In response to:
Reply from the October 19, 1972 issue
To the Editors:
Mr. Rosen shows prudence in refusing to write further on this subject. [See the letter from Dr. Rosen, NYR, October 19.] You have printed the texts and readers can judge for themselves. The question at issue is not the length or profundity of Mr. Rosen’s studies, on which he dilates, and which I have not questioned, but the originality of his writing. I am very willing to believe that Mr. Rosen, in the haste of compilation, forgot that his text was borrowed. Such slips, as I have said, are venial. But when they are pointed out, it is better to admit the obvious than to fly into tantrums.