Well, it turns out that someone else has already made my lament/sublime argument. . . and a good part of my lament/elegy argument. That made me feel pretty disappointed. It's a very good article that this other person has written.

I guess the question for me now is what can I add to the discussion?

Partly, I suppose, I can structure my argument in a tighter and more comprehensive way, and in my own little way try to imitate Sacks' The English Elegy by a) taking a broader historical approach, from the Greek goos through the German baroque Trauerspiel and so on; b) drawing a tighter, clearer contrast between elegy and lamentation than Austin does; and c) introducing the element of psychoanalysis by discussing loss and separation. I may be flattering myself, but I think I have some chance of introducing breadth to Austin's treatment of the issue and making the comparison in a more complete and elegant way. Her article is elegant (and, I think, true) but it is somewhat historically limited, I think. One could treat the same issues with greater breadth and more incisive focus (both at once). I also think that elegy and the beautiful are fundamentally related, and I wonder if I could prove it.

Of course, once I get this on paper, I can do something new and exciting by applying it to Old English verse. . .

I wonder how new it really is to say that lament relates to the moment of loss or separation, while elegy relates to the work of mourning? I have not seen that before. . .