4144 A KAZEM-BEG, 
Persian version back into Turkish, each in his turn, introduced some changes into their 
works, we at once perceive what a vast difference must consequently exist between the 
two Turkish versions! 
k. The liability of the diction and style of any work, written in one of the Turk- 
ish idioms in a country, to fall under the influence of another established idiom in another. 
We have many evident proofs that the diction or the style of a book, written in 
any of the Turkish idioms, suffers greatly from the laws of another idiom of the same 
language under whose influence it falls; and the easier the style of the language is, the 
greater will be the changes **. Take for example any composition written in pure but easy 
Turkish, and give it to a Tartar of Kazan or Orenburg to transcribe; afterwards con- 
fide the transcription to a second Tartar and so on: the fifth reproduction of the work 
will present a great difference in the language, and this difference in every transcription 
will increase so materially that you will hardly recognize the original in the fifteenth. — 
$ 8. 
The versions of the Derbend-nâmeh with which E am acquainted. 
À) The Turkish versions. — There are, besides those which 1 had already -heard 
of in Derbend, five Turkish copies or versions of the Derbend-nàmeh. respecting which 
Ï am able to give my opinion. : 
1. The version of the Royal Library of Berlin, from which Klaproth has made 
his Extrait du Derbend-nâmeh etc. — 2. The version of the Royal Library of Paris, 
procured by M. Steven (Nouveau journal Asiat. T: IL p. #39.); — 3. and 4. The two 
versions in the Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg, from one of which! my learned 
friend Dr. Dorn, has taken à séparate copy with which he: has fävoured me and at thé 
same time shown the variations between it and the other; this is what I call throughout 
my work (Dr. Dorn’s version»; — and 5. My own version, sent to me from Derbend. 
All these differ from each other, and sometimes so materially, that one may‘ be in- 
duced to take them for wholly different compositions; but, after reading them through 
attentively, we discover the identity of each, and find that these considerable changes 
are no other than such as they must have undergone upon the principles above mentioned. 
All these. versions ‘# are in the idiom of Aderbijan, which, however, by the altera- 
13,1 mean if the language cônsist chiefly of original Turkish, words; — but if you take. a composition in 
elegaut Turkish, embellished throughout withArabic and Persian words and expressions — you will then of 
course meet with few Turkish, words susceptible of idiomatic changes. 
14 In speaking of the diction and style of the versions in the Royal Libraries of Paris aud Berlin we 
found our opinion on some speciuens of both, which are to be found in the Extrait du Derbend-nâmeh by 
Klaproth. 
