Was that a rule stipulated in Nobel’s bequeathing of the Prizes, or did the commite invent that after the fact?
I am not sure if it was actually in Nobel’s will (which was very short), but I think the original idea behind the prizes (although not really how they have actually worked out in practice) was to encourage and fund the winners in further work. If they were dead, this would be predestined to fail.
It is not meant to be just an honor. It is meant to be funding.
ETA: The full text (in English translation) of the will is here.
The rationale I had always heard is that posthumous prizes were not allowed because otherwise the committee might start going back and awarding prizes to Newton, Gauss, Priestley, Darwin, Shakespeare, etc. It’d be hard to argue that their contributions to science weren’t important, and discoveries are frequently recognized well after the fact anyhow.
This article is from the Nobel Prize organization explaining why Gandhi never won the Peace Prize. It says that he probably would have received it in 1948 had he not been murdered and that “according to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation in force at that time, the Nobel Prizes could, under certain circumstances, be awarded posthumously.” Instead, the Peace Prize was not awarded in 1948.
Since njtt’s version of the link to the will doesn’t seem to be working, try this version.
But the intent of the will was argued over from the start - not to mention the family members who tried to have the whole thing invalidated - and it’s difficult to argue that there ever was a “pristine” phase where it was taken literally. Arguing about who was and wasn’t eligible was always pretty malleable.
That said, I think it’s kind of obvious that he intended the receipients to be living. After that I suspect that the amount of money involved becomes important. From the vantage point of the 21st century it’s difficult to appreciate just how huge what Nobel was suggesting was. Prizes in science, even monetary ones, were nothing new, but this was completely off-scale in terms of the amounts. Large enough to raise the question of, if you’re going to give a Nobel prize to say the late James Clerk-Maxwell, who’s going to get all the money involved?
Now one might suggest that it go to sponsor some institute in his name, or whatever. But that’s a politically dodgy suggestion under the circumstances. Since there was a significant body of opinion who wanted this whole idea of prizes ignored and the fortune used to support (usually explicitly Swedish) scientific institutes instead. Given this debate, if you were someone who supported dignifying named individuals, the last thing you wanted was for the money to go to institutions in such a way. Taking it for granted that the winners had to be alive was the easy swerve round that possible blurring of Nobel’s intent.
The stipulation in the will about “during the preceding year” would of course effectively ensure living receipients. But that’s ditched in practice very. very early on.
In short, it was probably an unwritten rule that emerged from the early political give and take involved in turning that single, somewhat unrealistic, paragraph in the will into a practical system that gathered respect and prestige. Within decades it then freezes into one of the givens of the process. There’s then nothing to stop them changing it arbitrarily in any year, but there also develops a weight of tradition and an unwillingness to unnecessarily open up past cans of worms.
The Swedish poet Erik Axel Karlfeldt was awarded the literature prize posthumously.
But he died in April, so he was alive when he was nominated.
Nominated, yes, but he was awarded the prize in October.
I think Erik Axel Karlfeldt benefited from having been a member of the Nobel Committee. And Gandhi had been nominated in 1948 but didn’t receive the award posthumously.