class="x-ebookmaker-pageno" title="[Pg 2]"/> their property at "odd or even," or drawing lots for choice of pasturage. No shepherd has ever yet succeeded in teaching his sagacious colley to take a hand at cards with him on the hill side; the most knowing monkey has never been able to comprehend the mysteries of "tossing;" and even the learned pig, that tells people their fortune by the cards, is never able to learn what is trumps.

Seeing, then, that to gamble is exclusively proper to man,—secundum essentiam consecutive,—and admitting that,

"The proper study of mankind is man,"

it plainly follows, that as Playing Cards are the instruments of the most fascinating species of gambling that ever was devised by the ingenuity of man, their origin and history are a very proper subject for rational discussion. The cooking, tool-making, gambling animal displays its rationality, according to Dr. Franklin, by its knowing how to find or invent a plausible pretext for whatever it has an inclination to do.

Judging from the manner in which the origin and history of Playing Cards have been treated by various authors within the last hundred and fifty years, it is evident that the subject, whatever they may have made of it, is one of great "capability," to use the favorite term of a great designer in the landscape-gardening line; and it seems no less evident that some of those authors have been disposed to magnify its apparent insignificance by associating it with other topics, which are generally allowed to be both interesting and important. In this respect they have certainly shown great tact; for though many learned men have, at different periods, written largely and profoundly on very trifling subjects, yet it does seem necessary for a man, however learned and discreet, to set forth, either in his title-page or in his proemium, something like an apology for his becoming the historiographer of Playing Cards,—things in themselves slightly esteemed even by those who use them most, and frequently termed by pious people "the devil's books." The example which has thus been set I am resolved to follow; for though, in the title-page, I announce no other topic for the purpose of casting a borrowed light on the principal subject, I yet wish the reader to understand that I am writing an apology for it now; and in the progress of the work I doubt not that I shall be found as discursive as most of those who have previously either reasoned or speculated on Playing Cards.

A history of Playing Cards, treating of them in all their possible relations, associations, and bearings, would form nearly a complete cyclopædia of science and art; and would still admit of being further enlarged by an extensive biographical supplement, containing sketches of the lives of celebrated characters who have played at cards,—or at any other game. Cards would form the centre—the point, having position, but no space,—from which a radius of indefinite extent might sweep a circle comprehending not only all that man knows, but all that he speculates on. The power of reach, by means of the point and the radius, being thus obtained, the operator has his choice of topics; and can arrange them round his centre, and colour them at his will, as boys at school colour their fanciful segments of a circle.

To exemplify what has just been said about the capability of cards as a subject of disquisition:—One writer, Père Menestrier, [1] preluding on the invention of cards, says, apropos to the term Jeu—ludus, a game—that, to the Supreme Being the creation of the world was only a kind of game; and that schoolmasters with the Romans were called Ludi Magistri—masters of the game or sport. Here, then, is a fine opportunity for a descant on creation; and for showing that the whole business of human life, from the cradle to the grave, is but a game; that all the world is a great "gaming-house,"—to avoid using a word offensive to ears polite,—

"And all the men and women merely players."

Illustrative of this view of human life, a couple of pertinent quotations, from Terence and Plutarch, are supplied by another brother of the same craft, M. C. Leber. [2]

According to Père Daniel, [3]—a reverend father of the order of Jesuits, who wrote an elaborate history of the French Military Establishments,—the game of Piquet is symbolic, allegorical, military, political, and historical, and contains a number of important maxims relating to war and government. Now, granting, for the sake of argument, that the game, with respect to its esoteric principles, is really enigmatic, it may be fairly denied that Père Daniel has succeeded in explaining it correctly; his fancied discoveries may be examined in detail, and shown, with very little trouble, to be the mere seethings of his own working imagination; others may be proposed, and, as a matter of course, supported by authorities, ancient and modern, on the origin, use, and meaning of symbols and allegories, and illustrated with maxims of war and state policy, carefully selected from the bulletins, memoirs, and diplomatic correspondence of the great military chiefs and statesmen of all nations: thus a respectable volume—in point of size at least—might be got up on the subject of Piquet alone, without trenching on the wide field of cards in general.

Court de Gebelin,[4] a Gnostic, at least in the philosophic, if not in the religious, sense of the word, finds in the old Italian Tarocchi cards the vestiges of the learning of the ancient Egyptians, somewhat mutilated and disguised, indeed, by Gothic ignorance, which suspected not the profound knowledge concealed in its playthings, but still intelligible to the penetrating genius which initiates itself into all ancient mysteries, is fond of exploring the profoundly obscure, and becomes oracular, talking confidently of what it sees, when it is only groping in the dark. Court de Gebelin's theory suggests at once a general history of science and art, which, as everybody knows, had their cradle in ancient Egypt, and induces dim, but glorious visions of the ancient Egyptian kings,—Sesonch, Rameses, and Amonoph: the chronologers, Sanchoniathon, Manetho, and Berosus, follow, as a matter of course, whether originally known from Bishop Cumberland, or from Mr. Jenkinson, in the 'Vicar of Wakefield.' Then who can think of the knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, and of its essence being contained in the symbolic characters of a pack of cards, without hieroglyphic writing coming into his mind? [5] and this subject, being once started, leads naturally, in chronological order, to Clemens Alexandrinus, Horapollo, Athanasius Kircher, Bishop Warburton, Dr. Thomas Young, and Mons. Champollion. To write properly a history of Playing Cards in connexion with the learning of