Petis de la Croix, a well-known Orientalist and traveller of the time, published in the course of the same year (1710) the first volume of a collection of Oriental stories, similar in form and character to the 1001 Nights, but divided into “Days” instead of “Nights” and called “The Thousand and One Days, Persian Tales,” the preface to which (ascribed to Cazotte) alleges him to have translated the tales from a Persian work called Hezar [o] Yek Roz, i.e.  “The Thousand and One Days,” the Ms. of which had in 1675 been communicated to the translator by a friend of his, by name Mukhlis, (Cazotte styles him “the celebrated Dervish Mocles, chief of the Soufis of Ispahan”) during his sojourn in the Persian capital.  The preface goes on to state that Mukhlis had, in his youth, translated into Persian certain Indian plays, which had been translated into all the Oriental languages and of which a Turkish version existed in the Bibliotheque Royale, under the title of Alfaraga Badal-Schidda (i.e.  El Ferej bad esh Shiddeh), which signified “Joy after Affliction”; but that, wishing to give his work an original air, he converted the aforesaid plays into tales.  Cazotte’s story of the Indian plays savours somewhat of the cock and the bull and it is probable that the Hezar o Yek Roz (which is not, to my knowledge, extant) was not derived from so recondite a source, but was itself either the original of the well-known Turkish collection or (perhaps) a translation of the latter.  At all events, Zeyn Alasnam, Codadad and the Princess of Deryabar occur in a copy (cited by M. Zotenberg), belonging to the Bibliotheque Nationale, of El Ferej bad esh Shidded (of which they form the eighth, ninth and sixth stories respectively) and in a practically identical form, except that in Galland’s vol. viii. the two latter stories are fused into one.  Sir William Ouseley is said to have brought from Persia a Ms. copy of a portion of the Hezar o Yek Roz which he describes as agreeing with the French version, but, in the absence of documentary proof and in view of the fact that, notwithstanding the unauthorized incorporation of three of the tales of his original with Galland’s Vol. viii, the published version of the Thousand and One Days is apparently complete and shows no trace of the omission, I am inclined to suspect Petis de la Croix of having invented the division into Days, in order to imitate (and profit by the popularity of) his fellow savant’s version of the Thousand and One Nights.  Galland’s publisher was doubtless also that of Petis de la Croix and in the latter capacity had in hand a portion of the Ms. of the 1001 Days, from which, no doubt weary of waiting till Galland (who was now come to the end of his genuine Arabic Ms. of the 1001 Nights and was accordingly at a standstill, till he met with Hanna,) should have procured fresh material to complete the copy for his eighth volume, of which Ganem only was then ready for publication, he seems