[ 7 ] 



more than that they firft traced and diftinguiflied the families 

 of the Gods, or, in other words, gave a compleat and perfect 

 fyftem of the divine genealogy. Neither does this opinion of 

 our author appear by any means ill-founded, or even contrary 

 to the ideas at this day adopted by many learned men. 

 For though MufcEus is faid to have written upon the fubjetfl 

 before the time of Hefiod, yet is this fadl problematical ; 

 and the poetic treatife of the latter *, which has come down 

 perfedl even to our times, is, at the leaft, a ftrong prefumption 

 in favour of Herodotus ; efpecially when we confider that, 

 whether right or wrong I will not prefume to determine, that 

 primeval antiquarian is, as we fhall prefently fee, decidedly of 

 opinion that all thofe poets who are faid to have exifted before 

 Hefiod and Homer were in fa<5l pofterior to their time. 



The fecond point afTerted is, that thefe poets gave firnames 

 to the Gods. And here I muft premife that the fenfe in which 

 this pafTage is ufually underftood, namely, that Hefiod and 



Homer 



* I am well aware that though the Theogony of Hefiod be generally admitted to 

 be genuine, fome few critics, both ancient and modcrnj have ventured to fufpeft that 

 the poem which has come down to us is not the work of that moft venerable bard. 

 Among thefe, Paufanias feems to doubt, when in his Boeoticks, Cap. xxvii. page 762, 

 he fays, " we know alfo that Hefiod, or whoever iii his name has written the Theogony." 

 And exprefsly declares his opinion, Arcadica, Cap. xviii. page 635, " that having 

 " accurately read the Theogony of Hefiod, and certain verfes attributed to Qurnus, 

 «' he doth not think cither of them genuine." The authenticity of the poem is 

 however generally confefled, and this paflage of Herodotus fcems to me a ftrong 

 proof in its favour, as it from hence appears more than probable that, at the leaft, 

 Hefiod had written a Theogony. 



