[Footnote K:  The following passage presents a view of some of the uses to which Plutarch’s narratives were turned during the Middle Ages.  “Or personne n’ignore que les chroniqueurs du moyen age compilaient les faits les plus remarquables de l’Ecriture Sainte ou des histoires profanes pour les meler a leurs recits.  C’est ainsi que ceux qui ont ecrit la vie de Du Guesclin ont mis sur le compte de ce heros ce que Plutarque rapporte de plus memorable des grands hommes de l’antiquite.”—­SOUVESTRE. Les Derniers Bretons. I. 147.]

The question naturally arises, What are the qualities in Plutarch which have made him so universal a favorite, which have attracted towards him men of such opposite tempers and different lives?  It is not enough to say that all real biography is of interest,—­that every man has curiosity about the life of every other man, and finds in it illustrations of his own.  Other writers of lives have not had the same fortune with Plutarch.  For one reader of Suetonius or of Diogenes Laertius, there are a thousand of Plutarch.  Nor is it that the subjects of his biographies are greater or more famous than all other men.  Some of the noblest and best known men of Greece and Rome are omitted from Plutarch’s list.[L] The true grounds of the general popularity of Plutarch’s Lives are not to be found in their subjects so much as in his manner of treating them, and in the qualities of his own nature, as exhibited in his book.  At the tomb of Achilles, Alexander declared that he esteemed him happy in having had so famous a poet to proclaim his actions; and scarcely less fortunate were they who had such a biographer as Plutarch to record their lives.  He himself has given us his conception of the true office of a biographer, and in this has explained in great part the secret of his excellence.  “It must be borne in mind,” he says, “that my design is not to write histories, but lives.  And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.  Therefore, as portrait-painters are more exact in the lines and features of the face, in which the character is seen, than in the other parts of the body, so I must be allowed to give my more particular attention to the marks and indications of the souls of men; and, while I endeavor by these to portray their lives, may be free to leave more weighty matters and great battles to be treated of by others."[M]

[Footnote L:  In Rogers’s Recollections, Grattan is reported as saying,—­“Of all men, if I could call up one, it should be Scipio Africanus.  Hannibal was perhaps a greater captain, but not so great and good a man.  Epaminondas did not do so much.  Themistocles was a rogue.”  It is curious that Themistocles is the only one of these men of whom we have a biography by Plutarch.  His Lives of Scipio and Epaminondas are lost.  Hannibal did not come within the scope of his design.]