Baron Rosen has kindly called my attention to the following errors:-
On p. 69, n. 1, and again, in a yet more definite manner, on pp. 208 and 211, I have committed the inexcusable blunder of confounding Behá'u'lláh's earlier Súratu'l-Mulúk with his later Alwáu>h-i-Salátín. The former only is described by Baron Rosen in the first volume of the Collections Scientifiques, and what is there written bears no reference whatever to the Súra-i-Heykal or the Alwáh-i- Salátín comprised in it. The MS. described by Baron Rosen on pp. 145-243 of the forthcoming sixth volume of the Collections Scientifiques contains a series of Behá'u'lláh's writings. The first of these pieces is the Súratu'l-Mulúk (previously described in the first volume of the Collections Scientifiques) concerning the authorship of which I expressed my doubts on pp. 954-8 of my second article in the J.R.A.S. for 1889. In reply to my objections Baron Rosen proves quite conclusively (Collections Scientifiques, vol. vi, pp. 145-8) that the Súratu'l-Mulúk was written by Behá'u'lláh, and that it was, moreover, written at an earlier date than the Alwáu>h-i- Salátín. The same MS. contains also the Súra-i- Heykal (including, of course, the Alwáu>h-i- Salátín), and it is of this that the full text will appear in vol. vi of the Collections Scientifiques. The Súratu'l- Mulúk appears to have been written about the end of the Baghdad period, i.e. about A.D. 1864; the Alwáu>h-i- Salátín (or at least the Epistle to the King of Persia, which is the longest and most important of them) during the latter days of the Adrianople period (cf. pp. 102, and 119, n. 1 supra), i.e. about July 1868. The reader is therefore requested to make the following corrections. On p. 69, n. 1, l. 4, for "~~~" read "[Persian text]." On p. 208, l. 27, for "a copy of Behá's Súra-i- Heykal" read "a copy of Behá's Súratu'l-Mulúk," and delete what follows down to the end of l. 2 on p. 209, as well as n. 2 on p. 208. On p. 211, l. 5, for "(or ~~~)" read "(and the ~~~."