Madam, – Brendan Lynch writes (January 11th): "The Irish Independentcastigated [James Joyce] on his death for having 'reviled the religion in which he had been brought up and fouled the nest which was his native city'."
I would take issue with this on two counts. First, it was not published “on his death”, but several months later, on April 29th, 1941. And the article in question did not directly concern James Joyce; it was an acerbic review, by one “NN”, of Herbert Gorman’s biography of Joyce. I think it is a bit unfair to cite a book reviewer’s attitude to a biography’s subject as editorial comment.
By contrast, here is what the Irish Independentdid say about Joyce "on his death", January 13th, 1941: "Even as a University student he became known as a writer, and he was regarded as one of the most brilliant students of his generation . . . Opinions about his later work vary, but there is general agreement that [Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man] were notable contributions to English literature and that they showed great imagination, a fine use of words, an extraordinary sensitiveness to the social, political and religious life of Dublin at that time." Joyce's relationship with the Church is treated thus: "He had become hostile to the Catholic Church in which he had been brought up. But in all his writings it seems as if he were never easy about his attitude to the Church, as if his quarrel with it preyed on his mind continually."
A far from hostile obituary, don’t you think? For the record, I am not calling for the repatriation of Joyce’s remains. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Anyone with even a mild acquaintance with James Joyce’s works would recognise that the land and people of Ireland were very dear to him, whatever about the institutions of Empire, Church and State. This comes across very clearly in Sean Lester’s contemporaneous account of their meeting in Geneva.
It is a cause of shame and regret that our then Government apparently instructed the Irish charge d’affaires in Zurich not to attend his funeral. Such rank stupidity was unfortunately common enough in the affairs of the fledgeling Irish State which engaged in a tragicomic war with the country’s writers.
According to Ulick O’Connor, the government of Jack Lynch was willing to make amends and give Joyce a state funeral if his son Giorgio would consent. The son was “hugely enthusiastic” according to O’Connor but he died not long after receiving a letter from the taoiseach and the project lapsed. Joyce’s grandson Stephen may not share his father’s view and that would have to be taken into account if any talks were to be opened on the subject.
I believe Joyce would have welcomed a state funeral as an expression of the country’s affection and respect for the man and his genius, however tardy. The image conveyed by Sean Lester of Joyce standing up and bowing graciously to the wireless in response to a Dublin working man correctly answering “Joyce” in response to a quiz question on Radio Éireann, shows in a simple way how much he valued the good opinion of his compatriots even at the lowest point of his exile.
I can only agree with Brendan Lynch (January 11th) that Zurich has done Joyce proud in his current resting place, but I feel that leaving him there would be just as bad as if we had left Yeats in Genoa where he died in 1939. The charge of “paddywhackery” for reviving consideration of this proposal, is unwarranted. – Yours, etc,