The first line is seperated symmetrically by a single comma, and this caesura gives a sense of two lovers lying side-by-side. The seperation of the line immidiately made me question whether an emotional or physical seperation is present between the two stone characters in question. Their faces are described as being 'blurred', giving the impression of worn stone and a loss of realism in recreation. The male figure wears 'jointed armour [and] stiffended pleat' - this suggests a medieval era with connotations of wealth, and the hard, cold armour contrasts intriguingly with the innocent intimacy of 'His hand withdrawn, holding her hand'. Larkin appears to be surprised by this display of affection amongst 'Such plainess of the pre-baroque' (simple, expected architecture): 'One sees, with a sharp tender shock'.
However, he goes on to suggest that this surface of intimacy and love is in fact untrue. The first line of the third stanza reads: 'They would not think to lie so long'. The word 'lie' at first produces an image of the figures lying down on their backs, but on further inspection the word appears to hold the connotations of untruth. It could be argued that Larkin is telling the reader of how the hand-holding is a false image of love, and that the characters were prehaps not intimate when alive. He then tells of how the 'faithfulness in effigy / Was just a detail friends would see'; this implies that the faith shown to the naked eye is not a true representation of the love which the figures felt for each other, but instead an artificial detail which has been indented in cold stone at the hands of the sculptor. This point is strengthened in the final lines of the third stanza, as Larkin describes how the sculptor 'help[s] to prolong / The Latin names around the base' - they are keeping up the appearance of the sculpture to please the public, and the real decay of love over time is hidden from the eyes of the viewer.
The second line of the fourth stanza obtains an interesting oxymoron: 'Their supine stationary voyage'. This gives the impression that although the two figures are lying on their backs, unmoving, they are still undertaking a voyage, and this could represent the voyage of time and decay, referring to both their love and their physical states. Larkin expresses how the 'soon succeeding eyes begin / To look, not read'; this refers to an ever-changing society made up of those who can no longer read Latin, so instead base their understanding of the monument solely on its' appearance.
In the fifth stanza, Larkin describes the snow which falls 'undated' outside the surroundings of the sculpture. This presents the idea that time has no relevance to those who are dead, creating a tone of isolation by also making them appear untouchable. He goes on to describe the happenings of nature throughout the fifth stanza, presenting the environment as irrational and random, contrasting to the sculptures as it is not controlled by man. The 'endless altered people' are described as 'Washing at [the monuments'] identity', portraying how the more people who come to see them, the more the holding of hands becomes their complete identity - the public see nothing else. In the next line, Larkin uses the word 'hollow' to create a sad and empty tone.
The seventh stanza begins with a line which depicts the way in which the faithfulness shown through the intimate hand-hold is not an accurate representation of the truth: 'Time has transfigured them into / Untruth'. Larkin goes on to tell of how 'The stone fidelity / They hardly meant has come to be / Their final blazon' - this suggests that the affectionate gesture was almost an accident, a detail implimented which was not a true portrayal of love after death, yet it has become the sole identity of the monument. It seems that Larkin is pointing out how the surface may hold an untruth, and below the appearance of adoration, there is the simple truth that love decays alongside death.
The final line of the seventh stanza runs into the final stanza of two lines: 'and to prove / Our almost-instinct almost true: What will survive of us is love'. These final lines could be interpretated in different ways; it could be argued that Larkin is in fact finally agreeing that love will survive after death. However, my personal opinion is that he is revealing that we, as mankind, have an instinct to believe that what will survive of us is love, whereas this is only 'almost true', suggesting that it is in fact false.
No comments:
Post a Comment