This volume investigates the use of numbers in ancient historiography, research in which R. has been engaged for over 40 years. It is a valuable and useful work. The introduction, building on current examples of the use of number rhetoric (see p. 61 on Xen. Anab. 5.6.9 and pp. 137–44 for modern examples), shows that numbers and the qualifiers featuring them are meaningful in so far as they can work as a powerful rhetorical tool. R. articulates three methodological principles (pp. 3–4): the use of numbers is an aspect of an author's style; the investigation of a historian's writing style will shed light on the way in which she or he practices history; and a stylometric approach, which attempts to quantify aspects of each writer's numeric practice. Authors' stylistic choices mainly affect the quantity and quality of the qualifiers. The numbers examined fall into five types: cardinal numbers; ordinal numbers; numbers within compounds; non-explicit but definite numbers; and fractions. The following categories of number functions are considered: time, distance or size, military, population, money and miscellaneous. All qualifiers are also catalogued: approximating, comparative, alternative and emphatic ones (p. 4).
Long experience in this field of research allows R. to capture nuances, such as the impact on readers of comparative qualifiers (p. 5). The example of Thucydides 4.8.6 clearly shows the deviation resulting from comparing the distances offered by an ancient historian with those directly measured on the ground (pp. 7; 58–9; 149–51; 79 on Hdt. 7.184.4). Moreover, the peculiar nature of the measurement methods used by Thucydides is a clear indication of the historian's uncertainty in providing data.
The thirteen works examined span eleven authors from Herodotus to Herodianus. Data collection has only been finished for the first six works – Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon's Hellenica and Anabasis, Diodorus Siculus and Polybius (pp. 9–10). Yet, R. states that substantial work has been done on Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the two works by Flavius Josephus, Arrian and Appian.
In such a study one urgent issue is that of genre definition. R. refers to a single literary genre (p. 11), yet to assume that works relating to historical subject matter are to be placed tout court into the historiography box appears to be a simplification. This strategy aids in labelling works and authors; nonetheless it does not take into account that historical subject matter is dealt with in very different forms, with reference to different objects of inquiry, different audiences and different functions. This is acknowledged, for example, by Polybius in the proem to Book 9 and by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (AR 1.8.3–4). That said, in profiling individual authors with respect to their use of numbers (p. 167), R. acknowledges the profound differences among the authors examined. Among the authors considered Xenophon is included: in the ancients’ opinion he had to be returned to the realm of philosophy (Quint. Inst. 10.1.75), and his works, including Hellenica and Anabasis, elude unambiguous placement in the historical genre. The reference to personal experience of the events, for which R. refers to G. Cawkwell (pp. 178–9), does not seem sufficient for an unambiguous label. On this point, one should consult S. Brennan's Xenophon's Anabasis. A Socratic History (2022).
On the subject of distance measures, R. suggests that there are ‘Three major subgenres of historical writing’ (p. 47): geography and ethnography; detailed narration of military campaigns; and descriptions of human constructions. By ‘subgenres’ R. means sections of historical works with specific content, but the concept needs clarification, mainly taking the cue from studies on literary genres (G.B. Conte). In particular, it would be useful to apply the concept of a genre's strategy to the analysis of quantitative data offered by ancient authors.
As for some categories, the low number of occurrences does not provide data of statistical significance, as R. rightly notes (p. 117). In particular, the categories of ‘population’ and ‘money’ are especially poor in data. The comparison between the conditions in which the Greeks acted and those in which we find ourselves is very appreciable: a clear example is given in the introduction of the ‘time’ category (pp. 16–22). How frequently an author uses numbers can indicate that author's ‘quantitative’ inclination, and this is certainly related to the chronological and geographical extent of the subject, but this aspect is not a full explanation. For instance, let us consider the different use of numbers in Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus: the difference between Herodotus’ 24% and Diodorus’ 14% in the ‘time’ category (p. 300) deserves further investigation. At the same time the high number of distance indications in the Anabasis (p. 47) is easily explained. The fact that the measurements given along the various stages of the Persian Royal Road are not accompanied by qualifiers may depend on the ‘general knowledge of the standard speed of travel throughout this journey’ (p. 60). Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that Xenophon could have made use of written sources. A particularly interesting case is Hdt. 4.86 (pp. 57–8): Herodotus translates sailing days into distance measurements in order to establish the extent of the Black Sea. Apart from possible manipulations of numerical data, we need to keep in mind that almost all sea measurements were originally expressed in days, and this is the main reason for which voyage durations in sailing days create some doubt in the ‘time’ category.
A recurring issue throughout the work consists of explaining the choices of the various authors: for example, regarding the greater frequency for the alternative qualification in Thucydides and Xenophon, R. speaks of the ‘slightly casual and colloquial flavour’ in works in which the author had participated in the events or had heard from direct witnesses (pp. 64 and 180). Explanations mainly based on the impression of modern readers are problematic in these cases.
The section on measures of magnitude, scarcely represented in the authors analysed, builds on the two categories proposed by S. Johnstone: standardised and official units of measurement; practical units of measurement associated with objects or products. It is not surprising that in the authors examined this latter kind of measurement is prevalent and that the highest numbers are in authors dealing with great empires (p. 82). Numbers of those killed in war tend towards conventionality (pp. 86–7), which is already a pattern in traditions (and especially local ones), standing behind the historians reporting them: this is confirmation that accuracy of data was not a priority even for a precise historian like Thucydides. Processes of rounding or approximate estimations are prevalent in the ‘money’ category as well (p. 133).
A particularly interesting case involving the study of sources is that of Diod. 2.60.6 (pp. 152–3): R. denies the existence of an intermediate source relying on Diodorus’ inclination for comparative qualifiers. The reasoning is correct and can be supplemented with the tendency to overcome Quellenforschung years in Diodorus studies. Similarly, the comparison of the Dead Sea measurements in Diod. 2.48 and 19.96–8 sheds some light on the author's working method, although several problems remain open regarding the sections that are more or less literally repeated (pp. 154–5). The review of errors and inaccuracies in modern translations is also useful (pp. 157–66).
In conclusion, despite an accurate and appreciable work of analysis and classification (summarised in the tables) a broader perspective of a historical and literary dimension only features occasionally, and this applies to the different contexts, and the different functions the authors attributed to their works. In only a few cases does R. attempt to explain the authors’ use by comparison with other literary genres: for example, pp. 90–1 and 170 for the comparison with epic poetry and p. 92 for the low number of qualifiers in Herodotus (see also p. 148). Some conclusions confirm exactly what would be expected: for instance, the breadth of Herodotus’ interests (p. 170) or the prevalence of the military category in Thucydides (p. 173), Xenophon, Polybius and Diodorus (p. 185). The comparison with other texts, ancient and modern, considering different functions and strategies in the use of numbers, may enrich the panorama and bring further substantial results.
