. I need to be able to show a change in pastoral, a change in poetics, and the burgeoning of the canon.

In pastoral, of course, there are always other shepherds.

There's a confusion I'm making here, though, between the absent beloved, the nonreciprocating beloved, and the dead beloved.