assuredly have been a fruitless undertaking.

They chose to have certain ends in view, and to provide the means for
the accomplishment of those ends. There were no delusions, no emotional
disturbance, no hallucinations or illusions, and the will was normally
exercised to the extent necessary to secure the objects of their lives.
At any time they had it in their power to alter their purposes, and in
that fact we have an essential point of difference between eccentricity
and insanity. We may regard their conduct as singular, because they made
an unusual disposition of their property; but it was no more irrational
than if the one had left his estate to the "Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals," and the other had devoted his to sending
missionaries to Central Africa.

Two distinct forms of eccentricity are recognizable. In the one, the
individual sets himself up above the level of the rest of the world,
and, marking out for himself a line of conduct, adheres to it with an
astonishing degree of tenacity. For him the opinions of mankind in
general are of no consequence. He is a law unto himself; what he says
and does is said and done, not for the purpose of attracting attention
or for obtaining notoriety, but because it is pleasing to himself. He
does not mean to be singular or original, but he is, nevertheless, both.
For every man is singular and original whose conduct, within the limits
of reason and intelligence, differs from that of his fellow-men. He
endeavors to carry out certain ideas which seem to him to have been
overlooked by society to its great disadvantage. Society usually thinks
different; but if the promulgator is endowed with sufficient force of
character, it generally happens that, eventually, either wholly or in
part, his views prevail. All great reformers are eccentrics of this
kind. They are contending for their doctrines, not for themselves. And