sordid; I have always applauded the opinion of a certain
dead and gone, but cocksure, moralist who replied to the excuse that
"one may always gamble moderately", by saying that to do so makes
things worse, since, in that case, the profits too will always be
moderate.

Insignificant profits and sumptuous profits do not stand on the same
footing. No, it is all a matter of proportion. What may seem a small
sum to a Rothschild may seem a large sum to me, and it is not the fault
of stakes or of winnings that everywhere men can be found winning, can
be found depriving their fellows of something, just as they do at
roulette. As to the question whether stakes and winnings are, in
themselves, immoral is another question altogether, and I wish to
express no opinion upon it. Yet the very fact that I was full of a
strong desire to win caused this gambling for gain, in spite of its
attendant squalor, to contain, if you will, something intimate,
something sympathetic, to my eyes: for it is always pleasant to see men
dispensing with ceremony, and acting naturally, and in an unbuttoned
mood....

Yet, why should I so deceive myself? I could see that the whole thing
was a vain and unreasoning pursuit; and what, at the first glance,
seemed to me the ugliest feature in this mob of roulette players was
their respect for their occupation--the seriousness, and even the
humility, with which they stood around the gaming tables. Moreover, I
had always drawn sharp distinctions between a game which is de mauvais
genre and a game which is permissible to a decent man. In fact, there
are two sorts of gaming--namely, the game of the gentleman and the game
of the plebs--the game for gain, and the game of the herd. Herein, as
said, I draw sharp distinctions. Yet how essentially base are the
distinctions! For instance, a gentleman may stake, say, five or ten
louis d'or--seldom more, unless he is a very rich man, when he may
stake, say, a thousand francs; but, he must do this simply for the love
of the game itself--simply for sport, simply in order to observe the
process of winning or of losing, and, above all things, as a man who
remains quite uninterested in the possibility of his issuing a winner.
If he wins, he will be at liberty, perhaps, to give vent to a laugh, or
to pass a remark on the circumstance to a bystander, or to stake again,
or to double his stake; but, even this he must do solely out of
curiosity, and for the pleasure of watching the p