ondon, January, 1832, where he will
also find a lucid exposition of the history of the literature of Mexican
antiquarian studies.

"In the 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, 74
pages.' These 74 pages are here arranged on 27 leaves in the following
manner:

Codex A. Codex B.

1, 2, 3, 46, 47, 48,
4, 5, 6, 49, 50, 51,
7, 8, 9, 52, 53, 54,
10, 11, 55, 56, 57,
12, 13, 14, 58, 59, 60,
15, 16, 17, 61, 62, 63,
18, 19, 64, 65, 66,
20, 67, 68, 69,
21, 22, 23, 70, 71, 72,
24, 25, 73, 74.
26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43,
44, 45.

"On the whole, therefore, each leaf in Kingsborough comprises three pages
of our manuscript. Why the publisher joined only two pages in the case of
10 and 11, 18 and 19, 24 and 25, and left page 20 entirely separate, I
cannot say; but when he failed to add 46 to 44 and 45 it was due to the
fact that here there is indication of a different manuscript.

"On January 27, 1832, Lord Kingsborough wrote a letter from
Mitchellstown, near Cork, in Ireland, to Fr. Ad. Ebert, then head
librarian at Dresden, thanking him again for the permission to have the
manuscript copied and telling him that he had ordered his publisher in
London to send to the Royal Public Library at Dresden one of the ten
copies of the work in folio. The original of the letter is in Ebert's
manuscript correspondence in the Dresden library.

"On April 27, 1832, when the copy had not yet arrived at Dresden, an
anonymous writer, in No. 101 of the Leipziger Zeitung, gave a notice of
this donation, being unfortunate enough to confound Humboldt's copy with
that of Lord Kingsborough, not having seen the work himself. Ebert, in
the Dresden Anzeiger, May 5, made an angry rejoinder to this "hasty and
obtrusive notice."[TN-1] Boettiger, whom we mentioned above and who till
then was a close friend of Ebert, on May 12, in the last named journal,
defended the anonymous writer (who perhaps was himself) in an extremely
violent tone. Ebert's replies in the same journal became more and more
ferocious, till Boettiger, in an article of May 25 (No. 150 of the same
journal), broke off the dispute at this point. Thus the great
bibl