link to Talbot Project home page link to De Montfort University home page link to Glasgow University home page
Project Director: Professor Larry J Schaaf
 

Back to the letter search >

Result number 7 of 24:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >  

Document number: 3270
Date: 02 Dec 1862
Recipient: VAUX William Sandys Wright
Author: TALBOT William Henry Fox
Collection: British Library, London, Manuscripts - Fox Talbot Collection
Last updated: 21st April 2014

[draft:]

Remks on a Phn <1> insn in the Transns of the RSL sent to Mr Vaux Dec 2. 62

In this inst M and S have almost the same form.

It appears fm Ewalds <2> facsim of the gt insn of Sidon, tht the Phns were accustd for ye sake of avoidg mistakes, to express number by words at legth, followd immedly by numeralsigns of the same value. Thus fourteen was written at length [Hebrew] & this was followed by the numeral sign [unidentified language] (Insn of Sidon line 1)

The same thing is seen in Mr Vaux’s insn l.3 where [Hebrew]two is followed by the numl sign [unknown language] – But in l.1 this practice was not adopted, & apparently for this reason viz. that if the scribe had written [unknown language] there wd have been 4 letters all [illegible deletion] similar (because [Hebrew] and [hebrew letter] had the same form in this inscriptn) wch wd have had a caused obscurity.

Further on <3> we read in l. 2 of your insn 10 [Hebrew] and 20 [Hebrew] wch leads me to conjecture that [Hebrew] signified ten. Th ereis is supported by the analogy of the Heb [Hebrew] ten, [Hebrew] twenty – (a sort of dual or plural of ten)

In the kings name [Hebrew] the first wd means god and not king (see what Ewald says – & the names of deities Milkart, Adrammelech Anammelech, [illegible deletion] Moloch &c. [therefore] [Hebrew] corresponds to θεοδωρος θεοδοτος – Dorothea, Deodatus &c They The Orientals seem to have [illegible deletion] viewed the deity as the [Hebrew] par excellence.

abcdefghklmorqrstuvwxy <4>

abcdefghijklmnopquatuvw

The subject of the insn seems to be some transn betwn private indivls perhaps the sale of some piece of land – The name wch occurs in both lines 3 & 4 I read [Hebrew] the last letter is [Hebrew] (partly effaced in l. 3) and this letter is [illegible deletion] ח as in חנש line 1 –

I suppose that חתפ שר Resh-pakhut means lofty head & was the designn of some tall individl Pakhut [illegible] and I[s?] Assyn for lofty.

The seller seems to have been named Barak ben Resh pakhut ben Ican-salem ben Ashmun And the buyer seems to have been his sister Arnila benit Reshpakhut

I suppose tht the last letter in benit [Hebrew] ought to be prolonged a little downwds [letter] in wch case it wd agree with the form of the letter has lost

has lost a portion, & that it shd be prolonged downwds thus [illustration of character] wch wd be a ח

[expanded version:

Remarks on a Phoenician inscription in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London sent to Mr Vaux December 2, 1862.

In this inscription M and S have almost the same form.

It appears from Ewalds facsimile of the great inscription of Sidon, that the Phoenicians were accustomed for the sake of avoiding mistakes, to express number by words at length, followed immediately by numeralsigns of the same value. Thus fourteen was written at length [Hebrew] and this was followed by the numeral sign [unidentified language]

(inscription of Sidon Line 1)

The same thing is seen in Mr Vaux inscription 1.3 where [unknown language] two is followed by the numeral sign [unknown sign] – But in 1.1 this practice was not adopted, and apparently for this reason viz. that if the scribe had written [unknown language] there would have been 4 letters all [illegible deletion] similar (because [unknown language] and [unknown language] had the same form in this inscription) which would have had a caused obscurity.

Further on we read in 1.2 of your inscription 10 [unknown language] and 20 [unknown language] which leads me to conjecture that [unknown language] signified ten. There This is supported by the analogy of the Hebrew [Hebrew] ten, [Hebrew] twenty – (a sort of dual or plural of ten)

In the Kings name [unknown language] the first would means [sic] god and not king (see what Ewald says – and the names of deities Milkart, Adrammelech, Anammelech, [illegible deletion] Moloch &c [Hebrew] corresponds to θεοδωρος θεοδοτος Dorothea, Deodatus &c. they The Orientals seem to have [illegible deletion] viewed the deity as the [Hebrew] par excellence.

abcdefghklmorqrstuvwxy

abcdefghijklmnopquatuvw

The subject of this inscription seems to be some transaction between private individuals perhaps the sale of some piece of land – The name which occurs in both lines 3 and 4 I read [Hebrew] the last letter is [Hebrew] (partly effaced in 1.3) and this letter is [illegible deletion] ח as in חנש line 1 –

I suppose that חתפ שר Resh-pakhut means lofty head and was the designation of some tall individual pakhut and I[s?] Assyrian for lofty.

The seller seems to have been named Barak ben Resh pkhut ben Ican-salem ben Ashmun

And the buyer seems to have been his sister Arnila benit Reshpakhut

I suppose that the last letter in benit [Hebrew] ought to be prolonged a little downwards [letter] in which case it would agree with the form of the letter has lost has lost a portion, & that it should be prolonged downwards thus [illustration of character] which would be a ח


Notes:

1. Phoenecian, a consonantal alphabetic of the proto-sinaitic family, used in west Asia between 1100 bc. and 300 ad., and a predecessor of younger languages such as Greek and Latin.

2. Dr Karl Ewald [See Doc. No: 07072, and Doc. No: 07089].

3. This paragraph is struck through vertically, a sign that it had been copied for the final letter.

4. Possibly WHFT was testing a new nib of his pen here, for this shows up elsewhere in his draft letters.

Result number 7 of 24:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >