OF THE

ANTIENT GAMES OF SKILL.

CHAPTER I.

Of the Πετεία.

BELIEVING, as I do, that there exists a very close connexion between the early games of antiquity, and the modern Chess, it becomes absolutely necessary that the former should be examined, and their particularities clearly understood in the first instance, before we take a view of the later game.

The Пeria of the Greeks, from its simplicity, must be allowed to bear the marks of very early invention; and although we may suppose it to have been received by them from some other nation, yet, as we have the form of it delineated only by Greek writers, we must be content to take it up in the state it was in when practised by the Greeks, and complete the sketch from the faint outlines they have left us. I think it necessary to begin the investigation of my subject by a view of this game, because, upon it hinges the whole of the question now to be considered; and if the point of view in which I see it be just, it contains within itself the seeds of improvement, which only required an observing mind to bring them forward to perfection.

B

I could have wished, that with the same acuteness which Dr. Hyde has displayed, in treating of the other Greek and Roman games, he had equally enlarged upon the subject of the Пería; but as he chiefly professed to treat of the games in use amongst the Orientals, he possibly did not conceive this to be a necessary part of his plan; and if he therefore contented himself with saying little on the subject, it is a fault that Julius Pollux had been guilty of before him. There are, however, some other writers who have made short mention of it; and I shall be able to collect from them sufficient information to answer my purpose; in doing which, I will endeavour to confine myself chiefly to what Dr. Hyde has left imperfect, or seems not to have clearly understood.

Dr. Hyde has justly blamed MEURSIUS for having confounded the Ζατρίκιον with the Πετεία, and for supporting his opinion with some Latin verses, which refer solely to the Ludus Latrunculorum:

66

"ПIETE, AUTEM, (q. d. ПEvτela), talis erat Ludus, in quo uterque "collusorum quinque calculos habebat in Laterculo totidem lineis "distincto, i. e. Quinque ex utráque parte," &c.*

But notwithstanding the significant force of this last objection, by which he would imply that the Пería, differing in this point from the Ludus Latrunculorum, had but FIVE lines, and as many men, yet Dr. Hyde could not bring proof to shew that the Ludus Latrunculorum did not consist of the same number. For, he observes in another place, that "the antients have been silent both as to the number of squares contained in the board of the Ludus Latrunculorum, and also as to the number of pieces with which that game was played:"+ therefore, we have no reason, as yet, to

* Hist. Shahiludii, p. 18.

† “Quot autem areolas dicta tabella contineret, uti etiam quot essent calculi, apud véteres "siletur." Hist. Damiludii, p. 184.

disbelieve that they were one and the same game. But more of this in its proper place.

The quotations from classic authors, referring to the Ludus Latrunculorum, are trite; and have been so often repeated by every writer on Chess, that it would be irksome to detail them here, in order to prove any similarity between the two games, which Dr. Hyde denies to exist: and besides, considering the Пería as a Greek game, it will be my business rather to treat of it by means of authorities drawn from Greek writers only. I will reserve, therefore, any Latin lines that apply to the Roman game, for another place, where I will make as concise mention of them as the nature of my inquiry will permit.

In the mean time, we must allow to Dr. Hyde the signal merit of having been the first who challenged the Scholiast upon Theocritus, and opposed the assertion of Meursius; in doing which, if he has not explained the nature of the Пería, he has at least cleared the way for others, and rendered the attempt easy, by freeing the question from the numerous contradictions in which all the various commentators had involved it.

Amongst these, the learned Saumaise undoubtedly takes the lead: and as he has devoted no less than twenty-five octavo pages of notes to the subject of the games of Pebbles, in the Var. Ed. of the Historia Augusta Scriptores, in Vopiscus's Life of Proculus ; and, as his remarks have furnished copious materials for all who have gone after him, it is a mass of critical observations too important to be passed over in silence.

In the midst of this display of erudition, we meet with many inconsistencies:-thus he

says,

"Puto ex his, quæ diximus, jam satis inter omnes constare Zaτgínov eumdem esse ludum cum Latrunculis."

And again,

“Пóλ verò veterum Græcorum idem omninò fuit cum Zatricio

"recentiorum, et cum Latrunculis Romanorum."

Where the Zargiziov, or modern Chess, the Ludus Latrunculorum, and consequently the Пería, and the Пóλs, which answered to the Alveus of the Romans, are all treated of as one game.

In the midst of this confusion, Saumaise has recollected himself, by drawing a distinction in favour of the Пería, which he treats of in the following manner:—I will add the different forms in which he has delineated it, that they may stand the fair test of scrutiny against that which I have conjectured to be the real one.

The reader may see the first of these described in Plate I. Fig. 1, annexed to this work.

66

"Tessera in illo genere ludi nullum locum habebant.—Solis “calculis res agebatur, qui de linea in lineam promovebantur, usque ad mediam, ad quam qui pervenerat, ultimá necessitate compulsus, et ad incitas redactus, calculum inde movebat in “extremum subsidium.—Nihil enim post hanc restabat, et manus "erant victori danda; inde Proverbium," &c.

་་

But I should observe that in cases of distress, the Pebbles-minimè PROMOVEBANTUR, sed COGEBANTUR ad mediam lineam It would further be difficult to conceive, how any pebble could be said to have been nearer to the Sacred or middle line, after pursuing his career to the 6th point, than he was when he first set out.

The Sacred, however, was a middle line; in his next attempt, therefore, he places it more to the purpose.

"Possit autem aliquis putare lineas omnes in illâ tabulâ paral"lelas fuisse descriplas, ad hunc modum." (See Plate I. Fig. 2.) "Ut ut sit, quinæ ab utrâque parte lineæ dabantur lusoribus. Uterque ras nal' avròv habebat.-Media inter illas Sacra tra"hebatur, ad quam viclus quasi ad ultimam anchoram con“fugiebat.”

66

The parties here march forward to the attack, and the Sacred is certainly a middle line between the two. But the utility of the

Sacred is contradictorily explained. He had previously said,— "Calculum inde movebat in extremum subsidium," that the Pebble sought relief by moving from* the Sacred; which Sacred, however, is here represented as the line-" AD QUAM victus, quasi ad ultimam "anchoram, confugiebat ;"-to which the party who had the worst of it, betook himself as his last support.

The foregoing may suffice as a specimen of the erroneous conceptions entertained of this game by the different commentators upon it. For besides the remarks I have quoted from Saumaise, we find those of Meursius, Souter, Bulengerus, and even the great Casaubon, equally contradictory and inconclusive. I should not have even thought it necessary to notice these, had it not been that Dr. Hyde himself seems to have placed some degree of reliance upon them; particularly as to the scheme of the board, and the disposition of the lines: "In quarum medio erat iega reaμun, quæ omnes junctim, unà cum media, seu Sacrâ, undecim "lineas faciebant," p. 18; where he evidently took Saumaise for his guide.

It may now be expected that we should produce something of our own upon the subject.

We learn from Polybius, that the Пeria was a game of which the merit consisted in cutting off, and inclosing, or blocking up. This is fully expressed in the following words:

4 Πολλοὺς μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐν ταῖς κατὰ μέρος χρείαις ἀποτεμνόμενος, καὶ τι συγκλείων, ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς Πετλευτής, αμαχεί + διέφθειρε.”* Polybius, lib. i. sect. 84.

I thus translate the "inde" of Saumaise, because it is obviously a paraphrase of the proverb—“ κίνει τὸν ἀφ ̓ ἱερᾶς.”

+ I adopt Reiske's conjecture instead of äua nai.

+ If

any doubt can arise whether Polybius here alludes to the Пría, since he makes use of the term Helens, the words of Julius Pollux will decide it in the affirmative.

“ Τὸ δὲ πετλεύειν, καὶ ἡ Πεττεία, καὶ τὸ πεσσὸν ὄνομ ̓ ἦν, καὶ πεσσονομεῖν, καὶ ὁ Πετλευτής.”