When it comes to childrens' books, sometimes the illustration is as important as the text. The illustrations in this book are derived from hand-stitched textile pieces - colorful and imaginitive. Sketches for the textile works are printed on the endpapers. Each page has one of Aesop's fables told briefly enough for a small child to digest, and in simple language that is easy to read out loud. There are many versions of Aesop, of course. I was looking for one that would make these old moral tales palatable for kindergarten and first graders, and this is the one.

This is an incredible book co-authored by Bob and Elizabeth Dole. The book is very honest and heartwarming because they each get a chance to tell their side of the story. I know that Mr. Dole has a hard time when it comes to talking about his injury during World War II and in the book, he describes what happened in Italy in 1945 so vividly that I thought I was watching the whole thing happen all over again while I was reading this book. I admires Mrs. Dole for being a trail-blazer as one of the few women to graduate from Harvard Law School the the mid 1960's when women were expected to go to school and learn how to be homemakers and they were expected to settle down, get married, and raise a family. Instead of following the conventional rules, Mrs. Dole goes out and overcomes many obstacles. I admire the Doles for sharing their story. I brought this book in the summer of 1996, just a few weeks before the Republican Convention and after reading this book, I realized that this is a side of Bob and Elizabeth Dole that the media does not show. The book was well worth it!

Cornelius Tacitus was born ca. A.D. 56 and died around 115. He had a senatorial career and became consul in 97 and governor of Asia from 112-113. In 77, Tacitus married the daughter of Agricola, governor of Roman Britain. Tacitus wrote The Agricola as a sort of eulogy for his father-in-law, and in it he recounts Agricola's career. Tacitus also wrote The Germania, in which he provides a colorful description of the indigenous tribes of Germany during the time of the Roman Empire.There is something to be said of the style with which Tacitus writes, and that is to say that his accounts of Agricola and Germania are full of wit. However, there are some problems when analyzing Tacitus as a factual source. For one, he is constantly making social commentaries about the declining role of the Senate in the affairs of the Roman Empire. In addition, Tacitus makes claims about territories that it is difficult to determine if he would actually have been able to visit and study. Therefore, one must think of his analysis of these areas as being hearsay. For instance, in The Germania, he discusses tribes of northern Germany where there was not much communication or contact. However, one cannot look past the value of this work, for although biased, it does offer insight into the way the Romans viewed the frontier and the frontier peoples. Up until archaeological discoveries, the works of Tacitus and toehr Roman historians was all the world knew of the indigenous "barbaric" peoples of Europe. However, as excavations reveal more flourishing pre-Roman cultures in Europe, Tacitus' claims may be validated or viewed as being culturally biased, uninformed and imaginative. However, as a primary source, his view of Roman Britain remains an essential part of the study of Classical Rome.

This short little book is divided into: the introduction, "The Agricola", and "The Germania". The translator's introduction provides an interesting historical background of the 1st century C.E. Roman Empire and sets the stage for Tacitus. In a era noted for political abuse and coruption, Agricola, as eulogized by Tacitus, comes across as a saint: the perfect husband, father, reformer and general. "The Germania", on one hand holds up the strong moral character of the Germanic tribes in contrast to the lack of morals prevailing in Rome while scrutinizing their barbarims. Many of their customs show strong Celtic influence. Fast interesting easy reading.

In The Agricola, Cornelius Tacitus describes in masterful language the fantastically interesting life of his father-in-law, Agricola. As one of the most militarily successful governors of Roman held Britain, the account of Agricola is packed with fascinating descriptions of important Roman military victories. The battles fought and the characters involved ensure that the interest level stays at an elevated level. The Germania is almost equally as interesting in its description of the Germanic tribes encountered by the Romans. Their seemingly bizarre military and social traditions provide for a very engaging read. Although the Agricola and the Germania were the first historical works of Tacitus, they are in no way inferior in style or interest level to his later works. A definite must for history enthusiasts everywhere!

Caesar's Commentaries as they were suposed to be seen contrast markedly with say the "Histories" of Tacitus. How strong is this constrast, well we will see. But first, Caesar's Gallic wars covers his years as Consul and the gradual conquest of the lands known today as France, Belgium, Holland and the western parts of Germany. The book itself never mentions any of the political infighting taking place both in the Senate itself and among the enemies and friends of Caesar. Many things stand out in the history itself such as Caesar's advanced age before he started his conquests, given his birth in 100 BC and the start of the Gallic consulship in 58 BC Caesar was aready 42 years old. Interesting as well, is Caesar's insistence on the use of the third person to comment on the subsequent wars, and then even more surprising the change to first person in a very few instances to make a point. No doubt this is a device often invoked at the time to try to ensure impartiality or some fashionable way of writing. Certainly these commentaries were intended to be read by military and senatorial leaders on the way to wage war in Gaul and for that matter maybe even in Germany.

Now we come to the fascinating contrasts with Tacitus's "Histories" for example. Somehow in the intervening time between the conquests of Caesar and the year of the four emperors, about 100 years, much had changed. Not only in the style of writing itself but in the way both Roman and foreign society was envisaged in Roman eyes. Nowhere except in a very few occasions did Caesar mention that his men needed encouragement for the fight, or lacked bravery. But then in Caesar's day the men were indebted to him to ensure both pay and security, Caesar or one of his generals having recruited them himself and being levied only for a number of years rather than the long term service required from a certain date onward (possibly Augustus's time). We see again and again the expressions of bravery and courage witnessed by Caesar of his own men in action and the determination requiring incredible effort to construct siege engines or wait out a siege, or for that matter the persistance by the armies involved in continuing the struggle to conquer territory when there was no real incentive to do so apart from honour in war and the gratitude of their general.

First came the invasion of northern Italy into Cisalpine Gaul where the Helvetii, an Alpine tribe, planned a migration into other parts directly imposing themselves on client tribes under Rome's protection and north Italy itself, a situation not tolerated. From there, after their defeat, Caesar continued into Gaul ostensibly to help other tribes against Germanic invaders originally called to help in domestic disputes between Gaulish tribes. In this way Caesar gradually eliminated tribe after tribe in clever tactics designed to disrupt the banding together of the whole of Gaul against him. Obtain hostages and promises from one and nove onto the next fight a decisive battle usually against odds such as 2-3 or even 5 to 1, defeat them and punish whatever was seen wrong in Roman eyes, establish Roman control and so the law and get Caesar as judge over disputes and Bob's your uncle, one conquered country. Caesar was not only a brilliant commander and very clever man but also excellent at getting his men to trust and love him, as well he knew how to plan and carry out a campaign, taking risks when necessary, all in all a natural talent.

He writes fluently with litte influence of personal detail but rather in an entertaining style easily captivated by. But the book is a commentary and intended as such, this must be remembered.

Throughout we see the vast difference in the times of Caesar and say Nero, in Caesar's time the eagerness and devotion and determination as well as courage of the Roman army could not be faulted, nowhere do we see cowardice in play, his men running or being frightened by the Germans with their reputation for ferocity and toughness. The confidence of the army grows as victory builds on victory. Unfortunately very little is said of military tactics in battle itself or the troop movements or how commands are given or how men are relieved with fresh troops in close combat fighting in multiple lines, this has remained a mystery but nonethelss a known ability which would have required astonishing discipline and bravery. On the other hand we see in Tacitus's day that corruption and fear and cowardice are ripe, everywhere one looks such a decline is obvious, where did the vital, proud and brave army go, or for that matter the people themselves. What a difference 100 years make and maybe a couple of defeats as well, such as the Varus disaster which basically ended a conquest of Germany, the one enemy, even more than the Parthians which were implacable and undefeated watching and waiting in the background for a hint of weakness. It is also seen how the way Romans saw foreigners changed significantly in this time, in Caesar's time they were simply barbarians and non-Romans, in Tacitus's time after decades of service in the army and long trade and contact they came to be seen in a new light more human and less barbarian. The Roman himself less stoic under pressure and more prone to weakness. Why did this happen ? Not simple questions if indeed it is true.

An excellent narrative unsentimental and thorough as the man himself.

This is a genuine historical treasure. Rarely are we fortunate enough to have historical accounts written by eyewitnesses. Caesar was not only an eyewitness, but the lead player. It's as though we had accounts of Alexanders campaigns written by Alexander, himself. Or Charlemagne's life in his own words. And, not only is it a firsthand account, but it is brilliantly written. Caesar's commentaries, whether of the Gallic campaigns or of the Civil War that followed, are considered masterpieces of Latin prose. The writing is concise and straightforward. Caesar's writings are still used today to teach Latin.

All the brilliance aside, however, this is also lively and interesting to read. "The Conquest of Gaul" covers the ten-year period of Caesar's proconsulship of Gaul. During those ten years he carried out a series of military campaigns that subdued all of Gaul (Europe west of the Rhine and south to the Pyrenees and Mediterranian), bringing it under Roman rule, while also leading expeditions across the Channel into southeastern Britain. Caesar writes not only of his battles, but also of the tribes he encountered and details of how his own men lived. We see Caesar as the consummate leader, sharing the hardships of his men. He fights in the front lines with them, he marches with them, he eats the same food they eat, and they will follow him anywhere.

Caesar's success as a general is a product of several factors. His speed of movement, his effective use of terrain, the absolute loyalty and confidence of his troops, and the relatively advanced engineering skills of the Romans are all used effectively by Caesar.

Written to publicize Caesar's Gallic successes among the people back in Rome, these accounts remain as readable today as they were intended to be 2,000 years ago. Given the great bulk of ancient writings that have been lost over the centuries, we are extremely fortunate that these are among those that survived. This is really great stuff. Read it. You'll be glad you did.

Amazingly well written and easily readable personal account of the war in Gaul by Caesar himself. Caesar would write these memoirs each year at the end of the Campaign season when in his Winter camp and they have an enormous level of detail. For example, during his first campaign season there is a very detailed account of how the Celts/Gauls built their city walls that made me feel like running out and building a minature reproduction with Lincoln Logs, stones and dirt in the back yard (my wife would have loved that). Clearly, Caesar is recording this for future Roman armies so they know how the Gallic walls are built and how they can be destroyed. At one of the first cities in Gaul that Caesar lays siege to, the defenders gather on the walls and call the Romans names and throw things down at them, reminiscent of a scene from a Monty Python movie where a Gallic defender hurls epithets and other objects down at soldiers in front of a castle. However, when Caesar's troops begin to slowly wheel a massive, multi-story siege engine out of the woods and up to the walls, the occupants throw open their gates, run out, and surrender without a fight. The Romans usually faced lopsided odds in their battles and were frequently outnumbered 3:1. They overcame these odds by the incredible disipline and physical conditioning of the Roman troops who would march up to 50 miles per day with armor and weapons. The battles would usually be lost by the first side whose men panicked and fled the field. Caesar's accounts of battle give you an idea of how critically important discipline and physical strength and conditioning were to the military success of Rome. There are also hints at the possible causes of the later downfall of Rome to the Germanic invasions since Caesar is clearly impressed by the Germanic tribes ability to fight and their physical size and strength. However, it is also clear that Caesar was a great general and would choose the location of his battles very carefully. In multiple instances Caesar retreats to a more favorable location before offering battle. With the better Gallic generals, this would lead to a game of cat and mouse to see who would pick the terrain and therefore fight from a position of advantage. In nearly all instances, Caesar was able to fight on his terms through his own patience and discipline as well as that of his troops. All in all, this is a fascinating historical account that really comes alive and one which I have gone back to several times to re-read.

Sallust was adept in the writing of history as these works attest. A reason not to read this work is if you are able to read it in the original Latin. A good primary source for those interested in this period of the Republic.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. With Enron,
Worldcom, and other companies going down in flames all around us-
with the little guys getting the shaft, while the CEO's get gold-
en parachutes-when you read this, you realize nothing has changed
in 2,000 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

Allowing for some Roman idioms, Sallust is as relevant today as he was 2,000 years ago.

Pretty sad commentary on human nature, huh?!

I am giving this book four stars instead of five because I don't think Sallust's extrinsic moralism has worn well with time. He is right to note that rich, powerful governments are often corrupt, but the men and women who make up these governments do not change thir ways because someone preaches at them.

As with other histories written in ancient times, the two stories contained in this book are partly historical data, partly historical narratives, and partly dramatic dialogue. Whenever Sallust wants to make a general point, like "Rome is the city where everything is for sale", he adapts the language of this assertion to the circumstances of a point of specific action, and then puts it into the mouth of one of his characters. Keep in mind that the dramatic dialogue may be fiction, but the underlying points may very well have been valid. Rome really was a city where almost everything was for sale, and reading narratives like these gives us a vivid look at this reality.

This work is flawed, but we should be very happy that we have it because it gives us an alternate (pagan) look at power relationships within the late Roman Republic - a society that would soon become an Empire and produce written works (both Christian and secular) that are today read all over the world.

Now the story can be told........

For anybody who has an interest in the Manhattan Project, or the precursor to the DoE, the AEC, this is a great read. Not many people actually know the role of all the plants around the US, and this book pulls back the drapes on the 'canyons' that comprises Hanford.

This book is a good addition to the library of any peron with an interest in the field.

This is an edited version of the 1989 edition, with additional essays, and an afterword on the Hanford Dose Reconstruction Project--a continuing epidemiological study on past and recent radioactive contamination of the south-central region of Washington State. There is also a new detailed index. All of the many interviews (done in 1986) readily convey the drama of the early 1940s top secret project of building the world's first plutonium plant, as well as the sense of adventure and total commitment on everyone's part to achieve production at all costs. Of interest to anyone concerned with this region's history, nuclear reactor design, chemical engineering and the role of the DuPont Company in WWII, early atomic physics relating to bombs, the Los Alamos (N.M.) Project, and radioactive contamination of nuclear reactors.