abjuring meat from
religious scruples,
branded as incorrigibly
lazy by all
his critics, he is yet
as a rule a man in
fine training, full of
mom e n t u m and
vivacity. The criticism
to which he
is subjected on the
score of laziness is
overdone. For there
is laziness and laziness.
There is the
laziness, for instance,
of the man who
s hi r ks work, who
slouches about, with
thin legs, a stooping
back, and an effete
mind ; a man to
whom s t r e nuous
labour is no joy,
y e t a man who
works on, day after
day, putting in his
tale, driven by the
desire for a wage, by
FROM TH E Y AW DW IN
his own prolific pauperism, and the low standard
of
