[ 13 ] 



to the falubrity of Rome, by proteding the pafienger from the 

 heat of the fun. I will even draw an argumxnt from the viru- 

 lence of Suetonius. " He would not fuffer," fays that writer, 

 " the bodies of the dead, who perifhed in the fire, to be burnt 

 " by their friends, nor the ruins of the edifices to be removed by 

 " the owners, but took the charge upon himfelf, for the fake of 

 '* plunder." Whether thofe who were burnt already required to 

 be burnt again I know not ; but does not the ill-nature of the re- 

 mark proclaim the inclination of the author? Is it not more natural 

 to fuppofe, that the fear of peflilence, from the expofition of bo- 

 dies left to the random care of individuals, in a time of general 

 diftracftion, required the interpofition of government and the 

 adoption of public regulations, to prevent the poffibility of pri- 

 vate negligence .'' And was it not right in the governing power of 

 the ftate to refufe to truft to the weaknefs or indolence of the 

 fubje£t, the office of removing rubbifh and ruins, whofe immenfe 

 heaps forbad improvement and poftponed renovation ? 



The truth is, when Suetonius wrote, invedlive againft the race 

 of Caefar opened the way to honour and preferment. Abufe of 

 the Auguftan family was the faihion of fuccecding times, and the 

 inftrument of flattery with fuccceding Emperors. With infinite 

 caution, therefore, are we to admit the adulatory invedtive of the 

 wpters of the age of Trajan. The fidelity of hiftory was made 

 to bow to the etiquette of courts and the interefts of hiflcK 

 rians. 



This 



