Two doughty knights, clad cap-a-pie in burnished mail, once journeyed forth in search of martial adventure. Their noble steeds all caparisoned for war, both wandered up and down through the world, defending the fair and protecting the weak. Betimes they chance to meet where stood in majestic beauty a bronze statue of victory. In her right hand the goddess clasped a sword, while in graceful pose her left rested upon an Ægis richly wrought in the precious metals. Approaching from opposite directions, to one warrior the shield appeared as of gold, while to the other it was of silver. Low were bowed their crested helms in courtly salutations.

“Comely, Sir Knight,” said one, “comely and noble is this figure.”

“Yea, thou hast spoken truly,” was the reply.

“Precious, very precious,” rejoined the first, “must be yon golden targe.”

“Nay, Sir Knight, it is of silver, I trow.”

“By my lady, thou liest,” quickly came the hot retort.

Then, prancing chargers well in hand, with lances lowered to deadly level, they prepared for the “wager of battle.” Both were unhorsed in the onslaught. Regaining an upright posture, with swords drawn to renew the duel, each observed that his reverse of the shield was what the other had contended for. Moral: It is wise to look first upon both sides of the subject.

Not so, it is evident, has it been with books heretofore devoted to a discussion of gambling. Their authors professed an exposition of gaming in the interest of morality. Well may some of the books be read for their wealth of information and excellent diction. Some have been earnest, in places eloquent, and often suggestive. Vivid and dramatic are the descriptions of a passion that has possessed the world in all ages; yet, that the various assaults were conceived in wisdom, or that they have resulted in permanent good, I am constrained to deny.

True, I believe with Sir Walter Raleigh, that out of history may be gathered a policy no less wise than eternal; “by the comparison and application of other men’s forepassed miseries with our own like errors and ill-deservings.”

But why did it not occur to these writers that circumstances should not be recorded merely because they have happened; that events deserve memorial only because they illustrate some great principle; because some inference is to be drawn from them, which may increase the happiness or enlarge the powers of man? That it did not, we must infer from the pages they have given to the world. Cicero declared that “History is the light of truth.” In vain, however, do we look for a consideration of causes in any history of gambling. “Histories,” said Carlyle, “are as perfect as the historian is wise.” Is that book wise wherein no adequate remedy is suggested for the evil it depicts? Although interesting, such a work is but a chronicle devoid of moral purpose. It is clear, to dwell upon the follies of man will not cure them; that it will not strengthen humanity merely to portray their weaknesses. The passion our author would combat is rooted in the soul.

How would you extirpate the evil, if such it is? Expose a folly, you may say, and wisdom will turn from it. You would have us believe, perhaps, that:

And yet

So far as the history of gambling has ignored causes and neglected remedies, it is incomplete. That it is deficient in both is my reason for this book. Some one should begin the subject where other authors have deserted it.

I have long made a study of gaming in all its aspects and relations; aiming, the while, at breadth, impartiality and thoroughness. At first my reading was not conducted with a view to authorship. I desired information for its own sake. As a gamester, I sought the philosophy of gaming.

What is chance? How far does it influence all mankind and circumscribe their efforts? What is gambling, in the broadest sense of the term? Is gaming wrong per se: i.e., absolutely vicious? Where in human nature is the passion grounded? Why does the propensity exist? Is it an inevitable tendency of human nature? What is morality? Wherein does the gambler differ from other men? How should his occupation be distinguished from business generally? How far may the conduct of an individual be dictated by society? How may the essentially punitive be distinguished from that which is not so? What are the true limits of State power in relation to appetites and propensities? Are sumptuary laws effectual? Does history, as the philosophy of example, justify such enactments? Can the law eradicate innate tendencies? Can character be transformed by statute? Is it possible to legislate morality into mankind? What should be the policy of statesmen and reformers in the realm of morals? If it is not possible to extirpate the passions by law, how may they be regulated, directed, educated and purified?

Such were the problems that confronted my understanding. Each and all were resolved to the best of my knowledge and capacity. I make my observations public in the interests of fair play and common sense. I am at least entitled to the literary chances of a reading age.

I have dallied with fickle fortune for years. As gamester, I anticipated prejudices against the pursuit. My deductions are amply fortified, therefore, from the mature studies of great and wise men. I did not expect my book to stand unsupported. It is substantiated, throughout, by the teachings of profound and impartial philosophers.