Posted by R. John Howe on May 13, 1999 at 06:03:59:
In Reply to: Moshkova's book as an example posted by Steve Price on May 13, 1999 at 05:29:37:
Dear Steve et al -
Your Moshkova example is a good one, although Murray Eiland is still vary wary of it in his new edition of his Comprehensive Guide and Elena Tzareva was quite critical in her review in Hali of the ability of George and his co-author translator to convey accurately what Moshkova (and her compatriots).
But let me give you an example that is for me even more "modal" and a little scary. I admire Peter Stone's writings and commented to another very authoritative figure in the rug world that I thought his Stone's "Lexicon" was an impressive piece of encyclopedic work. This person immediately responded that the "Lexicon" "is in fact "a veritable compendium of weaving error." So I took my copy to another person very experienced in Persian rugs and who is a native speaker and reader of Farsi, asking him to look for errors. This person was also a good choice in my view because he is not much impressed by rug books generally. After working with the "Lexicon" for several weeks he reported that he had found only one real error (a Farsi term that he felt Stone had used too narrowly and perhaps incorrectly at bottom) but more impressively he said he wanted a copy of it for himself.
So where are we on this book that took ten years to write and is being consulted and quoted frequently by many of us? Is it in fact a useful resource? I still think so but I'm haunted by the sweeping assertion in this other authority's sentence.
R. John Howe
Post a Followup