Correspondence

Author(s): Anthony Giddens

Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 125-127
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/589225 .
Accessed: 02/07/2014 05:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:40:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Britishj8z7urnal
of Sociolog):Volume
29 AumberI Marchs978

CORRESPONDENCE

FromTalcott Parsons
To the Editor,
I2 DecemberI977
This note is writtento draw the attentionof membersof the sociologicalprofessionto a seriouslymisleadingfeatureof a recentpublication, whichinvolvesa clearmatterof fact, not of opinion.In I976, the
firmof GeorgeAllen & Unwin,London,issueda newpaperbackedition
of the Englishtranslationof Max Weber'sTheProtestant
Ethicandthe
Spiritof Capitalism
(I had been the translator,the firstprintingof which
appearedin I930. The translationas such seems to be unrevised).I
only heardaboutthisnewpublicationwellinto the presentyear,having
been informedof it by the late BenjaminNelson.
The new Allen & Unwin editionhas omittedboth my brief'Translator'sPreface'(pp. ix-xi) and the Forewordby R. H. Tawney. For
bothwassubstitutedan entirelynew Introductionby AnthonyGiddens
of King's College,Cambridge.
In my own translator'sprefaceto the earlieredition,I calledcareful
and specificattentionto the fact that, as my own decision,I had translated and placed beforethe translation-made fromWeber'ssubstantially revisedversionof the ProtestantEthic a documententitledthe
Author's
Introduction
(pp. I 3-3 I of the earlieredition). This Introduction
was not, as I carefullypointedout, Weber'sIntroductionto the studyof
the ProtestantEthic, but to the more general series of comparative
studiesin the sociologyof religion (Gesammelte
Augsatzezur Religionssoziologie).The ProtestantEthic Study was firstpublishedin I9045,
whereasthe Author'sIntroductionwas writtenin I920 and concerned
the whole seriesreferredto. My I930 statementwas as follows:
The 'Author'sIntroduction',whichis placed beforethe main essay,
waswrittenby Weberin I920 forthe wholeserieson the Sociologyof
Religion.It hasbeenincludedin thistranslationbecauseit givessome
of the generalbackgroundof ideas and problemsinto which Weber
himselfmeant this particularstudy to fit. That has seemedparticularlydesirablesince,in the voluminousdiscussionwhichhas growrl
up in GermanyaroundWeber'sessay,a greatdeal of misplacedcriticismhasbeendue to the failureproperlyto appreciatethe scopeand
limitationsof the study.Whileit is impossibleto appreciatethat fully
without a thoroughstudy of Weber'ssociologicalwork as a whole,
this briefintroductionshouldsufficeto preventa great deal of misunderstanding.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:40:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I26

Correspondence

As I have noted, my Translator'sPrefacewas omittedentirelyfrom

the new edition,and Giddens'new Introductiondoes not mentionthe
specialstatusof the 'Author'sIntroduction'at all. Hence, it is natural
for readersunfamiliarwith the backgroundto assumethat this was
written by Weber as an Introductionto the study of the Protestant
Ethic alone, either for its originalpublicationor for its later revised
version.

The probabilitythat this confusionwill happenis confirmedby the

fact thatit has occurredbefore,evenin the faceof my explicitprefatory
statement.Thisoccurredin an articlebyEhudSpinzakentitled'Weber's
Thesisas an HistoricalExplanation'(Historyand7Cheory,
vol. II, I972)
which is referredto by Giddensin the footnotesto his Introduction.
Spinzak'sarticle,quotedthe openingsentenceof the 'Author'sIntroduction'prefacedby the statement,'It is thereforenot surprisingthat
the firstsentenceof the Protestant
Ethicreads. . .'
This errorpromptedBenjaminNelsonto protest,in a notewhichwas
publishedin Sociological
Inquiry,
vol. 44, no. 4 (I 974) underthe title 'Max
Weber's"Author'sIntroduction"A MasterClue to His Main Aims'.
As I have noted,it was Nelsonwho firstinformedme of this failureto
documentthe statusof the differentthingsthey publishedand edited.
Nelsontold me he intendedto raisethe issuepublicly,but his sudden
deathmadethis impossible.This fact has reinforcedmy obligationnot
to let the issuego unnoticed.
I took advantageof a briefvisit to Londonrecentlyto raisethe issue
withAllen & Unwin.I wasassuredthatit was an inadvertenterrorand
thatit wouldbe rectifiedin the secondprinting,as well as in the Americanedition,which is to be publishedsoon by Scribner's,as have their
earliereditions.Unfortunately,Scribners'havesincethen informedme
thattheylearnedthistoo late, so that theirfirstprintingperpetuatesthe
error.
This assurancehas now been madeto me in writingby a letterfrom
MrMichaelHoldsworthof the Allen & Unwin firm.In additionto his
assurancethat my Translator'sPrefacewill be restoredin the second
printing,Mr Holdsworthmakesit quite clear that its omissionwas a
decisionmade by the publisherwithouteitherinformingor consulting
Mr Giddens. This statement clearly absolves Mr Giddens of any
responsibility
for the decisionto omit the Translator'sPrefacefromthe
newedition.
It is neverthelessat least unfortunatethat Mr Giddens'new introductiondoesnot makeclearthat Weber's'Author'sIntroduction'wasa
well-considered
statementmade after his comparativestudies as an
introduction
to the wholeseries.
All in all, this adds up to a decidedlyunfortunateepisodein the
annalsof sociologicalpublication.
TalcottParsons
HarvardUniuersity
(Emeritus)

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:40:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Correspondence

I27

Reply to Talcott Parsons

I am whollyin sympathywith ProfessorParsons'protest against the
omissionof his 'translator'spreface' from the new edition of The
Ethic.But, as he acknowledges,the publishersdid not inform
Protestant
me they had decidedto omit this preface,and I certainlyshouldnot
have condonedsuch a courseof action if they had told me of their
intention.I was askedby Allen and Unwin to writean introductionto
replacethe one by Tawney in the originalEnglishedition, and my
participationin the preparationof the new editionwaslimitedsolelyto
this. I quiteunderstandProfessorParsons'complaintagainstAllen and
Unwin, but not his complaintagainst me. I had no reason to call
betweenWeber'sintroductorystatementand
attentionto the diffierence
the main body of the text, becausethat was alreadymade clear in
ProfessorParsons'preface,which I had naturallyassumedwould be
left in the book as before.
Giddens
Anthony
Cambridge
Wing'sCollege,

;ulr,

and
EtAlic
Whenwe cameto markup the new editionof TheProtestant
the Spiritof Capitalismto include the new Introduction,Professor
Parsons'Prefacewas inadvertentlyleft out of the preliminarypages.
We have assuredProfessorParsonsthat it will be restoredin any new
printingof the book:meanwhilewe extendto him, to Mr Giddensand
to all readersof this printingan apologyfor our carelessness.
Chairman
Allene UnwinLtd
George

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Wed, 2 Jul 2014 05:40:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions