* * * * *

That line of Ovid’s,

  “Pronaque cum spectent animalia cetera terram,”

is only applicable in its true physical sense to animals; but in a figurative and spiritual sense, unfortunately, to the great majority of men too.  Their thoughts and aspirations are entirely devoted to physical enjoyment and physical welfare, or to various personal interests which receive their importance from their relation to the former; but they have no interests beyond these.  This is not only shown in their way of living and speaking, but also in their look, the expression of their physiognomy, their gait and gesticulations; everything about them proclaims in terram prona! Consequently it is not to them, but only to those nobler and more highly endowed natures, those men who really think and observe things round them, and are the exceptions in the human race, that the following lines are applicable: 

  “Os homini sublime dedit coelumque tueri
  Jussitt et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.”

* * * * *

Why is “common” an expression of contempt?  And why are "uncommon,” “extraordinary,” “distinguished," expressions of approbation?  Why is everything that is common contemptible?

Common, in its original sense, means that which is peculiar and common to the whole species, that is to say that which is innate in the species.  Accordingly, a man who has no more qualities than those of the human species in general is a “common man” “Ordinary man” is a much milder expression, and is used more in reference to what is intellectual, while common is used more in a moral sense.

What value can a being have that is nothing more than like millions of its kind?  Millions?  Nay, an infinitude, an endless number of beings, which Nature in secula seculorum unceasingly sends bubbling forth from her inexhaustible source; as generous with them as the smith with the dross that flies round his anvil.

So it is evidently only right that a being which has no other qualities than those of the species, should make no claim to any other existence than that confined to and conditioned by the species.

I have already several times explained[14] that whilst animals have only the generic character, it falls to man’s share alone to have an individual character.  Nevertheless, in most men there is in reality very little individual character; and they may be almost all classified. Ce sont des especes.  Their desires and thoughts, like their faces, are those of the whole species—­at any rate, those of the class of men to which they belong, and they are therefore of a trivial, common nature, and exist in thousands.  Moreover, as a rule one can tell pretty exactly beforehand what they will say and do.  They have no individual stamp:  they are like manufactured goods.  If, then, their nature is