What are you currently reading?

[SimonNZ]

I read it and reread it several times over the years, but finally gave away my copy last year. It is great to read, as a matter of literature, but a lot of things 18th century scholarship was, in light of modern scholarship, wrong about, and his obvious prejudices got annoying the more I read them.

One serious fault doesn't show up until the last third of the work. He seriously underrated the importance of Byzantine history after Justinian, and compressed it accordingly compared to earlier eras he wrote about.
Try reading Lord Norwich's history of Byzantium, which has its own faults but in style and breadth may be the closest a modern historian has approached Gibbon's level.

Which sections held up best in your rereadings?

[milk]

I'm up for something taking place in medieval times and giving it a go.

[Ken B]

I'm up for something taking place in medieval times and giving it a go.

Oh, do let us know. I am very interested in that but the reviews are so variable! I worry it's a religious parable more or less.

[Florestan]

Oh, do let us know. I am very interested in that but the reviews are so variable! I worry it's a religious parable more or less.

It's excellent. Read with confidence.

[Florestan]

Thanks for pointing that out.  I actually just picked up Norwich's Byzantium trilogy in a used bookshop a couple of weeks ago, I've been wanting to read a good history on that subject.  That's next on my list.

I think what got me over the hump with Gibbon this time was a lot of reading up on Roman history prior to trying it again, both to get in the mood and also to refresh on some of the basics (I read a lot of history, but generally not ancient history). I read Mary Beard, a couple from Adrian Goldsworthy, and some Livy, Tacitus, etc. 


I agree that he's got some issues by modern standards; I love the style of it more than anything...

This is probably the best book on topic:

[Moonfish]

I'm up for something taking place in medieval times and giving it a go.

I have only read the first volume and enjoyed it quote a bit. I didn't like the English translation very much so I challenged myself and got a copy in Norwegian. It was challenging, but was also a lot fun and added great flavor to Undset's novel. Now I just need to move on to part 2....  Definitely recommended if you like romances set in Scandinavia during the Middle Ages.

[Moonfish]

This is probably the best book on topic:

How does this work compare to Norwich's volumes?

[JBS]

Which sections held up best in your rereadings?

In terms of style, the whole thing is worth a read. High 18th century prose at its best.

His narratives of the political and diplomatic intrigue, even when modern scholarship says he is wrong, are vivid and entertaining.  And the section near the end, where he sums up his own feelings about his work and its impending conclusion, is a great passage all on its own.

[Moonfish]

I'm in the middle of Cervantes (Grossman translation) - quite immersive and very enjoyable. So much more than I expected. It is kind of embarrassing that I never read this in my past, but I'm making up for it.

[JBS]

How does this work compare to Norwich's volumes?

I have read some of Vasiliev. He wrote for people who wanted to learn about the Byzantines. Norwich wrote for people who wanted to enjoy learning about the Byzantines.

Norwich did have some important biases. But he makes an effort to not only acknowledge them, but explain why is biased the way he was,

[Florestan]

I have read some of Vasiliev. He wrote for people who wanted to learn about the Byzantines. Norwich wrote for people who wanted to enjoy learning about the Byzantines.

Norwich did have some important biases. But he makes an effort to not only acknowledge them, but explain why is biased the way he was,

This.

I'd say both Norwich and Vasiliev are far, far better than Gibbon in terms of scholarship and objectivity, their explicit (Norwich) or implicit (Vasiliev) biases notwithstanding, while Gibbon has the upper hand in terms of style --- but N's or V's biases are ultimately a matter of interpretation, while G's biases are ideological through and through.

[Ken B]

Truly, a book everyone should read.  It has been decades since I have.  This new translation might be enough of a reason for me to revisit this classic novel.

Yes. I read it one and a half times but I haven't read it in decades either, and I have this translation in Kindle.

Moonfish, destroyer of free time!! 

[JBS]

This.

I'd say both Norwich and Vasiliev are far, far better than Gibbon in terms of scholarship and objectivity, their explicit (Norwich) or implicit (Vasiliev) biases notwithstanding, while Gibbon has the upper hand in terms of style --- but N's or V's biases are ultimately a matter of interpretation, while G's biases are ideological through and through.

That's accurate,  but perhaps too harsh. Gibbon was an 18th century anti-clericalist, with both the strength and weakness of 18th century scholarship and philosophy.
18th century scholarship can be unintentionally hilarious at times. I remember one point where the narrative requires a brief excursion towards China, causing him to note that the Chinese worship "the great god Fu", who is in fact the Buddha.

[Florestan]

Truly, a book everyone should read. 

Yes, indeed. The Exemplary Novels are excellent, too. And if you really are into Baroquely convoluted or convolutedly Baroque prose, The Wanderings of Persiles and Sigismunda are exemplary (pun).

[Florestan]

18th century scholarship can be unintentionally hilarious at times.

Agreed.

[Moonfish]

Yes. I read it one and a half times but I haven't read it in decades either, and I have this translation in Kindle.

Moonfish, destroyer of free time!! 

It is my mission on earth!

[Moonfish]

Truly, a book everyone should read.  It has been decades since I have.  This new translation might be enough of a reason for me to revisit this classic novel.

I sense that as well and regret not having done so earlier. It brings a new lens to the literature of Spain and its times as well as its ripple effect towards the present time. Following Don Quijote's bizarre adventures I cannot help but to think of politics in modern times, but perhaps that is a bit farfetched?

I haven't compared translations, but it appears as if Grossman is bringing in a Spanish flavor by using long sentences and intricate word mazes (all in a good way). I always had the impression that Spanish tended to go in that direction by nature (which is part of its beauty).  There seems to be some struggle with Cervantes' play on words, but I guess that is to be expected in most translated works.  I can see myself rereading this in ten years or so, but there are so many great novels as well as other works. This thread makes me want to read Gibbon, revisit ancient history and to dig into the Byzantine empire and its art. Ah.....there should be 60 hours in a day!

[Florestan]

We Romanians are blessed with two different but equally good translations of Don Quijote. 

[Moonfish]

We Romanians are blessed with two different but equally good translations of Don Quijote. 

I wonder what it is like in its original Spanish?

[Ken B]

Agreed.

I gotta say this is hilarious coming from two guys arguing over the deranged books of the Old Testament    on another thread — which you both see as reliable guides to truth. Nothing in Gibbon is as ridiculous as Genesis!