An Arundel Tomb Analysis

The Whitsun Weddings1956Side by side, their faces blurred,

The earl and countess lie in stone,

Their proper habits vaguely shown

As jointed armour, stiffened pleat,

And that faint hint of the absurd -

The little dogs under their feet.Such plainness of the pre-baroque

Hardly involves the eye, until

It meets his left-hand gauntlet, still

Clasped empty in the other; and

One sees, with a sharp tender shock,

His hand withdrawn, holding her hand.They would not think to lie so long.

Such faithfulness in effigy

Was just a detail friends would see:

A sculptor's sweet commissioned grace

Thrown off in helping to prolong

The Latin names around the base.They would no guess how early in

Their supine stationary voyage

The air would change to soundless damage,

Turn the old tenantry away;

How soon succeeding eyes begin

To look, not read. Rigidly theyPersisted, linked, through lengths and breadths

Of time. Snow fell, undated. Light

Each summer thronged the grass. A bright

Litter of birdcalls strewed the same

Bone-littered ground. And up the paths

The endless altered people came,Washing at their identity.

Now, helpless in the hollow of

An unarmorial age, a trough

Of smoke in slow suspended skeins

Above their scrap of history,

Only an attitude remains:Time has transfigured them into

Untruth. The stone fidelity

They hardly meant has come to be

Their final blazon, and to prove

Our almost-instinct almost true:

What will survive of us is love.

.: :.

I am currently studying this poem for an English studies exam. I believe that Larkin is addressing the theme of mortality. the reader gets the impression that the two cast in stone wished to be preserved as they were in life, and the second stanza decribes the "immortality of their love" . in cocnlusion i hate this poem. it is wasting all my time.

| Posted on 2008-11-27 | by a guest

.: my analysis :.

After studying this hard ready for my exam on it tomorrow i think i will add my viewpoint to this poem.
The poem is not about love directly, it's about time and mortality as we see from it how the symbol of the holding hands was "just a detail" showing that their love what not what was meant to be remembered that the latin around the base was, but as time progressed people only see the gesture and take that to be the soul point of the statue, when it is not. "Time has transfigured them into untruth".
Furthermore, this poem is so cleverly written, the frequent use of words with double meanings adds to the ambiguity and beauty of the poem. "proper habits" - could mean clothes or could mean their behaviour. "involves the eye" invloves can either be taken it its latin to mean moves, and what is more modernly thought of as to be interested in. The "washing at their identity" is also one as we are left unsure whether it is those visiting or the statue that is having their identity washed at (i personally believe the first)
Also, there is frequent sibilance in the poem, adding to the synaesthesia of the poem. (the way it appeals to all the senses).
The ambiguity is further shown in the final lines of the poem, in the use of "almost". Plus the final line is almost left open for the readers view. The word "love" seems to show it is the most important word in the line, but is it realy after reading the poem?
I love this poem so much as it really makes you think about the effects of time.
I suggest for further reading Abbey Tomb by Patricia Beer as it deals with the same theme, but is also slightly comic aswell.

| Posted on 2008-05-20 | by a guest

.: :.

As other contributions suggest, this poem can be read as an appraisal of our "almost instict" to believe in the enduring quality of love, which for Larkin is a fallacy. We can come to this conclusion as the detail that was simple "thrown off" by the sculptor - their holding hands - is now the quality which "survives... us": now we look at the couple and dismiss their real existence for a contrite summary inspired by one simple detail which signifies little but comforts us a s we think of their togetherness in death. It is worthwhile remembering at this point that in "Aubade", Larkin states:
"Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die"
suggesting he is pretty clear himself about whether the Earl and Countess are living "happily ever after"...
However, in addition, to this consider what Larkin is saying about art and how interpreation is down to the "audience" in its many forms. Is this poem, therefore, a call for the mausoleum, and in turn, Larkin's poetry to be properly "read" rather thank simple looked at? Thus we are asked to see Larkin as somthing more than, as he self deprecatingly asserts in "Posterity", an "old fart" who is "One of those old-type natural fouled-up guys"

| Posted on 2008-05-01 | by a guest

.: lie :.

the ambiguity of the word "lie" poses the question in the readers mind: are they couple only physically lying down, lying about their love for one another?

| Posted on 2008-02-16 | by a guest

.: lie :.

the ambiguity of the word "lie" poses the question in the readers mind: are they couple only physically lying down, lying about their love for one another?

| Posted on 2008-02-16 | by a guest

.: :.

I dont feel that the couple are being remebered for the love they shared, notice the embigous use of the word 'lie' in the second line. Also the line 'that faint hint of the absurd'. It matches with what Larkin said about relationships "love is an ideal, which condemns to dissapointment."

| Posted on 2007-12-01 | by a guest

.: The point of the poem :.

From reading the poem I feel the point Larkin is trying to get across is that the statue has been preserved through time however because of the alterations to society (can no longer read Latin) they have been remembered for the wrong reasons. Basically, instead of being remembered for how brave the man is he is only recognised for his love for his wife as he is holding her hand whereas if nowadays we could read Latin we would be able to read the marvellous things he did in his life.

| Posted on 2007-04-26 | by a guest

.: :.

e fourth stanza Larkin writes about 'their supine stationary voyage'. The inbuilt contradiction within this phrase is used by Larkin to suggest a richer sense of contradiction and paradox; the figures themselves have not moved, but they have still voyaged through time, and possibly (but only possibly) the love which they may have felt for each other has not simply survived, but has been transformed in that voyage through time.
Stanza five has more to it, I feel, then any other stanza. Larkin uses a lot of imagery here. Instead of writing about what he assumes things mean, he describes what he actually sees and uses a lot of positive, creative words. In the first line there are words like 'persisted', 'lengths' and 'breadths'. All these words have a slow 's' sound to them, which gives the impression of passing through time and because there is three of them in a longer sentence it emphasises it even more, stretching it out. Here Larkin is talking about the passage of time. He mentions the seasons, there is snow I winter, light each summer and bird call in the spring. Not only does he talk about the outside world changing, he also mentions the 'altered people'. The people are altered in the sense that they can no longer read the Latin, or that the older forms of social arrangement (peasantry and tenantry) have changed. But are they altered in other ways? Like their views on love? He says that the people came, 'washing at their identity'. On surface value the reader may think that Larkin means the erosi

| Posted on 2006-01-05 | by Approved Guest