DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.785#0139
37
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I.
Note I.—The Mine of Camillus.
Niebuhr (II. p. 481, Eng. trans.) rejects the account, given by Livy,
of the capture of Veii: first, as bearing too close a resemblance to the
siege and taking of Troy, to be authentic ; and next, because " in the
whole history of ancient military operations we shall scarcely find an
authentic instance of a town taken in the same manner." He thinks
that the legend of the cunieulus arose out of a tradition of a mine of the
ordinary character, by which a portion of the walls was overthrown; because
the besiegers would never have resorted to the arduous labour of forming a
cunieulus into the heart of the city, " when, by merely firing the timbers,
by which, at all events, the walls must have been propt, they might have
made a breach." Now, though, as Niebuhr clearly shows, there are
many circumstances attending the capture, of too marvellous a character
to be admitted as authentic history, with all deference to that great man,
I must venture to differ from him, when he questions the formation of the
cunieulus. The fact is stated, not only by Livy, (V. 21), but by
Plutarch, (Camil.), Diodorus, (XIV., p. 307), Florus, (I. 12), and by
Zonaras, (Ann. VII. 21), though Dionysius in relating the fact of the
capture is silent as to the means, (Excerp. Mai, XII. 12). The cap-
ture of Fidenas by means of a similar mine, (Liv. IV. 22), Niebuhr
thinks not a whit better attested than that of Veii; but Dionysius
mentions a similar capture of Fidenas, as early as the reign of Ancus
Martius, (III., p. 180); and Livy records the taking of Nequinum
or Narnia in a similar manner, in long subsequent times, (X. 10).
When Niebuhr states that the walls of Veii might have been breached
by firing the timbers of the mine, it is most evident that he had not
visited the site, and wrote in perfect ignorance of its character. Such
a remark would apply to a town built in a plain, or on a slight
elevation; but in a case where the citadel stood on a cliff, nearly two
hundred feet above the valley, (if Isola were the Arx, the height
was yet greater), it is obviously inapplicable ; and this Niebuhr, in fact,
admits, by stating that " in Latium, where the strength of the towns
arose from the steep rocks on which they were built, there was no oppor-
tunity of mining." The Citadel of Veii was in a precisely similar
category. His argument, then, against the cunieulus of Camillus falls
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I.
Note I.—The Mine of Camillus.
Niebuhr (II. p. 481, Eng. trans.) rejects the account, given by Livy,
of the capture of Veii: first, as bearing too close a resemblance to the
siege and taking of Troy, to be authentic ; and next, because " in the
whole history of ancient military operations we shall scarcely find an
authentic instance of a town taken in the same manner." He thinks
that the legend of the cunieulus arose out of a tradition of a mine of the
ordinary character, by which a portion of the walls was overthrown; because
the besiegers would never have resorted to the arduous labour of forming a
cunieulus into the heart of the city, " when, by merely firing the timbers,
by which, at all events, the walls must have been propt, they might have
made a breach." Now, though, as Niebuhr clearly shows, there are
many circumstances attending the capture, of too marvellous a character
to be admitted as authentic history, with all deference to that great man,
I must venture to differ from him, when he questions the formation of the
cunieulus. The fact is stated, not only by Livy, (V. 21), but by
Plutarch, (Camil.), Diodorus, (XIV., p. 307), Florus, (I. 12), and by
Zonaras, (Ann. VII. 21), though Dionysius in relating the fact of the
capture is silent as to the means, (Excerp. Mai, XII. 12). The cap-
ture of Fidenas by means of a similar mine, (Liv. IV. 22), Niebuhr
thinks not a whit better attested than that of Veii; but Dionysius
mentions a similar capture of Fidenas, as early as the reign of Ancus
Martius, (III., p. 180); and Livy records the taking of Nequinum
or Narnia in a similar manner, in long subsequent times, (X. 10).
When Niebuhr states that the walls of Veii might have been breached
by firing the timbers of the mine, it is most evident that he had not
visited the site, and wrote in perfect ignorance of its character. Such
a remark would apply to a town built in a plain, or on a slight
elevation; but in a case where the citadel stood on a cliff, nearly two
hundred feet above the valley, (if Isola were the Arx, the height
was yet greater), it is obviously inapplicable ; and this Niebuhr, in fact,
admits, by stating that " in Latium, where the strength of the towns
arose from the steep rocks on which they were built, there was no oppor-
tunity of mining." The Citadel of Veii was in a precisely similar
category. His argument, then, against the cunieulus of Camillus falls