been very brisk even
though they were entirely written by hand.

The epigrams of Martial inform us of the existence of a class of slaves
whose occupation was copying books, and innumerable allusions in Horace,
Martial, &c., to the Sosii and others prove that the trade of a
bookseller at Rome was both extensive and profitable. Towards the end of
the Republic it became the fashion for Roman nobles to encourage
literature by forming a library, and this taste was given immense
encouragement by Augustus, who established a public library in the
Temple of Apollo on the Mount Palatine, in imitation of that previously
founded by Asinius Pollio. There were other libraries besides these, the
most famous of which was the Ulpian library, founded by Trajan, who
called it so from his own name, Ulpius. Now Trajan was a contemporary of
our author, and this act of his clearly proves that there must have been
during Plutarch's lifetime a considerable reading public, and consequent
demand for books at Rome.

Of Plutarch's travels in Italy we know next to nothing. He mentions
incidentally that he had seen the bust or statue of Marius at Ravenna,
but never gives us another hint of how far he explored the country about
which he wrote so much. No doubt his ignorance of the Latin language
must not be taken as a literal statement, and probably means that he was
not skilled in it as a spoken tongue, for we can scarcely imagine that
he was without some acquaintance with it when he first went to Rome, and
he certainly afterwards became well read in the literature of Rome. In
some cases he has followed Livy's narrative with a closeness which
proves that he must have been acquainted with that author either in the
original or in a translation, and the latter alternative is, of the two,
the more improbable.

It seems to be now generally thought that his stay at Rome was a short
one. Clough, in his excellent Preface, says on this subject, "The fault
which runs through all the earlier biographies, from that of Rualdus
downwards, is the assumption, wholly untenable, that Plutarch passed
many years, as many perhaps as forty, at Rome. The entire character of
his life is of course altered by such an impression." He then goes on to
say that in consequence of this mistaken idea, it is not worth while for
him to quote Dryden's 'Life of Plutarch,' which was originally prefixed
to the translations re-edited by himself. Yet I trust I may be excused
if I again