Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices | Page 4

in Lord
Kingsborough, and it is advisable to abide by these numbers, for the
sake of avoiding all error, until the manuscript can be read with perfect
certainty; the 4 empty pages I shall designate with 0 when there is need
of mentioning them expressly.
"Furthermore it is necessary to state which of these pages so numbered
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 42, 5 41, 6 40, 7 39, 8 38, 9 37, 10 36, 11 35, 12 34, 13
33, 14 32, 15 31, 16 30, 17 29, 18 0, 19 0, 20 0, 21 28, 22 27, 23 26, 24
25, 46 74, 47 73, 48 72, 49 71, 50 70, 51 69, 52 68, 53 67, 54 66, 55 65,
56 64, 57 63, 58 62, 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.]
"But now we are justified in the assumption, which at least is very
probable, that neither did Aglio change arbitrarily 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 place or that the whole was separated only then in
order not to be obliged to manipulate the whole unwieldy strip in the
operation of copying. A third possibility, to which we shall presently
return, is that of assuming two separate pieces from the beginning; in
this case Götze and the others must be supposed to have seen it in this
condition, but to have omitted the mention of the circumstance,
believing that the original unity had been destroyed by tearing.
"Of the two pieces one must have comprised 24, the other 15 leaves.
But Aglio copied each of the two pieces in such way as to trace first the
whole of one side and then the other of the entire piece, always
progressing from left to right, in European style. Therefore Aglio's
model was as follows:
"First piece:
"Front (from left to right): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
"Back (from right to left): 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34,
33, 32, 31, 30, 0, 0, 0, 28, 27, 26, 25.
"Second 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 would have lain outside and thus been exposed to injury; the other
three would be expected at the end of the first piece. The former, as is
easily seen, was quite possible, but the latter 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 pages show no trace of ever having contained writing; the red
brown spots which appear on them are to be found also on the sides
that contain 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 page three has been left unfinished,
because the lower half was only begun by the writer.
"I do not wish to conceal my view that the two pieces which Aglio
found were separated from the beginning; that they belong even to two
different manuscripts, though written in the same form; but, since it is
human to err, I will here and there follow custom in the succeeding
pages in speaking of one codex.
"My conviction rests especially on the fact that the writer of manuscript
A (pp. 1-45) endeavors to divide each page by two horizontal lines into
three parts, which the writer of manuscript B (pp. 46-74) rarely does.
The more precise statement is as follows: In A, pp. 1-23 and 29-43
always show two such lines in red color; pp. 25-28 have no red lines,
but clearly show a division into