Killyleagh Co Down
27th Decr 1856
Dear Sir,
I duly received your letter <1> of the 24th. I gave in to the Trustees a translation of that part of Bellino’s <2> cylinder which contains the annals of Sennacherib’s two first years. I have a translation (with gaps here & there) of the part relating to the building – & also of the cylinder of Esarhaddon; <3> but these I have not in any manner published. I am rather surprised at Mr Vaux’s <4> remark, which you mention, that “of course, he could not shew the translation without my consent.” I do not consider myself to have any control over it, or any rights beyond what any of the public may have. I think the translation & accompanying remarks ought to be where any one may see them; & this is what I desire respecting them. As to their publication, I am not prepared to undertake it on my own account; but I think that, for the reasons you mention, it would be well that portions of the translations should be published, (and perhaps in parallel columns) along with other translations made independently of them, either by you or by Sir H Rawlinson. <5> The latter, I believe, has a translation in preparation of all that has been lithographed by the Trustees of the Museum; i.e. The annals for the N. W. Palace, the Octagon of Tiglath Pilesar I & the Hexagon of Col. Taylor. The lithographs are finished, or the next thing to it; but I understand they are held back from the public till the translation is ready to accompany them. I think the trustees would have better served the public interest if they had allowed copies of the lithographs to be circulated among those who were likely to be translators; so that the translations might appear together; or if they had encouraged a joint translation, on which all would be agreed. It is quite evident that two or three persons, acting in concert, and comparing their views, would produce a better translation than any one of them would do singly. Sir H. Rawlinson has abandoned (I believe, I may say, in consequence of my criticisms) two fanciful views that he brought forward in 1855, both at the Royal Institution <6> & at the Glasgow meeting of the British Association; <7> viz. 1st the Birs Nimrûd being the tower of Babel & its original building being 42 cycles before his Nebuchadnezzar’s time (2520 years, as supposed) & 2dly there being an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar’s <8> madness in the E.I. House inscription Col. 7 – Is it not possible that he say bring forward something equally absurd in his translation of the documents that are lithographed? At any rate he may make many minor mistakes; but what then? The public will fare worse; but the individual will have more credit. Besides, it would be considered an ungracious proceeding to criticise a translation which is on the whole good; & of which all that can be said is that it is not so good as it might have been made. It is not my present intention to meddle with it. I may have a laugh in private over any mistakes that I notice; but I will not enlighten the public in respect to them. The public has given its voice in favour of Sir Henry’s exclusiveness; and if it be desired in consequence thereof, let it be so!
I remain Dear Sir Yours vy truly
Edw. Hincks
P S. If any of my translation were to be published, I shd like to have an opportunity of correcting it (by foot notes) where I now see that it required correction – letting the translation as given in main in the text. But it would depend on the good feeling towards me of the person who published it on whether this should be allowed me.
[fair copy]<9>
Copy
Killyleagh Co Down
27th Dec 1856
Dear Sir,
I duly received your letter of the 24th. I gave in to the Trustees a translation of that part of Bellino’s cylinder which contains the annals of Sennacherib’s two first years. I have a translation (with gaps here & there) of the part relating to the building & also of the cylinder of Esarhaddon; but these I have not in any manner published. I am rather surprised at Mr Vaux’s remark, which you mention, that “of course, he could not shew the translation without my consent.” I do not consider myself to have any control over it, or any rights beyond what any of the public may have. I think the translation & accompanying remarks ought to be where any one may see them; & this is what I desire respecting them. As to their publication, I am not prepared to undertake it on my own account; but I think that, for the reasons you mention, it would be well that portions of the translations should be published (& perhaps in parallel columns) along with other translations made independently of them, either by yourself or by Sir H. Rawlinson. The latter, I believe, has a translation in preparation of all that has been lithographed by the Trustees of the Museum; i.e. the Annals for the N.W. palace, the Octagon of Tiglath Pileser I & the Hexagon of Col. Taylor. The lithographs are finished, or the next thing to it; but I understand they are held back from the public till the translation is ready to accompany them. I think the Trustees would have better served the public interests if they had allowed copies of the lithographs to be circulated among those who were likely to be translators; So [illegible deletion] the translations might appear together; or if they had arranged a joint translation, on which all would be agreed. It is quite evident that two or three persons, acting in concert, and comparing their views, would produce a better translation than any of them would do singly. Sir H. Rawlinson (I believe I may say, in consequence of my criticisms) has abandoned two fanciful views that he brought forward in 1855, both at the Royal Institution – at the Glasgow meeting of the British Association; viz 1st the Birs Nimroûd being the tower of Babel, and its original building being 42 cycles before Nebuchadnessar’s time (2520 years, as supposed) & 2ndly there being an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in the E. I. House inscription Col. 7. Is it not possible that he may bring forward something equally absurd in his translation of the documents that are lithographed? At any rate, he may make many minor mistakes; but what then? The public will fare worse; but the individual will have more credit. Besides, it would be considered an invidious proceeding to criticise a translation which is on the whole good; & of which all that can be said is that it is not so good as it might have been made. It is not my present intention to meddle with it. I may have a laugh in private over any mistakes that I notice; but I will not enlighten the public in respect to them. The public has given its voice in favour of Sir Henry’s exclusiveness, & if it be decided in consequence thereof, let it be so!
I remain Dear Sir Yours vy truly
EH
Notes:
2. See Doc. No: 07309.
3. See Doc. No: 00743.
4. William Sandys Wright Vaux (1818–1885), antiquary.
5. Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, 1st Baronet (1810–1895), orientalist.
6. Royal Institution, London.
7. British Association for the Advancement of Science.
8. See Doc. No: 06349.
9. Copy held at the Griffith Institute, Oxford.