Abstract
From the contrast Herodotus draws between the customs of the Greeks and those of the Persians, Scythians and other peoples, various elements emerge that make it possible to identify the components of nomoi that concern the gods. Furthermore, in the context of Book II dedicated to Egypt, the investigator takes a stand on the " divine affairs " and states that he will not talk about them, except with regard to the ounomata. An analysis of the implications of this programmatic restriction provides a better understanding of the place of the gods in theEnquiry, particularly in relation to earlier poetry. As for divine ounomata, the scope of the term becomes clearer in the context of the veritable " history of polytheism " that Herodotus recounts at the beginning of II. What he means by the term ounoma/ounomata is not so much the " name " of the gods as their " name ", i.e. the identification, by assigning them a specific name, of divine profiles within a group of formerly undifferentiated gods. Each people is likely to proceed in this way, and the identification of such " profiles" can then be transmitted from one people to another. In Herodotus' diffusionist logic, the great antiquity he attributes to the Egyptians establishes them as generous purveyors of divine " denominations ". Herodotus then credits the poets Homer and Hesiod with making the Greek representation of the gods more complex. Religion in general, and Greek religion in particular, as conceived by the investigator, are indeed human institutions, culturally determined.
