Oh dear, oh dear, more misinformation. On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Arthur Ness (boston) wrote:
> Matanya Ophee wrote: > > At 01:45 PM 10/28/2003 -0500, "Arthur Ness (boston)" > <71162.751ompuserve.com> wrote: > > >Oh dear. There's an awful lot to comment about in Goran's message. > >I believe I am in agreement with Goran. When I was checkinng > concordances > >for the K'berg Manuscript > > MOphee>>>>Careful. The concordances were _mainly_ compiled by Tim Crawford, > not by you. > TOTAL NONSENSE, Matanya. Please check your facts before making a stupid assertion of this kind. My contribution was almost totally negligible, as Arthur states. > <<<snip>>> > ===================================AJN Responds================ > > AJN>>>Tim Crawford made NO contributions of concordances for the > Koenigsberg Manuscript > Almost completely true. > AJN>>>TIM CRAWFORD CONTRIBUTED NOT ONE CONCORDANCE WHATSOEVER. > > AJN>>>Gar nichts!. > > AJN>>>Zilch! > > AJN>>>NOT ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Well, possibly one, but a very inconsiderable one. > AJN>>>Ophee takes away the discovery of the K'berg manuscript from Paul > O'Dette, > Paul made a considerable contribution to the recognition of the MS for what it was. Matanya deserves some recognition in his turn for its 'recovery', in that he obtained the crucial photographs. But it was 'discovered' by neither. > AJN.>>and now Ophee takes away my authorship of the preface to his > facsimile edition. And gives it to Tim Crawford. But my name's still on the > cover and Crawford's is not. How could that be? > Exactly. > AJN>>>If Tim Crawford has some claim to authorship, then I'd certainly like > to know what it is. I had no contact with Tim during the research and > writing of the preface. And Crawford himself has told me, he made no > direct contributions except suggesting to my co-editor some sources to > examine. We'd already look at most of them, an in one instance, he caused > Ward to make some mistakes by invoprectly citing a source. So Crawford's > contribution was really negative. > This is a little unfair. I did not 'cause' any such mistake, I simply recognised a piece as a variant of an Italian dance that might otherwise get missed; I may have suggested a source which turned out to be wrong, but it was merely a suggestion, and one would expect it to be checked as such. BTW I was provided with a partial list of incipits in transcription only to work with. I did not, as I recall, have a list of the concordances compiled so far by the editors so far, so I deliberately avoided the 'obvious' sources, knowing that Ward and Ness would have them under control. I repeat, my contribution made absolutely no difference to the overall quality of this fine piece of scholarship, not even (I believe) a negative one (pace Arthur). > (It is actually one of the best pieces of work I have ever published. The > concordances are actually _mainly_ mine. And I authored the complete > preface text, with just some suggested sources from Ward. > I completely agree with this statement. Arthur went about as far as it's possible to go with going to Vilnius and examining the MS - a compromise that is sometimes forced on a scholar because of circumstances. When I saw the preface, I was amazed at the amount of information it contained. When I saw a certain English review of it I was amazed at the depth of ignorance it (the review) betrayed. > (I'll have to publish an update in one of our journals with information > about who stole the manuscript and why. _I_ know who carried out the deed > most foul. > Has the MS been stolen from the Vilnius library? Please tell the world about this? Or are we talking abut photographs, in which case, forget it. If you're speaking of its journey from Koenigsberg to Vilnius, this could be a fascinating footnote, but I doubt many readers of this list will be interested. > (Or maybe by stealing the manuscript they really saved it from the > bombs.<g> Hmmm.) > > Arthur J. Ness. > <> >
