This book explores the corpus of Seneca's tragedy through a computational approach, one based on logometry. The ultimate aim is to establish whether, in light of the data analysed, it is possible to identify any uniform patterns throughout the female speeches within Seneca's drama, which could distinguish them from the male speeches. The volume is divided into five chapters. Having first addressed a number of highly contested issues within Seneca's drama (namely authenticity, theatricality and possible philosophical content), in the first chapter, V. provides the scholarly context for the volume, alongside some methodological remarks, as well as examples of the applicability of the methodology employed.

This volume is situated within the development of studies of textual statistics that began in the 1950s (p. 18); these studies have subsequently been applied to Latin (P. Moreau, A. Romano Forteza, D.M. Dutsch) as well as Greek literature (L.K. McClure, S. Goldhill) in recent years. The methods employed mainly consist of a factorial analysis of correspondence (AFC), a tree-based classification analysis and a calculation of specificity: these are applied to lemmas, grammar and a variety of vocabulary, according to the characters, the section of the play and the addressees of the speech. At the same time, V. appreciates the development of gender studies, which has taken place particularly from the 1990s onwards (pp. 20–1), using this angle to interpret a selection of the results collected through the computational analysis.

Whilst appreciating the construction of gender as a social phenomenon, V. states that only the sex – and not the gender – of the speakers will be addressed in the volume, since this is a safer criterion in order to ‘mettre au jour les tendances principales qui caractérisent les discours féminins et masculins’ (p. 40). In spite of this statement, in later sections of the work (see below) V. will (un)surprisingly deal with certain case studies, particularly Medea and Heracles (HO), as examples of gender performativity. One thus wonders whether V. would have come to more striking conclusions by drawing from J. Butler's (and other subsequent) theories on this matter.

In the second chapter V. applies the logometric analysis to five distinct groups of characters within Seneca's tragedy, namely the heroine, the hero, the nurse, the messenger and the Chorus. This analysis, predominantly based on the lexicon employed, reveals certain tendencies in each group of characters. In particular, the heroines use many words pertaining to the familial sphere (coniunx, mater, nuptialis), while the heroes seem to be more concerned with paternity – rather than, V. argues, with other family members. Moreover, the analysis of the occurrences of negative vocabulary (‘vocabulaire négatif’, p. 113; although one wonders how this negativity has been categorised) as well as of words concerning the thematic sphere of love reveals a greater emotional intensity in female speeches than the male ones.

V. thus compares male and female speeches on the basis of specific lexical choices (the ‘Hyperbase’ used is ‘Lex_Spec’; p. 139) and grammatical codes as well as roles in the play. From an analysis of the use of ablative forms and adjectives, it emerges that male speeches are more descriptive than female ones; by contrast, female characters use more imperative forms. This does not necessarily mean, however, that female discourse is more assertive, but rather reveals a female proclivity towards pleading. In this respect, the data show that while the word supplex is applied to both men and women, a man is never described as a supplex in front of a woman. These (and other examples) show that there are subtle differences between male and female speeches; these differences concern word choice, sentence structure, links between words, analogies etc. Although these remarks appear entirely convincing, they do not seem particularly original, as they arrive at conclusions that can be inferred from an accurate close reading and a good knowledge of Senecan dramatic texts.

This comparative analysis is elaborated in the following chapter, where V. investigates the patterns of female and male discourses within each drama. Accordingly, whilst the approach of the first three chapters is more holistic (as they take into account Seneca's drama as a unitary corpus), the fourth chapter is more focused on each specific tragedy, so a more ‘local’ point of enquiry is added to the previous ‘globalisante’ perspective (p. 184). From this analysis it emerges that one may speak of the existence of a form of gendered discourse only in respect to Medea, Phaedra, Troades and Hercules Oetaeus. However, V. points out that Seneca does not establish a unilateral opposition between female and male speeches, but problematises the gender role reversal occurring in these dramas by means of a calculated use of the speeches. Medea, for instance, may be said to play and perform a more masculine role, which is marked by a specifically ‘masculine’ use of certain expressions, while Heracles’ language in the Hercules Oetaeus expresses his liminality as a character – also in terms of gender liminality.

In the final chapter V. takes into account the context in which the speeches take place, with a particular focus on the relationship between prologue and role. The prologue is said to be a peculiar element in Seneca's dramas, as it is within the prologue that characters best express their dramatic potential. However, the computational analysis of vocabulary and dramatic codes does not reveal a distinction between female and male characters in the delivery of their opening speeches. Another category that is taken into account in this chapter is the addressees: V. examines how the speeches change according to the different addressees to whom they are directed. As a general pattern, the AFC does not indicate any variations according to the sex of the addressees, although there are some peculiarities at a thematic and emotional level. V. notes that female speeches addressed to female interlocutors (not those addressed to men) are characterised by a greater amount of emotionality. In conclusion, the results obtained from the computational analysis show that we cannot speak of a female discourse, but rather multiple female discourses, whose features change according to other factors (i.e. the role, the plot of the tragedy, the addressees etc). Logometry has thus been a useful tool for demonstrating that there are a variety of female discourses rather than one standardised typology of female speech.

V. employs a rather innovative approach to investigate Seneca's tragic production, by drawing on computational analysis. This book is well worth reading for scholars who apply this sort of analysis to classical texts as well as for those who are more generally interested in Seneca's tragedy. The conclusions of the study are, in point of fact, not particularly original, as I have shown; the existence of various female discourses within Seneca's drama is also a somewhat intuitive statement. Nonetheless, the book provides interesting insights into the specific use of certain words and/or grammatical elements within Seneca's dramatic corpus. More importantly, V.’s systematic and accurate work paves the way for future analyses that may further develop the results of the computational analysis applied to female characters within Seneca's drama. In particular, the patterns of female discourse(s) noted here may be analysed in the future through a more theoretical and gendered lens, thus more effectively contributing to the ongoing debate on female figures within Senecan (tragic) works (cf., e.g., H.M. Roisman, Scholia 14 [2004], 72–88; C.A.J. Littlewood, MD 38 [1997], 57–86, Self-Representation and Illusion in Senecan Tragedy [2004] and ‘Gender and Power in Seneca's Thyestes’, in J.G. Fitch [ed.], Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Seneca [2008], pp. 244–63; M. McAuley, Helios 39 [2012], 37–72).