'Opinions on Tacitus are still sharply divided, some viewing his work primarily as literary entertainments, while others maintain that in spite of shortcomings produced by his time and temperament, he is fundamentally a serious historian, whose works and judgements should be taken seriously. Those of us who hold the latter view - especially those of us who believe not only that style and content are insaperable, but that Tacitus indicates by the style of his presentation his judgement on its content - will be especially grateful for this closely argued and beautifully documented statement of our case. The book is not a substitute for Syme. It is not intended to be so. Its aim (p.10) is to help those who read Tacitus, in English or in Latin, to understand why he is considered to be the greatest of Roman historians. By his reasoned and balanced account and analysis of Tacitus' works, Professor Martin admirably fulfils his purpose. He puts Tacitus in the context of the historiographical tradition in which he wrote, and of the times in which he lived: he considers all the works individually, devoting separate chapters to Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, and to the sources of ?Histories? and ?Annals?: he discusses the famous style and its significance, and outlines the fluctuating fortunes of Tacitus? works and reputation during the centuries that separate him from us. He deals with all the main problems, such as the nature of the ?Agricola? and history, ?princeps? and senate, and the Tacitean Tiberius: and always the nature of the problem is clearly indicated, and the discussion detailed and wide-ranging, with copious references to relevant books and articles. Tacitus is a writer who rouses passions, and M.?s cool unimpassioned, scholarly argument makes this thesis all the more impressive. That thesis is that Tacitus is a serious and interpretative historian, interested in the politics of power as seen in the principate, and with the experience and ability to make valid judgements upon it. (?) As we would expect from a Latinist of Professor Martin?s distinction, and from the autor of valuable papers on Tacitean style, he is perceptive about the words and sentence structure that Tacitus uses; and he sees their importance in indicating Tacitus? historical judgement. Again, he is surely right. Speeches are indeed there to present character or issue of even ironical ?comment?. (?) This is an admirable guidebook for the young historian or Classicist. His elders will learn much from it too.? (N.P. MILLER in The Classical Review (New Series), 1982, pp.32-34).