In the preface to Petis’ work it is stated that during his residence in Persia, in 1675, he made a transcript of the “Hazár ú Yek Rúz,” by permission of the author, a dervish named Mukhlis, of Isfahán. That transcript has not, I understand, been found; but Sir William Ouseley brought a manuscript from Persia which contained a portion of the “Hazár ú Yek Rúz,” and which he says (“Travels,” vol. ii. p. 21, note) agreed so far with the French version. And it does seem strange that Petis should go to the Turkish book for tales to include in his “Mille et un Jours” when he had before him a complete copy of the Persian original; and even if he did so, how came his French rendering of the tales in question into the hands of Galland’s publisher? The tales are not found in Petis’ version, which is regularly divided into 1001 Days; and the Turkish work, judging from the titles of the eleven first tales, of which I have seen a transcript by M. Zotenberg, has a number of stories which do not occur in the Persian.[124] But I think it very unlikely that the tales of Khudádád and the Princess, foisted into Galland’s 8th volume, were translated from the Turkish collection. In Galland the story of the Princess Daryábár is inserted in that of Khudádád; while in the Turkish story-book they are separate tales, the 6th recital being under the title, “Of the Vazír with the Daughter of the Prince of Daryábán,” and the 9th story is “Of the Sons of the Sovereign of Harrán with Khudádád.” This does not seem to support the assertion that these tales in Galland were derived from the Turkish versions: it is not to be supposed, surely, that the translator of the versions in Galland conceived the idea of fusing the two stories together?