Killyleagh Co Down
8th July 1857
Dear Sir,
I have received your letter of the 5th with respect to the article in the Athenæum. I am by no means clear that the writer did not go too far in stating the extent of scepticism which exists on the continent. Whoever he was, his object seems to have been to glorify Rawlinson & his errors as to matters of fact all tend that way.
I dont see that the fact of the four versions being published together should diminish any desire to have my former translations placed where the public can see them. The reasons why I should wish it remain in full force; & though one of the reasons why it would be of use to the public is removed, or at least diminished, I should still be disposed to press the matter. The memorial might indeed require to be modified; but in its present state, <Trustees?> might be sounded about it; & I presume there will be <no?> decisions done fm this to November or December.
In the Church of England quarterly Review for this month, there is an article which the Editor (or rather the Proprietor; for the Editor is, I believe, incapacitated by illness) has in a very unusual way described as mine. It is chiefly made up of some introductory chapters of a book which I <projected?> & abandoned some few years ago. As an article for a review nothing could be more absurd – references are made to other chapters of the work, to plates & to passages before & after, which do not appear, the whole being full of Etymological errors.
Still I am not sorry that the proprietor of the review has taken this liberty, tho’ an unjustifiable one, as he never mentioned the matter to me till the first 32 pages were finished off. I think what is said fm p.11 to p.17 on the pervading scepticism likely to do good (& there are not in this passage so many typographical errors as in the article generally) & it may introduce another article. The proprietor wrote to me when the article was in fact promised for something on the literary <ignorant?> & I gave him some particulars which he was to correct with the rest as well as he could. He has done so badly enough; but I wish you could see this & particularly the last paragraph in p. 46. I think of publishing an amended version of the whole inscription, adopting such <ill. del.> parts of other versions as I may think <illeg> of my own. What would you think of doing the same? If we correct our original versions, so as to make them <mainly?> agree, this will, I think, be the decisive test of the system by <sound?>.
Yours vy truly
Edw Hincks
H. F Talbot Esq