Within the depth-psychology and classical-humanities corpus assembled by Seba, ‘Homeric Style’ names not merely a set of aesthetic conventions but a coherent epistemological formation that scholars interrogate to understand how archaic Greek consciousness organized perception, memory, and reality. The decisive contribution comes from Erich Auerbach, whose foundational contrast in Mimesis opposes Homeric ‘full externalization’—every phenomenon brought into the foreground, uniformly illuminated, syntactically paratactic—against the shadowed, background-laden mode of biblical narrative. This structural diagnosis resonates with Erich Havelock’s argument in Preface to Plato that Homeric style is not an aesthetic choice but a mnemonic necessity of oral, pre-literate culture: formulaic elaboration, rhythmic repetition, and the ‘formulaic state of mind’ are technologies for communal memory-storage. Milman Parry’s oral-formulaic theory, extended by Gregory Nagy, grounds the style in performance economics—economy of formula, metrical constraint, and composition-in-performance. Richard Seaford adds a socioeconomic axis, linking paratactic aggregation to pre-monetary modes of valuation. Bruno Snell reads Homeric stylistic conventions as evidence for the undivided, aggregate constitution of early Greek selfhood. Together these positions generate a productive tension: is Homeric style primarily a technical apparatus of oral transmission, an index of pre-reflective consciousness, or a distinctive ontology of presence? The answer bears directly on how depth psychology understands the archaic imaginal ground from which later inwardness emerged.