Amonn’s brief polemical statement replies to Liefmann’s accusation that his criticism falsified quotations. Reaffirming an earlier rejoinder, he distinguishes removing words from their context from materially distorting their meaning. The issue is whether Liefmann can demonstrate such distortion, rather than merely allege it.
Eine Nachweisung in konkreter Form hat er nirgends erbracht.
English translation: He has nowhere furnished a demonstration in concrete form.
This sentence, reproduced within Amonn’s quotation of his earlier response, identifies the evidentiary failure on which his defense rests. He then specifies what a substantiated accusation would require:
Den Vorwurf der Fälschung erheben und aufrecht erhalten ist zwar sehr einfach, aber insolange völlig bedeutungslos, als nicht zumindest ein konkretes Beispiel mit der Gegenüberstellung ganz konkreter Anführungen (seiner eigenen wie meiner angeblich gefälschten Darstellung) gegeben wird.
English translation: To raise and maintain the charge of falsification is indeed very easy, but it remains wholly without significance so long as at least one concrete example is not given, with a juxtaposition of quite concrete citations (of his own presentation as well as of my allegedly falsified one).
The statement moves from reiterating his challenge to demanding a direct comparison of passages, then refers readers to his previous rebuttal. Its significance lies in this standard of critical accountability: an accusation of falsification requires demonstrable alteration of meaning. Amonn asserts that Liefmann’s examples do not affect the judgment of his work, but leaves their examination to the earlier exchange.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian