also differs very much from that on the bodies of the serpents pictured
in the manuuscripts, so that variations of this kind by no means make it
necessary to assume that the hieroglyphs actually denote different
things. Observe, for example, the different Chicchan-spots on the
serpent's body in Tro. 27a. The crenelated, black border of the
Chicchan-spot in Fig. 38 passes in rapid cursive drawing almost of itself
into the scallops of Fig. 37, a transition to which there are distinct
tendencies on the serpent's body in Tro. 27a. Nor does the fact, that
under H's hieroglyph different personages are very often pictured, whom
we cannot positively identify, compel the assumption that we have here
not _one_, but two or more mythical figures, for the same is true of
other hieroglyphs of gods. There are many places in the manuscripts where
the text contains a definite well-known hieroglyph of a god, while the
accompanying picture represents some other deity or some other figure not
definitely characterized, perhaps merely a human form (priest, warrior,
woman and the like). Thus in Dr. 4a we see H's hieroglyph in the text,
but the picture is the figure of god P while in other places we miss the
characteristic Chicchan-spot on the figure represented, for example Dr.
4c, 6a, 7b, 7c, 14a, 21c. In the Madrid manuscript, it is true, H's
hieroglyph also occurs often enough, but _not in a single instance_ is a
deity represented displaying the Chicchan-spot. This fact is, I think, to
be explained by the coarser style of the drawing, which does not admit of
representing such fine details as in the Dresden manuscript. In the Paris
manuscript H's hieroglyph occurs but once (p. 8, bottom).

Seler thinks he recognizes in some of the figures represented under H's
hieroglyph in the manuscripts, a so-called "young god". Such a deity is
unknown and the assumption is entirely arbitrary. Apparently this "young
god" is an invention of Brinton. The purely inductive and descriptive
study of the manuscripts does not prove the existence of such a