[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." [320] "Βιος ανεορταστος, μακρη ὁδος απανδοκευτος.--Democrit. apud Stobæum." [321] It may be observed, that such cases of "Natural Equity," as are here hypothetically put by Barbeyrac, do not properly admit of a third party as a judge, in the event of a dispute. Parties entering into such contracts, irrespective of the usages of society, or the positive laws of the country where they reside, ought to be left to enforce their natural equity by natural means. One wealthy fool loses to another the whole of his property, the contract between them being, that he was to be the winner who should draw the longest straw out of a stack. In natural equity, between the two parties, the loser is obliged to pay; but, should he recover his senses, he will refuse, and leave the winner to his remedy; for the circumstance of his risking so much in the first instance, was a greater offence against society than his subsequent refusal to pay. What one gambler may lose to another is of small moment to society, compared with the primary evil through which such persons are enabled to play deeply with the fruits of others' labours. Luther, speaking of the lawfulness of retaining money won by gaming, concludes that it might be lawfully retained; but adds, that he could wish both parties to lose, if it were possible. The impossibility has been removed since regular gaming houses and gaming banks were established.