The Exploits and Triumphs, in Europe, of Paul Morphy, the Chess Champion

ANOTHER VERY DISGRACEFUL ANONYMOUS LETTER

To the Editor of Bell's Life:

Mr. Editor, – It is a pity chess-players will not "wash their dirty linen at home." Among a few frivolous noodles to whom chess forms the staple of life, Mr. Morphy's jeremiads may assume an air of importance, but to sensible men they sound ineffably absurd, while to those who take the trouble of looking a little below the surface they appear something worse. For what are the plain facts of the case? Mr. Morphy started for England, not to play a match with Mr. Staunton, for he was told that that gentleman was too deeply immersed in business to undertake one, but to take part in a general tourney to be held in Birmingham. Upon arriving here he duly inscribed his name on the list of combatants, and paid his entrance fee. On hearing this, Mr. Staunton, in a spirit of what some may call chivalry, but which, looking at his utterly unprepared state for an encounter of this kind, ought more properly to be termed Quixotism, entered his name also. Well, what happened? On the mustering of the belligerents, Mr. Morphy, who had come six thousand miles to run a tilt in this tournament, was not present. In his place came a note to say particular business prevented his attendance. A message was despatched, intimating that his absence would be a great disappointment, &c., &c. His reply was, that, understanding neither Mr. S. nor any other of the leading players would take the field, he declined to do so. A second message was forwarded, to the effect that Mr. Staunton was then in Birmingham expressly to meet Mr. Morphy, and that he and several of the best players were awaiting Mr. M.'s arrival to begin the combats. To this came a final answer, to the effect that the length of time that the tourney would last prevented Mr. Morphy from joining in it, but he would run down in two or three days. Passing over the exquisite taste of this proceeding, and the disappointment and murmurs it occasioned, I would simply ask, if Mr. Morphy thought himself justified in withdrawing from a contest which he had come thousands of miles to take part in, and to which he was in a manner pledged, upon pretences so vague and flimsy, what right has he to complain if the English player choose to withdraw from one to which he is in no respect bound, and against which he may be enabled to offer the most solid and unanswerable objections? In asking this, I beg to disclaim all intention of provoking a chess-players' controversy, a thing in which the public take not the slightest interest, and for which I individually entertain supreme contempt. I am moved to it only by the spirit of

Fair Play.

Birmingham.

To these communications the editor appended the following remarks: —

[We print the above two letters, being all the communications we have received from Mr. Staunton's party relative to Morphy's letter in our last. We regret these lucubrations are anonymous, as not showing how far they really represent the opinions of Mr. Staunton himself and his friends on the subject. Regarding their style and phraseology Mr. Staunton may perhaps ask to be saved from his friends, but that is matter of taste. We shall feel bound to print brief replies from Paul Morphy's side. Inferiority once admitted, no matter from what cause, if Mr. Staunton takes the ground indicated in the above epistles, Mr. Morphy has but cheerfully and quietly to drop the subject, and will certainly as a gentleman never challenge Mr. Staunton again. Morphy's friends may still reasonably inquire why all this was not said in June last, instead of giving apparent acceptance to the young American's challenge.

– Editor Bell's Life.]

The reader will observe that Mr. Staunton (or his friends) is the first to commence a newspaper war, probably under the impression that lengthy protocoling would sink the real question at issue, or induce Paul Morphy to reply, and commit himself. But the latter saw too clearly what eventualities might arise, and resolved that, in spite of all attacks, he would never be drawn into discussion. In his letter to Mr. Staunton, no point was raised on which to build dispute; Mr. S. was merely required to say what date he fixed for the match. The most sensitive mind could not be hurt with any thing in the letter, and yet "Fair Play" talks of "Mr. Morphy's jeremiads appearing something worse than ineffably absurd." "M. A.'s" lucubration did not obtain admittance into any other paper, but "Fair Play's" shone resplendently in the columns of the Illustrated London News. I have not learned who "Fair Play" is; nor do I wish to know.

When a man's course is straightforward and courageous, he will always find defenders, and sometimes, ardent partisans. Morphy's unassuming modesty had made him friends in every chess community, men who were ready to battle for him as though it were their own quarrel. Hitherto, not a word had been said by, or for, Morphy in the press, and he was determined not to seek succor from that source. The ensuing Saturday the following letters appeared in Bell's Life, the first being from a friend of our hero, well acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and the others from prominent members of the metropolitan chess circles.

LETTER FROM A FRIEND OF PAUL MORPHY

To the Editor of Bell's Life in London:

Sir, – Two letters appeared in your paper of last Sunday, one with the signature of "M. A.," the other of "Fair Play." In justice to fact, those communications must not remain unanswered, as the misstatements they contain might perchance mislead some as to the good faith of Mr. Morphy. It is in no improper spirit that I appear before your readers under my own name, but simply because, as I intend replying to your anonymous correspondents with facts, not with hypotheses, I think I am bound in honor to hold myself responsible for what I advance. The chess players of London and Birmingham are not ignorant of the intimacy with which Mr. Morphy has honored me during his visit to Europe, and they will permit me to state, that no one is better conversant with the facts bearing on the case in point than your subscriber. Were it not that Paul Morphy positively refuses to reply to any attack upon himself, preferring that his actions should be the sole witness to his faith, I should not have troubled you or the public with this communication.

On the 4th of last February, the New Orleans Chess Club challenged Mr. Staunton to visit the Crescent City, "to meet Mr. Paul Morphy in a chess match." On the 3d of April the former gentleman replied to this defi in the Illustrated London News, in the following language: – "The terms of this cartel are distinguished by extreme courtesy, and, with one notable exception, by extreme liberality also. The exception in question, however, (we refer to the clause which stipulates that the combat shall take place in New Orleans!) appears to us utterly fatal to the match; and we must confess our astonishment that the intelligent gentlemen who drew up the conditions did not themselves discover this. Could it possibly escape their penetration, that if Mr. Paul Morphy, a young gentleman without family ties or professional claims upon his attention, finds it inconvenient to anticipate by a few months an intended visit to Europe, his proposed antagonist, who is well known for years to have been compelled, by laborious literary occupation, to abandon the practice of chess beyond the indulgence of an occasional game, must find it not merely inconvenient, but positively impracticable, to cast aside all engagements, and undertake a journey of many thousand miles for the sake of a chess encounter. Surely the idea of such a sacrifice is not admissible for a single moment. If Mr. Morphy – for whose skill we entertain the liveliest admiration – be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his proposed visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in Germany, and in Russia, many champions whose names must be as household words to him, ready to test and do honor to his prowess."

No one would regard the above observations as tantamount to aught else than "If you will come to Europe I will play you;" but we are relieved from the difficulty of discovering Mr. Staunton's real meaning by his reiterated declarations that he would play Mr. Morphy. Within a few days of the latter's arrival in London, the English player stated his intention of accepting the match, but postponed the commencement of it for a month, on the plea of requiring preparation. In the month of July the acceptance of the challenge was announced in the Illustrated London News. Before the expiration of the time demanded in the first instance, Mr. Staunton requested that the contest should not take place until after the Birmingham meeting. At Birmingham he again declared his intention of playing the match, and fixed the date for the first week in November, in the presence of numerous witnesses. Mr. Morphy may have erred in believing that his antagonist intended to act as his words led him to suppose, but it was an error shared in common by every one then present, and particularly by Lord Lyttelton, the President of the British Chess Association, who recognized the true position of the case in his speech to the association, stating that he "wished him (Mr. Morphy) most cordially success in his encounters with the celebrated players of Europe, whom he had gallantly left home to meet; he should be pleased to hear that he vanquished all – except one; but that one – Mr. Staunton – he must forgive him, as an Englishman, for saying he hoped he would conquer him." – (Report of Birmingham meeting, Illustrated London News, Sept. 18, 1858.

So firmly convinced were the members of Mr. S.'s own club, the St. George's, that he had accepted the challenge, that a committee was formed, and funds raised to back him. What those gentlemen must now think of Mr. Staunton's evasion of the match can easily be understood; but so strong was the conviction in other chess circles that he would not play, that large odds were offered to that effect.

"M. A.'s" reasons for not playing, or "M. A.'s" reasons for Mr. Staunton's not playing – a distinction without a difference, as we shall hereafter show – is that "he is engaged upon a literary work of great responsibility and magnitude." Did not this reason exist prior to Mr. Morphy's arrival in June? and if so, why were Mr. Morphy, the English public, and the chess community generally, led into the belief that the challenge was accepted? And what did Mr. Staunton mean by stating at Birmingham, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Avery, and myself, that if the delay until November were granted him, he could in the mean while supply his publishers with sufficient matter, so as to devote himself subsequently to the match?

Mr. Staunton's (I mean "M. A.'s") remark in the letter under review, "I (Staunton or 'M. A.' indifferently) have no apprehension of your skill," is hardly consonant with the previous observation, that "he (Staunton) is at least pawn and two below his force," unless the "English-chess-world-representative" wishes it to be understood that he could offer those odds to Paul Morphy. Nor is it consonant with the fact that he has never consented to play Mr. Morphy a single game, though asked to do so, and when frequently meeting him at St. George's. Of course the two consultation games played by him, in alliance with "Alter," against Messrs. Barnes and Morphy count for nothing, as they were gained by the latter; a result due, doubtless, to "Alter" alone.

Mr. Morphy, in the eyes of the chess world, can have nothing to gain from a contest with this gentleman. When Mr. Staunton has met even players such as Anderssen, Heyderbrandt, and Löwenthal, he has succumbed; whilst his youthful antagonist can cite a roll of victories unparalleled since Labourdonnais. And herein is the true reason for "M. A.'s" saying, "Staunton must not be allowed to risk the national honor (?) in an unequal contest."

In wishing "M. A." adieu, I would state that his style of composition is so like Mr. Staunton's that no one could detect the difference. And no one but Mr. Staunton himself would ever set up such a defence as "M. A.'s" – that of inferiority, "Pawn and two below his strength," &c. &c. And no one but Mr. Staunton could have such intimate knowledge of his own thoughts as we find in the following verbatim quotations from "M. A.'s" letter: "The state of his health was such that he felt he could not do himself justice" – "his mind harassed" – "the other (Staunton) with scarcely time for sleep and meals, with his brain in a constant whirl with the strain upon it." In the language of Holy Writ: "No man can know the spirit of man, but the spirit of man which is in him."

Served up in a mass of foul language, the letter signed "Fair Play," contains an obviously untrue assertion, namely, "Mr. Morphy started for Europe, not to play a match with Mr. Staunton." This is rather outrageous in the face of the challenge from the New Orleans Chess Club, and with Mr. S.'s reply in the Illustrated London News of April 3d. So much was it Mr. Morphy's desire to play him, and so little his intention to engage in the Birmingham Tournament, that he informed the secretary he did not regard such a contest as any true test of skill.

To sum up the whole matter, I will state the naked facts.

1. Mr. Morphy came to Europe to play Mr. Staunton.

2. Mr. Staunton made everybody believe he had accepted the challenge from Mr. Morphy.

3. Mr. Staunton allowed the St. George's Chess Club to raise the money to back him.

4. Mr. Staunton asked for a delay of one month, in order to brush up his openings and endings.

5. Mr. Staunton requested a postponement until after the Birmingham meeting.

6. Mr. Staunton fixed the beginning of November for the commencement of the match.

If all this do not mean "I will play," then is there no meaning in language. I beg to subscribe myself, Mr. Editor, most respectfully yours,

Frederick Milns Edge.

Hotel Breteuil, Paris, Oct. 20, 1858.

The next epistle is from the pen of a former colleague of Mr. Staunton, – a gentleman whose literary articles in the Chess Players' Chronicle have earned world-wide notoriety. In the case under examination, he dissects Mr. Staunton's procedures with the skill of an able anatomist.

LETTER FROM A COADJUTOR OF MR. STAUNTON

To the Editor of Bell's Life: —

Sir, – In the few remarks that you have appended to the letters respecting Mr. Morphy's proposed match with Mr. Staunton you have dealt satisfactorily with the whole matter. The letters may be considered under two heads, one of which does not refer to, the other is written upon, the actual subject. That a few lines should be devoted not to the merits of the case will not surprise your readers, when they remember that, prejudice being created against, or in favor of, a particular chess-player, questions are not viewed in their true light; still less will they be surprised when I take this opportunity of doing justice to Anderssen, who is indirectly alluded to in one of the letters. Your Cambridge correspondent ridicules the notion of any evasion of play on the part of Mr. Staunton. His virtue, even approaching a fault, has been the continual search after a match. He resought St. Amant after defeating him, he exposed himself to every one for eight years, and thus earned two characters, one that of the chivalrous paladin, the other that of the representative of English chess. I wonder that an intelligent writer, such as your correspondent is, should not have traced the distinction between resuming play against antagonists already beaten, or likely to be beaten, and commencing matches with really powerful combatants. I wonder, also, that he did not inform your readers that at the time at which St. Amant played with Mr. Staunton, the former, excellent as he was, received odds from Des Chapelles, who was out of play; I wonder that, as if with perfect knowledge, he could write upon such a chess match without alluding to Des Chapelles' celebrated criticism on the Staunton-St. Amant games, a criticism which, published in the Berliner Schachzeitung of 1848, puts both players in their true places. I wonder, again, that he should not have summed up Mr. S.'s subsequent victories in two contests, one with Hörwitz, the other with Harrwitz. I wonder that he should not have told us that Hörwitz publicly announced his inferiority to Der Lasa and Hanstein, and that Harrwitz at the time mentioned received P and two moves, but in the same year defeated Hörwitz, the very player upon whose defeat, on even terms, Mr. S.'s reputation mainly depended after his match with St. Amant. Another instance of Mr. Staunton's chivalry is, says your correspondent, an offer to "play any player in the world, and to pay his expenses for coming to England." The best answer to this is to quote the actual conditions of the challenge propounded by Sir G. Stephen on Mr. S.'s behalf in 1853: "1. If the acceptor of the challenge be resident abroad, the stake on each side shall not be less than £250. 2. If the challenge is taken up by a player resident in this country, the amount of stake shall be from £100 to £150. 3. That the match be played at a private hotel," etc. After the proposal, Mr. Staunton gave it meaning in a public speech (Chess Players' Chronicle, 1853) – "The challenge was intended for Anderssen's acceptance. The £250 was to cover travelling expenses in a foreign country." Now I wish to ask your correspondent is there here any offer to pay a competitor's expenses? Or will he read it as others do? "I name £100 for men whom I do not fear, but £250 for Anderssen, whom, as he beat me in 1851, I wish to play with. Nominally, the larger sum will cover his expenses, but as I intend to win, he will practically have to find £250, his expenses, and the bill at a private hotel, simply to give me, the chivalrous Bayard, my revenge?" After this I trust that we shall not hear of chivalry in offering to pay the expenses of a competitor. "M. A.," as a Cambridge man, may be asked whether Mr. S.'s engagement "on a work of great magnitude" (I quote his own words) is equal to Anderssen's mathematical and philological labors? But Mr. S. is the representative of English chess. By whose election is he "divinæ particula auræ?" Des Chapelles was then irreverent, and I am an iconoclast. Is he self-elected? Then away with parliaments and associations of chess, and their self-elected speaker, "Fairplay." I never yet heard of a man calling himself the representative of any thing English, if he will not carry out his representation. I have heard of champions of the river retiring. I have seen them row, and take a beating manfully. I know that Lewis, Fraser, Slous, Walker, etc., gave up difficult chess. I never yet heard of half and half play. Either a man pretends to represent English chess, or he does not. If he makes his claim, whether self-elected or not, he must play (a representative, however ignorant, gives his vote in the House of Commons), if not, he may retire into private life. Morphy may reply to your correspondent and to his coryphæus at the same time – "I have played for ten years. I am not 21, but am prepared to play the best European masters now. If I am challenged when I have taken up another pursuit I will not do one thing. I will not accept a challenge, and months after not carry out my acceptance. I will not, after long delay, name even the day for commencing the match, and then have no idea of playing. True it is that you may not fairly represent English chess. Two British players separated Anderssen from you in 1851, but, Williams being dead, Mr. Wyvill not playing matches, and you still claiming priority in Anglo-Saxon chess, I, an Anglo-Saxon, on behalf of the race that speaks the same language, ask you, will you maintain or resign your claim?" This is true reasoning. The contest, "M. A." assures us, would be unequal. Mr. S. is P and two moves below his strength, yet he represents English play. Where, then, are the even players, where the P and move men? Is the fragrance of the P and two moves so refreshing, that the P and move must not be classed amongst our British roses? Des Chapelles tells us that Philidor classed Legalle as a player on even terms, Verdoni as one to receive pawn for the move, Bernard, Carlier, etc., as P and move players. I think better of English chess players than to claim, with "M. A.," our representative in a P and two moves player. Your Cambridge correspondent will pardon me for attempting to refute his positions. From the style of his letter I am convinced that, had he equal experience, he would write much the same as I have done. "Fairplay's" letter may soon be dismissed; his argument is, that Mr. Morphy came to Europe not to play Mr. Staunton (who had previously refused, F. P. should have added, "to play in America," not in England), but to take part in the tournament held by the Chess Association at Birmingham; that he did not play there, sending different answers for his non-appearance; and, assuming this to be a fault, that therefore any one may commit the same fault, if he can give better reasons for the commission. In answer to this, Mr. Morphy did not come to Europe to play at Birmingham, but to test his strength with the cis-Atlantic players. It reads almost like a joke, when a man writes seriously from Birmingham to inform us that Morphy came 6000 miles to play the first two or first three games, especially when every one in London has known for more than three months that he came to play long set matches. What was Mr. M.'s behavior? He came to England in June, and visited Birmingham directly. He had been offered £70 as a retaining fee on account of the distance travelled by him (similarly Anderssen, Staunton, etc., received retaining fees in 1857), but refused the offer, making, with characteristic generosity, such excuses as "he had not received the Birmingham letters," and that "the meeting was adjourned for two months." In other words, Mr. Morphy, giving up all pecuniary claim, practically paid nearly seven-eighths of the prizes offered to public competition. Hence he did not take part in the little contests at Birmingham. He civilly assented to the alteration of time – he civilly left Löwenthal, whom he had beaten in a set match, a chance of gaining the first prize – he civilly gave answers to telegraphic messages, answers – I regret here that they were more polite than exact – that meant the same thing, "I leave the contest to others." If these replies did not – as short telegraphic messages cannot – express Mr. M.'s meaning, it does not become those who profited by his chivalry to write in the style of "Fairplay;" and I am sure that the Birmingham local committee would be the first to gainsay the latter's statement. He must be satisfied, at all events, as Löwenthal, just beaten by Morphy, met Mr. Staunton, whom he was anxious to see pitted against the young American, and won, thereby saving criticism as to "What was, might be, or could be." What "will be," we shall see. Mr. M. went to Birmingham simply to get Mr. S. to name, in the presence of others, a day for commencing the proposed match. Then and there Mr. S. named the 1st of November. A representative of Englishmen should give either a bona fide acceptance or a refusal. Morphy's motto is "Play, not talk." He comes and goes to foreign countries to seek play. He is the "Il Puttino" of the New World. At the risk, then, sir, of being called a "frivolous noodle" by your very elegant correspondent "Fairplay," I shall take the liberty of believing what an honest man like Morphy says. I shall not hold Staunton to be the representative of English chess, but shall look to younger and more consistent players as far more likely to maintain what your correspondents call the national honor, and am, sir, your obedient servant,

An English Chess Player.

East Sheen, Oct. 21, 1858.

The next two letters, also to the editor of Bell's Life in London, do not profess to argue the question, but are merely argumenta ad hominum. They serve to show how warm a feeling in his favor Mr. Morphy had evoked amongst the fellow-countrymen of Mr. Staunton.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:

Mr. Editor: The general opinion of English chess players is simply that Staunton is afraid of Morphy. If, as his friends say, he is out of condition, let him train, or give up the championship like a man. No one would blame him, at his age and with his avocation, for declining severe matches; but in that case he must resign the belt into fresher hands. The champion ceases to be the champion when he is no longer able or willing to take up whatever gauntlet is flung down. Let the chivalrous boy who has crossed the Atlantic to challenge the chess of the Old World have fair play at the hands of Englishmen. If we cannot beat him fairly, let us not seek to put him off with shabby dodges.