448 Lo 4 KRAZEM-B EG, 
We have not added-the .translation of these lines,’ their contents :being. almost the 
same as those in the beginning of our version, with the exception only of the intro- 
duction,-of-which we shall here give the sense. After praising God and invoking bles- 
sings upon «the Prophet and his posterity » the author ** says; that in consequence of the 
Derbend=nàmeh being comiposed in a Turkish idiom which wäs difficult, rude and dis- 
agreeable; for its réaders *”,. some of ‘his intimate friends requested: him, to translate it into 
the Persian language. He embraced the proposal of his friends with readiness, and, hav- 
ing finished his work ;. submitted, it to the.condescension of the critics,.whom."he:.entreats 
(as do generally all the writers of the East, either at the beginning or end of their 
works 16" étcuse him in case they should. discover any faults in his work,> and. to “c6r- 
rect them. —. The. period of the translation of the work, the author, says, was in the 
reign of His Highness &c. &c. Sheikh AliKhan. RU NT 
Ï as ét. know, nothing concerning this author of the Persian translation; but the 
epoch of the appearance of his work must be placed at the very close of the last cen- 
tury, ‘since. Sheikh: Ali-Khan, of whom he makes: mention, was the. _sovereign Khan. of 
Derbend and Kübba about that time. He was the second son of the famous Fafh Ali- 
Khan (see Part. IX. of this work Rem 3:) and during thé last discord between Him and 
his brother, and the progress of the Russian arms in, Georgia . and _the neighbouring 
Muhammedan states, was taken as hostage by the Russians. After the death of his bro- 
ther Æ{hmed Khan, the Emperor Paul conferred on him in 1796 the dignity of Khan of 
Derbend and Kübba, which however he did not retain long. He fled to 4gküsha, a 
very strong village in the most mountainous part of Daghistan (see P. V. Rem. 16.) where 
he remained till his death. 
Having examined the beginning of the Persian Derbend- nc and compared it with 
that of our -version :(the_ introduction excepted) and with-those ‘of the versions of St. Pe- 
tersburg and Berlin, | am constrained to declare, that our- version is a true and faithful 
translation of the Persian one. 1 found my opinion on these two principal arguments: 1. The 
similarity,- with regard-to the arrangement -of ideas, between our Turkish version andthe 
Persian ones (especially that of the Imperial Public Library), coupled with the corresponding 
difference, that exists between each of thém and the Turkish versions of St. Petersburg 
and Berlin; leads-us: to the conviction: that, one of the two former-must be: a! faithful 
translation of the other. — 2. Our Turkish version, as we have above -remarked, 
contains a great number of Arabic words and Persian phrases, the last of. which 
are scattered here and there ‘altogether contrary to ‘the laws of the Turkish _lan- 
- 18 fe calls himself in-the version 6f the Asiatic Museum, Ali-y4r the son of Kézem. 
19. If.we may. believe the author, the idiom of the Turkish versions of the Derbend-nâmeb which he-may 
have consuïted could not have been pure Turkish: otherwise he would not call it Lu els which, means in 
such cases — broken, rude, having no logical connexion etc. 
{19 
