This union produced one son, Apollinaris, and at least two daughters: Sidonius mentions in his letters Severina and Roscia, but a third, Alcima, is only mentioned much later by Gregory of Tours, whom Theodor Mommsen has speculated may be identified with one of his other daughters.

However, Theodor Mommsen has shown that the Mathesis was composed in the year 336 and not in 354 as was formerly held, thus making it an earlier work than De errore profanarum religionum, and could have been written prior to Firmicus ' conversion to Christianity.

As early as 1890 Mommsen postulated a Theodosian ' editor ' of the Scriptores ' work, an idea that has resurfaced many times since.

( The biography of Marcus Aurelius's colleague Lucius Verus, which Mommsen thought ' secondary ', is however rich in apparently reliable information and has been vindicated by Syme as belonging to the ' primary ' series ) The ' secondary ' lives allowed the author to exercise free invention untrammelled by mere facts, and as the work proceeds these flights of fancy become ever more elaborate, climaxing in such virtuoso feats as the account of the ' Thirty Tyrants ' said to have risen as usurpers under Gallienus.

The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, begun by Mommsen and other scholars, has been published in Berlin since 1863, with wartime interruptions.

The case of Goerdeler has been used by the historian Hans Mommsen to support his view of " resistance as a process ", with Goerdeler going from an ally of the regime to increasing disillusionment by Nazi economic policies in the mid-1930s, and finally becoming committed to the regime's overthrow by 1937.

Despite some disagreements, Kerhaw has called Mommsen a “ good personal friend ” and an “ important further vital stimulus to my own work on Nazism ".

Yet Mommsen characterizes Fischer's " central notion of Germany's will to power " circa 1911 to 1915, as being seriously flawed, as here Fischer " has allowed himself to be carried away ".

Mommsen has written books condemning appeasement.

The picture Mommsen has consistently drawn of the Final Solution is of an aloof Hitler largely unwilling and incapable of active involvement in administration who presided over an incredibly disorganized regime.

Mommsen has forcefully contended that the Holocaust cannot be explained as result of Hitler alone, but was instead a product of the fractured decision making process in Nazi Germany which caused the " cumulative radicalization " which led to the Holocaust.

As such, Mommsen has denied that Hitler ever gave any sort of order for the Holocaust, written or unwritten.

Mommsen has argued that Hitler did give the order for the Kommissarbefehl ( Commissar Order ) of 1941, that helped lead to the Holocaust, but was not part of the Holocaust proper.

Starting with his 1966 book, Beamtentum im Dritten Reich ( Civil Servants in the Third Reich ), Mommsen has argued for the massive involvement of various elements in German society in the Third Reich, as against the traditional view in Germany that Nazi crimes were the work of a few criminals entirely unrepresentative of German society.

Writing in highly aggressive language, Mommsen has from the mid-1960s argued for the " weak dictator " thesis.

Mommsen has argued that both domestic and foreign policy in the Third Reich were merely a long series of incoherent drift as the Nazi regime reacted in an ad hoc fashion to crisis after crisis, leading to the " cumulative radicalization ".

Mommsen has argued against the " Master of the Third Reich "/ intentionalist thesis by arguing that the Holocaust can not be explained as the result of Hitler's will and intentions.

In Mommsen's view, the evidence is simply lacking that Hitler or anyone else in the Nazi regime had any sort of masterplan, and instead Mommsen has contended that the Third Reich was simply a jumble of rival institutions feuding with one another.

Mommsen has pointed out that on the economic and Church questions, Hitler was not the leading radical, and that for historians it is too easy " to emphasize as the final cause of the criminal climax and terroristic hubris of National Socialist policy the determining influence of Hitler ".

Moreover, Mommsen has maintained that because the role of Hitler has been inflated by historians, the role of traditional German elites in supporting the Nazi " restoration of social order " has been accordingly overlooked.

Mommsen has argued that historians should not reduce the study of the Nazi period to " the Hitler phenomenon ", but must take a broader look at the factors in German society which allow the Holocaust to occur.

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 particular, Kershaw subscribes to the view argued by Broszat and the German historian Hans Mommsen that Nazi Germany was a chaotic collection of rival bureaucracies in perpetual power struggles with each other.

In an article entitled " Neither Denial nor Forgetfulness Will Free Us " first published in the Frankfurter Rundschau on December 1, 1986, Mommsen argued that Historikerstreit was a result of the failures of modern society Mommsen argued that in the prosperous 1950s-60s, most Germans were happy to forget about their recent past, and looked forward to a brighter future Starting with the oil shock of the early 1970s and the rise of fundamentalist Islam in the late 1970s, Mommsen argued that the idea of a progressively better future was discredited, leading to a pessimistic public mood, and the a renewed interest in history This had occurred in tandem in a period when German historians had started to make a more critical examination of their recent past As a result at the precise mood when public demanded a past that could make them feel good about being Germans, German historians came under attack for not writing the sort of history the public wanted Mommsen argued that the work of those like Ernst Nolte was intended to provide the sort of history that would allow Germans feel good about being Germans by engaging in “… an explanatory strategy that … will be seen as a justification of National Socialist crimes by all those who are still under the influence of the extreme anti-Soviet propaganda of National Socialism " Mommsen charged that Ernst Nolte was attempting to egregiously whitewash the German past.

Mommsen argued that Nolte was attempting a " justification " of Nazi crimes and making " inappropriate " comparisons of the Holocaust with other genocides.

* 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.

Much more than a " gloomy coda to the ... 1st century " the Roman Empire prospered between 81 and 96, in a reign which Theodor Mommsen described as the sombre but intelligent despotism of Domitian.

Jäckel charged that Fest was guilty of diverting attention away from the issues by attacking Habermas's motives in criticizing Nolte, and not with concerning himself with what Habermas had to say Jäckel maintained that the Holocaust was indeed a " singular " historical event and criticized Fest for claiming otherwise Mommsen accused Fest of subordinating history to his right-wing politics in his defence of Nolte Mommsen went on to accuse Fest of simply ignoring the real issues such as the " psychological and institutional mechanisms " that explain why the German people accepted the Holocaust by accepting Nolte's claim of a " causal nexus " between Communism and fascism.

The Swiss historian Walter Hofer accused Mommsen of " not seeing because he does not want to see " what Hofer saw as the obvious connection between what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and his later actions.

Mommsen wrote about Nolte's claims of a " causal nexus " between the Gulag Archipelago and the Nazi death camps :" In light of these questions, which thinking people encountered repeatedly, it seems superficial and insincere to narrow the discussion to the question brought up by Ernst Nolte about the extent of the similarities between the National-Socialist mass murder and the Gulag Archipelago ”.

Mommsen attacked Fest for in his view subordinating history to his right-wing politics in his defence of Nolte Mommsen accused Fest of simply ignoring the real issues about the Holocaust such as the " psychological and institutional mechanisms " that explain why the German people accepted the Shoah by accepting Nolte's claim of a " casual nexus " between Communism and fascism.

Mommsen called Nolte's claim of a " causal nexus " between National Socialism and Communism "... not simply methodologically untenable, but also absurd in it premises and conclusions ".

Mommsen argued the identification of Jews with Communism that characterized the thinking of the German right between the wars had already started well before the Russian Revolution.

Mommsen argued that the purpose of historians is not to provide a " usable ' version of the German past, but instead to engage in a never-ending dialogue between past and present to create the groundwork for a more positive German national identity.

Mommsen has drawn unfavorable comparisons between what he sees as conservative opposition and Social Democratic and Communist resistance to the Nazis.

The " diversities " of German anti-semitism Mommsen spoken of were defined by him in the same interview as: " One should differentiate between the cultural antisemitism symptomatic of the German conservatives — found especially in the German officer corps and the high civil administration — and mainly directed against the Eastern Jews on the one hand, and völkisch antisemitism on the other.

Both phenomena could, horribile dictu, even relativize the concept of the German Sonderweg between 1933 and 1945 " In response, Heinrich August Winkler argued that there was a Sonderweg before 1933, and that Germany as a country deeply influenced by the Enlightenment meant there was no point of comparison between Hitler on one hand, and Pol Pot and Stalin on the other In Germany, Hildebrand is well known for his disputes with the Mommsen brothers, Hans and Wolfgang over how best to understand Nazi Germany, especially evident at a conference held at the German Historical Institute in London in 1979 which resulted in numerous hostile exchanges.

While Theodore Mommsen believed the Suevi were foederati and Ernst Stein seconded the notion by believing they had made an agreement with the Roman usurper Magnus Maximus whereby they received the western half of Iberia, there is no primary evidence for any alliance between the Suevi and Rome.

Mommsen declared that the Holocaust like all historical events were “ singular ”, and that :“ It is therefore equally justified to interpret National Socialism as a specific form of fascism as it is to compare it with Communist regimes.

Mommsen attacked Fest for his arguments for moral equating fascist crimes with Communist ones.

Mommsen went on to comment that given Goerdeler's background in the fiercely anti-Semitic German National People's Party, what is surprising was not his anti-Jewish prejudices, but rather that he was able to make any sort of moral objection to Nazi anti-Semitism.

* Sozialdemokratie zwische Klassenbewegung ud Volkspartei ( Social Democracy Between Class Movement and Populist Party ), edited by Hans Mommsen, 1974.

Although anti-semitism was opposed by Eugen Richter's Progess Party and some National Liberals led by Theodor Mommsen and Heinrich Rickert ( father of the philosopher Heinrich Rickert ), other National Liberals, and the other parties — Conservatives, Center Party, and Socialists — mostly either stayed aloof or flirted with anti-semitism.