There are (justifiable) arguments, of course, that Plutarch too often put personal bias and a love of »storytelling« above historical fact. While this may be true, is what comes to us of Rome by way of the Pop Culture filter any better? The context in which most people think of Rome is either that of Biblical or Russell Crowe. Can Plutarch's approximations be any worse?
Though this edition appears to have been hastily compiled at some points (very little reference/glossary material to speak of), I still reccomend this book to:
1) Casual readers who wish to know more about an exciting period of history that has affected everything from our calendar to our way of government, and
2) History/Humanities teachers tired of purely analytical views of Rome. Let your students know that Rome had IT'S editorialists, too.