THOMAS HARDY’S BURIAL

Otago Witness, Issue 3854, 24 January 1928, Page 27

THOMAS HARDY’S BURIAL

BURIAL OF THE HEART.

PREVIOUS INSTANCES RECALLED. RUGBY, January 15. In reference to Mr Thomas Hardy's burial arrangements, it is stated that numerous other instances of the burial of the heart apart from the body are recorded by history, but such cases have been very rare in modern times. The tragic fate of the poet Shelley is recalled. When Shelley’s body was ’ cast ashore near Viareggio (Italy) in July, 1822. it wag for a time buried in the sand. Later, in the presence of Byron, Hunt, and Trelawney, it was cremated to permit the interment of the ashes in the Protestant cemetery at Rome. The heart, which would not burn, was snatched from the flames by Trelawney. It wag given to Mary Shelley, and is now at Bournemouth.

IMPRESSIVE AND MAJESTIC. RUGBY, January 16. Westminster Abbey was filled with mourners when the ashes of Thomas Hardy were buried this afternoon in the Poet’s Corner. Great figures in literature and art were among the many distinguished men and women who occupied the north and south transepts, while 1000 of the general public were assembled in the nave. Large numbers of admirers of the great writer were unable to gain admission, and stood outside bareheaded in silent reverence while the service was in progress. The King, the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of York were represented. As pallbearers the Prime Minister and Mr Ramsay MacDonald paid a last tribute to the great author on behalf of the State, while Mr Kipling, Mr Bernard Shaw, Sir James Barrie, Sir Edmund Gosse, and Mr John Galsworthy repre-« sented literature.

While this service was being conducted with that impressiveness and majesty always associated with Westminster Abbey, another service of the utmost simplicity was taking place at Stinsford, in Wessex, where, as a symbolic act, the writer’s heart was buried. While the congregation at Westminster mourned Mr Hardy as a genius, the villagers assembled at Stinford Church were there to mourn him rather as a friend. They included a score of grey-haired men who had known him as plain “ Tom Hardy,” the architect’s apprentice. A NATION’S HOMAGE. LONDON, January 16. The creator of ” Tess ” joined the immortals in the Poets’ Corner amid a demonstration of national homage recalling the funerals of Dickens and Tennyson. That the novelist’s well-loved Wessex might partake of the ever-enduring honour a clod of Wessex earth was mingled with the London clay in which the casket rests. > A great queue gathered early for admission to the nave, and later the south transept was filled by literary notables representing the numerous societies with which Hardy had been associated as the acknowledged head of English letters. Every seat w-as filled when the singing of the choir heralded the procession bearing th e casket, which was covered by a white and golden pall, from Saint Faith’s Chapel to the sanctuary. Holding the fringes of the pall, on either side walked Mr Balwin, Mr Ramsav MacDonald, Mr Rudyard Kipling, Sir Edmund Gosse, Professor Housman, Sir James Barrie, Mr Bernard Shaw, Mr John Galsworthy, and representatives of Oxford and Cambridge, then Mrs Hardy, bowed with grief and heavily veiled. The service was the simplest, consisting of the 23rd Psalm, followed by a passage from Ecclesiasttes, "Le us praise famous men” Then the pallbearers accompanied the coffin to the grave next Dickens, where the burial service was completed, closing with Newman’s “ Lead, Kindly Ligh, and Handel’s “ Dead March.” Trionsands of Londoners during the rest of the day passed the tiny casket, which was surrounded by scores of wreaths.

THE. ABSENCE OF ROYALTY. LONDON, January 18. Mr Arnold Bennett finds himself soundjy assailed in a sheaf of letters published in the Daily Express, in which paper he complained of the absence of royalty from the Thomas Hardy ceremonial. Mr Bennett returns to- the attack, saying that it is indisputable that the arrangements were shockingly bad. With regard to royalty, he says he did not suggest that the King should be.present. He realised that his Majesty, for various reasons, could not be there, and, in any case, such a suggestion from private citizens was gravely out of place. “ I merely permitted myself to express respectful regret at the absence. I repeat that a military funeral of similar importance would not have lacked the presence of royalty. Although I have received scores of abusive letters, I maintain my position, and in maintaining it I feel I am supported by a large number of citizens.” The Daily Express, editorially, says: — “ The Royal Family is strong and secure enough in the respect and affections of this country to stand the criticism of a sincere, reputable man of letters in Mr Bennett's position, but where Mr Bennett was wrong was in the assumption that the funeral of Hardy could properly be compared with that of a fiel dmarshal or an admiral. These are in the direct pay of the State,, and thus in the direct service of the King. Hardy was in an entirely different position. It would be an intolerable burden on th e King and the Royal Family, as well as a misconstruction of their functions, to expect their presence at every public.funeral to witness the grief of the relatives of one who was unknown in a personal or an official cap.v city to the Royal Family.”