Repetition is a fundamental human experience: from the moment we are born, we learn by observing repeated actions and by engaging in repetition ourselves. Through repetitive acts we express, among other things, temporal phenomena (e.g. the return of the seasons), the cyclical nature of events in both individual and collective life, and even define our sexual identity, which, according to Judith Butler, is the result of a repetitive act. Repetition can be understood either positively or negatively, but it always entails movement and transformation: it is never the exact reproduction of a fact or the return of the identical. What is repeated is always repeated differently. This holds true as well for repetition as an aesthetic structure, in both art and discourse (N. Rossbach and A. Schrott [edd.], Wiederholung und Variation im Gespräch des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit [2023]). What is repeated becomes something other and new, taking shape – thanks to the creativity inherent in repetition – as a variation on what has already been said. It is for this reason that Károly Csúri coined the expression ‘repetitive variations’ (K. Csúri, ‘Wiederholungsvariationen. Ein Beitrag zur Literatursemantik’, Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanistik [2017], 83–97). Repetition and variation in discourse are therefore two sides of the same coin. Since repetition always entails a difference, it is appropriate to conceive of it as a continuum encompassing various degrees of variation, which may involve both form and content.
Repetition is also a familiar phenomenon in spoken language. Precisely because of its oral and aural dimension, repetition is closely linked to forms of oral poetry and thus to Homeric epic (E. Minchin, ‘Repetition in Homeric epic: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives’, in: M. Antovic and C. Pagán Cánovas [edd.], Oral Poetics and Cognitive Science [2016], pp. 12–29). The well-known Homeric formulaic style, discovered by Milman Parry, is a form of repetition. Repetitive, too, are the so-called typical scenes and, more generally, the narrative structures of Homeric epic. Modern scholars have often misunderstood or even rejected this repetitiveness. Yet Homeric repetitiveness is not merely a stylistic feature, that is, the textual crystallisation of an oral technique of poetic performance and composition. On the contrary, one can argue that repetition in Homeric poems expresses a particular world view, with significant differences between the Iliad and the Odyssey, and therefore deserves close study (A.C. Purves, Homer and the Poetics of Gesture [2021]; A. Forte, ‘Enumeration and Embodiment in Homeric Repetition’, in: D. Beck [ed.], Repetition, Communication and Meaning in the Ancient World [2021], pp. 44–63).
In this volume C. examines repetition in long-distance verbal communication. Her focus lies on the reported speeches of the ἄγγελοι, characters tasked with conveying information from a sender (A) to a recipient (C) through an instruction speech and a delivery speech, often marked by (near) verbatim repetition – that is, by a reformulation. In the first chapter C. analyses the occurrences of the term ἄγγελος, the Iliadic ‘messenger’ characterised by speed and reliability. A sub-category of the ἄγγελοι is made up of ‘envoy-messengers’, who are received with hospitality and whose missions may end in failure – unlike those of the regular messengers, whose deliveries always meet with success. The second chapter is devoted to the κῆρυξ (‘herald’), who oversees assemblies, proclaims orders and takes part in religious rituals. Heralds may also function as ἄγγελοι, yet they are distinguished by their greater symbolic authority – evidenced, for instance, by the bearing of a sceptre – and by the multiplicity of their functions.
The third chapter problematises the notion of verbatim repetition in reported speech. C. shows that repetition always involves omissions, reformulations and commentary, revealing a sophisticated communicative competence. The ἄγγελος is therefore not a magnétophone (F. Létoublon) – not a passive and fully faithful conduit – but rather an intelligent mediator, capable of adapting speech to the circumstances, the interlocutors and the dynamics of power. The comparison with ancient Near Eastern cultures (Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, Biblical) shows that in those traditions messengers typically report speeches in direct form, whereas the Iliad prefers indirect discourse, which allows the bearer of the message to exert narrative control.
The fourth chapter focuses on long-distance communication by the gods, which may also occur through dreams, omens and the ‘voice’ (Ὄσσα). Iris – whose name is identical to that of the rainbow, although no clear connection with her function is apparent – is Zeus’s messenger in the Iliad, but she does not appear in the Odyssey. The use of indirect speech even for divine messages reinforces the idea that the Iliadic ἄγγελος always takes part in the construction of the message. Indeed, not even Zeus’s commands are reported in the first person by those who relay them – unlike in other religious traditions (e.g. Biblical ones), where the messenger may assume the god’s ‘I’. The predominance of direct speech is linked to the performative nature of oral epic, in which the poet impersonates the characters like an actor (M. Cantilena).
The fifth chapter explores the messenger scenes in the Iliad from a narratological perspective, following the path opened by the work of I. de Jong (see, most recently, I. de Jong, ‘Homer’, in: M. de Bakker and I.J.F. de Jong [edd.], Speech in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Volume Five [2022], pp. 33–55). The Homeric audience, already aware of the content of the instruction speech, is able to compare it with the delivery speech and appreciate the variations between the two. In narratological terms, the audience thus functions as the intradiegetic frame of reference for the aoidos.
The sixth and final chapter offers a comparison between the Iliad and the Odyssey. In the Odyssey the idea that messages can be false is widespread, beginning with those concerning the absent Odysseus. Indeed, the protagonist himself appears in the role of one who spreads fake news. The difference between the Iliad and the Odyssey thus reflects distinct conceptions of truth, authority and distrust towards communication. The Iliad privileges accuracy and clarity; the Odyssey recognises and thematises reticence, deception and ambiguity. Also transformed is the poet’s relationship with the source of poetic inspiration: the Muses. In the Iliad, the poet expresses no doubt regarding the truth of what the Muses have taught him and of the message they have entrusted to him. In the Odyssey, by contrast, this truth is called into question, in the awareness that the Muses know many lies resembling the truth, as Hesiod says. Thus, the different modes of performance of the various types of messengers may reflect the work of the aoidos. It would be worth asking whether this is also true of the other form of long-distance communication attested in the Iliad: written communication, as exemplified by the message carried by Bellerophon (S. Fornaro, ‘I segni di Bellerofonte’, Archivi delle Emozioni 3 [2022], 5–18).
The compilation of passages by C. proves to be highly useful. The conclusions regarding the metapoetic function of the messengers are persuasive and align closely with the interpretative approaches of A. Aloni and D. Bouvier. The bibliography is highly specialised, though it might have been expanded to include more recent studies, particularly in the fields of cognitive and performative literature. Repetitiveness is constitutive of performance, and – as C. notes – the Homeric poems are incomprehensible without their performative dimension. The book should therefore be regarded as a solid foundation for further research, beginning with an in-depth examination of the concept of repetition, which has a significant philosophical lineage (F. Nietzsche, S. Kierkegaard, G. Deleuze, to name just a few).
Another aspect that calls for further exploration concerns the link between repetition and embodiment: Homeric messengers do not transmit words only, but also gestures and bodily attitudes. Did the movements of messengers generate kinaesthetic resonance in the audience? What is the relationship between the repetitiveness of epic and that of dramatic or purely gestural performances? Perhaps the repetition of speeches served primarily to bind poet and audience together through shared bodily rhythms and to disseminate, by means of verbal repetition, a genuine emotional contagion?
