My dear sir
It is satisfactory to know that Θ αλατ[illegible] is recognized. Accustomed to apply “dragon” to a serpentine form, (furnished, or not, with wings and feet), I misunderstood your meaning. I supposed the monster to be that represented on one of the Nimrud slabs, (Boromi p.287), and on a cylinder, (Cullemore 10), a compound of lynx & eagle. Perhaps this is what you refer to on the cover of Mr Smith’s book.
Perhaps you will withdraw your objection that the King of the rebels is not mentioned, if you reflect that we are dealing with a fragmentary story, and that we are in the very midst of it, before we get a connected sentence. The King of the rebels must have been mentioned before this, for we cannot doubt but that it was at his instigation that they raised their [illegible]. He was spoken of, I believe, in the lines which precede your translation, though the precise notice of him is lost.
“The god of life –
who established –
their gathering –
Then follows an interlocution,
“May he not transgress by schism – This ai immasi, you observe applies to one person, i:e:, (as I take it) to the leader of the schism; whereas the later ai immasâ is strictly dual, and appears to two persons, i:e:, (or I think we may suppose), to the first human pair.
You know that [cuneiform] = hi.gal, לגח, mukin higal “[statuens choseom?]? As Cćdmon interested you, and you appreciate our old poetry, it may please you to compare the beginning of the Genesis tablet with the first lines of the Weissenbrun hymn, the earliest fragment of German poetry, learned from English missionaries
Yours very truly
D H Haigh.