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 Böttiger, in an article of May 25 (No. 150 of the same journal), broke off the dispute at this point. Thus the great bibliographer and the great archæologist were made enemies for a long time by means of our codex.

“From Kingsborough’s work various specimens of the manuscript passed into other books; thus we find some in Silvestre, Paléographie universelle, Paris, 1839-’41, fol.; in Rosny, Les écritures figuratives et hiéroglyphiques des peuples anciens et modernes, Paris, 1860, 4to; and also in Madier de Montjou, Archives de la société américaine de France, 2^de série, tome I, table V.

“In 1834 Ebert died, and was followed as head librarian by K. C. Falkenstein. He, unlike his predecessor, strove especially to make the library as much as possible accessible to the public. Visits and examinations of the library became much more frequent, and our manuscript, being very liable to injury, on account of its material, had to be withdrawn from the hands of visitors, if it was desired to make it accessible to their sight. It was therefore laid between glass plates and thus hung up freely, so that both sides were visible. In this position it still hangs in the hall of the library, protected from rude hands, it is true, but at the same time exposed to another enemy, daylight, against which it has been protected only in recent time by green screens. Still it does not seem to have suffered much from light during these four decades; at least two former officers of the library, who were appointed one in 1828 and the other in 1834, affirm that at that time the colors were not notably fresher than now. This remark is important, because the coloring in Humboldt, as well as in Lord Kingsborough, by its freshness gives a wrong impression of the coloring of the original, which in fact is but feeble; it may have resembled these copies some 300 years ago.

“In 1836, when the manuscript was being preserved in the manner indicated, the two unequal parts, which were considered as a whole and which no one seems to have thought susceptible of being deciphered, were divided into two approximately equal parts from considerations of space and for esthetic reasons.

“The first five leaves of Codex A, that is, pp. 1-5, with the backs containing pp. 41-45, were cut off and prefixed to Codex B in such way as to have p. 46 and p. 5 adjoining; when I examined the codex more closely I found that between 5 and 46, and therefore also between 41 and 74, there was no such pellicle as generally connects the other leaves. By this change one part was made to contain 20 leaves, the other 19.

“At the same time another change was made. The three blank pages between pp. 28 and 29 had a marring effect, and they were put at the end by cutting through between leaves 18 0 and 17 29 and turning the severed leaves around, so that p. 24 joined on to p. 29 and 17 to 25. The pellicle loosened on this occasion was fastened again.

“I must expressly state that I have no written or oral account of these two manipulations, but conclude they have taken place merely from a comparison of the present arrangement with that which Aglio must have had before him.

“Thus the arrangement in which I found the manuscript, which it may be best to preserve until my views are recognized, is the following:

“(1) The diminished Codex A (19 leaves):

“Or, if we enumerate the numbers on the back from right to left, so that the back of each leaf stands beneath its front:

“(2) The enlarged Codex B (20 leaves):