264 AIDS TO THE STUDY OF THE MAYA CODICES. 



bered belong together in such way that they are the front and back 

 of the same leaf. This condition is as follows: One leaf is formed of 

 pages 1 45, 2 44, 3 43, 4 43, 5 41, 6 40, 7 39, 8 38, 9 37, 10 36, 11 35, 

 12 34, 13 33, 14 33, 15 31, 16 30, 17 39, 18 0, 19 0, 30 0, 31 28, 22 37, 

 23 26, 24 25, 46 74, 47 73, 48 72, 49 71, 50 70, 51 69, 53 68, 53 67, 54 66, 

 55 65, 56 64, 57 63, 58 63, 59 61, 60 0. [That is to say, each pair of 

 this series forms one leaf, one page on one side and the other on the 

 reverse side of the leaf. J 



"But now we are justified in 11h> :issmiiption, which at least is very 

 probable, that neither did Aglio cli.nii;!' .-irliitrarily the order of the 

 original, nor Lord Kingsborough the order of Aglio. Consequently 

 Aglio must already have had the manuscript before him in two pieces, 

 be it that the thin pellicles by which the single leaves are connected 

 were loosened in one j^lace or that the whole was sejiarated (juIv then 

 in order not to be obliged to maiiiimlatc tin' whole unwieldy sti-ip in 

 the operation of copying. Athinl possibility, ti.. which we sliall pres- 

 sently return, is that of assuming two separate pieces from the begin- 

 ning; in this case Gotze and the others must be supposed to have seen 

 it in this condition, but to have omitted tin- mention of the eirenm- 

 stance.believiie;tli,-i!ilieo,i-iii;diiiiityh,-i.ll.ee,idestr.,ye(l l.y tearing. 



"Of the two pieces one must have comprised -,'4. t lie other l.'.h'aves. 

 But Aglio copied each of the two pieces in sirch way as to trace first 

 tlie whole of one side and then the other of the entire piece, always 

 I)rogressing from left to right, in European style. Therefore Aglio's 

 model was as follows: 



'■ Firaf 2^icce : 



" Front (from left to right): 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

 19, 20, 21, 32, 23, 24. 



" Back (from right to left): 4.'j, 44, 43, 42. 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 3.5, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 

 0, 0, 0, 28, 27, 26, 25. 



'• liccuiul piece : 



" Front (from left to right): 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, .52, .53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60. 



" Back (from right to left): 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 0. 



"In considering this, our attention is attracted by the position of 

 the four blank pages, three of which are together, the fourth alone. 

 It might be expected that the separate blank page began or concluded 

 the second piece and was purposely left blank, because in the folding 

 of the whole it woidd have lain outside and thus been exi)osed to in- 

 jury; the other three woiihl ),.■ expei'ted ;it the end of the hrst jiiece. 

 The former, as is easily seen, was (piite possilih'. but the hitter was 

 not, unless we assume that even at the time Aglio took his copy the 

 original order had been entirely disturbed by cutting and stitching 

 together again. The four blank jiages show no trace of ever having 

 contained writing; the red lu-own s]iots which appear on them are to 

 be found also on the sides that coiit:iin writing. Perhaps, therefore, 

 those three continuous pages indicate a section in the representation; 

 perhaps it was intended to fill them later on ; in a similar way also 



