Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from The Gaming Table: Its Votaries and Victims. Volume 2 (of 2), by Andrew Steinmetz
CATCHING A TARTAR.
'My skill at billiards,' says a confessing gamester, 'gave me a
superiority over most I met with. I could also hide my skill very
dexterously, which is generally found a work of great difficulty,
and judiciously winning or losing, I contrived to make it answer my
purpose,--until one day, going to a table which I was very much in
the practice of frequenting, and where no one was then engaged, I was
invited by a stranger to play. I accepted the invitation for a small
stake, and won very easily, so much so, that on commencing a new game I
offered to give him six, to place us more on an equality. He accepted it
eagerly, but it produced him no benefit; he played so badly, and managed
both his cue and mace so awkwardly--for I made no objection to his
changing them as often as he pleased--that, playing very carelessly, I
could not avoid beating him. We continued increasing the stakes every
successive game; money seemed of no value to him; he appeared to have
plenty, and lost it with a spirit that told me I had got hold of an
excellent subject, who could pay me well for beating him. I did not
wish to win too palpably, and therefore kept increasing the advantage I
yielded him, till it amounted to sixteen. He now proposed making the bet
ONE HUNDRED POUNDS, and that I should give him eighteen. His eagerness,
as well as the manner in which he handled his tools, convinced me of his
inexperience, and I accepted the proposal;--but, to my surprise, he won
the game. He laughed so heartily at the event, and conducted himself
so extravagantly, that I felt persuaded the thing was accidental. He
proposed doubling the stakes, which I refused; yet I agreed to play him
for the same sum as before, but giving him only fourteen. By some chance
he won again; and then I declined playing any more; but he pushed me so
hard, and offered to play the even game rather than I should give over,
that I was induced to yield. He declared he did not want my money, and
wished to give me an opportunity of recovering it. It was the depth of
artifice, and I discovered it too late. He won . . . and I had no money
to pay! One of the bystanders took part with him; my case did not invite
or interest any one to stand by me. I was treated with great indignity;
and though I gave up my watch and every article of value I possessed,
yet I was not allowed to depart without very ill usage. I had
transgressed the laws of gaming, by betting after I had ceased to be
able to pay; but I had so confidently felt that I had my antagonist in
my own power, that I considered the stake as my own as soon as the bet
was made. The injuries I received were very severe, and confined me to
my bed for several days.'(32)
(32) Confessions of a Gamester.
Explanation
Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The Gaming Table: Its Votaries and Victims by Andrew Steinmetz
Context of the Source
Andrew Steinmetz’s The Gaming Table: Its Votaries and Victims (1870) is a two-volume work that examines the social, psychological, and moral dangers of gambling in 18th- and 19th-century Britain. The book combines historical accounts, anecdotes, and moral warnings about the destructive nature of gaming, particularly among the aristocracy and middle classes. The excerpt "Catching a Tartar" is a first-person confession from an unnamed gambler, recounting how his overconfidence in billiards led to his downfall at the hands of a more cunning opponent.
The term "Tartar" (now archaic) originally referred to the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan, known for their ferocity and unpredictability. By the 19th century, it had evolved into a colloquial expression meaning "a formidable or dangerous person"—someone who appears weak but proves unexpectedly skilled or ruthless. The title thus foreshadows the narrator’s misjudgment of his opponent.
Summary of the Excerpt
The narrator, a skilled billiards player, prides himself on his ability to manipulate opponents by hiding his true skill and controlling the stakes to his advantage. He frequents a particular gaming table where he preys on weaker players, carefully balancing wins and losses to keep them engaged. One day, a stranger challenges him. The narrator, confident in his superiority, accepts and easily wins the first game.
Assuming the stranger is an inexperienced mark, he offers increasingly generous handicaps (letting the opponent start with a point advantage) to lure him into higher stakes. The stranger, however, plays terribly at first, reinforcing the narrator’s belief that he is an easy target. When the stakes reach £100, the stranger suddenly wins—then doubles down, winning again. The narrator, now suspicious but still overconfident, refuses to quit, only to lose repeatedly. When he can no longer pay, he is beaten and humiliated, losing his watch and possessions before being physically abused by the stranger and bystanders.
The confession ends with the narrator acknowledging that he violated the unspoken rules of gambling (betting when he couldn’t pay) and suffered severe consequences—both financial and physical.
Key Themes
The Illusion of Control & Overconfidence
- The narrator believes he is the predator, skillfully manipulating others, but he becomes the prey when he underestimates his opponent.
- His arrogance blinds him to the stranger’s true intentions, a classic example of hubris leading to downfall.
Deception and Role Reversal
- The stranger mirrors the narrator’s own tactics: pretending to be weak to lure him into a false sense of security.
- The narrator, who prides himself on hiding his skill, fails to recognize that the stranger is doing the same—only better.
The Moral Hazards of Gambling
- The excerpt illustrates how gambling corrupts judgment, leading to reckless behavior (e.g., betting beyond one’s means).
- The narrator’s greed (wanting to "pay himself well") and pride (refusing to quit while ahead) are his undoing.
- The physical violence at the end underscores the brutality of gambling culture, where losers are not just financially ruined but socially ostracized.
The Unwritten Rules of Gaming
- The narrator admits he broke the gambler’s code by betting when he couldn’t pay, which justifies (in the eyes of the gaming world) his harsh treatment.
- This reflects the amoral nature of gambling societies, where mercy is nonexistent, and weakness is exploited.
The "Tartar" as a Symbol of Hidden Danger
- The stranger embodies the deceptive nature of gambling: what seems like an easy win can quickly turn into disaster.
- The term "Tartar" also suggests foreignness or otherness—the stranger is an outsider who disrupts the narrator’s familiar world.
Literary Devices & Stylistic Analysis
First-Person Confession (Unreliable Narrator)
- The story is told from the gambler’s perspective, making it subjective and potentially biased.
- His initial confidence ("I had got hold of an excellent subject") contrasts sharply with his later humiliation, creating dramatic irony.
Foreshadowing
- The title "Catching a Tartar" hints that the narrator will encounter someone far more dangerous than he expects.
- The stranger’s awkward play and eagerness to increase stakes should have been red flags, but the narrator misinterprets them as incompetence.
Irony (Dramatic & Situational)
- Dramatic Irony: The reader suspects the stranger is a shark long before the narrator does.
- Situational Irony: The narrator, who prides himself on controlling the game, is the one being controlled.
Escalation & Tension
- The stakes rise incrementally (from small bets to £100), building suspense.
- The stranger’s sudden wins disrupt the narrator’s expectations, creating a turning point in the story.
Imagery of Power & Subjugation
- The narrator initially sees the stranger as "an excellent subject" (like a hunter viewing prey).
- By the end, he is the one subjugated, treated with "great indignity" and physical abuse.
Symbolism of the Gaming Table
- The billiards table is a microcosm of life’s risks, where skill, luck, and deception intersect.
- The cue and mace (billiards tools) symbolize control—the stranger’s awkward handling of them is a false signal of weakness.
Significance of the Excerpt
A Cautionary Tale Against Gambling
- Steinmetz uses this anecdote to warn readers about the moral and financial perils of gaming.
- The narrator’s downfall is a classic gambler’s ruin—a slow descent into recklessness and ruin.
Social Critique of 19th-Century Gaming Culture
- Gambling was a major vice in Regency and Victorian England, particularly among the upper classes.
- The excerpt highlights the predatory nature of gaming houses, where deception was rampant and losers were shamed.
Psychological Insight into Addiction
- The narrator’s inability to quit even after losing reflects the compulsive nature of gambling addiction.
- His denial ("I considered the stake as my own as soon as the bet was made") is a common trait among problem gamblers.
Literary Influence on Gambling Narratives
- This confession fits into a long tradition of gambling stories (e.g., Dostoyevsky’s The Gambler, Poe’s The Cask of Amontillado), where overconfidence leads to ruin.
- The "Tartar" trope—the seemingly weak opponent who dominates—appears in later works, such as poker stories where a "fish" (amateur) turns out to be a "shark."
Conclusion: Why This Excerpt Matters
This passage is a masterclass in tension, irony, and moral instruction. It serves as both an entertaining anecdote and a stern warning about the dangers of gambling. The narrator’s hubris, deception, and eventual humiliation make the story compelling, while Steinmetz’s social commentary gives it deeper weight.
The lesson is clear: in gambling (as in life), overconfidence is a trap, and what seems like an easy victory can quickly become a devastating loss. The "Tartar" is not just a skilled opponent—he is a mirror, reflecting the narrator’s own flaws back at him. By the end, the reader is left with a chilling reminder: in the world of gaming, no one is truly in control.
Final Thought:"The house always wins"—but in this case, the "house" is not a casino, but the unpredictable, ruthless nature of human deception itself.
Questions
Question 1
The narrator’s initial description of his billiards strategy—“judiciously winning or losing, I contrived to make it answer my purpose”—primarily serves to establish which of the following about his character?
A. A calculated pragmatism that ultimately protects him from financial ruin.
B. A superficial charm that masks his deep-seated insecurity about his skill.
C. An ethical flexibility that aligns with the moral codes of 19th-century gaming culture.
D. A self-aware acknowledgment of the inherent randomness in games of chance.
E. A hubristic belief in his own mastery over both the game and his opponents.
Question 2
The stranger’s behavior—particularly his “awkward” handling of the cue and mace—is most effectively interpreted as an example of:
A. A genuine lack of coordination, which the narrator misreads as a feint.
B. A subconscious tell revealing his nervousness about the high stakes.
C. An unintentional betrayal of his inexperience, confirming the narrator’s assumptions.
D. A performative exaggeration meant to distract the narrator from the real game.
E. A deliberate inversion of the narrator’s own tactic of concealing skill.
Question 3
The passage’s conclusion—“I had transgressed the laws of gaming, by betting after I had ceased to be able to pay”—is most thematically resonant with which of the following ideas?
A. The hypocrisy of a system that punishes the narrator for a violation it tacitly encourages.
B. The inevitability of moral retribution for those who exploit others’ weaknesses.
C. The arbitrary nature of gambling etiquette, which privileges the wealthy.
D. The narrator’s belated realization that his opponent was always operating within the rules.
E. The existential futility of seeking justice in a realm governed by deception.
Question 4
The stranger’s declaration—“he did not want my money, and wished to give me an opportunity of recovering it”—is best understood as:
A. A moment of unexpected generosity that undermines the passage’s cynical tone.
B. A psychological tactic to manipulate the narrator into continuing the game.
C. An ironic commentary on the narrator’s prior false magnanimity in offering handicaps.
D. A revelation that the stranger’s motives were never financial but purely vindictive.
E. Evidence that the stranger’s initial clumsiness was a ruse to test the narrator’s sportsmanship.
Question 5
Which of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the narrator’s initial confidence and his eventual humiliation?
A. His confidence is predicated on a flawed assumption—that skill in deception guarantees control over outcomes—while his humiliation exposes the fragility of that assumption.
B. His confidence stems from a rational assessment of probability, but his humiliation results from an unforeseeable stroke of bad luck.
C. His confidence is a facade to compensate for underlying self-doubt, and his humiliation is the inevitable unmasking of that insecurity.
D. His confidence is justified by his past successes, but his humiliation arises from an external force (the stranger) that disrupts the natural order.
E. His confidence and humiliation are symmetrically linked to his adherence to gambling’s unwritten rules, which he both exploits and violates.
Solutions and Explanations
1) Correct answer: E
Why E is most correct: The narrator’s statement reveals a deep-seated overestimation of his own abilities, not just in billiards but in his capacity to manipulate others. His belief that he can “contrive” outcomes to “answer [his] purpose” reflects hubris—a confidence that blinds him to the possibility of being outmaneuvered. This aligns with the passage’s broader critique of gambling as a domain where self-delusion precedes downfall. The phrase “judiciously winning or losing” is less about pragmatism (A) or ethics (C) than about control, which he later loses spectacularly.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: His strategy does not protect him; it leads to ruin. The passage underscores his lack of true pragmatism.
- B: There’s no evidence of insecurity; his tone is smug, not anxious.
- C: The gaming culture’s “moral codes” are amoral (e.g., violence against losers), but the narrator’s flexibility is self-serving, not aligned with any code.
- D: He does not acknowledge randomness; he believes he controls outcomes until proven wrong.
2) Correct answer: E
Why E is most correct: The stranger’s awkwardness mirrors the narrator’s own tactic of hiding skill, but in reverse: where the narrator downplays his ability, the stranger exaggerates incompetence. This is a deliberate inversion, a meta-level deception that exploits the narrator’s assumption that clumsiness equals weakness. The passage’s irony lies in the stranger weaponizing the narrator’s own strategy against him.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The awkwardness is too consistent to be genuine; the stranger’s later wins prove it’s performative.
- B: Nervousness would undermine the stranger’s later calculating dominance; the text suggests control, not anxiety.
- C: The narrator’s assumptions are wrong, but the stranger’s behavior is not an unintentional betrayal—it’s intentional.
- D: While plausible, “performative exaggeration” (D) is less precise than inversion (E), which ties directly to the narrator’s own methods.
3) Correct answer: A
Why A is most correct: The gaming “laws” the narrator violates are arbitrary and hypocritical: the culture encourages predatory behavior (e.g., luring opponents into higher stakes) but punishes those who can’t pay. The narrator’s transgression is structural—he’s a victim of a system that rewards deception until it doesn’t. The passage critiques this moral inconsistency, where the rules exist to protect the house (or the sharper), not fairness.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- B: “Moral retribution” implies justice, but the passage depicts amoral brutality, not karmic balance.
- C: While gambling favors the wealthy, the focus here is on hypocrisy, not class.
- D: The stranger also violates norms (e.g., feigning weakness), so this isn’t about rule-following.
- E: “Existential futility” is overbroad; the theme is systemic hypocrisy, not nihilism.
4) Correct answer: D
Why D is most correct: The stranger’s claim to disinterest in money—after winning—reveals that his motives were never financial. His insistence on continuing the game, even offering to let the narrator “recover” losses, is sadistic: he wants to humiliate, not profit. The passage frames this as vindictiveness, not generosity (A) or psychology (B). The stranger’s laughter and extravagant conduct earlier signal that power, not money, is the goal.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The tone remains cynical; the stranger’s “generosity” is mocking.
- B: While manipulative, the primary motive isn’t psychological—it’s punitive.
- C: The irony is deeper than this; the stranger mirrors and surpasses the narrator’s deception.
- E: The test isn’t about sportsmanship; it’s about exposing the narrator’s greed.
5) Correct answer: A
Why A is most correct: The narrator’s confidence rests on a fatal flaw: he assumes that controlling appearances (hiding skill, offering handicaps) equals controlling reality. His humiliation stems from the collapse of this assumption—the stranger uses the same tactics better, proving that deception is a two-way street. The passage’s core tension is between perceived mastery and actual vulnerability.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- B: “Bad luck” undermines the stranger’s agency; the loss is engineered, not random.
- C: No evidence of self-doubt; his confidence is genuine arrogance.
- D: The stranger isn’t an “external force”—he’s a mirror of the narrator’s own methods.
- E: The rules are a pretext; the real issue is the narrator’s misplaced confidence in his own cunning.