THEODORE MOMMSEN. 857 



knoAv whether the decrepitude of the nations conquered was not greater 

 than the fortitude of the Romans. We are still ignorant of the strange 

 connection of facts which permitted ever}" single nation of antiquity 

 to defeat the Romans in more than one pitched battle, and 3-et in the 

 end be compelled to submit to the Roman yoke. We still inquir(> won- 

 deringl}" into the great problem why the Romans alone not onl}" trans- 

 mitted their own idiom to the conquered nations, but also rapidly 

 promoted what the Greeks or Byzantines in the East could never do — 

 the rise of neo-Roman languages. 



When at last we try to obtain some real insight into that Roman 

 constitution which Mommsen in his series of volumes has tabulated, 

 formulated, classified, and systematized, we get from him indeed a 

 number of useful schedules similar to the official lists or annuaires 

 published by modern governments, enlivened by much juristic and 

 legal formulation. It is not denied that the Roman officials and 

 magistracies may rightly and legitimately be formulated from juristic 

 standpoints, such as we apply in canonical law to the officials of the 

 Catholic hierarch3^ The juristic person of a bishop or an archbishop 

 is a great, important, and interesting subject. However, it is equally 

 certain that the most refined legal systematization of the Catholic or 

 the ancient Roman hierarchy or magistracy does not advance us at all 

 with regard to a true insight into the historic life and political drift of 

 those officials. What is wanted is historic systematization, and not 

 juristic. It is like in church history — we must not mix up dogmatics 

 with church history. What Professor Mommsen has done to Roman 

 constitutional history is precisely what his colleague, Harnack, of the 

 Berlin University, has done to the history of Christian dogmatics. 

 While Ilarnack's work is deeply engaging and learned, it advances 

 only little our insight into the church history proper. Mommsen's 

 book would have been an inestimable manual for the officials of the 

 first century of the Roman Empire, but it does not help us very nuich 

 in the comprehension of the Roman constitution as a product of living- 

 history. 



The preceding remarks, no doubt, appear both harsh and ungrate- 

 ful. However, a little further consideration will show that it is, we 

 take it, necessary to say, and to say very frequently, what man}" a 

 serious student outside Germany has long felt to be the case. Wc 

 mean the overestimation of German Wissenschaft, of German meth- 

 ods of research, more especially of German ways of writing history. 

 This overestimation is not likely to ])e felt as such unless it is shown 

 up, especially in cases where German scholars have done real and 

 great services to the interests of knowledge. The greater the real 

 merit, the greater the danger that the mei-it will be exaggerated. 

 Just because Mommsen has done so nmch, and has laid all students 

 of Roman history under an obligation hard to overrate, we must 



