Talk:Homeric Question

---

Frequency of letters?

The following section:

"New methods try also to elucidate the question. Combining information technologies and statistics, the stylometry allows to scan various linguistic units: words, parts of speech, sounds... Based on the frequencies of Greek letters, a first study of Dietmar Najock[19] particularly shows the internal cohesion of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Taking into account the repetition of the letters, a recent study of Stephan Vonfelt[20] highlights the unity of the works of Homer compared to Hesiod. The thesis of modern Analysts being questioned, the debate remains open."

How can the frequency of letters prove stylistic unity? The frequency of words, possibly, but letters? Something is off here.

Similarly, the claims of Powell, while notable, hardly seem to be the entire "modern status of the Homeric question" as implied by this article. I can't really believe there are that many scholars who believe the Greek alphabet was invented to write Homer, particularly given the many other more likely reasons someone would want to be able to write.

I get the impression that someone with a pet theory about the Greek alphabet has been editing the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Giambattista Vico

Especially given the re-invigorated scholarship on Giambattista Vico in the past few decades, it strikes me as a serious omission for his earlier account of the "discovery of the true Homer" to not be included here, prior to Wolf. Vico rejects the personhood of Homer as early as the 1740's, although his argument isn't attended to by the German classicists at first. Sir Ian 10:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I just found a fantastic article by B.A. Haddock in the Journal of the History of Ideas who notes that Wolf himself admitted to Vico's priority on this matter: B.A. Haddock, "Vico's "Discovery of the True Homer": A Case-Study in Historical Reconstruction"; Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1979), pp. 583-602

(I don't have much time for Wikipedia emendations, so I'm adding this here with the hopes that someone will be able to follow up! Thank you!) Sir Ian (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Identity of Homer

The paragraph titled "Identity of Homer" contains absolutely nothing about Homer's identity. Is anyone aware of this? 47.138.89.120 (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That section is copied from the Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.), as an examination of the first version of this article will show. I had a feeling that might be since the content of that section primarily covers how the issue was discussed by scholars during the 19th century -- & not later. -- llywrch (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"The subject has its roots in classical antiquity "

The only reference in the test for "roots in antiquity" is the bit that some greek guys put the verses to paper and arranged it in the known order. But that's not a "root" for the questions about Homer. The actual debate started, it seems, in the 18th century with Wolf. jae (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)