AL-Biruni's NOTES on INDIAN FOUR-HANDED
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2/2018 57 AL-BIRUNi’S NOTES ON INDIAN FOUR-HANDED CHESS – SOME REMARKS BY MARIA SCHETELICH Since Hiram Cox and Duncan Forbes put forth the theory that catūrāji, the In- dian four-handed dice-chess, should be regarded as “the seed from which our chess was to spring”1 that game has not ceased to be a kind of bone of conten- tion with chess historians. This is mainly due to the fact that some of its features did not fit in with the almost generally accepted classification of chess as a war game. Unfortunately, when the tradi- tional Indian four-handed dice chess was discovered for Europe by William Jones in 1790, it had already been on the verge of becoming obsolete. Written sources, allowing to reconstruct it are few, and eye-witnesses are already almost com- pletely absent.2 When Harold Murray wrote his History of Chess in 1913, it was no longer played in the way described by Al Birunī, Śūlapāni, Raghunandana or by the Caturaṅgataraṅginī. Instead a simpler variant without dice became current. The main points that prevented chess historians from accepting the older catūrāji as a possible ancestor of mod- ern two-handed chess were two: the way a player was allowed to treat his partner Four handed chess after Al Birunī (Sanskrit: mitra, friend, ally) because it seemed to go against the logic and moral of (the European notion of) warfare,3 the ….. The pieces have certain Four handed chess after Al Birunī most rigid verdict on this point coming values, according to which Murray also mentions a third point of from Paul Thieme in 2001,4 and secondly, the player gets his share of criticism: the number of the highest stake the use of dice. the stakes; for the pieces for the winner: are taken and pass into the Al Birunī (ca. 1030 A.D.) wrote: hands of the player. The val- “Al Beruni was unable to ue of the King is 5, that of the explain the reason for this “They play chess, four per- Elephant 4, of the Horse 3, of number and regarded it as sons at a time, with a pair the Rook 2 and of the Pawn a mere convention of the of dice. Their arrangement 1. He who takes a king gets game. But it is the exact val- of the figures on the chess- 5, for two Kings he gets 10, ue of the other three armies board is the following: for three Kings 15, if the win- when calculated in accord- As this kind of chess is not ner is no longer in possession ance with his figures, and known to us, I shall explain of his own king. But if he has this represents the highest what I know of it. The four still his own King, and takes score possible, and it may persons playing together all three kings, he gets 54 – a have been retained in that sit so as to form a square number which represents a way.” round the chessboard, and progression based on gen- throw the dice in rotation. eral consent and not on the …. The name of King applies algebraic principle “. here to the Firzan (minister). 58 AL-BIRUNI´S NOTES ON INDIAN FOUR-HANDED CHESS Although it does not seem so at first van der Linde largely relied for their on rule (lat. regnum, Sanskrit rājya) and sight, all three points mentioned above knowledge of the Indian chess var- not on state and its administration (lat. are not contradictory or illogical at all. It iants, could not yet have known the imperium, Sanskrit rāṣṭra), and quite only needs a change of perspective on Arthaśāstra because the text was lost naturally so, because in ancient and the game in several points, namely: for centuries and rediscovered only medieval times, the kings in India (as 1. four-handed dice chess should not in 1906, five years after Weber died. well as those in Europe) had to cope be regarded as a simpler (or, worse, But he could nevertheless have already with a vast and relatively sparsely pop- “crippled”) form of two-handed seen the close connection between ulated territory and a growing number chess, but as a variant of the game in four-handed chess and Indian political of petty monarchies, oligarchies and its own right, theory because the Nītisāra of Kaman- chiefdoms eager for expansion and 2. it should be kept in mind that the daka - the most authoritative Sanskrit more or less constantly contesting each terminology of the rules for both text on politics from about the 6th other´s aspiration to sovereignty.8 It two- and four-handed chess is that cent. onwards – was well known to is well known from inscriptions that, of classical Indian political science him, and Kamandaka took all his basic apart from periods of centralization in (Arthaśāstra, Rājanītiśāstra), concepts from the Arthaśāstra. It was times of empires (and even then), the 3. the notion of war should not be Heinrich Lüders who first suggested territories of Indian kingdoms were restricted to fighting on the battle- that there might be a link between oscillating continously. That is why at- ground, i.e. to the military aspect, but the four-handed catūrāji game and the taining (lābha), preserving (pālana) and should also include contest for su- concepts of Indian political theory. extending (vardhana) his own political premacy by employing strategies of He was followed in 1936 by Manmo- power were of prior concern to every direct and indirect confrontation. han Ghosh, the editor of Śūlapaṇi´s king and determined his political activ- Caturangadīpikā6 and later by Helmut ities. Thus, to understand the true nature Rosenfeld, G. Wichmann and Joa- of Indian four-handed chess, it might chim Petzold. Ghosh was perfectly This was the general situation to which be helpful to take a closer look on the right in calling the arrangement of the Indian political science in its initial teachings of classical Indian political four parties on the board “a sort of phase had to respond. It might not be science. From the very beginning, this very primitive type of maṇḍala (sphere by chance that tradition ascribes the science made it a matter of principle of diplomacy) ”, symbolizing “ a war first theoretical treatise on politics, the that diplomatic action and weakening carried on between two kings (vijigīṣu Arthaśāstra (further: KA), to Kauṭilya. an enemy by indirect action as well and his ari) with their two allies (mi- Although it cannot be proved that Kau- as by economic and political pressure tra and ari-mitra).“7 A closer look into ṭilya was a real historical person, tradi- from inside and outside should always the political morals of the old Indian tion has it that he was the counsellor be preferred to open armed conflicts. texts on policy and diplomacy clearly (mantrin) of king Candragupta Maurya. The dominant strategies in catūrāji - suggests that the four-handed chess He is said to have been the spiritus rec- namely obstructing the pieces of the catūrāji exactly mirrors their teachings. tor behind the activities of this king to rival king instead of capturing them Thus, Murray´s critical remarks re- gradually subdue all political powers in at any cost and the obligation to re- garding the peculiar nature of the mi- Northern India in the aftermath of the gain one´s ally-king if he was captured tra, the dice and the number 54, men- unlucky “Indian adventure” of Alex- by one of the rival-kings - perfect- tioned by Al-Birunī, can be explained ander the Great and to found the first ly matches this tendency. Moreover, best by consulting the oldest text of empire on Indian soil around 320 B.C. the peculiar treatment of the ally in this genre, the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, the course of playing exactly reflects on his design of “non-violent” polit- The Arthaśāstra is highly interesting not the political moral taught in the man- ical trade in times of peace and war, only because of the vast scope of sub- uals for the guidance of kings and is elaborately dealt with in Book 6-13. jects it deals with in a systematic way, particularly close to the teachings of but also from the methodological point Kauṭilya (ca. 3rd-1st cent. B.C., see be- The mitra of view. Kauṭilya combines empirical low), who with his Arthaśāstra laid the From its very beginning in the late 4th knowledge with rational analysis and foundation to Indian political theory century B.C., classical Indian political reasoning and shows the preference and political science.5 In fact, the set- science has cultivated a rather peculiar for classifying things and the obsession up of four-handed dice chess repeats notion of war, of political behaviour with numbers that was so typical for a basic political concept that was first and of the ideal king. Like in early Indian scientific thinking from its very developed in the Arthaśāstra and stayed medieval Europe and due to similar inception.9 in continuous use up to modern times. politico-geographical conditions, the Albrecht Weber, on whom Murray and ideology of kingship was focussed AL-BIRUNI´S NOTES ON INDIAN FOUR-HANDED CHESS 59 Kauṭilya develops a theory of kingship caused by nature and men, by thiefs, rob- It has to be stressed here that the terms and governance which, due to its ana- bers, corruption, raids, attacks, invasions sandhi and vigraha, although very often lytical potential, its radical pragmatism by enemies etc. Permanence of welfare translated by “peace” and “war”, are and the nature of its political strate- and security is, of course, achieved best not real equivalents of these Europe- gies has often been called Macchia- by controlling everything and everybody.