This collection of previously published essays from Woodman is important not only for the study of classical historiography, but for anyone interested in how we know what happened in the past. Some of the essays are technical and concerned mainly with issues of Latin grammar and detailed parsing of specific passages, but through these Woodman always delivers an important and often surprising insight into historical issues. Many of the essays are very accessible to the lay-reader, and any history buff will particularly enjoy the reprint of Woodman's inaugural lecture as Professor of Latin, in which he touches upon Hitler's rise to power, a John F. Kennedy vignette, and classical history. Many of the themes in this book are related to Woodman's __Rhetoric in Classical Historiography__, and in both works he addresses a question which everyone should consider: what sort of truth do historians aim at, and when can you know that their report may or may not be the same sort of truth that you have come to expect? Make no mistake: this is a scholarly work. But I would recommend it for anyone interested in history or Latin literature.

This may be a case where, I read another book, at least it seems like it. The average review for this is 4 1/2 stars, but I simply cannot rate this book that highly. I found, "The Imperial Annals of Rome" tortuously long and arduous to read (and I've packed away quite a few 1000+ page books). This might be more accurately summarized as, why I hate Tiberius. Tacitus spends most of the book going into excruciating detail about minor trials and Tiberius' personal faults (which he has many) and his public enemies (most of which are duly executed). When I compare this book to "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" or "Conquest of Mexico" by Prescott, or " The Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides, I find Tacitus' work sorely lacking. The greatest criticism of him I might make would be that he becomes so entrenched in minor details, the the work never becomes transcendant speaking not only of events of history but also of the nature of man and power. I know I might be quickly rebuked for this blaspheme, but I would recommend any number of works over this one. Sorry Tacitus.

The Annals is without a doubt the most important book ever written on Imperial Rome, and the most important one dealing with the Julio-Claudian emperors. Focusing on the reign of Tiberius (14-37 CE) and ending suddenly during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE), Tacitus pulls no punches in this history. Extremely critical of the emperors, Tacitus is at his best describing the terror of the trials that began under Tiberius and which eventually paralyzed the Roman state. Tacitus also relates in detail the various military campaigns undertaken during the period. A word of advice---know your Roman history when you start this book. All the names and places can be extremely confusing to the novice. Unfortunately the section on Caligula is lost, although it is not hard to guess what Tacitus would have said about him. Read this book!

Among the ancient Roman historians Tacitus is unsurpassed, and Annals is his crowning achievement. It covers the lives of the Emperors Tiberius, Claudius and Nero brilliantly (his narrative on Caligula is unfortunatly lost) and is without equal in it's complex narrative style. Tacitus' use of language is superb, and his analysis and interpretation one of the most important periods in Western history is nothing short of brilliant.

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.