The only serious difficulty which is at present in the way is our want of knowledge of the ancient Maya language. All the published grammars and vocabularies are extremely deficient and incomplete, and quite inadequate to serve us in interpreting the inscriptions. But even this alarming obstacle is only temporary. There exists in manuscript a most complete and carefully composed dictionary of the Maya, written about 1650, two copies of which are in this country, one in the hands of the Smithsonian Institution, and which we earnestly hope will shortly be published under the efficient superintendence of Dr. Hermann Berendt, the most accomplished Maya scholar living. With it in hand, the deciphering of the inscriptions of Palenque, Uxmal, Itza, and the other ruined cities of Yucatan, and of the manuscripts already mentioned, will become certainly a less serious task than that of translating the cuneiform inscriptions of Ninevah. Even without other aids than the limited vocabularies already published, some antiquarians have boldly set to work on the Yucatecan writings. Most conspicuous of them is M. Brasseur de Bourbourg, who first published Diego de Landa's work containing the alphabet. (_Relation des choses de Yucatan de Diego de Landa. Texte espagnol et traduction francaise en regard, comprenant les signes du calendrier, et de l'Alphabet hiéroglyphique de la langue Maya._ Paris, 1864.[TN-3] His recent edition of the Manuscript Troano is prefaced by an _Etude_ in which he attempts to interpret several of its pages. It is painful to be unable to say a single word in favor of his views. They are thoroughly untenable and groundless. The Abbé Brasseur deserves the highest praise for his ardor and devotion to archæological studies, but his theories do not bear a moment's examination. They are so utterly wild that we are almost afraid to state them. He imagines that these inscriptions and manuscripts all contain geological reminiscences, chiefly concerning the submersion of a portion of the American continent and the consequent formation of the West India Islands. He explains all the letters as "expressive images of the cataclysm of which they are the phonetic expression." The culture of the Mayas and Aztecs he regards as the debris of a far higher civilization, which once extended over most of the American continent, and _from which_ that of ancient Egypt (!) was derived. He insists on the identity of the ancient Maya and Aztec tongues, for which there is not a shadow of proof, and going further, claims that they are both derived from _Germanic_ roots. Of course, with such notions as these, his "interpretation" of the Manuscript is an absurdity, and can never obtain a serious hearing in scientific circles.