No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
When Salvatore Quasimodo won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1959, many critics, both inside and outside Italy, expressed surprise that he should have been preferred to his two great predecessors, Ungaretti and Montale. Opinions were naturally varied, ranging from exclamations of utter disbelief to sheer cynicism, and even to suggestions of political intrigue. Was not Quasimodo after all (like many of his Swedish judges) a Marxist at heart in spite of his constant denials? and had he not made the classic pilgrimage to Moscow recently? Furthermore, was it not true that he had taken the precaution of having his works translated into Swedish while his rival claimants had not? So that once it was accepted that for reasons of prestige it was Italy's turn to have a prizewinner in this field, such a combination of circumstances, at least to the critical Italian eye, could only result in Quasimodo winning the award. The plain fact is, however, that Quasimodo was seen by his Swedish judges to be more representative of the ‘angoscia’ of modern man than either of his two ‘masters.’ In their opinion, he was more deeply involved than they in the social problems of today, and sang more authentically of the present condition of mankind. Whether this is fundamentally true or not is a debatable point, and not one which it is our intention to discuss here; but there can be little doubt that since the war Quasimodo's poetry has moved closer to social realities and away from hermeticism and the concept of the ivory tower.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.