The Moves. Our knowledge of the moves of the Roman pieces, such as it is, is derived mainly from a passage in the Origines of Isidorus Hispalensis, a writer who flourished in the early part of the seventh century. It runs as follows:-" Calculi partim ordine moventur, partim vagè; ideo alios ordinarios, alios vagos appellant ; at vero qui moveri omnino non possunt, incitos dicunt."1 It is assumed by Wernsdorf and others, that though apparently only two different modes of movement are mentioned in this passage, Isidorus really intended to describe three, one of which took place in a longitudinal direction (recto limite, as Ovid calls it2), a second laterally, and a third diagonally, the last of these being intimated, as he contends not without much plausibility, by the word vagè. As we know positively from Varro, that the board was divided into squares, I feel no. reluctance to admit Wernsdorf's conjecture, but I would merely en passant observe, that the passage in question does not in terms compel us to believe in a transverse or lateral motion, though I agree that such licence did most probably exist; and secondly, that there is no positive certainty that the particular game I am now describing was referred to by Isidorus at all in the words quoted above. The only link between this passage and the other accounts of and allusions to this game, is the introduction of the word calculus, which is sometimes used by itself for the counter or piece used in the ludus latrunculorum, but which may equally well refer to the game hereafter to be described under the title of ludus duodecim scriptorum, and, in fact, does actually so refer in one or two places where there is no pretext for supposing that the former game is meant.3 I do not by any means insist on these difficulties, but I mention them in order to show how little is certainly known respecting the game, and how much of what is written about it must necessarily be matter of pure conjecture or downright fiction. My own impression as to the word vagè is, that it signifies a style of movement identical with that of the modern King, viz., one square in every direction. I think it probable that the ancient pieces in no case had the power of advancing more than a single step at a time, partly from the want of allusion to more lengthened ranges, and chiefly because I believe that the additional complication thereby introduced into the calculations would have rendered the game far too abstruse and subtle for the ancient mind, which, though suffi. 2 Trist. ii. 477. 1 Isid. Orig. xviii. 67. 3 Petron. Arb. c. 33, ed. Burm. ciently enamoured of metaphysical and mathematical profundities, seems (perhaps with some reason) to have been unable to appreciate any connection between recreation and mental exertion. The line of Bassus (v. 186.) "Longo venit ille recessu Qui stetit in speculis," does not militate against this idea, nor need we suppose that the piece so brought into action advanced otherwise than by single steps. With regard to the pieces termed inciti by Isidorus, I quite agree with Wernsdorf in thinking that this merely means pieces reduced to a standstill by alligatio or some other cause, and has no reference whatever to an imaginary “sacred line" beyond which the pieces could not move, and on reaching which they received a peculiar accession of power or value. This theory, which was first broached, I believe, by Salmasius, seems to have arisen from a desire to assimilate the Roman game as much as possible to our own, by the introduction of the most mysterious of all the operations of modern Chess, viz., that of “Queening" a pawn. Wernsdorf's examination of the word incitus and its senses is highly instructive and scholarlike, and will well repay a careful perusal.1 It will, I think, by this time be pretty evident to the attentive reader, that there is much in what has been stated, both in this and the preceding part of this essay, which would afford sufficient prima facie grounds for the opinion that a difference of form did in reality exist among the Roman pieces. It may be asked how, if, according to the expression of Isidorus, the pieces were moved in three different directions, those that were destined to act in one manner were distinguished from their companions whose line of motion was different. Again, the word mandra in the line of Bassus (v. 181), “Ut citus et fractá prorumpat in agmina mandrâ," is explained by Wernsdorf to mean men or pieces of less value or power than the latrones,-pawns, as we should call them, and he imagines that their office was simply that of defending the pieces of their own colour, and perhaps of blocking up the exit of those on the other side, while the actual result of the game was decided by the manœuvres of the superior pieces. Martial certainly seems, in one passage, to countenance such an interpretation, in the lines Sic vincas Noviumque Publiumque Mandris et vitreo latrone clausos,2 though I do not admit this passage as decisive of the question. And 1 It will be found at the end of the Excursis before referred to. further, there are several passages of ancient writers, cited in the sequel, which at first sight may be thought to lend considerable weight to the opinion I am now considering. I will now briefly state the one great difficulty which appears to me to stand in the way of these conclusions. I refer to the total absence of all allusion in Roman writers to any real variety of form among the pieces-a feature so prominent that had it ever existed, it could hardly have escaped some sort of notice. Turn to the poets of England, Italy, or Spain, who have ever touched upon or alluded to Chess, however incidentally, in their writings, and it will be found, that in nine passages out of ten, the point that has been seized and presented most forcibly to the reader, is one dependent on the peculiar names or forms given to the various pieces for its truth and meaning. But how many passages from Latin writers can be adduced, where even a metaphorical use of the nomenclature of Chess is to be found, or which give the slightest foundation for supposing that that game possessed any peculiar nomenclature at all? Yet it is difficult to suppose that the epigrammatic fancy of a Martial, who appropriated almost every available subject for his favourite style of composition, should have missed so fertile a field for the display of his wit, or that the genius of a Virgil, who did not disdain to render the whipping-top a classic game, should have failed to draw a simile from the fantastic and picturesque figures which meet and manœuvre on the Chess-board in mimic hostility. Surely we should hear of priceless Chess-men from the hand of a Myro or a Mentor, commanding at least as much notice from the poets as the rare cups and curious saltcellars, which meet us in every description of the cabinets or the dinner service of the Roman virtuoso. Nevertheless, “conticuere omnes," and I cannot but believe that this, though a purely aesthetical argument, will be quite as satisfactory to those who are in any degree acquainted with the spirit of the writers of old Rome, as any that may be dug up from amid the ponderous pages of a Casaubon or a Salmasius. I think, however, that independently of this ground, arguments may be advanced to meet most of the objections I have supposed. With regard to the first of them, even should we adopt the interpretation of the passage of Isidorus given above, we need not assume a different form for the pieces moving laterally from those moving longitudinally, if we only suppose the initial disposition of the pieces to have been similar to that which actually existed in the Chaturanga, a diagram of which is given at page 43 of this volume. Two of the armies, viz., the red and yellow, may be supposed to be confined to merely lateral motion, while the other two, viz., black and green, are equally restricted in the other direction. The word vagè still remains, and though, perhaps, it is a mere speculation to attempt to fix its signification very definitely, it may mean that one of these sets of pieces, or that men occupying certain positions on the board, and under certain concurring conditions, had the power of moving diagonally. Then there is the argument founded upon the use of the word mandra in the passage of Bassus I have cited; and to this, if only it could be proved that the sense of that word contended for by Wernsdorf, is the correct one here, I am willing to concede whatever force may be supposed to attach to it; nor am I at this moment prepared to offer any preferable hypothesis. I cannot say, however, that his interpretation, even if parallel passages should be found to confirm the sense he assigns to mandra, is at all satisfactory to my mind, chiefly, perhaps, because the expressions which the poet here employs seem to me, on that supposition, to labour under a deficiency of poetical fitness and keeping, which does not accord with the general elegance of the other portions of the fragment. Had the mandra really signified a mere congeries of separate pawns or counters, I cannot but think that some different phraseology would have been made use of, which, if not absolutely in terms expressing, would yet have made the separate action-the personality, so to speak-of each pawn or counter felt and understood. If I were to hazard any conjecture, it would be that the line I have been speaking of, and that which follows it, "Clausaque dejecto populetur monia vallo," refer to some natural division or divisions of the board, each containing several squares,1 like the river in the old Chinese game, out of or into which the pieces passed under certain restrictions and conditions. This gives at once to mandra and vallum perfectly natural, and, in fact, their only legitimate meanings, and at the same time renders the 3 1 Salmasius, I think, suggested that the mandræ, in accordance with the proper and radical meaning of that word (that is, an enclosed space), signified nothing more than the squares themselves, to which Wernsdorf justly objects, that the lines dividing squares are merely lines of demarcation for the purposes of the game, not of defence, as the language of Bassus requires. This remark, however, though fatal to Salmasius's theory, would not apply to any great and principal division of the board, such as seems to have been the case in the example alluded to. 2 See Sat. Mag., vol. xviii. 3; vol. xix. 166. › Mandra-μáv♪pa-a pure Greek word, signifies in that language, firstly, a sheepfold, or enclosure; and secondly, the hollow of a ring where the stone is set. In Latin, besides the first of these meanings, it is said to be used, metaphorical language of the poet far more consistent in its terms with the action intended to be described. Some few other passages of ancient writers remain to be noticed. Suetonius (Claud. 22) speaks of the Emperor Claudius as being accustomed to play at Chess with "ivory chariots on a board," whence some have inferred the existence of variety of form, though by what process of reasoning it is difficult to say. The passage merely shows that the counters were occasionally made in the form of chariots and other fantastic shapes, just as among ourselves costly figures, carved by Indian skill in the most delicate ivory, and representing men, elephants, &c., are substituted for the conventional, and I may add shapeless, pieces of the modern Chess Divan. Nothing in this passage points to any difference of form among these chariots or pieces themselves, however much they may have differed from those ordinarily in use. Again, Pliny (H. N. viii. 80, ed. Tauchn.), in a description of the sagacity of certain monkeys, tells us, on the authority of one Mucianus "(Simias) et latrunculis lusisse, fictas cerâ iconas usu distinguente." If this proves anything, it seems to show, in the most marked manner, that whatever these images (icones) may have been, they were at least identical in form, otherwise usus would hardly have been required to have enabled such gifted animals to distinguish their functions. It is a mere petitio principii to say that these latter words imply that practice enabled them to divine the moves and powers of the various pieces, for that the pieces were of various forms and powers is the very thing to be shown, and cannot fairly be assumed as a ground for preferring one of two equally probable interpretations. I fear, on the whole, though some stress has been laid on this passage, that Mucianus and his monkeys do not much help the question either way. The passage of Euripides (Iph. A. 196) has been noticed and explained already,1 though, in order to guard against misapprehension, I may by a not uncommon transition, for the animals enclosed, as well as for the enclosure itself; and it is on this sense that Wernsdorf relies in support of his interpretation. It is to be observed, however, that in both the passages he cites to prove this use of the word (Juv. iii. 237, Mart. v. 22, 7.), the original sense of "enclosure" still adheres to the secondary or derivative, forming a sort of complex idea, which is easier felt than actually described. Thus the stans mandra of Juvenal is exactly our "cabstand," that is, not only a number of cabs, but a number of cabs in a certain defined space or locality. Is there any passage where mandra is used generally, as for "a flock of sheep," irrespective of place or situation? Yet such is the sense required here, if Wernsdorf's interpretation is correct. 1 See note to page xx. |