the celebrated game, of which a copious account has been given in the Encyclopaedia, is affirmed by Sir William Jones to have been invented by the Hindoos. If evidence were required to prove this fact (says he *), we may be satisfied with the testimony of the Persians, who, though as much inclined as other nations to appropriate the ingenious inventions of a foreign people, unanimously agree that the game was imported from the well of India in the fifth century of our era. It seems to have been immemorially known in Hindustan by the name of Chaturanga, i.e. the four armies, or members of an army; which are the ele- phants, horses, chariots, and foot-soldiers; and in this sense the word is frequently used by epic poets in their descriptions of real armies. By a natural corruption of the pure Sanscrit word, it was changed by the old Per- sians into Chetranj; but the Arabs, who soon after took possession of their country, had neither the initial nor final letter of that word in their alphabet, and con- sequently altered it further into Shetranj, which found its way presently into the modern Persian, and at length into the dialects of India, where the true derivation of the name is known only to the learned. Thus has a very significant word in the sacred language of the Brahmins been transformed by successive changes into chess, scacchi, schach, chech, and, by a whimsical con- course of circumstances, has given birth to the Eng- lish word check, and even a name to the exchequer of Great Britain."

It is confidently asserted, that Sanscrit books on chess exist in Bengal; but Sir William had seen none of them when he wrote the memoir which we have quoted. He exhibits, however, a description of a very ancient Indian game of the same kind, but more complex, and in his opinion more modern, than the simple chess of the Per- sians. This game is also called Chaturanga, but more frequently Chaturajis, or the four kings, since it is played by four persons representing as many princes, two allied armies combating on each side. The description is ta- ken from a book called Bhavishya Puran; in which the form and principal rules of this fictitious warfare are thus laid down: "Eight squares being marked on all sides, the red army is to be placed to the east, the green to the south, the yellow to the west, and the black to the north. Let the elephant (says the author of the Puran) stand on the left of the king; next to him the horse; then the boat; and before them all, four foot-sol- diers; but the boat must be placed in the angle of the board."

"From this passage (says the president) it clearly appears, that an army with its four angels must be placed on each side of the board, since an elephant could not stand, in any other position, on the left hand of each king; and Radhacant (a Pandit) informed me, that the board consisted, like ours, of 64 squares, half of them occupied by the forces, and half vacant. He added, that this game is mentioned in the oldest law books, and that it was invented by the wife of a king, to amuse him with an image of war, while his metropolis was be- sieged in the second age of the world. A ship or boat is absurdly substituted, we see, in this complex game for the cat's, or armed chariot, which the Bengalis pro- nounce roth, and which the Persians changed into rokh; whence came the rook of some European nations; as the pierce and fal of the French are supposed to be cor- ruptions of firm and fl, the prime minister and elephant of the Persians and Arabs."

As fortune is supposed to have a great share in de- ciding the fate of a battle, the use of dice is introduced into this game to regulate its moves; for (says the Pu- ran) "if cinque be thrown, the king or a pawn must be moved; if quatre, the elephant; if trois, the horse; and if deux, the boat. The king passes freely on all sides, but over one square only; and with the same limitation the pawn moves, but he advances straight forward, and kills his enemy through an angle. The elephant marches in all directions as far as his driver pleases; the horse runs obliquely, traversing the squares; and the ship goes over two squares diagonally." The elephant, we find, has the powers of our queen, as we are pleased to call the general or minister of the Persians; and the ship has the motion of the piece to which we give the unac- countable appellation of bishop, but with a restriction which must greatly lessen its value.

In the Puran are next exhibited a few general rules and superficial directions for the conduct of the game. Thus, "the pawn and the ship both kill and may be voluntarily killed; while the king, the elephant, and the horse, may slay the foe, but must not expose themselves to be slain. Let each player preserve his own forces with extreme care, securing his king above all, and not sacrificing a superior to keep an inferior piece." Here (says the president) the commentator on the Puran ob- serves, that the horse, who has the choice of eight moves from any central position, must be preferred to the ship, which has only the choice of four. But the argument would not hold in the common game, where the bishop and tower command a whole line, and where a knight is always of less value than a tower in action, or the bi- shop of that side on which the attack is begun. "It is by the overbearing power of the elephant (continues the Puran) that the king fights boldly; let the whole army, therefore, be abandoned in order to secure the elephant. The king must never place one elephant be- fore another, unless he be compelled by want of room, for he would thus commit a dangerous fault; and if he can slay one of two hostile elephants, he must destroy that on his left hand."

All that remains of the passage which was copied for Sir William Jones relates to the several modes in which a partial success or complete victory may be obtained. by any one of the four players; for, as in a dispute between two allies, one of the kings may sometimes assume the command of all the forces, and aim at a separate conquest. First, "When any one king has placed himself on the square of another king (which advantage is called sinbofana or the throne) he wins a flake, which is doubled if he kill the adverse monarch when he seizes his place; and if he can seat himself on the throne of his ally, he takes the command of the whole army." Secondly, "If he can occupy successively the thrones of all the three princes, he obtains the victory, which is named chevrette; and the flake is doubled if he kill the last of the three, just before he takes possession of his throne; but if he kill him on his throne, the flake is quadrupled. Both in giving the sinbofana and the chevrette the king must be supported by the elephants, or by all the forces united." Thirdly, "When one player has his own king on the board, but the king of his partner has been taken, he may replace his captive ally, if he can seize both the adverse kings; or if he cannot effect their capture, he may exchange his king for one of them, against the general rule, and thus redeem the allied prince, who will supply his place." This advantage has the name of nriparifisha or recovered by the king. Fourthly, "If a pawn can march to any square on the opposite extremity of the board, except that of the king, or that of the ship, he assumes whatever power belonged to that square." Here we find the rule, with a slight exception, concerning the advancement of pawns, which often occasions a most interesting struggle at our common chess; but it appears that, in the opinion of one ancient writer on the Indian game, this privilege is not allowable when a player has three pawns on the board; but when only one pawn and one ship remains, the pawn may advance even to the square of a king or a ship, and assume the power of either. Fifthly, According to the people of Lomé, where the game was invented, "there could be neither victory nor defeat if a king were left on the plain without force; a situation which they named cacacafetiba." Sixthly, "If three ships happen to meet, and the fourth ship can be brought up to them in the remaining angle, this has the name of aribamana; and the player of the fourth seizes all the others."

The account of this game in the original Sanscrit is in verse, and there are two or three couplets still remaining, to very dark, either from an error in the manuscript, or from the antiquity of the language, that Sir William Jones could not understand the Pandit's explanation of them, and supposes, that even to him they gave very indistinct ideas. It would be easy, however, he thinks, if it be judged worth while, to play at the game by the preceding rules; and a little practice would perhaps make the whole intelligible.