Wallowing in the salty Darcy goodness
(Hey, they mention Buffy, and the references suggest themselves.) Alert Janeites Ann and Kirsten sent us a link to a conversation with David Shapard, the editor of The Annotated Pride and Prejudice, on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” discussing the historical context of the novel and how the footnotes illuminate the text. Follow the link to listen to the conversation online.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I would have called NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” segment featuring David Shapard and his _Annotated Pride and Prejudice_ edition, but I may have embarrassed him on the air. I do not take pleasure in that prospect. Thus, I write to the Austen Blog in response to this segment as a Professor of English (University of Colorado), Immediate Past President of the Jane Austen Society of North America (2000-06), author of scholarly articles on Austen and others, as well as of the trade book Jane Austen for Dummies, which does not represent a conflict of interest with Shapard’s annotated edition. His book is an edition; mine is a book that deals with Austen’s life, culture, and all of her novels. I present two major problems with the Shapard edition: (1) Both sections of his Introduction and parts of his annotations present the work of earlier scholars with no acknowledgements; in my classes, we call this “academic dishonesty.” Here’s a cringe-worthy example: I am looking at vol. 1, ch. 14, n. 30, referring to Austen’s having Mr. Collins select Fordyce’s _Sermons_ to read aloud to the Bennet sisters–a reading that Lydia Bennet soon interrupts. Note 30 states that Austen’s choice of “Fordyce may . . . be a subtle reference . . . to . . . _The Rivals_,” a play by Sheridan. The editor then explains how Fordyce and Lydia Languish, a character in the play, connect to Austen’s scene and the novel’s Lydia Bennet. Frank W. Bradbrook presented this information in the Oxford World’s Classics paperback edition of _P&P_ (1990; many times reprinted and updated), which he co-edited with James Kinsley. Bradbrook cites in his endnotes his earlier commentary on this scene in Oxford University’s scholarly journal _Notes and Queries_, n.s. vol 11, no. 7 (1964) and further credits E.E. Phare with pointing out the relationship of “Lydia Languish, Lydia Bennet, and Fordyce’s Sermons,” in an article of that title published in the same journal in 1964, but in issue #5, pp.182-83. (I have provided here additional bibliographical information regarding issue & year.) Shapard cites none of the earlier scholars’ work in his note. In fact, if you look at the review of the 2004 self-published version of his edition on the website for the Jane Austen Society of North America and then go to reviews from the newsletter for 2005, you will see that another scholar who reviewed that edition also complains generally of his failure to cite sources for his work. Cambridge University Press’s excellent 2006-scholarly edition of _Pride and Prejudice_, edited by Dr. Pat Rogers, DeBartolo Professor at the Univ of S FL, appropriately cross-references us to Bradbrook’s note in the Oxford World’s Classics paperback (1991, p. 349, n. to p.60) in the annotation for the scene in question, pp. 485-6. n.8. appropriately cross-references us to Bradbrook’s note in the Oxford World’s Classics paperback (1991, p. 349, n. to p.60) in the annotation for the scene in question, pp. 485-6. n.8. Dr. Shapard, with a PhD in History, knows the appropriate scholarly practice of citation. Reason #2: David Shapard fails to use the latest Austen criticism of the past decade to inform his analyses of scenes in the novel. This gives us the limited Jane Austen.
Just FYI: here are the answers to NPR callers’ questions that David Shapard either failed to answer or answered erroneously. Re the question about Lady Catherine’s estate that Shapard answered incorrectly about the estate going to Darcy, her nephew: as Lady Catherine explains in PP, vol. 2, chaper 6, her husband’s family did not believe in entailing the family esates away from the female line. So her daughter inherits the estate free and clear. And to the other question about the value of money in Austen’s day: whereas Shapard said it is impossible to know because of the value of money, I explain the way to calculate this with close proximity in Jane Austen for Dummies. When I asked Professor Ed Copeland, leading authority on money of Austen’s day, what he thought of my method, he very kindly e-mailed his response that I was “on the right track” (e-mail of April 10, 06).
March 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Geez, Joan. It takes Dorothy forever to get the scorch marks out of the blog.
Thanks, as always, for commenting!
March 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Always a pleasure to read and respond to your Blog, Maggie!By the way, I know that you and many others could have answered the NPR callers’ questions correctly, too!
April 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I love both Buffy and Jane Austen!
Had the same reaction to David Shapard’s interview as I did to his book - felt like I could have used my time better. Neither had much substance.