as that he resembled the sun at noonday, that they had to shade their eyes when he entered the room, that his people could not breathe without him, or that he had with his single sword conquered Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.  The safety of this method was its artificiality; between the King and his public image there was really no relation.  But the moderns have invented a much subtler and more poisonous kind of eulogy.  The modern method is to take the prince or rich man, to give a credible picture of his type of personality, as that he is business-like, or a sportsman, or fond of art, or convivial, or reserved; and then enormously exaggerate the value and importance of these natural qualities.  Those who praise Mr. Carnegie do not say that he is as wise as Solomon and as brave as Mars; I wish they did.  It would be the next most honest thing to giving their real reason for praising him, which is simply that he has money.  The journalists who write about Mr. Pierpont Morgan do not say that he is as beautiful as Apollo; I wish they did.  What they do is to take the rich man’s superficial life and manner, clothes, hobbies, love of cats, dislike of doctors, or what not; and then with the assistance of this realism make the man out to be a prophet and a saviour of his kind, whereas he is merely a private and stupid man who happens to like cats or to dislike doctors.  The old flatterer took for granted that the King was an ordinary man, and set to work to make him out extraordinary.  The newer and cleverer flatterer takes for granted that he is extraordinary, and that therefore even ordinary things about him will be of interest.

I have noticed one very amusing way in which this is done.  I notice the method applied to about six of the wealthiest men in England in a book of interviews published by an able and well-known journalist.  The flatterer contrives to combine strict truth of fact with a vast atmosphere of awe and mystery by the simple operation of dealing almost entirely in negatives.  Suppose you are writing a sympathetic study of Mr. Pierpont Morgan.  Perhaps there is not much to say about what he does think, or like, or admire; but you can suggest whole vistas of his taste and philosophy by talking a great deal about what he does not think, or like, or admire.  You say of him—­“But little attracted to the most recent schools of German philosophy, he stands almost as resolutely aloof from the tendencies of transcendental Pantheism as from the narrower ecstasies of Neo-Catholicism.”  Or suppose I am called upon to praise the charwoman who has just come into my house, and who certainly deserves it much more.  I say—­“It would be a mistake to class Mrs. Higgs among the followers of Loisy; her position is in many ways different; nor is she wholly to be identified with the concrete Hebraism of Harnack.”  It is a splendid method, as it gives the flatterer an opportunity of talking about something else besides the subject of the flattery, and it gives the subject of the flattery a rich, if somewhat bewildered, mental glow, as of one who has somehow gone through agonies of philosophical choice of which he was previously unaware.  It is a splendid method; but I wish it were applied sometimes to charwomen rather than only to millionaires.