"The King moves one square in all directions; the Pawn moves
one square straightforward, but smites an enemy through either
angle, in advance; the Elephant, O Prince of many lands, moves,
(so far as his path is clear), In the direction of the four
cardinal points, according to his own pleasure. The Horse moves
over the three squares in an oblique direction; and the Ship, O
Yudhisthira, moves two squares diagonally."
NOTE. The Elephant had the same move as our Rook has, the Horse
the same as our Knight. The ship had two clear moves diagonally
(a limited form of our Bishop). The King one square in all
directions the same as now. The Pawn one square straightforward.
There was no Queen in the Chaturanga, but a piece, with a one
square move, existed in the two handed modified Chatrang. The
Queen, of present powers is first mentioned in the game at the
end of the 15th century, when the works of the Spanish writers
Lucena and Vicenz appeared in 1495.
------
About two thousand six hundred years are supposed to have
elapsed between the time of King Pandu, Prince Yudhisthira,
Vyasa, and the records of the ancient Chaturanga, to the days of
Alexander the Great, to which period the references concerning
chess and the Indian Kings contained in Eastern accounts,
Firdausi's Persian Shahnama and the Asiatic Society's M.S.
presented to them by Major Price, relate.
NOTE. The Shahnama, it is recorded, occupied thirty years in its
preparation and contains one hundred and twenty thousand verses.
The long interval of three or four thousand years, between the
date ascribed to the Chaturanga, and its reappearance as the
Chatrang in Persia, and the Shatranj in Arabia, has perplexed
all writers, for none can offer a vestige of trace of evidence,
either of the conversion of Chaturanga into Chatrang or Shatranj;
or that the game ever continued to be practiced in its old form
either with or without the dice, it is conjectured merely, that
when the dice had to be dispensed with, as contrary to the law
and the religion of the Hindus and when such laws were vigorously
enforced, it then became a test of pure skill only, and was
probably more generally engaged in by two competitors than four;
but, it appears reasonable, when we recollect the oft translated
story of Nala, and the evident fascination of the dice to the
Hindus, to suppose that the dice formed far too an important
element in the Chaturanga to be so easily surrendered; and it is
not at all improbable that the prohibition and suppression of
the dice destroyed much of its popularity and that the game
became much less practiced and ceased to be regarded with a
degree of estimation sufficiently high to make it national in
character, or deemed worthy of the kind of record likely to be
handed down to prosperity. Notwithstanding that the moves of
Kings, Rooks and Knights in the Chaturanga were the same as they
are now, the absence of a Queen, (which even in the two-handed
chess was long only represented by a piece with a single square
move) and the limited power of the Bishops and Pawns, must have
made the Chaturanga a dull affair compared with present
chess as improved towards the close of the Fifteenth century;
and it is not so very remarkable that it should have occurred
to Tamerlane to desire some extension of its principles, even
with our present charming and, as some consider, perfect game,
we find that during the 17th and 18th centuries, up to Philidor's
time not a good recorded game or page of connected chess history
is to be found and we may cease to wonder so much at the absence
of record for four or three thousand years or more, for a game
so inferior to ours. Were the Chaturanga now to be revived
without the dice it would probably not prove very popular.
Authorities say "But, unquestionably, the favourite game among
the ancient Hindus, was that of chess; a knowledge of which in
those primitive times formed one of the requisite accomplishments
of a hero, just as skill in chess was considered among us in the
palmy days of Chivalry."
What this game was is not explained; beyond the description of
the oblong die of four sides, used to determine which piece had
to move in the Chaturanga; we have no information how a game of
interest could be made with dice alone, as is not easy to understand.
------
We have no means of ascertaining, says Forbes the exact era at
which the Chaturanga passed into the Shatranj, or in other words
at what period as the Muhammadans view it, the Hindus invented
the latter form of the game. The earlier writers of Arabia and
Persia do not agree on the point, some of them placing it as early
as the time of Alexander the Great and others as late as that of
Naushurawan. Even the poet Firdausi, the very best authority
among them though he devotes a very long and a very romantic
episode to the occasion of the invention of the Shatranj, is quite
silent as to the exact period; all that he lets us know on that
point is that it took place in the reign of a certain prince who
ruled over northern India and whose name was Gau, the son of
Jamhur.
Sir William Jones was Judge of a Supreme Court of Judicature
in Bengal, from 27 April, 1783 to 27 April, 1794, when he died
at Calcutta. It is recorded that he came much in contact with
intelligent Brahmans and was much esteemed. He states on the
authority of his friend the Brahman "Radha Kant" "that this
game is mentioned in the oldest (Hindu) law books; and that it
was invented by the wife of Ravan, King of Lanka, the capital
of Ceylon, in order to amuse him with an image of war while
his metropolis was closely besieged by Rama in the second age
of the world."
NOTE. Sir William Jones says: If evidence be required to prove
that chess was invented by the Hindus, we may be satisfied with
the testimony of the Persians, who, though as much inclined as
other nations to appropriate the ingenious inventions of a foreign
people, unanimously agree that the game was imported from the west
of India, together with the charming fables of Vishnusarma, in the
Sixth century of our era. It seems to have been immemorially known
in Hindustan by the name of Chaturanga, that is the four "angas"
or members of an army, which are said in the Amarakosha to be
Hasty-aswa-ratha-padatum, or Elephants, Horses, Chariots and Foot
Soldiers, and in this sense the word is frequently used by epic
poets in their descriptions of real armies. By a natural corruption
of the pure Sanskrit word, it was changed by the old Persians into
Chatrang; but the Arabs, who soon after took possession of their
country, had neither the initial or final letter of that word in
their alphabet, and consequently altered it further into Shatranj,
which found its way presently into the modern Persian, and at
length into the dialects of India, where the true derivation of
the name is known only to the learned. Thus has a very significant
word in the sacred language of the Brahmans been transferred by
successive changes into axedres, scacchi, echecs, chess and by a
whimsical concurrence of circumstances given birth to the English
word check, and even a name to the Exchequer of Great Britain!
"The beautiful simplicity and extreme perfection of the game, as
it is commonly played in Europe and Asia, convince me that it was
invented by one effect of some great genius; not completed by
gradual improvements, but formed to use the phrase of the
Italian critics, by the first intention, yet of this simple game,
so exquisitely contrived and so certainly invented in India. I
cannot find any account in the classical writings of the Brahmans."
------
Eminent contributors to the Archaeological Society and to
Asiatic Researches have adopted the conclusions of the foregoing
authors, (Dr. Hyde, Sir W. Jones and Professor Forbes). Francis
Douce, Esq., after referring to Dr. Hyde's labours, says, "Yet I
shall avail myself of this opportunity of mentioning the latest and
perhaps most satisfactory opinion upon this subject; for which we
are indebted to the labours of that accomplished scholar Sir
William Jones." He has informed us that chess was invented
by the Hindoos from the testimony of the Persians who,
unanimously, agree that it was imported from the West of India in
the Sixth century and immemorially known in Hindustan by the name
of Chaturanga or the four members of an army, viz. Elephants,
Horses, Chariots and Foot Soldiers.
Sir F. Madden, 1828, remarks: "It is sufficient, at present, to
assume on the authorities produced by the learned Dr. Hyde and
Sir William Jones that for the invention and earliest form of
this game we must look to India, from whence through the
medium of the Persians and the Arabs, as proved demonstratively
by the names of the chessmen it was afterwards transmitted to
the nations of Europe."
It seems that we may be satisfied that chess is of Asiatic origin,
and India its birth place without subscribing entirely to the
view that even the ancient Hindu Chaturanga so minutely
described and which comes so long before any other game
mentioned in China or Egypt is even the first of chess; but we
may say this much, that, notwithstanding, the doubts expressed by
Crawford in his history and Rajah Brooke in his journal, and the
negative opposition of Dr. Van der Linde, we cannot bring
ourselves to be skeptical enough to discredit the trustworthiness of
the accounts furnished to us in the works of Dr. Hyde, Sir. William
Jones and Professor Duncan Forbes of the existence of the game
called the Chaturanga at the time stated.
NOTE. The Amara Kosha was one of the most valued works of Amara
Sinha one of the nine gems which adorned the throne of Vikramaditya.
The period, when he lived, was that from which the Hindoos date
their present chronology; that is he lived about the middle of
the first century B.C. The Amara Kosha was one of his numerous
works preserved, if not the only one that escaped. They perished,
it is said, like all other Buddhistical writings at the time of
the persecutions raised by the Brahmans against those who
professed the religion of Buddha.
------
Sanskrit scholars, including Colebrooke and Captain Cox, writing
rather incidentally than as chess players, inform us that the pieces
used in our game, viz. the Rook, Knight, and Bishop are
referred to in old Indian treatises, under their respective names of
Elephant, Horse, and Ship, which is a most convincing item of
evidence to chess players. This is one of the three main things
which historians fail to notice; the Roman Edict of 115 B.C. and
790 to 793 A.D., the least unlikely period for English acquirement
of the game, on Alcuin's three years visit from Charlemagne's
court, being the two others most meriting attention and noticed in
their respective places.
NOTE. The Roman Edict of 115 B.C. exempting chess and Draughts from
prohibition, when other games were being interdicted, seems to
have escaped the notice of all writers, and does not harmonize
with the Germans Weber and Van der Linde's theories of 954 A.D.
for the earliest knowledge of chess in its precise form.
NOTE. Alcuin, 735-804, is a name forgotten by all writers in
considering the Charlemagne, Koran, and Princess Irene period
and English probabilities.
NOTE. The Sanskrit translations for the glorious Al Mamun, 813
to 833, those mentioned in the Sikust (980), and for the
enlightened Akbar, 1556 to 1615, seem to have been unknown to
European scholars, who throughout the early and middle ages do
not strike us as having been remarkable for zeal and application.
------
The Chinese claims made apparently rather for than by them,
are recorded in the annals of the Asiatic Society as being in
respect of a game called "War Kie," played with 360 pieces, said
to have been invented by Emperor Yao so far back as B.C. 2300,
the next account is of a game called Hsiang Kie, attributed to
Wa Wung B.C. 1122, with 16 pieces on each side, like draughts
with characters written on each so recently as 1866, it was claimed
to be played all over the country. The great dictionary of Arts
and Sciences dedicated to our King in 1727, merely says:
"The Chinese claim to date back their acquaintance with chess
to a very remote period." The Chinese call chess the game of the
Elephant, and say that they had it from the Indians. The
Haipiene or great Chinese Directory under the word Sianghki,
says that this happened in the reign of Vouti, about the year of
Christ 537. Notwithstanding this statement there is an account
of Real Chess given in 1793, by Eyles Irwin, Esq., a gentleman
who had passed many years of his life in India, and contained in
a communication to the President of the Irish Society. He says
379 years after the time of Confucius (which is equal to 172 B.C.),
King Cochu, King of Kiangnan, sent an expedition into the Shensi
Country, under the command of a Mandarin, called Hansing, to
conquer it, and during the winter season, to allay the discontent
of his army at inaction, chess was invented to amuse them, with
results entirely satisfactory.
The board, or game, Irwin says, is called Chong Ki or Royal
Game. Forbes says the game is called by the Chinese "Choke
Choo Hong Ki."
The board is 64 squares with a chasm in the middle, the army
9 pieces, 2 rocket boys, and 5 pawns on each side.
It has become the fashion to this day to dish up the great poets'
lines more or less seasoned or to repeat, one or the other of the
fabulous stories, or fallacious theories so constantly put forward
in regard to the origin of chess, so it may be not amiss to state
what is known or can be gathered in regard to it, concerning the
claims of countries other than India.
Such consideration as can be found devoted to the game in Egypt
mostly relates to hypothesis and conjectures in regard to the
inscriptions on tombs and on the walls of temples and palaces;
some discussion has arisen in our own time, in notes and queries,
and particularly in regard to Mr. Disraeli's references in the book
Alroy, concerning which the Westminster Chess papers in 1872,
instituted a criticism. Chapter 16 of Alroy begins "Two stout
soldiers were playing chess in a coffee house," and Mr. Disraeli
inserts on this the following note (80). "On the walls of the
palace of Amenoph II, called Medeenet Abuh, at Egyptian Thebes,
the King is represented playing chess with the Queen. This
monarch reigned long before the Trojan War."
A critic, calling himself the author of Fossil Chess adds "In
the same work may be found some account of the paintings on
the tombs at Beni Hassan, presumably the oldest in Egypt, dating
from the time of Osirtasen I, twenty centuries before the
Christian era, and eight hundred years anterior to the reign of
Rameses III, by whom the temple of Medeenet Abuh was commenced,
and who is the Rameses portrayed on its walls." An unaccountable
error on Mr. Disraeli's part in the same note assigns its
erection to Amenoph II, who lived 1414 B.C.
Closer investigators of the Hieroglyphics of Ancient Egypt, state
Rameses Merammun (15th King of the 18th dynasty and grandfather
of Sesostris), who reigned as Ramses IV from 1559 to 1493 B.C.,
is the name that appears on the great palace of Medinet Abu, and
some other buildings in the ruins of Thebes.
According to the tables of Egyptian Chronology most approved
in 1827 reviews Sethos or Sesostris reigned as Ramses VI from
1473 to 1418 B.C. The reviews observe that Herodotus thought
that Sesostris ascended the throne a few years later than
1360 B.C. Amenophis II reigned from 1687 to 1657 B.C.
The draughtmen and board of Queen Hatasu among her relicts
in the Manchester Exhibition of 1887, are assigned to 1600 B.C.;
but she was the daughter of Thotmes I, who according to the
tables referred to, reigned 1791 to 1778 B.C.
Egyptian chronology seems not to be conclusively agreed upon;
however, the game found inscribed on the walls of Medinet Abu is
not proved to resemble chess, and is generally assumed to be
draughts, besides whether ascribed to Amenoph II 1687 to 1657
B.C., or to Ramses IV 1559 to 1493 B.C.; the date is long after the
period ascribed to the Sanskrit writings, (said to be about 3000
B.C.) even taking the shortest estimate of the age of the Ancient
Hindu and Brahman writings assigned by Sanskrit scholars.
Sir Gardiner Wilkinson says, the pieces are all of the same size
and form, and deduces from this the inference that the game
represented a species of draughts.
Mr. Lane the Egyptologist, apparently no chess player himself,
in describing the sedentary games of Egypt, says that the people
of that country take great pleasure in chess, (which they call
Sutreng), Draughts (Dameh), and Backgammon (Tawooleh).
Sir F. Madden says, it is however possible that the Ancient
Egyptians may also have possessed a knowledge of chess, for
among the plates of Hieroglyphics by Dr. Burton No. 1, we find
at Medinet Habou two representations of some tabular game, closely
resembling it, and I am informed that a more perfect representation
exists on the Temples at Thebes.
Sir John Gardiner Wilkinson, the celebrated Egyptologist,
in a note appended to Mr. George Rawlinson's of Herodotus
says:
"Still more common was the game of Draughts miscalled
chess, which is Hab, a word now used by the Arabs for Men or
Counters. This was also a game in Greece, where they often
drew for the move, this was done by the Romans also in their
Duodecim Scripta, and Terence says--
Ti ludis tesseris.
Si illud, quod maxime opus est facto non cadit.
Illud quod cecedit forte, id arte ut corrigus.
Adelph iv. 7. 22-24.
NOTES. According to Dr. Young, 1815, and M. Champollion, 1824,
Ramses III was the 15th Monarch of the 18th dynasty, the date
affixed to him being 1561 to 1559 B.C., but the British Museum
Catalogue, page 60 says: The principal part of the monuments in
this room are of the age of King Ramses II, the Sesostris of the
Greeks, and the greatest monarch of the 19th dynasty; but, in the
tables, he appears as the 14th of the 18th dynasty 1565 to
1561 B.C. and the catalogue is probably a slip.
No consensus of agreement however has been arrived as to
Egyptian Chronology. Sesostris for example 1473 to 1418 B.C.,
(Manetho, the scrolls Young, Champollion) Herodotus thought,
ascended the throne about 1360 B.C.
Some Bible Commentators have even called the Shishak of Scripture
558 B.C. Sesostris.
Bishop Warburton was wont to vent his displeasure on those who
did not agree with him. For instance, on one Nicholas Mann,
whose provocation was that he argued for the identity of Osiris
and Sesostris after Warburton had pronounced that they were to be
distinguished, he revenged himself by saying to Archbishop Potter
in an abrupt way, "I suppose, you know, you have chosen an Arian."
Under Exodus 1 C.B. 1604 a note occurs.
The Pharaoh, in whose reign Moses was born, is known in general
history by the name of Rameses IV, surnamed Mei Amoun. He reigned
66 years, which agrees with the account given Ch. 4, 19, that he
lived till long after Moses had retired to the desert. The
Pharaoh who reigned when the Israelites went out of Egypt was
Rameses V surnamed Amenophis.
Moses' birth is under B.C. 1531, Exodus ii., his death under
B.C. 1451, Deuteronomy xxxiv., but as he was 120 years old when
he died, one of these dates must be wrong, he was probably born
B.C. 1571.
Opposite Chapter 14 v.25 of 1st of Kings B.C. 958 says: There
can be no rational doubt that this Shishak was the famous
Sesostris the conqueror of Asia. Herodotus, the father of
profane history, relates that he, himself, has seen stones in
Palestine erected by the Conqueror, and recording his achievements.
------
It is confidently asserted by the writers of the Eighteenth
century, and this, that the ancient Greeks and Romans were totally
unacquainted with chess, but a Roman edict of 115. B.C., specially
exempting "Chess and Draughts" from prohibition passes
unobserved by all the writers; and might have materially qualified
their perhaps too hasty and ill-matured conclusions, and have
suggested further inquiry into the nature of the sedentary games
and amusements practiced and permitted by the Romans.
The Roman edict mentioned by Mr. W. B. Donne, in his
biographical sketch of Ahenholarbus, 842, has evidently escaped the
observation of all writers on the game. Chess and Draughts are
specially exempted in it from the list of prohibited games of
chance under date B.C. 115. The Hon. Daines Barrington 1787,
Sir F. Madden 1832, Herbert Coleridge, Esq., 1854, and Professor
Duncan Forbes 1860 are prominent among those who confidently
assert that the Romans as well as the ancient Greeks were quite
unacquainted with the game of chess, at least, says Coleridge,
without giving any reason for his qualification, before the time of
Hadrian. These writers having apparently satisfied themselves
that the Romans as well as the Greeks played a game with pebbles,
assume therefore that they knew not chess, but might have known
a game something like Draughts. Here in the edict, however,
Chess and Draughts are both mentioned inferring a recognized
distinction between the two. It seems reasonable to assume that
the writers would have paused and have searched a little deeper
into the nature of the sedentary games which the Romans knew
and permitted if they had seen this explicit statement. It has
never been suggested by any writer that the Romans ever left an
inkling or taste for intellectual pastimes in Britain. The name
of Agricola or that of any other Roman is not associated with
any tradition or story of the game, even Aristotle and Alexander
the Great and Indian Porus (names we find in Eastern accounts)
are names not so familiar in speculatory traditions as to chess,
though less remote, than that of Thoth the Egyptian Mercury who
Plato says invented chess "Hermes" (Asiatic M.S.) or the more
frequently mentioned Moses, and the Kings of Babylon with their
philosophers. The favoured notion that chess (first) came into
Europe through the Arabs in Spain about 710 to 715 A.D. may yet
prove ill matured and require modification, and for English first
knowledge of the game, we may on inferential and presumptive
evidence prefer the contemporary period of Offa, Egbert and
Alcuin when Charlemagne, the Greek Emperors and the Khalifs
of the East so much practised and patronized the game, rather
than the conquest or Crusaders theory of origin among us, which
is also beside inconsistent with incidents related in the earlier
reigns of Athelstan, Edgar and Canute, and moreover is not
based upon any direct testimony whatever.
In proof of the ancient use of chess among the Scandinavians.
In the Sages of Ragnar Lodbrog printed in Bioiners collection,
and in an ancient account of the Danish invasion of Northumberland
in the Ninth century entitled Nordymbra, it is stated that
after the death of Ragnar, messengers were sent to his sons in
Denmark by King Alla to communicate the intelligence and to
mark their behaviour when they received it. They were thus
occupied, Sigurd Snakeseye played at chess with Huitzeck the
bold; but Biorn Ironside was polishing the shaft of a spear in the
middle of the hall. As the messengers proceeded with their story
Huitzeck and Sigurd dropped their game and listened to what
was said with great attention, Ivar put various questions and
Biorn leant on the spear he was polishing. But when the
messengers came to the death of the chief, and told his expiring
words that the young bears would gnarl their tusks (literally
grunt) if they knew their parent's fate, Biorn grasped the handle
of his spear so tight with emotion that the marks of his fingers
remained on it, and when the tale was finished dashed it in pieces,
Huitzeck compressed a chessman he had taken so with his
fingers that the blood started from each whilst Sigurd Snakeseye
paring his nails with a knife was so wrapped up in attention
that he cut himself to the bone without feeling it.
All authorities down to the end of the Eighteenth century,
ascribe the first knowledge of chess in England, to the time of the
reign of William the Conqueror, or to that of the return of the
first Crusaders, some adding not earlier than 1100 A.D., H. T.
Buckle the author and historian who was foremost in skill among
chess amateurs, in his references to the game, satisfied apparently
with the evidence of Canute's partiality for it, (1017 to 1035)
thought it probable that it was familiarly known in England a
century or so before that monarch's reign. Sir Frederick Madden
writing from 1828 to 1832 at the outset of his highly interesting
communications to the Asiatic Society, at first inclined to the
Crusaders theory, but upon further investigation later in his articles
he arrived at the conclusion that chess might have been known
among us in Athelstan's reign from 925 to 941, and Professor
Forbes writing from 1854 to 1860 concurred in that view. Both
of these authorities after quoting old chess incidents and anecdotes
of Pepin's and Charlemagne's times with other references to chess
in France, Germany, and Scandinavia, then pass on to chess in
England, and after asserting the probability that the Saxons most
likely received chess from their neighbours the Danes then fix
apparently somewhat inconsistently so late as the Tenth century
for it. They assert that the tradition of the game having been
brought from the North certainly existed, and is mentioned by
Gaimar who wrote about the year 1150, when speaking of the
mission of Edelwolth from King Edgar to the castle of Earl Orgar,
in Devonshire to verify the reports of his daughter Elstreuth's
beauty. When he arrived at the mansion,
"Orgar juout a un esches,
Un gin k'il aprist des Daneis,
Od lui juout Elstruat lu bele,
Sus ciel n'ont donc tele damesele."
"Orgar was playing at the chess,
A game he had learnt of the Danes,
With him played the fair Elstrueth,
A fairer maiden was not under heaven."
Edgar reigned from 958 to 975, English history referring to
this incident among the amours of Edgar, make no mention of the
Earl of Devonshire and his daughter being found playing chess
together. Hume says Elfrida was daughter and heir of Olgar
Earl of Devonshire and though she had been educated in the
country, and had never appeared at court, she had filled all
England with the reputation of her beauty.
The mission of Earl Athelwold, his deception of the king, and
marriage of Elfrida follows, next the king's discovery, the murder
of Athelwold by the King, and his espousal of Elfrida.
This incident with others, such as the presentation to Harold
Harfagra, King of Norway of a very fine and rich chess table,
and the account of and description of seventy chess men of
different sizes belonging to various sets dug up in the parish of
Uig, in the Isle of Lewis, are referred to by the writers as the
chess allusions of the North, but Sir Frederick Madden who confines
himself to the supposition of the Saxons having received the game
from the Danes, rather disregards a statement of Strutt, Henry
and others, based on a passage in the Ramsey chronicle that chess
was introduced among the Saxons, so early as the Tenth century.
Forbes however who usually agrees with Madden, sees no
improbability in it or grounds for disputing, and thinks that England
may have obtained its knowledge from France between the Eighth
and Tenth centuries. It is curious that Forbes stops here like
Madden and all other writers, he evidently knew nothing of the
Roman edict of 115 B.C., and neither of them cast a thought to the
earlier reigns of Alfred, Egbert, and Offa, which were
contemporary with the Golden Age of Literature in Arabia and the
period when chess had so long travelled from Persia to other
countries, and was so well known and appreciated in Arabia;
Constantinople, Spain, and among the Aquitaines as well as by
the Carlovingian Monarchs. Al Walid the first Khalif noted for
chess, the most powerful of the house of Umeyyah, who (through
his generals Tarak and Musa invaded, conquered, and entered
Spain, reigned from 705 to 715 B.C.), and comes before Offa,
whose reign commenced five years after the foundation of the
mighty Abbasside Dynasty, which displaced the first house of
Umeyyah, and thirteen years before that of Charlemagne, with
whom he was contemporary 26 years, and Egbert was 13 years.
Harun Ar Rashid; of Abbasside, the Princess Irene, and the
Emperor Nicephorus of Constantinople, and the successors of
Harun, viz., Al Amin, Al Mamun, the Great Al Mutasem and Al
Wathik (the two last contemporary with our Alfred), all
cultivated and practiced chess and the strongest inference, and
a far more striking one than any yet adduced, is that we got
chess during the long reign of Charlemagne, and his Greek,
Arabian and Spanish contemporaries, and this might well happen,
for Charlemagne knew both Offa and Egbert (the latter personally),
and the knowledge becomes somewhat more than a matter of
inference, for the Saxon scholar Alcuin was in England from
790 to 793, on a farewell visit after being domesticated in
Charlemagne's household as his treasured friend, adviser, and
tutor and preceptor in the sciences for more than twenty years,
and could not be otherwise than familiar with the Emperor's
practice and enthusiasm for chess, in which he may to some extent
have shared. Alcuin would certainly have communicated a game like
this, in which he knew other civilized people were taking so much
interest, to his countrymen. The connecting links of evidence
which Sir F. Madden and Professor Forbes have illustrated in
Athelstan's and Edgar's reigns, would have been greatly
strengthened and confirmed, if they had thought of Alcuin's
residence and influence at a court where chess was not only
played, but talked about and corresponded upon. Charlemagne's
presents included the wonderful chess men which he valued so
highly, and with which we are tolerably familiar through the
reports of Dr. Hyde, F. Douce, Sir F. Madden, and H. Twiss, and
the engravings in Willeman's work, and by Winckelman and Art
Journal. These chessmen (still preserved) were perhaps often seen
by Alcuin and were possibly also shewn by Charlemagne to the
youthful Egbert when in refuge at his court, and on the whole it
seems unreasonable to assume that chess was unknown in England
after Alcuin's last sojourn, and during Egbert's reign.
It may be also that on further consideration of the Roman edict
and references to their games, and the accounts relating to the
fourth century B.C., many will be indisposed to accept the dictum
that Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle meant nothing more than a game
of pebbles, when they referred to chess and propounded their
theories as to its invention.
------