Talk:Theodor Mommsen

Untitled

The Wilhelm Weber that wrote about Mommsen in 1929 is obviously not the 19th c. physicist, but I haven't been able to find a full name online with which to disambiguate. Stan 17:04, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Translation of the German version completed. Please check spelling and links!

Cat 17:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The use of "science" doesn't make sense when discussing history in English. In place of "scientific", I'd like to see the word "scholarly". Any opinions (before I put in the change)?

Also, I have a question about this passage:

Regarding social policies Mommsen had a disagreement with Bismarck in 1881, concerning the question, whether Jews could be Germans with equal rights ...

On which side did Mommsen come down on? For or against equal rights?

WpZurp 21:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would guess for equal rights, because von Treitschke, mentioned in the article, was an anti-semite.

dubeauxDubeaux 09:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I was reading this article to learn more about Mommsen and had a number of questions and comments that could result in "major edits" from people who have expertise on his life and works.

• In the "Life" section, I moved the paragraph that reads: "Mommsen worked hard. He rose at five and began to work in his library. Whenever he went out, he took one of his books along to read, and contemporaries often could see him reading while walking in the streets." It was in between the other two paragraphs, but I moved it to the end. It breaks up the follow of the short life history. However, I was wondering if this paragraph should even be in the article? It seems like the point is to emphasize that this guy worked hard, but doesn't say enough to make this point. Without more information about his work ethic--perhaps quotes from people who are famous--I don't think it helps me understand much about his "life."

• With regards to his works, I read in a Britannica article by Lothar F.K. Wicket, a professor of ancient history at the University of Cologne and author of Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie; Drei Vorträge über Theodor Mommsen, that says that his most significant work is Roman Constitutional Law not History of Rome. I wonder if this is just two different perspectives and there would be a way for someone to contribute a thought on which fields each of the two works is considered particularly important. Also, if there are some experts who think that Roman Constitutional Law is more important than at least it deserves some more description in the article. But, I don't know that area at all.

• Reading the article, I was a bit confused about History of Rome. Are the notes that were published under A History of Rome Under the Emporers the same thing as History of Rome? Or is that a related work? It sounds like something different the way this reads, so I wonder if it should be in a different bullet. What is the difference between these lecture notes and the actual work?

Dperkel 11:49, 26 October 2006 (pacific standard time)

The great-grandsons

I corrected grandsons to great-grandsons in regard to Hans Mommsen and Wolfgang Mommsen (see here for info on how people in the family are related), but since English is my second language I didn't know quite how to make it clear, that Wolfgang is dead so they no longer are prominent German historians (Hans of course still is).--Heelgrasper 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

violent supporter of German nationalism

I am very happy that this is mentioned in the English version of the article, hence it is not mentioned in the German version. Although it seems that he was not an Antisemite, he supplied German nationalism with academic legitimation for the later Third Reich, proclaiming Germanic unity as early as the classical Roman era and supplying arguments for the abandoning of Bavarian autonomy and the later annexion of Austria by Nazi-Germany in 1938. This should be kept in mind, because it also biased his historical work. --El bes 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surely what is meant is "vehement", not "violent", unless Mommsen actually did perform violent actions. Skookumpete 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely what was meant was "violent" - he encouraged his "folk comrades" to use violent acts as means of coexistence with other nation(s).--Pooh-winnie 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Currently, there's a reference which quotes him calling the Czechs 'barbaric' and 'irrational', but that's hardly incitement to violence. bogdan (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

El bes, I don't know why you hate Germany so much but I surely disagree on you. Mommsen was a patriot--and in my opinion, this is a very positive thing and not a negative. Why do you hate Germany so much that you criticize all people who were patriots? 99% of Germans were patriots until the end of the 60's, even cosmopolites like Schiller or Goethe were quite proud on Germany. So what? Why criticize that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.145.211.124 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Mommsen was a violent supporter of German nationalism" means and how German nationalism is different from German Unification. Was there a strong opposition to the German Empire after 1871? Nitpyck (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

he never advocated violence. Nor was he nearly as strong a nationalist as other historians such as von Treitschke. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

second illustration

The legend to the second illustration does not make sense. What is it supposed to mean? Deipnosophista (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some recent changes

I'd like to ask for not removing referenced info on Mommsen calls for using physical violence against nations he did happen to like much - again. Saying that this was related to nation outside of the German Reich and therefore does not realy count as an incitement to ethnic violence, as Rjensen did suggest, is not much particularly impressive either. --188.122.215.2 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)