Ben Jackson
Well-known member
The Nobel Prize for the period 1901--1912 was called the era of "lofty and sound idealsm," championed by the committee chairman Carl David Af Wirsen. The approach was a conservative idealism according to Hegel, holding church, state and family sacred and by its idealist aesthetics derived from Goethe. It also expressed Wirsen's struggle against radical Scandanivian writers (Like August Strindberg and Ibsen for examples) and his distate for naturalist writers like Emile Zola, a similar taste is expressed by Alfred Nobel as well, Wirsen had expressed his dislike for radical writers (he was also not in support of Shelley's poetic vision, though Alfred Nobel loved Shelley), as far back as 1880s, as he was a fan of Victorian-style inspired literature. And when he found his opportunity as the chairman of the Nobel Committee in 1899, he took his taste into arena of world literature.
The first year of Nobel Prize, in 1901, two writers was shortlisted: French writers Emile Zola and Sully Prudhomme. Zola's writing was dismissed as "too cynical," while Prudhomme was seen as "more than the most represents what the testator called ideal in literature." The press in Europe had though that the first Nobel Prize would go to Tolstoy, the world's greatest living writer at the time, but when the committee announced Prudhomme, 42 writers, led by Lagerolf and Strindberg, wrote a letter to Tolstoy expressing their disgust and regret for the Nobel committee's failure in recognising the Russian master. Tolstoy expressed that he didn't need the money and infamously replied "money's the root of evil." Tolstoy wasn't even nominated that year, he was nominated and shortlisted in 1902. Thus one of the most forgettable laureate was awarded in the name of Prudhomme.
In 1902, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Bjorstjern Bjorson, George Meredith, Herbert Spencer and Thedore Mommsen were shortlisted for the Nobel. There were big talks within the Academy to recognize a non-fiction writer, hence the shortlist of two of the world's most famous writers in the non-fiction area: English philosopher Spencer (known for phrases like 'survival of the fittest' and German historian Mommsen), and, for the first time, a split prize. George Meredith was rejected for his works displaying artificialty and febrile imagination. Tolstoy was praised for the monumental creations Anna Karenina and War and Peace (I agree), but was dismissed for his "anarchistic ideology," Ibsen was dismissed for his "radical style that was completely against the ideal direction required, " while Spencer was dismissed for "his agnosticism." Mommsen's History of Rome was hailed as "a monumental work in the field of classical history, the brilliant insight and erudition that marked the work of a genius," while Bjorson was pushed for the next year as planned split with Ibsen. Mommsen was voted as the recipient for his momumental history masterpiece, a work praised all over Europe by writers like Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain.
1903 shortlist was Maurice Maeterlinck, Ibsen and Bjorson and Danish literature historian George Brandes. Brandes was dismissed for his "agnosticism, this phrase was common in this era," while Maeterlinck was dismissed for "been too obscure, literary motifs of such embarrassing and bizarre nature and his agnosticism," while Ibsen was "too old and burnt-out." It's believe that Bjorson's character (he agitated for Norway's independence from Sweden, that's dissolution, which took place in 1905), might have proved vital in his triumph.
In 1904, the shortlist consisted of Sienkiewicz, Federic Mistral and Jose Echegaray. Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis was hailed as masterpiece, but was passed over to the following year. Mistral been shortlisted appealed the committee because of his "Provencal language," but Wirsen was uncertain about the quality of translation of Mistral's masterpiece Mireo. Wirsen proposed withdrawing Mistral's candidacy and opting for Echegaray instead. But he only needed 50% support for this proposal, and failing to get support, settled for a split between Spanish Dramatist Echegaray and Mistral. There was an uproar in the press in Spain and Italy, as Spain thought Galdos, then one of Europe's greatest living novelists, would get the Prize, same as Italians felt when they found that their national poet Carducci wasn't victorious.
In 1905, Sienkiewicz was shortlisted with his countrywoman Eliza Orzeskowa and Carducci. Sienkiewicz was praised for his mastepiece Quo Vadis, a work "displaying the traits of Tolstoy." Carducci's Hymn to Satan and his religion proved an obstacle in the eyes of the committee. And even though the committee had planned a split prize between Orzeskowa and Sienkiewicz the previous year, Sienkiewicz was seen as a vital, greater writer. Hence Sienkiewicz's triumph.
In 1906, the shortlist consisted of Tolstoy and Carducci. Wirsen had ordered for the copy of Tolstoy's then recent, now forgotten work The Great Sin for assessment, but Tolstoy wrote a letter to one of the friends of a Nobel Committee member stating his lack of interest in the Nobel Prize. With that decision, the committee voter unanimously to Carducci, a rare decision by the Nobel Committee.
The first year of Nobel Prize, in 1901, two writers was shortlisted: French writers Emile Zola and Sully Prudhomme. Zola's writing was dismissed as "too cynical," while Prudhomme was seen as "more than the most represents what the testator called ideal in literature." The press in Europe had though that the first Nobel Prize would go to Tolstoy, the world's greatest living writer at the time, but when the committee announced Prudhomme, 42 writers, led by Lagerolf and Strindberg, wrote a letter to Tolstoy expressing their disgust and regret for the Nobel committee's failure in recognising the Russian master. Tolstoy expressed that he didn't need the money and infamously replied "money's the root of evil." Tolstoy wasn't even nominated that year, he was nominated and shortlisted in 1902. Thus one of the most forgettable laureate was awarded in the name of Prudhomme.
In 1902, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Bjorstjern Bjorson, George Meredith, Herbert Spencer and Thedore Mommsen were shortlisted for the Nobel. There were big talks within the Academy to recognize a non-fiction writer, hence the shortlist of two of the world's most famous writers in the non-fiction area: English philosopher Spencer (known for phrases like 'survival of the fittest' and German historian Mommsen), and, for the first time, a split prize. George Meredith was rejected for his works displaying artificialty and febrile imagination. Tolstoy was praised for the monumental creations Anna Karenina and War and Peace (I agree), but was dismissed for his "anarchistic ideology," Ibsen was dismissed for his "radical style that was completely against the ideal direction required, " while Spencer was dismissed for "his agnosticism." Mommsen's History of Rome was hailed as "a monumental work in the field of classical history, the brilliant insight and erudition that marked the work of a genius," while Bjorson was pushed for the next year as planned split with Ibsen. Mommsen was voted as the recipient for his momumental history masterpiece, a work praised all over Europe by writers like Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain.
1903 shortlist was Maurice Maeterlinck, Ibsen and Bjorson and Danish literature historian George Brandes. Brandes was dismissed for his "agnosticism, this phrase was common in this era," while Maeterlinck was dismissed for "been too obscure, literary motifs of such embarrassing and bizarre nature and his agnosticism," while Ibsen was "too old and burnt-out." It's believe that Bjorson's character (he agitated for Norway's independence from Sweden, that's dissolution, which took place in 1905), might have proved vital in his triumph.
In 1904, the shortlist consisted of Sienkiewicz, Federic Mistral and Jose Echegaray. Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis was hailed as masterpiece, but was passed over to the following year. Mistral been shortlisted appealed the committee because of his "Provencal language," but Wirsen was uncertain about the quality of translation of Mistral's masterpiece Mireo. Wirsen proposed withdrawing Mistral's candidacy and opting for Echegaray instead. But he only needed 50% support for this proposal, and failing to get support, settled for a split between Spanish Dramatist Echegaray and Mistral. There was an uproar in the press in Spain and Italy, as Spain thought Galdos, then one of Europe's greatest living novelists, would get the Prize, same as Italians felt when they found that their national poet Carducci wasn't victorious.
In 1905, Sienkiewicz was shortlisted with his countrywoman Eliza Orzeskowa and Carducci. Sienkiewicz was praised for his mastepiece Quo Vadis, a work "displaying the traits of Tolstoy." Carducci's Hymn to Satan and his religion proved an obstacle in the eyes of the committee. And even though the committee had planned a split prize between Orzeskowa and Sienkiewicz the previous year, Sienkiewicz was seen as a vital, greater writer. Hence Sienkiewicz's triumph.
In 1906, the shortlist consisted of Tolstoy and Carducci. Wirsen had ordered for the copy of Tolstoy's then recent, now forgotten work The Great Sin for assessment, but Tolstoy wrote a letter to one of the friends of a Nobel Committee member stating his lack of interest in the Nobel Prize. With that decision, the committee voter unanimously to Carducci, a rare decision by the Nobel Committee.
Last edited:
Thank you for the name.