CHESS.
ALMOST all writers on Cards have admitted the strong resemblance they bear to Chess; and M. Paul la Croix declares that in comparatively modern times the game of chess and games of cards showed strikingly similar features, which demonstrated their common origin,—the art of painting being resorted to to depict the one, and that of sculpture to represent the other.
A pretty history of the origin of Chess has been related. It states that the game was invented for the amusement of an Oriental potentate, and was played with living figures, who were required to move at the word of command from one square to another of a huge tiled court-yard which was surrounded by the balconies of the palace and its harem, from which all the movements of the pieces on the pavement below could be watched by the sovereign and his court. Living games of Chess have been played foramusement or “sweet charity’s sake” even in modern times; but such cumbersome pieces must have been difficult to manage, and it was only natural that the ingenious mind which contrived living chessmen should soon have superseded them with figures carved in a convenient material such as wood or ivory, and then placed the mimic armies on a miniature battle-field which could be easily commanded by two or more players.
The Eastern origin of Chess is undisputed, but when and by whom it was introduced into Europe is unknown. According to Herodius, the Lydians suffered from a long and severe famine in the reign of Atys, and in order to forget their misery, invented many games, particularly dice. Previous writers attribute the invention of games of chance to the Greeks during the siege of Troy, and Cicero mentionsgamesin the camp; but it does not follow that these games were either chess, cards, or dice. They may have been knuckle-bones or jack-stones, as that game was known in very early days, and pictures representing persons playing with them have been found among Egyptian antiquities.
It has been asserted positively by the oldest traditions that the cards of Indian origin are only chessmen transferred to paper on which the principal pieces of the game are reproduced, the game being improved by admitting more than two players.
In the game of Chess there are generally only two armies of pawns, each one being commanded by a King, a Vizir (which in the lapse of years has become a Queen), a Knight, an Elephant (which became a fool and after that a Bishop), and a Dromedary (afterward a Castle); and the game shows a striking similarity to the Indian games of cards, which have eight companies distinguished by their colours and emblems, and of which each one has their King, their Vizir, and their Elephant. The two games differ, of course; but sufficient resemblances between them remain to show their common origin, which recalls the terrible game of war, in which each adversary must assault, manœuvre, make combinations, and exert eternal vigilance.
We learn from a most reliable source (Abel de Rémusat, Journal asiatique, September, 1822) that playing-cards came to Europe from India andChina, and that, like the game of Chess, they were known to the Arabians and the Saracens from the beginning of the twelfth century. At first these games found little popular favour, most probably because they were introduced at a period when civil and ecclesiastical authorities most positively forbade all games of chance.
From India Chess spread gradually to other countries. The Persians seem to have known it about the middle of the sixth century; and Singer, in his “History of Playing-cards,” states that it reached China at nearly the same period, and in the reign of the Emperor Wa-si.
There are such striking resemblances between the figures used in Chess and those on cards as to leave very little doubt where the inspiration for the latter originated.
Beautiful circular cards made of ivory have been found, on which the figures are painted as if the artist were unable to carve the forms that he desired to represent, and therefore was obliged to paint them on a flat surface. These cards are small disks, which might easily be placed on the squares of a board and moved from one to the other like chessmen. The advantage of commanding a concealed army instead of one spread out on an open field probably soon became apparent, and the result was that some slight changes in the shape of the pictured figure and the material used were soon made, which with various modifications have come down to us as the modern playing-card.
If a study is made of some of the different packs of Chinese cards, it will be seen that horses, deer, and other animals are represented on them, together with symbols which seem to mark the suits. In other packs, instead of the figure of the animal, Chinese characters are placed above the symbol marking the suit, which characters seem to have been put there instead of the picture, and which it is affirmed state, “This is the horse,” or “This one is the deer,” as the case may be,—as if on one of our court cards the legend “This is the Queen” should be written on its face, instead of placing there the quaintly garbed female form which usually represents that august person.
We find the principal figures from the chess-board reproduced in the Tarots, and also in some of the Spanish and German packs. There is theKing, the Knight, or mounted horseman, and the Knave. The pawns or common soldiers are represented by numbers; but there is this difference between Cards and the game of Chess as it is generally played,—in the former there are four armies, or as we should call them “suits,” and each one is headed by the King instead of the two sides generally seen in Chess. Now, Mr. Chatto remarks that there is an Indian game of Chess which is calledChaturanga, or “The Four Kings,” in which two allied armies play against the same opponents. He also gives a few rules for this game. “Having marked eight squares on all sides,” says the Sage, “place theredarmy to the east, thegreento the south, theyellowto the west, and theblackto the north.” It is worthy of notice that these colours form the ground of four of the suits of one of the divisions of an eight-suit pack of Hindostanee cards; and this supports the theory that the painted ivory disks might have originally been used on the chess-board and then held in the hand. This strange Indian game of Chess would also point to the first division of the mimic warriors into four armies, each one distinguished by its uniform ofdifferent colours, which when placed in the cards became known as “suits.” This word was probably derived from the Frenchen suite, which signifies “to follow.”
There is another game known in which two chess-boards are joined. “It is played by two persons on each side, each of whom is concerned to defend his own game at the same time that he co-operates with his ally to distress by every means in his power the two armies opposed to them.” “Four-handed Chess” is described in Hoyle’s Book of Games, which illustrates a board with one hundred and sixty squares. The game is played with four sets of chessmen, coloured, respectively, white, black, red, and green, like those of the Indian game.
The Queen, both in Chess and Cards, has a European if not an entirely French origin. She takes the place of the Eastern Vizir, or General; and it may be particularly remarked that in the game of Chess she is more of an Amazon or Joan of Arc than the consort of a reigning monarch. Her height also is excessive for a woman, in proportion to the other pieces, and her active duties of harassing the enemy and protecting her slow-moving husband while leading his army to battle show that although she is called a Queen she is usurping the position of a general, who could more appropriately fill this important, active, and warlike place than she can.
In the Card Kingdom the Queen is a much more lifelike and womanly person, as in it she aids and abets her sovereign lord and master, and is generally meekly subordinate to him.
While drawing attention to the resemblances between the games of Chess and of Cards, we must not forget to notice a slight but perhaps important fact; and that is that all the ancient packs hadcheckeredbacks, as if the little army were loath to leave the old battle-field, but transferred it to their backs, and exposed that to the gaze of the opponent instead of standing in battle-array upon it. The oldest existing packs or Tarots retain these checkered backs; and some authors have decided thatTarotmeans “checkered,” and that the name is derived from this circumstance.
The author of “Playing and Other Cards in the British Museum,” Mr. W. H. Wiltshire, derides the idea that cards derive their origin from thechessmen, and points out the fact that “in all such games there are certain approximations, although hardly enough to establish an identity of origin. Chess,” he says, “is a game of calculation and combinations; cards are purely chance.” This seems hardly a fair objection, as there are many games of cards that call for calculations and combinations, some of them requiring much thought and study, although on the other hand there are many that may be played mechanically and without bestowing much thought upon them. Mr. Wiltshire also declares “that in Chess the pieces are exposed and the positions equalized, while the cards are hidden, and the cleverest person may be beaten by a novice without having made one trick.” Some particular game of cards may have been in the author’s mind when he made this statement; but there are a great many card games about which it would not be true.