642 
as bu DA) CHER hs al. à U>p Rp. 
ae al JM Gb dy) alu sue Ulile 
LES Jjl ol CHE | y o> ael Js) sk 
… vhelt ie, Gubl Cie 135 9 
EMEPI us? CSJe (SD po aile Ge CAR ns 
994 S (avbure) af: AR 1 al] Qs2r 9? Jill 
ubl nel 9 cp > (D) D OH) IE L 
GIE ? Ltpie DSi) «5? 229 JL DJ JJ5 JE 
as pli Ja blé, GS ob als 
and, js di) Usbi) Dsl Gui a) Ki) 
... 
674 Here there must be an omission, since we do 
therefore marked the place of thie omission in the text with some dots. 
Add. N. In the Persian translation of Teberi 
A: KRAZEM - BEG, 
saulted on all sidés and defeated the army of 
the Khagkan. 
After the defeat of the Khagkan, Musli- 
imeh retired to the fortress of Babul-abwab. 
In that town there were one thousand houses: 
Muslimeh examined the town and divided it 
into four parts; one part he gave to the Sy- 
rians; another part he gave to the people 
of Hems.. °7* Even now their descendants are 
living there and each part is recognised by its 
respective name. Île appointed one of his com- 
panions called Ghkavid (Farid?) the son of 
Aswad as governor, and gave him suffcient 
supplies and riches. 
After that Muslimeh, having appointed 
Mercän the son of Muhammed as his succes- 
sor, himself departed for Syria, to the pre- 
sence of Jlishäm. 
.. 970 At the head of his trocps he 
not find any mention of the other two parts; we have 
See Part V of our 
work Rem. 3. 
(see Dr. Dorn’s Nachrichten über die Chasaren &e. p. 93) we 
find this: 13 0 p (el) Je (es )2%5 La, S Je) hs ls Lola C6 25 pus le Ulis 
y oise po 
the ÆAoufians; a third to the people of 41- Djezireh. 
think that the omission in our text is 
and a my to the people of Hemsi. 
Joy > ès po als 
La. «He divided the town into four parts; one part he gave to the Syrians, another — to 
Therefore we 
as $ QE ps. In the Djaghatäi ver- 
sion of Teberi we find the passage thus: (CS3 x LL) IR ue LS? L } pe Pr 
EL] 0p_>9 LDH KL} 
pé U729 LS? y Le} use Liv. — The difference here exists only 
between 45, and abus which last also was found by Dr. Dornin a separate Persian version of Teberi. As 
to the word pe in the Djaghatai version — the translator must have meant it for the same 0j 
Comparing all this chapter of our version of Teberi with the Persian and Djagbatai translations, we find 
that it is an Æxtract from the original or at least from the translation of Bal’ami. We refer the curious to this 
chapter ni Dr. Dorn’s Nachrichten &c. p. 91 —93; and 136—127. We did not insert here all the points of 
difference between the two versions in ‘hrs place, as generally we do; because they would require much 
more space and most of them are not of great consequence. — 
67 b Here are wanting some words. — Add, N. In Dr. Dorn’s Persian quotation (see his Nachrichten 
über die Chasaren &r. p. 94) we read: LU? 75 «le pi de? 9 pl his fl VAR ol] Ob 55 
. NS EN ! . = E e é . 4 = Fe . È . Gé . 
JS Le] DE Jé sde Les > SU > pe ol 5s Jes U925 Sp) L, Ule> pe Dell se rs Jiuel 5b 
% )}> « And (when) the Rbeanbns nere informed of the return of Muslimeh to Syria all of them came 
