rob and spit upon them. The classes he scorned for caring to occupy
themselves with so cheap and sordid a game as the ruling, robbing, and
spitting aforesaid. Coming down to the specific, he despised men as
individuals because he had always found in each and everyone of them a
weakness that made it easy for him to use them as he pleased.

Not an altogether pleasant character, this. But not so unpleasant as it
may seem to those unable impartially to analyze human character, even
their own--especially their own. And let anyone who is disposed to
condemn Norman first look within himself--in some less hypocritical and
self-deceiving moment, if he have such moments--and let him note what
are the qualities he relies upon and uses in his own struggle to save
himself from being submerged and sunk. Further, there were in Norman
many agreeable qualities, important, but less fundamental, therefore
less deep-hidden--therefore generally regarded as the real man and as
the cause of his success in which they in fact had almost no part. He
was, for example, of striking physical appearance, was attractively
dressed and mannered, was prodigally generous. Neither as lawyer nor as
man did he practice justice. But while as lawyer he practiced injustice,
as man he practiced mercy. Whenever a weakling appealed to him for
protection, he gave it--at times with splendid recklessness as to the
cost to himself in antagonisms and enmities. Indeed, so great were
the generosities of his character that, had he not been arrogant,
disdainful, self-confident, resolutely and single-heartedly ambitious,
he must inevitably have ruined himself--if he had ever been able to rise
high enough to be worthy the dignity of catastrophe.

Successful men are usually trying persons to know well. Lambs, asses,
and chickens do not associate happily with lions, wolves, and hawks--nor
do birds and beasts of prey get on well with one another. Norman was