… then THIS poem is directly about Arthur Henry Hallam — “who died suddenly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Vienna in 1833, aged 22.” (Thank you Google and probably wikipedia)
Published in 1850 – which is the same year Alfred Tennyson married Emily Sellwood. Arthur Hallam’s death would have been 3 or 4 years earlier – so the “love” being lost was his best friend.
The English has a LOT of words – and also a LOT of meanings/connotations for single words. SO “love” gets used a lot in different contexts – allowing for multiple interpretations.
Any “close reading” requires a consideration of the society in which the author is writing – e.g. ancient Greek men talking about “love” is much different than Victorian England men talking about “love.”
An internet commentary speculated that Arthur Hallam and Alfred Tennyson were such close friends that if Mr Hallam hadn’t died that Alfred Tennyson may never have married – which is simply ridiculous.
Yes, they were very close – but any sense of “modern homoeroticism” is being inserted by modern readers. Arthur Hallam was engaged to Tennyson’s younger sister (obviously before his untimely death). Alfred Tennyson wouldn’t meet his future wife for a couple years after Hallam’s death – as mentioned earlier.
For MOST of human history the idea that it possible to “love” someone in a “non sexual manner” has been a given. Obvioulsy “love” and “sex” are NOT synonyms – so if Arthur Hallam had lived Tennyson probably wouldn’t have written “In Memoriam” but he still would have married Emily Sellwood.
Now you can argue about which form of “love” is strongest if you like – but the point (here at least) is that it is possible to love a “best friend” one way and a “romantic partner” another way.
ANYWAY – what I really learned from reciting this poem is that I have no rhythm – or maybe my “rhythm” is from 1950/60 crooners (Crosby/Sinatra/Darin) and not Victorian England 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjT6k8BGjEM