after a second funeral

[suprunp]

A renowned artist who happened to be stopping here on his way to Europe painted, with pathos-laden realism, a gigantic canvas in which Dr. Urbino was depicted on the ladder at the fatal moment when he stretched out his hand to capture the parrot. [...] So that everyone would have the chance to see it, the painting was exhibited for a few months after the tragedy (the death of Dr. Urbino*) in the vast gallery of The Golden Wire [...]. Then it was displayed on the walls of all the public and private institutions that felt obliged to pay tribute to the memory of their illustrious patron, and at last it was hung, after a second funeral, in the School of Fine Arts, where it was pulled down many years later by art students who burned it in the Plaza of the University as a symbol of an aesthetic and a time they despised.
(Love in the Time of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez)

Does the author allude to a funeral that he will probably mention later on?

I've tried to search through the text in the hope of finding some mention of this 'second funeral', but I've failed and the story seems to be reversing and telling us about the events that had happened a good deal before even the 'first funeral'.

Thanks.

*My note

[birdeen's call]

Does the author allude to a funeral that he will probably mention later on?

Not necessarily, no. He says there was a second funeral and that the picture was hung in the School of Fine Arts after it. I haven't read the book, but on seeing this passage, I would actually think it's not going to be mentioned anymore. It looks like a digression to me.

[suprunp]

Not necessarily, no. He says there was a second funeral and that the picture was hung in the School of Fine Arts after it. I haven't read the book, but on seeing this passage, I would actually think it's not going to be mentioned anymore. It looks like a digression to me.

So, the author might have suggested by it that another funeral 'required' a space for, allegedly, another picture (supposedly, of that another person) to pay tribute to the memory of him/her, therefore the picture of Dr. Urbino was permanently moved to the School of Fine Arts.

Incidentally, this 'digression' made me think and search about that 'second funeral' for quite a long time. I don't know if this could have left someone else pondering over it, but, in my humble opinion, if it read, for example, "after another funeral" it wouldn't have been so confusing, at least to me.

[birdeen's call]

So, the author might have suggested by it that another funeral 'required' a space for, allegedly, another picture (supposedly, of that another person) to pay tribute to the memory of him/her, therefore the picture of Dr. Urbino was permanently moved to the School of Fine Arts.

Incidentally, this 'digression' made me think and search about that 'second funeral' for quite a long time. I don't know if this could have left someone else pondering over it, but, in my humble opinion, if it read, for example, "after another funeral" it wouldn't have been so confusing, at least to me.

Oh, I think I understand what you mean, at least partly. Do you think that was someone else's funeral? I don't know that but my first thought was that it was the same person both times.

[suprunp]

Oh, I think I understand what you mean, at least partly. Do you think that was someone else's funeral? I don't know that but my first thought was that it was the same person both times.

My first thought was similar to yours. Then I dismissed this as a highly impossible thing.

What I mean is that if the author* wanted to simply 'digress' (and after your suggestion I have little doubt about it) he might have preferred to say something like: "after another big funeral" or "after the funeral of Mr. XXX" to tell an unsophisticated reader that it isn't a relevant part of the narrative. But, in my book, the phrase "after a second funeral" underlines that the funeral of Dr. Urbino was the first one important to the story and then came the second one of which we still know nothing.

*Translated by Edith Grossman

[birdeen's call]

My first thought was similar to yours. Then I dismissed this as a highly impossible thing.

(You might have meant "highly improbable". Impossibility isn't gradable.)
Why impossible? Some people do have more than one funeral.

What I mean is that if the author* wanted to simply 'digress' (and after your suggestion I have little doubt about it) he might have preferred to say something like: "after another big funeral" or "after the funeral of Mr. XXX" to tell an unsophisticated reader that it isn't a relevant part of the narrative. But, in my book, the phrase "after a second funeral" underlines that the funeral of Dr. Urbino was the first one important to the story and then came the second one of which we still know nothing.

I'm not sure why "after another big funeral" should tell us more about the irrelevance of the funeral that "after a second funeral" does. Since the author doesn't explain the matter any further in this place, my instant reaction is, "OK, not important." I believe the whole passage is a digression (but please remember that I know nothing about the book other than your quotation). Note how the author only outlines the events, as if he only wanted to let us know what happened but without any depth. It looks like an epilogue. OK, you know the story. Now I'll just tell you shortly what happened next in case you're curious.

[suprunp]

Thank you, birdeen's call!

Since the author doesn't explain the matter any further in this place, my instant reaction is, "OK, not important."

This time my mind decided that this might have been something important...
As if I didn't have enough problems without it!

I'll try not to think about this anymore.