Lest there be some confusion about the 2 stars I've given this book: Tacitus is fantastic and fascinating. So don't reproach me for SEEMING to criticize Tacitus, when my target here is the translation. (On the subject of reproach, Tacitus himself wrote: "To show resentment at a reproach is to acknowledge that one may have had it coming.") In fact, I think very highly of the incomparable Roman historian. Gibbon, among many others, loves him and so do I. However, this superficially handsome volume from The Modern Library (containing both The Histories and The Annals), does not do justice to Tacitus at all. These translations cannot be recommended, in spite of the praise lavished on them by the general editor. The Annals is barely acceptable but no more than that, and The Histories is inferior. No, the interested reader would be better off to consult the scintillating translation by W. H. Fyfe (revised by his editor, D. S. Levene) of The Histories, published by Oxford as a paperback in 1997. Tacitus' renown -- looking at his style rather than his content -- comes from his acerbic wit, pithy remarks and lucid analytical sentences. To get a truer sense of his abilities, look to another translation.