266 AIDS TO THE STUDY OF THE MAYA CODICES. 



pp. 1-3 (then follows tlie unfinished and disconnected page 3), 4-17, 

 18-23 (here follows p. 24, without pictures), 25-28, 29-33, 34-35, 30-41. 



" Compared with this, manuscript B rarely shows a tripartition, but 

 on pp. 05-08 and 51-57 a lii]i;ntiti()n by one line. A further differ- 

 ence is this, that A out of i:> p;i,i;vs has only one (p. 24) without pict- 

 ures, while B out of 29 pages lias ',i without pictures (51, 52, 59, 03, 04, 

 70, 71, 72, 73), nothing but writing being found on them. Page 74, 

 differing from all others, forms the closing tableau of the whole; and, 

 similarly, p. 00, the last of the front, shows a peculiar character. A 

 closer connection of contents may be suspected between pp. 40-50, 

 53-58, 01-02, 05-08. 



"The two manuscripts also differ greatly in the employment of the 

 sign, or rather signs, differing little from each other, which resem- 

 ble a representation of the human eye and consist of two curves, one 

 opening above and the other below and joined at their right and left 

 ends. These signs occur only on 5 out of the 45 pages of Codex A (1, 

 2, 24, 31, 43), while they occur on 10 pages out of the 29 of Codex B 

 (48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 01, 02, 03, 04, 70, 71, 72, 73). 



"I believe that the differences above mentioned, to which others 

 will probably be added, are sufficient to justify my hypothesis of the 

 original independence of the two codices. Whoever looks over the 

 whole series of leaves withoiit preconception cannot escape the feel- 

 ing, on passing from leaf 45 to leaf 40, that something different be- 

 gins here. 



" Thus the copy of Aglio has made it possible to venture a hypothe- 

 sis bordering on certainty concerning the original form of this mon- 

 ument. Five years after Aglio had finishi'd the imh tying there ap- 

 peared, in 1831, the first volumi's of Lcn-d KiiiL^sliuiounh's Mexican 

 Antiquities. The work in the tradt'cost 175/.; tlic expense of publi- 

 cation had been over 30,000/. The eighth and ninth volumes followed 

 only in 1848. The ponderous work has imdoubtedly great value 

 from its many illustrations of old monuments of Central American 

 art and literal tire, wliieli in i;reat jiart had never been published. As 

 regards the Sitanish and Knglisli text, it is of much less valiie. We 

 may pass in silence over the notes added by Lord Kingsborough him- 

 self, in which he tries to give support to his favorite hypothesis that 

 the Jews were the first settlers of America. Whoever wishes to ob- 

 tain exact information concerning the character and contents of the 

 whole work and dreads the labor of lifting and opening the volumes, 

 may find a comprehensive review of it in the Foreign Qiiarterly Re- 

 view, No. 17, pp. 90-124, 8vo, London, January, 1832, where he will 

 also find a lucid exposition of the history of tlie literature of Mexican 

 antiquarian studies. 



" In tlie middle of the third volume of the Mexican Antiquities (side 

 numbers are here absent) there is found the title ' Fac simile of an 

 original Mexican painting preserved in the Royal Library at Dresden, 



