A  /  B  /  C  /  D  /  E  /   F  /  G  /  H  /  I  /  J  /   K  /  L  /  M  /  N  /  O   P  /  R  /  S  /  T  /  U  /  V  /  W  /  X  /  Y  /  Z

The Countess of Escarbagnas (La Comtesse D\'Escarbagnas) by Moliere (Poquelin)

M >> Moliere (Poquelin) >> The Countess of Escarbagnas (La Comtesse D\'Escarbagnas)

Pages:
1 | 2


Produced by Charles Franks, Delphine Lettau
and the people at Distributed Proofreading




THE COUNTESS OF ESCARBAGNAS.

(LA COMTESSE D'ESCARBAGNAS.)

BY

MOLIÈRE


TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH PROSE.

_WITH SHORT INTRODUCTIONS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES_.

BY

CHARLES HERON WALL



'La Comtesse d'Escarbagnas' was acted before the Court at Saint-
Germain-en-Laye, on December 2, 1671, and in the theatre of the Palais
Royal on July 8, 1672. It was never printed during Molière's lifetime,
but for the first time only in 1682. It gives us a good picture of the
provincial thoughts, manners, and habits of those days.



PERSONS REPRESENTED

THE COUNT, _son to the_ COUNTESS.
THE VISCOUNT, _in love with_ JULIA.
MR. THIBAUDIER, _councillor, in love with the_ COUNTESS.
MR. HARPIN, _receiver of taxes, also in love with the_ COUNTESS.
MR. BOBINET, _tutor to the_ COUNT.
JEANNOT, _servant to_ MR. THIBAUDIER.
CRIQUET, _servant to the_ COUNTESS.
THE COUNTESS OF ESCARBAGNAS.
JULIA, _in love with the_ VISCOUNT.
ANDRÉE, _maid to the_ COUNTESS.

_The scene is at Angoulême._



SCENE I.--JULIA, THE VISCOUNT.

VISC. What! you are here already?

JU. Yes, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, Cléante; it is not
right for a lover to be the last to come to the rendezvous.

VISC. I should have been here long ago if there were no importunate
people in the world. I was stopped on my way by an old bore of rank,
who asked me news of the court, merely to be able himself to detail to
me the most absurd things that can well be imagined about it. You know
that those great newsmongers are the curse of provincial towns, and
that they have no greater anxiety than to spread, everywhere abroad
all the tittle-tattle they pick up. This one showed me, to begin with,
two large sheets of paper full to the very brim with the greatest
imaginable amount of rubbish, which, he says, comes from the safest
quarters. Then, as if it were a wonderful thing, he read full length
and with great mystery all the stupid jokes in the Dutch Gazette,
which he takes for gospel. [Footnote: After the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
in 1668, this newspaper never ceased to attack Louis XIV. and
the French nation. In 1672 Louis XIV. attempted the conquest of
Holland.] He thinks that France is being brought to ruin by the pen of
that writer, whose fine wit, according to him, is sufficient to defeat
armies. After that he raved about the ministry, spoke of all its
faults, and I thought he would never have done. If one is to believe
him, he knows the secrets of the cabinet better than those who compose
it. The policy of the state is an open book to him, and no step is
taken without his seeing through it. He shows you the secret
machinations of all that takes place, whither the wisdom of our
neighbours tends, and controls at his will and pleasure all the
affairs of Europe. His knowledge of what goes on extends as far as
Africa and Asia, and he is informed of all that; is discussed in the
privy council of Prester John [Footnote: The name given in the middle
ages to a supposed Christian sovereign and priest (presbyter) in the
interior of Asia.] and the Great Mogul.

JU. You make the best excuse you can, and so arrange it that it may
pass off well and be easily received.

VISC. I assure you, dear Julia, that this is the real reason of my
being late. But if I wanted to say anything gallant, I could tell yon
that the rendezvous to which you bring me here might well excuse the
sluggishness of which you complain. To compel me to pay my addresses
to the lady of this house is certainly reason enough for me to fear
being here the first. I ought not to have to bear the misery of it,
except when she whom it amuses is present. I avoid finding myself
alone with that ridiculous countess with whom you shackle me. In
short, as I come only for your sake, I have every reason to stay away
until you are here.

JU. Oh! you will never lack the power of giving a bright colour to
your faults. However, if you had come half an hour sooner, we should
have enjoyed those few moments. For when I came, I found that the
countess was out, and I have no doubt that she is gone all over the
town to claim for herself the honour of the comedy you gave me under
her name.

VISC. But, pray, when will you put an end to this, and make me buy
less dearly the happiness of seeing you?

JU. When our parents agree, which I scarcely dare hope for. You know
as well as I do that the dissensions which exist between our two
families deprive us of the possibility of seeing each other anywhere
else, and that neither my brothers nor my father are likely to approve
of our engagement.

VISC. Yes; but why not profit better by the opportunity which their
enmity gives us, and why oblige me to waste, under a ridiculous
deception, the moments I pass near you?

JU. It is the better to hide our love; and, besides, to tell you the
truth, this deception you speak of is to me a very amusing comedy, and
I hardly think that the one you give me to-day will amuse me as much.
Our Countess of Escarbagnas, with her perpetual infatuation for
"quality," is as good a personage as can be put on the stage. The
short journey she has made to Paris has brought her back to Angoulême
more crazy than ever. The air of the court has given a new charm to
her extravagance, and her folly grows and increases every day.

VISC. Yes; but you do not take into consideration that what amuses you
drives me to despair; and that one cannot dissimulate long when one is
under the sway of love as true as that which I feel for you. It is
cruel to think, dear Julia, that this amusement of yours should
deprive me of the few moments during which I could speak to you of my
love, and last night I wrote on the subject some verses that I cannot
help repeating to you, so true is it that the mania of reciting one's
verses is inseparable from the title of a poet:

"Iris, too long thou keepst on torture's rack
One who obeys thy laws, yet whisp'ring chides
In that thou bidst me boast a joy I lack,
And hush the sorrow that my bosom hides.

Must thy dear eyes, to which I yield my arms,
From my sad sighs draw wanton pleasure still?
Is't not enough to suffer for thy charms
That I must grieve at thy capricious will?

This double martyrdom a pain affords
Too keen to bear at once; thy deeds, thy words,
Work on my wasting heart a cruel doom,

Love bids it burn; constraint its life doth chill.
If pity soften not thy wayward will,
Love, feigned and real, will lead me to the tomb."

JU. I see that you make yourself out much more ill--used than you
need; but it is the way with you poets to tell falsehoods in cold
blood, and to pretend that those you love are much more cruel than
they are, in order to make them correspond to the fancies you may take
into your heads. Yet, I should like you, if you will, to give me those
verses in writing.

VISC. No, it is enough that I have repeated them to you, and I ought
to stop there. A man may be foolish enough to make verses, but that is
different from giving them to others.

JU. It is in vain for you to affect a false modesty; your wit is well
known, and I do not see why you should hide what you write.

VISC. Ah! we must tread here with the greatest circumspection. It is a
dangerous thing to set up for a wit. There is inherent to it a certain
touch of absurdity which is catching, and we should be warned by the
example of some of our friends.

JU. Nonsense, Cléante; I see that, in spite of all you say, you are
longing to give me your verses; and I feel sure that you would be very
unhappy if I pretended not to care for them.

VISC. I unhappy? Oh! dear no, I am not so much of a poet for you to
think that I ... but here is the Countess of Escarbagnas; I'll go by
this door, so as not to meet her, and will see that everything is got
ready for the play I have promised you.



SCENE II.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA; ANDRÉE and CRIQUET _in the
background_.

COUN. What, Madam, are you alone? Ah! what a shame! All alone! I
thought my people had told me that the Viscount was here.

JU. It is true that he came, but it was sufficient for him to know
that you were not at home; he would not stop after that.

COUN. What! did he see you?

JU. Yes.

COUN. And did he not stop to talk with you?

JU. No, Madam; he wished to show you how very much he is struck by
your charms.

COUN. Still, I shall call him to account for that. However much any
one may be in love with me, I wish them to pay to our sex the homage
that is due to it. I am not one of those unjust women who approve of
the rudeness their lovers display towards other fair ones.

JU. You must in no way be surprised at his conduct. The love he has
for you shows itself in all his actions, and prevents him from caring
for anybody but you.

COUN. I know that I can give rise to a strong passion; I have for that
enough of beauty, youth, and rank, thank Heaven; but it is no reason
why those who love me should not keep within the bounds of propriety
towards others. (_Seeing_ CRIQUET.) What are you doing there,
little page? is there not an ante-room for you to be in until you are
called? It is a strange thing that in the provinces we cannot meet
with a servant who knows his place! To whom do you think I am
speaking? Why do you not move? Will you go outside, little knave that
you are!



SCENE III.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE.

COUN. Come hither, girl.

AND. What do you wish me to do, Ma'am?

COUN. To take off my head-dress. Gently, you awkward girl: how roughly
yon touch my head with your heavy hands!

AND. I do it as gently as I can, Ma'am.

COUN. No doubt; but what you call gently is very rough treatment for
my head. You have almost put my neck out of joint. Now, take also this
muff; go and put it with the rest into the closet; don't leave
anything about. Well! where is she going to now? What is the stupid
girl doing?

AND. I am going to take this into the closet, as you told me, Ma'am.

COUN. Ah! heavens! (_To_ JULIA) Pray, excuse her rudeness, Madam.
(_To_ ANDRÉE) I told you my closet, great ass; that is the place
where I keep my dresses.

AND. Please, Ma'am, is a cupboard called a closet at court?

COUN. Yes, dunce; it is thus that a place where clothes are kept is
called.

AND. I will remember it, Ma'am, as well as the word furniture
warehouse for your attic.



SCENE IV.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA.

COUN. What trouble it gives me to have to teach such simpletons.

JU. I think them very fortunate to be under your discipline, Madam.

COUN. She is my nurse's daughter, whom I have made lady's-maid; the
post is quite new to her, as yet.

JU. It shows a generous soul, Madam, and it is glorious thus to form
people.

COUN. Come, some seats, I say! Here, little page! little page! little
page-boy! Truly, this is too bad not to have a page to give us chairs!
My maids! my page! my page! my maids! Ho! somebody! I really think
that they must be all dead, and that we shall have to find seats for
ourselves.



SCENE V.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE.

AND. What is it you want, Ma'am?

COUN. You do make people scream after you, you servants!

AND. I was putting your muff and head-dress away in the cup ... in the
closet, I mean.

COUN. Call in that rascal of a page.

AND. I say, Criquet!

COUN. Cease that "Criquet" of yours, stupid, and call out "Page."

AND. Page then, and not Criquet, come and speak to missis. I think he
must be deaf. Criq ... Page! page!



SCENE VI.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE, CRIQUET.

CRI. What is it you want?

COUN. Where were you, you rascal?

CRI. In the street, Ma'am.

COUN. Why in the street?

CRI. You told me to go outside.

COUN. You are a rude little fellow, and you ought to know that outside
among people of quality, means the ante-room. Andrée, mind you ask my
equerry to flog this little rogue. He is an incorrigible little
wretch.

AND. Whom do you mean by your equerry, Ma'am? Is it Mr. Charles you
call by that name?

COUN. Be silent, impertinent girl! You can hardly open your month
without making some rude remark. (_To_ CRIQUET) Quick, some
seats; (_to_ ANDRÉE) and you, light two wax candles in my silver
candlesticks; it is getting late. What is it now? why do you look so
scared?

AND. Ma'am.

COUN. Well--Ma'am--what is the matter?

AND. It is that....

COUN. What?

AND. I have no wax candles, but only dips.

COUN. The simpleton! And where are the wax candles I bought a few days
ago?

AND. I have seen none since I have been here.

COUN. Get out from my presence, rude girl. I will send you back to
your home again. Bring me a glass of water.



SCENE VII.--THE COUNTESS and JULIA (_making much ceremony before
they sit down_).

COUN. Madam

JU. Madam!

COUN. Ah! Madam!

JU. Ah! Madam!

COUN. Madam, I beg of you!

JU. Madam, I beg of you!

COUN. Oh! Madam!

JU. Oh! Madam!

COUN. Pray, Madam!

JU. Pray, Madam!

COUN. Now really, Madam!

JU. Now really, Madam!

COUN. I am in my own house, Madam! We are agreed as to that. Do you
take me for a provincial, Madam?

JU. Oh! Heaven forbid, Madam!



SCENE VIII.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE (_who brings a glass of
water_), CRIQUET.

COUN. (_to_ ANDRÉE). Get along with you, you hussy. I drink with
a salver. I tell you that you must go and fetch me a salver.

AND. Criquet, what's a salver?

CRI. A salver?

AND. Yes.

CRI. I don't know.

COUN. (_to_ ANDRÉE). Will you move, or will you not?

AND. We don't either of us know what a salver is.

COUN. Know, then, that it is a plate on which you put the glass.



SCENE IX.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA.

COUN. Long live Paris! It is only there that one is well waited upon;
there a glance is enough.



SCENE X.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE (_who brings a glass of water,
with a plate on the top of it_), CRIQUET.

COUN. Is that what I asked you for, dunderhead? It is under that you
must put the plate.

AND. That is easy to do. (_She breaks the glass in trying to put it
on the plate_.)

COUN. You stupid girl! You shall really pay for the glass; you shall,
I promise you!

AND. Very well, Ma'am, I will pay you for it.

COUN. But did you ever see such an awkward loutish girl? such a....

AND. I say, Ma'am, if I am to pay for the glass, I won't be scolded
into the bargain.

COUN. Get out of my sight.



SCENE XI.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA.

COUN. Really, Madam, small towns are strange places. In them there is
no respect of persons, and I have just been making a few calls at
houses where they drove me almost to despair; so little regard did
they pay to my rank.

JU. Where could you expect them to have learnt manners? They have
never been to Paris.

COUN. Still, they might learn, if they would only listen to one; but
what I think too bad is that they will persist in saying that they
know as much as I do--I who have spent two months in Paris, and have
seen the whole court.

JU. What absurd people!

COUN. They are unbearable in the impertinent equality with which they
treat people. For, in short, there ought to be a certain subordination
in things; and what puts me out of all patience is that a town
upstart, whether with two days' gentility to boast of or with two
hundred years', should have impudence enough to say that he is as much
of a gentleman as my late husband, who lived in the country, kept a
pack of hounds, and took the title of Count in all the deeds that he
signed.

JU. They know better how to live in Paris, in those large hotels you
must remember with such pleasure! That Hotel of Mouchy, Madam; that
Hotel of Lyons, that Hotel of Holland, what charming places to live
in![Footnote: Instead of naming the hotels (= mansions) of the great
noblemen, Julia names the hotels (= inns) of the time. She thus shows
where the countess had studied the aristocracy.]

COUN. It is true that those places are very different from what we
have here. You see there people of quality who do not hesitate to show
you all the respect and consideration which you look for. One is not
under the obligation of rising from one's seat, and if one wants to
see a review or the great ballet of Psyche, your wishes are at once
attended to.

JU. I should think, Madam, that during your stay in Paris you made
many a conquest among the people of quality.

COUN. You can readily believe, Madam, that of all the famous court
gallants not one failed to come to my door and pay his respects to me.
I keep in my casket some of the letters sent me, and can prove by them
what offers I have refused. There is no need for me to tell you their
names; you know what is meant by court gallants.

JU. I wonder, Madam, how, after all those great names, which I can
easily guess, you can descend to Mr. Thibaudier, a councillor, and Mr.
Harpin, a collector of taxes? The fall is great, I must say. For your
viscount, although nothing but a country viscount, is still a
viscount, and can take a journey to Paris if he has not been there
already. But a councillor and a tax-gatherer are but poor lovers for a
great countess like you.

COUN. They are men whom one treats kindly in the country, in order to
make use of when the need arises. They serve to fill up the gaps of
gallantry, and to swell the ranks of one's lovers. It is a good thing
not to leave a lover the sole master of one's heart, lest, for want of
rivals, his love go to sleep through over-confidence.

JU. I confess, Madam, that no one can help profiting wonderfully by
all you say. Your conversation is a school, to which I do not fail to
come every day in order to learn something new.



SCENE XII.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE, CRIQUET.

CRI. (_to the_ COUNTESS). Here is Jeannot, Mr. Thibaudier's man,
who wants to see you, Ma'am.

COUN. Ah! you little wretch, this is another of your stupidities. A
well-bred lackey would have spoken in a whisper to the gentlewoman in
attendance; the latter would have come to her mistress and have
whispered in her ear: "Here is the footman of Mr. So-and-so, who wants
to speak to you, Madam." To which the mistress would have answered,
"Show him in."



SCENE XIII.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, ANDRÉE, CRIQUET, JEANNOT.

CRI. Come along in, Jeannot.

COUN. Another blunder. (_To_ JEANNOT) What do you want, page?
What have you there?

JEAN. It is Mr. Thibaudier, Ma'am, who wishes you good morning, and,
before he comes, sends you some pears out of his garden, with this
small note.



SCENE XIV.--THE COUNTESS, CRIQUET, JEANNOT.

COUN. (_giving some money to_ JEANNOT). Here, my boy; here is
something for your trouble.

JEAN. Oh no, thank you, Ma'am.

COUN. Take it, I say.

JEAN. My master told me not take anything from you Ma'am.

COUN. Never mind, take it all the same.

JEAN. Excuse me, Ma'am.

CRI. Take it, Jeannot. If you don't want it, you can give it me.

COUN. Tell your master that I thank him.

CRI. (_to_ JEANNOT, _who is going_). Give it to me, Jeannot.

JEA. Yes, you catch me.

CRI. It was I who made you take it.

JEA. I should have taken it without your help.

COUN. What pleases me in this Mr. Thibaudier is that he knows how to
behave with people of my quality, and that he is very respectful.



SCENE XV.--THE VISCOUNT, THE COUNTESS, JULIA, CRIQUET.

VISC. I come to tell you, Madam, that the theatricals will soon be
ready, and that we can go into the hall in a quarter of an hour.

COUN. Mind, I will have no crowd after me. (_To_ CRIQUET) Tell
the porter not to let anybody come in.

VISC. If so, Madam, I give up our theatricals. I could take no
interest in them unless the spectators are numerous. Believe me, if
you want to enjoy it thoroughly, tell your people to let the whole
town in.

COUN. Page, a seat. (_To the_ VISCOUNT, _after he is
seated_) You have come just in time to accept a self-sacrifice I am
willing to make to you. Look, I have here a note from Mr. Thibaudier,
who sends me some pears. I give you leave to read it aloud; I have not
opened it yet.

VISC. (_after he has read the note to himself_). This note is
written in the most fashionable style, Madam, and is worthy of all
your attention. (_Reads aloud_) "Madam, I could not have made you
the present I send you if my garden did not bring me more fruit than
my love...."

COUN. You see clearly by this that nothing has taken place between us.

VISC. "The pears are not quite ripe yet, but they will all the better
match the hardness of your heart, the continued disdain of which
promises me nothing soft and sweet. Allow me, Madam, without risking
an enumeration of your charms, which would be endless, to conclude
with begging you to consider that I am as good a Christian as the
pears which I send you, [Footnote: They were pears 'de bon chrétien.'
'Choke-pears' renders rather weakly the _poires d'angoisse_ of
Mr. Thibaudier.] for I render good for evil; which is to say, to
explain myself more plainly, that I present you with good Christian
pears in return for the choke-pears which your cruelty makes me
swallow every day.
Your unworthy slave,
THIBAUDIER."

Madam, this letter is worth keeping.

COUN. There may be a few words in it that are not of the Academy, but
I observe in it a certain respect which pleases me greatly.

JU. You are right, Madam, and even if the viscount were to take it
amiss, I should love a man who would write so to me.



SCENE XVI.--MR. THIBAUDIER, THE VISCOUNT, THE COUNTESS, JULIA,
CRIQUET.

COUN. Come here, Mr. Thibaudier; do not be afraid of coming in. Your
note was well received, and so were your pears; and there is a lady
here who takes your part against your rival.

THI. I am much obliged to her, Madam, and if ever she has a lawsuit in
our court, she may be sure that I shall not forget the honour she does
me in making herself the advocate of my flame near your beauty.

JU. You have no need of an advocate, Sir, and your cause has justice
on its side.

THI. This, nevertheless. Madam, the right has need of help, and I have
reason to apprehend the being supplanted by such a rival, and the
beguiling of the lady by the rank of the viscount.

VISC. I had hopes before your note came, Sir, but now, I confess fears
for my love.

THI. Here are likewise a few little couplets which I have composed to
your honour and glory, Madam.

VISC. Ah! I had no idea that Mr. Thibaudier was a poet; these few
little couplets will be my ruin.

COUN. He means two strophes. (_To_ CRIQUET) Page, give a seat to
Mr. Thibaudier. (_Aside to_ CRIQUET, _who brings a chair_) A
folding-chair, little animal! [Footnote: Compare 'Tartuffe,' act ii.
scene iii.] Mr. Thibaudier, sit down there, and read your strophes to
us.

THI. (_reads_).

"A person of quality
Is my fair dame;
She has got beauty,
Fierce is my flame;
Yet I must blame
Her pride and cruelty."

VISC. I am lost after that.

COUN. The first line is excellent: "A person of quality."

JU. I think it is a little too long; but a liberty may be taken to
express a noble thought.

COUN. (_to_ MR. THIBAUDIER). Let us have the other.

THI. (_reads_).

"I know not if you doubt that my love be sincere,
Yet this I know, that my heart every moment
Longs to leave its sorry apartment
To visit yours, with fond respect and fear.
After all this, having my love in hand,
And my honour, of superfine brand,
You ought, in turn, I say,
Content to be a countess gay,
To cast that tigress' skin away,
Which hides your charms both night and day."

VISC. I am undone by Mr. Thibaudier.

COUN. Do not make fun of it; for the verses are good although they are
country verses.

VISC. I, Madam, make fun of it! Though he is my rival, I think his
verses admirable. I do not call them, like you, two strophes merely;
but two epigrams, as good as any of Martial's.

COUN. What! Does Martial make verses? I thought he only made gloves.

THI. It is not that Martial, Madam, but an author who lived thirty or
forty years ago.[Footnote: The Martial who _did not write
verses_, sold perfumery, and was valet-de-chambre to the king's
brother. Martial, the Roman epigrammatist, lived in the first century
after Christ.]

VISC. Mr. Thibaudier has read the authors, as you see. But, Madam, we
shall see if my comedy, with its interludes and dances, will
counteract in your mind the progress which the two strophes have made.

COUN. My son the Count must be one of the spectators, for he came this
morning from my country-seat, with his tutor, whom I see here.



SCENE XVII.--THE COUNTESS, JULIA, THE VISCOUNT, MR. THIBAUDIER, MR.
BOBINET, CRIQUET.

COUN. Mr. Bobinet, I say, Mr. Bobinet, come forward.

BOB. I give the good evening to all this honourable company. What does
Madam the Countess of Escarbagnas want of her humble servant Bobinet?

COUN. At what time, Mr. Bobinet, did you leave Escarbagnas with the
Count my son?

BOB. At a quarter to nine, my lady, according to your orders.

COUN. How are my two other sons, the Marquis and the Commander?

BOB. They are, Heaven be thanked, in perfect health.

COUN. Where is the Count?

BOB. In your beautiful room, with a recess in it, Madam.

COUN. What is he doing, Mr. Bobinet?

BOB. Madam, he is composing an essay upon one of the epistles of
Cicero, which I have just given him as a subject.

Pages:
1 | 2

Extract: The Whales by Evie Wyld

Christos Tsiolkas and David Mitchell, both much-tipped when they appeared on the award longlist, have been overlooked in the six finalists

It headed the most controversial Man Booker prize longlist in years, but Christos Tsiolkas's The Slap has failed to make the final cut for the literary award, as has David Mitchell's much-tipped fifth novel, The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.

Judges overlooked Australian novelist Tsiolkas's tale of the consequences when a child is slapped at a suburban barbecue – which is either "unbelievably misogynistic" or "riveting from beginning to end", depending on who's asked – and Mitchell, twice shortlisted for the prize in the past, to select a shortlist which ranges from two-time former winner Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America to Emma Donoghue. The Irish writer has also stirred up debate with her Josel Fritzl-inspired Room, the story of a boy and his mother imprisoned in a tiny room for years.

Orange prize winner Andrea Levy's The Long Song, about the last years of slavery in Jamaica; Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question, a cerebral comedy about grief and Anglo-Jewishness; experimental novelist Tom McCarthy's C, which tells the story of Serge Carrefax, a first world war radio operator who escapes from a German prison camp; and South African writer Damon Galgut's tale of a young man travelling through Greece, India and Africa, In a Strange Room, complete the six-strong shortlist for the £50,000 prize, announced this morning.

"It's been a great privilege and an exciting challenge for us to reduce our longlist of 13 to this shortlist of six outstandingly good novels," said chair of judges Andrew Motion, the former poet laureate. "In doing so, we feel sure we've chosen books which demonstrate a rich variety of styles and themes – while in every case providing deep individual pleasures."

The panel of judges had previously read 138 books to select the 13 titles for their longlist, with Martin Amis's new novel The Pregnant Widow and Ian McEwan's venture into comic fiction Solar both overlooked and Carey the only previous Booker winner on the longlist.

His inclusion on the shortlist today for Parrot and Olivier in America, a reimagining of Democracy in America author Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the New World, gives him the chance of becoming the first ever writer to win the Booker three times, having previously taken it in 1988 for Oscar and Lucinda and 2001 for True History of the Kelly Gang.

"The omission of both David Mitchell and Christos Tsiolkas from the shortlist is a real shock. While both writers might rightly feel aggrieved at being overlooked, I imagine it took some wrangling amongst the judges to reduce one of the best longlists in years to six," said Jonathan Ruppin at independent book chain Foyles, who, while praising all six books for their "lightness of touch which means the reader doesn't get bogged down in something worthy or dull", predicted that Room was the most likely title to go on to win the award.

Waterstone's tipped C to take the prize, with fiction buying manager Simon Burke calling it "a challenging yet dazzling novel". "The news that David Mitchell has not made the shortlist will cause great wailing and gnashing of teeth across the bookworld, but perhaps is a useful reminder of the independence and unpredictability of the Booker," he said. "But this is still a hugely varied and exciting list, worthy of the Booker brand. Carey and Levy have to be strong contenders, but our money is on Tom McCarthy. The more people that read [C] the better."

The bookies agreed, with William Hill immediately installing McCarthy as 2/1 favourite to win the prize. "There has been a considerable media buzz around all of the books on the shortlist, and literary punters have staked more money in total on Tom McCarthy to win than any of the other authors, so he is a worthy favourite," said spokesman Graham Sharpe. Donoghue and Galgut came in second at the bookmaker, both at 3/1, with one customer so sure that In A Strange Room would win that they placed £400 on Galgut at 7/1, the largest single bet on the prize "for a few years", said Sharpe.

Carey came in fourth, at 5/1, with Levy at 7/1 and Jacobson the 8/1 outside to take the prize.

The opinion-splitting novels picked for this year's longlist have helped make it the most popular since 2001, with Tsiolkas's novel selling the most copies, followed by Donoghue's. The winner, who will join a roster of former winners including Margaret Atwood, Roddy Doyle and JM Coetzee, will be announced on 12 October. Last year's winner Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel is the fastest-selling Booker winner ever, with sales of around half-a-million copies to date.

The Man Booker shortlist in full:

Peter Carey's Parrot and Olivier in America

Emma Donoghue's Room

Damon Galgut's In a Strange Room

Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question

Andrea Levy's The Long Song

Tom McCarthy's C


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The books that send me back to school

For Ralph Miliband governments could never tame capitalism. New Labour thought otherwise – and then came the financial crisis. But what will David or Ed do if they gain the leadership? By John Gray

Viewed from one angle Ralph Miliband was a theorist of revolution who failed to notice the radical transformations going on around him. A lifelong Marxist, he never doubted that the future would be shaped by the struggle against capitalism. In fact it was capitalism that proved to be the revolutionary force in the late 20th century, consigning socialism to the memory hole. By the time Miliband died in May 1994, the Soviet system had been replaced by a type of resource-based authoritarian capitalism, while China's Communist party was overseeing the development of an unbridled market of a kind that Milton Friedman could only dream about.

In Britain in the 1980s Miliband managed to convince himself that Labour, which he had always bitterly attacked, might, under the influence of Tony Benn, turn into a genuinely socialist party. In fact Labour split, which more than any other single factor enabled the continuing dominance of Thatcher. Probably only the battles fought by Neil Kinnock prevented Labour disintegrating altogether. When John Smith became leader, the party began the "prawn cocktail offensive", a rapprochement with the financial sector pursued through private lunches with leading City figures, which formed the prelude to New Labour. Only weeks after Smith died (in the same month as Miliband) the party would start burying any trace of its socialist past.

When he gave the Bennite wing his intellectual support, Miliband was colluding in the politics of make-believe. Yet in one vital respect this intractably oppositional Jewish refugee from nazism had a firmer grip on reality than the social democrats who eventually prevailed in Labour's internecine conflicts, and when he ridiculed Anthony Crosland's vision of a domesticated and pacified capitalism, he left the party with a dilemma it has not been able to resolve. Like Marx, Miliband understood that states and governments are never autonomous actors; their options are shaped, and often foreclosed, by the distribution of power and resources. This was the central theme of Miliband's The State in Capitalist Society (1969), a penetrating assault on social-democratic thinking in which he developed and extended the argument against revisionism of his earlier Parliamentary Socialism: A Study of the Politics of Labour (1961).

In The Future of Socialism (1956), Crosland had argued that Labour must distinguish between means and ends (a theme pursued later by Blair). Capitalism had changed fundamentally, and rather than opposing it Labour should use the market to advance socialist values. Properly managed to ensure steady economic growth, free markets could be used to promote an egalitarian society in which everyone could live the good life. Against this rosy vision, Miliband urged – rightly, I've always thought – that the world had not changed as much as Crosland and his fellow-revisionists imagined. Capitalism remained an unruly beast, and the idea that governments had learnt how to tame it was just an illusion.

The oil shocks of the 70s were an early warning of the fragility of the postwar order. The shocks were not fatal, and capitalism survived the crisis (as it will survive the present crisis, in one form or another). But it was already becoming apparent that while governments could withstand upheavals in the global economy, the state was not the directing agency social democrats imagined it to be. As Miliband saw it, the state was a servant of these forces rather than their potential master. Of course he exaggerated. The interests of capitalists are often at odds, and in any case politics is driven by far more than class conflict. Even so, Miliband's view that the state is constrained, reactive and hemmed in by market forces has become increasingly plausible with the passage of time. But if this is so, what role can there be for a party that aims to make capitalism a force for the collective good? Can a future Labour government succeed where past governments have failed and harness capitalism to a vision of social improvement? Or should Labour accept that it is capitalism itself that must be changed?

These are precisely the questions that face Miliband's sons as they contend for the Labour leadership. The clash between the two has an undeniable drama, and it is not just a matter of sibling rivalry. It occurs at a time when the world economy is in a crisis the founders of New Labour believed to be impossible. Lacking the Marxian insight that capitalism is inherently volatile and constantly mutating, they never doubted that the deregulated finance-capitalism that developed in the US towards the end of the past century would last. The left had to overcome its suspicion of the free market, and accept that only by exploiting its productivity could government improve society: social democracy and neo-liberal economics were actually complementary.

Just like Crosland, though without his Keynesian grasp of the dangers of recurring boom and bust, New Labour believed capitalism had been tamed. But as Ralph Miliband suspected and events have confirmed, the anarchic energy of the free market is not so easily controlled. The fall of communism was celebrated as a triumph of capitalism, which now became practically world-wide; but the effect was to make capitalism more unstable, as disturbances in one part of the system were rapidly transmitted to all the rest. The fragmented world of the cold war was more resilient to shocks, and also more hospitable to social democracy, than the world that ensued. Governments found that few of the levers they used to control the economy worked as they had before. New Labour did not want to control the market. A feature of the understanding it reached with the City was that financial markets would continue to be deregulated. In part this was accepted as the price for power, but it also reflected New Labour's Fukuyama-like faith that market capitalism was the final stage of economic development; the future lay with the self-regulating market.

As could be foreseen, things turned out rather differently. With regulatory controls relaxed or scrapped the financial institutions whose support Labour had wooed became predatory, raking in vast profits from strategies whose risks they did not understand. Inevitably this hubris led to their downfall, and the financial system imploded. The market millennium lasted hardly more than a decade, leaving a legacy of unsustainable debt.

The happy conjunction of neo-liberal economics with social democracy on which New Labour was founded is now history. This is the truth evaded in Tony Blair's autohagiography. If New Labour is obsolete it is not because of the personal defects of Gordon Brown, Blair's delusional moral certainty and incessant war-mongering or even the dysfunctional relationship between the two leaders. It is because American finance-capitalism, the model for virtually everything that New Labour ever did, has blown itself up.

The problem with the debate between the Milibands is not that it risks turning into a public family feud. It is that neither of the two contenders has come to terms with the bankruptcy of the New Labour project in which each of them was involved. Neither has acknowledged, or perhaps fully understood, the implications of the financial crisis for a future Labour government. It can only mean an erosion of the very foundations of Britain's social democratic inheritance. Yet in different ways, each of the Miliband brothers still sees government as capable of controlling market forces – the illusion their father presciently exposed.

In his Keir Hardie lecture in July, David Miliband spoke eloquently of moving away from state paternalism and reviving Labour traditions of mutualism. The state can no longer be the centre of knowledge and initiative – its function is rather that of empowering society. Top-down Fabian control must be replaced by open democratic relationships. No doubt these are desirable goals, if very much in the spirit of the prevailing conventional wisdom and perhaps not so different from Cameron's fluffy "big society". The larger difficulty is that Miliband is harking back to Crosland (whom he recently cited as his political hero) at a time when Crosland's thinking is no longer applicable.

Crosland's vision was based above all on economic growth – steady, continuing and robust. Following Keynes, he believed that wise economic management could create a society of abundance. But the effect of the financial crisis has been to curtail growth, at least in developed economies. Even if the economy recovers, governments will not have the largesse he assumed would be available. Bailing out the banks has passed the burden of debt on to the state, and no British government can expect to avoid large-scale cut-backs in borrowing and spending. Instead of the market generating wealth that could be used by governments for collective purposes, the resources of government have been pre-empted for the repayment of debts incurred by the market's excesses. Against this background, the post-paternalist state is likely to mean higher unemployment and cash-starved public services.

Unlike his brother, Ed Miliband has chosen to define his candidacy explicitly in terms of New Labour's failings and argues forcefully for the need to remodel capitalism. "Britain's big question of the next decade," he has written, "is whether we head towards an increasingly US-style capitalism – more unequal, more brutish, more unjust – or whether we can build a different model, a capitalism that works for people and not the other way around". Once again these are noble aspirations but far removed from reality. Globalisation is an idea that has been greatly over-hyped, yet governments' freedom of action has without question been reduced as capital has become more mobile. Even the US may soon find it difficult to fund its ballooning federal debt. But if American capitalism is entering a crisis zone, Britain will not have the luxury of forging a new economic model; it will have trouble just staying afloat. Ralph Miliband's pessimistic assessment of the future of social democracy could well be vindicated.

If one of the Miliband brothers wins the Labour leadership and becomes prime minister he will confront in an acute form the constraints on the power of the state his father astutely identified. Rather than controlling or reshaping capitalism, a Miliband government would find itself struggling to preserve Britain's social democratic inheritance in the face of capitalism's renewed disorder. Ralph Miliband seems never to have lost the Marxist faith that history would eventually open the way to a truly socialist society. He would surely have appreciated the curious dialectic through which it has fallen to his sons to defend the social democracy he so fiercely attacked.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Booktrust teenage prize shortlist spans time, space and genre

It's the start of another school year and I'm dreaming of new pencil cases, satchels and the books I read in class. But what are the books you remember from your own school days?

Fourteen years after I finished school, there's still something about September which feels like the start of the year, and I'm nostalgic this morning for new pencils and felt tips, satchels and packed lunches. As the hope of the nation barrels back into classrooms, I'm also thinking back to the books I read in school.

I was away last weekend and talking about how we all read William Golding's Lord of the Flies (and no, the weekend wasn't that bad, it's just that one of my friends is currently making her way through his complete works, to settle a bet). I was 14, and I think there couldn't have been a more perfect book to pick for kids of that age – if you're not going to be hooked by Ralph and Piggy and Simon and Jack, and "kill the pig, cut his throat, spill his blood", then you're not going to be hooked by anything. This was the edition we had – just looking at it casts me back to yellow highlighters and doodling and the horrors of reading aloud.

Anyway, the shocking gloriousness of Lord of the Flies made me hungry for more Golding. Our school library was pretty small, but it did, impressively, have a copy of Pincher Martin. I am quite sure I failed to get any allegorical, existential meaning from the book, but it successfully terrified me, burning an image of Martin clinging to his lonely rock into my brain. In typically disorganised fashion, I promptly lost the book for about a month and was subsequently banned from the school library for giving it back so late – obviously as a sop to all those Golding fans clamouring for more of his work.

Golding and my thieving tendencies aside, Jane Eyre bored me, King Lear enthralled me, and I described Romeo and Juliet in my mock GSCE as a novel – so something clearly went wrong there (thankfully I'd got the right end of the stick by the time the real thing came around). But the other book which really stands out in my memory from schooldays is Wuthering Heights. I was on to A-levels by then, but for some reason we were still going through the purgatory of reading (droning) aloud in class – possibly one of the best ways to make a group of teenagers lose interest in a novel. I was lazy, more interested in messing around than working, but I was so caught up in the melodramas of Cathy and Heathcliff ("Do not leave me in this abyss where I cannot find you! Oh God! It is unutterable! I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul!") that I'd be pages ahead when it came to my turn to read and would get in trouble for not concentrating. And I distinctly remember spending a break time racing to the end.

The rest of it, though, the years of English classes and essays, revising and exams, has largely faded into oblivion, which is rather worrying. But how about you? Indulge my nostalgia and tell me what you remember of your own literary school days.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Copyright (c) 2007. booksboost.com. All rights reserved.