Quick note on Byron and Property

I have to clean it up, but I put it here now for what its worth:

why does free indirect discourse arise at the end of the 18th century along with a way of surveying property--with a relationship to property?
the obviosu answer is that they are two sides of the same phenomenon: the rise of the economic gaze, the way of seeing things as a capitalist concretely.
but if this were true, would we not get something more like defoe?
if this were true, why the focus on the survey as immediate, quick, sketchy, and yet in tension with the forming of an aesthetic whole in that instant?
indeed, this is what the emphasis on landscape description as a reflection of the economic gaze would seem to overlook: the immediacy within this gaze, the lack of a distinct relationship to property, the lack of ownership as stable--i.e. as property.
Rather, we might just as well argue that this is a nostalgic gaze to a time when land was not property, when it has an immediate relationship to the person who moves through it precisely because he does not contractually own it, but inhabits it.
But here is the thing that is key: this would be to efface the focus on the forming power that comes about due to this immediacy. it is not directly a return, but what a return gives you--i.e. memory, nostalgia in the present, effecting concretely and psychologically the present--that is important. Being thrown back into a concrete relationship with the land in the present is what this yearning back to a lost, memoralized, immediate relationship gives you. It is the start of the via negativa, but through the shock of memory throwing you back, ejecting you back into the present, and the present as space, as land. It is the rejection of time in order to relate to owned space, land.
This is why Byron's Childe Harold is so interesting: it takes this into the orient not wholly as a colonizing vision, but as a nostalgic vision. it thereby accomplishes free indirect discourse, in a poem, which could not unify the poem with relationship to any person that is uttering it. it is the suspension between two viewers, the getting thrown back out of the view and onto the land itself as nontemporal, and yet owned, space, that is accomplished throughout the poem. it is this that is its unity; not the growth or development of a particular character, whether this be the narrator or the childe. the whole poem is a staging of the subtraction of time from the economic point of view, the ahistorizing of ownership, the birth of the fetish. it is a subtraction that transforms its remainder into a spatial trace, an affective trace, a feeling of immediacy or sublimity. but this is also because it is the destruction of memory, the destruction of the archive (cf archive fever) the death drive that produces the fetish, the subtraction of time.