on, is given, "to save the labour of a full description in words." It so happens, however, that either from the carelessness or ignorance of the copyists, no two diagrams are precisely alike. They all have the number of squares, as well as the number of the men quite correct; but the pieces are by no means similarly arranged. Hyde, in his work already referred to, page 62, gives a very different arrangement to what is here described. At the same time, that learned Doctor, who ought certainly to have known better, has taken the liberty to make another ridiculous alteration of his own, by extending the files of the board to twelve squares instead of ten, for which he gives the following sapient reason: "As the armies on each side are nearly doubled, the space between them should be proportionally enlarged"!!! He overlooks the serious fact, that the range of almost all the pieces, and of all the Pawns, without exception, is just as limited as it had been in the common game. To double the intervening space between the combatants, merely because their number is increased, is simply absurd. Let us suppose, as an illustration, that two armies, of 20,000 men on each side, are drawn up in battle-array, having the distance of half a mile between them before commencing the engagement; then, according to Hyde's rule, should the forces on each side amount to 400,000, not an impossible case, then the distance between them ought not, on any account, to be less than ten miles. This might, no doubt, be called a safe distance, and quite agreeable to some of the combatants; but I suspect that the game, in that instance, would prove rather slow and tedious.

8th.-The Complete Chess-or Complement of Timur's Great Chess.

It would appear that our anonymous author's "Perfect Chess," like all earthly soi-disant perfections, acquired about or soon after the time of Timur some additional improvements which from want of a better term, and for the sake of distinction, I shall call the "Complete Chess,' which is a mere filling up of Timur's game, as will be seen at once by comparing Plates I. and III. I have just stated that no two copies of Ibn 'Arab Shah's Life of Timur agree exactly in representing the pieces on their respective diagram of the Great Chess. Well, there is a most beautifully written copy of that work, No. 7,322, in the British Museum, about three hundred years old, in which the diagram differs from all the others that I have seen. As the author Ibn 'Arab Shah himself says, "I here give an exact transcript of it-in order to save myself the trouble of a long description in writing." Vide Plate III.

Here we have five additional pieces, consisting of two Lions, two Bulls, and a piece called the Kashshaf, which we may translate "Sentinel," or "Rearguard;" in all three more species of forces, with three more representative Pawns. What is most singular is, that the Wazir is here omitted, and his place occupied by a "queer Fish," " (I really speak without metaphor), called the Lukhm. This Fish, according to the Lexicons, is either the Crocodile or the Swordfish, I cannot decide which, but at all events, I presume that he is altogether out of character when he figures on what is intended to repre

1 It is highly probable that the Lion, the Bull, and the Fish were adopted from the signs of the zodiac, as described in page 138, respecting the "Astronomical Chess," or "Uranomachia."

sent a battle-field. As the substitution of the Fish for the Wazir seems to serve no useful purpose whatever, and is withal a little ludicrous, I dismiss the former to his native element, and retain the Wazir stationed in his place, the same as in Plate I.

The three additional Pawns are stationed as videttes or outposts in front of either army. I can only offer my own conjectures respecting the moves and powers of the Lion, the Bull, and the Sentinel, for the author says not one word on the subject. Let us see, then, whether we cannot supply the deficiency. We have seen that in Timur's game the Rukh, the Giraffe, and the Scout were the three strongest pieces on the board; now it very aptly happens that these three pieces admit of just three distinct combinations of pairs or twos. Let us, then, suppose for example, that the Lion had the moves and powers of the Rukh and Giraffe combined; the Bull, that of the Scout and Giraffe combined; and the Sentinel, that of the Scout and Rukh combined, which last is precisely the power of our modern Queen.' The Lukhm or Fish, we may suppose to have the powers of the Wazir whose place he has very foolishly and needlessly usurped. We may naturally conclude that the Pawns moved and captured like their companions, and that when they reached the opposite extremity of the board they were promoted in a similar manner.

I shall now conclude this account of Timur's game and its complement, by an interesting extract from the close of Ibn 'Arab Shah's history, which I believe has

1 I consider the introduction on the large board of these terrible pieces, the power of each of which was at least double that of the Rukh, to have been a great improvement in the game—such as our Armstrong and Whitworth guns will, in all human probability prove themselves to be on the first occasion we have to fire them in anger.

never before appeared in any modern European language.1 The author, in enumerating the various eminent men who flourished in the reign of Timur, says, "Among the Chess-players were Muhammad Bin 'Akil al Khīmi, and Zain of Yazd; but besides these two, the most distinguished in this science was 'Alau-l-Din, of Tabriz (commonly called 'Ali al Shatranji. He gave the odds of the Pawn to Zain of Yazd, and beat him; and to Ibn 'Akil he gave the Knight and conquered him.2 him.2 The great Timur who subdued all the regions of the East and of the West, and gave checkmate to every Sultan and King, both seriously on the battle-field, and sportively on the chess-board, used to say to 'Ali, "Verily, 'Ali, thou art unrivalled in the realms of Chess, as I am in the battle-field and in the art of government. There is none to be found who can perform such wonders as we can; each of us is a master in his own department, myself and you my Lord 'Ali." He ('Ali) has composed a treatise on the science of Chess, and on its rare stratagems and positions. No one could cope with him without receiving odds. He told me that he once upon a time saw in a dream the Commander of the Faithful 'Ali (may God render his face glorious), and received as a present from that prophet a set of Chessmen in a bag; and no mortal

3

1 The original Arabic was published at Franequer, by S. H. Manger, in 2 vols. 4to., accompanied by an exceedingly incorrect Latin translation. The whole of this passage which I have here given is, in Manger's translation, utterly absurd.

The original expression is, "He gave him the horse, and outstripped him in the race."

3 of this Treatise I never heard except in this single passage. I am afraid it is irretrievably lost.

4 This sentence in the original Arabic savours a little of the Oriental. It runs thus:-" Wa mā kāna ahadun, yaķūlu, inna-hu, yuntiju wallādu fikri-hi fi libi-hi ma'a'hu mīn ghairi țarḥin." There is nothing in the sentence offensive to sound and healthy morality. It is simply a very bold and uncommon metaphor, the literal rendering of which might shock the delicacy of those whose morals are of the thin-skinned and valetudinary description.

3

ever conquered him after that. It was one remarkable feature in his play that he never spent a moment in consideration over his moves. The instant his adversary played, after long and tedious cogitation, 'Ali made his move off hand, without pause or reflection. He often played blindfold1 against two adversaries; and from the odds he could afford them, one might easily conceive his strength when looking over the board. He and Timur 2 always played the Great Chess. I saw at his house a round chess-board, also a long quadrangular board. The Great Chess has in it the additional pieces which we have already mentioned. The use of it is better learned by practice; and a description of it in words would extend to too great a length. 'Ali was profoundly learned in the law and traditions of our prophet; courteous and affable in conversation; modest and sincere in speech."

1 The Arabic term for "blindfold" is gha'ib, which the Dutch savant Manger changed into ghalib, "victorious," as he very complacently tells us in what is intended to be a critical note. To say that 'Ali played "victoriously " is a simple truism.

2 It is well known that Timur was passionately fond of Chess. Bakhtawar Khān, a historian of the time of Aurang Zeb, says, "Timur the Victorious in War was exceedingly fond of Chess, which formed the recreation of his leisure times. It was his wont, whenever he subdued a city or region, to inquire of the vanquished whether they had among them any good chess players; and if so, these were sent for to the royal presence, and they were invited to play with the “ Asylum of the Universe;" and whether they won or lost, they were uniformly treated with condescension and courtesy, and sent back with substantial marks of his Majesty's bounty.

3 Hyde misapprehends the author's meaning here, and draws inferences from the passages which are altogether unwarrantable. In the first place he misapplies the possessive pronoun "his" referring the same to Timur, not to 'Ali as the author clearly does. In the second place, Hyde, having made up his mind that the various Chess-boards here alluded to were seen by the author at Timur's palace, jumps to the conclusion that Timur was their inventor, than which nothing can be more groundless.

This last sentence comes in about the middle of the paragraph in the original. I have thrown it to the end in order not to interrupt the main narrative.