Mommsen

[frankq]

Either I'm missing something since I'm reading things online but, Mommsen, one of the great Roman scholars, completely leaves out the Battle of Munda. Instead, he states that Pompey's sons and Labienus moved to the hills to set up a resistance. Period. No more. According to him, end of the land-based resistance.

[Lacertus]

Battle of Munda

 

Something about Mommsen

"Some historians have chosen this perspective, and the most eloquent of these historians was the German Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903), in his Roemische Geschichte.

 

Mommsen was one of the founders of the liberal Deutsche Fortschrittspartei (German Progressive Party) and cultivated a bottomless hatred for the conservative Prussian nobility, and his view of the fall of the Roman Republic was coloured by his deep-rooted disillusionment with German liberal politics. The populares were, in Mommsen's view, a political party like his own people's party; as a corollary, the optimates represented the Roman conservatives, who showed a remarkable resemblance to the Prussian nobles. Caesar was, for Mommsen, the incarnation of the "heroic legislator" (an idea of the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau): Caesar had swept away the pieces of a corrupt nobility and had created an empire that served the needs of its inhabitants. In its constitution monarchy and democracy were balanced - something Mommsen would have appreciated in his own country."

 

I read Mommsen. He repeated all ancient historians but had his own horseback opinion.

[frankq]

Yes, he was an early, almost revisionist historian who put Caesar in good light. It still doesnt explain why he goofed on Muda. If anything, it was the last stand of the resistance. How could he miss it? It's a glaring error. Like almost not mentioning Alesia.

[Primus Pilus]

Does Mommsen mention Gergovia or does he gloss over that loss as well? He certainly has a reputation as a political propogandist but since I haven't read this particular work, its hard for me to make a judgement. In his 'Provinces of the Roman Empire' the discussion is far less a socio-political comparison to his own time in Germany, than what he does with 'History of Rome.'

 

At least that's my understanding.

[frankq]

Nevertheless, for such a definitive work, one that is often quoted, such a glaring error as omission of Munda is inexcusable.

 

Again, I could be missing something but how? I read and then scanned over and over the section and couldn't believe he'd just close this vast civil war by saying that Gnaeus Pompey and Labienus went to Spain to hide out.

[frankq]

I

[Viggen]

Admin Note

(I merged the Mommsen and Mommsen Part 2 thread, as there is no need to have two seperate threads about the same topic within a couple of days)

[Viggen]

I think i will get the original german version for christmas and let you know if it i was a translation/editing error...

 

regards

viggen

[frankq]

I dug deeper on the French website and came up with the translator's epilogue. Here's my rough translation:

 

 

Here the account of Mr. Mommsen ends. After Thapsus, after the suicide of the last of the republicans, the Roman Republic died: was in the tomb. The framework which our author traced appears for him, as for the present, filled. For him, as important as the later events were, the second war of Spain, the battle of Munda, the return of C

[Virgil61]

So, that I think explains it. The question is, why did Mommsen leave it all out? Maybe he was attempting to crown Caesar's achievements and didn't want to end with the sad fact that he got taken down.

 

The answer I think is simpler; he never was able to complete the full history of Rome that he originally intended-- the manuscripts for the remaining volumes were destroyed by a fire and the later half of his life was relatively busy with political and other interests. In case anyone doesn't realize it he won the Nobel Prize largely on the basis of the History of Rome. I just read a line on a website that he was chosen over Leo Tolstoy because of LT's radical views but I can't verify the truth to that. I believe he is the only professional historian to have ever won the prize.

[frankq]

The answer I think is simpler; he never was able to complete the full history of Rome that he originally intended-.....

.... I believe he is the only professional historian to have ever won the prize.

 

 

 

That is indeed interesting. But why not use Munda for dramatic effect as we near Caesar's grand achievements in Rome at the end his work. Fire or not, it just doesn't make sense to drop his pursuit of the Republicans in the narration. It would, on a grander scale albeit, be like recounting Hitler's death in the bunker and then leaving out Hiroshima.

 

By the way, how do you define being a ''professional historian''?

[Virgil61]

That is indeed interesting. But why not use Munda for dramatic effect as we near Caesar's grand achievements in Rome at the end his work. Fire or not, it just doesn't make sense to drop his pursuit of the Republicans in the narration. It would, on a grander scale albeit, be like recounting Hitler's death in the bunker and then leaving out Hiroshima.

 

By the way, how do you define being a ''professional historian''?

 

I'm guessing he had only so much time and/or space available for print so he probably made the choice between recounting Munda or outlining the consolidation of power in Rome by Caesar and the subsequent even more dramatic events which were to have such great influence on history. In spite of the (very) tough fighting in Munda one could argue the real heart and soul of the old Republican resistance was eliminated after the defeats and deaths of Pompey, Cato, et al. But I'm just guessing as to his intentions.

 

My definition of a professional historian would be someone who is trained in the subject and makes his or her living on it. Mommsen was a professor of Ancient History so he pretty much fits it.

[Pantagathus]

Reviving this thread for a spell as I am utilizing Mommsen right now to shore up my references on something I'm working on.

 

Question is, besides his personal politicizing in some areas, does anyone else who has read him feel he invents small, colorful details to enrich a narrative that may be a bit terse if only the available ancient sources were used?

 

Or did he have access to some mysterious resources that I may be missing?

[Primus Pilus]

Reviving this thread for a spell as I am utilizing Mommsen right now to shore up my references on something I'm working on.

 

Question is, besides his personal politicizing in some areas, does anyone else who has read him feel he invents small, colorful details to enrich a narrative that may be a bit terse if only the available ancient sources were used?

 

Or did he have access to some mysterious resources that I may be missing?

 

I've always felt that a bit of dramatic flair was rather indicative of the 18th - 19th century styles. Of course there is the translation issue to consider in Mommsen's case.

[Pantagathus]

Of course there is the translation issue to consider in Mommsen's case.

 

True but I have in mind a whole passage that is nowhere to be found in any surviving ancient manuscript; as well as an alternative narrative ending that seems to have been built around a (very) feable & confusing fragment of Cassius Dio's instead of Appian's quite complete narrative...

 

Regardless, when he stays 'within the lines' I have to say that I quite enjoy Mommsen!