DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.785#0144
*2 VEIL—The City. [appendix to
and the Twelve of the Achaean League, the place of the city that was
separated was immediately supplied by another (Niebuhr, I., p. 119). But,
were all these historical proofs wanting to show Veii to have been one of
the Twelve, her large size, as determined by existing remains—an extent
second to that of no other Etruscan city—would be evidence enough.
Note V.—Isola Farnese not the Abx op Veii.
Though at first view it would seem that a site so strongly fortified
by nature as the rock of Isola would naturally have been chosen for a
citadel, yet there is good ground for rejecting the supposition. Its isola-
tion—separated as it is from the city by a broad glen of considerable
depth, and communicating with it only by the road which runs up
obliquely from the mill—is strongly opposed to the idea. Nibby, indeed,
who regards Isola as the Arx, takes a hint from Holstenius (Adnot.
ad Cluv., p. 54), and thinks it may have been connected with the
city by means of a covered way between parallel walls, as Athens was
with the Pirseus ; but no traces of such a structure are visible, and it
probably never existed save in the worthy Professor's imagination. Livy
(V. 21) makes it clear that the Arx adjoined the city, for, on the former
being captured by Camillus, the latter immediately fell into his hands,
which could not have been the case had Isola been the Arx, for its pos-
session by an enemy, in those days of non-artillery, would have proved an
annoyance, but could have little affected the safety of the city. There is
every reason to believe, as already shown, that Isola was only a portion
of the necropolis. If nothing more than Roman columbaria, and Roman
funeral inscriptions, had been found on the spot, there would be room for
doubt, seeing that sepulchral remains of that nation have also been found
on the Piazza dArmi, the true Arx, as well as within the walls of
Etruscan Veii; which, however, only shows the small size of the Roman
municipium. But the numerous Etruscan tombs on the height of Isola,
and the absence of every trace of Etruscan sepulture on that of the
Piazza dArmi, seem alone, independently of the argument to be drawn
from their position, to afford a strong confirmation of the opinion that the
latter, and not Isola, was the Arx of Veii.
Note VI.—Isola not the Castle of the Fabii.
It is surprising that Isola should ever have been mistaken for the Castle
of the Fabii. The objection raised by Gell, that it is not on the Cremera,
scarcely seems valid, for who is to pronounce with certainty which of the
two confluents bore the ancient name ? It seems incredible, however, that
and the Twelve of the Achaean League, the place of the city that was
separated was immediately supplied by another (Niebuhr, I., p. 119). But,
were all these historical proofs wanting to show Veii to have been one of
the Twelve, her large size, as determined by existing remains—an extent
second to that of no other Etruscan city—would be evidence enough.
Note V.—Isola Farnese not the Abx op Veii.
Though at first view it would seem that a site so strongly fortified
by nature as the rock of Isola would naturally have been chosen for a
citadel, yet there is good ground for rejecting the supposition. Its isola-
tion—separated as it is from the city by a broad glen of considerable
depth, and communicating with it only by the road which runs up
obliquely from the mill—is strongly opposed to the idea. Nibby, indeed,
who regards Isola as the Arx, takes a hint from Holstenius (Adnot.
ad Cluv., p. 54), and thinks it may have been connected with the
city by means of a covered way between parallel walls, as Athens was
with the Pirseus ; but no traces of such a structure are visible, and it
probably never existed save in the worthy Professor's imagination. Livy
(V. 21) makes it clear that the Arx adjoined the city, for, on the former
being captured by Camillus, the latter immediately fell into his hands,
which could not have been the case had Isola been the Arx, for its pos-
session by an enemy, in those days of non-artillery, would have proved an
annoyance, but could have little affected the safety of the city. There is
every reason to believe, as already shown, that Isola was only a portion
of the necropolis. If nothing more than Roman columbaria, and Roman
funeral inscriptions, had been found on the spot, there would be room for
doubt, seeing that sepulchral remains of that nation have also been found
on the Piazza dArmi, the true Arx, as well as within the walls of
Etruscan Veii; which, however, only shows the small size of the Roman
municipium. But the numerous Etruscan tombs on the height of Isola,
and the absence of every trace of Etruscan sepulture on that of the
Piazza dArmi, seem alone, independently of the argument to be drawn
from their position, to afford a strong confirmation of the opinion that the
latter, and not Isola, was the Arx of Veii.
Note VI.—Isola not the Castle of the Fabii.
It is surprising that Isola should ever have been mistaken for the Castle
of the Fabii. The objection raised by Gell, that it is not on the Cremera,
scarcely seems valid, for who is to pronounce with certainty which of the
two confluents bore the ancient name ? It seems incredible, however, that