Talk:An Arundel Tomb

untitled

Changed to mid importance - it's prevalence as an exam piece (I understand) alone justifies that :-) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in the importance rating for the Poetry project, but these ratings really are just a system that allows us to prioritize articles that need attention. At present, the project has about 32 members , of which only about 5 are active at any given time, working on over 2,250 articles. In general, articles on poems do not tend to score very high on importance b/c when Quatrain has such a poor representation, the project's attention would probably be better spent on other areas. If you feel this article needs attention, as it definitely does, please feel free to work on it. If you would like to help the project look at other articles on poems, feel free to join and help. Mrathel (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

history of sculpture - incorporate??

This poem was inspired by a real tomb of real people. They were Richard Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel and Eleanor his wife. She died in 1372 and he died in 1376. The carvings are currently in Chichester Cathedral. They were originally sited in Lewes Priory but were saved after the dissolution of that Priory (circa 1536)and transferred to Chichester. The individual figures were drawn in 1781 by S. H. Grimm. The drawings show the Earl with his right hand gauntletted holding the left gauntlett. His left arm is broken about six 1nches below the shoulder. His wife has her left hand folded under her robes with the hand placed on her heart. Her right arm is extended across her waist towards the Earl but in 1781 is broken six inches below the elbow. What is very unusual about her pose is that she is carved with her right leg over her left leg so that her whole body is turned towards the Earl. All other couples I have seen lie flat on their backs side by side. The reference for the drawing is BL Add. MS 29925, fol. 26. This evidence was used by E. A. Richardson to suggest they were originally joined together and the statues were restored as such. This was subsequently questioned . Current interpretation in the Cathedral explains that further proof has now been obtained that shows that this reconstruction of the figures is true to their original form. For tombs of this date there are never any Latin inscriptions, so this part of the poem is poetic licence. At that time very few people could read at all. Literate people were usually clerics. There is some question about whether the tomb chest on which the figures lie is the original but this should not spoil the fact that a real tenderness was expressed back in 1375. This is the year that the two sculptures were shipped from Poole in Dorset to London and subsequently transported to Lewes. In the Earls will written in December 1375 he specifically instructs that his tomb in the Chapter House of Lewes should not be higher than his wife's. Thus he probably saw the completed effigies before his death and approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf Heben (talk • contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is copy-pasted from this 2006 comment about the poem. I agree the effigy itself is notable enough for a separate discussion, perhaps best in Richard's bio article (because he was the one who commissioned the effigy).

The above comment is wrong about the "2nd Earl of Arundel", he was the 10th, or depending on how you count then 9th Earl of Arundel. The plaque in the church has "13th", but I assume this is also a mistake. It doesn't help that these Earls of Arundel had all very similar names.

I do like Larkin's poem for how it picks out and meditates on a medieval love story, but he gets altogether too many things wrong, both about the tomb itself and about the supposed intentions behind it, producing a rather condescending view of the "plainness of the pre-baroque". I feel an educated and capable poet like Larkin could have done without the attitude of "we are the educated modernists looking down on the naivete of the dark ages, we are".

There are clearly not "two little dogs", but one great hound, and one lion. Also, the claim that "The drawings show the Earl with his right hand gauntletted holding the left gauntlet" is probably wrong, as the poem also mixes up left and right hand. The effigy of the earl is clearly holding his right golve in his left hand. I doubt they could have inverted this arrangement in restoration after 1781.

I even doubt that the BL reference is correct, as the drawing in question appears to be Add. MS. 5675, f.58 The sketch in Add. MS 29925 is not by Grimm but by John Carter. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Distinction needs to be made: Not a "tomb" but a "memorial"

The poem refers to the effigy figures as a "tomb", but the effigy figures are a "memorial", not a "tomb". When the article refers specifically to the title of the poem, the word "tomb" must be used; however, the word "memorial" is more accurate when referring specifically to the stone effigies. We cannot even be certain that the stone effigy figures are Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel, and his wife Eleanor of Lancaster.

These pictures are not of a "tomb", but a "memorial". Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel, and his wife Katherine Mortimer were not buried at Chichester Cathedral. They are buried at Lewes Priory. I contacted Chichester Cathedral to clear up the confusion. (I had a source that cited Richard's will, stating burial at L)ewes. Then there are these pictures and Wikipedia articles that show the Chichester effigies as being a "tomb".) Below is the text of the email I received from Canon Dr Anthony Cane, Chancellor, Chichester Cathedral; Sent: 30 July 2014 10:46, via the Chichester Cathedral Education Officer.

"The Cathedral was severely damaged during the English Civil War. In the nineteenth century the Cathedral had a number of monuments that had been vandalised or were badly decayed, and not necessarily in their original positions. In 1843 the Dean and Chapter decided to have the ‘Arundel tomb’ restored. The mutilated figures had been lying on tables against the north wall of the north aisle for two centuries. They were then moved to their present position and restored. This, I suggest, makes it most unlikely that there is any burial material there. In any case, we do not know for certain who the figures are, as there is no contemporary attribution. The date and features of the tomb make the attribution plausible, but not certain.

Canon Dr Anthony Cane

Chancellor, Chichester Cathedral"

--Ninanta (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)