classical; but ought we revive the practice on that account.* We now proceed to inquire how ancient the game of chess is, but we do not do so for the purpose of finding any argument either against the practice of the game at the present day, or in favour of it, but simply as we would take up any other historical subject, and make such remarks upon it as we might deem interesting to our readers, bearing in mind that there are many things useless in themselves, or merely imaginary, which it may not only be agreeable but instructive to discuss. Chess-players in general are content to trace back the game of chess to the Greeks. There is no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted with it; but so far as can be inferred from any record of the subject, they were by no means the best class of the Greeks who practised the game. So early as Homer's time chess was played, but generally if not invariably by those who had nothing more useful to occupy their minds. We have an interesting illustration of this in the case of the idle persons who had no more noble object than to seduce the good and virtuous Penelope from her allegiance to her husband, evidently not because they had any love for a matron of her time of life, but because the wife of Ulysses had an estate which was worth possessing. It seems their habit was to sit on the skins of oxen before the door of Penelope's palace, passing the time in playing chess. We think we see them now in the spirited picture drawn of them by Homer: Εύρε δ' άρα μνηστῆρας ἀγήνορας· οἱ μὲν ἔπειτα The character of the party is sufficiently described by the poet in the two words μνηστῆρας ἀγήνορας, which, being *There is an institution in the interior of New Jersey, which we are informed has established a chair," or at least a stool for chess, because the faculty think it aristocratic as well as useful. It is true that the establishment alluded to is called a college only by courtesy; and that if it teaches chess no better than it does other sciences, or even the English language, not to mention Greek or Latin, its chess graduates will not gain many victories in their mimic battles. It is recorded of Philip II., of Spain, that he rewarded a famous chess-player with the mitre for his skill in a certain victory that he gained, but we would not advise the President of the Jersey school to which we allude, to calculate too confidently on a reward of this kind, for we have to add that the Pope refused to recognize the new bishop. The judgment of his Holiness was very brief, but not the less final:-" :—“ Bonus aleator dominus, fortasse, est, sed pessimus episcopus." "The gentleman is a good gamester perhaps, but a very bad bishop." + Od., i., 107. freely translated into our vernacular, would mean "im pudent loafers," and as such were they treated by Ulysses. Incensed at their base conduct, the hero attacked a whole mob of them, and with only the aid of his son and two servants, killed all.* This is the most ancient mention we have in Greek literature of the game of chess, or its votaries; and it is difficult to see that it confers any glory on either. Plato alludes to the game in his Phædra; and we infer from a line in Sophocles that the game was invented by Palamedes. Several of the Roman writers speak of the game, especialy Ovid † and Martial; but even the author of the Art of Love was not much enamoured of the game. As for the moralists and philosophers, they have denounced it as a vice, and as such the satirists have ridiculed those who were addicted to it. "I cautiously avoid a proud guest," says Juvenal, "who compares me with himself, and looks with scorn upon my paltry estate. Consequently, I don't possess a single ounce of ivory; neither my chess-board nor my men are of this material; nay, the very handles of my knives are of bone. Yet my viands never become rank in flavour by these; nor does my pullet cut up the worse on that account."§ A little further on in the same satire, the poet ranks gaming of all kinds among the worst vices, and suggests that there are other diversions much more suitable for intelligent men and women than games of any kind. Gaming is disgraceful," he says, "and so is adultery in men of moderate means. Yet when rich men commit all these abominations they are called jovial, splendid fellows. Our banquet to-day will furnish far different amusements. The author of the Iliad shall be recited and the majestic strains of Virgil. What matter is it with what voice such noble verses are read ?"|| This shows what the cultivated Pagans thought on the * Od., lib. xxii., 385. + Trist., ii, 477; xvi., 20. See also Seneca, Epit. 107. Adeo nulla uncia nobis Est eboris, nec tessellæ, nec calculus ex hac Materia; quin ipsa manubria cultellorum Ossea. Sat. xi., v. 132. Alea turpis, Turpe et adulterium mediocribus: hæc eadem illi Nostra dabunt alio hodie convivia ludos: Conditor Iliados cantabitur, atque Maronis Altisoni dubiam facientia carmina palmam.-Sat. xi., v. 174. subject; and we, in passing, ask our presidents of colleges and superintendents of libraries whether they were right or wrong? It is certain that neither among the Greeks nor among the Romans did the more thoughtful and educated class occupy their time in chess-playing. The game was played by the middle and lower classes, and by the wealthy, whose chief object, like that of the "shoddy" gentry of our own day, was to kill time. Nor has the experience of modern times been different, as we will presently show. Sometimes, indeed, kings and emperors have played chess, but have not those personages done many other things which did no service to themselves or their subjects? Before making any inquiry into the character of the sovereigns who are mentioned by the votaries of chess, as having honoured the game by their practice, we will say a word or two more of its antiquity, if only to gratify those who are so proud when they happen to checkmate an antagonist. Archæologists are pretty generally of opinion at the present day that Egyptian civilization is more ancient than Hindoo civilization. The colossal tombs of Egypt are doubtless the most ancient monuments now extant in a form sufficiently well preserved to enable us to regard them as a criterion of the civilization of those who built them, and the paintings on several of these represent persons employed in playing chess. But it will be sufficient to refer to one. There is a painting on a papyrus, taken in 18.2, from one of those tombs, in the Museum of Antiquities at Leyden, which represents a man as playing alone with all the paraphernalia of the game before him. This is supposed by the best judges to be two thousand years old; but several of the mural paintings representing the same game are at least a thousand years older; yet no older, be it observed, than those which represent different other games, including ball-playing, hurling, hide-and-go-seek, &c., &c. Among the most learned English writers on the subject of chess are Hyde, Barrington, and Sir William Jones. Hyde and Sir William, concur in giving the honour of priority to the Hindoos, from whom, they tell us, the Persians adopted the game nearly six hundred years before our era. There was no better authority in his time on Hindoo affairs than Sir William Jones, who * Vide Historia Shahiludü apud Syntagma Dissertationum, &c. fully corroborates the views of Hyde. "If evidence were required," he says, "to prove this fact [the Hindoo origin of the game], 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 in the sixth century of our era. It seems to have been immemorially known to Hindoostans by the name of Chaturanga, that is, the four angas, or members of an army; which are these, elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers; and in this sense the word is frequently used by epic poets in their descriptions of real armies."* Daines Barrington is equally decided in claiming the honour of the invention for the Chinese; and it must be admitted that he adduces plausible if not conclusive arguments in support of his views. He was well acquainted with the researches of both Hyde and Sir William Jones; he treats both much better than antagonists treat each other generally. At the same time, he shows pretty clearly that both are wrong; but if the monuments of Egypt possess the antiquity which is now almost universally ascribed to them by antiquaries, Barrington himself is also wrong. Mr. Eyles Irwin, who spent many years in China, comes to the aid of Barrington, maintaining, in a letter to the Earl of Charlemont, that there is a Chinese manuscript which shows that the game was invented by King Kianguan, three hundred and seventy-nine years after the time of Confucius, nearly two thousand years ago. Assuming that this is a genuine manuscript, and that the game was known to the Chinese at this remote period, we should, nevertheless, consider the Egyptian claim of priority the best founded. The justice of this will be the more apparent if we bear in mind that in point of fact, the Egyptians make no claim; they allow their works to speak for them. In other words, the Egyptian race-those who built the pyramids-entirely disappeared many centuries ago. They are as completely extinct as the Chaldeans or the Phoenicians, although their stupendous monuments may be expected to endure as long as the earth itself. But it is different with the Hindoos as well as the Chinese. Both are essentially the same races to-day, respectively, they Asiatic Researches, vol. ii., p. 120. + Vide Archæologia, vol. ix. were two or three thousand years ago. Each has the same religion, and nearly the same manners and customs; it is natural, therefore, that they should be anxious to claim for their ancestors the invention of whatever they think calculated to show that they were an ingenious people. At first sight, it might be inferred from these various researches, theories, and hypotheses, that the game of chess must be an important affair, but this by no means follows. Many a grave and learned treatise has been written on fairies and genii, both in the East and in the West, although scarcely any believe any longer that such beings as either ever existed. That the writing of elaborate works on any thing is no proof of its utility, but often the reverse, is easily proved. Thus, for example, all civilized countries regard war as a calamity, but there is no subject upon which more is written. None can pretend that the plague is useful or respectable; yet vastly more has been written upon it than upon chess or any other game. So much, then, for the argument that if chess were not a useful, honorable, and aristocratic study, so much would not have been written upon it. But let us give some particulars as to the class of persons who admire chess. It is certain, as we have already seen, that the higher orders of intellect have never been addicted to the game. Some great geniuses have, indeed, tried it, but soon shunned it as a pernicious vice. The greatest of English philosophers have given it some attention; the author of the Novum Organum was induced by some friends to learn chess, but he found it was "too wise a game," and that he should choose between being a great chess-player and a great philosopher. Sir Walter Scott shunned the game for a similar reason, declaring that "one might learn another language in a shorter time, and with less strain on the mind than he could learn the game of chess." He thought that at best those who indulged in it made bad use of their time; and who will deny the fact? Had he become a great chess-player, or had he become a lover of the game, he never could have written the Waverley novels. Milton and Pope rejected the game, for similar reasons. The author of Paradise Lost thought it was fit only for women, or weak men; the author of the Essay on Man said, he would much rather play "nine-pins" than chess, for the former would afford him wholesome exercise, while the latter would injure the body as well |