ccess, so it seems to me; and even here errors have occurred.

The process I allude to is something like the following: A set of
characters, say the alphabet of LANDA, is taken as a starting point. The
_variants_ of these are formed. Then the basis of the investigation is
ready. From this, the interpretation follows by identifications of each
new character with one of the standard set or with one of its
_variants_. Theoretically, there is no objection to this procedure.
Practically, also, there is no objection if the work is done strictly in
the order named. In fact, however, the list of _variants_ is filled out
not before the work is begun, but during its progress, and in such a way
as to satisfy the necessities of the interpreter in carrying out some
preconceived idea. With a sufficient latitude in the choice of
_variants_ any MS. can receive any interpretation. For example, the _MS.
Troano_, which a casual examination leads me to think is a _ritual_, and
an account of the adventures of several Maya gods, is interpreted by
BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG as a record of mighty geologic changes. It is next
to impossible to avoid errors of this nature at least, and in fact they
have not been avoided, so far as I know, except by Dr. ALLEN in the
paper cited.

I, personally, have chosen the stones and not the manuscripts for study
largely because _variants_ do not exist in the same liberal degree in
the stone inscriptions as they have been supposed to exist in the
manuscripts.

At any one ruin the characters for the same idea are alike, and alike to
a marvelous degree. At another ruin the type is just a little different,
but the fidelity to this type is equally great. Synonyms exist; that is,
the same idea may be given by two or more utterly different signs. But a
given sign is made in a fixed and definite way. Finally the MSS. are, I
think, later than the stones. Hence the root of the matter is the
interpretation of the stones, or not so much their full interpretation
as the discovery of a _method of interpretation_, which shall be sure.

Suppose, for example, that we know the meaning of a dozen characters
only, and the way a half dozen of these are joined together in a
sentence. The _method_ by which these were obtained will serve to add
others to the list, and progress depends in such a case only on our
knowledge of the people who wrote, and of the subjects upon which they
were writing. Such knowledge and erudition belongs to