fOrstemann] pages 71-73 AND 51-58, DRESDEN CODEX 451 



1,201,200, both of which are exactly divisible by 864, 2(')0, and 104, 

 and therefore also by their common multiple, f5,()4(). 



The Dresden manuscrij^t has another remarkable parallel to this 

 passage, which I shall now proceed to discuss. On pages 51 to 58 

 there is an extremely complex series of numbers, which I have already 

 discussed elsewhere and may possibly treat later in still greater detail. 

 It is interrupted by ten pictures, to each of which belong eight or ten 

 glyphs, placed above them. This series begins on page 53, at the top, 

 and proceeds first in thirty terms to the top of page 58 ; it then con- 

 tinues on page 51, at the bottom, and goes on in thirty-nine more terms 

 to page 58. Now, as on pages 71 to 73 the twenty-eight terms are 

 accompanied each by three signs, placed above them, so here we have 

 two signs above each of the sixty-nine terms. There, as here, the 

 numbers certainly have no connection with the glyphs, especially as 

 the series of numbers forms a clear and perfect whole, and I now 

 wish to show the probable interconnection of the glyphs, which is 

 wholly different from that of the numbers, as far as that can be done, 

 a great many on the upper part of the leaf being destroyed. 



First, I will show the positions of the sixtj^-nine groups of glyphs 

 in the manuscript, for the sake of greater clearness : 



In glancing over this entire series of glyphs we observe that group 

 59 is missing. In place of it we find a snaillike sign, to which 

 I ascribe the meaning of zero, as on page 64 a very similar sign 

 certainly has this significance. This negation seems to me to mean 

 that something in the previous passage was written by mistake 

 in a wrong place. I would suggest that groups 54 to 59 should be 

 arranged thus: 55, 54, 57, 56, 59, so that, not 59, but 58 is the one 

 actually missing, and I hope to make this appear in some degree 

 probable in what follows. 



Here, as in the passage previously treated, I shall designate the 

 upper glyph of each group as c/, the lower one as h. 



The hypothesis advanced by me is as follows: These sixty-nine 

 groups of glyphs refer directly, like those in the passage previously 



