just mention that by "complicated moves" I intended to express nothing more than the intricate combinations to which any system of moves, however simple in themselves, must in such a game give rise.

I have now gone through all the passages which have occurred to me in Latin authors, and which appear in any way to touch this question. I think that, looking at them fairly, there is not one (except, perhaps, that relating to the word mandra) which can be said to establish, or even to supply, anything like a definite ground for the belief that a difference of form did exist in the game we have been considering; and I think that the other arguments I have advanced, though appealing more directly to matters of taste and feeling, which of course affect different persons in different degrees, than to the strict weight of evidence, do yet go far to render the conclusion I am contending for probable. At the same time, it is but just to acknowledge that much of the evidence I have brought forward is of such a nature that a little ingenuity might cause it to assume a very different complexion, and to support, perhaps, even an opposite view to my own. This, however, is an invariable result in all investigations like the present, where we have not the facts themselves of a subject wherewith to elucidate the shadowy and faint allusions which meet and perplex us in the authors of former days, but are forced to content ourselves with the inverse process, as it were, of restoring conjecturally the substance by measuring and scanning the dim outlines it has projected in their writings.

In conclusion of this subject, it may be added, that the successful combatant in this game appears to have enjoyed the title of Imperator (Vopisc. Proc 13),1 and further that, in some way or other, the number of counters which each player retained aided in determining the victory (Sen. de Tranquill. 14), but this could only have been the case when the position of the pieces was such, that there was no chance of the game being decided in the ordinary way, which seems unquestionably to have been that of stalemate. The chance of winning a "drawn game" is often with us estimated in a similar

manner.

Ludus Duodecim Scriptorum.-My notice of this game will be brief, as our information respecting it is but scanty, and it can have no pretensions whatever to rank as a genuine form of Chess. board employed was, as we see by the appellation of the game itself,

The

1 See the notes on this passage by Casaubon and Salmasius in the edition of the Hist. August. Scriptores, published in 1672.

divided by twelve lines, of which six were longitudinal and six transversal, thus enclosing-if the edges of the board were excluded in reckoning the number of the lines-49 squares or spaces-if included, 25 only. Dice were used to regulate the moves, and the privilege of retracing a move was also allowed; the phrases for advancing and retiring a man being dare and reducere respectively. I consider it to have been a rude kind of backgammon, the form of the board alone being different, and to have probably been decided in some analogous manner. A passage from Petronius (s. 33), which I have quoted above for a different purpose, shows distinctly that mere counters, as opposed to pieces, were exclusively used in this game, as with us at draughts: the words themselves are pro calculis albis et nigris aureos argenteosque habebat denarios," which at once enable us to refer the game to its proper category, and manifest its true character.*

*The following references may be this subject further for themselves. A. ii. 203, iii. 363, and Cic. ap. Non. ii.

66

of service to those who wish to examine Quinct. xi. 2 38, ed. Gesner. Ovid. A. 170.

p.

APPENDIX C.

Page 83.-Note 1.

Description of Dr. J. Lee's two MSS. on Chess. By N. Bland, Esq.1

66

'Since the outline of these sheets was first sketched, I have been favoured with the perusal of two Arabic MSS., from the valuable collection of Dr. John Lee, and though they contribute no additional information of any extent on the subject of the Great Chess, they afford many interesting particulars on the practice of the usual game and on some points in connection with it. The more important of these two works on account of its antiquity, though possessing less variety in its details, is named the Nuzhatu arbābi 'l'ucúl fí-'l shatranji-mancūl,2 and the author, who calls himself in his preface, Abu Zakarīa Yahyā Ibn Ibrahīm al Ḥakīm, describes it as a book on the invention and arrangement of Chess, compiled from various works. There is no division into chapters, but the usual subjects are discussed in the order observed by most Eastern writers, commencing with arguments in support of the lawfulness of the game, and testimonies in its favour from various writers. Its origin is explained according to the different stories already related in similar works, and among other fables respecting its invention, it is said to have been played first by Aristotle; by Yāfet ibn Nūh (Japhet, son of Noah); by Sam ben Nuh (Shem); by Solomon, as a

1 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 13, p. 27, &c.

2 "The Delight of the Intelligent, in description of Chess-play," MS., No. 146 of Dr. Lee's Catalogue of his Oriental collection, and No. 76 of the New Catalogue.-B.

consolation for the loss of his son; and even by Adam when he grieved for Abel.

Sayings of kings, sages, and physicians are quoted in praise of chess-play, including examples of some of the earliest Muslim doctors who either practised it or permitted it as harmless.

At the sixth page the classes (Tabakāt) of players are enumerated, and of those considered among the 'Aliyah, or highest class, are the names of Rabrab, Jābir, Abul Na'īm, Al'Adalī, and Al Rāzi, the first and last of these being superior even to the others. The qualifications of the subordinate classes are also given, but no mention made of particular players among them.

At page 26 the value of the pieces is explained, agreeing in most of its conditions with the rules already quoted on the same subject; also the proportion of forces necessary to draw or win at the end of the game.

An extract from Al 'Adalī's work briefly describes the different kinds of Chess, of which the first is called the "Square Chess" being the "well-known game attributed1 to India."

2ndly. "The Complete Chess, of which the board is 10 × 10, with four additional pieces in the same form, called Dabbaba, placed between the King and his Bishop and the Queen and Bishop on each side; their move that of the King, and their value half a dirham and a third of a dirham." Probably their value was proportioned to the side on which they stood.

Al Shatranj ul Rūmīya, which is said to be taken from the Hindīya or Indian game aforesaid. There is some difference between the powers of.its Rook and Knight from those of the common Chess, and the Pawns do not queen, as (from its circular form) the board has no extremity. About seventy diagrams follow, exhibiting positions in the usual game, taken from the works of Al Adalī and Al Sūlī, with explanations; also three others exhibiting the mode of covering all the squares in succession by the Knight's move; the second mode is attributed to 'Ali ben Mani', and the third to Al 'Adali. Memorial lines are given for the rule. About twenty pages of the MS. are then devoted to extracts in verse on Chess, selected from various authors. There is no note of the scribe's name, nor period or place of writing. The copy, however, is evidently of considerable antiquity.

1 The expression, "attributed to India," is, I venture to say, Mr. Bland's own, and not the authors. No Arabian or Persian writer ever doubted that Chess was invented in India, and thence brought to Persia.-F.

A second Arabic MS. in the same collection is entitled “Anmūzaj ul Ķatāl,1 which might be interpreted "Exemplum rei militariæ." It was transcribed in the month Rajab, A.H. 850 1446. A short preface, commencing with allusions to Chess and its praise as an amusement of kings and great men, proceeds to the title of the work and its arrangement, which is into an introduction and eight chapters, coinciding with the number of the rows of squares, so that "each Bait (or house) may have its Báb (door, or chapter); also a Khatima, or Conclusion. The contents are then enumerated.

The Introduction relates examples, similarly with the treatment of the same subject in other works of the early Muhammedan doctors, and even of Companions and Followers of the Prophet, who either themselves played chess or were spectators of the game. Some of these are also said to have played “behind their back,” i. e., without looking at the board. Conditions are laid down respecting the lawfulness of chess-play, which according to some were three; viz., that the player should not gamble (play for money), nor delay prayer at the appointed times; and that he should keep his tongue from ribaldry and improper conversation. Some of the Sháfiâh sect made the conditions four: not to play on the road; nor for a stake; nor to talk frivolously; nor to be estranged by it from the times of prayer. The sect of Al Shafi'ī seems to have been the only one at all indulgent to chess-play, the other three Imams condemning it absolutely and unconditionally, while Abu Hanifa would not even salute a person playing it, nor return his salutation. The argument is continued on the respective merits of Chess and Nerd as to lawfulness; this chiefly depended on the games being played for money or not, for where both were played for a stake, Chess was by many considered still more blameable than Nerd. The Introduction is concluded by a short chapter on the spelling of the word Shatranj, quoting as authorities the "Durrat ul Ghawwas," Al Safadi, and others. Shitranj is stated to be the more correct spelling, but Shatranj said to be the more usual. It is also discussed whether S or Sh should commence the word, and

1 No. 147 of the Old Catalogue, and 77 of the New. The author of the Anmūzaj, Ibn Abi Hajlah, composed also the history of Egypt, entitled Sukkerdán, Sugar-Bason. "Ahmed ben Yahya Tilimsáni, vulgo Ibn Abi Hejla, ob. 776 = 1374." (Fluegel's Haj. Khalf, 7191.)—B.

2 A grammatical treatise by the celebrated Hariri.-B.