Derbend-nâmeh or: the History of Derbend. 469 
He was the third son of Gkubâd, who, charmed :with the extraordinary prudence and me- 
rits of his really unequalled offspring, appointed him his heir, regardless of the natural and 
customary order of suceession. 
The prevailing power of Gkubäd had almost inclmed the Byzantine court Lo a proposal that 
his son Kisri, or Choroes, should be adopted by the Emperor Justine the elder; but Proclus 
the Questor or Quaestor of that period, by involving the case in some misunderstanding, 
prevented its successful result; which might have been indeed injurious to both nations. 
Kisri was raised to the throne, though apparentlÿ against his own consent, by his father's 
nobles, who were as much charmed as his father by the extraordinary merits of this prince. 
His reïgn is distinguished by the total destruction of Mezdek and his followers in one day, who 
amounted, according to some, to a hundred thousand men! This extraordinary event obtained 
him, on the: same day, the title of Anüshirvän, which siguifies, {he new sovereign of sovereigns- 
See Mir-khänd and Teberi for the reign of Olani plis, read also D’ Ohsson's Voyage 
d'Abou- el Cassim p. 153. 
d Remark B. page 457 line 7 and 18. oi QE 
It is rather an ïimaginary title, :composed ‘of Khugkän and Shah. The first expressed 
among the ancient Turkish races of Northern Asia, the supreme degree of regal dignity to which 
their sovereign princes. were, entitled. No research can.be made into the etymology of the word- 
Its first appearance is attributed by Visdelou, to the very beginning of the IV'h Christian ceutury 
and the first royal prince wbo assumed the title, he says, was Zouloun or Touroun, who chan- 
ged the Imperial title of Z5hen-yu, or rather Shen-yuë, to Khaghân (Väsdelou Hist. de la 
Tartarie p. 31. 133.). — Father Hyacinth ascribes it to the reïgn of Mao, the first prince of 
the house of Déy, or to the-middle of the INT century (Sanacxkm o Mourouim, part LI. p. 70). 
At any rate the first appearance of the word, among the Northern tribes, must have been beyond 
the record of history, and though, perhaps, it was not always used to express an Emperor, or 
a sovereign, at least we know that it was applied sometimes to administrators, and sometimes 
to personages of great Fe We find an original identity between this and the Hebrew 
word 11 (in Arabic PE , bearing the same meaning ,) which, according to eminent Hebrew 
scholars, signified a man of great power — one whose dignity is next ta that of a sovereign 
(as in Mongol. and Manjour À, pronounced Khan), when it refers to the laity; and a priest, 
or one, who, by his divine qualities intercedes for ‘the guilty, when it refers to religion; (see 
Brown'’s dictionary of the Holy Bible, for the word priest; and Joh. Simonis Lexicon, for 
the word 172). This, and other few instances of identity between some old Mongol or Tur. 
kish, and Hebrew words, which may lead any one to suspect a Semitic origm in some pure 
Mongol and Tartar words of the present day, might add something in favour of those (Poste/, 
Manassé, see Deguignes Hist. gen. des Huns, T. IL. p. 11.), who conjecture that the origin. of 
the Turks and Tartars js derived from the ten tribes of Israel , led in captivity by Salmanasar, 
had there not been stronger reasons to disown it and attribute this pretension to the original 
partiality of Manassé, the celebrated Jewish author. 
The second is an old Persian word for king, from which is derived Pad-shäh meaning 
The king of the throne, or the great king. — Thus the compound word Khéghän-shäh is à na- 
Mém, des sav. étrang. T. VI, 60 
