TALBOT8001

D^r Hincks

Millburn Tower Edinburgh¹
Jan^y 1^st 1862

D^r Sir

I should be happy to lend you Ménant’s two pamphlets if you wish to see them. You would not find in them much that is new to you, but he evidently wishes to make fair statements to the best of his ability. I wonder that he and Oppert should insist upon it, that de Sauley’s writings contributed materially to the advance of Assyrian discovery. I am not conscious of any obligation in that quarter. The term Hamitic was used by me conventionally; certainly not as implying any resemblance with the language of Egypt.

The term I myself selected was Proto Chaldæan, but I found that Hamitic and Accadian had been employed by others, and I chose Hamitic as the shortest. If it is a bad name I am ready to adopt any other. I believe Rawlinson coined it.

I am much pleased with your version of the inscriptⁿ of Nabonidus col 2. l.52 &c I had observed that there was some error or confusion in my version, but it had not occurred to me that Nabonidus meant to say, that his own first efforts were unsuccessful. This view of the subject clears up the meaning very much. Also the roots and are very good Hebrew.

The root אצב quæsivit, makes excellent sense.

You will find in my published writings that I agree with you in deriving innamir from the root mar to see. (see Journal of R. As^c Soc^y vol 18 p. 90

I procured the 2 first numbers of the Museum, a periodical which I had not seen previously, and I am glad to find that as to the general scope and leading facts of the Hezekiah inscription there is not much difference between us. As Oppert agrees with you in the statement that Hezekiah sent his Charioteer to bear his submission (Oppert has, il envoya son cocher) I conclude that you transcribe by rak, and as this value is new to me I should like to know on what evidence it is founded, other than this passage.

I remain D^r Sir Yours very truly
H. F. Talbot