When it first entered my thoughts to say a few words about chess
and its principal exponents during the Nineteenth century, and
particularly of the forty years during which I have been in the
circle, any idea of inquiring or examining into, and much less
of attempting to reconcile the many conflicting theories so well
known to exist in regard to the early history and progress of the
game, had never once occurred to me. Like many others, I was
slightly acquainted with Professor Forbes' important work of 1860,
in which the age of chess was fixed at about 5,000 years, and
India assigned as its birthplace; and I was more or less familiar
with the theories advanced as to its supposed first introduction
into Europe and also into our own country. That the assumed great
starting point of chess on a board of sixty-four squares (as at
present used), with thirty-two figures, and played by two persons,
was Persia, and that the time was during the reign of Chosroes
Cosrues, or Khosrus (as it is variously written), about A.D.
540, was to the limited few who took any particular interest in the
matter, considered, if not altogether absolutely free from doubt,
certainly one of the best attested facts in early chess history;
whilst the opinions of Sir William Jones (1763), the Rev. R.
Lambe (1764), Hon. Daines Barrington (1787), F. Douce, Esq. (1793),
and Sir Frederick Madden (1832), to the effect that chess first
found its way into England from France after the first Crusade,
at about. A.D. 1100, were, I know--although unfounded and
erroneous--generally accepted as embodying the most probable
theory.
The circumstance which first induced me to take some additional
interest in this question of chess origin, was the perusal of the
lines attributed to Pope (quoted by Forbes at the foot of Chapter
XII of his book), and the vague and uncertain, and I now think
unreasonable date fixed for our own probable first knowledge of
the game, though concurred in with tolerable unanimity by so many
ancient writers among those regarded as the chief authorities on
the subject.
This, however, is not all, for in regard to the European origin
of the game of chess, as to which there is such a consensus of
agreement; it may be that all the authors are yet still more at
fault; for with one accord they all assume that chess reached
Europe from Persia not earlier than the sixth century, the Arabs
and Saracens getting it about A.D. 600, Spain and the Aquitaine
Dominions being commonly pointed to as the countries which first
received it from the Arabs or Saracens in Europe after the Persian
period above named. There is no indication in any of the works of
a notion of the knowledge and practice of chess in Europe at an
earlier date, so it appears not unreasonable to conclude that the
following extract, which applies to a period seven hundred years
before the Persian epoch, must have entirely escaped the notice
of all the writers. The article occurs in the "Biographical
Dictionary of the Society for Diffusing Useful Knowledge"
(Longman & Co., Vol. I, Part II, pp. 842, 512), under the head
of "Ahenobarbus." The following is an extract of the Biography,
which is given in full in the Appendix:
"Ahenobarbus triumphed at Rome for his victory over Averni,
and, according to Cicero, over the Allobroges also, in
B.C. 120. In their Consulship (B.C. 115), Ahenobarbus and his
colleague, L. Coecilius Metellus Dalmatius, prohibited all
scenic exhibitions at Rome, except that of the Latin flute
players, and all games of chance, except Chess or Draughts,
&c., &c."
(Signed) W. B. D.
(Presumably William Bodham Donne.)
The contributions of W. B. D. are not frequent in the Biography
as those of Duncan Forbes, Aloys Sprenger, Pascual de Gayangos,
and William Plates are, and he does not apparently write, like them,
as an authority upon Eastern questions, and I might have overlooked
this reference to chess had I not read through the whole of the
volumes.
It will be observed that both Chess and Draughts are referred to
in the notice, which is important, for had chess alone been
mentioned, it is probable that exception would be taken that
the game was but a species of the latter; it is doubtful, also,
whether Ludus Latrunculorum, a game of the Romans, might not
also have been suggested.
I cannot find any writer who has referred to chess in Rome or
elsewhere at this period, and it is not improbable that the extract
given may cause some little astonishment to those well-known
writers who have assumed that the Romans knew nothing of chess
till some centuries later. The generally accepted theory is
that chess reached Persia from India in the sixth century of our
era during Chosroes' reign, as stated by Lambe, 1764; Bland,
1850; and others; and this is almost universally concurred in.
The practice of chess in Rome, as indicated by the foregoing
edict seven hundred years before, may, however, tend somewhat
to disturb all existing theories as to its first European
origin, and it will be of interest to know what the learned in
such matters will think in regard to it, while it may tend to
closer investigation by more learned and able men, who have
already devoted attention to the subject, and have greater
facilities for extracting reliable information.
Spain is stated by all authorities to be the first country in
Europe where chess was known, 600 to 700 A.D. being the period
assigned. The Franks and Aquitaines had it very soon afterwards,
certainly in Charles Martell's reign, and evidence that the
game was held in high esteem during the reigns of his successors,
Pepin and Charlemagne, may now be regarded as perfectly
satisfactory.
As the views of Pope before referred to represent something like
those of many others, and they may not be altogether devoid of
interest in the present day, I append them, with Forbes' sweeping
animadversions thereon. The lines which have been published as
original (or without acknowledgment) by more than one chess writer
in modern magazines, are as follows:
"When and where chess was invented is a problem which we
believe never will be solved. The origin of the game recedes every
day further back into the regions of the past and unknown.
Individuals deep in antiquarian lore have very praiseworthily
puzzled themselves and their readers in vain, in their endeavours
to ascertain to their satisfaction how this wonderful pastime
sprang into existence.
"Whether it was the product of some peaceful age, when science
and philosophy reigned supreme, or whether it was nurtured amid
the tented field of the warrior, are questions which it is equally
futile and unnecessary now to ask. Sufficient for us that the game
exists, and that it has been sung of by Homer, that it has been
the delight of kings, scholars, and philosophers in almost every
age; that it is now on the flood tide of success, and is going
on its way gathering fresh votaries at every step, and that it
seems destined to go down to succeeding ages as an imperishable
monument of the genius and skill of its unknown founder."
Forbes introduces this article by observing: "Pope has much to
answer for as the originator of a vast deal of rhetorical rubbish
upon us in chess lectures and chess articles in periodicals.
Here (he says), for example, is a fair stereotype specimen of
this sort," and he concludes: "We recommend the above eloquent
moreceaux, taken from a chess periodical now defunct, to the
attention of chessmen at chess reunions, chess lectures, and
those who are ambitious to do a spicy article for a chess
periodical."
This appears somewhat severe on Pope, even if it be reasonable
and consistent, which may be doubted; for Forbes himself, writing
to the "Chess Player's Chronicle," in 1853, about 120 years
after Pope, and seven years before the appearance of his own
"History of Chess," thus expressed himself:
"In the present day it is impossible to trace the game of chess
with moral certainty back to its source amidst the dark shades of
antiquity, but I am quite ready to prove that the claim of the
Hindoos as the inventors, is far more satisfactory than that of
any other people."
Pope needs no defenders. There are writers of more recent date,
who have inflicted what Forbes would probably call more rhetorical
rubbish upon chess readers. Here is one other example, which
appeared in 1865:
"Though the precise birth and parentage of chess are absolutely
unknown, yet a light marks the track of this royal personage adown
the ages, by which we may clearly enough discern one significant
note of his progress, that he has always kept the very best of
company. We find him ever in the bosom of civilization, the
companion of the wise and thoughtful, the beloved of the studious
and mild. Barbarous men had to be humanized and elevated before
he would come to them. While the East remained the better part
of the world he confined himself to the East; when the West was
to be regenerated he attended with the other agents of beneficial
destiny, and helped the good work on. He seems to have entered
Europe on two opposite sides. Along with philosophy and letters
Spain and Portugal received him, with other good gifts, from their
benefactors the Saracens; and he is seen in the eighth century
at Constantinople, quietly biding his time for a further advance.
>From that time to the present, chess has been the delight of
kings and kaisers, of the reflecting, the witty, and the good."
------
The Indian and American views will be found in the sequel.
It is a peculiar and distinguishing characteristic in the very
long life of chess, that at no period of its existence has any
attempt ever been made to place on record a narrative of its
events, either contemporary or retrospective, or to preserve its
materials and to construct a lasting history for it; and,
notwithstanding, the enormous advance and increase in chess
appreciation and chess reporting in 19th century ages, it will
not, perhaps, be very rash to predict that a future generation
will be scarcely better informed of our chess doings than we are
of the past, and that the 20th century will, in this respect, be
to the 19th as that is to the 18th and preceding ones. The
valuable scientific and weighty works of Dr. Hyde, Sir William
Jones, and Professor Duncan Forbes were mostly devoted to chess
in the East, and to arguments on the probabilities of its origin
and proofs that it came from India. The book of Forbes, the most
elaborate and latest of them, is much devoted to the Sanskrit
translations of the accounts of the ancient Hindu Chaturanga;
and descriptions of other games which, however able and
interesting from a scientific point of view, observation and
experience seem to indicate to us, few care to follow or study
much in the present day.
The period of 750 to 1500 is dismissed by Forbes in less than a
single page. His work contains no account of Philidor or his works,
nor of the progress of chess in this century up to 1860 when his
own book appears, and makes no mention of modern chess events or
players and it is an expensive work when viewed by popular notions
on the subject. These foregoing works with the admirable
contributions and treatises of the Rev. R. Lambe, the Hon. Daines
Barrington, F. Douce, H. Twiss, P. Pratt, Sir F. Madden,
W. Lewis, Sarratt, George Walker, C. Kenny, C. Tomlinson,
Captain Kennedy, Staunton and Professor Bland all combined fail
to supply our wants, besides which there is no summing up of them
or their parts, or attempt to blend them into one harmonious
whole, and each writer has appeared too well satisfied with his
own conclusions to care to trouble himself much about those of
anybody else.
The Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French writers who refer
to chess, and in our own country Chaucer, Lydgate, Caxton,
Barbiere, Pope, Dryden, Philidor, and the Encyclopaediasts deal
mainly with traditions, each having a pet theory; all, however,
conclude by declaring in words, but slightly varied, that the
origin of chess is enshrouded in mist and obscurity, lost in
the remote ages of antiquity, or like Pope pronounce it a problem
which never will be solved.
The incomparable game of chess, London, 1820, says, under
"Traditions of Chess." Some historians have referred to the
invention of chess to the philosopher Xerxes, others to the
Grecian Prince Palamedes, some to the brothers Lydo and Tyrrhene
and others, again, to the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Hindus,
the Persians, the Arabians, the Irish, the Welsh, the Araucanians,
the Jews, the Scythians, and, finally, their fair Majesties
Semiramis and Zenobia also prefer their claims to be considered
as the originators of chess.
Chess history, it may be assumed, has never been regarded as a
very profitable subject to write upon; and, even in these days of
very advanced appreciation of chess, it is highly probable, that
only a very few among the more curious of its admirers, who care to
consider the basis and essence of things, will take any particular
interest in this branch of the subject; but it is just for such that
we venture to submit a very brief outline of what we find suggested
from the fairest inferences, which can be gathered from existing
information, as to the source from whence our favourite and
charming game first sprung.
Enquiries as to the habits and the idiosyncrasies of chess
players known to fame, have, always, appeared to be of interest,
and have been frequent and continuous from our earliest
recollections, both at home and abroad. We have met with people,
who would devote an hour to questions of this sort, who would not
care to listen five minutes to chess history or devote that time to
look at the finest game. In America, once, a most pertinacious
investigator, in for a very long sitting (not an interviewer with
his excellent bait and exquisite powers of incision but a genuine
home brew), was easily disposed of by the bare mention of the
words India, Persia, China, Chaturanga, Chatrang, Shatranji and
Chess Masterpieces.
This thirster after knowledge would have absorbed willingly
any account of Staunton's appearance and manners, his elevated
eyebrows and rolling forehead, Munchausen anecdotes, Havannah
cigars and tobacco plantations, Buckle's peculiarities, pedantic
and sarcastic Johnsonian's gold-headed walking stick, so often
lost yet always found, but once, and the frequent affinity between
his hat and the spittoon, the yet greater absence of mind of
Morphy and Paulsen and their only speeches, the gallantry, kid
gloves, lectures of Lowenthal and his bewilderment on the subject
of Charlemagne, the linguistic proficiency of Rosenthal, the chess
chivalry, bluntness extreme taciturnity, amorous nature and
extreme admiration for English female beauty, of Anderssen,
McDonnell's jokes and after dinner speeches, Boden's recollections,
Pickwickian and other quotations, and in fact little incidents
relative to most of the celebrated chess players, constantly flit
through the memory in social chat, which invariably seem to
entertain chess listeners whom a minute's conversation about the
history, science, or theory of the game would utterly fail to
please.
The early censurer of chess in the old Arabian manuscript who
declared that the chess player was ever absorbed in his chess
"and full of care" may have reflected the chess of his time, but
he did not live in the Nineteenth century and had never seen a
La Bourdonnais, a McDonnell or a Bird play or he might have
modified his views as to the undue seriousness of chess. The
Fortnightly Review in its article of December, 1886 devoted some
space to the fancy shirt fronts of Lowenthal, the unsavoury
cigars of Winawer, the distinguished friends of one of the
writers, the Foreign secretary, denial that Zukertort came over in
two ships, and other less momentous matters, so we may assume
that the authors who greatly control the destinies of chess
could even, themselves, at times appreciate a joke.
Despite however the preference so decidedly evinced on these
subjects, concerning which we are advised to say a little, the real
origin of chess, the opinions in regard to it and its traditions
and fables interest us more, and tempt a few remarks upon
prevailing misconceptions which it appears desirable as far as
possible to dispel, besides there may yet be a possibility that
some of the more learned who admire the game may produce a work
more worthy of the subject, which, though perhaps of trifling
importance to real science and profound literature, certainly
appears to merit, from its many marked epochs, and interesting
associations, somewhat more attention than it has ever yet received.
------