The world's point of view is success. Therefore this point of view completely changes collectively held opinions when it is a matter of appreciating qualities and talents. Thus, one can hold the following two points as practically certain:
1) when it comes to faculties of the mind, mediocrity is the most advantageous.
2) many qualities are faults, and many faults and vices are qualities.
If, due to a favor from on-high, you had the power to choose among all possible qualities and talents, it is presumed that, seduced by appearances, you would opt for one of the brilliant ones to which the world appears to attach such value. Nevertheless, this would be a bad calculation, because it is averred that the lesser qualities are infinitely more useful than the great ones, and that the great talents are from equally the lesser ones. Thus, exchange much knowledge for a little common sense, much depth for a little surface, several external advantages for it-doesn't-matter-what. With what can one attract crowds, if not small means and crude artifices? What is necessary to get rich? A little order. Protection? A little flexibility. Friends? A certain gaiety. To please women? A certain manner [genre], no more.
Charlatanism is half of savoir-faire.
As a general rule, what is lacking in spirit or imagination profits one's character and understanding of practical life. Thus, a limited mind is not only a condition for happiness, it is a condition for success. The people who have few ideas are less subject to error and more closely follow what they do.
Especially in France, it is very easy to speak with disdain of those whom one calls the stupid people. This is a completely unsupportable locution; the stupid are the people who succeed, who attain, who get rich, who are well paid, well established, the well-placed people, the ones with titles, newly decorated, the deputized, the literary people of renown, the academics, the journalists. Perhaps one can be a fool and make one's affairs so well? Obviously not.
A woman above the norm, whose destiny was tragic,[1] summarized thus the impressions that tested her view of the men of her times:
"The thing that most surprised me, since the promotion of my husband gave me the means to know many people and, in particular, the ones employed in great affairs, is universal mediocrity, which surpasses everything the imagination can represent and in all degrees, from the commissioner to the [government] minister, the general and the ambassador; I would never have believed my species to be so poor without this experience."
If this judgment is correct for the men of an era that passed for having been fecund in organizations, one leaves it to be judged what judgment would be appropriate for the times that followed.
[1] Publisher's footnote: Madame Roland. [Translator:
(Anonymous [Maurice Joly], first published 1868 by Editions Amyot. Reprinted by Editions Allia, 1992. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! May 2008.)