Understanding Nobel Prize: 1927---1929

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prizes for 1927, 28 and 29 were awarded to Henri Bergson, Sigrid Undset and Thomas Mann. The shortlisted writers for these years were Bergson, Undset and Palamas (27), Gorky, Johannes V Jensen and Undset (28), Stefan George, Thomas Mann and Arno Holz (1929).

Palamas's evaluation, expressed by the Academy, was the same they had of him the previous year: the problems of acquiring Greek experts in the Academy who could translate his works into Swedish. Undset, praised for the work Kristin Lavransdatter, was actually chosen by the committee ahead of Bergson, advocated for the Nobel Prize by Archbishop Nathan Soderblom, who hailed Bergson's revolutionary approach to philosophy (in terms of topics like Time and Memory), but the Academy established a discord once again with the committee and awarded Bergson.

In 1928, Gorky was chosen by the committee despite his "propagandist tenor in his proleterian novels," but the Academy overturned the committee's decision by awarding the supposed laureate for the previous year Undset. Johannes V Jensen, on the other hand, was praised for his then recent work Jorgine as "one of the best work from the Danish tradition, " but rejected because of his "notable, quite abundant poetic intuition and scientific approach in his works."

In 1929, a German shortlist, Holz and Stefan George were both dismissed for "been too narrow minded in vision," while Mann, was praised for Buddenbrooks as a work "expressing classicism in Tolstoy," but the committee passed Magic Mountain over in silence, hence the decision to award Mann the prize.

Haven't read so much from this decade to pass judgement yet on those deserving, but I have read Yeats, Shaw, Hamsun, Mann and Bergson (Time and Free Will). I think these writers are all deserving.

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for Literature for 1927 was awarded to Henri Bergson "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and brilliant skill with which they have been presented." 21 names were suggested.

Shortlisted writers and their key works

Henri Bergson (same works evaluated in 1915 plus Lectures and Essays, Duration and Simultaneity, Philosophy of Intuition)

Edouard Estaunie
Secret Life
L'Apple de la Route
L'Ascension de Monsieur Baslevre
L'Empreinte
Less Choses Voient

Kostas Palams (same works evaluated the previous year)

Hugo Von Hofmansthal (same works evaluated in 1919 and 1924 plus The Tower)

First Time Nominees
Cesare Pascarella
Eduard Meyer
Samuel Parsons Scott
Edouard Estuanie
Erwin Kolbenheyer

Nominees nominated by Nobel Laureates
Rudolf Holzapfel (Romain Rolland)

Female Writers nominated
Ada Negri
Edith Wharthon
Sigrid Undset

 

[Ben Jackson]

Earlier I has written sketchy statements of the candidates for this period, here's more detailed report.

On fifth Novemeber 1927, Per Hallstrom had written report on Hugo Hofmansthal stating "that, perhaps, he's little conscious of his competitive situation." Karlfeldt had written that "hardly can one indicate a sound, lofty competition," and that "Hofmansthal has always been decadent and more also as an Artiste, because he always likes to be independent, establishing an independent personality." The reference to Artiste calls to mind the musical libretti of Hofmansthal, mostly composed with Richard Strauss. Six days after, the third and final metting of the Nobel Committee before announcing Henri Bergson as the Laureate, Karlfeldt wrote "in the recent minute, I would again record on the same grounds: that reasonably said before that his candidature can't be recommended."

Edouard Estuanie, according to the Nobel Committee:

Find appreciation in his masterwork in which the description of psychological conflict, is deepened with universal human significance and are typified thus far in complying with Estuanie's classical ideal. However the obsession with plastic qualities of great style's futile, which Estuanie lack sufficient plastic and multifarious imagination for which structuring and a sufficient, significant meaning of truth, to which he provides three dimensional interior analysis. However, the immediate failure of impression for the vital, concrete truth which's culture of human nature, is too irrational like it often is, but also indicate the similarity of fiction with experimentation in sheltered space where the form's either too long in interior description, seen because it explores the past without the physicality, the excessive meditation of illusion.

Estuanie's works, which displays similarity with Marcel Proust, didn't possess the traits of criteria of the great style with which the Committee has set forth.

Henri Bergson's reports, on the other hand, was first written by Hans Larsson, committee's expert on philosophy and other non-fictional areas. Nominated by Nobel Peace Laureate for 1930 Nathan Soderblom, Bergson's report of Larsson combined with Anders Osterling was very decisive:

Its historical overview which reason the Academy take into consideration's surmounted. It reclined (candidly reveal that Bergson inspiring influence toward the modern literature's the main motive which becomes the decision. The Bergsonian direction's commencement of century (a bright, anti-materialistic area and scope which with the influence of Schelling's philosophy of hundred years is compared. This shares, in itself, with Nobel Spirit in its unmistakable accordance.

The issue was debated, just like the case of Theodore Mommsen/Herbert Spencer face off in 1902 if the award should be bestowed to someone not from poetry or fiction for the purpose of surveying candidates to widening new grounds. But with the sufficient and exquisite report from Osterling and Larsson in regards to Henri Bergson, Bergson became the third non-fiction laureate and second philosopher to become Nobel Laureate.

 

[redhead]

Undset, praised for the work Kristin Lavransdatter, was actually chosen by the committee ahead of Bergson, advocated for the Nobel Prize by Archbishop Nathan Soderblom, who hailed Bergson's revolutionary approach to philosophy (in terms of topics like Time and Memory), but the Academy established a discord once again with the committee and awarded Bergson.

How did that work? Wasn't Bergson's prize announced in 1928 along with Undset?

Edit: Yeah, he did: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1927/summary/

 

[Ben Jackson]

How did that work? Wasn't Bergson's prize announced in 1928 along with Undset?

Edit: Yeah, he did: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1927/summary/

The prize for 1927 was announced together with Deledda in 1926 because the committee didn't find a suitable candidate. It was like what happened in 1926, when Shaw was announced as the Laureate for 1925, Spitteler announced for the 1919 prize in 1920. The last time such thing, apart from the scandal that rocked the Academy in 2018, happened was in 1950, when Faulkner was announced as Laureate for 1949 and Russell for the current year. Once such thing happened, the committee usually combine the shortlist for the former and current year. Just like in 2019 when the combined short list for 2019 and 2018 totalled eight writers (I wondered the writers Tokarczuk and Handke overcome in the shortlist).

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for Literature 1928 was awarded to Sigrid Undset "principally for her powerful descriptions of Northern Life during the Middle Ages." It was announced on 13th November, 1928. 36 writers were suggested.

Shortisted writers and their key Works:

Sigrid Undset
Kristin Lavransdatter
Gunnar's Daughter
Master of Hesteviken (Olav Anudsson)
Jenny
Martha Oulie

Maxim Gorky
Artamonov Business
Fragments from Diary
Stories (1922--1924)
Recollections of Tolstoy
Childhood
In the World
Universities

Rufino Blanco Fombona
Man of Gold
Modernism and Modernist Poets
Great Writers of America
Letters and Learned in Latin America
Road of Imperfection
Poems

Theodore Daubler
Northern Lights
Greek Sonnets
The Africana
Star Child
Stairs to the North Light
Star-Lit Road

Thomas Mann (1929 winner, same books evaluated in 1924 plus Magic Mountain and Disorder of Early Sorrows)

Johannes V Jensen (1944 winner, same books evaluated in 1925 plus Jorgine, Evolutions and Ethics, Transformation of Animals)

First Time Nominees
Blanca de Los Rios
Edith Howes
Theodore Daubler
Armand Palacio Valdes
Frederick Cedori
Alf Larsen
Felix Timmermans
Richard Huch
Rufino Blanco Fombona
Rudolf Hans Barsch
Hans Driesch
Ivan Grozev
Anna de Noailles

Female writers nominated
Richard Huch
Concha Espina de la Serna
Edith Wharthon

Nominees from Swedish Academy
Anna de Noailles, Maxim Gorky (Tor Hedberg)
Kostas Palamas, Maxim Gorky (Verner Heidenstam)
Thomas Mann (Anders Osterling)

Nominees by Nobel Laureates
Joseph Rosnyaine, Rudolf Maria Holzapfel (Romain Rolland)

Nominees that would become Laureates
Johannes Jensen (1944 winner)
Thomas Mann (1929 winner)

Edit: Edith Wharthon was longlisted for the Nobel Prize this year, but I couldn't discover the reason why she wasn't selected. The information I received's that the Committee wasn't pleased in some of her naturalistic stories, but I'm not truly convinced about this since Espmark didn't write formally in his book on the Nobel Prize.

 

[Ben Jackson]

Here's more detailed report concerning the candidates.

Theodore Daubler, German poet, whose extraordinary vitality and poetic vision and optimism contrast sharply with declining classical and romantic aesthetics, was rejected "for his mystical lyricism and difficult intelligibility and which, displaying characteristics of modernistic poetry, the Academy can't recommend." The Nobel Committee was looking at expanding the candidature to other geographical areas, but the Nobel Committee, evaluating Fombona, wasn't convinced of his artistic merits as his works "didn't display the quality characteristic of the Nobel Prize." Mann's authorship was put into question as his latter works was seen as "lacking the power of his earlier works," referencing of course to works like Tonio Kroger and Buddenbrooks. (The Committee didn't make a critical evaluation concerning Magic Mountain.)

The debate that hovered during the proceedings was between Gorky and Undset. In the last ten years, since the end of World War One, Gorky had published his autobiographical trilogy, which was well-received across Europe. Karlfeldt and Osterling had expressed their delights on Gorky's autobiography calling them "unusual renaissance, giving the writer a place in Russian Literature." Furthermore, Karlfeldt and Osterling:

Despite Gorky's depraved and corrupt other works, his autobiogtaphy and recent novellas becomes the grounds it provides to hand the prize. One wide depiction on which reality on the other hand, a harshness and false romanticism with audience appeal's evaluation of distress and brutality in early narratives, which reveals in comparison with naturalistic brutality of fiction.

Per Hallstrom, himself commented:

That if Gorky should be awarded the prize it means definitely that, to the eyes of the world, he won solely for his Autobiography and not for his overall fiction. This will raise a questionable publicity regarding the bestwowal of the prize whether it's just for a single work or of overall production, and will be therefore misinterpreted. The Academy, therefore, must not have a backbone to oppose political judgement. However, the universality becomes the opinion for the prize to be awarded.

Henrik Schuck, on the other hand, was in firm support for Undset's candidature, even though he expressed his doubts whether Undset will still be read in the near future. Earlier in the report, Anton Karlgren, who had expressed his misgivings concerning Gorky's authorship ten years before, had joined the camp of Osterling and Karlfeldt, but Schuck was firm in rejecting Gorky's candidature, Schuck remarked:

While his autobiography and his novellas can be regarded as truly notable work, he recognizes a writer which, despite all the grim, is varied nevertheless and's a great deal have been promoted to idealism. But his overall production has been marked by stereotypical phraseology and ideology which inclination yield poorly upon the mastery of depiction and his rhetoric to direct discredit of power and agitation against it and then the Bolshevik ideology which's completely dead criticism.

Undset, known earlier for stories centering on contemporary issues of women, has received acclaim for her historical masterpieces Kristin Lavransadatter and Master of Hestivken, epics describing life in Middle Ages, which was influenced by Icelandic Sagas, Augustine, Chaucer and Walter Scott. The appraisal said that it praises

Undset's gift to awake life of the past which peculiar skill is to draw character with great psychological art which represent the psyche of life. To put forward objection is to address itself against tedious and cumbersome composition lackinh clarity and monotony of conscience. There be also, partially, against violence against requirement of great style: classical aesthetic and startling expansion in the requirement after catharsis effect of art. The grounds indicate the tragedy which separate fate haven't in sufficient mass the liberating structure and which fiction to elevate and purify except that of the imaginative experience's to yield, indeed, however, religious and aesthetic reconciliation.

Concerning Undsets historical epics, this Aristotelian's problems concerning aesthetic composition which psychological past is that in itself Undset's unhistorical structure which's rendered guilty, have psychology neither of which Middle Ages still have in our period except if narrative talent is likened to Fielding, Scott and Thackeray, the narrative seems lacking and her accomplishments doesn't have the prototypical, which is Icelandic Sagas. And I have to predict that her fiction soon will not be read.

But Schuck, while rejecting Gorky's for his ideological writings, and with Federik Book absenting himself from voting for Gorky, and Jensen's candidature been rejected, Undset was selected for the Prize.

 

[redhead]

The prize for 1927 was announced together with Deledda in 1926 because the committee didn't find a suitable candidate. It was like what happened in 1926, when Shaw was announced as the Laureate for 1925, Spitteler announced for the 1919 prize in 1920. The last time such thing, apart from the scandal that rocked the Academy in 2018, happened was in 1950, when Faulkner was announced as Laureate for 1949 and Russell for the current year. Once such thing happened, the committee usually combine the shortlist for the former and current year. Just like in 2019 when the combined short list for 2019 and 2018 totalled eight writers (I wondered the writers Tokarczuk and Handke overcome in the shortlist).

? According to that link I posted above from the Nobel site it says Bergson’s prize for the 1927 award was announced in 1928, presumably alongside Undset’s.

 

[Ben Jackson]

? According to that link I posted above from the Nobel site it says Bergson’s prize for the 1927 award was announced in 1928, presumably alongside Undset’s.

Sorry, I wanted to write 1928, but I mistakenly wrote 1927.

 

[redhead]

Sorry, I wanted to write 1928, but I mistakenly wrote 1927.

No worries. Does your source say why during the same set of deliberation meetings they overrode Undset’s prize for 1927 but then gave it to her for 1928? I’d be curious what discussions there were. And thanks again for putting this together.

 

[Ben Jackson]

No worries. Does your source say why during the same set of deliberation meetings they overrode Undset’s prize for 1927 but then gave it to her for 1928? I’d be curious what discussions there were. And thanks again for putting this together.

You are welcome.

From what I've read, Henrik Schuck wasn't actually convinced about Undset's historical characterization in her epics, which's similar to what he said in 1928 (see the arguments upthread). I had already written about the arguments of Osterling concerning Bergson upthread. The recognition for non-fictional writers was put forward once again, after almost twenty years from the last non-fictional laureate: Eucken.

One question I want to ask is how do you guys rate Edith Wharthon today? I did read Age of Innocence, and I have about two other books, Ethan Frome and The Reef. From what I have gathered she was known for her psychological realism.

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for Literature for 1929 was awarded to Thomas Mann "principally for his great novel Buddenbrooks which has won steadily increased recognition as one of classic work of contemporary literature." It was announced on 12th November 1929. 24 writers were suggested.

Shortlisted writers and their key works:

Thomas Mann (aame books evaluated in 1924 and 1928)

Arno Holz
Revolutions in Poetry
Phantasus
Songs on an Old Lute
Book of Time
Traumulus
Ignorabimus
Eclipse

Stefan George
Hymns
Pilgrimages
Algabal
Year of Soul
Tapestry of Life
Seventh Ring
The New Reich
Poems 1886--1889
The War Kingdom Come

First Time Nominees
Cale Young Rice
Knud Rasmussen
Stefan George
Edwin Arlington Robinson
Benedetto Croce
Thornton Wilder

Nominees from Swedish Academy
Edwin Robinson (Hjalmar Hammarskjold)
Thornton Wilder, Thomas Mann (Anders Osterling)
Johan Bojer, Bertel Gripenberg, William Inge, Erik Karlfeldt (Nathan Soderblom)

Female writers nominated
Concha Espina de la Serna was the only female nominee

N.B This year was the only year when the shortlisted names were all from the same nation since 1901, 28 years ago. This epoch would also mark the end of criteria of Great Style.

Nobel Committee Members during this period:

Per Hallstrom (Chariman and Permanent Secretary)
Anders Osterling
Frederik Book
Henrik Schuck
Hans Larsson
Erik Karlfeldt

 

[Ben Jackson]

Here's a more detailed report for the candidates.

The report for Stefan George, a German poet known for his symbolist poetry, prepared by Nobel Committee states that "the main significance of this poet whose poetry in his own country and elsewhere's emphasized in which he strives for poetry with strict sublimity and form of content to uplift the grand qualities through which George, notwithstanding, precipitate excitement, effort and extravagance which aspire fairly often, have reached an objective. However, the exclusivity of his character and feeling of life in which difficulty perspicuity of his language's mentioned as well. This narrow-mindedness of work, despite its many regards full of poetic accomplishments will pose obstacles for his recommendation." Meanwhile Arno Holz, in the reportts, was also rejected after recognzing "the significance, which one, therein, his always daring reforms which the principe of German poetry through the poet must be of a near recumbent mind," but was rejected because "the issue of exclusivity leaves a German issue for the habitual, accesible reader and the convincing beauty have been unable to acheive. With all respect compared with Holz in repeated terms except usually vocation for invention and intensity of language is the committee member which opinion that his lyricism's not widely enough for human interest, which's not universally aligned for the Nobel Prize."

Report for Thomas Mann, which was influenced by Schopenhaeur, Goethe, Nietszche and Tolstoy, was well detailed. The previous year, he was rejected because of the decline in his work, and in 1924, which was the first year he was seriously considered, the committee recommended a monitoring attitude for more production. With the last German Laureate coming in 1912, the committee was looking for a German Laureate, after rewarding the major language in the decade. The report reads:

Mann's masterwork Buddenbrooks's within the civil narrative fiction. It's a highlight in general in the contemporary narrative and is part of aesthetic of great style. The work has the human significance which's closer to the classical realism of Tolstoy.

Tristan and Tonio Kroger, on the other hand:

Are narratives which imply to unite new poet's bold partisanship for which health, prosaic simplicity of life's against the aesthetic.

Hallstrom continues:

The novel describes also in numerous regards (except) clearly work of vital content. However, of aesthetic standpoint's hence from broad and cumbersome but has expectation of capable achievements. Except the judgement, that the best of his earlier work's of undisputed literature, then the award of the prize would be justified.

Hallstrom's verdict, which put into consideration, was "appreciate conception of literature which the plastic fixation and round structure and the calm uniformity, completeness and clarity of the composition," and must "make attempt which parameters of traditional novel in his world shouldn't be encyclopedic, with organized of the musical form." Hence Thomas Mann was chosen not for his recent productions, but for the monumental masterpiece of family chronicle Buddenbrooks.

 

[Abhi]

The first Mann I'd read was The Transposed Heads. I picked it up after reading Girish Karnad's tremendous play Hayavadana which partially follows the same folk tale Mann had based his novella on. I remember being impressed by Mann's writing. I immediately picked up Death in Venice afterwards and was astounded by its ambition and execution. Mann is one of my favourite novelists.