'The dynasty of the Kajars translated from the original Persian manuscript presented by His Majesty Faty Aly Shah to Sir Harford Jones Brydges ... to which is prefixed a succinct account of the history of Persia previous to that period illustarted with plates and a map of Western Persia' [‎24] (45/684)

xxiv preliminary matter.
great deal of information. For my own part, in
respect to the Greek historians, the opinion I formed
many years ago, on reading the incomparable Dis
sertation which Mr. Richardson has prefixed to his
Persian Dictionary, has never been weakened, by
subsequent reading, reflection, or the degree of ac
quaintance I have made with the Arabic and Persian
languages. Speaking of the Greek writers, Mr.
Richardson observes: "We have names of Persian
" kings which a Persian could not pronounce : we
*< have facts related they apparently never knew:
" and we have customs attributed to them which
" contradict every distinguishing character of an
*' Eastern people." To the first of these remarks
it may be answered: If the Greeks found the Persian
names difficult of pronunciation, they would change
the orthography of them in such wise as would faci
litate their utterance of them; of which any one may
easily be convinced, if he will look into the Byzan
tine historians, particularly Anna Commena, and
observe how she alters the European names of
several of the Crusaders, of whom she has occasion
to speak. To the second it may be replied, the his
tory of no tw r o hostile nations contains an exact
enumeration of the same facts as regarding both;
nor does it afford precisely the same account of
even an important fact in which both have been in
terested, and both have been actors. But the last
remarks of Mr. Richardson's (if admitted) I con
sider, with submission, conclusive; nor can my mind
furnish me with an argument to weaken the force
of them.
Whoever imagines time produces the same change