Talk:Theodor Mommsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]


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[edit]

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)[reply]

violent supporter of German nationalism[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
He was not as strongly antisemitic as von Treitschke (advocating "only" the Jewish assimilation instead of von Treitschke's outright antisemitism - athough losing someone's Jewish identity is arguably rather harsh price for being accepted as a regular German) nevertheless he still lent his intellectual weight to incitement of violence against the Slavic peoples.--188.122.215.2 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

second illustration[edit]

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

Some recent changes[edit]

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 somewhat does not really 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)[reply]

saying someone has a thick skull and will respond only to a bang on the head is not a call for actual violence against anyone. it's a nasty insult. The issue in Germany was the role of Poles, not Czechs (who did not live in Germany but in Austria). The "thick skull-that-has to be hit" theme is a common metaphor for stupidity in European and American rhetoric. Here's some examples from dull novels ". to smack that supercilious smirk off his face, to hit him alongside the head with a lamp and knock some sense into his thick skull. But she did none of that. Instead she said, “I refuse to stand here and listen to another word of your stupid tirade." books.google.com/books?isbn=0446604976Millie Criswell - 199; It comes from the German term for peasant "Bauernschädel" = "thick—skull" Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His proclamation (stating that Germans have to be tough, as Czech skulls [in general] are impervious to reason, yet suspectible to blows) was an clear and unabated incetement to a very real ethnic violence, as there's no proof that he 'actually meant it' figuratively only.
I was not dealing with some 'issue in Germany', I was referring to an opinion you expressed that "commends [sic] on Czech issues were not about Germany", when you removed referenced information on Mommsen's role in incitement of ethnic hatred.--188.122.215.2 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incitement of ethnic hatred yes, but violence no -- you mean street riots? pogroms? assassinations? was he calling on Germans to use clubs to smash Czech heads in? It's political rhetoric. The image of Czechs as thick skulled peasants immune to fancy learning was widespread in those days ("the "Bohemian thick skull" has become proverbial" says Alois Jirásek - Some aspects of Czech culture 1953 - Page 317. And please, edits have to be neutral toward the topic and not unleash their own ethnic hatred in Wikipedia Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I do not unleash my ethnic hatred, in contrast to some other editors.
2) In a given context (Autumn/Winter 1897), Mommsen was calling for violence, when reasonable arguing - according to his opinion - failed. I do not claim that Mommsen's appeal alone incited the riots (for which were, at least in the Czech lands, largely responsible representatives of both ethnicities themselves) but certainly did not help to calm the situation down, as both sides took his appeal quite literally - though of course each for differents reason.
3) Perhaps the Czechs are proverbially stubborn, yet this does not justify calls for violence against them.--188.122.215.2 (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there were violent clashes in the streets of Prague between Germans and Czechs. Why either side would pay attention to a newspaper letter to the editor from a professor in a third country (Germany) is the mystery. If he had rephrased the letter the mobs would disperse and go have a beer???? Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was an internationally acclaimed scholar and respected man of letters who in time of heightened ethnic tension published - in a leading Austrian Germans newspaper - an article titled "To the Germans in Austria", where he stated that the "Czechs are apostles of barbarism" who are not suspectible to reason, but blows to skulls can make just right? I did never say that Mommsen caused the riots all alone, but that he lent his support to an advice to resort to violence as means of dealing with Czechs. If it is not advocating of ethnic violence, then what is?--188.122.215.2 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
he's saying the Germans are smarter and the Czechs are dumb and should not get any concessions. That's nationalism all right. Calling it an incentive to German teenagers in Prague to take up bricks and clubs tonite misleads Wikipedia readers --that's not how German academia worked and not what caused pogroms, massacres and riots in those days. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Theodor Mommsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theodor_Mommsen&oldid=1212169856"