The historians of Arabia and Persia are unanimous on the following points, viz. :-First, that the game of Chess, as known in the middle ages, was invented in India, some time previous to the sixth century of our era; and secondly, that the game was introduced from India into Persia during the reign of Kisrā Naushīrawān, the Chosroes of the Byzantine historians, and the contemporary of Justinian. We have shown, however, that the game virtually existed in India, some thousands of years previously; and we have every reason to believe that the "invention of Chess," alluded to by the Arabs and Persians, simply meant the final establishment of that modification of the Chaturanga which we call the mediaval game, and which in Asia, on this side of the Chinese empire, goes under the name of Shatranj. In fact, one anonymous writer (of whom more in due time), repeatedly asserts that the common game brought into Persia, from India in the reign of Naushirawan, was not an invention of the Hindus at that time, but merely an abridgment and modification of a more ancient game, previously introduced into India, from Greece, by Alexander the Great. This theory has at least the merit of novelty to recommend it, and shall be thoroughly examined hereafter; at present it is enough to say that the anonymous writer, by the Greek game, which is altogether visionary, undoubtedly meant the Chaturanga, of which the Muhammadan writers had never heard. The reader will bear in mind that, till the reign of the enlightened Akbar, the contemporary of our Queen Elizabeth, the classical writings of the Brahmans were, in the strictest sense, a sealed book to all men existing out of the pale of the Hindu creed, and even the small knowledge then attained by the Muslims, was owing to a clever stratagem on the part of the Emperor. (vide note (1) page 9th). We need not

wonder, then, at the circumstance of the Chaturanga's being unknown to the earlier Muslim writers.

Before we proceed further, it will be well to lay before the reader a diagram of each of the boards with the men placed as described in the book. On both boards the number of the pieces, their modes of moving, and their powers are precisely the same, save that in the Shatranj, one of the two allied Kings has become a minister with only half his former authority. The Bishop and Castle have changed places though they still retain their old names. Bishop is to this day called the Elephant by the people of India, the Persians, and the Arabs; and the Rukh is nothing more or less than the Sanskrit Roka, "a boat," whence came (through the Persian) our word Rook which is after all no great deviation from the original.

The

Let us now for a moment examine, for example, the Green army, as arranged in the Chaturanga. We see the Elephant (i.e. our Rook) stand next the King; and the Ship (i.e. the medieval Bishop) placed in the corner of the board. The first alteration effected, then, is to make the Rook and Bishop change places-a step which gives the Bishop more freedom, as he will then be able immediately to attack or command two squares of the board; whereas, when placed in the corner, he could only attack one square. The next step is to call over the Black allies, and array them in like manner on the right of the Green-the Rook and Bishop of course having changed places. Now, one of the allied Kings—it matters not which-is reduced to a subordinate situation, called in the Sanskrit, "Mantri," and in the Persian "Farzin"—both of which mean precisely the same thing, viz., "Monitor," or "Counsellor." Thus, we shall sup

1 The Sanskrit word mantri is of the same meaning and derivation as the Latin Monitor and the Greek με τωρ.

pose the Black King, on taking his station beside the Green monarch, becomes a Farzin, shorn of half the power he possessed when free and independent. Thus, by a very slight alteration in form, but none whatever in principle, we have the men drawn up on the side of the board next to us, the same as we at this day arrange our Black men. In a similar manner let the Red and Yellow forces unite on the further side of the board, so that King may be opposite to King, and Farzin to Farzin, &c., and we have what we now call the White men. This is the precise state in which the game was introduced into Persia, the powers of the pieces being the same as in the Chaturanga; and thus the game continued to be played in Asia and Europe for nearly a thousand years afterwards.

In this transition of the Chaturanga into the Shatranj, we see a curious instance of the tenacity with which the ancient names are still retained, although two of the pieces have changed places. Thus, the piece next the King is still called in Sanskrit, "Hasti," and in the Persian, “Pil," or "Fil;" which, among the Western nations, received various denominations, such as "Alphin," "Bishop," Fool," "Leaper," &c. Again, the piece still retaining the power of the original Elephant when stationed in the corner, rejoices in the ancient name of the "Ship," or "Chariot;" in Sanskrit, "Roka," or "Ratha;" and, in Persian, "Rukh." The latter term, as well as our own Rook, are evidently derived from the Sanskrit Roka; although neither the Persians nor ourselves, in all probability, have ever known or thought of its original meaning. Sir William Jones derives the Persian Rukh from the Sanskrit "Ratha," a chariot, pronounced Roth in Bengali. This derivation is inadmissible for two reasons; in the first place it is too far-fetched; and, secondly, the word Ratha is never mentioned in the

ancient account of the Chaturanga; add to this, that there is no proof that the Bengali dialect existed for centuries after the time of Naushirawan. I shall henceforth, for the sake of distinctness, continue to use the term Chaturanga for the ancient game of the Purānas, and Shatranj for the mediaval game; but the reader will be pleased to bear in mind that in reality both of these, as well as our modern game, are the same in principle. When the Chaturanga was modified into the Shatranj, the powers of the pieces remained unaltered; it was merely a change of form. Again, at the end of a thousand years, when the Shatranj was modified into the modern game, the form of everything remained the same, but the powers of the Queen and Bishop were greatly extended. Hence, in the Sanskrit language, the game under all its phases is called Chaturanga, and nothing else; for, throughout all its varieties, "the four species of forces" are the same numerically, though changed in a few instances as to their names. Thus latterly among the Hindus, the Ship was changed into the War Chariot ;'

1 When I wrote the substance of the foregoing chapters a few years ago, for the "Illustrated London News," it did not occur to me that I ought to have quoted authorities in proof of all my assertions; a course altogether unusual if not inadmissible in newspaper writings. Soon after the above paragraph was printed a query appeared in that world-wide paper on this subject, which I shall here insert, together with my answer to it.

A CHESS QUERY.

In the very interesting papers of Dr. D. Forbes, on the "Origin of Chess," which he clearly proves to have been invented in India, he states that in the original Hindu game of "Chaturanga," the pieces consisted of Kings, Elephants, Horses, Ships, and Pawns; but that "latterly, among the Hindūs, the Ship was changed into the War Chariot." What proof is there of this change? Dr. Forbes adduces none; yet surely, if such a change took place before the game passed over to Persia, some Sanskrit works would be found to allude to it. The passage in the "Amaracosha," quoted by Sir William Jones, does not refer to the game of Chess at all, but simply to the component parts of an army.-ALPHA.