Question

Compare how Chesterton and the author of “The Instinct that Makes People Rich” interpret the Midas myth. How do these different interpretations support Chesterton’s overall argument?

Answer 1

The writer of "The Instinct that Makes People Rich" interprets the Midas myth as the story of a man who could not fail.

Chesterton, however, says that Midas DID fail. He starved because he could not eat gold.

Chesterton says that success always comes at the sacrifice of something else, something "domestic." (By this he means that, yes, a millionaire has money but will lack something else, like love or friendship, etc.) He says that people who think Midas succeeded are just like the author of the article -- both worship money.

Chesterton says that worshipping money has nothing to do with success and everything to do with snobbery.

Answer 2

In Greek mythology, Midas is a king obsessed with wealth. He asks the gods for the ability to turn anything he touches to gold. The gods grant his wish, and Midas soon realizes this gift is actually a curse. Chesterton uses the story of Midas as an analogy for chasing materialistic success. Much as the authors worship material wealth and pursue it as if it were attainable, Midas learns that his new ability doesn’t help him succeed because it prevents him from performing necessary tasks such as eating. Chesterton reminds readers of the obvious moral of Midas's story and shows that authors who write about success often misinterpret Midas's story—sometimes by using phrases such as "the Midas touch" in a positive light.

Chesterton emphasizes that King Midas is an example of foolishness and failure. He implies that, for the same reason, writers who encourage people to chase material success share Midas's foolishness:

We all know of such men. We are ever meeting or reading about such persons who turn everything they touch into gold. Success dogs their very footsteps. Their life's pathway leads unerringly upwards. They cannot fail.

Unfortunately, however, Midas could fail; he did. His path did not lead unerringly upward. He starved because whenever he touched a biscuit or a ham sandwich it turned to gold. That was the whole point of the story . . .