THE BETRAYAL OF ALFRED NOBEL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 136, 10 June 1937, Page 10

THE BETRAYAL OF ALFRED NOBEL

SWEDISH CHEMIST’S WILL

Deviation From Express Conditions

having amassed a colossal fortune by supplying men with th<» means of destroying each other, the Swedish engineer chemist, Alfred Nobel, thought that he ought to do something for humanity in his will. His humanitarian ideas, of primitive naivete but lofty inspiration, were born under the influence of Countess Bertha Kinsky, whose acquaintance he had made following a small advertisemen inserted by him in a Viennese paper for “a iady no longer very young, who would act as secretary and manage his home.” In his will dated November 27, .1895, Alfred Nobel instituted a fund, the interest of which was to be distributed annually in five equal portions among those who, during the course of the past year, “had rendered the greatest service to humanity.” The shares were to be distributed in the following manner: “In the domain of physical science to the one who shall have made the greatest discovery or invention; in lhe domain of chemical science to the person who shall have made the greatest discovery or improvement; in the domain of physiology er medicine, to the one who shall have made the most important discovery; in the domain of literature, to the one who shall have produced the most remarkable work of idealistic trend; lastly, the final portion to the person who shall have done the most for the brotherhood of peoples by promoting peace.” The Swedish Academy was appointed to award the prizes. It must be conceded that the Swedish Academy has taken great pains over its task. Five sections under the direction of specialists classify and analyse the work of writers of the entire world, in every known language; every three months they make a report to the Swedish academicians eo that the 4atters’ decisions may be based on very

wide, very minute and very exact information. On the surface then, everything seems perfect, but if one goes to the bottom of things one discovers immediately that the Swedish Academy, almost from the start, has deviated in an outrageous fashion from the express conditions stipulated in the Swedish chemist’s will. This has been partly unavoidable, but it is also in part, a deliberate infraction. In his will Alfred Nobei indicated that, in the domain of literature, he desired the prize to go to the author of the most distinguished work of “idealistic trend.” Pages have been written on what he meant by “idealistic trend.” In reality it is sufficient to know the general idea which inspired the famous will. The literary clause is inserted in a general clause, which governs the awards in all the domains equally, namely that the prizes shall be given to such persons as during the past year “shall have performed a. beneficial service to humanity.” . . . What else does Nobel add? That in no way must the nationality of the competitor influence the award of lhe prize. . . . “Idealism,” “beneficial service to humanity,” the formulae are vague and it is easy to understand how the Academy can juggle with them. On the other hand, a brilliant man of letters is not necessarily a man who effectively •serves humanity (in the sense that Nobel meant) *nor one who produces works of an “idealistic trend.”

It was then impossible to maintain the exaction of high ideality in the chosen works and with all due respect one may ask what sort of face Nobel would have pulled on looking through the works of Bernard Shaw, of Kipling or Anatole France; and he would have shuddered with horror on reading the “Hymns to Satan” of Carducci, who obtained the prize in 1906. If the clause “idealistic trend” did not operate against Anatole France, it was advanced—an invincible obstacle against Thomas Hardy who was systematically set aside because hi's works convey bitterness and disenchantment. What is most striking is that the Swedish Academy deliberately set aside! the testamentary clauses of the Nobel donations from the beginning. In 1901 the Prize went to Sully-Prud-homme, “French poet, member of the French Academy, for his poetic work, which shows high idealism, artistic perfection and a rare union of the qua!l- - of heart and spirit.” In 1902, the Academy shook off the purely “literary” clause and extended its choice to historical works in crowning Theodore Mommsen, Professor of History at the University of Berlin, “for his monumental work on Roman History.” In both cases the Swedish Academy has betrayed the intention's of the testator, by seeking for worldly renown iu its laureates as a netting for the honour of the Nobel Prize and these first infractions have been continued. In a little known clause of his will Alfred Nobel indicated that he wished

“to bring to light youthful talent and enable it to develop freely by relieving the owner from pecuniary restrictions.” This aim has never been attained. The Nobel Prizes have become dedicated to being a sort of supreme award to illustrious men at the end of their careers.

But this is not all; the Swedish Academy’s principal error, and the most serious, has been not in getting away from the idealistic intentions of the giver, but in not observing the essential rule that he decreed —that of not taking into account the nationality of the candidate. In its anxiety to divide the awards equitably among the nations, by observing a rhythm of rotation, partly diplomatic, the Swedish Academy has gone at bit too far. Thanks to this very special arithmetic one has seen names like Heyse, Pontopiddan, Heiderstam, to mention only these, abruptly emerge. One must also mention the non-pay-ment of the prizes in 1918, 1925 aud 1935 and the appropriation of the amounts by the reserve fund. This practice has aroused in Sweden very violent criticism. It seems also that, on the geographical basis, taking into account the correct balance of peoples, Sweden, Norway and Denmark have, out of 31 prizes awarded, carried off the lion’s share with seven; and one has not yet recovered from the decision of 1931 when the Swedish Academy crowned Axel Karifeldt who had been dead for six months. It is not a question here of censuring the judges. The object is merely to show how a great Prize, universally respected, and still possessing great moral value, carries out in only a small degree the conceptions of the man who created it. —Pierre Descaves.