We must premise that Mr Bland takes three but little-known Oriental manuscripts as the groundwork of his observations; one of them, in the Persian character, is said to be ‘probably unique,’ though, unfortunately, very imperfect.  It bears no date or author’s name, these being lost with the missing portions, but the treatise itself contains internal evidence of very high antiquity.  The author, whoever he was, tells us that he had travelled much through Persia and the adjacent countries, from the age of fifteen until the middle period of life, during which he gained the knowledge and experience which enabled him to write his book.  Besides which, he measured his strength with many masters of the art of chess-playing, adding on each occasion to his reputation as a conqueror:  ‘and whereas,’ as he relates, ’the greater number of professors were deficient in the art of playing without looking at the board, I myself played so against four adversaries at once, and at the same time against another opponent in the usual manner, and, by divine favour, won all the games.’  Here, singularly enough, we find a Persian Staunton making himself famous perhaps long before Norman William thought of invading Britain—­so true it is, that in mere intellectual achievements we have scarcely surpassed bygone generations.  He, the Persian, evidently entertained a comfortable idea of his own abilities; for he boasts largely of the improvements and new moves or positions which he has introduced into the game.  He disputes, too, the authenticity of the belief, that chess was originally invented in India, and that it was first introduced into Persia in the sixth century of our era by a physician, whom Nushirwan had sent to seek for the work known as Pilpay’s Fables.  On the contrary, he contends that chess, in its original and most developed form, is purely a Persian invention, and that the modern game is but an abridgment of the ancient one.  In how far this statement is borne out by the fact, we have at present no means of knowing; and until some more complete manuscript or other work shall be brought to light which may supply the want, we must rest content with the account familiar to most readers—­that chess was invented by an Indian physician for the diversion of the monarch, his master, and the reward claimed in grains of corn, beginning with one grain on the first square of the board, and doubling the number in regularly increasing progression up to the last.

We may here briefly state what the ancient, or, as it is commonly called in the East, ‘Timour’s Game,’ was.  It required a board with 110 squares and 56 men—­almost as many again as are used in modern chess—­and the moves were extremely complicated and difficult to learn.  The rectangularity of the board was interrupted by four lateral squares, which served as a fort, or special point of defence for the king, whose powers, as well as those of the other pieces, were in many respects different from those at present known.  ‘Timour’s mind,’ we are told, ’was too exalted to play at the Little Chess, and therefore he played only at the Great Chess, on a board of ten squares by eleven, with the addition of two camels, two zarafahs,’ and other pieces, with Persian designations.