to be those in which supernatural beings play the most conspicuous parts; and, as Mr. Lane remarks, these are generally deficient in verses, although the converse does not hold good of the former class. The anecdotes are mostly historical: many of them are, in the Notes, identified with similar ones in other Arabic works; and almost all are of Arab origin.

The evidences of a late date scattered through the book may be additions of copyists and reciters; but considered with reference to its general character, they have a certain weight that cannot be overlooked: this is carefully stated in the Review.

Mr. Lane's arguments in favour of the collective "Thousand and One Nights" being an individual work, and not one of many similar collections, seem to me to be conclusive: not the least important of these is the fact that no similar collection is known to exist, nor is mentioned by any Arab author, with the sole exception of the old "Thousand Nights," which I believe he has demonstrated to be the prototype, in a remote degree, of the "Thousand and One." To cite the words of the Preface on the question of the original of the work as it is known to us—"I have shewn it to be my opinion that all the complete copies of 'The Thousand and One Nights' now known are in the main derived, though not immediately, from one original; and I hold the same opinion with respect to every fragment containing the commencement of the work;" "not regarding the work as wholly original, nor as the first of its kind; for many of the tales which it contains are doubtless of different and early origins; and I think that its general plan is probably borrowed from a much older production, bearing the same title of 'The Thousand and One Nights,' [or 'The Thousand Nights,'] a translation of a Persian work having a corresponding title, namely 'Hezár Afsáneh.'... One thing is certain—that 'The Thousand and One Nights,' [or 'The Thousand Nights,'] translated from the Persian was much older than the work now known by that title, and also extremely different from the latter."

When these facts are considered in reference to each other, the date assigned, in the Review, to the composition of the work cannot reasonably be regarded as far from the truth. It is in Egypt, and especially in the Memlook court, that we must look to find the people, the manners, and the habits of thought, of "The Arabian Nights;" while the style of the language in which they are written is that which we might expect from an Egyptian of those times, who, unskilled in the classical Arabic, yet endeavouring to imitate it, was doubtless more generally intelligible then than he is now to the modern Egyptians. This assumption of the old language, I may remark, is, and always has been, characteristic of all learned Arabs, be they Egyptians or natives of other Arabian countries (for such Egypt truly is); but no other instance exists of a work of fiction in which the attempt fails so singularly in affecting the classical, or retaining the modern tongue; while all other Arabic tales are certainly composed in either the one or the other. The modern Egyptian romances are mostly written in the colloquial dialect of every-day life; but those which are of older date are not modernized, as some have supposed, against all reason, "The Thousand and One Nights" to be: such an alteration would be without a parallel in Arabic literature, as Mr. Lane proves in the Review in a way to relieve me of the necessity of further alluding here to this particular question. "The Thousand and One Nights" exhibit a style which would be unfamiliar to the audience of the reciter of romances, without attaining to the classical diction: and the conclusion is forced on us that the work exhibits the language of a by-gone generation, which (taking into consideration the other indications of its age and country), is, it can scarcely be disputed, that of the later period of the Memlook rulers of Egypt, before the Turkish conquest of that country. In the words of Mr. Lane's Preface:—"Most of the tales which it contains are doubtless of an older origin, and many of them founded upon very old traditions and legends; but all these traditions or legends were evidently remodelled so as to become pictures of the state of manners which existed among the Arabs, and especially among those of Egypt, at the period here mentioned; and I think that the composer of the work, or each of the composers, if one commenced and another completed it, was an Egyptian."

But a more popular subject than its obscure origin is the literary merit of this work. The rare fascination of these old Arab stories, their supernatural romance, excessive love, quaint philosophy, and grotesque humour, have, since the days of Galland, secured to them more readers than any other profane work. The translation of Galland, with all its lameness, puerility, and indecency, gained for them a hold which has never been relaxed; and it only required the appearance of a scholarlike and readable translation, freed from these defects, to make them generally accepted in English families. The fashion of travelling in the East has not a little added to the desire for a standard and annotated edition of a work unique, even in those lands of genii and adventure, in its remarkable portrayal of Eastern character, life, and, when closely translated, idiom. The humour of the book, now broad, now subtle, (who does not delight in Káfoor and his "half lie?") renders the comic stories generally superior to the romantic; but the pathos perhaps excels every other beauty. The story of Shems-en-Nahár is remarkable for this characteristic; and that of 'Azeez and 'Azeezeh (first published in this translation), surpasses in delicate tenderness any Arab tale with which we are acquainted.

Of the critical value of Mr. Lane's translation I ought scarcely to speak. Yet I may observe that students of Arabic make it a text-book in reading the original; while the English reader not uncommonly forgets that it is a translation, and detects not the literal accuracy of its rendering of an unfamiliar, or unknown, language.

I have adverted to the system adopted in transcribing foreign words, and I now conclude these preliminary remarks (intended only to render the learned Review easier of perusal to the general reader, and to smooth his first steps in a strange land), by quoting, with some slight improvements by Mr. Lane, the explanation of that system given in the preface to the first edition.

"In writing Arabic and other Oriental words in the present work, I have employed a system congenial with our language, and of the most simple kind; and to this system I adhere in every case, for the sake of uniformity as well as truth.5 Some persons have objected to my writing in this manner a few familiar words which are found in our dictionaries; but they will excuse me for remarking that general usage is not altogether accordant with their opinion. Almost every author, I believe, now writes 'Koran,' or 'Kurán,' and 'Pasha,' or 'Pacha,' for our dictionary-words 'Alcoran' and 'Bashaw;' and most of our best authors on Arabian History, of late, have written 'Khalif' for 'Caliph.' In a work relating to a people who pronounce the Arabic w as v, I should write 'Vezeer' for the Arabic word 'Wezeer;' but to do so when the subject is Arabian, I consider inexpedient: and in this opinion I am upheld by a great majority of literary and other friends whom I have consulted on the subject, in the proportion of five to one. I may add that Dr. Johnson has written in his Dictionary, 'Vizier [properly Wazir];' and if we express the Arabic vowels by their