The Worship of the Wealthy

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936)

An Analysis by Dr. P. Dalai
Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Banaras Hindu University, India

[Chesterton criticizes the emergence of flattery/euphemism in modern literature and

Journalism. He believes that flattery is common to both old and modern times, but
while the former is simple and obvious, the latter is complex and subtle. He
delineates the difference between these two schools of flattery, and then identifies
various ways of modern flattery like dealing with negatives, reckless use of virtuous
words like ‘simple’, ‘modest’ and ‘quiet’. He cites examples of events and situations,
particularly of the rich and elite people, where we come across such flatteries; the
strangest of these being their funeral ceremony, or the pompous procession of kings.
He therefore warns us about this absurd method of eulogy in order to make literature,
life and profession more real and honest. The essay was published in his collection
of essays All Things Considered (1908). Following is a close analysis of the essay,
divided into convenient paragraphs]
1. “There has crept, I notice, into our literature and journalism a new way of
flattering the wealthy and the great.”
Explanation: Chesterton is shocked to notice how his contemporary literature and journalism have
been vulnerable to flattery with an intention to appease and worship the rich and famous. He has
detected this kind of literary snobbery/flattery/sycophancy/worship in a book containing
interviews of five English wealthy men. Such a combination of euphuism for the wealthy is,
therefore, entitled as ‘worship of the wealthy’
Note: In fact, Chesterton calls this ‘new literature’ as ‘literature of nonsense/nonsense literature’
in his essay ‘A Defense of Nonsense’. He is apprehensive of the influence of capitalism and the
capitalists on literature, language and professions like journalism, the last being a new profession
during 19th century. Equally, he is critical of literature and profession being immoral/amoral due
to such pernicious methods. The word ‘crept’ here suggests the surreptitious strategy of modern
flattery. We can compare this ‘new literature/new strategy’ with ‘post-truth’ in our times.
2. In more straightforward times flattery itself was more straight-forward;
falsehood itself was more true. A poor man wishing to please a rich man simply
said that he was the wisest, bravest, tallest, strongest, most benevolent and most
beautiful of mankind; and as even the rich man probably knew that he wasn't
that, the thing did the less harm. When courtiers sang the praises of a King they

1
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
attributed to him things that were entirely improbable, 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.
Explanation: The author says, flattery/euphemism was also there during the olden times; but
those were more simple and comprehensible rather than subtle or cryptic. Old flatterers
employed falsehood while praising someone, but that ‘false’ was always obvious to others; that
is how their art was not hideous or harmful. For example, a poor man would use all superlatives
for a rich man to get something or a courtier would worship his king with all improbable similes
and metaphors; but all these were as harmless as they were artificial. In this old method, both the
parties, the worshipper and the worshipped, knew that all these praises were not true; and this
obviousness of artificiality in worshiping was a safe character of traditional flattery. A king and
his public descriptions were remotely related; and they all knew it.
3. 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.
Explanation: But unlike the old flatterers, the modern flatterers have invented a more dangerous
art/method of worshipping. The modern method attempts to describe a rich man or prince as they
really are, such as he is a businessman or sports man or a warm or reserved man; but the modern
sycophants end up in exaggerating these natural/real qualities in an inflated and unreal way.
Surprisingly, the ingenious intentions of modern flattery are also hidden and, therefor,e contrary
to the simplicity of old flattery. For example: If Mr. Carnegie is described as wise as Solomon
and as brave as Mars, the flattery here may be discernable as we know that he can’t be Solomon
or Apollo. However, if Carnegie is niftily projected as a prophet only because he performs those
ordinary chores, as others do, like love of cats, dislike of doctors, etc., then the flattery employed
here may be very subtle to understand. It hides the fact that Carnegie is as ordinary and private
as others are. Modern flattery masquerades realistic method to look real but it harbors hideous
intentions of sycophancy.

2
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
Note: This method of realism harbors the subtle art of creating wonder or awe in readers for the
rich man. That is why, they, instead of seeing Carnegie as a rich man, which they actually should
see, see him as a prophet/god. The question arises as to why ordinary likes and dislikes of an
extraordinary rich man are depicted, when we should learn about a rich man’s extraordinary
qualities? The answer may be: either the writer just does his routine duty, or he is simply ignorant
of Carnegie’s extraordinariness.
4. 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.
Explanation: Here, the essayist is differentiating between the old art of flattery and the modern
art of flattery. The old flatterer naively mistook the ordinary man who just happens to be a king
and painted him with superlatives; whereas as the modern flatterer cleverly plots that a rich and
extraordinary person is beyond ordinary things, and therefore paints him with ordinary things to
make him look more interesting.
Note: If the old flattery is simple exaggeration, the modern flattery is subtle simplification. One
is harmless, the other harmful. And this is how the modern flattery has passed to be an art and
has crept into modern literature and professions. Chesterton admonishes this cunningness saying,
“Nothing sublimely artistic has ever arisen out of mere art, any more than anything essentially
reasonable has ever arisen out of the pure reason.”
5. 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."
Explanation: The essayist here reveals the subtle art of the modern flatterers, which may be
another amusing way of modern flattery. He detects this art of dealing with negatives in a book
of interviews published by a journalist. That is how the modern flatterers skillfully sail the
negatives/fakes as facts, generating mystery in readers’ minds. While portraying Morgan, instead
of describing what he actually is, modern flatterer describes what he is not. This is called dealing
with negatives/nots. There is no relationship between transcendentalism and Morgan, yet a
modern journalist would relate the both for describing Morgan in a conceited yet curious way.

3
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India
Note: This akin to the modern slogan of journalism: ‘if it bleeds, it leads.’ Dealing with negatives
could not only be the journalist’s ignorance but also his desperation to supply stories for the next
day. This Chesterton would describe at the end of this essay.
6. 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.
Explanation: The essayist says, this method of dealing with negatives provides a rich,
bewildered, and mental glow both to the flattery and the subject of flattery. Such flattery is an
opportunity for the flatterer to talk more about the subject than what is required. It makes the
character more exotic and splendid. But it would appreciable if such eulogies were used for the
common man like the charwoman than for the people who are already rich and famous.
Note: Chesterton takes a liberal and social stand here in sympathizing with the
charwoman/common men. He is also very critical of employment of falsity in modern literature
and journalism, on one hand, and the modern appetite for fake news, on the other. We can
consider this essay as one of the firsts to deal with fake news and post-truth.
7. There is another way of flattering important people which has become very
common, I notice, among writers in the newspapers and elsewhere. It consists in
applying to them the phrases "simple," or "quiet," or "modest," without any
sort of meaning or relation to the person to whom they are applied. To be simple
is the best thing in the world; to be modest is the next best thing. I am not so sure
about being quiet.
Explanation: Besides the method of dealing with the negatives, there is another way of modern
flattery, which has become very common amongst journalists and writers. That is, indiscriminate
application of virtuous words/phrases without really valuing and comprehending their virtues.
These righteous vocabs such as "simple," "quiet," or "modest," are applied to characters who do
not have any relation with the meaning and qualities of these words. Moreover, qualities of these
words are hard to be ‘represented’ or ‘realized’ by modern characters; no modern man can either
experience or be what is modest, simple or quiet.
Note: So it is not only a fallacy, but also a literary sin to employ these words for selfish
promotions of literature and journalism.
8. These virtues are not things to fling about as mere flattery; many prophets and
righteous men have desired to see these things and have not seen them. But in
the description of the births, lives, and deaths of very luxurious men they are used
incessantly and quite without thought. If a journalist has to describe a great

4
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India

politician or financier (the things are substantially the same) entering a room or
walking down a thoroughfare, he always says, "Mr. Midas was quietly dressed in
a black frock coat, a white waistcoat, and light grey trousers, with a plain green tie
and simple flower in his button-hole." As if any one would expect him to have a
crimson frock coat or spangled trousers. As if any one would expect him to have a
burning Catherine wheel in his button-hole.
Explanation: Virtues of such noble words should not be thrown about irresponsibly. Even saints
and prophets have failed to achieve and understand such virtues; why should they then be used
as tools of flattery? Unfortunately, such virtuous words are incessantly and dishonestly used to
describe the pompous events of luxurious men, the interesting event being their Death. We all
go through the universal experiences of births, death and lives, why should only the rich men’s
birth, death or life be exaggerated at the expense and mockery of such virtuous words. For
example, the use of such words for Mr. Midas and his ostentatious attires.
9. But this process, which is absurd enough when applied to the ordinary and
external lives of worldly people, becomes perfectly intolerable when it is applied,
as it always is applied, to the one episode which is serious even in the lives of
politicians. I mean their death. When we have been sufficiently bored with the
account of the simple costume of the millionaire, which is generally about as
complicated as any that he could assume without being simply thought mad;
when we have been told about the modest home of the millionaire, a home which
is generally much too immodest to be called a home at all; when we have
followed him through all these unmeaning eulogies, we are always asked last of
all to admire his quiet funeral. I do not know what else people think a funeral
should be except quiet.
Explanation: But this absurd process of eulogy becomes more intolerable, when it is applied to
the most universal and common event called Death; and especially the death or funeral
procession of politicians. Is this the last flattery that we are drawn to, after we have been flattered
about everything about him, from his simple costume to modest home, etc? How can a
millionaire politician’s costume be simple; his house be modest? Yet the absurd method of
employing virtuous words is applied to them, even to their death and funeral. Is it not absurd to
read that millionaire’s funeral as it was quiet, where as it was actually a pompous show? For
Chesterton, these descriptions are all un-meaningful eulogies.
Note: Chesterton is shocked at the absurdity of such reckless eulogies. He criticizes how such
loos employments of serious words turn the straight and simple to appear absurd.
10. I well remember that when Beit was buried, the papers said that the mourning-
coaches contained everybody of importance, that the floral tributes were
sumptuous, splendid, intoxicating; but, for all that, it was a simple and quiet
funeral. What, in the name of Acheron, did they expect it to be? Did they think

5
 Dr. P. Dalai Department of English Banaras Hindu University India

there would be human sacrifice—the immolation of Oriental slaves upon the

tomb? Did they think that long rows of Oriental dancing-girls would sway hither
and thither in an ecstasy of lament? Did they look for the funeral games of
Patroclus? I fear they had no such splendid and pagan meaning. I fear they were
only using the words "quiet" and "modest" as words to fill up a page—a mere
piece of the automatic hypocrisy which does become too common among those
who have to write rapidly and often.
Explanation: He cites examples of other royal words such as sumptuous, splendid, intoxicating
that were injudiciously used to describe the funeral of another millionaire Mr Beit. He satirizes
this crude paradox of journalistic mentality here by asking, what else did they expect Mr. Beit’s
funeral to be? A funeral is always quiet, then what is the wisdom of describing it as quite?
Chesterton observes that the journalists do so, as they face professional desperation to fill up the
pages of newspaper. He considers this act of filling up pages of newspapers as automatic
hypocrisy, as the newspapers subsequently promote such hypocritical art amongst the fellow
writers who also master this absurd art to write for their newspapers. Thus, hypocrisy become
automatic and widespread.
11. The word "modest" will soon become like the word "honourable," which is said
to be employed by the Japanese before any word that occurs in a polite sentence,
as "Put honourable umbrella in honourable umbrella-stand;" or "condescend
to clean honourable boots." We shall read in the future that the modest King
went out in his modest crown, clad from head to foot in modest gold and
attended with his ten thousand modest earls, their swords modestly drawn. No!
if we have to pay for splendour let us praise it as splendour, not as simplicity.
When next I meet a rich man I intend to walk up to him in the street and address
him with Oriental hyperbole. He will probably run away.
Explanation: Chesterton is apprehensive that if such irresponsible and incessant use of noble
words/phrases are not checked, then, one day, they will be used for wrong reasons like the
Japanese using ‘Honourbale’ for boots and shoe-stand. Chesterton gives a ‘No!’ to such flattery,
rather suggests to imbibe the most forward and direct method of describing something splendid
as splendid, or simple as simple. Otherwise, people will run away from literature and journalism
as a rich man would run away from Chesterton if he, on his meeting with a rich man on street,
addresses him with all Oriental Hyperboles.
The End!