the three. The War Horse could spring three squares obliquely, clearing the square next to him. The heroic Rukh, longing for combat, rushed on in each of the four directions: woe to the enemy that crossed his path, for he commanded the whole range of the battle-field. The Foot Soldier, from either side, advanced straight forward at the King's command, in order to attack the hostile forces; and in his onward march he slew the enemy obliquely, to the right hand and to the left. When he had traversed the whole field, as far as the opposite extremity, he was rewarded with the rank of Counsellor, and thenceforth took his stand by the side of his Sovereign.1 "When Buzurjmihr had thus explained the evolutions of the ebon and ivory warriors, the whole assembly stood mute in admiration and astonishment. The Indian Am The misconception on the part of Alpha arose from a very simple circumstance. In Firdausi's account of the game the story happens to be interrupted in the middle by the insertion of two other long stories, as we often see in the "Arabian Nights." The conclusion of the Chess history, where the " moves of the pieces" are given, appears to have escaped the notice of Alpha altogether. In justice to myself I have here reproduced the correspondence. I am quite convinced that no offence was intended, as, most assuredly none was taken. In matters of this sort, it is only the truth that offends. 1 In the Shatranj, or medieval game, a Pawn, on reaching the opposite extremity of the board, instantly became a Farzin or Counsellor only, but never a Rukh, a Knight, or a Fil. Such appears to have been the law in Europe down to the end of our fifteenth century: and, if we may trust Sarratt, it seems to have lingered in Italy to a more recent period. In his New Treatise on Chess, 1821, vol. i., p. 51, Sarratt says: "In Italy you may have two Queens, but you are restricted to Queens; you are not allowed to call for any other piece.” Sarratt, to be sure, is not a first rate authority, still he must have had some ground for his assertion. What is more surprising, however, is, that Mr. George Walker, in the very last edition of his "Art of Chess-Play," improves considerably on Sarrat. In page 24, Mr. Walker states, "In Italy, the law requires that the Pawn should be replaced with a Queen, whether or not the orignal Queen is defunct, and with no other piece. It were well to adopt the same regulation here, as most conducive to order and uniformity!" Now, if this is the law in Italy at present, as Mr. Walker would lead us to suppose, it must be one of very recent enactment. It was unknown in that country in the days of Ercole del Rio, of Lolli, and of Ponziani,-writers, from whose works Mr. Walker pretends to have "gathered blossoms." It is a pity he did not at the same time gather some of their fruits. bassador was filled with mingled vexation and surprise ; he looked upon Buzurjmihr as a man endowed with intelligence far beyond that of mere mortals: and thus he pondered in his own mind:- How could he have discovered the nature and principles of this profound game? Can it be possible that he has received his information from the sages of Hind? Or is it really the result of his own penetrating research, guided by the acuteness of his unaided judgment? Assuredly Buzurjmihr has not this day his equal in the whole world.' In the meanwhile Naushirawan in public acknowledged the unparalleled wisdom of his favorite counsellor. He sent for the most costly and massive goblet in his palace, and filled the same with the rarest of jewels. These, together with a war steed, richly caparisoned, and a purse full of gold pieces, he presented to Buzurjmihr.' CHAPTER VII. On the Invention of Chess in India-according to the I HAVE already expressed my conviction that what the Arabs and Persians consider as the "Invention of Chess," means merely the very natural modification of the Chaturanga❞ into the "Shatranj." It is curious, too, that in this conviction I am confirmed in an indirect way by the author of a Treatise on Chess, an imperfect MS. of which is now in the possession of the Asiatic Society. Unfortunately, this work is incomplete, and the author's name is not known.1 It is evident, however, that he lived either during the reign of Timur or somewhat later; for he gives in his work eighteen problems (of which some will appear hereafter,) which occurred in actual play to "Khwaja 'Ali Shatranji," the Philidor of Timur's Court. This anonymous author has given the three following different accounts of the Invention of Chess, which I have slightly abridged. He differs from all other writers in this :-"That Sassa, the son of Dahir, did not invent the game of Chess; but that he merely modified an older, and as he thinks-a more perfect form of the game. He is also singular in asserting that the Hindus 1 An account of this MS. will be given in our next Chapter. did not invent the older game; giving as his sole reason for thus differing from all previous writers, "that the Hindus were a dull and stupid race, incapable of doing such a thing." This he repeats in, I believe, half-a-dozen places, without the least variation. He, for some reason or other, like Mill the historian of India, entertained a morbid antipathy towards the Hindus, and conferred the honour of the invention on the Greeks!!! It must be said in his favour, however, that he nowhere claims it for his own nation, as Mr. Bland in his "Persian Chess," very rashly asserts.1 But let us allow the author to speak for himself. FIRST ACCOUNT OF THE INVENTION OF CHESS. "They relate that immediately after the invasion of Alexander the Great, there reigned in India a King, by name Kaid. He was very powerful and wealthy, and liberal and brave. He was passionately addicted to war, and always proved victorious over his enemies. In the course of time he became sole master of the whole of the land of Hind; nor did there remain in that extensive region a single King or Prince inclined to dispute his authority. At length, when he no longer had an enemy left to conquer, he was necessarily compelled to cease from war, which to him had become a second nature. Now this King was endowed with high principles of justice, honour, and truth, for which noble qualities he was adored by his servants and subjects. While occupied in subduing the neighbouring kingdoms, his ruling passion was fully gratified in the pursuit of conquests, and in the acquisition of fame, which he considered as the only means of happiness in this world. To him, now that no enemy remained, 1 For a review and critique on Mr. "Bland's Essay," see Appendix A. peace became intolerably irksome; but his sense of justice would not permit him to involve in the miseries of war those who had already submitted to his authority. All his people, from the very highest to the lowest, passed their days in the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, while he himself had fallen a prey to sorrow and affliction to such a degree that he lost all relish for food and drink, and looked upon death as his only relief.1 "This King had a Minister, by name Sassa, a man of profound wisdom and penetration, to whom he communicated his miserable condition, saying, 'Day and night my mind is harassed with the thoughts of war and strife; when in the hours of the night sleep overpowers me, I dream of nothing but battle-fields and conquests; and in the morning, when I awake, I still think over my imaginary combats and victories. Now you are well aware that I have no longer one single enemy or rebel in my whole dominions with whom to contend. It is utterly repugnant to justice and commom sense, to go to war without any cause. If I were to do so God would be displeased with me, and a severe retribution for my evil deeds would soon overtake me, even in this world; for is it not said that 'a kingdom governed by falsehood and oppression is void of stability, and it will soon pass away?' Tell me, thẹn, O Sassa, for great is thy wisdom, what am I to do in 1 Sir Thomas Erpingham, the hero of Colman's "Merrie Tale" of "The Knight and the Friar" seems to have been similarly affected after he had returned from his wars and victories in France. The Christian Knight however appears to have hit upon a remedy of his own, somewhat different from that of the Hindu man of battles. "What's to be done," Sir Thomas said one day, |