450 tou AR UA ZE M- BEG, 
great similarity-in the principal. points between,the version: of Berlin and that of Dr. Dorn: 
Therefore, as an extract: of almost the same, version. as that,sent me by,Dr. Dorn had; been: 
already published. by, Klaproth;! I thought,it.best to continue, my. work and to publish 
separately a version. differing materially from,that already given to the, world (read note, 20). 
3. The great similarity that 1 found between my Turkish version and the Persian 
versions -of St. Petersburg, with regard to: the succession of the-ideas: &e. which: has 
been treated, on ‘in. the. preceding. ,.: also inclined me .to the preference which I, have 
given to the present version, for publication. 
VE 2 È (eme L 4 40 Cle 
—met— 
5 3 ht 
The plan adopted for the publication of my version. 
In writing my rémarks and illustrations to the translation of the Dérbend-nämeh 1 
becamé insensibly diverted from the first plan which I had chosen for its publication, — 
the remarks to tlie férst part alone, proving equal in length to the whole of the ori- 
ginal. On receiving Dr. Dorn'’s version, the necéssity of adding some ‘notes on the va- 
riations existing between the two versions, also contributed to increase the bulk of my 
illustrations and, in consequence of this, I felt obliged to give up my original plan and to 
adopt à new one, which might be more useful and more consistent with the extent and 
nature of the work. #6 
Having it in my power to cômmunieate to the curious ALES . Pre forms _ of 
the Derbend-nâmeh current 'in Aderbijän, l'deémed it adviséable to submit bot of them 
to their inspection. T therefore added the wholé of Klaproth's Extrait to my owi trans- 
lation and supplied’ the deficiency in the MS: of Berlin (see Part VIIL.' Rem. 8, ‘the noté!} 
by ‘annexing to° it the continuatiôn of Dr. Dôrn’s version (see' Part IX); so that the 
reader, on'examining the two forms, will have’ a just’ idea of thé arrangement “of Both. 
In-my ‘remarks Y have also täken care t6 insert the facts ‘and -Harrations ‘in Dr. Dorn's 
version, which are’ not to be'féund in Kläproth's Extrait, and to’ référ' to those of 
the same Extrait which ‘are ‘Wanting' in Dr. Dorn's’ version: . have addéd besides to 
this work’ éxtracts ‘frdm° 0m ‘Of the! mogt' interesting" ‘historical works lin my possession 
with the originals (see” 6.) which/mostlÿ serve as lüstratiotis to the text où the Derbend- 
nämeh and” as dettotittés ko mÿ Yémarks. 2. eme 
af Y HA CE ; PIE 2403) SHINITE : ALL 
{. 
20 I mean the #wo systems of arrangement Of 1his wétki under which forms they are known to ‘us. The 
reader lof our ,Preface is!now are, thatithe vérsions tofithe R.- Lu 6f) Berliii (o£:wihich Kla proth häs given 
us an Etti ait) and those of the L P. L, 6f,St.. Petérsbürg, by. the. greati-sitilitüde: which: we’ find between 
them in regard to the arrangement of the ideas, exhibit as it were, when compared with our Turkish xersion 
and ‘with the Persian ‘ones of St. Petersburg, t two distinct forms of the Derbend-nâmeh. 
