Killyleagh C^o Down

7^th April 1857

Dear Sir,

I received your letter this morning. I have never seen either of the readings you quote; & they are both highly important. Where are they to be found. I cannot translate idanna “dedit”. I am clear that this is not the corresponding Latin word; but by no means clear what is.

In the Monthly Review for March (published by Mitchell) there is a paper, evidently by Vaux, containing Rawlinson’s translation of the Birs Nimroud inscription. He formerly adopted Oppert’s translation of the passage respecting the 42 <cuneiform>; but he now gives mine. His translation is a very indifferent one – a few sentences right, a few others nearly so, & the rest filled up by conjecture. Two of the main points of interest in it (as to the meaning of one of which I am confident – of the others <illeg> yet doubtful) he overlooks, giving the definite words a conjectural vagueness. If this be a fair specimen of the translations for which the lithographed inscriptions are held back, the public will have reason to complain.

I should like to see what D^r Oppert can bring forward in defence of his translation of “42 cycles”. I feel very confident that I am right in my view of this passage.

I have been thinking about the Memorial to the Trustees which you reminded me to draw up. After Easter I will set about it.

Believe me Yours vy truly

Edw Hincks

H. F. Talbot Esq^re