Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices | Page 5

three parts; p. 24 is the only one of this
manuscript that has only writing and no pictures and where the greater
continuity of the written speech forbids tripartition (here ends one side
of the manuscript); finally, p. 45 seems to be marked as the real end of
the whole by the fact that it contains three very light lines, dividing it
into four parts; moreover, everything on this page is more crowded, and

the figures are smaller than on the preceding pages, just as in some
modern books the last page is printed more closely or in smaller type
for want of space. In the same manner I suspect that p. 1 is the real
beginning of the manuscript. This is indicated by the bad condition of
leaf 2 44, which has lost one corner and whose page 44 has lost its
writing altogether. For, if in folding the codex leaf 1 45 was turned
from within outward, somewhat against the rule, leaf 2 44 was the outer
one, and p. 44 lay above or below, and was thus most exposed to injury.
I will not omit mentioning that my attention has been called by Dr. Carl
Schultz-Sellack, of Berlin, to the possibility of leaves 1 45 and 2 44
having been fastened to the rest in a reversed position, so that 43, 1 and
2 and on the other side 44, 45, 3 were adjoining; then the gods would
here be grouped together, which follow each other also on pages 29 and
30. It cannot be denied that this supposition explains the bad condition
of leaf 2 44 still better, because then it must have been the outermost of
the manuscript; 44 would be the real title page, so to say, and on p. 45
the writer began, not ended, his representation, with the closer writing
of which I have spoken, and only afterward passed on to a more
splendid style; and this assumption tallies very well with some other
facts. But all this can only be cleared up after further progress has been
made in deciphering the manuscript.
"In two places, moreover, this first manuscript shows an extension of
the drawings from one page over to the neighboring one, namely, from
4 to 5 and from 30 to 31. This is not found on the second manuscript.
From continuity of contents, if we are allowed to assume it from
similarity of pictures and partition, we may suppose this manuscript to
be divided into chapters in the following manner: pp. 1-2 (then follows
the unfinished and disconnected page 3), 4-17, 18-23 (here follows p.
24, without pictures), 25-28, 29-33, 34-35, 36-41.
"Compared with this, manuscript B rarely shows a tripartition, but on
pp. 65-68 and 51-57 a bipartition by one line. A further difference is
this, that A out of 45 pages has only one (p. 24) without pictures, while
B out of 29 pages has 9 without pictures (51, 52, 59, 63, 64, 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. 60,

the last of the front, shows a peculiar character. A closer connection of
contents may be suspected between pp. 46-50, 53-58, 61-62, 65-68.
"The two manuscripts also differ greatly in the employment of the sign,
or rather signs, differing little from each other, which resemble 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 16 pages out of the 29 of Codex B (48, 51, 52, 53,
55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 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 without preconception cannot escape the feeling,
on passing from leaf 45 to leaf 46, that something different begins here.
"Thus the copy of Aglio has made it possible to venture a hypothesis
bordering on certainty concerning the original form of this monument.
Five years after Aglio had finished the copying there appeared, in 1831,
the first volumes of Lord Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities. The
work in the trade cost 175l.; the expense of publication had been over
30,000l. The eighth and ninth volumes followed only in 1848. The
ponderous work has undoubtedly great value from its many
illustrations of old monuments of Central American art and literature,
which in great part had never been published. As regards the Spanish
and English text, it is