ms
not very consistent with the dictates even of common prudence; and it is
the more incredible, as the circumstance which favoured the execution of
the plot is represented to have been entirely a fortuitous occurrence.
The tempest which is said to have happened, is not easily reconcilable
with our knowledge of that phenomenon. Such a cloud, or mist, as could
have enveloped Romulus from the eyes of the assembly, is not a natural
concomitant of a thunder-storm. There is some reason to suspect that
both the noise and cloud, if they actually existed, were artificial; the
former intended to divert the attention of the spectators, and the latter
to conceal the transaction. The word fragor, a noise or crash, appears
to be an unnecessary addition where thunder is expressed, though
sometimes so used by the poets, and may therefore, perhaps, imply such a
noise from some other cause. If Romulus was killed by any pointed or
sharp-edged weapon, his blood might have been discovered on the spot; or,
if by other means, still the body was equally an object for public
observation. If the people suspected the patricians to be guilty of
murder, why did they not endeavour to trace the fact by this evidence?
And if the patricians were really innocent, why did they not urge the
examination? But the body, without doubt, was secreted, to favour the
imposture. The whole narrative is strongly marked with circumstances
calculated to affect credulity with ideas of national importance; and, to
countenance the design, there is evidently a chasm in the Roman history
immediately preceding this transaction and intimately connected with it.

Livy was born at Patavium [272], and has been charged by Asinius Pollio
and others with the provincial dialect of his country. The objections to
his Pativinity, as it is called, relate chiefly to the (165) spelling of
some words; in which, however, there seems to be nothing so peculiar, as
either to occasion any obscurity or merit reprehension.

Livy and Sallust being the only two existing rivals in Roman history, it
may not be improper to draw a short comparison between them, in respect
of their principal qualities, as writers. With regard to language, there
is less apparent affectation in Livy than in Sallust. The narrative of
both is distinguished by an elevation of style: the elevation of Sallust
seems to be often supported by the dignity of assumed virtue; that of
Livy by a majestic air of historical,