course between the Venetians and the Byzantines; but, as we have elsewhere observed, not knowing the Greek nomenclature of the terms relating to the royal game, we can found no argument on this point.

Twiss, in vol. ii., p. 77, on the authority of Verci, says, that "the following adventure happened to a Bishop of Florence, who, according to Ughelli, (Ital. Sac. tom. 3,) was Gerard, who died in 1061. It is told by Peter Damianus, Bishop of Ostia and cardinal, in his epistles, and is confirmed by Baronius and Lohner. These two prelates were travelling together, and on a certain evening when they arrived at their resting place, Damianus withdrew to the cell of a neighbouring priest in order to spend the time in a pious manner; but the Florentine played at Chess all night among seculars or laymen, in a large house of entertainment.'

When, in the morning, the cardinal was made acquainted with this, he sharply reproved the prelate, who endeavoured to excuse himself by saying that Chess was not prohibited like dice. 'Dice,' said he, are prohibited by the canon laws: Chess is tacitly permitted.' To which the zealous cardinal replied, the canons do not speak of Chess, but both kinds of games are expressed under the comprehensive name of Alea. Therefore, when the canon prohibits the Alea, and does not expressly mention Chess, it is undoubtedly evident that both kinds, expressed in one word and sentence, are thereby equally condemned.'

"The Bishop, who was very good natured, stood cor

1 The good cardinal's reasoning does not appear to us to be altogether conclusive or convincing. He seems to have been, like his Eminence Muḥammad, the apostle of the Arabs, unacquainted with the game he condemns. The Musalman casuists would have speedily confuted his argument in consequence of the feebleness of his logic, to say nothing of its sheer absurdity.

rected, and submitted cheerfully to the penance imposed on him by the cardinal, which was, that he should thrice repeat the psalter of David, and wash the feet of twelve poor men, likewise bestowing certain alms on them, and treating them with a good dinner; in order that he might thus, for the glory of God and the benefit of the poor, employ those hands which he had made use of in playing the game."

By this last anecdote we may safely infer that Chess must have been well known in Italy for several generations before the period there alluded to. It must have taken some considerable time before the game became so common as to be played at "houses of entertainment among seculars or laymen." Yet strange to say, Twiss in his first volume, p. 109, alluding to the same story, says:-"The following singular passage from an epistle of Peter Damianus, an Ecclesiastical writer of the eleventh century to Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII.) which has since occurred to me, looks as if the game of Chess was, in his days, a thing quite new and strange; instead of being transmitted to modern Europe from either the contemporaries of Jason or those of Palmedes!" It is quite needless to offer any comments on Twiss, whose two volumes, entitled "Chess," are upon the whole more entertaining than instructive. They form an indigestible "Olla Podrida" of matters relating to Chess in general; some good, some bad, and some indifferent,' He was a mere collector of anecdotes, without a particle of judgment of his own; he simply considered as veritable fish, all things of this kind that came into his net.

1 Twiss, (Richard,) CHESS, 8vo., part 1st, London, 1787. Part 2nd, 1789. Miscellanies, 2 vols., 8vo., 1805. The whole mass of Twiss's lucubrations may, not inaptly, be compared to an "Old curiosity shop," in which may accidentally be found some valuable articles amidst a vast quantity of rubbish. Both Hyde and Twiss are sadly deficient on the score of methodical arrangement.

૨

Chess in Russia.

We have every reason to infer that the Sclavonic people acquired their knowledge of Chess direct from India by means of the Tartars or Moguls. This applies more especially to the Russians, who are still semiAsiatic, and who, a century and a half ago, were scarcely reckoned as one of the European nations. Our inference is founded on etymological and linguistic data, which, when rationally and legitimately employed, lead to valuable results in our researches respecting the intercourse which took place in days of yore between the various races of mankind.

In the Chess Player's Chronicle for 1852, p. 368, we have a very interesting communication from Major C. F. Jaenisch, on the "Nomenclature of the Russian Chess men; in which it is most curious to observe that the names of every one of the pieces, so far as they extend, are the same as those of the ancient Chaturanga. In the Russian language the names are all, with one single exception, and that only peculiar to the mediæval game, translated, not adopted, from the Sanskrit. For instance, the King is called Tsar;" and the Pawn is called " Piechka," a characteristic denomination, and appropriated exclusively to this single object;" it means merely a "little infantry soldier." So far the Muscovite nomenclature agrees with that of the western European nations, among whom the appellation of the King and Pawn are generally translated, not adopted, from the Arabic. The Knight in the Russian language is called "Konne," or "Kogne," which simply denotes "courser," or "war-steed." This is precisely the

a

rr

'Est autem Kônie peculiariter Equus Tataricus ex Nagaia, scil. Equus Genam alia habent nomina quibus Equum appellare solent.-Hyde,

nerosus;

p. 75.

meaning it has in the Sanskrit, Persian, and Arabic languages. The western nations, with the occasional exception of the Germans and Italians,' use instead of the term denoting "Horse," some name or designation applying to his rider, such as Cavallero, Cavaliere, Knight, Ritter, &c. Well, in this case the Russians have literally translated, and have to this day retained the original term "Horse," as in the oriental languages.

I have already shown that our western terms for the Bishop, viz., Alfilus Alfin, Aufin, &c., are evidently derived from the Arabic Al Fil. This piece is, by the Russians, called "Slonie," or "Slone," Slone," that is, the "Elephant," clearly proving that they had the term from the Asiatics at least, and not from the people of Western Europe. So far, then, the Russian nomenclature agrees exactly with the Sanskrit names of the pieces given in the Bhavishya Purana of the Ancient Hindūs. Here the reader may very rationally say to me"what then? Might not the Russians have translated all these terms from the Persian or Arabic as easily as from the Sanskrit ?" Granted, most courteous reader, but have a little patience till we have done.

We now come to the most remarkable point respecting the names of the Russian Chessmen, viz., that of the piece which we call the Rook or Castle. Major Jaenisch observes :-"That which is very singular is the name of the Castle; it is called Lodia, a "Boat," or Ship." This denomination can only proceed from a mistake." Now, with due deference to the gallant Major, it appears to me that the so-called mistake is merely apparent, not

1 The Italians use, indifferently, the terms "Cavallo," Horse, or "Cavaliere," cr 'Knight," for this piece. The term "Centauro" is also to be found in old writers. The German "Springer" has in it something of the original Sanskrit Asva," or the Arabic "Faras," "Horse," but so far as mere etymology goes, the epithet will apply equally well to a cat, or a tiger.

real. The very oldest name for what we call the Rook, was the "Ship." Such is it uniformly termed in the Chaturanga of the ancient Hindus, as we have already shown in our account of that primæval game. The Major's reasons for the above mistake on the part of the Russians are very lame. He says, "The ancient Russians must have taken for vessels the figures of war chariots constructed nearly in the form of vessels." This I hold to be altogether inadmissible; for be it remembered, that among the Hindus the war chariot is of comparatively recent date; and that neither the Persians or Arabs ever used either Ship or Chariot on their board. Under these circumstances, therefore, I should hold it to be the more philosophic course to view the term Lodia or Boat in the Russian nomenclature, not as a mistake but as an unerring criterion of the antiquity of Chess in that country. It is like those interesting organic remains discovered in the bowels of the earth, in places where least expected; such, for example, was the body of a full sized elephant found embedded in the frozen soil of Siberia, some hundred years ago. Geologists look upon such facts as the latter, not as mistakes, but as materials for writing the true history of the remote past of our planet.

To return to our ancient Muscovite " Lodia," or "Ship," let us see whether we may not be able to convert the same to some useful purpose of our own. Major Jaenisch states that, "this nation (Russia) in the complete state of isolation in which it remained during several ages after its conquest by the Moguls (and even a century before), up to the time of Peter the Great, could only learn the game of Chess from its ancient conquerors (i.e., the Moguls aforesaid), who themselves learned it from the Persians." Now, it is quite evident from the use of the term "Lodia," or "Ship," that