IV.
“There is, by the way, another argument which I remember was once put to me by a friend, and which struck me forcibly at the time.
“My friend, who is something of a scholar, and has not forgotten his Latin, quoted these lines from Virgil:—
Ille pedum melior motu fretusque iuventa;
Hic membris et mole valens; sed tarda trementi
Genua labant, vastos quatit aeger anhelitus artus[3].
“These verses describe the fighting qualities of two heroes, who are about to enter the ring.
“No one, I suppose, would seriously maintain that they ought to be handicapped, that one of them should be made to concede some points in which he is superior, that is to say some of the chances in his favour, while the other retains all that he can muster. And yet can we not easily imagine two men meeting to fight a duel, one of whom has in his favour every chance but one, advantage of reach, dexterity, speed, and swordsmanship, while the other relies only on sound condition and great staying power?
“In an unequal combat such as this, what can the latter do but tire his opponent out, get him thoroughly well blown, and so reduce the balance of advantage, which until then tells with full force against him? The other man who thereupon calls for a truce is practically asking his antagonist to forgo his superiority of sound wind and limb, while he, so far from giving up his own advantages of reach, dexterity, and science, has every intention of making the most of them when the fight begins afresh.
“Then again, the staying power which you handicap, is very likely derived from a well developed chest which incidentally offers a larger target to the adverse point; the greater vigour may be due to the fact that its owner is thick-set, with heavy muscular limbs which make his movements slow and ponderous. Why recognise the inequality of the match in the one case, and disregard it in the other?