The convention-breaker answers, that to ask this, implies a confounding of two widely-different classes of actions—­the actions that are essentially displeasurable to those around, with the actions that are but incidentally displeasurable to them.  He whose skin is so unclean as to offend the nostrils of his neighbours, or he who talks so loudly as to disturb a whole room, may be justly complained of, and rightly excluded by society from its assemblies.  But he who presents himself in a surtout in place of a dress-coat, or in brown trousers instead of black, gives offence not to men’s senses, or their innate tastes, but merely to their prejudices, their bigotry of convention.  It cannot be said that his costume is less elegant or less intrinsically appropriate than the one prescribed; seeing that a few hours earlier in the day it is admired.  It is the implied rebellion, therefore, that annoys.  How little the cause of quarrel has to do with the dress itself, is seen in the fact that a century ago black clothes would have been thought preposterous for hours of recreation, and that a few years hence some now forbidden style may be nearer the requirements of Fashion than the present one.  Thus the reformer explains that it is not against the natural restraints, but against the artificial ones, that he protests; and that manifestly the fire of sneers and angry glances which he has to bear, is poured upon him because he will not bow down to the idol which society has set up.

Should he be asked how we are to distinguish between conduct that is absolutely disagreeable to others, and conduct that is relatively so, he answers, that they will distinguish themselves if men will let them.  Actions intrinsically repugnant will ever be frowned upon, and must ever remain as exceptional as now.  Actions not intrinsically repugnant will establish themselves as proper.  No relaxation of customs will introduce the practice of going to a party in muddy boots, and with unwashed hands; for the dislike of dirt would continue were Fashion abolished to-morrow.  That love of approbation which now makes people so solicitous to be en regle would still exist—­would still make them careful of their personal appearance—­would still induce them to seek admiration by making themselves ornamental—­would still cause them to respect the natural laws of good behaviour, as they now do the artificial ones.  The change would simply be from a repulsive monotony to a picturesque variety.  And if there be any regulations respecting which it is uncertain whether they are based on reality or on convention, experiment will soon decide, if due scope be allowed.