The famous paired herm of Herodotus and Thucydides finds its modern analogue in H. and P.’s allied production of a Cambridge ‘green and yellow’ for Histories 6. With their peerless expertise in Greek history and historiography, they are a team tailor-made to approach the book the Victorian commentator R.W. Macan deemed Herodotus’ most Thucydidean in its structure. The result is a commentary of relentless erudition that far outstrips the ambitions of its predecessors, and H. and P. are to be credited with offering the reader a trove of now-indispensable literary, historical and linguistic analyses, complete with up-to-date bibliographic references. It marks a significant addition to the study of Herodotus, one that will doubtless make it, like the double herm in antiquity, a prominent piece in the libraries and villas of the scholar and the advanced undergraduate.

At the start H. and P. outline their reasoned position that the commentary is a continuation and bookend to H.’s recent edition of Histories 5. As a result, their excellent introduction should be read alongside that of Book 5, a point teachers in particular will want to consider when assigning this book to students less familiar with the events and aftermath of the Ionian Revolt (see the introduction to Book 5 for these books’ interactions with the Histories as a whole and key sections on kinship and religion). Nonetheless, their introduction serves to orient the reader to major elements of the book, beginning with the memorialisation of Marathon in material culture and literature and a contextualisation of Herodotus’ measured treatment of the battle in light of this tradition. It also covers the complex structure of Book 6 in relation to what has preceded and the recurring themes that animate the cast of historical actors. The second half of the introduction focuses, as promised in Histories 5, on the character of Cleomenes and in particular on his impiety towards the gods. H. and P. conclude the introduction with literary techniques favoured by the narrator, making trenchant observations on closure, style, the speeches and the vividness of the action that reflect their deep learning in historiography and Greek literature more broadly. There are two minor omissions: despite assurances in Book 5 (p. 15 n. 35, p. 20), there is no separate discussion of Herodotus’ conception of historical explanation and causation nor on the gap from 497–494 bce.

The series is aimed at the advanced undergraduate and the graduate student, and here H. and P. admirably succeed, but the work also achieves the difficult alchemy of pairing grammatical clarification appropriate for advanced students with fresh insights into the text that will benefit seasoned scholars as well. Essential section notes include 6–17 on the battle of Lade and the end of the Ionian Revolt; 61–84 on the gruesome end of Cleomenes; 68–9 on the dialogue between Demaratus and his mother, ‘one of the most fraught and unusual mother-son exchanges in all literature’; the speech on the oath of Glaucus at 86; and the battle of Marathon from 109–117. The commentary excels in individual remarks on Herodotus’ narrative style: for example, 9.2 for the ‘technique of increasing precision’; the narrator's adoption of multiple perspectives at 10; see 108 and 140.2 for closure on Cleomenes and Miltiades with a positive biographical note. Excellent brief comments abound, but I note in particular 67.3, on the ‘social death’ of Demaratus; 76–84.1, on the alternative tradition of the defence of Argos led by the poet Telesilla; 109.2 (c), on the polemarch as ὁμόψηϕος with the generals; and 136.2, on the association of Lemnos with lameness.

Readers are alerted to themes that run through Books 5–6 and the Histories as a whole. Tisis in particular is a red thread and tied to another driving force, reciprocity (both well-treated in the index). The regular observance of flashbacks and flashforwards creates a strong sense of unity, as at 132–40, on the failure of Miltiades in Paros, which H. and P. observe evokes the ruin of Cambyses and also the future successes of Themistocles and later the Athenians at Paros. They also draw out neglected small-scale refrains, as in their notes on the repetition of the four-horse chariot race (e.g. 35.1, 103.1–3) and ‘tyrant-hating’ (121.2–123.1).

Attention from scholars is merited in their clarification of one of the more important interpretative issues of Book 6, on Herodotus’ ambiguous determination of the Alcmeonids as μισοτύραννοι, ‘tyrant-haters’, in the context of the shield signal given after the battle of Marathon (121–31). H. and P. set out the terms of the debate clearly. The family's connection with Croesus and Cleisthenes of Sicyon is noted, as is the eponymous archonship of Cleisthenes the reformer during the rule of Hippias (121.1). This evidence is counterbalanced by the commentators’ association of these elevated social connections not with tyranny necessarily, but with aristocratic networks of influence (121–31). They further draw attention to the shifts in the language of tyranny (121–31) and the contested reputation of the Alcmeonids at the time of Herodotus’ composition (124.1). This same passage contains a thorny crux on Callias I (121.2–123.1) that is often interpreted as an interpolation; it is accepted by H. and P. as a late Herodotean insertion, and they offer compelling arguments for its authenticity.

Naturally, select comments will divide readers. For example, though source criticism is largely absent, H. and P. do favour identifying certain narratives in terms of Herodotus’ informants, including key passages on Miltiades and Demaratus (34–41, 50.3, 51, 70.2, 72.1). Given the recognition of the historian as a literary craftsman in his own right, historiographers may find that such speculation does less work for our understanding of the narrative. At 44.3, they suggest that the historian exaggerates the apex predators in the sea around Mt Athos. Comparison with modern Chalkidiki is probably not applicable due to the sharp decline in large predatory fish in the Mediterranean, and there is also the prominence of sharks and whales in the ancient visual and literary record to contend with, as J.K. Papadopoulos and D. Ruscillo have demonstrated (‘A Ketos in Early Athens: an Archaeology of Whales and Sea Monsters in the Greek World’, AJA 106 [2002], 187–227). In their discussion of the oath-challenge of Glaucus at 86, H. and P. hold that he is punished for ‘even thinking in such terms’. This interpretation is frequently given, but I am not sure that ‘thinking’ is ever referred to as punishable. At stake is the equality of testing a divinity and swearing falsely (and Glaucus does the former), and both are speech-acts. In an explanation of the κόθορνος boot at 125.3, they question its ability to fit on either foot, noting that the explanation of the nickname of Theramenes in Xenophon as Kothornos (‘The Slipper’) is not textually assured. This is correct, but it could indicate that the explanation for his nickname is not found elsewhere in the tradition (e.g. Plut. Prae. ger. reip. 824b, ps.-Luc. Amor. 50, Zen. 3.93). Such criticisms are, of course, small beer, as H. and P. excel at balanced analyses on issues that often divide scholars (see 40, 66, 77.2, 100.1, 106.3).

A select apparatus criticus is given, and H. and P. regularly draw attention to where they differ from or concur with Wilson's OCT. Typographic errors are infrequent and minor. Note that at p. 11 ‘histories’ should read ‘Histories’; at 60 the apparatus is not cross-referenced with the note as it suggests; and there is an unnecessary interpunct at 140.1 before χρηστήριον.

A reviewer cannot hope to capture the breadth and depth that this commentary offers to readers of Herodotus, so let me just say this: it has been more than a century since Macan warned in his preface to Books 4–6 that future commentators of the Histories would hardly be able to approach it on their own, and would require ‘a syndicate, or trust, in which each department of the Herodotean Museum may be headed by an all-competent sub-specialist’. In H. and P., Erato's twenty-first century syndicate has been found.