The Burmha Game of Chess. Compared with the Indian, Chinese, and Persian Game of the same denomination. BY THE LATE CAPTAIN HIRAM COX, Communicated in a letter from him to J. H. HARINGTON. Esq. DEAR SIR, I have now the pleasure to send you a drawing of the Burmha Chess table, with the pieces arranged according to the ordinary mode of playing the game; and subjoin an account of the Burmha game, with a comparative view of the Indian, Chinese, and Persian games; and should it appear to you worthy of notice, I have to request you will do me the favour to lay it before the Society. It has been said that an accurate judgment may be formed of any society from a view of the amusements of the people; this is one of those sweeping assertions which indolence too often induces us to admit without sufficient examination, and however true in a general sense, is little applicable to the purposes of life, for it often, indeed generally, happens, as in Lavater's system of Physiognomy, one feature counteracts the effects of another, so as to perplex the whole, and defeat the end of enquiry. Are the gay, airy Parisians, heretofore so celebrated for polish, and so conversant in the cant of philanthropy, more humane than our rough countrymen, who have been stigmatized as sanguinary, from their delighting in boxing, cock-fighting, and bear-baiting? But instances of contradictions of this kind between particular habits, and general character in every nation, must be too familiar to you to require illustration by further examples; and I am sure you will agree with me, that it is the wisest and safest course to avoid forming general conclusions from partial views. A member does not form a whole; and who has the means of examining and comparing all the parts of so stupendous a system, as forms the history and character of man, even in the meanest of the sub-divisions of society? We therefore must not conclude that the Burmhas are a scientific or intelligent people, because they play chess; nor that they are brutally savage, because they sometimes eat the flesh of their enemies. Chess, by universal consent, holds the first rank among our sedentary amusements, and its history has employed the pens of many eminent men. Among the number Sir William Jones has obliged the world with an essay, replete as usual with erudition and information. But while I avow the warmest admiration of his talents, and subscribe with all due deference to his authority, I must be allowed to acknowledge a difference of sentiment. Sir William says, "The beautiful simplicity and extreme perfection of the game, as it is commonly played in Europe and Asia, convinces me that it was invented by one effort of some great genius, not completed by gradual improvements, but formed, to use the phrase of Italian critics, by the first intention." But it appears to me that all he afterwards adduces on the subject is so far from corroborating, that it is in direct contradiction of this opinion, and I trust my further combating it will neither be deemed impertinent nor invidious. The errors of a great mind are, of all others, the most material to be guarded against; and Sir William himself, had he lived to reconsider the subject, I am sure would have been the first to expunge a passage of so unqualified construction. Perfection has been denied us undoubtedly for wise purposes, and progression is necessary to the happiness of our existence. No human invention is so perfect but it may be improved, and no one is, or has been, so great, hut another may be greater. I have elsewhere had occasion to observe, that, generally speaking, nature is slow, silent, and uniform in all her operations, and I am induced to think, that what is true of the material world, equally holds as to the intellectual. In this opinion I am supported by the testimony of Sir Isaac Newton, who, with equal modesty and truth, replied to one of his admiring friends, that if he surpassed others in his attainments, he owed it entirely to a patient habit of thinking. All great efforts are violations of the order of nature, and, as such are rather to be deprecated than admired. In common language they are called convulsions, and I confess myself opposed to convulsions of every kind. Sir William Jones's evidence goes to confirm the opinion that we are indebted to the Hindoos for the game of chess; but the description of the game which he has given from the Bhawishya Puran has nothing of that beautiful simplicity which called forth his admiration. Indeed he admits, that the Indian game, described by him, is more complex; and he considers it more modern than the simple game of the Persians, of which he could not find any account in the writings of the Brahmans. He informs us that the Sancrit name is Chaturanga, and the root from which the name of the game is derived in modern languages. It literally means the four members of an army, elephants, horses, chariots, and foot-soldiers, the same as exhibited at this day; but the game described by him is more generally known by the name of chatúrájì, or the four kings, since, he observes, "it is played by four persons representing as many princes, two allied armies combating on each side." The board is quadrilateral, with sixty-four checks as ours; but what forms one army with us, is divided in two each having its king, elephant, horse, and boat with four foot-soldiers in front, placed at the left hand angle of each face of the board. The power of the king is the same as in the modern game; the elephant has the same powers as the English queen, moving at will in all directions, the horse the same as the modern horse or knight; the boat as the modern bishop, with the limitation of moving only two checks at once; the peon the same as the modern pawn. This game is mentioned in the oldest law books, and is said to have been invented by the wife of Ravan, king of Lanca, (i.e. Ceylon,) in order to amuse him with an image of war (field war, meant,) while his metropolis is closely besieged by Rama, in the I suppose, II is second age of the world. Rama,* according to Sir William Jones's chronology of the Hindoos, appeared on earth at least three thousand eight hundred years ago; and this event happened in an early part of his career; yet notwithstanding these proofs of antiquity and originality, Sir William Jones was of opinion that this rudimental and complex game is a more recent invention than the refined game of the Persians and Europeans, which he also states to have been certainly invented in India, and appears, therefore, to have considered the original. But, to admit this, would, I conceive, be inverting the usual order of things. Two other distinctions are remarkable of the Hindoo game; the introduction of a ship or boat amongst troops, etc., embattled on a plain, and the use of dice, which determine the moves, and, as Sir William justly observes, exclude it from the rank which has been assigned to chess among the sciences. In respect to the first of these distinctions, I cannot help suspecting a mistake in translating the passage, which I must leave to abler critics to decide. In explaining the meaning of Chatur-anga, Sir William says, "that is the four angas or members of an army, which are said in the Amaracosha to be, Hasty áswa ratha pádátam, or elephants, horses, chariots, and foot-soldiers." And the same names are used in India at this day.† Sir William notices the Chinese game as having a river described on the board, which the Indian board has not; and seems to infer that a ship or boat might be introduced into the Chinese game with propriety. Hence a query might arise whether the Indian board, as now used, is the ancient one appropriate to the game, in which a The high degree of polish which prevailed at the Court of Ravan, at this early period, is well worthy of notice. In a copy from an ancient Hindoo painting which I possess, his capital appears to be regularly fortified in the antique style, with projecting round towers and battlements, and he is said to have defended it with singular ability; hence he and his people were called magicians and giants, for to the invading Rama, and his hordes of Barbarian mountaineers, called in derision Satyrs or Monkeys, his science must have appeared supernatural. In fact, Ravan appears to have been the Archimedes of Lanca. + See Note at the end of this paper. boat is said to be introduced instead of a chariot; but in the Chinese game, of which I have an account before me, although what is erroneously termed a river is delineated on the board, yet there is no ship or boat among the pieces. Instead of boat, they have a chariot. How are we to reconcile these contradictions? I fear, in the present state of our information, they are inexplicable. At all events I shall attempt only as distinct an account as is in my power of the four principal games and modes of playing chess in Asia, viz. first, the one from the Purans, cited by Sir William Jones as above; second, the Chinese, described by Mr Irwin; third, the Burmah; and lastly, the Persian or present Hindoostanee; comparing them with each other and the English game; and must leave it to some more fortunate enquirer to determine which is the original. I have given precedence to the game said to be invented at Lanca, as it appears to be the most ancient, according to the authorities adduced by Sir William Jones; and as the Persians admit that they received the game from India. I am aware that the Honourable Mr Daines Barrington, in a paper published in the Archæologia at London, gives it as his opinion that the Chinese game is the most ancient; and has taken great pains to disprove the Grecian claim to the invention, (vide 9th volume of the Archæologia). But, according to the Chinese Manuscript, accompanying Mr Irwin's account in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, the Chinese invalidate their claim of originality, by fixing the date of the game, they assume the honour of inventing, 174 years before the Christian era. |