CHAPTER V.

THE MORALITY OF CARD-PLAYING.

All writers who have investigated the principles of morality agree in

the condemnation of Gaming,--that is, playing at any game of hazard for

the sake of gain. With respect to the lawfulness, however, of playing

at such games at leisure hours, for the sake of recreation, and without

any sordid desire of gain, there is, amongst such authorities, a

difference of opinion: some holding that, in the moral code, such games

are, at all times, and under all circumstances, unlawful; while others

affirm that, under the conditions mentioned, they are innocent. The

former opinion has been espoused by many theologians, who, not content

with condemning games of hazard as immoral, have also, with more zeal

than knowledge, denounced them as sinful, and forbidden by the word of

God. The arguments, however, of such teachers have been ably refuted

by the learned Thomas Gataker, in his work 'On the Nature and Use of

Lots,' the first edition of which appeared in 1619. He has clearly

shown that the texts alleged by the opposite party do not bear the

construction which had been put upon them; and that, consequently, the

so-called word of God was nothing more than the dogma of fallible men.

The controversy respecting the sinfulness of games of hazard, on

scriptural grounds, seems to have commenced in England about the

latter end of the sixteenth century, with a small tract written by a

Puritanical clergyman of the name of Balmford, who appears, at the time

of its first publication, to have exercised his ministerial functions

at Newcastle-on-Tyne.[314] The title of Balmford's tract is 'A Short

and Plain Dialogue concerning the Unlawfulness of playing at Cards or

Tables, or any other Game consisting in chance.' The only copy that I

have seen occurs in a collection of tracts by the same author, with the

general title, 'Carpenters Chippes: or Simple Tokens of unfeined good

will, to the Christian friends of James Balmford, the unworthy Servant

of Jesus Christ, a poor Carpenters sonne.' 16mo. Printed at London, for

Richard Boyle, 1607. The following dedication of the tract on gaming

is dated 1st of January, 1593: "To the right worshipfull Master Lionel

Maddison, Maior, the Aldermen his brethern, and the godly Burgesses of

Newcastle-upon-Tine, James Balmford wisheth the kingdom of God and his

righteousnesse, that other things may be ministered unto them.--That

which heretofore I have propounded to you (right worshipfull and

beloved) in teaching, I doe now publish to all men by printing, to wit

mine opinion of the unlawfulness of games consisting in chance."

Balmford's tract is a very short one, consisting of only eight

leaves, inclusive of the dedication and title. The speakers in the

dialogue are Professor and Preacher. The Professor had read, in the

Common-places of Peter Martyr, the declaration that dice-play is

unlawful, because depending on chance; but not being satisfied with

what is there said about table-playing, he craves the Preacher's

opinion concerning playing at tables and cards. The Preacher, after

propounding several objections to the games on moral grounds, thus

syllogistically determines that games of chance are unlawful: "Lots

are not to be used in sport; but games consisting in chance, as Dice,

Cards, Tables, are Lots: therefore not to be used in sport." In support

of this conclusion, he refers to Joshua, xviii, 10; I. Samuel, xiv,

41; Jonah, i, 7; Malachi, i, 6-7; and Hebrews, vi, 16. Lots, he says,

were sanctified to a peculiar use, namely, to end controversies. On

those grounds he absolutely condemns all games depending on chance.

The plea in favour of play merely for amusement he rejects; being of

opinion that, if such games were even lawful, the desire of gain would

soon creep in; for, according to the common saying, "Sine lucro friget

ludus,--No gaining, cold gaming."

Several continental divines, of the reformed party, had previously

expressed similar opinions,[315] but without exciting much remark;

and the question seems to have been regarded as one of mere

scholastic theology, until the differences between the Puritans and

the High-church party, in the reign of James I, caused it to be

treated as a question of practical religion. The question appears to

have occasioned great heats in the University of Cambridge; for Mr.

William Ames, being then Fellow of Christ's College, having preached

at St. Mary's, in 1610, against playing at cards and dice, as being

forbidden by Scripture, his discourse gave so much offence to persons

in authority that he withdrew from the University in order to avoid

expulsion. Ames subsequently was appointed Professor of Theology at

the University of Franeker, in Friesland; and was one of the principal

opponents of Gataker in the controversy on Lots.

The question respecting the lawfulness of games of chance has been

thoroughly investigated, both morally and theologically, by Barbeyrac,

in his 'Traité du Jeu;'[316] and his determination is, that such games

are not in themselves immoral, whether the stakes be small or great;

and that they are not forbidden, either directly or indirectly, by the

Scriptures. In the Preface he thus speaks of the probable effect of the

absolute condemnation of all games of hazard, on the assumed ground of

their being both immoral in themselves, and forbidden by the Scriptures.

"I am not surprised that Gataker should have found so much opposition

on the points which he maintained, considering the times in which he

wrote. It, however, appears strange to me that, in an age when so

many prejudices, both philosophical and theological, have been shook

off, there should still be found people, who, looking only at the

abuses which may arise in the use of things indifferent in themselves,

condemn such things as absolutely evil, on grounds either frivolous or

extremely doubtful. Such condemnation, so far from correcting those who

are addicted to such abuses, is more likely to confirm them in their

course. Nothing but the evidence of truth can enlighten the mind, and

thus make an impression on the heart. False lights and subtleties,

however specious, will never dissipate the illusions produced by

favorite passions. Such passions, indeed, acquire new force as soon as

a plausible pretext for their indulgence is discovered in the weakness

of the arguments with which they are assailed; while, by attacking them

in a proper manner, he who has been deluded by them may be induced to

open his eyes to the truth, and to perceive his errors. If, by such

means, a reformation is not effected, it is in consequence of the same

obstacles which render unavailing whatever may be alleged against

things which are, from their very nature, unquestionably evil. I doubt

much if a gamester were ever deterred from play by the reasons brought

forward to persuade him that the practice was a profanation of Divine

Providence. If the sermons and writings asserting such principles have

produced any good effect, it is in consequence of their containing also

solid reasons derived from the abuse of the thing confounded with its

mere usage. The former have produced little or no impression; and it is

to the latter alone that the victory is to be ascribed."

As Barbeyrac's work is not common, and has never been translated into

English, it is presumed that the following extracts from it will not

be uninteresting to the reader. "It is certain that Man was not sent

into the world to pass his time in eating, drinking, and merry-making.

On the contrary, everything shows that he is destined by his Creator

to be employed in matters of utility and serious consideration. The

natural use of all our faculties has this manifest tendency. We have

Mind only that we may think: we have Hands and Feet only that we may

move and act. Who could suppose that this industry, this address,

this penetration,--all these wonderful talents, capable of producing

the Sciences and Arts,--were given to us only to be concealed, or to

be shamefully wasted, either in sluggish idleness, or in a perpetual

round of dissipation and amusement? The necessity of providing for our

wants,--an obligation common to all in a state of nature,--requires

that most men should apply themselves to work of some kind or other;

and even those who have the means of living without labour are yet

not exempt from the duty of applying themselves to some creditable

employment, which may not only secure them against the temptations of

idleness, but may also render them useful members of society.

"But though the All-wise Creator has made Man for labour, he has

not made him for incessant labour, without relaxation. The same

constitution of our nature which displays the necessity of action,

also shows that we ought occasionally to rest. Our bodies are not of

iron, nor our spirits of unwearied activity; and the human machine

soon gets out of order when unremittingly worked.... We are not long

in perceiving that too intent an application to any work weakens the

strength of the body, and lessens the activity of the mind. The way

to become disgusted with anything, is to be unremittingly employed

about it. Thus, the very obligation to work requires that our labour

should be sometimes intermitted, in order that we may not sink under

it, but be enabled to resume it with vigour. 'To take recreation, in

order to make progress with our work,' was the judicious maxim of an

ancient sage.[317] Rest is the seasoning of labour;[318] and we ought

to combine them so that a just medium may be preserved. Consult nature,

and she will tell you that she has made the day and the night to mark

the hours of labour and of repose,[319] and to teach us that each is

equally indispensable to life. A life undiversified with a festival is

like a long journey without an inn.[320] Such is the language of pagan

philosophers, and such are the ideas which pure reason suggests.

"Revelation teaches us the same. The Night was made for the repose

of all living things; and the Sabbath was partly instituted for the

recreation of slaves and servants, who otherwise might have had

masters so harsh as to pay no regard to the weakness of human nature.

This festival [Fête], as well as all the others appointed by the law,

were times both of rest and enjoyment for the whole of the people of

God. Thus, so far from morality or religion forbidding every kind

of recreation, it may be asserted that they require us to take such

as may be becoming and convenient, whenever it may be requisite to

thus re-invigorate our powers when exhausted by labour. It would at

least be ungrateful to haughtily reject the innocent pleasures which

the kindness of the Deity allows to man; and it would be unjust to

arbitrarily condemn those who discreetly avail themselves of such

enjoyments.

"There are, however, people who unreasonably suppose that abuse and use

cannot be separated, and who, forming to themselves I know not what

mystical notions of virtue and piety, would persuade us that every kind

of diversion is unworthy of a reasonable being,--'a low amusement,'

'a deceitful pleasure,' 'a consequence of man's fallen nature.' Such

persons may be allowed to aspire to a state of perfection which perhaps

may be beyond the reach of human nature, and which is certainly

unattainable by the great mass of mankind; they ought, however, to

allow those who are doubtful of their own powers of arriving at such

perfection, to humbly follow the path which Nature and Providence have

pointed out, and to possess their souls in peace, and their conscience

without scruple.

* * * * *

"We maintain, then, as an irrefragable principle, that, for the sake

of relaxation, we may indulge in such amusements as are in themselves

free from vice. This being admitted, if a person finds pleasure in

playing at Billiards, at Tennis, at Chess, at Cards, at Backgammon, and

even at Dice, why may he not amuse himself with them, as well as in

Promenading, with Music, in the Chase, in Fishing, in Drawing, and in a

thousand other things of a similar kind? The question then is, whether

the game be for nothing or for a stake of some value. In the first

case, it is a mere recreation, and bears not the slightest semblance

of criminality; and with regard to the second, I do not see why there

should be any evil in it, looking at the matter simply, without regard

to circumstances.

"For if I am at liberty to promise and give my property, absolutely

and unconditionally, to whomever I please, why may I not promise and

give a certain sum, in the event of a person proving more fortunate, or

more skillful than I with respect to the result of certain movements

and combinations, upon which we had previously agreed? And why may not

this person fairly avail himself of the result either of his skill or

of a favorable concurrence of fortuitous circumstances, on the issue

of which I had voluntarily contracted an obligation? Even though but

one of the parties obtains an advantage, yet there would be nothing

contrary to equity in the transaction, providing that the terms had

been previously agreed on by both. Every person is at liberty to

determine the conditions on which he will cede a right to another,

and may even make it dependent on the most fortuitous circumstances.

_A fortiori_, a person may fairly avail himself of his winning, when

he has risked on the event as much as he was likely to gain. In fact,

play [le jeu] is a kind of contract; and in every contract the mutual

consent of the parties is the supreme law: this is an incontestable

maxim of natural equity.[321]

"In the Scriptures we do not find games of hazard forbid. The ancient

Jews appear to have been entirely ignorant of this kind of recreation,

and even the name for it is not to be found in the Old Testament. On

the dispersion of the Jews, however, after the Babylonian captivity,

they learnt to play from the Greeks and Romans, as may be inferred

from the cases of conscience on this subject discussed by the Rabbis.

Notwithstanding this, games of hazard are nowhere forbidden in the

New Testament, though no tolerance is there shown to any kind of

vice. There is, indeed, only one passage that contains the least

allusion to play; and even in this, the term--which is metaphorically

derived from a game of hazard,--when taken in the worst sense, would

only amount to a condemnation of the abuse of play.[322] If in some

versions a word,--ραιζειν--used by St. Paul, in his First Epistle to

the Corinthians, chap. x, v. 7, has been translated '_jouer_,' it is

merely in consequence of the equivocal signification of this word,

or perhaps from the original term not being fully understood, which

in this place signifies 'to dance,' as is apparent from the passage

in the Old Testament to which it alludes, _Exodus_, xxii, 6. From

the profound silence of the sacred writers, and from other reasons

already advanced, it may, in my judgment, be safely concluded that play

considered in itself, and apart from its abuse, is a matter of perfect

indifference.[323]

"Few persons are so rigid as to condemn absolutely games of every kind;

an exception being usually made in favour of those which are determined

by skill alone. Most theologians and casuists, however, have pronounced

strongly against all games into which hazard enters, as if such were

at all times unlawful. The Rabbis, who are of the same opinion, and

who even consider them as means of fraud between Jew and Jew, assert

that 'a man, during the whole course of his life, should do nothing but

devote himself to the study of the law and of wisdom, to the practice

of charity, or to some employment or business which may be serviceable

to the community.'[324] If this decision be taken literally, it is

manifestly absurd, and requires no further notice. Even in putting a

reasonable interpretation upon these words, and considering them as

condemnatory of such persons as employ themselves in play alone, they

still do not apply to play, considered in itself, but merely restrain

it to its legitimate use. The Jewish doctors themselves acknowledge

that the prohibitions of play in force amongst them, are founded on

the regulations of their ancestors; that is, that they are not derived

either from the law of Nature, or the positive ordinances of God; but

that they depend entirely on the civil law established by those who had

the power of making new regulations whenever such might appear to be

necessary for the welfare of the state. This is so true, that they in a

manner permitted Jews to play at games of hazard with Gentiles: at any

rate, their prohibition was extremely feeble, since they declared that,

in such a case, a Jew was only culpable of having spent his time about

a frivolous thing.

"Among the works of St. Cyprian we find a treatise, or kind of homily,

on gaming,--De Aleatoribus,--which though of high antiquity, and

evidently written by a Bishop, is probably not the composition of the

saint to whom it has usually been ascribed. The author, whoever he may

have been, calls games of hazard the nets of the devil; and affirms

that they were invented by a certain learned man at the prompting

of the evil spirit, and that he placed his portrait and name on the

instruments of the game in order that he might be worshipped by those

who used them.[325] He, consequently, maintains that whoever plays at

such games offers sacrifice to their author, and thus commits an act

of idolatry. Such chimerical arguments, when divested of all figure,

only show that games of hazard are frequently the cause of disorder. A

Flemish clergyman, in a historical treatise on this subject, published

about the middle of the seventeenth century, gravely maintains that all

games of hazard are contrary to every one of the ten commandments.[326]

It may be easily imagined that he is obliged to employ many devices

in order to give a colour of plausibility to this paradox; and that

whenever he advances anything really pertinent, it applies only to

the abuses, which, more or less, may insinuate themselves into every

kind of game. A prelate of distinguished merit, Sidonius Apollinaris,

Bishop of Clermont, in Auvergne, who flourished in the fifth century,

was of a different way of thinking; for he was accustomed to amuse

himself at Trictrac, as he relates in his letters without testifying

any compunction, and without even saying that he had abandoned the

amusement on his being advanced to the office of Bishop, though he

mentions that he had then given up poetry.

"Others have imagined that they have discovered in the very nature

of games of hazard something which renders them essentially sinful;

supporting their views by an argument which, though extremely specious,

is yet easily refuted. For instance, they say that God presides over

what we call chance, and directs it in a special manner; and that,

as chance enters into all games of hazard, such games are manifestly

sinful as requiring the intervention of Divine Providence in affairs

which are not only trivial, but also subject to many incommodities.

"This conclusion would be demonstrative if the principle from which it

is drawn were true; but how is it known that the results of chance are

always determined by the special will of the Deity? Is his intervention

directly perceptible, or can it be known by any apparent indication?

From the knowledge that we have of his goodness and wisdom, can it

reasonably be supposed that he does so intervene? On the contrary,

is it not derogatory to the Supreme Being to suppose that he should

immediately interfere in affairs of such small consequence as most of

those are which are determined amongst men by means of lots or chance?

The very supposition contains within itself the best reasons for

concluding it to be untenable.

"If the Deity indeed were to act by a special will in all matters

which are determined by lot or chance, and more especially in games

of hazard, it would hence follow: 1. That men have the power to

compel, and in a manner, force the Deity to exercise an especial

Providence whenever they may think good; for it is certain that they

can determine some matters by lot whenever they please. 2. It will

also follow that the Deity 'performs miracles every day in favour of

persons who are most assuredly undeserving of them, and in places

where no one could suspect that his presence would be displayed in

a manner so extraordinary.'[327] Besides, what likelihood is there

that, when a couple of lacqueys or porters sit down to play at dice or

lansquenet, Providence should more especially interfere in their game

than in events which affect the destiny of nations, such as battles,

revolutions, and other important actions of a similar kind? There is

even something ridiculous in supposing that when two men are playing

at draughts, or billiards, their game is only the object of common and

ordinary Providence, but that when they sit down to play at dice or

cards, a special Providence then intervenes, and determines the chances

of the game[328]....

"I am, however, willing to allow that even at play there may sometimes

be an extraordinary manifestation of Providence, either directly,

or by means of some invisible intelligence determining the lot or

chance. I can conceive that the Deity should dispose of events in such

a manner that a worthy man, for instance, who might be in danger of

giving himself entirely up to play, should be cured of his passion by

a great and sudden loss. But, even admitting this, there is no reason

to conclude that the Deity interferes on all occasions, and in favour

of all sorts of people; and, after all, without a direct revelation,

it never can be positively known that he really does interfere in such

matters. I could just as readily believe what the eloquent Jesuit

Maffei relates of Ignatius Loyola, in his life of that saint; namely,

that, playing one day at billiards with a gentleman, who had urged him

to try the game, he, by a miracle, proved the winner, as he was utterly

unacquainted with the game."[329]

In concluding the first book, Barbeyrac observes: "To refute in detail

all the objections of rigid moralists would require an entire volume.

What I have already said, however, appears to me sufficient to remove

any vain scruples which may have been excited on the subject. I am,

indeed, rather apprehensive that those who are too fond of play will

think that I might have spared myself the trouble of proving that which

they had no doubts about; and that it was quite unnecessary to explain

to them at so great length that play, considered in itself, contains

nothing contrary to the law of Nature or the precepts of the Gospel.

The plan of the work, however, required that I should commence with

this; and the opportunity being thus afforded of showing the fallacy

of the austere portrait which some writers have drawn of Christian

morality, I have availed myself of it. On this subject I also feel

myself justified in referring to the schools of Pagan philosophy,

where we are taught that 'we should do nothing without being able to

give a reason for it; in small matters as well as in great.'[330] Now,

assuming that out of a hundred persons who are accustomed to play

daily, there is scarcely one who has ever asked himself how, or in what

manner, it may be lawful, it is not surprising that so many people

should convert a thing in itself perfectly harmless into a subject of

disorder, employing it as a means of gratifying their inordinate love

of pleasure, their idleness, or their avarice."

In the second book, wherein he discusses the essentials of play--le

Jeu--he distinguishes three kinds of games: 1, Games of pure skill;

2, Games of pure chance; and, 3, Games which depend partly on skill

and partly on chance. Games of skill are those which depend on manual

dexterity, bodily agility, or mental acuteness: Billiards, Racket,

Quoits, Cricket, Draughts, and Chess are of this kind. Games of

pure chance are those in which the event, though brought about by

the instrumentality of the players, is yet absolutely beyond their

direction or control: of this kind are Dice, and certain games at

cards, such as Basset, Brelan, Lansquenet, Rouge-et-Noir, and Faro.

In the third kind, such as Backgammon and most of the usual games at

cards,[331] the effects of chance may in some degree be counteracted

by a skilful application of principles derived from a knowledge of the

various combinations which result from the conventional rules of the

game. In all games for any considerable stake, that is, with regard to

the means of the parties, it is necessary that the players should be as

nearly as possible equal in point of skill; for, in this case, the game

becomes a kind of traffic, and is subject to all the conditions of an

equitable contract.

Most persons who play for high stakes, either at games of pure chance

or of chance and skill combined, make more or less a traffic of their

amusement; and risk their own money from a desire of winning that of

another. In all such cases, gaming is a positive evil to society,

and is utterly inexcusable, much less justifiable, on any grounds

whatever; and all who thus venture large sums may be justly required to

show by what right they possess them. When a fool or a knave is thus

stripped of a large property, his loss is a matter of small import

to society; the true evil is, that so large a portion of national

wealth, created by the industry of others, should be at the disposal of

such a character, and should be allowed to pass, on such a contract,

to another even more worthless than himself. This objection has not

been urged in any of the numerous sermons and essays that have been

published against gaming; the authors of which, generally, instead of

showing that society has both the power and the right to correct such

abuses by depriving the offending parties of the means of continuing

them, have contented themselves with declamations on the wickedness

of the pursuit, and with vain appeals to the conscience of inveterate

gamesters: while they whistle to the deaf adder, they never seem to

suspect that it may be easily dispatched with a stick.--But such abuses

in society are never remedied till the HERACLIDÆ acquire a knowledge

of their rights, as well as a consciousness of their power.

The appeal to the vanity of men of "rank and education"[332] in order

to shame them out of their love of play is as futile in its effects

as it is wrong in principle; for it tends only to nourish in them

feelings of self-conceit, and to induce them to think rather of the

deficiencies of the low-born men, whose money they are eager to win,

than to consider their own dereliction of duty, in playing for large

sums, with any one. At the gaming-table, a community of feeling levels

all the artificial distinctions of rank; and the rude plebeian who

covers the high-born noble's stake is just as good, for all intents

and purposes of play, as that noble himself. The condescension of the

noble to play with a costermonger for the sake of winning his money, is

fully compensated by the other's willingness to afford him a chance.

The annals of gaming sufficiently show that rank is no guarantee of a

gamester's honesty; and in the case of Lord De Ros _versus_ Cumming,

tried before Lord Denman, 10th of February, 1837, it would appear that

the rank of the fraudulent gamester screened him for several years,

with one party at least, from being denounced. Sir William Ingilby,

in his examination, stated that he had seen Lord De Ros perform the

trick of reversing the cut, and thus secure himself an ace or a king

for the turn-up card, at least fifty times; and that he first observed

his lordship do it "about four, five, or six years ago." When asked

why he did not denounce Lord De Ros after he had become aware of

his fraudulent tricks, he gives the following answer: "I did not

mention the matter publicly for this reason:--I considered that if

an obscure and humble individual like myself, not possessed of his

rank, were to attempt to go up to a peer of the realm, who held a high

station in society, and who at the same time was regarded by all his

associates, and by the world in general, as a man of unimpeachable

character, and say, 'My lord, you are cheating;' if, I say, I, that

humble individual, had addressed Lord De Ros in these terms,--if I had

denounced a peer of the realm, and a man of such general popularity,

I should instantly have gathered around me a host of persons; and I

take it, as a matter of course, I should have had no choice between

the door and the window." Notwithstanding that the honorable baronet

was aware of the fraudulent practice of the right honorable peer, it

seems that he still continued to play with him; but it does not appear

that he was particularly attentive to his lordship's trick of reversing

the cut,--_sauter la coupe_,--when he had him for a partner.[333] If

Sir William Ingilby's fears were well founded, it seems reasonable to

conclude that those who would have "pitched him out of the window,"

for exposing the fraudulent tricks of a peer, must have been persons

of similar character to the party denounced; and that their conduct in

such a case would not have been influenced by a regard for the honour

of a peer of the realm, but would rather have been the result of the

vexation which they felt at the public exposure of one of their own

stamp. On this trial, one of the witnesses admitted that he had won

£35,000 at cards in the course of fifteen years. This is certainly a

large sum, but nothing to be compared to the winnings of some men by

their gambling in railway shares within the last ten years. Lord De

Ros failed in his action; the fact of cheating which had been alleged

against him having been clearly proved. He did not long survive the

disgraceful exposure; and Theodore Hook is said to have embalmed his

memory in the following epitaph: "HERE LIES ENGLAND'S PREMIER BARON

PATIENTLY AWAITING THE LAST _TRUMP_."[334]

On the question of the lawfulness of playing at cards for the sake

of amusement, and not from the mere desire of gain, many persons of

eminent piety have held the affirmative in their writings; and a far

greater number of the same class have testified, by their practice,

their concurrence in the same opinion. "Many fierce declamations," says

Jeremy Taylor, "from ancient sanctity have been uttered against cards

and dice, by reason of the craft used in the game, and the consequent

evils, as invented by the Devil. And, indeed, this is almost the whole

state of the question; for there are so many evils in the use of

these sports, they are made trades of fraud and livelihood, they are

accompanied so with drinking and swearing, they are so scandalous by

blasphemies and quarrels, so infamous by misspending precious time,

and the ruin of many families, they so often make wise men fools and

slaves of passion, that we may say of those who use them inordinately,

they are in an ocean of mischief, and can hardly swim to shore without

perishing.... He can never be suspected in any criminal sense to tempt

the Divine Providence, who by contingent things recreates his labour,

and having acquired his refreshment hath no other end to serve, and

no desires to engage the Divine Providence to any other purpose....

A man may innocently, and to good purposes go to a tavern, but they

who frequent them have no excuse, unless their innocent business does

frequently engage, and their severe religion bring them off safely.

And so it is in these sports; there is only one cause of using them,

and that comes but seldom, the refreshment, I mean, of myself or my

friend, to which I minister in justice or in charity; but when our

sports come to that excess, that we long and seek for opportunities;

when we tempt others, are weary of our business, and not weary of our

game; when we sit up till midnight, and spend half days, and that

often too; then we have spoiled the sport,--it is not a recreation,

but a sin.... He that means to make his games lawful, must not play

for money, but for refreshment. This, though few may believe, yet is

the most considerable thing to be amended in the games of civil and

sober persons. For the gaining of money can have no influence in the

game to make it the more recreative, unless covetousness holds the

box.... But when money is at stake, either the sum is trifling, or it

is considerable. If trifling, it can be of no purpose unless to serve

the ends of some little hospitable entertainment or love-feast, and

then there is nothing amiss; but if considerable, a wide door is opened

to temptation, and a man cannot be indifferent to win or lose a great

sum of money, though he can easily pretend it. If a man be willing

or indifferent to lose his own money, and not at all desirous to get

another's, to what purpose is it that he plays for it? If he be not

indifferent, then he is covetous or he is a fool: he covets what is

not his own, or unreasonably ventures that which is. If without the

money, he cannot mind his game, then the game is no divertisement, no

recreation, but the money is all the sport, and therefore covetousness

is all the design; but if he can be recreated by the game alone, the

money does but change it from lawful to unlawful, and the man from

being weary to become covetous; and from the trouble of labour or

study, remove him to the worse trouble of fear, or anger, or impatient

desires. Here begins the mischief, here men begin for the money to use

vile arts; here cards and dice begin to be diabolical, when players are

witty to defraud and undo one another; when estates are ventured, and

families are made sad and poor by a luckless chance. And what sport

is it to me to lose my money, if it be at all valuable? and if it be

not, what is it to my game? But sure the pleasure is in winning the

money; that certainly is it. But they who make pastime of a neighbour's

ruin, are the worst of men, said the comedy. But concerning the loss

of our money, let a man pretend what he will, that he plays for no

more than he is willing to lose, it is certain that we ought not to

believe him; for if that sum is so indifferent to him, why is not he

easy to be tempted to give such a sum to the poor? Whenever this is

the case, he sins, that games for money beyond an inconsiderable sum.

Let the stake be nothing, or almost nothing, and the cards or dice are

innocent, and the game as innocent as push-pin.... In plays and games,

as in other entertainments, we must neither do evil, nor seem to do

evil; we must not converse with evil persons, nor use our liberty to a

brother's prejudice or grief. We must not do anything, which he, with

probability, or with innocent weakness, thinks to be amiss, until he be

rightly instructed; but where nothing of these things intervene, and

nothing of the former evils is appendant, we may use our liberty with

reason and sobriety: and then, if this liberty can be so used, and such

recreations can be innocent, as they assuredly may, there is no further

question, but those trades, which minister to these divertisements, are

innocent and lawful."[335]

Nelson, the pious author of the 'Fasts and Festivals of the Church of

England,' and of the 'Practice of True Devotion,' had no objection to

cards. "Sober persons," says he, in the last-mentioned work, "do not

make a business of what they should only use as a diversion." The Rev.

Augustus Toplady, so well known for his high Calvinistic principles,

used to occasionally amuse himself with a game at cards; and in a

letter dated "Broad Hembury, Nov. 19th, 1773," he thus expresses

himself on the subject of recreations in which clergymen may innocently

indulge.[336]

"I do not think that honest Martin Luther committed sin by playing at

Backgammon for an hour or two after dinner in order, by unbending his

mind, to promote digestion.

"I cannot blame the holy martyr Bishop Ridley for frequently playing at

Tennis before he became a prelate, nor for playing at the more serious

game of Chess twice a day after he was made a bishop.

"As little do I find fault with another of our most exemplary martyrs,

the learned and devout Mr. Archdeacon Philpot; who has left it on

record as a brand on Pelagians of that age, that 'they looked on

honeste pastyme as a sinne;' and had the impudence to call him an

Antinomian and a loose moralist, because he now and then relaxed his

bow with 'huntinge, shootynge, bowlynge, and such like.'

"Nor can I set down pious Bishop Latimer for such an enemy to holiness

of life on account of his saying that hunting is a good exercise for

men of rank, and that shooting is as lawful an amusement for persons of

inferior class.

"I have not a whit the worse opinion of the eminent and profound Mr.

Thomas Gataker for the treatise which he professedly wrote to prove the

lawfulness of card-playing, under due restrictions and limitations.

* * * * *

"I cannot condemn the Vicar of Broad Hembury [Mr. Toplady himself]

for relaxing himself now and then among a few select friends with a

rubber of sixpenny Whist, a pool of penny Quadrille, or a few rounds of

twopenny Pope Joan. To my certain knowledge, the said vicar has been

cured of headache by one or other of those games, after spending eight,

ten, or twelve, and sometimes sixteen hours in his study. Nor will he

ask any man's leave for so unbending himself--because another person's

conscience is no rule to his, any more than another person's stature or

complexion."

John Wesley, when a young man at college, and before his thorough

conversion, appears to have been fond of a game at cards. Tate

Wilkinson, writing in 1790, says: "Mr. Wesley, about four years ago,

in the fields at Leeds, for want of room for his congregation in his

tabernacle, gave an account of himself, by informing us, that when

he was at college, he was particularly fond of the devil's pops (or

cards); and said, that every Saturday he was one of a constant party at

Whist, not only for the afternoon, but also for the evening; he then

mentioned the names of several respectable gentlemen who were with him

at college.--'But,' continued he, 'the latter part of my time there I

became acquainted with the Lord; I used to hold communication with him.

On my first acquaintance, 'I used to talk with the Lord once a week,

then every day, from that to twice a day, till at last the intimacy so

increased, that He appointed a meeting once in every four hours.... He

recollected, he said, the last Saturday he ever played at cards, that

the rubber at Whist was longer than he expected; and on observing the

tediousness of the game, he pulled out his watch, when, to his shame,

he found it was some minutes past eight, which was beyond the time he

had appointed to meet the Lord.--He thought the devil had certainly

tempted him to stay beyond his hour; he therefore suddenly gave his

cards to a gentleman near him to finish the game, and went to the place

appointed, beseeching forgiveness for his crime, and resolved never to

play with the devil's pops again. That resolution he had never broken;

and what was more extraordinary, that his brother and sister, though

distant from Cambridge, experienced signs of grace on that same day, on

that same hour, in the month of October."[337]

On the subject of card-playing, even for the sake of amusement,

two distinguished laymen, John Locke and Dr. Johnson, appear to

have entertained different opinions. The former, in his Treatise on

Education, says, "As to cards and dice, I think the safest and best way

is never to learn any play upon them, and so to be incapacitated for

those dangerous temptations and incroaching wasters of useful time."

Dr. Johnson, on the contrary, regretted that he had not learnt to play

at cards, giving, at the same time, as his reason: "It is very useful

in life; it generates kindness, and consolidates society."[338] The

opinion of a living Professor of Moral Philosophy, on the subject

of card-playing, may be gathered from the following dialogue between

Christopher North and the Ettrick Shepherd.[339]

"NORTH.

Gaming is not a vice, then, in the country, James?

SHEPHERD.

There's little or nae sic thing as gamblin' in the kintra, sir. You'll

fin' a pack o' cairds in mony o' the houses--but no in them a'--for

some gude fathers o' families think them the deevil's buiks, and sure

aneuch when ower muckle read they begin to smell o' sulphur and Satan.

NORTH.

Why, James, how can old people, a little dim-eyed or so, while an

occasional evening away better than at an innocent and cheerful game at

cards?

SHEPHERD.

Haud your haun' a wee, Mr. North. I'm no saying onything to the

reverse. But I was sayin' that there are heads o' families that abhor

cairds, and would half-kill their sons and daughters were they to bring

a pack into the house. Neither you nor me wull blame them for sic

savin' prejudice. The austere Calvinistic spirit canna thole to think

that the knave o' spades should be lying within twa three inches o' the

Bible. The auld stern man wud as soon forgie the introduction into the

house o' base ballads o' sinfu' love--and wishes that the precincts be

pure o' his ain fire-side. Though I take a ggem o' whust now and then

mysel, yet I boo to the principle, and I venerate the adherence till't

in the high-souled patriarchs of the Covenant.

NORTH.

Perhaps such strict morality is scarcely practicable in our present

condition.

SHEPHERD.

What, do you mainteen that cairds are absolutely necessary in a puir

man's house? Tuts! As for auld dim-eyed people, few o' them, except

they be blin' a'thegither, that canna read big prent wi' powerfu'

specs, and they can aye get, at the warst, some bit wee idle Oe to

read out aloud to its grannies, without expense o' oil or cawnel, by

the heartsome ingle-light. You'll generally fin' that auld folk that

plays cairds, have been raither freevolous, and no muckle addicked to

thocht--unless they're greedy, and play for the pool, which is fearsome

in auld age; for what need they care for twa three brass penny-pieces,

for ony ither purpose than to buy nails for their coffin?

NORTH.

You push the argument rather far, James.

SHEPHERD.

Na, sir. Avarice is a failing o' auld age sure aneuch--and shouldna be

fed by the Lang Ten. I'm aye somewhat sad when I see folk o' eighty

haudin' up the trumps to their rheumy een, and shaking their heads,

whether they wull or no, ower a gude and a bad haun alike. Then, safe

on us! only think o' them cheatin'--revokin'--and marking mair than

they ought wi the counters!

NORTH.

The picture is strongly coloured; but could you not paint another less

revolting, nay, absolutely pleasant, nor violate the truth of nature?

SHEPHERD.

I'm no quite sure. Perhaps I micht. In anither condition o' life--in

towns, and among folk o' a higher rank, I dinna deny that I hae seen

auld leddies playing cards very composedly, and without appearin'

to be doin' onything that's wrang. Before you judge richtly o' ony

ae thing in domestic life, you maun understan' the hail constitution

o' the economy. Noo, auld leddies in towns dress somewhat richly and

superbly, wi' ribbons, and laces, and jewels even, and caps munted

wi' flowers and feathers; and I'm no blamin' them--and then they dine

out, and gang to routes, and gie dinners and routes in return, back to

hunders o' their friends and acquaintance, Noo, wi' sic a style and

fashion o' life as that, caird-playing seems to be somewhat accordant,

if taken in moderation, and as a quiet pastime, and no made a trade

o', or profession, for sake o' filthy lucre. I grant it harmless;

and gin it maks the auld leddies happy, what richt hae I to mint ony

objections? God bless them, man; far be it frae me to curtail the

resources o' auld age. Let them play on, and all I wish is, they may

never lose either their temper, their money, nor their natural rest.

NORTH.

And I say God bless you, James, for your sentiments do honour to

humanity.

SHEPHERD.

As for young folks--lads and lasses, like--when the gudeman and his

wife are gaen to bed, what's the harm in a ggem at cairds? It's a

chearfu', noisy, sicht o' comfort and confusion. Sic luckin' into

ane anither's haun's! Sic fause shufflin'! Sic unfair dealin'! Sic

winkin' to tell your pairtner that ye hae the king or the ace! And

when that wunna do, sic kickin' o' shins and treadin' on taes aneath

the table--aften the wrang anes! Then down wi' your haun' o' cairds in

a clash on the board, because you've ane ower few, and the coof maun

lose his deal! Then what gigglin' amang the lasses! What amicable, nay,

love-quarrels, between pairtners! Jokin', and jeestin' and tauntin',

and toozlin'--the cawnel blawn out, and the soun o' a thousan' kisses!

That's caird-playing in the kintra, Mr. North; and where's the man

amang ye that wull daur to say that its no a pleasant pastime o' a

winter's nicht, when the snaw is cumin' doon the lum, or the speat's

roarin amang the mirk mountains?

NORTH.

Wilkie himself, James, is no more than your equal.

SHEPHERD.

O man, Mr. North, sir, my heart is wae--my soul's sick--and my spirit's

wrathfu' to think o' thae places in great cities which they ca'--Hells!

NORTH.

Thank Heaven, my dear James, that I never was a gambler--nor, except

once, to see the thing, ever in a Hell. But it was a stupid and

passionless night--a place of mean misery--altogether unworthy of its

name.

SHEPHERD.

I'm glad you never went back, and that the deevil was in the dumps;

for they say that some nichts in thae Hells, when Satan and Sin

sit thegither on ae chair, he wi' his arm roun' the neck o' that

Destruction his Daughter, a horrible temptation invades men's hearts

and souls, drivin' and draggin' them on to the doom o' everlasting

death.

NORTH.

Strong language, James--many good and great men have shook the elbow.

SHEPHERD.

Come, come now, Mr. North, and dinna allow paradox to darken or obscure

the bright licht o' your great natural and acquired understandin'.

'Good and great' are lofty epithets to bestow on ony man that is born

o' a woman--and if ony such there have been who delivered themselves

up to sin, and shame, and sorrow, at the ggeming-table; let their

biographers justify them--it will gie me pleasure to see them do't--but

such examples shall never confound my judgment o' right or wrang.

'Shake the elbow indeed!' What mair does a parricide do but 'shake

his elbow,' when he cuts his father's throat? The gamester shakes his

elbow, and down go the glorious oak trees planted two hundred years

ago, by some ancestor who loved the fresh smell o' the woods--away

go--if entail does no forbid--thousands o' bonny braid acres, ance a'

ae princely estate, but now shivered down into beggarly parshels, while

the Auld House seems broken-hearted, and hangs down its head, when

the infatuated laird dies or shoots himself. Oh, man! is nae it a sad

thocht to think that my leddy, aye sae gracious to the puir, should hae

to lay down her carriage in her auld age, and disappear frae the Ha'

into some far-aff town or village, perhaps no in Scotland ava'; while

he, that should hae been the heir, is apprenticed to a writer to the

signet, and becomes a money-scrivener i' his soul, and aiblins a Whig

routin' at a public meetin' about Queens, and Slavery, and Borough

Reform, and Cautholic Emancipation."

St. Francis Xavier, though disapproving of all games of chance, yet

did not absolutely condemn them as forbidden by the word of God; but

endeavoured to reclaim, by gentle means, those who were addicted to

play. "That he might banish Games of Chance," says his biographer,

"which almost always occasion quarrels and swearing, he proposed some

little innocent diversions, capable of entertaining the mind, without

stirring up the passions. But seeing that in spight of his endeavours

they were bent on Cards and Dice, he thought it not convenient to

absent himself, but became a looker-on, that he might somewhat awe them

by his presence; and when they were breaking out into any extravagance,

he reclaimed them by gentle and soft reproofs. He showed concernment

in their gains, or in their losses, and offered sometimes to hold their

cards.

"While the ship that carried Xavier was crossing the Gulph of Ceylon,

[in 1545] an occasion of charity was offered to the Saint, which he

would not suffer to escape. The mariners and souldiers pass'd their

time, according to their custome, in playing at cards. Two souldiers

set themselves to it more out of avarice than pleasure, and one of

them plaid with such ill fortune, that he lost not only all his own

money, but the stock which others had put into his hands to traffick

for them. Having nothing more to lose, he withdrew, cursing his luck,

and blaspheming God. His despair prevail'd so far over him, that he

had thrown himself into the Sea, or run upon the point of his sword,

if he had not been prevented. Xavier had notice of these his mad

intentions, and execrable behaviour, and immediately came to his

relief. He embrac'd him tenderly, and said all he cou'd to comfort him:

But the souldier in the transports of his fury, thrust him away, and

forbore not even ill language to him. Xavier stood recollected for some

time, imploring God's assistance and counsel; then went and borrow'd

fifty Royals of a passenger, brought them to the souldier, and advis'd

him once more to try his fortune. At this the souldier took heart,

and play'd so luckily, that he recover'd all his losses with great

advantage. The Saint, who look'd on, took out of the overplus of the

winnings, what he had borrow'd for him; and seeing the gamester, now

return'd to a calm temper, he who before refus'd to hear him, was now

overpower'd by his discourse, never after handled cards, and became

exemplary in his life.

"He was particularly free in his converse with souldiers who are

greater libertines, and more debauch'd in the Indies, than elsewhere.

For, that they might the less suspect him, he kept them company; and

because sometimes when they saw him coming, they had hid their cards

and dice, he told them, They were not of the clergy, neither cou'd they

continue praying all the day; that cheating, quarrelling and swearing,

were forbid to gamesters, but that play was not forbid to a souldier.

Sometimes he play'd at chess himself out of complyance, when they

whom he study'd to withdraw from vice, were lovers of that game: And

a Portuguese gentleman, whose name was Don Diego Norogna, had once a

very ill opinion of him for it. This cavalier, who had heard a report

of Xavier, that he was a saint-like man, and desir'd much to have a

sight of him, happen'd to be aboard of the same galley. Not knowing

his person, he enquir'd which was he; but was much surprised to find

him playing at chess with a private souldier. For he had form'd in his

imagination, the idea of one who was recollected and austere, and who

never appear'd in publick but to discourse of eternity, or to work

miracles."[340]

St. Francis de Sales was, in his younger days, a card-player, though

subsequently he condemned all games at cards as being in themselves

unlawful.[341] According to the Duchess of Orleans, the old Marshal

Villeroi, who had known him in his youth, could never bring himself

to call him Saint. As often as the name of St. Francis de Sales was

mentioned in his presence, he would observe, "I was delighted to

learn that Mons. de Sales was a Saint. He was fond of saying smutty

things, and used to cheat at cards; in other respects he was a perfect

gentleman, though a ninny."[342] The excuse that he made for his

cheating was, that whatever he won was for the poor. Cardinal Mazarine,

another dignitary of the church of Rome, was much given to cheating at

play as well as in politics; and it is related by an eye-witness, that

when he was on his death-bed, he still continued to play at cards, one

of the company holding his "hand;" and that he was thus employed when

he received the Pope's plenary indulgence, together with the viaticum,

as a prince of the church, from the Papal nuncio.[343]

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many of the clergy of all

degrees in France, Spain, and Italy appear to have been much addicted

not only to card-playing but to gaming in general, notwithstanding the

determinations of casuists and the prohibitions of councils. Masses

and prayers were sometimes staked by the priest against the hard

money of the layman; and even devout people, following the example

set them by their pastors, used to play with each other for Aves and

Pater-nosters. On the subject of the clergy staking masses at play,

Barbeyrac, a Protestant, observes, "These are in truth frivolous

matters, and of no effect, to say no worse; nevertheless, as those who

traffic in them believe, or, at least, pretend to believe that a kind

of sanctity and supernatural virtue are attached to their use, all play

for such stakes is unlawful; and he who thus profanely ventures them

is evidently guilty both of sacrilege and simony." With respect to

playing for prayers, Thiers says that the practice is not condemned by

Dr. Navarre, and that Père Raynaud bears witness of its being admitted

among the devout; for his own part, however, he disapproves of it as "a

heteroclite refinement of devotion;" and is of opinion that there is

some degree of irreverence in playing for Psalms, Pater-nosters, and

Aves.[344] The Spanish phrase, "_Jugar los Kiries_" shows that such a

practice was not unusual among the clergy of that country: though the

explanation of the phrase in some dictionaries is, that it relates to

a clergyman who plays away the alms that are given him for praying, it

yet properly relates to a clergyman who plays away prayers,--not the

money given for them.

Among the vices generated by gaming, that of swearing is especially

noted by most authors who have written on the subject.[345] The

French appear to have minced and frittered their oaths, swearing

"like a comfit-maker's wife;" the English and Germans to have sworn

grossly; and the Spaniards and Italians to have blasphemed in a spirit

of refined impiety. Pascasius Justus, in this respect, calls the

gaming-table the devil's farm, and says that it always yields him a

most abundant crop. In his time, gamesters do not appear to have merely

sworn from vexation, but even to have delighted in pouring forth a

volley of oaths. He relates that, when he once told a gambler that he

himself could never utter an oath, the other replied, "Then you are

ignorant of a great pleasure." A French writer, speaking of the oaths

of the Spaniards, gives the following anecdote, as an instance of their

impiety. On one occasion, when an order had been issued to the Spanish

army against swearing, a soldier having lost all his money at cards,

and not daring to violate the letter of the order, gave vent to his

feelings by exclaiming, "Beso las manos, Señor Pilato," "I thank you,

Mr. Pontius Pilate."--"Il devoit être brûlé," is the judgment of the

relater. A similar instance of blasphemy, on the part of an Italian

who had lost his money at cards, is recorded by Henry Stephens, in the

introduction to his 'Traité de la Conformité des Merveilles anciennes

avec les modernes.'[346]

With respect to the passions excited by gaming, the learned and pious

Jeremy Collier expresses his opinion in the following manner, in his

'Essay on Gaming,' in a Dialogue: "I can't help observing that playing

deep sets the spirits on float, strikes the mind strongly into the

face, and discovers a man's weakness very remarkably. Cards and dice,

&c. command the humour no less than the moon does the tide; you may see

the passions come up with the dice, and ebb and flow with the fortune

of the game; what alternate returns of hope and fear, of pleasure and

regret, are frequently visible upon such occasions?

Ενθα δ' ἁμ' οιμωγη τε και ευχωλη πελεν ανδρων,

Ολλυντων τε, και ολλυμενων.

"As you say gaming is an image of war, the sudden turns of success

are easily discernible; the advances of victory or ill luck, make a

strange revolution in the blood. The countenance takes its tincture

from the chance, and appears in the colours of the prospect. With what

anxiousness is the issue expected. You would think a jury of life

and death was gone out upon them. The sentence for execution is not

receiv'd with more concern, than the unlucky appearance of a cast or

a card. Thus some people are miserably ruffled, and thrown off the

hinges; they seem distress'd to an agony; you'd pity them for the

meanness of their behaviour; others are no less foolishly pleas'd;

break out with childish satisfaction, and bring the covetousness of

their humour too much into view.

"Now since play is thus arbitrary over the passions, who would resign

the repose of his mind, and the credit of his temper, to the mercy of

chance? Who would stake his discretion upon such unnecessary hazards?

And throw the dice, whether he should be in his wits or not?"

On DOLOMEDES, the other speaker in the dialogue, observing, that

this does not always follow; that some people play without the least

offensiveness or ruffle, and lose great sums with all the decency and

indifference imaginable, the author, in the character of CALLIMACHUS,

thus proceeds:

"Alas! this is often but a copy of the countenance: things are not

so smooth within, as they seem without. Some people when they bleed

inwardly have the art to conceal the anguish; and this is generally the

most of the matter; but if they are really unconcern'd; if so heavy a

blow brings no smart along with it, the case is still worse: these men

have no sense of the value of money, they won't do the least penance

for their folly, they have not so much as the guard of a remorse. This

stoicism is the speediest dispatch to beggary; nothing can be more

dangerous than such a stupid tranquillity. To be thus becalm'd presages

_Short allowance_. This sedateness makes the man foolhardy, renew the

combat, and venture a brush for the remainder; for he that can be

beaten at his ease, and feels no pain upon a wound, will fight, most

likely, as long as his legs will bear him.

"But this insensibleness is rarely met with: very few are proof against

a shrewd chance to this degree. When misfortune strikes home, 'tis

seldom decently receiv'd; their temper goes off with their money. For,

according to the proverb, _Qui perd le sien, perd le sens_. And here

one loss usually makes people desperate, and leads to another: and now

the gentlemen of your function are extremely vigilant to improve the

opportunity, and observe the current of the passions. You know very

well when a man's head grows misty with ill luck, when the spleen comes

over his understanding, and he has fretted himself off his guard, he is

much the easier conquest: thus, when your bubbles are going down the

hill, you manage accordingly, lend them a push, tho' their bones are

broken at the bottom. But I forget myself; there's neither mercy nor

justice in some people's business.

"To return: you know I may take it for granted, that your gaming sparks

are horribly ruffled when things with a promising face sicken, and sink

on the sudden, when they are surprizingly crossbitten, and success is

snatch'd from their grasp; when this happens, which is not unfrequent,

the spirits are up immediately, and they are a storm at the first

blast: the train takes fire, and they kindle and flash at the touch

like gunpowder. And when the passions are thus rampant, nothing is more

common than oaths, and execrable language: when instead of blaming

their own rashness, and disciplining their folly, they are cursing

their stars, and raging against their fate.[347]

"These paroxysms of madness run sometimes so high, that you would think

the Devil had seiz'd the organs of speech, and that they were possess'd

in every syllable: and to finish farther, these hideous sallies are

sometimes carry'd on to quarrelling and murther. The dice, it may

be, are snatch'd too quick, the cast is disputed, the loading and

legerdemain is discover'd.

"Jamque faces et saxa volant:--

Upon this, they run to arms, and after some artillery discharg'd in

swearing, come to a close encounter. And thus one of them is run

through the lungs, and left agonizing upon the place: or, as it

happen'd not long since, the gamester is knocked down with a pint-pot,

and his skull broken: he is forced to be trepan'd, and then relapsing

into play and drinking, dies of a frenzy.

"As to the hazards, they are frightful, and sufficient to overset the

temper of better principled people than gamesters commonly are. Have we

not heard of ladies losing hundreds of guineas at a sitting? And others

more slenderly stock'd, disfurnish their husbands' studies, and play

off the books which, it may be, help'd to feed them. And when the women

are thus courageous, the men conclude their own sex calls for a bolder

liberty: that they ought to go farther in danger, and appear more brave

in the methods of ruin: thus a manor has been lost in an afternoon; the

suit and service follow the cast, and the right is transfer'd sooner

than the lawyer can draw the conveyance. A box and dice are terrible

artillery, a battery of cannon scarcely plays with more execution.

They make a breach in a castle, and command a surrender in a little

time."[348]

A curious Rabbinical tract on the subject of Gaming, entitled, סור

מרע, that is, "Depart from Evil,"[349] seems to require some notice

here. It was first printed at Venice, about 1615; was reprinted at

Leyden about 1660; and a third edition, accompanied with a German

translation, was published at Leipsic in 1683. None of the editors

mention either the name of the author, or the time when he lived. The

work is in the form of a dialogue between two young Jews, one of whom,

named MEDAD, maintains the lawfulness of Gaming, and is opposed by the

other, named ELDAD. The work is divided into six chapters. The first

is merely introductory, giving a brief account of the speakers in the

dialogue;--Medad, a merchant's son, addicted to play; and Eldad, his

friend, who endeavours to reclaim him. The second chapter contains

the argument which they had on the subject of gaming and commerce;

Medad endeavouring to show that play is commendable and similar to

commerce; while Eldad maintains the contrary. In the third chapter,

Eldad undertakes to prove from the Scriptures that a gamester breaks

all the Ten Commandments, and Medad ingeniously answers him. In the

fourth chapter, Eldad, on the authority of the Talmud and other

Rabbinical works, maintains that a gamester can neither be a judge nor

a witness; and Medad answers him, citing opposite passages from the

same authorities. In the fifth chapter, Eldad recites a piece of poetry

descriptive of the miserable state of a gamester; and Medad, in return,

recites another, wherein the pleasures of a gamester's life are highly

extolled. In the sixth and last chapter, Eldad seriously exhorts his

friend to assent to truth; Medad yields, and acknowledges that the

cause which he had maintained was bad.

The following are a few of the more remarkable passages in the argument

of Medad, the advocate of gaming: "Play is commendable, the same as

all other human inventions. It is like a bright mirror in which many

excellent things are to be discovered, exciting to a sluggish man,

and causing him to forget the cares incident to daily life. Though it

be undeniable that he whose whole pleasure consists in keeping the

commands of the Lord, and who is neither vain nor ambitious, is a

better man than he who plays; yet of the various pursuits in which men

engage in order to obtain wealth or power, Play is one which may be

allowed to those who, without pretending to be absolutely righteous,

yet endeavour to be as righteous as they can. Through much trafficking

man becomes knowing; and wares are in Hebrew called סחורה a word

which means 'circulation,' or 'that which circulates,' on account of

their passing from one person to another by way of barter or sale. Why

should Play not be estimated the same as any other business, at which

money is sometimes lost and sometimes gained?[350] The determining

of matters by lot or chance is even of Divine institution: the high

priest's sin-offering was to be determined by lot; the land was to

be divided amongst the Twelve Tribes by lot; David, in the sixteenth

Psalm, says that the Lord maintains his lot; and in Proverbs, chap.

xviii, we are told that 'the lot causeth contentions to cease, and

parteth between the mighty.'--It is answered, that traffic or commerce

is productive of mutual benefit. But hearken: in anticipation of a

dearth you purchase a hundred quarters of corn of your neighbour,

and lock it up in your granaries, in the hope of gaining double. You

raise your face to Heaven, but it is to look out for the signs of bad

weather; and you are content that there should be a famine in the

land, provided that you thrive by it. When your wine-vats are full to

overflowing, you enjoy the storm of thunder and hail that destroys the

vintage of the year; for you will thus be enriched. But is this just?

is there any mutual benefit in this? Can you make your profit without

the rest of the world being injured? And yet you are held to be an

honourable fair-dealing man.[351]--In the third chapter of the tract

_Sanhedrin_, gamesters and usurers are indeed classed together; but it

is known that in the Scriptures usury is strongly condemned, while play

is not even forbidden. But now, those who live by usury are honoured;

and so far from being deprived of the right of acting as judges or of

giving testimony as witnesses, they are magistrates and rulers: a word

of theirs is worth a hundred witnesses. Gamesters, on the contrary,

are unjustly vilified; and he who does not speak evil of play runs the

risk of being excommunicated.--Even the losing gamester may derive

great advantage from his play: he is thus taught to bear losses with

patience; and when in other matters he has been unlucky and has lost

much money, he consoles himself with the thought that it is only what

has often happened to him at play. He perceives that nothing is stable

or perpetual in human affairs, and takes the good and the bad with even

temper. From his games he also acquires the elements of science; he

learns arithmetic without a master; and also becomes a proficient in

logic and rhetoric, from his exercise of those arts on his opponents.

From the cards he may acquire a knowledge of painting, and from the

dice, which are exactly squared, he may learn mathematics. In short, he

who plays at cards and dice, has a hand in all arts. The Hebrew word

בכל which signifies 'in all,' is, in its numerical value, equal to

52: that is, ב‎ = 2; ‏כ‎ = 20; and ‏ל‎ = 30: in all 52,--the number of

cards in a French pack. The Hebrew word ויד which signifies 'a Hand,'

is, in the same manner, reckoning the word itself as 1, equal to 21:

that is, ו‎ = 6; ‏י‎ = 10; ‏ד‎ = 4; the word itself = 1: in all 21,--the

number of the spots on a die. Thus, from his play, may a man learn

righteousness, and how to conduct himself with moderation."

Though the game of cards has not been so elaborately moralised as

the game of Chess, yet the Pack has not wanted spiritual expounders,

who have ingeniously shown that it might serve, not only as a

perpetual almanack, but also as a moral monitor, and a help to

devotion. The most popular and best known of such expositions, or

rather applications, is that entitled 'The Perpetual Almanack, or

Gentleman-Soldier's Prayer Book;' which has been long circulated in

this country as a penny chap-book. Mons. Leber says that it is an

imitation of a French tract on the same subject, entitled 'Explication

morale du Jeu de Cartes, anecdote curieuse et intéressante, sous le nom

de Louis Bras-de-fer, engagé au service du roi,' which seems to have

been first published at Brussels, in 1778. The history of Bras-de-fer

is referred to by Breitkopf; and Mons. Renouard, speaking of Singer's

'Researches into the History of Playing Cards,' in the Catalogue of his

Library, observes, "Cet auteur, qui a tout recherché, n'a probablement

pas tout rencontré, car s'il l'eut seulement entrevue, auroit-il

laissé échapper l'explication morale du jeu de cartes par le soldat

Bras-de-fer, l'une des pièces le plus notables de la bibliothèque

à deux sols?" In order that a similar objection may not be brought

against the writer of this work, the whole of the Perpetual Almanack is

here given, _verbatim_, from a broadside, "printed by J. Catnach, 2,

Monmouth Court, Seven Dials."

"The Perpetual Almanack; or Gentleman-soldier's Prayer Book: shewing

how one Richard Middleton was taken before the Mayor of the city he

was in for using cards in church during Divine Service: being a droll,

merry, and humorous account of an odd affair that happened to a private

soldier in the 60th Regiment of Foot.

"The serjeant commanded his party to the church, and when the parson

had ended his prayer, he took his text, and all of them that had a

Bible, pulled it out to find the text; but this soldier had neither

Bible, Almanack, nor Common-Prayer Book, but he put his hand in his

pocket and pulled out a pack of cards, and spread them before him as

he sat; and while the parson was preaching, he first kept looking at

one card and then at another.[352] The serjeant of the company saw

him, and said, 'Richard, put up your cards, for this is no place for

them.'--'Never mind that,' said the soldier, 'you have no business with

me here.'

"Now the parson had ended his sermon, and all was over: the soldiers

repaired to the churchyard and the commanding officer gave the word

of command to fall in, which they did. The serjeant of the city

came, and took the man prisoner.--'Man, you are my prisoner,' said

he.--'Sir,' said the soldier, 'what have I done that I am your

prisoner?'--'You have played a game at cards in the church.'--' No,'

said the soldier, 'I have not play'd a game, for I only looked at a

pack.'--'No matter for that, you are my prisoner.'--'Where must we go?'

said the soldier.--'You must go before the Mayor,' said the serjeant.

So he took him before the Mayor; and when they came to the Mayor's

house, he was at dinner. When he had dined he came down to them, and

said, 'Well, serjeant, what do you want with me?'--'I have brought

a soldier before you for playing at cards in the church.'--'What!

that soldier?'--'Yes.'--'Well, soldier, what have you to say for

yourself?'--'Much, sir, I hope.'--'Well and good; but if you have not,

you shall be punished the worst that ever man was.'--'Sir,' said the

soldier, 'I have been five weeks upon the march, and have but little

to subsist on; and am without either Bible, Almanack, or Common-Prayer

Book, or anything but a pack of cards: I hope to satisfy your honour of

the purity of my intentions.'

"Then the soldier pulled out of his pocket the pack of cards, which he

spread before the Mayor; he then began with the Ace. 'When I see the

Ace,' said he, 'it puts me in mind that there is one God only; when I

see the Deuce, it puts me in mind of the Father and the Son; when I see

the Tray, it puts me in mind of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; when I

see the Four, it puts me in mind of the four Evangelists, that penned

the Gospel, viz. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; when I see the Five, it

puts me in mind of the five wise virgins who trimmed their lamps; there

were ten, but five were foolish, who were shut out. When I see the Six,

it puts me in mind that in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth;

when I see the Seven, it puts me in mind that on the seventh day God

rested from all the works which he had created and made, wherefore the

Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it. When I see the Eight,

it puts me in mind of the eight righteous persons that were saved when

God drowned the world, viz. Noah, his wife, three sons, and their

wives; when I see the Nine, it puts me in mind of nine lepers that were

cleansed by our Saviour; there were ten, but nine never returned God

thanks; when I see the Ten, it puts me in mind of the Ten Commandments

that God gave Moses on Mount Sinai on the two tables of stone.' He

took the Knave, and laid it aside.--'When I see the Queen, it puts me

in mind of the Queen of Sheba, who came from the furthermost parts of

the world to hear the wisdom of King Solomon, for she was as wise a

woman as he was a man; for she brought fifty boys and fifty girls,

all clothed in boy's apparel, to show before King Solomon, for him to

tell which were boys, and which were girls; but he could not, until he

called for water for them to wash themselves; the girls washed up to

their elbows, and the boys only up to their wrists; so King Solomon

told by that. And when I see the King, it puts me in mind of the great

King of Heaven and Earth, which is God Almighty, and likewise his

Majesty King George, to pray for him.'

"'Well,' said the Mayor, 'you have a very good description of all

the cards, except one, which is lacking.'--'Which is that?' said the

soldier.'--'The Knave,' said the Mayor.--'Oh, I can give your honour a

very good description of that, if your honour won't be angry.'--'No,

I will not,' said the Mayor, 'if you will not term me to be the

Knave.'--'Well,' said the soldier, 'the greatest that I know is the

serjeant of the city, that brought me here.'--'I don't know,' said the

Mayor, 'that he is the greatest knave, but I am sure that he is the

greatest fool.'--'When I count how many spots there are in a pack of

cards, I find there are three hundred and sixty-five; there are so many

days in a year. When I count how many cards there are in a pack, I find

there are fifty-two; there are so many weeks in a year. When I count

how many tricks in a pack, I find there are thirteen; there are so many

months in a year. You see, sir, that this pack of cards is a Bible,

Almanack, Common-Prayer Book, and pack of cards to me.'

"Then the Mayor called for a loaf of bread, a piece of good cheese, and

a pot of good beer, and gave the soldier a piece of money, bidding him

to go about his business, saying he was the cleverest man he had ever

seen."

Another chap-book, entitled 'A New Game at Cards, between a Nobleman

in London and one of his Servants,' is merely a variation of the

'Perpetual Almanack:' a servant being denounced to his master as a

gambler, denies the fact; and on a pack of cards being found in his

pocket, he asserts that he is unacquainted with their use as mere

cards, and that he uses them as an almanack, and sometimes converts

them into a prayer-book. The four suits answer to the four quarters of

the year; there are thirteen cards in each suit, and thirteen weeks in

each quarter; the twelve coat cards correspond with the twelve months

in a year; and there are just as many weeks in the year as cards in a

pack. The King and Queen remind him of his allegiance; the Ten reminds

him of the Ten Commandments; the Nine, of the nine Muses; the Eight, of

the eight altitudes, and the eight persons who were saved in the ark;

the Seven, of the seven wonders of the world, and the seven planets

that rule the days of the week; the Six, of the six petitions contained

in the Lord's Prayer, and of the six working days in a week; the Five,

of the five senses; the Four, of the four seasons; the Three, of the

three Graces, and of the three days and nights that Jonah was in the

whale's belly; the Two, of the two Testaments, Old and New, and of the

two contrary principles, Virtue and Vice; and the Ace, of the worship

of one God. With respect to the Knave, which, like the soldier, he had

laid aside, and had omitted to notice in its proper place, he says, on

being asked its meaning by his master, that it will always remind him

of the person who informed against him.

A variation of the history of Bras-de-fer was published at Paris

in 1809, with notes by a Mons. Hadin, under the following title:

'Histoire du Jeu de Cartes du Grenadier Richard, ou Explication du Jeu

de cinquante-deux cartes en forme de Livres de Prière.'[353] Mons.

G. Brunet, in his 'Notice Bibliographique sur les Cartes à jouer,'

says that this _livret_ is not devoid of originality, and that it

is not easily met with. From the passages which he quotes, it would

appear that the "Grenadier Richard" was equally well read in sacred

and profane history, and that he had thumbed both his Concordance and

his Classical Dictionary to some purpose. The Ace reminds him, amongst

various other things, of the unity of the Deity; that Noah left the ark

one year after the deluge; and that there is only one Catholic Church.

When he sees the Nine, he thinks of the nine orders of angels; and is

reminded that Christ died at the ninth hour of the day. A Queen reminds

him of Eve, Judith, Dalilah, the Queen of Sheba, and the Virgin Mary;

a Knave, of the centurion in the Gospel; and a King, of Adam, Solomon,

or any king mentioned in Holy Writ. The twelve coat cards remind him

of the twelve fountains of Elim, the twelve precious stones in the

breastplate of the high priest, the twelve loaves of shew-bread, the

twelve stones with which Eli built an altar, the twelve patriarchs,

the twelve oxen that sustained the brazen sea in Solomon's temple,

the twelve apostles, the twelve articles of the creed, and the twelve

feasts which are more particularly celebrated by the Church of Rome

in honour of Christ. Diamonds--le Carreau,--make him think of the

place where the cross was fixed; Spades--le Pique,--of the lance which

pierced the side of Christ; and Clubs,--le Trèfle,--with their triple

leaves, of the love of the three women who went early in the morning

with perfumes to the holy sepulchre.

On subjects of heathen mythology, cards are equally suggestive to

his well-stored memory. The Three reminds him of the three sons of

Saturn,--Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto; of the three Furies, the three

Graces, the three Hesperides, the three daughters of Mineus, and the

three horses of the chariot of Pluto. The Four reminds him of the

four ages, the four horses of the chariot of the sun, and the four

labyrinths, namely, of Egypt, Crete, Italy, and Lemnos; and whenever

he sees the Nine, he is vividly reminded of the nine Muses, and the

nine acres of land covered by the body of the giant Tithius. The twelve

coat cards are suggestive of the twelve gods and goddesses, the twelve

labours of Hercules, and sundry other twelves besides.[354]

The following historical anecdote, _apropos_, of a pack of cards, is

extracted from a little book in duodecimo, entitled 'The Social and

Instructive Companion,' printed for T. Field in Paternoster Row, 1765.

The same story is also inserted in the 'Whitehall Evening Post,' of

the 27th September, 1767; and the editor says that it is related in

the manuscript memoirs of Richard, Earl of Cork, and of Henry Usher,

primate of Armagh. He further adds that its truth was ascertained by

James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, nephew of the aforesaid Henry.

Whether true or false, a great many more improbable things have passed

current as authentic history upon no better evidence.

"Queen Mary having dealt severely with the Protestants in England,

signed a commission about the latter end of her reign, for taking the

same course with them in Ireland; and to execute the same with greater

force, she nominated Dr. Cole, who had recommended himself by wholesome

severities in England, to be one of the commissioners, sending the

commission by the doctor himself.

"In the way, Dr. Cole lodged one night at Chester, where, being

visited as the queen's messenger, and a churchman of distinction by

the mayor of that city, he informed this magistrate of the contents

of his message; and taking a box out of his cloak-bag, said, 'Here is

a commission that shall lash the heretics' (meaning the Protestants of

Ireland).

"The good woman of the house being well affected to the Protestant

religion, and having also a brother named John Edmonds, then a citizen

in Dublin, and a Protestant, was greatly disturbed at the doctor's

words; but waiting a convenient time whilst the mayor took his leave,

and the doctor complimented him down stairs, she ventured to open the

box, and taking the commission out, she in its place put a sheet of

paper, and a pack of cards, with the Knave of Clubs faced uppermost,

wrapped up. The doctor, at his return to his chamber, suspecting

nothing of what had been done, put up the box again into his cloak-bag;

and next day the wind setting fair, he sailed for Ireland, and landed

at Dublin, the 7th of October, 1558.

"The doctor having notified his arrival at the Castle, the lord deputy

Fitz-Walters sent for him to come before his excellency and the privy

council; to whom the doctor made a long speech relating to the subject

of his commission, and then presented the leather box with its contents

to the lord deputy. But when the deputy opened it for the secretary to

read the commission, lo! to the great surprise of all present, and the

doctor's confusion, there was nothing found but a pack of cards with

the Knave of Clubs faced uppermost. The doctor assured the deputy and

council that he had a commission, but knew not how it was gone, 'Then,'

said the lord deputy, 'let us have another commission, and we will

shuffle the cards in the meanwhile.'

"The doctor withdrew in great trouble of mind; and hasting back to

England, obtained a fresh commission: but being detained some time at

the water side for a fair wind, he was prevented from putting it into

execution by the news of the queen's death.

"This account of the providential deliverance of the Protestants in

Ireland from the Marian persecution is attested in the memorials of

Richard, Earl of Cork, by the Lord Primate Usher; and in Sir James

Ware's MSS.; who also writes that Queen Elizabeth, being informed of

the truth thereof by the lord deputy Fitz-Walters, her Majesty was so

delighted, that she sent for the good woman, named Elizabeth Edmonds,

but by her husband (whom she afterwards married) named Mathershead, and

gave her a pension of forty pounds during life, for having saved her

Protestant subjects of Ireland."

* * * * *

Having now laid before the reader a store of facts and speculations

on the origin and history of cards, a sketch of the progress of

card-playing in different countries in Europe, and a collection of

the opinions of several eminent men on the lawfulness of the game

theologically and morally considered, together with sundry other

matters either naturally, or artificially, associated with cards,--I

shall conclude the work by a brief recapitulation of a few of the

leading facts and circumstances relating to the origin of cards and the

time of their first introduction into Europe.

In Hindostan, the tradition is, that cards were known in that country

at a remote period,--upwards of a thousand years ago; but I have not

been able to learn that they are mentioned in any Hindostanee work of

an early date, and I am informed, on the authority of the Sanscrit

professor at Oxford, that there is no Sanscrit word for playing cards.

This last fact is, however, of but little weight as negative evidence

of cards being unknown in Hindostan a thousand years ago; for long

before that time Sanscrit had become obsolete as a vernacular language.

In China, if any credit can be attached to the two dictionaries, or

rather cyclopædias, of the greatest authority in that country, "Dotted

Cards" were invented in 1120, in the reign of Seun-ho, and began to

be common in the reign of Kaou-tsung, who ascended the throne in 1131.

Cards--_Carte_--are mentioned in an Italian work, said to have been

composed by Sandro di Pipozzo in 1299; but as the MS. is not of an

earlier date than 1400, there is good reason for concluding the word to

be an interpolation, seeing that in several works of the earlier part

of the fourteenth century, which had been cited to prove that cards

were then known in Europe, it has been discovered that the term cards

was an interpolation introduced at a later period by a transcriber. The

author of the 'Güldin Spil,' a work written about the middle of the

fifteenth century, and printed at Augsburg, in 1472, says that he had

read that the game of cards was first brought into Germany in 1300. No

fact, however, confirmatory of the correctness of this account has been

discovered; and the omission of all notice of cards by European authors

of the earlier half of the fourteenth century, even when expressly

treating of the games in vogue at the period, may be received as good

negative evidence of their not being then known as a popular game in

Europe: "_De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio_."

Admitting cards to be of Eastern invention--a fact which appears to

be sufficiently established by the evidence adduced in the first

chapter,--it would seem that they first became known in Europe as a

popular game between 1360 and 1390. Covelluzzo, an Italian chronicler

of the fifteenth century, says, that the game was first brought

into Viterbo in 1379; in 1393, three packs of cards were painted by

Jacquemin Gringonneur for the amusement of Charles VI of France;[355]

in 1397, the working people of Paris were forbid to play at cards on

working days; and in the same year card-playing was prohibited by

the magistrates of Ulm. Such are the principal facts relative to the

introduction of cards into Europe. The game appears to have rapidly

spread amongst all classes of people. The manufacture of cards was a

regular business in Germany and Italy prior to 1425; the importation of

foreign cards into England was prohibited by act of parliament in 1463;

and about 1484, cards, as at present, was a common Christmas game.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate the more prominent incidents which

mark the progress of card-playing; it may be sufficient to observe,

that no other game was ever so generally played, with people of both

sexes,--young and old, rich and poor. Even the "red man" of America,

the "Stoic of the Woods," has acquired a knowledge of cards, from his

neighbours of European descent, and ceases to be apathetic when engaged

in the game. It is, perhaps, as extensively diffused as the use of

tobacco; and is certainly indulged in by a greater variety of persons.

[Illustration p. 330.]

FOOTNOTES:

[314] The author does not seem to have been successful in his ministry

at Newcastle. Colonel Fenwick says that the town was famous for

mocking and misusing Christ's ministers; and after naming Knox and

Udal, he thus reproaches the town for its treatment of Balmford:

"Witness reverend Balmford, whom in a like manner thou expulsed; though

thou couldst not touch his life, thou pricked his sides (as well as

Christ's) in his hearers, with the reproach of Balmfordian faction

and schism."--Christ in the midst of his Enemies, by Lieut.-Col. John

Fenwick, 1643. Reprinted by M. A. Richardson, Newcastle, 1846.

[315] The opinions of Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Lambert Daneau, and

others upon this question are to be found in the 'Collectanea variorum

authorum de Sortibus et Ludo Aleæ,' appended to the Alea of Pascasius

Justus, by Joannes a Munster, 4to, 1617.

[316] "Traité du jeu, ou l'on examine les principales Questions de

Droit naturel et de morale qui ont du rapport à cette Matière. Par

Jean Barbeyrac, Professeur en Droit à Groningue. Seconde Edition,

revue et augmentée. A laquelle on a joint un Discours sur la nature du

Sort, et quelques autres Ecrits de l'Auteur qui servent principalement

à défendre ce qu'il avoit dit de l'innocence du jeu consideré en

lui-même."--This Edition, in three volumes, 16mo, was published at

Amsterdam, 1738, and is dedicated to Anne, Princess of Orange, eldest

daughter of George II. The first edition appeared in 1710. It is said

that the idea of writing such a book was first suggested to Barbeyrac

in consequence of his being so frequently appealed to on questions

relating to the game of cards by ladies who came to play with his

mother-in-law, with whom he resided, and in whose apartment he used

frequently to sit.

[317] "Anacharsis, apud Aristot. Paizein, d'hopôs sp?xazth, kat'

'Anacharsin, horthôs hechein xokei. Παιζειν, δ'ὁπως σπ;ξαζθ, κατ'

'Αναχαρσιν, ὁρθως ἑχειν ξοκει.--Ethic. Nicom. lib. x, cap. 6."

[318] Ἡ ἀναπαυσις, των πονων ἀρτυμα ἐστι.--Plutarch. de Puerorum

institut."

[319] "Inter se ista miscenda sunt: et quiescenti agendum, et agenti

quiescendum est. Cum rerum natura delibera: illa dicet tibi, se et Diem

fecisse et Noctem.--Seneca, Epist. iii."