100 Books to Read in a Lifetime (That Are Older Than 200 Years)

Veilleur_de_nuit: Parce que ce long poème dit les horreurs de la guerre et les douceurs de l'amour, et parce qu'il a façonné l'imaginaire occidental.

Mapguy314: Means I have it in my library, not necessarily that I have read it, although I have read some of them

Mapguy314: I read this many years ago.

: another white dude book and religion - bah

-pilgrim- : There is another version on page 1 of list

timspalding: Gives you the same tingly feeling Thucydides does.

camainc : One only needs to read Augustine's City of God to know that Gibbon was so very wrong about the reasons for Rome's "decline and fall."

Turambar: Whether Gibbon was wrong or not is irrelevant to whether The Decline and Fall ought to be read. We don't read Herodotus because he was right. We read him because he helped shape how a civilization thought, as did Gibbon in his own, later way.

JacobKirckman: Gibbon's not 'on my list', as I have it (just not catalogued on LT yet)! Commenting purely to counter Camainc's claim that Gibbon was wrong. I'd take an historian (even an 18th century one) over a Bible-Basher any day...

ErykaSosa91: I have been wanting to reread thus epic poem for the longest!!

: more glorification of war? nah

: more Christianity?

Veilleur_de_nuit: Parce que ces petites fables expliquent l'âme humaine avec beaucoup d'humour et d'à-propos.

Veilleur_de_nuit: Parce que Burke a une vision lucide sur ce que va devenir la Révolution Française, en particulier dans ses dérives.

malmorrow: This is an English polemic of the Enlightenment. 'Reflections' is unsurpassed in this, and equalled only by pamphlets by Paine and Wollstonecraft. Burke set an extremely high standard for sustained rhetoric, providing a foundation for the classic speeches and political writing of the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

: We need a little LESS war, please! Even though it's not old enough for this list, THE POLITICS OF NONVIOLENCE by Gene Sharp should be on everyone's must-read list.

lorax : I really don't think everyone needs to read a book that's been called "the book nobody read" (see http://www.librarything.com/work/16335 ). I have a PhD in astronomy and even I never read this; it's important to know about it, and why it was important, but actually reading it? Reading the old, old primary sources isn't important in science the way it is in history.