Thread by @sentantiq

.@PeterGainsford @theo_nash @ProfThibodeau

Friends, I have been following the janko discussion and as a homerist with some interest in traditional and formulaic language, I just wanted to add my two cents. Sorry to butt in! But...you know...

#JankyHomer

I have not taken Janko’s methods or his results seriously for decades because (1) it is based on deeply problematic premises and (2) the dataset will never be sufficient

#JankyHomer 2

For (1) his method and model assumes (a) a static and (b) hierarchical relationship between texts that (c) does not entertain multiple performance traditions development different levels of fixity over time

#JankyHomer 3

In addition for (1) the approach considers conscious archaism but insufficiently considers the interrelationship between audiences and performers and expectations of conventionality over time

#JankyHomer 4

For (2) the data set is IMHO not (a) large enough or reflective enough of local traditions to give good results and is (b) tainted by regularizing editing forces in the (i) Panhellenizing, (ii) Hellenist, (iii) Byzantine periods...

#JankyHomer 5

not to mention the misconceptions and reconceptions of editing authoritative texts from the Renaissance to today.

#JankyHomer 6

So, I think Janko’s method and book is a fascinating testament to a period of approaching Homer statistically, but it says little to me about any real relationships between the poems

#JankyHomer 7

Even if the method were applied with more or less good data, it would still only give really relative relationships and would add very little interpretive value if we understand the story traditions as responding to each other over time.

#JankyHomer 8, end

And I think it would be great to get @caseyduehackney in on this conversation too

also, @ArftJustin