[ 'o ] 



Thus we find, and muft evidently infer from the context, 

 that, though Herodotus may be perfedly right in faying that 

 Hefiod and Homer were the firft who gave to the Gods certain 

 appellations which he terms ETJ-wi-upaj, it does not follow from 

 thence that they were not before diRihguillied by fpecific 

 names, Owofic^a ; neither can pur hiftorian, who pofitively afferts 

 the contrary, be charged with any fuch abfurd and falfe afTer- 

 tion. What thcfe Evuvvi^.m were it is very difficult to explain, 

 and I fear even to hint a wild conjedure that they might pof- 

 fibly have been the epithets * which Homer ufually annexes to 

 the names of the Gods, and which feem to be flridly appro- 

 priated ; fuch as the cloud-compelling Jupiter, the ox-eyed 

 Juno, the far-darting Apollo ; epithets which are fometimes 

 formed into names, and ufed as fuch, as in the iaftance of 

 Apyvporo^og, bearer of the filver bow 



KXvSi jtteu AgyvpoTO^, eg Xpjj<rr,v a.fi(fi(^e(^v\Kxg, 



Or rather perhaps they may have been thofe firnames given 

 to the Gods, either from the place in which they were prin- 

 cipally venerated, and worfliipped as tutelar deities, or from 

 fome peculiar and diftindive attribute ; as Zeuj Auxato-: — AttoWuv 

 "E-n-txovp)og, the helper, &c. &c. And this conjedure is in fome 

 degree fortified by a pafTage of Paufanias, — Arcadica, Cap. xxxvlii. 

 Page 679, where fpeaking of feveral temples on Mount Lyceus, 



he 



* Hefiod's Poem is alfo full of thefe epithets. For examples, v. -e the firft twenty lines of 

 •he ©Eoyeiia. 



