There still remains to be mentioned Mommsen's peculiar view that Marcellus was not really a bishop, but a simple Roman presbyter to whom was committed the ecclesiastical administration during the latter part of the period of vacancy of the papal chair.

Much of Mommsen's comparative studies of British and German history concern why, in his view, the British had both a political and economic modernization while the Germans had only the latter.

In Mommsen's view, the foreign policy of the Second Reich was driven by domestic concerns as the German elite sought distractions abroad to hold off demands for democracy at home.

In Mommsen's view, Hitler was an intense anti-semite but lacked a real idea of what he wanted to do with Jews.

In Mommsen's view, Hitler's speeches encouraged his followers to carry out his " utopian " ranting about the Jews, but Hitler did not issue an order for the Holocaust and had little to do with its actual implementation.

In Mommsen's view, the fact that Hitler never referred explicitly to the " Final Solution " even in the privacy of his own circle was his way of avoiding personal responsibility for that which he had allowed to take place and had encouraged through his anti-semitic rhetoric.

In Mommsen's view, Hitler was :" unwilling to take decisions, frequently uncertain, exclusively concerned with upholding his prestige and personal authority, influenced in the strongest fashion by his current entourage, in some aspects a weak dictator ".

In Mommsen's view, the fact that the majority of the German people supported or were indifferent to Nazism is what enabled the Nazis to stay in power.

In Mommsen's view, it was these power struggles that provided the dynamism that drove the German state into increasingly radical measures, leading to what Mommsen has often called the " realization of the unthinkable.

In Mommsen's view, the only determinate with German foreign policy was the need to maintain prestige with the German public.

Hitler in Broszat's controversial view, was ( to use Mommsen's phrase ), a " weak dictator "; as such the Third Reich was not a monocracy ( rule by one man ), rather a polycracy ( rule by many ).

Mommsen's edition is incomplete, extending only until 715.

Giles's edition is based on Gunn's, but is a composite since the Vatican ms. ( Mommsen's M text ) does not contain Nennius's Apologia or the Mirablilia.

" Still read and qualifiedly cited, it is the prolific Mommsen's most well-known work.

With John H. Collins he compiled a noted translation of Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome He is also known for his abridged version of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

( The chief work on the ludi Romani is Mommsen's article " Die ludi magni und Romani " in his Römische Forschungen, ii.

This is a literal translation of the Latin from the L. Faral ( Paris 1929 ) edition of the text ( sections in square brackets supplied from T. Mommsen's 1892 edition ):

Mommsen's History of Rome is similarly dismissed as a product and illustration of pre-Bismarckian Germany.

Mommsen's contention that Lares were originally field deities is not incompatible with their role as ancestors and guardians.

Kershaw disagrees with Mommsen's " Weak Dictator " thesis: the idea that Hitler was a relatively unimportant player in the Third Reich.

In this, Kershaw largely agrees with Mommsen's portrait of Hitler as a distant and remote leader standing in many ways above his own system, whose charisma and ideas served to set the general tone of politics.

* Mommsen's friend Yehuda Bauer has criticized Mommsen for stressing too much the similarities in values between the traditional German state bureaucracy and the Nazi Party's bureaucracy, while paying insufficient attention to the differences.

Broszat argued these power struggles were a Darwinian competition in which the " fittest " were the most radical elements of the Nazi movement, leading to " cumulative radicalization ", to use another of Mommsen's phrases describing the Nazi state.

Jordanes ' work had been well known prior to Mommsen's 1882 edition.

Mommsen's friend, the British historian Sir Ian Kershaw wrote he thought that Mommsen had " destroyed " Goldhagen during their debates over Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Finally, Mommsen's writing may have been influenced by the politics of his era but he was a German nationalist in an era when " Germany " did not exist, being instead a group of aristocratic fiefdoms.

A planned fourth volume covering Roman history under the Empire was delayed pending Mommsen's completion of a then 15-volume work on Roman inscriptions, which required his services as researcher, writer, and editor, occupying Mommsen for many years.

The best surviving manuscript was the Heidelberg manuscript, written in Heidelberg, Germany, probably in the 8th century, but this was destroyed in a fire at Mommsen's house on July 7, 1880.

Here there was no running narration of major Roman political events, often dramatic, as was the case in Mommsen's popular chronological telling of his earlier volumes.

In 1992, a reconstruction of Mommsen's missing " fourth volume " on the Empire was issued.

The content was chosen to highlight Mommsen's telling of the social-political struggles over several generations leading to the fall of the Republic.

Mommsen's missing fourth volume was reconstructed from student notes and published in 1992 under the title Römische Kaisergeschichte.

Mommsen's expertise in Roman studies was acknowledged by his peers as being both wide and deep, e. g., his direction of the ancient Latin inscriptions project, his work on ancient dialects of Italy, the journal he began devoted to Roman coinage, his multivolume Staatsrecht on the long history of constitutional law at Rome, his volumes on Roman criminal law, the Strafrecht.

Mommsen's missing fourth volume, as reconstructed by Barbara Demandt and Alexander Demandt from lecture notes, was published as Römische Kaisergeschichte in 1992.

It was allowed that the wreath the victor won ( for this in Greek style was the prize of victory ) should be put on his bier when dead ( Twelve Tables ,, 10, 7, and Mommsen's remarks, Staatsrecht, i. 2 411, note 2 ).

Mommsen's 1979 book, Arbeiterbewegung und nationale Frage ( The Labour Movement and the National Question ), a collection of his essays written in the 1960s – 70s was the conclusion of his studies in German working class history.

Mommsen's first attempt at dealing with the inscriptions and the language attained solid, if not very numerous, results,

In 1958 he edited with Dero A. Saunders a noted edition of Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome.

" Especially in Mommsen's third volume, as the narrative told of how the political crisis in the Roman Republic came to its final climax, " he wrote with a fire of imagination and emotion almost unknown in a professional history.

These first three volumes of the Römische Geschichte retained their popularity in Germany, with eight editions being published in Mommsen's lifetime.

Over several decades Prof. Dickson prepared further English editions of this translation, keeping pace with Mommsen's revisions in German.