Understanding Nobel Prize: 1916--1919

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for 1916, 1917 and 1919 was awarded to Vermeer Von Heidenstam, Gjellerup/Pontoppidan and Carl Spitteler. The shortlisted names for the Nobel was Heidenstam and Jakob Knudsen/Gjerllerup for 1916, Gjerllerup/Pontoppidan, Spitteler and Arne Garborg for 1917, Spitteler and Erik Karlfeldt for 1919.

The committee voted for split betweenen the Danish historian Jakob Knudsen and Gjellerup countryman, poet and novelist Gjellerup for 1916, but, again, the Academy disagreed with the decision of the committee and instead awarded the prize to Heidenstam, the second Swede in seven years. With the death of Knudsen in 1917, Pontoppidan, Knudsen's counterpart, was replaced as the committee paired him once again with Gjellerup. The publication of Pontoppidan'a masterpiece Lucky Per proved decisive, hence the Danes' selection over Arne Garborg and Spitteler. The committee actually voted to award the prize to Karlfeldt, but Karlfeldt showed no interest in receiving the prize. With the committee finding Spitteler's neutrality appealing (as he's from Switzerland), the committee hence awarded him the prize for his masterpiece "The Olympian Spring."

Haven't read much from the period 1913---1919 apart from the first volume of Rolland's Jean Christophe (beautiful piece of work), some poems of Tagore (also beautiful), and some poems of Spitteler (for me not so great, at least considering other poets who won the Nobel, his poems seems weak), this period of the Nobel seems to be the weakest in terms of quality of the recipients. Still have to read Pontoppidan's Lucky Per if time permits.

 

[errequatro]

I've read some of Pontoppidan's novellas (A Royal Visit, etc.) and I was impressed. A friend of mine tells me that Lucky Per is a great book and she recommends him profusely. I was impressed by his novellas... So it doesn't seem like they made a bad choice.

 

[Leseratte]

The Nobel Prize for 1916, 1917 and 1919 was awarded to Vermeer Von Heidenstam, Gjellerup/Pontoppidan and Carl Spitteler. The shortlisted names for the Nobel was Heidenstam and Jakob Knudsen/Gjerllerup for 1916, Gjerllerup/Pontoppidan, Spitteler and Arne Garborg for 1917, Spitteler and Erik Karlfeldt for 1919.

The committee voted for split betweenen the Danish historian Jakob Knudsen and Gjellerup countryman, poet and novelist Gjellerup for 1916, but, again, the Academy disagreed with the decision of the committee and instead awarded the prize to Heidenstam, the second Swede in seven years. With the death of Knudsen in 1917, Pontoppidan, Knudsen's counterpart, was replaced as the committee paired him once again with Gjellerup. The publication of Pontoppidan'a masterpiece Lucky Per proved decisive, hence the Danes' selection over Arne Garborg and Spitteler. The committee actually voted to award the prize to Karlfeldt, but Karlfeldt showed no interest in receiving the prize. With the committee finding Spitteler's neutrality appealing (as he's from Switzerland), the committee hence awarded him the prize for his masterpiece "The Olympian Spring."

Haven't read much from the period 1913---1919 apart from the first volume of Rolland's Jean Christophe (beautiful piece of work), some poems of Tagore (also beautiful), and some poems of Spitteler (for me not so great, at least considering other poets who won the Nobel, his poems seems weak), this period of the Nobel seems to be the weakest in terms of quality of the recipients. Still have to read Pontoppidan's Lucky Per if time permits.

I wonder if many of these early Nobel winners aren´t forgotten or almost today.

 

[alik-vit]

I wonder if many of these early Nobel winners aren´t forgotten or almost today.

It depends, of course. Concept of "forgottenness" is very closely linked to the concept of "memory" and there are different "memories" in different communities. So, the question is forgotten by whom. General public is very elusive concept too.

 

[Leseratte]

It depends, of course. Concept of "forgottenness" is very closely linked to the concept of "memory" and there are different "memories" in different communities. So, the question is forgotten by whom. General public is very elusive concept too.

I agree. I think most general concepts and generalizations are elusive in the sense that they can be interpreted very differently. What I wanted to say: If you throw names like Tolstoy (who wasn´t even shortlisted for the Nobel), Proust or Joyce into a community of readers, they will probably know that they are great authors, even if they haven´t read them.
But most of them will probably shrug their shoulders today at the laureates Heidenstam, Gjellerup, Pontoppidan and Carl Spitteler.

 

[alik-vit]

I agree. I think most general concepts and generalizations are elusive in the sense that they can be interpreted very differently. What I wanted to say: If you throw names like Tolstoy (who wasn´t even shortlisted for the Nobel), Proust or Joyce into a community of readers, they will probably know that they are great authors, even if they haven´t read them.
But most of them will probably shrug their shoulders today at the laureates Heidenstam, Gjellerup, Pontoppidan and Carl Spitteler.

I will play the devil's advocate and say that we speak about 1916-1919 years, when Tolstoy was dead and Proust & Joyce were still very invisible writers with only few works under their belts)))) but of course, you are right. The logic of prize is not logic of the literature as ongoing process.

 

[Leseratte]

It seemed to me that Tolstoy was mentioned as one author that didn´t make it in one of Ben´s summary's, but I was to lazy to look him up and I can´t find the summary now. But in fact, I was thinking in a more general way and not about a specific period and you got my point.

 

[alik-vit]

I have read one novel by Gjellerup, dozen short stories by von Heidenstam and some prose and poetry by Spitteler. They are not under line, but not high mountain peaks too. Maybe, when we speak on institutionalization of contemporary literature, it's inescapable to see a book as phenomenon of contemporary culture. And only time (historical one) gives the perspective on this book as phenomenon of art. I'm not sure, if Nadine Gordimer is not our Gjellerup and Ishiguro our von Heidenstam.

 

[Leseratte]

I didn´t read any of these authors yet. I didn´t worry much about the Nobel, before I started participating in WLF but you got a point there: maybe it seeks to establish somehow exactly that what you call the "institutionalization of contemporary literature". If it's lucky, it hits the mark and the chosen book(s) is a good representation of the present moment, like a picture where you will be able to recognize the persons 50, 100 years later. If the picture isn´t good it may soon lose its colors, get blurred and fall into oblivion.

 

[tiganeasca]

I've only read Lucky Per by Pontoppidan but it was a pretty impressive book. I'd definitely be interested in reading more of his stuff.

 

[Ben Jackson]

It seemed to me that Tolstoy was mentioned as one author that didn´t make it in one of Ben´s summary's, but I was to lazy to look him up and I can´t find the summary now. But in fact, I was thinking in a more general way and not about a specific period and you got my point.

Tolstoy is in the last batch of the Nobel shortlist reviews I will begin later on. He was actually shortlisted in 1902 and 1906. More on that later.

 

[Leseratte]

Tolstoy is in the last batch of the Nobel shortlist reviews I will begin later on. He was actually shortlisted in 1902 and 1906. More on that later.

Thanks, Ben. As you see you have set us thinking about the Nobel.

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Literature Prize for 1916 was awarded to Verner Von Heidenstam "in recognizing his significance as the leading representative of our era in our literature." The Prize for the year was announced on 9th November, 1916, few minutes after the announcement of 1915 Prize. 28 writers were noninated for this year.

Shortlisted Writers and their Key Works:

Verner Heidenstam

Pilgrimage and Wandering Years
Charles Men
Tree of the Folkungs
Poems
One People
Bjalbo Inheritance
New Poems

Karl Gjellerup (1917 Winner)
Minna
Pilgrim Kamanita
Brynhild
G-Major
Rudolph Stascanty Practice
God's Friends
Romulus

Erik Axel Karlfeldt (1931 winner)
Songs of Wilderness and Love
Fridolin's Songs
Fridolin's Paradie
Flora and Pomona
Flowers' Love

Federik Troels-Lund
Daily Life in Nordic Region in 16th Century
Historiske Skister
Peder Oxe
Historiske Fortaellunder

Gunnar Heiberg

I will Defend my Country
People's Council
The Balcony
Tragedy of Love
Aunt Ulrikke
Parade Sengen

Per Hallstrom
Purple
Death

Jacob Knudsen
Old Priest
Angst
Mod

First Time Nominees:
Ivan Franko
Erik Axel Karlfeldt
Rabindranath Datta
Gunnar Heiberg
Frederick Troels-Lund
Pali Text Society
Otokar Brezina
Henrik Schuck
Per Hallstrom

Nominated Female writers
Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche

Nominess that would become laureates
Carl Spitteler (1919 winner)
Anatole France (1921 winner)
Henrik Pontoppidan (1917 winner)

Nominees nominated by Swedish Academy members:

Anatole France (Henrik Schuck)
Ivan Franko (Harald Hjarne)
Romain Rolland (Erik Karlfeldt, Henrik Schuck)
Verner Heidenstam (Bengt Hesselman)
Erik Karlfeldt (Nathan Soderblom)
Carl Spitteler (Erik Karlfeldt)
Benito Perez Galdos (Harald Hjarne)

Erik Karlfeldt, Per Hallstrom and Henrik Schuck were Swedish Academy members nominated for competitive Nobel Literature Prize.

 

[Ben Jackson]

With the impact of World War I, the Swedish Academy encountered difficulties in accessing works from other European and American countries, hence the over-representation of Scandanivian candidates in the last period of the decade.

Concerning Heidenstam's candidature, he was selected "for his recent publication New Poems, which's might not be the first or last time to signify the possibility of accordance with the initial purpose of stipulation, to award a book published the previous year." The New Poems was characterized by "idealistic character, and a favourable opportunity for the time not to pass over the lesser known countries." With the results of war, the Academy provided alternatives for Swedish-Danish or Norweigan writers for 1916 & 1917: Hallstrom, Knudsen, Gjellerup, Karlfeldt, Heiberg, Arne Garborg, Troels-Lund, Juhani Aho, Bertel Gripenberg.

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Literature Prize for 1917 was awarded to Karl Gjellerup "for his varied and rich poetry, which's inspireed by lofty ideals" and Henrik Pontoppidan "for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark." It was announced on 12th October, 1917. 20 writers we're nominated for the Nobel Prize.

Shortlisted writers and their key works:

Juhani Aho
Railway
Parson's Daughter
Parson's Wife
Chips
Juha

Angel Guimera (same books evaluated in 1907)

Grazia Deledda (1926 winner, same books evaluated in 1913 plus Marianna Sirca and Elias Portulu)

Bertel Gripenberg
Poems
Iron Gate
Loose Snow
Plays of Shadow
Broken Bits
Evenings in Tavastland
Black Sonnets

Arne Garborg
Weary Man
Teacher
Peace
Woman of Underground People
At Mother's
Peasant Students

Henrik Pontoppidan
The Promised Land
Lucky Per
Children of the Soil
Realm of the Dead
Old Adam

Karl Gjellerup (same books evaluated in 1916 plus Golden Bough)

George Brandes (same books evaluated plus Aristocratic Radicalism, Goethe and Voltaire, book-length essays on the authors)

First Time Nominees
Bertel Gripenberg
Jeppe Aakker
Otto Ernest Schmidt
Ivan Vazov
Johan Bojer
Olaf Bull

Nominated female writers:
Grazia Deledda
Elizabeth Forster-Nietszche

Nominees that would become laureates:
Grazia Deledda (1926 winner)
Carl Spitteler (1919 winner)
Erik Karlfeldt (1931 winner)

Nominees by Swedish Academy members
Grazia Deledda (Carl Bildt)
Carl Spitteler (Verner Heidenstam)
Otto Ernest Schmidt (Per Hallstrom)
George Brandes (Henrik Schuck)
Juhani Aho (Erik Karlfeldt)
Bertel Gripenberg (Harald Hjarne)

 

[Ben Jackson]

It seemed that Harald Hjarne's interest in the works of Gjellerup was as a result of the "religious homecoming" of the author. Gjellerup, from a religious family, initially ditched religious faith for interest in Eastern religions, which inspired some works like Pilgrim Kamanita, but during the latter stages of his career, his return to religious beliefs was the ideal behind works like God's Friends and Golden Bough. Herald Hjarne, concerning some masterpieces of Gjellerup, reveals "reverence of the human existence through determining intellectual production. But the foul impatience and independence of his personality contend the open breach with Brandes would be perceived. Could itself unable with the frivolous treatment which loyalty in love and marriage compensate at the same time he feels repelled of the Parisian model picture in which emulation the new Danish Literature would be displayed.

Hjarne continues:

Gjellerup, aside from his naturalism, is German classic which in his youth himself gesture to authorize through influence of Greek antiquity and and Old Germanic heroic literature (in this case poetry and fiction). Brynhild's poignant canticle in dramatic form which shows faithful devotion to strength and sacrifice. Pilgrim Kamanita, on the other hand, and his poems Vandreaaret (1885) displays the classical poet of Buddhism with idealistic setting new in Gjellerup, and idealistic creed of Heyse includes reaction (cobbler realism) in a homage which Gjellerup unites. From a fan's perspective, I have respect.

On the other hand, Hjarne wasn't much impressed with Pontoppidan, who "exceeds the key hidden sympathy of poet, insignificant or completely inferior in creating spellbound but narrow imaginative ambit and life claims. Pontoppidan leaves out the careful understanding and that he has (never intends purpose for a reader through significant depiction of people and their determined fighters with life to bind and to create the picture of the people through the narrativee pose of naturalistic generation.

Concerning Pontoppidan's major works, Hjarne commented:
Lucky Per's from is shaped from diseased determinism. It has, hence, no general validity and significance. This standpoint is to us familiar. However, the objectivity of the narrative writer caused distress. The defect (the structure) exactly cause difficulty for the reader. This fatigue, with few powerful execution, will cause troubles in recognizing award in this work.

On the other hand, Realm of the Dead, is an unmistakable, though never clearly penetrating work marked by indignation, it's acknowledged a higher moralistic force of the first order.

There were squabbles in the Nobel Committee, with some sighting that Gjellerup's works were too uneven and that Pontoppidan, who replaced Knudsen, was more consistent and more deserving. Hjarne consulted a monograph on the two writers by Vihelm Andersen, Professor of Danish Literature at University of Copenhagen, who defended Pontoppidan's authorship "as one of Scandanivian's greatest novelists." Angel Guimera, meanwhile, was rejected by Hjarne "for making gesture of political significance, in terms of literary language." Juhani Aho was also rejected on the grounds "that even though without doubt he's well-deserved, the issue of Finnish language, without particular weighty rationale of the Academy, a Finnish writer with a Swedish tongue, cannot be proposed for the prize," a similar remark on Aho's countryman Gripenberg. Grazia Deledda's authorship was questioned in regards to the quality "filed with nobility, melancholy and humanity and with feeling for human... Fashion within the parameters for the objective of writers which they only designed narrowly in the earlier practice."

The major contender of Gjellerup and Pontoppidan was George Brandes, whose candidature was dealt by Henrik Schuck:

My opinion's that the concept ideal's excessively close and designed for a work of character. Brands has how while life been in combat for ideas that stand against the ideal of the prize, appear to me narrow to a man custom only Brandes. His latest book published during the war has been read and has become noticed as warmer for an ideal and it can be able to be right in the world order.

The award should be awarded to Brandes on the basis of his outstanding style of art, his find taste and his psychological astuteness, not only is he the undisputed best author of Nordic areas but also the one which vitality in Europe is comparable only with the French criticism that has ever appeared. His only defects is his idealism marked by his anti-religious character.

With Heidenstam and Karlfeldt expressing their displeasures on authorship of Brandes, the Committee'a decision was solely based on monograph of Vihelm Andersen (who was himself a candidate that year), Heidesntam suggested a shared prize between Gjellerup and Pontoppidan partly as solution (not necessarily a compromise). In newspapers and and reading public across Denmark, Pontoppidan's choice was applauded, while Gjellerup's was mixed, as Danes didn't welcome the impression of Gjellerup's acquiring the persona of no-where (not really having ideology of German, and neither of the Danes). Pontoppidan himself thought Brandes would get the Prize and was surprised that he got it (unlike Gjellerup who campaigned secretly by writing letters to those with power to nominating candidates as early as 1912). Basing their decision on Andersen's monograph, the nobel Committee awarded Gjellerup and Pontoppidan.

 

[Leseratte]

It seemed that Harald Hjarne's interest in the works of Gjellerup was as a result of the "religious homecoming" of the author. Gjellerup, from a religious family, initially ditched religious faith for interest in Eastern religions, which inspired some works like Pilgrim Kamanita, but during the latter stages of his career, his return to religious beliefs was the ideal behind works like God's Friends and Golden Bough. Herald Hjarne, concerning some masterpieces of Gjellerup, reveals "reverence of the human existence through determining intellectual production. But the foul impatience and independence of his personality contend the open breach with Brandes would be perceived. Could itself unable with the frivolous treatment which loyalty in love and marriage compensate at the same time he feels repelled of the Parisian model picture in which emulation the new Danish Literature would be displayed.

Hjarne continues:

Gjellerup, aside from his naturalism, is German classic which in his youth himself gesture to authorize through influence of Greek antiquity and and Old Germanic heroic literature (in this case poetry and fiction). Brynhild's poignant canticle in dramatic form which shows faithful devotion to strength and sacrifice. Pilgrim Kamanita, on the other hand, and his poems Vandreaaret (1885) displays the classical poet of Buddhism with idealistic setting new in Gjellerup, and idealistic creed of Heyse includes reaction (cobbler realism) in a homage which Gjellerup unites. From a fan's perspective, I have respect.

On the other hand, Hjarne wasn't much impressed with Pontoppidan, who "exceeds the key hidden sympathy of poet, insignificant or completely inferior in creating spellbound but narrow imaginative ambit and life claims. Pontoppidan leaves out the careful understanding and that he has (never intends purpose for a reader through significant depiction of people and their determined fighters with life to bind and to create the picture of the people through the narrativee pose of naturalistic generation.

Concerning Pontoppidan's major works, Hjarne commented:
Lucky Per's from is shaped from diseased determinism. It has, hence, no general validity and significance. This standpoint is to us familiar. However, the objectivity of the narrative writer caused distress. The defect (the structure) exactly cause difficulty for the reader. This fatigue, with few powerful execution, will cause troubles in recognizing award in this work.

On the other hand, Realm of the Dead, is an unmistakable, though never clearly penetrating work marked by indignation, it's acknowledged a higher moralistic force of the first order.

There were squabbles in the Nobel Committee, with some sighting that Gjellerup's works were too uneven and that Pontoppidan, who replaced Knudsen, was more consistent and more deserving. Hjarne consulted a monograph on the two writers by Vihelm Andersen, Professor of Danish Literature at University of Copenhagen, who defended Pontoppidan's authorship "as one of Scandanivian's greatest novelists." Angel Guimera, meanwhile, was rejected by Hjarne "for making gesture of political significance, in terms of literary language." Juhani Aho was also rejected on the grounds "that even though without doubt he's well-deserved, the issue of Finnish language, without particular weighty rationale of the Academy, a Finnish writer with a Swedish tongue, cannot be proposed for the prize," a similar remark on Aho's countryman Gripenberg. Grazia Deledda's authorship was questioned in regards to the quality "filed with nobility, melancholy and humanity and with feeling for human... Fashion within the parameters for the objective of writers which they only designed narrowly in the earlier practice."

The major contender of Gjellerup and Pontoppidan was George Brandes, whose candidature was dealt by Henrik Schuck:

My opinion's that the concept ideal's excessively close and designed for a work of character. Brands has how while life been in combat for ideas that stand against the ideal of the prize, appear to me narrow to a man custom only Brandes. His latest book published during the war has been read and has become noticed as warmer for an ideal and it can be able to be right in the world order.

The award should be awarded to Brandes on the basis of his outstanding style of art, his find taste and his psychological astuteness, not only is he the undisputed best author of Nordic areas but also the one which vitality in Europe is comparable only with the French criticism that has ever appeared. His only defects is his idealism marked by his anti-religious character.

With Heidenstam and Karlfeldt expressing their displeasures on authorship of Brandes, the Committee'a decision was solely based on monograph of Vihelm Andersen (who was himself a candidate that year), Heidesntam suggested a shared prize between Gjellerup and Pontoppidan partly as solution (not necessarily a compromise). In newspapers and and reading public across Denmark, Pontoppidan's choice was applauded, while Gjellerup's was mixed, as Danes didn't welcome the impression of Gjellerup's acquiring the persona of no-where (not really having ideology of German, and neither of the Danes). Pontoppidan himself thought Brandes would get the Prize and was surprised that he got it (unlike Gjellerup who campaigned secretly by writing letters to those with power to nominating candidates as early as 1912). Basing their decision on Andersen's monograph, the nobel Committee awarded Gjellerup and Pontoppidan.

I'm astounded at some of the details. One learns even what monograph influenced the choices.

 

[Verkhovensky]

Angel Guimera, meanwhile, was rejected by Hjarne "for making gesture of political significance, in terms of literary language."

I've read about this since I've never heard about the guy. It seems he belongs to Catalan revival movement and was considered as early as 1904 to share the prize with Mistral since they both wrote in "non-official" languages. But Spanish government lobbied against him and Echegaray was awarded.

So the gesture of political significance is that he was writing in Catalan language, which is spoken by the people in his land. If he wrote in Spanish, that wouldn't have been a political gesture? Mistral's writing in Occitian was not a political gesture? Pretty strange reasoning.

 

[Leseratte]

I've read about this since I've never heard about the guy. It seems he belongs to Catalan revival movement and was considered as early as 1904 to share the prize with Mistral since they both wrote in "non-official" languages. But Spanish government lobbied against him and Echegaray was awarded.

So the gesture of political significance is that he was writing in Catalan language, which is spoken by the people in his land. If he wrote in Spanish, that wouldn't have been a political gesture? Mistral's writing in Occitian was not a political gesture? Pretty strange reasoning.

Good point Verkho. The Catalans were and are separatists, something that greatly incomodes Spain, which some years ago quenched a revolutionary attempt , that ended with the Catalan president being exiled.The Academy evidently didn't want to side with this.

 

[Verkhovensky]

Good point Verkho. The Catalans were and are separatists, something that greatly incomodes Spain, which some years ago quenched a revolutionary attempt , that ended with the Catalan president being exiled.The Academy evidently didn't want to side with this.

Yeah, but that was almost 120 years after this Nobel prize. What is strange in 1904 is that many writers back then were politically active as champions of their nations, but that wasn't held against them. Like Sienkiewicz won a few years later, and back then Poland was part of Russian Empire and he was prominent advocate for Polish independence. They didn't hold it against him.