The core of this volume is formed by four chapters (2–5) with detailed reconstructions of the arguments and derivations in four of Einstein's most important papers, the three main papers of his annus mirabilis 1905 (on the light quantum, Brownian motion, and special relativity) and his first systematic exposition of general relativity of 1916. The derivations are given in sufficient detail and in sufficiently modernized notation (without any serious distortion of the originals) for an undergraduate physics major to read and understand them with far less effort than it would take him or her to understand (English translations of) Einstein's original papers. Each of these four papers is accompanied by a detailed introduction, which covers the conceptual development of the relevant field prior to Einstein's contribution to it and corrects some of the myths surrounding these papers that still have not been fully eradicated among physicists. (One quibble: though Kennedy correctly points out that the goal of the light quantum paper was not to explain the photoelectric effect, it is also not quite right to say that 'it was written to explain the Wien region of blackbody radiation' (p. xv). Einstein used this explanatory feat as the central argument for his light quantum hypothesis.) These four chapters then are the most valuable part of the volume. They could be used, independently of one another, but preferably in conjunction with Einstein's original texts, in courses on quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, electrodynamics, and general relativity, respectively, to add a historical component to such courses. As a historian of science embedded in a physics department who is regularly called upon to give guest lectures in such courses on the history of their subjects, I can highly recommend the volume for this purpose. However, I would not adopt this volume as (one of) the central text(s) for a course on the history of modern physics. For one thing, chapter 1, which in just 26 pages (not counting six pages of notes and references) covers everything from Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton to Maxwell and Lorentz to Einstein's early biography to a cardboard version of Popper versus Kuhn, is too superficial to be useful for such a course. To a lesser extent, this is also true for chapter 6, which compresses the development of quantum theory after Einstein's 1905 paper into 20 pages (plus seven pages of notes and references) and for chapter 7, a brief epilogue. However, this is not my main worry. One could easily supplement or even replace the bookends of the volume with other richer sources and use this volume mainly for its excellent detailed commentaries on some Einstein classics in the four chapters in between. My more serious reservation about the use of the volume as a whole in a history of physics course, ironically, comes from the exact same feature that made me whole-heartedly recommend its core chapters for physics courses. This is especially true for the chapters on special and general relativity. How useful is it for a student to go through, in as much detail as this volume provides, the Lorentz transformation of Maxwell's equations in vector form? I can see how a student in an E&M class (with a section on special relativity) might benefit from this exercise. The clumsiness of the calculations in vector form by Lorentz and Einstein could help a student encountering Maxwell's equations in tensor form for the first time appreciate the advantages of the latter formalism. Similarly, it would be useful for a student in a GR class to go through the basics of tensor calculus in the old-fashioned but not inelegant mathematical introduction of Einstein's 1916 review article on general relativity. This could reinforce mastery of material that a student in a GR class will have to learn anyway (though Einstein's presentation of the mathematics of both special and gene [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]