542 : | A KAZEM-BEG, 
Remark "25. page 520: alé, 3 L 
K laproth: takes als cet for, a separate” fortress,-as we have had occasion to remark once 
before and to prove his mistake. See Part I. Rem. 30. Here we add, that if we agree with K]lap- 
roth, then _there- must have been two towns of this name: one the same as Gkays- -kend, and 
the other very near /nji. In our MS. and in that of St. Petersburg, this name is mentioned in 
moré th two or three pläces. The MS. of St. Petersburg- says: PIS a aal5 DA SE = 
«The governor of /nji having entered into the citadel, &c.» which agrees with our translation. 
Remiark 26. page 539. 
1) In the MS. of St. Petersburg we read (U82E) 46,2  #) D yes ils as]. LU 
publi] à yébsls Jëslo bo 019 &beb ) Jes ä Le Ghubl) hi cles hs 
(i PESTE ne ET: 9, 9 | Ds DU (pe di as) us? « The Musulmans subdued all the 
people of Znjeh, and having proposed Islâm to them, converted them to this religion; "but who 
did not embrace Islâm, they slaughtered such and took their children (families) into captivity; and 
they also broke down (and levelled) the fortress of Znjeh.» This is almost the same with the transla- 
tion of Klaproth, excepting the last expression ‘which we do not find anywhere. — Klaproth, 
a second time, mistakes here: Aghouhi-Chaghin for a proper name. (See, above, Rem. 10.) 
2) As to the epoch, which the reader will here see marked out in Klaproth’s translation, 
and other circumstances connected with it, we refer him to our. Remark 1 to this part and to 
the description of Teberi, quoted in the appendix under the title of ae | Es clés. sel 
