God G’s hieroglyph ([Fig. 35]) contains as its chief factor the sun-sign Kin. It is one of the signs (of which there are about 12 in the manuscripts), which has the Ben-ik prefix and doubtless denotes a month dedicated to the sun. There is, I think, no difference of opinion regarding the significance of this deity, although Fewkes, as already stated, is inclined to identify G with B, whom, it is true, the former resembles. It is surprising that a deity who from his nature must be considered as very important, is represented with such comparative infrequency. He occurs only a few times in the Dresden manuscript, for example 22b, 11c, and in the Codex Tro.-Cortesianus none can be found among the figures which could be safely regarded as the sun-god; in no manuscript except the Dresden does a deity occur wearing the sun-sign Kin on his body. But once in the Codex Cort. the figure of D appears with the sun-sign on his head, as pointed out by Fewkes in his article entitled “The God ‘D’ in the Codex Cortesianus”. G’s hieroglyph, to be sure, is found repeatedly in the Madrid manuscript, for example Codex Tro. 31c.
God G seems to be not wholly without relation to the powers of death; the owl-sign ([Fig. 5]) occurs once in connection with him (Dr. 11c). Besides the sun-sign Kin, which the god bears on his body, his representations are distinguished by a peculiar nose ornament ([Fig. 36]) which, as may be seen by comparison with other similar pictures in the Dresden manuscript, is nothing but a large and especially elaborate nose-peg. Similar ornaments are rather common just here in the carefully drawn first part of the Dresden manuscript. Compare Dr. 22b (middle figure), 21 (centre), 17b, 14a, b; occasionally they also have the shape of a flower, for example 12b (centre), 11c (left), 19a. Lastly it is worthy of note, that god G is sometimes represented with a snake-like tongue protruding from his mouth, as in Dr. 11b and c.
H. The Chicchan-God.
The figure of a deity of frequent occurrence in the Dresden manuscript is a god, who is characterized by a skin-spot or a scale of a serpent on his temple of the same shape as the hieroglyph of the day Chicchan (serpent). Moreover the representations of the god himself differ very much, so that there are almost no other positive, unvarying characteristic marks to be specified. His picture is plainly recognizable and has the Chicchan-mark on the temple in Dr. 11a, 12b and 20b.
The hieroglyph belonging to this deity likewise displays the Chicchan-sign as its distinguishing mark. Furthermore several variants occur. The Chicchan-sign has sometimes the form of [Fig. 37] and again that of [Fig. 38]. The prefix likewise differs very much, having sometimes the form of [Fig. 37], and again that of [Fig. 38] or of [Figs. 39 and 40]. Thus there are, in all, four different forms of the prefix. It is to be assumed that all these hieroglyphs have the same meaning, notwithstanding their variations. Taking into consideration the frequency of the variations of other hieroglyphs of gods and of the hieroglyphs in the Maya manuscripts in general, it is quite improbable from the nature of the case, that a hieroglyph, which displays so great an agreement in its essential and characteristic elements, should denote several different gods. The dissimilarity which Seler thinks he finds between the forms of the Chicchan-sign in [Figs. 37 and 38] and which leads him to assume that [Fig. 37] is not a Chicchan-sign at all, but that it denotes another face ornament, cannot be satisfactorily proved, and must be regarded as an arbitrary assumption. The Chicchan-mark in the sign of the day Chicchan 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 personage, and we must decline to admit him as the result of deductive reasoning. In this so-called “young god”, we miss, first of all, a characteristic mark, a distinct peculiarity such as belongs to all the figures of gods in the manuscripts without exception and by which he could be recognized. Except his so-called youthfulness, however, no such definite marks are to be found. Furthermore there is no figure of a god in the manuscripts which would not be designated by a definite characteristic hieroglyph. No such hieroglyph can be proved as belonging to the “young god”. The figures, which are supposed to have a “youthful appearance” in the Madrid manuscript, often convey this impression merely in consequence of their smallness and of the pitiful, squatting attitude in which they are represented. Furthermore real children do occur here and there, thus, for example, in the Dresden manuscript in connection with the pictures of women in the first part and in Tro. 20*c in the representation of the so-called “infant baptism.”