Larkin wrote An Arundel Tomb following a holiday with Monica Jones, visiting the monument of the Earl of Arundel clasping hands with his wife in Chichester Cathedral. The piece focuses on how time has changed this monument. Initially, Larkin establishes the statue as he sees it, describing how the earl and his wife lie. He then explores how the meaning of this couple has been lost as visitors view the monument superficially. Ultimately, the poem concludes that the couple is solely remembered for this gesture which is interpreted as a symbol of eternal love.
Firstly, Larkin establishes a description of the statue in a casual and dispassionate tone through which he explores the passage of time, its effect on the monument, and its meaning to those who view it. Larkin expresses that the faces of the statue have become ‘blurred’. This suggests that time has removed the identity of the couple as they are no longer seen due to erosion of their faces. When we read that they ‘lie in stone’, it recalls the image from Talking in Bed, a couple lying together in increasingly stony silence. This lack of identity can further be seen when Larkin expresses that their ‘habits are vaguely shown’. This limits the reader in picturing the couple and suggests viewers are oblivious to how the couple lived as the effigy provides little information about their lives. Larkin’s use of enjambment traces the movement of what he sees, as the words ‘shown as jointed armour’ spreads over two lines, suggesting he has only just noticed the ‘jointed armour’. The effigy is further established through the indication of the time period of its creation with ‘plainness of the pre-baroque’. This is mirrored in the plain, end-stopped lines of the stanza’s structure showing something from a different age, with medieval simplicity and lack of ornament. The iambic tetrameter is broken through the speaker’s piqued interest in the couple holding hands, causing Larkin a ‘sharp tender shock’ as he views ‘his hand (…) holding her hand’. The juxtaposition shows how moved he is by this gesture of abiding love. Further, it is notable that there is a clear, simple structure, using an ABBCAC rhyme scheme, in order to reflect the simplicity of the effigy.
Larkin proceeds to indicate the historical changes which time has brought. The couple appear to recover from the anachronistic modern response and Larkin regains detachment following interest at the couple holding hands. The alliteration that the couple did not expect to ‘lie so long’, suggests that though time, the monument has gained a different meaning than initially intended. Further, Larkin indicates the sculptor unintentionally created the apparent transcendence achieved, as the vivid human touch was merely ‘sculptor’s […] grace’. This suggests that the beauty of the monument was only to focus the viewers mind on what was important to medieval eyes which was prolonging the Latin names and that the clasped hands are a perhaps a deception of their fidelity to each other. Additionally, Larkin suggests the passage of time by indicating that ‘Latin names’ accompany the tomb. This implies how archaic this tomb is as Latin is no longer spoken, so modern viewers can only comprehend the expression of the couple, which they interpret as love and faithfulness. This link to the medieval past is similar to Love Songs in Age in which the sheet music provides the speaker with memories of pre-marital life. Larkin also suggests the passage of time by indicating a change in admirers of the monument. Initially, we hear that ‘old tenantry’ admired their earl and countess through the monument. We learn that they have been ‘succeed[ed]’ as the generations have changed. This suggests that originally the admirers were acquainted with the couple; however, modern viewers admire the monument unaware of the couple’s identity. In addition, we learn how those ‘succeeding’ ‘look not read’ the monument suggesting that the hopes of the couple being remembered for who they were have vanished as what remains of them is just the beauty of their posture.
Finally, Larkin presents the idea that time has removed the identity of the earl and his wife and how time has given them a different meaning, as they now imply something never intended. The poem now has a smooth, soporific tone, contrasting with jagged verse lines, accompanied by a shift in attitude, for example, the soft alliteration that ‘birdcalls strewed the same’. Enjambment guides the reader through the fourth stanza to the fifth conveying the relentless flow of time. The poet describes the endurance of the monument also suggesting the passage of time. For instance, we learn the couple are ‘linked, through lengths and breadths of time’. Enjambment enacts this linking as the sense spans the two stanzas and suggests while the world around them is changing, the couple is protectively ‘linked’. Larkin conveys the passage of seasons to suggest how time has passed, for example, ‘snow fell’ and ‘light each summer thronged the glass’. This imagery creates an appearance of purity and cleansing, additionally establishing the spiritual cleansing effect of visiting the monument. Larkin then highlights the vast numbers of people that have passed since the monument was created by stating that the cemetery is now ‘bone-riddled’. This compound adjective, typical of Larkin, suggests the passage of time since the monument was created as the ground is now filled with the ‘bone[s]’ of those who have passed since the couple died. Larkin further indicates how the viewers of the monument have changed as ‘endless altered people came’. This could be interpreted that generations of people viewing the monument have passed. Alternatively, it could imply that those who view the monument are emotionally ‘altered’ through the gesture of eternal love. Furthermore, we learn that the past becomes irrelevant as the couple now exists in an unfamiliar ‘unarmorial age’ suggesting that the couple would feel lost in an age that doesn’t understand heraldic device. Larkin urges the reader to comprehend what we interpret of the effigy was not initially intended, expressing that only an ‘attitude’ and ‘untruth’ remain of the couple. This suggests that what we see of them now is deceptive as they did not intend to be remembered as such a powerful symbol of love. Ultimately the poet questions the romantic notion of what will remain of us after our death, with ambivalence. The last and arguably most significant line of the poem questions ‘what survives of us is love’. This line could be viewed as suggesting that love can conquer all, including death. But this is only an ‘almost instinct’ which is ‘almost true’, suggesting it is not: it is just what we would like to believe.