What do you think?
Rate this book
History of Rome #1
The history of Rome. Translated with the author's sanction and additions by William P.Dickson. With a preface by Leonhard Schmitz. Volume vol. 1 1874 [Leather Bound]
Leather Binding on Spine and Corners with Golden Leaf Printing on round Spine (extra customization on request like complete leather, Golden Screen printing in Front, Color Leather, Colored book etc.) Reprinted in 2018 with the help of original edition published long back [1874]. This book is printed in black & white, sewing binding for longer life, printed on high quality Paper, re-sized as per Current standards, professionally processed without changing its contents. As these are old books, we processed each page manually and make them readable but in some cases some pages which are blur or missing or black spots. We expect that you will understand our compulsion in these books. We found this book important for the readers who want to know more about our old treasure so we brought it back to the shelves. Hope you will like it and give your comments and suggestions. - eng, - Volume vol. 1, Pages 650. EXTRA 10 DAYS APART FROM THE NORMAL SHIPPING PERIOD WILL BE REQUIRED FOR LEATHER BOUND BOOKS. COMPLETE LEATHER WILL COST YOU EXTRA US$ 25 APART FROM THE LEATHER BOUND BOOKS. {FOLIO EDITION IS ALSO AVAILABLE.} Complete The history of Rome. Translated with the author's sanction and additions by William P.Dickson. With a preface by Leonhard Schmitz. Volume vol. 1 1874 Mommsen, Theodor, -.
650 pages, Leather Bound
First published January 1, 1854
74 people are currently reading
326 people want to read
About the author
Theodor Mommsen
740 books90 followersChristian Matthias Theodor Mommsen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1902, for being "the greatest living master of the art of historical writing, with special reference to his monumental work, A History of Rome."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
June 7, 2025
Mommsen had a colossal reputation in his day as the greatest scholar of Rome since Gibbon. The style is not as stilted as I feared, even though this is a Victorian translation from the German. I read it on my Kindle, as a free download from Project Gutenberg, and although it has been valiantly prepared, there are still limitations resulting from the inability of the format to reproduce effectively the many ideograms Dr Mommsen sprinkles throughout the text. It’s true my knowledge of Etruscan ideograms is far from extensive, but still – it would have been fun to see them.
Some things I learned: “Romans” comes from “Ramnes” and may mean “people of the stream.” Rome was originally an emporium for an agricultural district, not a mercantile centre like Carthage, and this had a long term effect on how it developed. The Etruscans were very different from the “Graeco-Italians” in the rest of Italy, being physically stocky, with a gloomy religion and an isolate language. This book is filled with assertions like this, and Dr Mommsen’s assurances often seemed to me to be based on dubious evidence (or no evidence at all).
Mommsen claims the “intelligibility” of Roman religion led to equality, whereas in Greece, “where religion rose to its highest thought”, aristocracy was the result. Hmm. The Latin language, he says, did not derive from Etruscan, but from Greek. The Tarquinian kings were indeed of Etruscan origin, but, according to Mommsen, “the Etruscans had an inferior capacity for culture.” And – and this really exasperated me - the Italians are “deficient in poetic art” – despite noting Horace and Boccaccio.
The most annoying thing about the book is not the typographical limitations or the unconvincing assertions but the lack of a chronological narrative and the annoying insistence on using AUC as a dating system rather than BC. Overall I found this underwhelming.
Some things I learned: “Romans” comes from “Ramnes” and may mean “people of the stream.” Rome was originally an emporium for an agricultural district, not a mercantile centre like Carthage, and this had a long term effect on how it developed. The Etruscans were very different from the “Graeco-Italians” in the rest of Italy, being physically stocky, with a gloomy religion and an isolate language. This book is filled with assertions like this, and Dr Mommsen’s assurances often seemed to me to be based on dubious evidence (or no evidence at all).
Mommsen claims the “intelligibility” of Roman religion led to equality, whereas in Greece, “where religion rose to its highest thought”, aristocracy was the result. Hmm. The Latin language, he says, did not derive from Etruscan, but from Greek. The Tarquinian kings were indeed of Etruscan origin, but, according to Mommsen, “the Etruscans had an inferior capacity for culture.” And – and this really exasperated me - the Italians are “deficient in poetic art” – despite noting Horace and Boccaccio.
The most annoying thing about the book is not the typographical limitations or the unconvincing assertions but the lack of a chronological narrative and the annoying insistence on using AUC as a dating system rather than BC. Overall I found this underwhelming.
July 4, 2018
Invano si cercherebbero tracce di quello che abbiamo imparato a scuola sui re di Roma, da Romolo fino ai Tarquini: Mommsen li ha banditi dalla sua storia di Roma in quanto mito, favola, fola, racconto non documentabile scientificamente. Ciò che non è immediatamente classificabile come fatto documentabile in maniera rigorosa viene bandito. Non per niente siamo in pieno positivismo, e anche la storia deve essere una scienza che aderisce ai canoni positivisti. Sembrerebbe più una cacciata dei re dalla storia di Roma, cacciata fatta non da Giunio Bruto, ma dallo stesso Mommsen! Scherzi a parte, è una ricostruzione rigorosa, condotta sulle fonti storiografiche antiche, ma soprattutto sulla scorta dell’epigrafia, della linguistica, del diritto romano, della storia delle religioni, anche delle scoperte archeologiche, poche in realtà. Il nucleo centrale, lo stato monarchico, molto semplice, è un’estensione logica della famiglia; il potere del re, un primus inter pares eletto a vita dai patres è derivato logicamente da quello del pater familias, che ha diritto di vita e di morte sui membri della famiglia, che dai figli si prolunga sui servi. La famiglia è la cellula primitiva di questa civiltà contadina in cui non esiste ancora la proprietà privata, ma i campi sono ripartiti e coltivati dalle famiglie allargate. Il coltivatore è allo stesso tempo cittadino, soggetto di diritti e doveri, in primis il dovere-diritto di portare le armi e combattere per lo stato, e morire, all’occorrenza. Gli dei, gli spiriti della natura e delle attività umane moltiplicati all’infinito, i penati, le feste religiose e i riti ad esse connesse sono tutti inseriti funzionalmente in quest’economia agro-pastorale, del do ut des. È tutto molto primitivo, ma ben congegnato. Non ci sono grossi turbamenti, almeno sembra, di speculazioni metafisiche e viaggi mistici dei greci, né l’oltretomba terrificante dei vari charun e thuculcha che angosciavano gli etruschi. È una civiltà agraria dotata di spirito pratico, che s’interessa e vuole risolvere problemi pratici, misurare, pesare, calcolare… il pontifex (pontificere) è una specie d’ingegnere che oltre ai calcoli pratici (della costruzione dei ponti) si occupa di calendario per calcolare esattamente le date di svolgimento delle feste religiose…. I vicini latini, sabini, sanniti sono anch’essi ancora civiltà agropastorali. Ci sono lunghissime disgressioni, anche linguistiche, su questi altri popoli italici. Il sud dell’Italia, o meglio l’Italia di allora, dove ci sono le città greche, la Sicilia dei greci e punici, sono la Silicon Valley del tempo per vivacità culturale, creazione scientifica e tecnologica.
Va beh, ha 150 anni, questa Storia di Roma, però è sempre godibile e interessante, almeno quando si leggono di corsa le considerazioni sul diritto, che sono rigorose, puntuali, teutoniche, ma anche un po’ pallose.
Va beh, ha 150 anni, questa Storia di Roma, però è sempre godibile e interessante, almeno quando si leggono di corsa le considerazioni sul diritto, che sono rigorose, puntuali, teutoniche, ma anche un po’ pallose.
November 16, 2019
Excellent
October 11, 2015
Well, I just stayed up longer than I wanted to finish a massive review of this that I had worked on over the past few days, only to have Goodreads log me out of my account and lose all trace of said review after I pressed save. I mean, we're all familiar with the random cruelties of an internet crash, but losing all traces of something directly resulting from my decision to submit it as finished seem particularly callous of the internet gods. So let's all pretend that learned a few new things, had some laughs, and walked away with a determination to be a better person. On second thoughts, the thing was way longer than I thought it would be, and may have gotten a bit rambly, so enjoy the time saved while I try not to think about how tired I'm going to be tomorrow morning without having anything to show for it.
While it's unlikely that I'll be able to muster up the enthusiasm to recreate even an abridged version of my original review, if you have any particular questions about this volume, or the work as a whole, let me know and I'll try to get back at you.
While it's unlikely that I'll be able to muster up the enthusiasm to recreate even an abridged version of my original review, if you have any particular questions about this volume, or the work as a whole, let me know and I'll try to get back at you.
January 30, 2020
Well written, well researched, well done.
October 27, 2020
Maravilloso recurso literario e histórico para conocer la cuna de organizaciones sociales de occidente: Roma.
February 15, 2022
Nobel Prize 🏆 in Literature 1902.
Theodor Mommsen was one of only two historians to win the Nobel Prize in Literature (the other being Churchill). 1902 was also the first year in which Tolstoy was snubbed of the prize, despite four nominations. Mommsen got one nomination (well, collectively submitted by the 18 members of the Prussian Academy of Science).
His History of Rome is quite interesting, but sounds more like my Latin teacher telling stories about ancient Rome than like modern history. Mommsen focuses more on everyday life in Rome than on hard scientific facts: there is hardly a date in this book (and the ones that are there are confusing, calculated "ab urbe condita", so from the foundation of Rome), nor do any of the kings in this period get explicitly named. Source references are scarce as well.
But despite all this, the book reads very easily and it is quite nice to hear a 19th century perspective (or rather: opinion) on Roman history. It is therefore not very remote from the history of Rome written two centuries before by Edward Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Somehow, though, Gibbon survived the tooth of time and Mommsen is all but forgotten. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Theodor Mommsen was one of only two historians to win the Nobel Prize in Literature (the other being Churchill). 1902 was also the first year in which Tolstoy was snubbed of the prize, despite four nominations. Mommsen got one nomination (well, collectively submitted by the 18 members of the Prussian Academy of Science).
His History of Rome is quite interesting, but sounds more like my Latin teacher telling stories about ancient Rome than like modern history. Mommsen focuses more on everyday life in Rome than on hard scientific facts: there is hardly a date in this book (and the ones that are there are confusing, calculated "ab urbe condita", so from the foundation of Rome), nor do any of the kings in this period get explicitly named. Source references are scarce as well.
But despite all this, the book reads very easily and it is quite nice to hear a 19th century perspective (or rather: opinion) on Roman history. It is therefore not very remote from the history of Rome written two centuries before by Edward Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Somehow, though, Gibbon survived the tooth of time and Mommsen is all but forgotten. Sic transit gloria mundi.
September 23, 2016
I finished the first volume of Theodore Mommsen's (Nobel Prize winner, 1902) complete history of Rome. I would give the title but there have been various titles over the years, apparently. I read the volume pertaining to Pre-Roman life. According to the intro it covers "up to the Punic Wars" but that's wrong. It covers up to about 750 BC.
The book was a combination of two of the worst qualities in historical writing. 1) Superficiality and 2) Presuming a lot of knowledge as "common." For instance, the assumption the reader not only know Latin but some Sanskrit. Many topics were bizarre (the evolution of how homes were decorated, for instance), and the reliance on a year system (A.U.C.) which makes the founding of Rome year 000 (around 775 BC I think), and all dates were referred to in AUC rather than something, you know, useful.
No references to external materials are made. You're assumed to know what he's talking about if he refers to an unnamed source.
The book was a combination of two of the worst qualities in historical writing. 1) Superficiality and 2) Presuming a lot of knowledge as "common." For instance, the assumption the reader not only know Latin but some Sanskrit. Many topics were bizarre (the evolution of how homes were decorated, for instance), and the reliance on a year system (A.U.C.) which makes the founding of Rome year 000 (around 775 BC I think), and all dates were referred to in AUC rather than something, you know, useful.
No references to external materials are made. You're assumed to know what he's talking about if he refers to an unnamed source.
March 6, 2016
Svårläst eftersom jag läste på engelska. Mycket information om folkförflyttningar, slag och statsmaktsuppbyggande vilket inte gjorde mig tillräckligt intresserad. Jag skulle vilja ha mer information om livet i rom eller enskilda personer inom statsmakten. Nu var det väldigt generellt hållet.
January 19, 2018
Титанічна праця історика Теодора Моммзена цінна також і тим, що науковці того часу працювали з першоджерелами, володіли класичними мовами, а не переписували праці якихось попередників.
March 29, 2020
Llegué a este libro gracias al desafío literario #ReadTheNobels, que promueve la lectura de los títulos más representativos de cada uno de los ganadores del premio de literatura más importante del mundo.
El alemán Theodor Mommsen fue el segundo acreedor de este reconocimiento y uno de los pocos autores de no ficción en obtenerlo. Cuando la Academia Sueca le entregó el Nobel, lo hicieron por «el más grandioso maestro con vida del arte de la escritura histórica, con una especial referencia a su obra monumental, “Historia de Roma”».
Empecé la lectura con miedo, pues me parecía un tanto tedioso enfrentarme a un libro de historia, un género al que no estoy acostumbrado. Sentía que iba a leer una enciclopedia, llena de datos históricos, con fechas y nombres imposibles de entender. Debo reconocer, que estaba completamente equivocado.
“Historia de Roma” es un texto que se sumerge, justamente, en la historia de una de las ciudades y civilizaciones más importantes del mundo. El autor recurre a datos históricos, sociales y lingüísticos para desarrollar los anales que se presentan en este texto. El punto de partida son las primeras migraciones conocidas de grupos humanos a la península itálica. Mommsen se preocupa por describir cada detalle, cada palabra, cada costumbre. Sí, es muchísima información, pero es fácil de digerir y entender. Si bien es cierto que, por afinidad e intereses, algunos capítulos me resultaron más interesantes y entretenidos que otros, debo reconocer que he quedado fascinado con la lectura de esta obra.
También es interesante analizar los juicios que tenía un intelectual de hace más de cien años (si bien el premio se le entregó en 1902, el libro fue escrito entre 1854 y 1856). Los tiempos cambian, las lógicas mutan, pero los buenos textos quedan para siempre.
El alemán Theodor Mommsen fue el segundo acreedor de este reconocimiento y uno de los pocos autores de no ficción en obtenerlo. Cuando la Academia Sueca le entregó el Nobel, lo hicieron por «el más grandioso maestro con vida del arte de la escritura histórica, con una especial referencia a su obra monumental, “Historia de Roma”».
Empecé la lectura con miedo, pues me parecía un tanto tedioso enfrentarme a un libro de historia, un género al que no estoy acostumbrado. Sentía que iba a leer una enciclopedia, llena de datos históricos, con fechas y nombres imposibles de entender. Debo reconocer, que estaba completamente equivocado.
“Historia de Roma” es un texto que se sumerge, justamente, en la historia de una de las ciudades y civilizaciones más importantes del mundo. El autor recurre a datos históricos, sociales y lingüísticos para desarrollar los anales que se presentan en este texto. El punto de partida son las primeras migraciones conocidas de grupos humanos a la península itálica. Mommsen se preocupa por describir cada detalle, cada palabra, cada costumbre. Sí, es muchísima información, pero es fácil de digerir y entender. Si bien es cierto que, por afinidad e intereses, algunos capítulos me resultaron más interesantes y entretenidos que otros, debo reconocer que he quedado fascinado con la lectura de esta obra.
También es interesante analizar los juicios que tenía un intelectual de hace más de cien años (si bien el premio se le entregó en 1902, el libro fue escrito entre 1854 y 1856). Los tiempos cambian, las lógicas mutan, pero los buenos textos quedan para siempre.
October 25, 2018
Suflul naționalist și patriotic străbate viziunea istorică a lui Mommsen asupra Romei. Măreția Republicii, reușita sa de constituire, și mai ales rezistența sa în fața evenimentelor ce-ar fi trebuit s-o sfarme, se datorează unității naționale, valoare pe care Roma(prin politicienii ei nemaiauzit până atunci de abili, precum și prin forța puternicei Legiuni) a reușit s-o imprime latinilor și italicilor. Asta pare a fi ideea ce ghidează pe istoric printre ruinele Romei republicane. Cât despre autorul în sine, nici lui nu-i pot fi negate afinitățile naționalismului, însă nu o zic neapărat ca un reproș, căci probabil asta contribuie semnificativ la pasiunea cu care Mommsen își scrie lucrarea, acesta fiind convins de relevanța, pentru momentul istoric în care trăia, a unei reactualizări a istoriei Republicii Romane. Din acest motiv, epoca imperială, caracteristic cosmopolită, ocupă o importanță și o poziție inferioară în opera sa, totuși asta se vede în volumele următoare.
Pe lângă priceperea sa de desăvârșit istoric — multe și diverse detalii compun intreguri coerente, bine valorificare în operă — Mommsen se poate mândrii cu un neașteptat talent literar. Intensitatea pasiunii sale pentru subiect fiind perfect dublată de măsura și gustul său pentru figuri de stil. Mai puțin atrăgător la prima vedere e faptul că dă o importanță climatului socio-economic cel puțin egală războaielor și acțiunilor diplomatice. Intră totodată foarte adânc în chestiunile de drept, economie și alte analize de genul, aparent(de regulă) aride, în defavoarea unor expuneri mai întinse ale campaniilor militare de pildă, care sunt, fie spus, nemăsurat de mult mai pe placul publicului larg. Mommsen chiar avertizează la un moment dat în acest sens cititorul. Totuși, faptul că autorul reușește să abordeze subiecte dificile, într-un stil atrăgător literar și totuși limpede, îi crește în ochii mei prestigiul de istoric, fiindcă acestea sunt, de regulă, de scriitorii de Istorie pentru publicul larg, fie pe cât se poate evitate, fie tratate cu superficialitate(ori amândouă), în ciuda faptului că o reală înțelegere a istoriei oricărei națiuni e imposibilă dacă treci cu vederea asemenea subiecte.
Pe lângă priceperea sa de desăvârșit istoric — multe și diverse detalii compun intreguri coerente, bine valorificare în operă — Mommsen se poate mândrii cu un neașteptat talent literar. Intensitatea pasiunii sale pentru subiect fiind perfect dublată de măsura și gustul său pentru figuri de stil. Mai puțin atrăgător la prima vedere e faptul că dă o importanță climatului socio-economic cel puțin egală războaielor și acțiunilor diplomatice. Intră totodată foarte adânc în chestiunile de drept, economie și alte analize de genul, aparent(de regulă) aride, în defavoarea unor expuneri mai întinse ale campaniilor militare de pildă, care sunt, fie spus, nemăsurat de mult mai pe placul publicului larg. Mommsen chiar avertizează la un moment dat în acest sens cititorul. Totuși, faptul că autorul reușește să abordeze subiecte dificile, într-un stil atrăgător literar și totuși limpede, îi crește în ochii mei prestigiul de istoric, fiindcă acestea sunt, de regulă, de scriitorii de Istorie pentru publicul larg, fie pe cât se poate evitate, fie tratate cu superficialitate(ori amândouă), în ciuda faptului că o reală înțelegere a istoriei oricărei națiuni e imposibilă dacă treci cu vederea asemenea subiecte.
March 26, 2021
First, I want to say that as a grad student that would drown without LibGen, I am astounded that someone was able to do all of the research necessary to write this book in one lifetime.
Second, I like that his goal was to de-mythologize history, to show people that the ancients were just people living prosaic lives in a prosaic world. They weren't larger-than-life, and the Mommsen wants you to know that everything about Roman culture was derivative and not radically innovative.
Third, which is the thing I really wanted to say first: This is far and away the DRYEST thing I've read for the Nobel Project. And this is like #92 or so, so that's a meaningful superlative.
Second, I like that his goal was to de-mythologize history, to show people that the ancients were just people living prosaic lives in a prosaic world. They weren't larger-than-life, and the Mommsen wants you to know that everything about Roman culture was derivative and not radically innovative.
Third, which is the thing I really wanted to say first: This is far and away the DRYEST thing I've read for the Nobel Project. And this is like #92 or so, so that's a meaningful superlative.
January 2, 2021
Praising Mommsen and his masterpiece is absolutely needless, and it humbles the one who is praising. Mi modest contribution is that having read both the present spanih edition and the classic english translation by W. P. Dickson, I strongly recommend the latter to spanish- speaking readers with an average command of the english language. Something gets lost in this translation, and there's even a couple of instances of sense-reversal.
April 15, 2021
Theodor Mommsen did for the Roman Republic what Edward Gibbon should have done for the Roman Empire. It is a pity that Mommsen’s manuscript for his history of the Empire was lost in a fire. It has been “reconstructed” in a one volume work compiled from student notes of his lectures, but that has to be a pale shadow of what was lost in the fire.
January 6, 2023
A difficult read. There is no question that Theodor Mommsen was a brilliant and gifted historian. If the Nobel organization offered a prize for History he would be a premier recipient. Awarding him a Nobel prize for Literature is, it seems to me, a bit of a stretch.
March 4, 2023
Apparently Mark Twain fangirled over Theodor Mommsen and he was a big deal in his day. My complain isn't with his research, but the title. I thought a history of Rome would tell you what happened in what order and when. Instead this was a thematic look at various aspects of ancient Rome.
Read
October 16, 2019Elämäni varmaankin kurjin lukukokemus:
https://versusnobel.blogspot.com/2019...
https://versusnobel.blogspot.com/2019...
October 21, 2019
La trattazione più dettagliata, approfondita e sistemica che abbia mai letto sulla storia dei primi anni di Roma
April 9, 2021
The information was interesting, but the writing style was incredibly boring, in my opinion.
January 4, 2021
Un libro completísimo. Cada volúmen abarca un área y temporalidad para entender el entramado social, cultural y económico de la historia romana y sus alrededores.
Es realmente impresionante la influencia que tiene hasta el día de hoy en nuestra sociedad, la forma de desarrollarse y relacionarse de la cultura romana. Las sociedades somos cambiantes pero hay patrones que se repiten sin discriminar.
Al finalizarlo, sólo tengo ganas de leer más y conocer más.
Es realmente impresionante la influencia que tiene hasta el día de hoy en nuestra sociedad, la forma de desarrollarse y relacionarse de la cultura romana. Las sociedades somos cambiantes pero hay patrones que se repiten sin discriminar.
Al finalizarlo, sólo tengo ganas de leer más y conocer más.
February 18, 2025
“Sus mejores y más exclusivas cualidades fueron las que imposibilitaron al pueblo griego para el tránsito de la unidad nacional, a la unidad política, sin cambiar sus libertades cívicas por el despotismo. El mundo de lo bello ideal lo era todo para el griego y compensaba lo que le faltaba en la esfera de la vida real. Cuando vemos manifestarse en las tendencias populares, las aspiraciones hacia la unidad en Grecia, estamos seguros de que tienen por móviles no tanto los consejos directos de la política, cuanto la atracción que sobre ellos ejercían las ciencias y las artes. Los Juegos Olímpicos, los cantos homéricos y la tragedia de Eurípides, estos son los lazos que unen entre sí a los griegos. El italiano, por el contrario, inmoló sin reserva, su libre albedrío a la libertad política; aprendió muy temprano a obedecer a su padre para saber después obedecer al Estado. El individuo desaparece, sin duda, esclavizado; los gérmenes más ricos del genio humano, podían ser ahogados en su alma; pero ganaba una patria, un patriotismo desconocido en la Grecia. Y esta es la razón por la que el pueblo romano fue el único entre todos los pueblos civilizados de la antigüedad, que supo conquistar la unidad nacional con un gobierno fundado en el poder popular, y mediante esta unidad, y pasando sobre las ruinas del edificio helénico, pudo llegar a la dominación del mundo”.
December 23, 2015
Un genio Mommsen. Explica como pocos la intrincada e interesantísima historia de Roma.
Tiene tantas aristas para abarcar que sería imposible en un solo tomo y sencillamente, para cualquier amante de la historia esta es una obra excelente. Siempre algo quedará afuera porque no se puede abarcar todo, pero bueno, uno de los mejores intentos que he visto en mi vida.
Tiene tantas aristas para abarcar que sería imposible en un solo tomo y sencillamente, para cualquier amante de la historia esta es una obra excelente. Siempre algo quedará afuera porque no se puede abarcar todo, pero bueno, uno de los mejores intentos que he visto en mi vida.
Want to read
August 23, 2007Here is the OTHER book I dl'ed from Google Library. At least, I think I got "volume I." I really have no idea. I expect I may read this book by 2010, or maybe never at all. In consolation, I suppose it's the last book on the Roman Empire I will EVER have to read.
December 4, 2017
One of the driest history books it has ever been my displeasure to read, the subtitle of this work is 'The Period Anterior to the Abolition of the Monarchy'. If he had only added a 'From' to the beginning of this phrase and thus changed his focus from the descriptive to the chronological, it would have read more like a true work of historical narrative and less like a plodding and pedantic pouring over matters largely philological. How the early Italians came from a common stock which included the Greeks, how they organized their rudimentary forms of government, awarded citizenship, built strongholds on promontories, grew their crops, trained their soldiers, traded with their neighbors, designed their calendar around lunar and solar events, named their months: commencing the year in March, largely based on agricultural practices, developed small scale handicraft enterprises, and adopted from the Greeks what rudimentary forms of art and sport they practiced manages to fill a couple of hundred pages of descriptive, not narrative,. analysis, not explanation. Other than his cool indifference to the Phoenicians and utter antipathy to the Etruscans, Mommsen seems to spend little time even accounting for the development of principles and practices that would one day help this culture rule most if not all of the known world. The Greeks come off somewhat better, but even the Italians are regarded as lacking any true artistic spirit (had he never heard of da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael?) The reason why Greek colonies were established on the western and not the eastern coast of the Italian peninsula is wondered at, but left there: no suitable explanation ever arises. What dates are given - and they are few and far between - are needlessly handicapped by his following the A.U.C. (Au Urbo Condi) system of numbering from the founding of Rome. But whenever that seemingly seminal event occurred, one is again left wondering. Hopefully, in subsequent volumes of this well-respected work, its author got down to real people and real events and thus began to write actual historical analysis. But the impression from this exceptionally dry tome was such a disappointing one it's highly doubtful if I will ever consider opening them.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews