rely 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 175_l_.; the expense of publication had been over
30,000_l_. 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
of much less value. We may pass in silence over the notes added by Lord
Kingsborough himself, in which he tries to give support to his favorite
hypothesis that the Jews were the first settlers of America. Whoever
wishes to obtain 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 Quarterly
Review, No. 17, pp. 90-124, 8vo, L