Talk:Homer

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2026

You left out the fact that Homer most likely DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. I just thought that might be somewhat important to include. ~2026-34950-83 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The name Omiros

How it's been assumed the name Omiros have to be pronounced as Homiros -> Homer??? ~2026-39971-51 (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

See Greek diacritics. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

contrasting claims

In the Homer#Contemporary section it says most contemporary scholars "agree that the Iliad and the Odyssey were not produced by the same author", but the later in the paragraph it says "It is also generally agreed that each poem was composed mostly by a single author". Which is it? Kingturtle = (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

To my understanding there is no contradiction. Each poem was composed by one author i.e. there was one author of the Iliad not multiple authors. However this was not the same person for both poems, so there is a singular author of the Iliad (H1) and a singular author of the Odyssey (H2). ~2026-41595-68 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Contradictory lead

The lead section directly contradicts the rest of the article by talking about Homer as if he was a real person. It's flat out misinformation. Homer was not "an ancient Greek poet" because he likely didn't exist as a singular figure. How did the page get this way? Loytra^✨ 06:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have since edited the lead to more accurately describe Homer as a 'legendary' author rather than a real, historical person. I hope this stays in place. Loytra^✨ 01:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a marked improvement, and much clearer for our readers. Not sure if "legendary" is the right word here though. Aza24 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a concise statement regarding the lack of knowledge about Homer's identity is due in there somewhere, but as Aza24 noted, I find the word "lengedary" here somewhat inappropriate too, as it takes him being solely legendary for granted, which is not entirely the case either. For example, it has been suggusted that Homer could've been, not the author, but a mere rhapsode who just transmitted the epics, like many others did. Plus, the words "traditionally attributed to" already implies lack of clear authorship. Many modern Homer-focused and other relevant sources today, while agreeing on the lack of concrete knowledge, continue to refer to him as an individual, such as in "Homer between History and Fiction in Imperial Greek Literature, "The Cambridge Companion to Homer", "The Cambridge Guide to Homer". E.g., in Routledge's "Classical Literature: An Introduction" we read Two of the longest, oldest and greatest poems in world literature, are ascribed to the Greek poet known as Homer., while also raising the questions about his identity later. The first few sentenses are better as short summaries of generally agreed upon ideas. Piccco (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed response. I will admit that I know about as much of Homer as the average layperson, so perhaps I was too hasty in my changes. Detailing the questions and mysteries surrounding his life and authorship in the first few sentences instead of a few paragraphs in does much to satiate my concerns. I will try and tweak the lead a bit further, but I have no issues with removing 'legendary' as a descriptor. Loytra^✨ 16:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Homer was not an "ancient Greek poet"

To begin with, there is no extant "Homer work", just a far posthumous compilation of one of many versions of oral stories transmitted across centuries later; the Homer "life" is a fabrication intended to give this oral story a single, identifiable author. Most scholarship agrees on this. Compare and contrast the presentation of Laozi:

Lǎozǐ) was a legendary Chinese philosopher considered to be the author of the Tao Te Ching (Pinyin: Dào Dé Jīng), one of the foundational texts of Taoism. Modern scholarship generally regards his biographical details as later inventions and his opus a collaboration of various writers, with the name Laozi, literally meaning 'Old Master', likely intended to portray an archaic anonymity

There is much greater "lack of evidence" in the case of Homer as in the case of Laozi, who was attested as well as his work at the very least a single century after his life, not like four as in the case of the Homer attribution. No serious historian claims that Homer can factually be attested as a real singular individual.

So how to explain this asymmetry except with blatant agenda pushing here? We have no evidence that Homer was an actual living person, with later legend being the established hypothesis for decades if not centuries. ~2026-48330-74 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The editio princeps of Homer was printed in Florence not Milan

I would do this minor edit myself, but I'm not yet allowed to (and I might forget once I will be). In Demetrios Chalkokondyles's article it's said that the first modern edition of Homer was printed in Florence, while here it says Milan. I checked and Florence is the correct one (as Demetrios was not even in Milan until some years later). Resmauro (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Resmauro. Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed the issue. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2026 (UTC)