Understanding Nobel Prize: Great Style 1920---1923

[Ben Jackson]

Great style was a criteria used by the Nobel committee to judge candidates for the Nobel Prizes in the 1920s. It had connections with Wirsen's epoch (1901--1912), and his treatment of classicism, though it eliminated the narrow interpretation of the ideal direction expressed by Wirsen. It upheld the wide-hearted humanity (which meant capturing a national human spirit) of works found in candidates like Undset, Shaw and Antaloe France, the last two writers dismissed in the earlier decade. The committee found problems in finding good candidates with rich oeuvres in this decade, hence the emphasis was laid on certain works and not an entire productions: Reymont, Arnold Bennet and Galsworthy for example, which made it possible to avoid taking responsibility for inferior works of uneven writers.

As for the Prize in 1920, which went to Knut Hamsun, he was shortlisted alongside his countryman Arne Garborg, Grazia Deledda and Finn novelist Juhani Aho, but the publication of Hamsun's Growth of the Soil, highlighted in Hamsun's Nobel citation, proved crucial.

The 1921 Nobel Prize shortlist consisted of Bernard Shaw, Anatole France, the recipient, H G Wells and John Galsworthy. "One can't deny him the idealism required of Nobel Prize, " said committee chair Per Hallstrom, but it was believed that Wells didn't "express the human drama enough," which was found in Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga. The committee had voted for Galsworthy, but the Academy chose instead France. It was one of those moments when the Academy disagreed on the choices made by the Committee, another was in 1966.

The Nobel Prize in 1922 the shortlist was Thomas Hardy, Jacinto Benevente and W B Yeats. Hallstrom hailed Yeats for bringing a fresh language into English, and also for his capturing, skillfully, the human spirit of his nation. But he felt that Spanish language has not been rewarded for a long time (since 1904), hence the selection of Benevente. In 1923, Yeats and Thomas Hardy was shortlisted. The committee praised Hardy's poetry productions, but felt that he was too old (he was 83 at the time), and while Yeats was praised with the same expressions he received in 1922, he was advocated by Anders Osterling for been a much younger and suitable candidate than Hardy. Yeats was eventually chosen, while Hardy never received the Prize.

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for Literature for 1920 was awarded to Knut Hamsun "for his monumental work Growth of the Soil." Hamsun became the second Norweigan Laureate after Bjornson in 1903. It was announced on 13th November, 1920, the same day the 1919 Laureate was announced. 20 writers were nominated.

Shortlisted writers and their key works:

Arne Garborg (same works evaluated in 1916 plus Odyssey)

Knut Hamsun
Pan
Mysteries
Hunger
Growth of the Soil
Dreamers

Grazia Deledda (1926 winner, same books evaluated in 1913 & 1917 plus The Mother)

Juhani Aho (same books evaluated in 1917 plus Do You Remember)

First Time Nominees
Wilbur Abbot

Nominees that would become Lareates:

Grazia Deledda (1921 winner)
John Galsworthy (1932 winner)
Wladslaw Reymont (1924 winner)

Nominees nominated by Swedish Academy

George Brandes (Selma Lagerolf, Sven Hedin, Henrik Schuck)
John Galsworthy (Henrik Schuck)
Knut Hamsun, Carl Spitteler (Erik Karlfeldt)
Thomas Hardy (Anders Osterling)

Nominated female writer
Only Grazia Deledda was nominated for this year.

 

[Ben Jackson]

I would like to introduce the Chairman of the Nobel Committee for this period Per Hallstrom.

Per Hallstrom (1866--1960), who succeeded Harald Hjarne as Chairman of the Nobel Committee, was Swedish writer of short stories, dramatist and poet. He became a member of the Swedish Academy in 1908 and then became part of the Nobel Committee in 1913. As Chairman of the Nobel Committee, he introduced the criteria for the 1920s, "Great Style" which's characterized by the works featuring wide-hearted humanity. It was inspired by the monumental essay Hallstrom published in 1916 in Daghens Nyehter in regards to human interest in the oeuvre of Goethe. During his Chairmanship, his reports concerning the main candidates were dealt relatively concise (unlike the previous two decades) except the reports for 1922, which dealt with Yeats and Benevente, 1924 & 1926 on Bernard Shaw and 1927 for Kostas Palamas. He became the Permanent Secretary between 1931--- 1941, doubling as the chairman during the timeframe. As of this period, Hallstrom-led Nobel commitee was still adamant and skeptical in selecting candidates with avant-garde outlook.

 

[Ben Jackson]

Concerning Grazia Deledda's authorship, Schuck evaluated Deledda's "portrayal of Sardinian nature having vividness which few counterpart possess." Deledda's novels and stories, which are predominantly set in Sardinia, portrays characters with vividness, most of them inspired by stories she heard growing up, although some of them were autobiographical. Schuck, meanwhile, commented that "the picture of her people's lives, the natural depiction, have the Homerian traits and plain language; and it also has something of virtueness and noble beauty of marble." Schuck claims to have followed the completeness of her composition. But to him Deledda "the only error is she fails to having, actually, draw conclusion to her ideology." While Elias Portulu, according to Schuck, "is worthy of proposed prize."

Hamsun's candidature was recommended by Henrik Schuck which, in the recent Growth of the Soil "had the culture and thoughtful ideology and humanism" displayed in the masterpiece of world literature. This work, published in 1917, was well-received and was greeted as one of the finest European novels of the first half of the 20th century (ranked, frequently, along with Mann's Buddenbrooks). For this reason, Hamsun was chosen ahead of Juhani Aho and Arne Garborg, which issues of language was the case for the former.

 

[Leseratte]

Great style was a criteria used by the Nobel committee to judge candidates for the Nobel Prizes in the 1920s. It had connections with Wirsen's epoch (1901--1912), and his treatment of classicism, though it eliminated the narrow interpretation of the ideal direction expressed by Wirsen. It upheld the wide-hearted humanity (which meant capturing a national human spirit) of works found in candidates like Undset, Shaw and Antaloe France, the last two writers dismissed in the earlier decade. The committee found problems in finding good candidates with rich oeuvres in this decade, hence the emphasis was laid on certain works and not an entire productions: Reymont, Arnold Bennet and Galsworthy for example, which made it possible to avoid taking responsibility for inferior works of uneven writers.

As for the Prize in 1920, which went to Knut Hamsun, he was shortlisted alongside his countryman Arne Garborg, Grazia Deledda and Finn novelist Juhani Aho, but the publication of Hamsun's Growth of the Soil, highlighted in Hamsun's Nobel citation, proved crucial.

The 1921 Nobel Prize shortlist consisted of Bernard Shaw, Anatole France, the recipient, H G Wells and John Galsworthy. "One can't deny him the idealism required of Nobel Prize, " said committee chair Per Hallstrom, but it was believed that Wells didn't "express the human drama enough," which was found in Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga. The committee had voted for Galsworthy, but the Academy chose instead France. It was one of those moments when the Academy disagreed on the choices made by the Committee, another was in 1966.

The Nobel Prize in 1922 the shortlist was Thomas Hardy, Jacinto Benevente and W B Yeats. Hallstrom hailed Yeats for bringing a fresh language into English, and also for his capturing, skillfully, the human spirit of his nation. But he felt that Spanish language has not been rewarded for a long time (since 1904), hence the selection of Benevente. In 1923, Yeats and Thomas Hardy was shortlisted. The committee praised Hardy's poetry productions, but felt that he was too old (he was 83 at the time), and while Yeats was praised with the same expressions he received in 1922, he was advocated by Anders Osterling for been a much younger and suitable candidate than Hardy. Yeats was eventually chosen, while Hardy never received the Prize.

By not choosing Hardy the SA probably also avoided the controversial themes raised by some of his later novels.

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for Literature in 1921 was awarded to Anatole France "in recognition of his brilliant literary achievements characterized as they are by nobility of style, profound human sympathy, grace and Gallic temperament." 22 names were suggested for the prize this year.

Shortlisted writers and their key works

Anatole France (same books evaluated in 1904, 1909--1910 and 1913 plus Revolt of Angels, Path of Glory, Little Pierre, Balthasar)

Bernard Shaw (1925 winner, same books evaluated in 1911 plus Pygmalion, Heartbreak House, Back to Methuselah, Quintessence of Ibsenism)

HG Wells

Science Fiction Novels
History of Mr Polly G
Kipps
Anticipations
Russian in the Shadows
Short Stories
Outline of History

John Galsworthy (1932 winner)

Country House
Strife, Joy, Silverbox, Justice
Skin Game
Man of Property
In Chancery

W B Yeats (1923 winner, same books evaluated in 1915 plus Michael Robartes and the Dancer)

First Time Nominees

HG Wells
Jacinto Benevente
Jean Revel
Stefan Zeromski
Emile Boutroux

Nominees nominated by Swedish Academy Members
Emile Boutroux (Harald Hjarne)
HG Wells, Bernard Shaw (Henrik Schuck)
Grazia Deledda (Carl Bildt)
Henri Bergson (Verner Heidenstam)
WB Yeats (Erik Karlfeldt)
John Galsworthy (Anders Osterling)

Nominees nominated by Laureates
Ferdinand Avenarius (Rudolf Eucken)
Henri Bergson (Verner Heidenstam)

Nominees that would become laureates
Henri Bergson (1927 winner)
Bernard Shaw (1925 winner)
Jacinto Benevente (1922 winner)
Grazia Deledda (1926 winner)
WB Yeats (1923 winner)
John Galsworthy (1932 winner)

Nominated female writers
Only Grazia Deledda was nominated

 

[Ben Jackson]

Bernard Shaw was praised for having "outstanding satrical gift." But however, according to the Nobel Committee "given with the fairly encounter of the fashion of art of paradox, and his work appears with underlying content of firmness, seems to be lacking, midway, excessive hilarity. But one must anticipate a Nobel Prize though to his accomplishments."

Herbert Wells, on the other hand, was proposed by Henrik Schuck, and Per Hallstrom, in his expert appraisal, praised Wells "for his vibrant and varied writings, which, one must not deny him the idealism characterized by his writings." But Harald Hjarne, opposed Wells candidature, arguing "that this connecting context is the vibrant imagination and greater richness which characterized his fiction. However, he's, at the same time, the notion of superior belonging that writer's pretty world recline recently in an inferior Outline of World History." Wells works, continued Hjarne, "becomes provocative and full of propaganda, inspired by events of the German front, which's by the participation of actual phase of world war. And that a compromise should not be given in this case."

While Harald Hjarne had argued favourably for John Galsworthy (his works crucial of the interpretation of Testament), he expressed his displeasure with Anatole France:

Philosophically, France's serious laden idealism's his irony which's linked to Plato, through the antiquity, medieval and Renaissance through Pascal and many philosophical and theological thinkers, romantic and social topic and visionary of Parnassus and poet which are not followed in our days. France's someone different hand which from antiquity with unifying spatter of humor of Aristophanes, which easier form of Socratisch irony and of skepticism and pleasance of Epicurus. France's from a different tradition, for the alexandrine world he's Petronius and the vagabond cleric of medieval and a product in this current, is all mastery (not of idealistic prize of Nobel testament). France's without aesthetics of mannerism of Voltaire and is filled with all sorts of unnecessary and banal allusions and piquancy.

Henrik Schuck, on the other hand, defended Anatole France. With France been dismissed, in a different instance, for his left-wing politics in 1913 (also highlighted by Hjarne) Schuck perceived France:

The concept ideal's closely designed and today it's used for interpreting a great number of masterwork of world literature. France's true humanist and his whole essence's permeated with wide broadness with human understanding which life have given. It's true that he's a skeptic, which's to track down the conundrum of life, which's an error to defend and contradict the Nobel testament of idealism. France was never a passive doubter which's indifferent to see as right and humanity with feet treading on Dreyfus trial standing on the first row against the led astray chauvinism and against the spirit of military case, defending and during the recent great war in one of the few excellent manner which announce words of love and not hate. His idealism correspond, but also his works, taken as a whole, must denote idealism, where the term not limited through denominational barriers. He construct a reaction against Zola's naturalism and its earthbound analyses of reality put Anatole France the bearer of tradition lead in new Romantic in which a Literature's certainly not old, but perhaps new and genuine. France attempts, at least, the different different to understand, to explain and also to excuse. France, perhaps, has the highest form of idealism.

Erik Karlfeldt's main candidate was WB Yeats, who he described in his report "as winning much acknowledgment for his remarkable lyricism." But Hallstrom was hesitant, rather convincing the committee because of "lack of clarity and inaccesiblity of Yeats' writings which he thought recipient of Nobel doesn't have."

Schuck's observations on Galsworthy was "he posses development of versatility and with fewer, sharper and harder characterization of condition of feeling of behavioral peculiar in co-existence of people. But the penetration of the Author seems weak." With Academy voting Anatole France based on the report of Schuck, as one of the remaining classicists in French Literature, France became the fourth French recipient.

How's Anatole France's reputation in his native country? Has he declined, or is he still read? As for non-French, how do you perceive France's works?

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Literature Prize for 1922 was awarded to Jacinto Benevente "for the happy manner in which he has continued the illustrious tradition of Spanish Drama." 18 writers were nominated for the prize.

Shortlisted writers and their key works

W B Yeats (1923 winner, same books evaluated in 1915, 1921)

Jacinto Benevente
The Wrongly Wed
Love Frightens
Smoking Prohibited
Company of Comedians
Bonds of Interest
La Malquerida
Magic Hour
Autumnal Roses
Governor's Wife

Thomas Hardy (same books evaluated in 1910 and 1913 plus Late Lyrics and Satires of Circumstances)

First Time Nominees
Sigrid Undset
Darrell Figgis
George Von Below
Israel Zangwill
Michael Sadtier
Mathilde Serao
Robert Bracco
Ludwig von Pastior
William Inge
Paul Ernst

Nominees that would become Laureates
Grazia Deledda (Carl Bildt)
William Inge (Nathan Soderblom)
George Brandes (Verner Heidenstam, Selma Lagerolf)
W B Yeats (Nobel Committee)

Nominees that would become Laureates
Sigrid Undset (1928 winner)
W B Yeats (1923 winner)
Wladslaw Reymont (1924 winner)
Grazia Deledda (1926 winner)
John Galsworthy (1932 winner)

Nominated female writers
Mathilde Serao
Grazia Deledda
Sigrid Undset

 

[Ben Jackson]

While Thomas Hardy was rejected by Per Hallstrom "one can quite thoroughly recognize the safe depiction of nature and of human life in its stylistic masterworks in which nature and its vigor in the depiction of the world as he sees it. However, his view on the world through its imagination which characterization and the course of distort of destiny. His poetry unite hopelessnes and gloominess."

Jacinto Benevente, on the other hand was evaluated in the reports " his worldview is marker by humanity," and the verification of Benevente's recommendation "is under the standpoint of ideally character of works, here's first the negative merit that depict without questionable ideal, no values ripen, whereupon the human life's stated. While his art's strictly objective, Benevente's surely often sceptical and critical but in rationale human view for his people, which draws him to their superficial conventions to ridiculousness."

The Nobel Committee's reports further indicated that "Yeats's lyricism is not only in part obscure but quite adorable, and it further becomes not about the plain, serrated lyrical work, but also in its dramatic works. His drama, enthusiastic as through fixed strength of lyric beauty, music and emotional composition and actual dramatic life. His subject's obsession of great style in his play filled with Irish spirit, which Years acheived in his best drama (King's Threshold). However, his further work, through thoughts and subtlety and enchantment of feelings through vividness of craft's structure." Yeats poetry are partly, continued the Nobel Committee's reports "too obscure's characteristic. An indication toward the classical element have already been gotten through this poetic taste. Homerian straightforwardness is found in Cathleen ni Houlihan, a small masterpiece which correspond with the requirement: simple, and ready like a flower in good sense traditional and at the same time with exquisite affectation."

"His latter art's highly significant attempt's to create an archaic of dramatic art form," continued the Commitee "is from combat characterisation. The plain, great style, more over, is a pathfinding origin of tragedy of dance and song are however still lacking in scope in which heartbeat, probably the essence in which nature of ripen tragedy's to be present."

Yeats dramas is effective contrast between him and Benevente in which the latter dramatist's influenced by the rapid past. However, with the vital emphasis on the objectives of dramatists direction. Benevente's dramatist of manners which portrays objectively clear and logical art, is neither a prophet nor preacher. Objectivity corresponds to the balance: "This skepticism and acrimony of which, because he's condemned by several critics in his country, seems to us their palate through a great deal of clarity. He's, in general, not violent but rather strange through the presence of degree and balance. Benevente's worldview, clear, firm as he's, is marked by humanity as well as good character of strength in a poet as gesture and heart of Oscar Wilde. He gives this strength, which in itself in humbleness in safe naturalness and above all in beauty. Benevente's art's in the highest worth. The beauty's maturity of harmony as already said, a serrated craft, is a level of aesthetic quality and therefore also rarely. In the tradition of Lope De Vega and Calderon, the comedy's also the great precursor (which not in first line through the spiritual and easiness of dialogue, is marked by movements in the play after unwritten culture marked by a peculiar beauty." But the Nobel Committee decided to award Benevente by principle of pragmatism (geographic distribution), which was to become a major criteria during the latter epoch of the century (1970s and 1990s).

 

[Ben Jackson]

The Nobel Prize for Literature for 1923 was awarded to W B Yeats "for his always inspired poetry which in a highly artistic form gives expression with spirit of a whole nation." 20 writers were nominated for the Prize this year.

Shortlisted writers and their key works
Thomas Hardy
WB Yeats

First Time Nominees
Ivan Bunin
Konstantin Balmont
Hermann Turck
Einart Kvaran
Gugliemo Ferrero

Nominees nominated by Swedish Academy Members
Grazia Deledda (Carl Bildt)
WB Yeats (Nobel Commitee)
Gugliemo Ferrero, William Inge, Bertel Gripenberg (Nathan Soderblom)

Nominees by Nobel Laureates
Gugliemo Ferreo (Anatole France)
Ivan Bunin, Konstantin Balmont, Maxim Gorky, Thomas Hardy (Romain Rolland)
Paul Ernst (Henrik Pontoppidan)

Nominees that would become laureates
Grazia Deledda (1926 winner)
Ivan Bunin (1933 winner)

Nominated female writers
Grazia Deledda
Mathilde Serao
Dora Melegari
Elizabeth Forster Nietszche

Committee Members (1920-1923)
Anders Osterling
Per Hallstrom
Herald Hjarne
Henrik Schuck
Erik Karlfeldt

 

[Ben Jackson]

While Per Hallstrom's remarks on Thomas Hardy was the same with the previous year, Erik Karlfeldt supported Hardy in a separate report:

Personally, Hardy's monumental achievement's portrayer of English landscape and nature, and that a bypasses in his person in England will be gesture of great displeasure and evocation of ill feeling. I observe that in consideration for this year, Yeats's arguably a great competitor, however I advise the Academy to recognize for this year Thomas Hardy.

But Anders Osterling's report, was slightly similar to Karlfeldt, although, just like the rest of the Academy, he sided with Yeats. Osterling, the youngest member of the Committee at age 36, was a notable advocate of Yeats works in Swedish literary circles. In his report, he stated "with excessive high regard of Yeats's achievement, the perception (of fairness and equity) because for discourse (which for older poet his effort in the English Literature's of greater meaning, might be preferable)." Osterling, in his remarks for Hardy's recent Late Lyrics and Earlier "appreciate the much warmer lyricism, which, similar to Hardy's lyrical output, is equally high, similarly to the novel form which has generated further attention." But the rest of the Academy, however, remained with Yeats, mainly because of the pessimism found in Hardy's oeuvre.