Book VII

The translator argues that skepticism and knowledge are mutually reinforcing: skepticism results from knowledge, just as knowledge results from skepticism. Both require continual unlearning and relearning as understanding evolves.

The translator observes that modern critical methods—including probability tests and consistency checks—have transformed how history and tradition are examined, making mere statements subject to scrutiny regarding authorial motives and the reliability of facts.

The translator notes the ironic paradox that the three figures who most influenced human intellectual development—Homer, Socrates, and Shakespeare—have generated boundless scholarly debate and uncertainty regarding their true natures and works.

The translator describes a modern scholarly trend of denying the existence of historical figures whose lives seem too remarkable to credit, using this method to resolve scholarly difficulties rather than accepting traditional accounts.

The translator argues that skepticism has reached its extreme with Homer, where modern scholars are permitted to believe any theory provided they dismiss all written tradition about Homer's authorship—using circular reasoning that rejects evidence because it cannot be independently verified.

The translator identifies that available biographies of Homer are partly forgeries and partly imaginative reconstructions, lacking truth as a key element, making them unreliable sources for understanding Homer.

The translator provides a detailed account of the traditional biography attributed to Herodotus, describing Homer's birth, early life, travels, blindness, struggles with poverty, and eventual success in teaching poetry and becoming celebrated.

The translator presents various scholarly theories about Homer's authorship, ranging from the position that Homer was one poet to theories that the Iliad and Odyssey are compilations of earlier poets' fragments arranged by Peisistratus or others.

The translator notes that ancient Greek thinkers universally accepted Homer's existence and the unity of his works, and that skepticism about Homer's authorship only emerged in later grammarian ages, not in classical antiquity.

The translator presents Bentley's theory that Homer composed songs and rhapsodies to be sung at festivals, which were only collected into an epic poem by Peisistratus around five hundred years after composition.

The translator details Wolf's argument that long manuscripts could not have existed in early Greece without writing, and that the Homeric poems must therefore have been oral compositions later compiled by Peisistratus or his associates into their current form.

The translator presents Grote's counter-arguments challenging Wolf's assumptions about writing, oral transmission, and the necessity of manuscripts for preserving complex works, showing that trained bards with extraordinary memory could transmit long poems orally.

The translator presents arguments questioning whether Peisistratus truly compiled the Iliad into its current form, noting the absence of Athenian influence and nationalist feeling in the text that would be expected if such a revision had occurred.

The translator acknowledges that while Wolf's objections to the Iliad's primitive unity have not been fully overcome, his hypothesis fails to adequately explain major points and actually creates more difficulties than it solves.

The translator concludes by expressing belief in the unity and single authorship of Homer's works, arguing that the weight of historical evidence and profound internal evidence support this position, even while acknowledging the existence of some corruptions and interpolations.

The translator argues that while verbal criticism has value for philology, aesthetic appreciation of Homer's unity and greatness should take precedence, and that excessive analytical fragmentation misses the power of the whole work.

The translator argues that regarding great historical figures, faith in their essential reality is appropriate given human limitations in knowledge, and that skeptical theories do violence to the emotional and intellectual response these figures inspire.

The translator argues that proper reading of Homer requires transforming oneself into the heroic world he depicts rather than analyzing textual minutiae, and that such enthusiastic engagement reveals the work as unified and authored by a single great mind.

The translator quotes Heeren's observation that Homer, more than any other figure including prophets and sages, formed the character of the Greek nation through his unified poetic vision and universal human insights.

The translator argues that the Apotheosis of Homer and the emotional responses Homer generates make the hypothesis of multiple authorship emotionally and intellectually unsatisfying, and that faith in Homer's reality serves the cause of human dignity better than skeptical fragmentation.

The translator characterizes Pope's translation as an elegant paraphrase rather than literal translation, reflecting Pope's concern with general sense and pleasing expression rather than precise rendering of original language.

The translator defends Pope's translation as a great work of English literature in its own right, arguing that it should not be judged by modern standards of literal translation but appreciated as a masterpiece of elegant paraphrase.

The translator explains that the notes are intended to help general readers by touching on mythological allusions and occasional departures from the original, with parallel passages from Milton, while avoiding pretension to high scholastic commentary.