main persuaded that these abominable deeds remained
unknown to Mr. Rhodes and that he would not have tolerated them for one
single instant. They were performed by people who were in possession of
Rhodes' confidence, and who abused it by allowing the world to think that
he encouraged such deeds. Later on it is likely that he became aware of
the abuse that had been made of his name and of the manner in which it had
been put forward as an excuse for inexcusable deeds, but he was far too
indolent and far too indifferent to the blame of the world, at these
particular moments to disavow those who, after all, had helped him in his
schemes of expansion, and who had ministered to his longing to have a
kingdom to himself. Apart from this, he had a curious desire to brave
public opinion and to do precisely the very things that it would have
disapproved. He loved to humiliate those whom he had at one moment thought
he might have occasion to fear. This explains the callousness with which
he made the son of Lobengula one of his gardeners, and did not hesitate to
ask him one day before strangers who were visiting Groote Schuur in what
year he "had killed his father." The incident is absolutely true; it
occurred in my own presence.

At times, such as that related in the paragraph above, Rhodes appeared a
perfectly detestable and hateful creature, and yet he was never sincere
whilst in such moods. A few moments later he would show himself under
absolutely different colours and give proof of a compassionate heart.
Generous to a fault, he liked to be able to oblige his friends, or those
who passed as such, while the charitable acts which he was constantly
performing are too numerous to be remembered. He had a supreme contempt
for money, but he spoiled the best sides of his strange, eccentric
character by enjoying a display of its worst facets with a "cussedness" as
amusing as it was sometimes unpleasant. Is it remarkable, then, that many
people who only saw him in the disagreeable moods should judge him from an
entirely false and misleading point of view?

Rhodes was a man for whom it was impossible to feel indifference; one
either hated him or became fascinated by his curious and peculiar charm.
This quality led many admirers to remain faithful to him even after
disillusion had shattered their former friendship, and who, whilst
refusing to speak to him any more, yet retained for him a deep affection
which not even the conviction that it