364
The Indian Game of Chess.
By F. W. Thomas.
On pp. 271/72of this Zeitschrift I suggested that in two pas¬
sages (Haraa-Carita p. 10 11. 10—12 Bomb. ed. and VoaavadcMa
p. 284 ed. Hall), where the game of chess is referred to, the
mention of Kala is not without some special appropriateness. This
inference from the style is confirmed by a verse from Bhartrhari
( VairOgya-Sataka 88) quoted by Macdonell in his article on "The
Origin and Early History of Chess" in the Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society for Jan. 1898.
yatranekah kvacid api grhe tatra tiffhaty athaiko
y atr Spy ekaa tadanu bahavas tatra cänte na caikah.
ittham cemau rajanidioasau dolayan dväv iväksau
kälah kälyä saha bakukalah kridati präni^äraih.
"Where in some house was many an one, there afterwards
stands one,
"Where again one, there subsequently are many, and then
too at last not even one.
"Even so, swinging day and night like two dice,
"Käla with Kali plays, a skilful gamester, with the living for pieces."
In two of these passages, therefore, we have Kala represented
as the player, and we must infer that the same idea is intended
in the third, viz. the passage from the Harsa-Carita. It is scarcely
doubtful that this idea must have been a commonplace in the
Kävya, and we may expect to find it recurring in other passages.
The game referred to by Bhartrhari is however not chess, but
backgammon (cf. Macdonell op. cit. p. 122, and for the term grha
cf. Kädamhari ed.* Peterson p. 6 1. 15), and it may be questioned
whether after all the Väsavadattä passage has not this game in
view. This seems, however, improbable not only because the com¬
mentator imderstands chess to be meant, but also because the term
nayadyüta seems more appropriate to the game of policy »). The
1) Note also tbat naya is explained by tbe HarSvali 171 and otber Grammars as jatuputraka, which seems to imply actual figures, and not mere draughts.
Thoma», The Indian Game of Che»». 865
Harsa-Carita passage p. 10 11. 10—12 krtakälasannidhänäm, ivan-
dhakSritalalätapattästäpad^m cannot refer to the Indian back¬
gammon if this was never, as Macdonell states, played on an
astäpada.
Apparently therefore käla may play both games. But in what
capacity ? Doubtless in his quality as time or fate. This is obvious
in the passage from Bhartrhari, and not less so b the Väsava¬
dattä, where varsäkäla = 1) "the time of the rains", 2) "the rains
as kala". We have therefore the ancient commonplace that time
or fate plays with human liveg as with draughts or chessmen, cf.
Böhlens note ad Vairägya-Sataka 43 and his reference to the
Mohamudgara "kälalj krl^ati gaechatySyus". The antiquity of this
comparison is shown by the fact that the names of the casts at
dice tretä, dväpara &c. are also those of the aeons, and by its
occurrence in the west, in Plato etc., cf. van der Linde's reflf. (I, p. 43)
and also PhUo 2. 85 {ap. Tawney's translation of Bhartrhari) rv/V
äva xal xarw ra av&gcSntia ntTzevu. We find it again in
the Mahä-Bhärata, Anuiosana Parvan 42/3, where Vipula sees
first a man and wife quarrelling and then six persons playing at
dice: the couple are then explained as day and night, and the six
as the seasons.
The allusion to Kala in connection with these games was
therefore an ancient commonplace. But I suggest that it was
something more, namely a technicality of the game. This is indeed
certain if in the Hanja-Carita passage astäpada really means, as
the commentator says, caturangaphuilaka. I should be inclined to
take it simply in the sense of "gold" but that there would then
be no ground for the comparison. If, however, it means "chess¬
board", then kala can only have been brought in, as being naturally
suggested by the chess-board, and must have been a technicality
of the game. What exactly was this technicality is certainly ob¬
scure. AU that we leam is that in the Har;a-Carita the presence
(sannidhäna) of käla blackens the chess board, and in the Väsa¬
vadattä kala plays on black^) squares, with green and yelloto
pieces. But the modus operandi is not clear.
1) The reading krstätu ia feeble.
366
Gegen Grimme, diese Zeitschrift 53, 102 ff.
Von C. Brockelmann.
Ad I. Syr. JX'\^ (nicht malkai) gegenüber bibl. aram. Njib73
kann die Betonung malkä für |n\>r> nicht beweisen. Wäre das d
des st. emph. im Sing, unbetont gewesen, so hätte es abfallen
müssen, wie im Plur.») und wie das auslautende ä von ^ und 6);
Dass mir das Vorhandensein von Nebenaccenten im Syr. sehr wohl
bekannt ist, möge Gr. aus meiner Gramm. § 35 ersehn.
Ad. II. Wenn aus baitt im Syr. geworden ist, so be¬
weist das nur, dass in der ältesten Gestalt des Syr. das Pron. suff;
1. pers. unbetont war. Übrigens diktiere ich keine Gesetze, sondem
konstatiere Thatsachen und suche sie zu erklären.
Ad III. Die späte westsyr. Form ^«31,7 (Nöldeke, Gramm.
§ 166) kann für Paenultimabetonung nichts beweisen. Sie kann
nur Analogiebildung nach dem Etp"'el sein, da die Aufgabe der
Verdoppelung imd der Schwund des a in geschlossener Sübe ■laut¬
geschichtlich nicht zu erklären sind. Assyrische Formen beweisen
nichts fürs Aramäische.
Ad IV. Der Hinweis auf den indogermanischen Accent zieht
nicht. Die semitischen Präpositionen sind ursprünglich Nomina im
stat. constr. Dass dieser den Hauptaccent nicht trug, beweist seine
Lautgestalt im Hebr. und Aram. Dagegen durfte ein syrischer
Poet so wenig Verstössen , wie es einem neuhochdeutschen Dichter
erlaubt wäre, auf den indogermanischen Accent zurückzugreifen.
Ad V. Dass .p>;\f> nur einen Sprechtakt, nicht eine Wort¬
einheit bildet, zeigt das Rukkächä in ^)o; es ist also wa'^rdq
nicht wa'raq zu lesen.
1) Von Grimmes Standpunlit aus; s. aber meine Gramm. § 100.
2 I
