So now there is a new (a new-old) aristocracy, completely unmysterious and scientific: the aristocracy of money. Have you a million _gold_? (for heaven’s sake, the gold standard!) Then you are a _king_. Have you five hundred thousand? Then you are a lord. “In _my_ country, we’re _all_ kings and queens,” as the American lady said, being a bit sick of certain British snobbery. She was quite right: they are all potential kings and queens. But until they come into their kingdom--five hundred thousand dollars minimum--they might just as well be commoners. Yet even still, there is _natural_ aristocracy. Aristocracy of birth is bunk, when a Kaiser Wilhelm and an Emperor Franz-Josef and a Czar Nicolas is all that noble birth will do for you. Yet the whole of life is established on a natural aristocracy. And aristocracy of birth is a _little_ more natural than aristocracy of money. (Oh, for God’s sake, the gold standard!) But a millionaire can do without birth, whereas birth cannot do without dollars. So, by the all-prevailing law of pragmatism, the dollar has it. What then does _natural_ aristocracy consist in? It’s not just brains! The mind is an instrument, and the _savant_, the professor, the scientist, has been looked upon since the Ptolemies, as a sort of upper servant. And justly. The millionaire has brains too: so does a modern President or Prime Minister. They all belong to the class of upper servants. They serve, forsooth, the public. “Ca, Ca, Caliban! Get a new master, be a new man.” What does a natural aristocracy consist in? Count Keyserling says: “Not in what a man can _do_, but what he _is_.” Unfortunately what a man _is_, is measured by what he can do, even in nature. A nightingale, being a nightingale, can sing: which a sparrow can’t. If you _are_ something you’ll _do_ something, _ipso facto_. The question is what _kind_ of thing can a man do? Can he put more life into us, and release in us the fountains of our vitality? Or can he only help to feed us, and give us money or amusement. The providing of food, money, and amusement belongs, truly, to the servant class. The providing of _life_ belongs to the aristocrat. If a man, whether by thought or action, makes _life_, he is an aristocrat. So Cæsar and Cicero are both strictly aristocrats. Lacking these two, the first century B.C. would have been far less vital, less vividly alive. And Antony, who seemed so much more vital, robust and robustious, was, when we look at it, comparatively unimportant. Cæsar and Cicero lit the flame. How? It is easier asked than answered.