revalent moral standards of their class, not of rogues and rascals,
which Nicole conceded to be socially useful.[17] Mandeville, on the
other hand, not only lumped the respectable citizens with the rogues
and rascals, but it was the usefulness for society of the vices of the
rogues and rascals more than--and rather than--those of honest and
respectable citizens which he emphasized. In the flourishing hive,
prior to its reform, there were:

... Sharpers, Parasites, Pimps, Players,
Pick-pockets, Coiners, Quacks, South-sayers,

* * *

These were call'd Knaves, but bar the Name,
The grave Industrious were the same.[18]

[16] The most pertinent writings of Nicole for present purposes
were his essays, "De la charite & de l'amour-propre," "De la
grandeur," and "Sur l'evangile du Jeudi-Saint," which in the
edition of his works published by Guillaume Desprez, Paris,
1755-1768, under the title _Essais de morale_, are to be found in
volumes III, VI, and XI.

[17] For a similar distinction by Bayle between _honnetes hommes_
who are not of the elect and the outright rascals, see Pierre
Bayle, _Dictionaire historique et critique_. 5th ed., Amsterdam,
1740, "Eclaircissement sur les obscenites," IV. () iv, p. 649.

[18] _Fable of the Bees_, I. 19.

The moral reform which brought disaster to the "Grumbling Hive"
consisted merely in abandonment of roguery and adoption of the
standards of the _honnete homme_.[19]

[19] In the French versions of 1740 and 1750, the title, _The
Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits_, is
translated as _La fable des abeilles ou les fripons devenus
honnestes gens_.

For the "honnete homme" in 17th and 18th century usage as
intermediate between a knave and a saint, see M. Magendie, _La
politesse mondaine et les theories de l'honnetete en France_,
Paris, n.d., (ca. 1925), and William Empson, _The Structure of
Complex Words_, London, 1951, ch. 9, "Honest Man."

The contrast between his general argument and that of Nicole or Bayle
throws light on the role which Mandeville's professed rigorism played
in the execution of his satirical purposes. It not only supports the
view of all his contemporaries that Mandeville's rigorism was a sham,
but also the view that he was not averse to having its insincerity be
generally detected,