are the same to her. She is no fragile hothouse plant, but a hardy annual that will bloom anywhere-up the chimney, if you please, or down in the cellar, or by the side of the kitchen fire, or at the bottom of the well-the small question of temperature doesn't make much difference to a constitution so well seasoned as hers. But does she take no nourishment to keep up this extraordinary fatigue? Yes ices-plenty of ices and biscuits-varied occasionally with a jelly, and, perhaps, late in the evening, the tiniest wing of a chicken with a little lobster-sauce, or a plover's egg, or a bit of blancmange, the whole of it washed down with not more than half a glass of champagne. But I have seen her eat a very good supper-a supper worthy of a guardsman in love-but it has been very late, when there were very few persons in the room, and she has had a pleasant companion, who made her laugh, and kept continually filling her glass. And after that? Why, after that she goes upstairs again, and dances more incessantly than ever. She is insatiable for dancing. To look at her, you would think a Tarantula had bitten her, and that she couldn't keep still for the fraction of a minute. The wonder is how one pair of satin shoes lasts her through the same evening. You would imagine with her rapidity-and it is as much as your eyes can do to follow her-that she would wear out half a dozen pairs at least. And how long does she keep it up? Why, as long as she can-till four or five o'clock in the morning-till the wax candles begin to droop-till the musicians have nearly played themselves fast asleep-until she hasn't a partner left to dance with--and then, loth to leave, she goes unwillingly home to begin the same dance the following evening. How often does this occur? Why, four, or five, and sometimes six times a week; and frequently there are two or three balls on the same evening, and she goes to every one of them, and this, mind you, after she has been to a concert, or a matinée, or a pic-nic, perhaps, in the day-time. What, only think of the exercise! Well, that is something to be sure-and if the calculation could be made, it is probable it would be ascertained, by the most generous cabman's measure, that that young lady does not dance less than twenty miles in the course of an evening-and that is only allowing at the rate of four miles an hour, which you will acknowledge is absurdly moderate for human waltzing. Multiply this by 6, and you will have a sum total of 120 miles danced by a young lady in the period of one week! And this, recollect, is independent of fétes, fancy fairs, flower shows, and other amusements that demand some degree of exercise during the day. And now, do you know who this young lady is who dances her 120 miles a week? Who is it who goes through an amount of labour only to be equalled by the poor fellows who walk their thousand miles in their thousand hours? You will never guessand so I do not mind telling you. She is the same young lady whom we saw stretched out at full length on the sofa, who looked so weak that she would have fainted if any one had asked her to walk across the street; who was so nervous, that she could not bear the slightest noise, or endure the smallest keyhole of fresh air; who was so woe-begone that she could not talk, laugh, nor open her eyes, nor touch a single thing; so helpless that she could not have moved off her couch by herself, not even if the house had been in flames; who looked, in fact, such a lackadaisical bundle of shawls and prostration, that you must have doubted in your own mind whether she could ever stand upright again on her two legs. Yes, sir, that young lady, whose prowess you have been wondering at this evening, is that same Poor Delicate Creature; and allow me to say, sir (concluded the Doctor, as he gave us a cigar to walk home with), that in the way of fatigue there are very few men-I was nearly saying prizefighters who can stand half so much as your POOR DELICATE CREATURE!-Punch's Pocket-book.

HIPPOCRATES ON PURE WATER.

Ancient medicine attributed to water a singular virtue, which it has also been supposed to possess in our days, This system, so much talked about now by some persons, is, therefore, not new. Hippocrates carefully distinguished the difference between good and bad water. The best, according to him, ought to be clear, light, inodorous, without any flavour, and drawn from springs exposed to the east. He interdicts all those which proceed from melted snow. Asclepiades made his patients drink plentifully of water, and frequently ordered them cold baths. The physician, Musa, prescribed to Augustus the same regimen, and the Emperor found himself much benefited by it. Under the reign of Nero, Charmis acquired a great vogue by extolling cold baths, even in the depth of winter. This dexterous native of Marseilles knew so well how to persuade people, that he could hardly attend to his immense connection; and as he at times required as much as £800 from his patients, he soon became as celebrated for his riches as for his pretended medical genius.—Soyer's Pantropheon.

Printed by Cox (Brothers) & WYMAN, 74-75, Great Queen Street, London; and published by CHARLES COOK, at the Office of the Journal, 3, Raquet Court, Fleet Street.

THE GREATEST REFORM.

LET us suppose a case, not by any means an imaginary one,—that of a nation, highly civilized, containing a large number of persons in the daily practice of buying and swallowing poison, knowing it to be such. They know that it is destructive of health, destructive of morals, destructive of domestic happiness, and destructive of religious progress. It has been proved to them over and over again, and there are few, if any, left to gainsay it. What ought society to do in such a case?

A few years ago, it was proved that the consumption of arsenic was rapidly on the increase. It was bought at the grocers' and druggists' shops on the pretence of being needed for the killing of rats; but it was used for the poisoning of men, women, and children. What did society do in that case? It called upon the Legislature to impose a restriction upon the sale of the arsenic, and to prevent its being sold, under heavy penalties, unless on a certificate duly signed by competent parties, showing that it might be sold with impunity, and that by a select number of persons only. Parliament did enact such a lawjustified, as it was, by the circumstances of the case; and the effects have been beneficial: the cases of poisoning by arsenic have rapidly diminished since the enactment of the law.

But what was the loss of life from arsenic, or the ruinous consequences to individuals and society, as compared with the loss of life, the ruin, the misery, the poverty, and disgrace, that result from the all-prevalent use of spirituous and intoxicating liquors? For one person killed by arsenic in one year, a thousand are killed by drink. Can any one gainsay this? And if the interference of society, through the Legislature, was called for in the one case, is it not a thousand times more necessary to call for it, on precisely the same grounds, in the latter?

Ask medical men what is the great cause of disease and premature death amongst the population-what it is that is tending to impair the physical stamina of the inhabitants of these kingdoms, and to produce a stunted, dwarfed, debilitated, and degenerated people; and they will answer at once-It is strong drink!

Ask the Judges what is the chief cause of crime, which fills our gaols, our penitentiaries, and our transportships, and inflicts upon the tax-payers an annual charge of many millions sterling; and they will answer, in like manner-It is strong drink! At Liverpool, Judge

[PRICE 1d.

Wightman declared that "one unfailing cause for fourfifths of the crimes brought before him, as it was in every other calendar, was the besetting sin of drunkenness."

Ask the criminals themselves, what was the cause of their ruin, and in by far the greater number of instances, they will answer-It was drink! A petition, signed by 232 criminals, confined in the Preston House of Correction, was presented to Parliament in the last session, praying for "the suppression of the beerhouse curse,' which, in most cases, had been instrumental to their ruin.

Ask what causes the rapid increase in child-murder, alluded to by the Liverpool Grand Jury at the late assizes. Again the answer is-the diseased appetite of the poor children's parents for drink. To get at the allowance made by the Burial Club, and thus gratify their passion, the reckless parents will even sacrifice their own offspring!

Ask town missionaries, ministers of religion, labourers among the poor of all orders, what is their greatest hindrance in all their good works. Again the answer isDrunkenness, and the love of drink.

Ask Wives what wrings their hearts, what destroys their comfort, what desolates their homes, what beggars them and their children; and they will tell you, with tears, if not with muttered curses-It is drink.

Ask the children at Ragged Schools and in prisons, why they are there? If they can answer through their sobs, they will tell you it is because of the habitual drunkenness of fathers, and (worse than all) of mothers!

Ask the poor women who appear with bruised bodies and battered faces, in our police courts, the victims of their brutal husbands or paramours, and they will tell you, in nine cases out of ten, that their assailants were "the worse for liquor," or "drunk," when the assaults were committed.

We might go on in an endless series of cases of the same sort-alike incontestable. We might cite poor-law and mendicity officers, dispensary and hospital surgeons, coroners and justices of the peace, and they would all concur in attributing to Drink by far the larger part of cases that come before them.

Here then is a case of wholesale destruction, poisoning, crime, death, and infamy, going on before our very eyes; and we ask, does it not loudly call for interference on the part of society? We have interdicted the free sale of arsenic; then why not interdict the free sale of intoxicating liquor, which is infinitely more destructive?

The lamentable thing is, that with all our increased

wish for fuller details to the original article, we proceed to give in connected order, and for the most part in the author's words, those parts which seem most likely to interest modern players, and which are least mixed up with the technicalities of the Eastern game.

The MS. opens with a curious investigation. It seems that the old Mahommedan doctors had scruples about the lawfulness of chess, which have never been shared by their European successors in the science. We should be inclined to feel surprised if Howard Staunton or Lewis opened their introductions and handbooks by proving that Holy Mahomet (whose name is exalted) had never expressed himself unfavourable to chess, and might therefore be supposed to countenance it. But the author of the Persian treatise thinks far otherwise. He devotes the whole of the first chapter to the enumeration of all the companions and followers of the Prophet, and other holy personages of Islam, who afforded more or less support to chess-play by their presence or favourable opinion, and some even by their practice of it. One of these worthies, we are told, had a son possessing great skill in the game, who one night seeing the Prophet in a dream, asked him concerning its lawfulness, and received for answer, that "there was no harm in it." Even a Sheik of Medina is said to have looked on while chess was playing, and to have advised,-"Take with the Rukh." Omar-al-Khattab said, "There is no harm in it; it is a reminiscence of war." But the Arabic MS. gives far higher authorities for the lawfulness of chess. It was played, it says, by Aristotle, by Japhet, by Shem, by Solomon, as a consolation for the loss of his son; and even by Adam, when he grieved for Abel. Both works agree in laying down rules to prevent excess in the game, and make the conditions four-not to play on the road; nor for a stake; nor to talk frivolously; nor to be estranged by it from the times of prayer.

Having thus settled the momentous question of its lawfulness, the Persian writer next proceeds to expatiate on the advantages of chess. Some of the reasons he alleges are very curious. The first advantage turns chiefly on its furnishing exercise to the mind; chess being especially conducive to intellectual energy in pursuit of knowledge.

For, as the human body is nourished by eating, which is its food, and without which the body dies, so the mind of man is nourished by learning, which is the food of the soul, and without which he would incur spiritual death, that is, ignorance. The glory of a man, then, is knowledge; and chess is the nourishment of the mind, the solace of the spirit, the polisher of intelligence, the bright sun of understanding."

The second advantage is in religion, illustrating the Mahommetan doctrines of predestination, by the free-will of man, in playing chess, moving when he will, and where he will, and which piece he thinks best, but restricted in some degree by compulsion, since he may not play against certain laws, nor give to one piece the move of another. This argument is pursued at considerable length in the text.

Passing from this singular application of theology to chess-play, we find the third advantage relate to govern. ment, the principles of which the author declares to be best learned from chess. The board is compared to the world, and the adverse sets of men to two monarchs with their subjects, each possessing one half of the world, and, with true Eastern ambition, desiring the other, but unable to accomplish his design without the utmost caution and policy.

The next advantage of chess is its resemblance to the heavens. "The board represents the heavens, in which the squares are the celestial houses, and the pieces stars.

The king is as the sun, and the vizier in place of the moon, and the elephant in the place of Saturn, &c. All these pieces have their accidents, corresponding with the trines and quadrates, and conjunction and opposition, and ascendancy and decline, such as the heavenly bodies have; and the eclipse of the sun is figured by Shah Cairn, or stale mate." This parallel is completed by indicating the functions of the different pieces in connection with the influence of their respective planets; and chess-players are even invited to consult astrology, in adapting their moves to the various aspects.

All these and other so-called advantages of chess, are expounded in the original to a length which we cannot follow. We now skip to chapter V., in which the rules of politeness in chess are laid down with great exactness. "He who is lower in rank is to spread the board, and pour out the men on it, and then wait patiently till his superior has made his choice. If of equal rank, whichever first gets the men, may place them," &c. In beginning the game, the stronger player is recommended to give fair odds, so as to make the game equal, without which there would be no pleasure. A third rule enjoins any spectator standing by to keep silence while looking on, and to abstain from remarks on the state of the game, or from advice to the players. Rule four cautions an inferior, or servant, playing with a superior in rank, or with his master, not to neglect the game, nor underplay himself, that his senior may win; and gives anecdotes of two Khalifs, who severely reproved their courtiers for such ill-placed obsequiousness. "They say the Khalif Marum was one day playing with one of his courtiers, who moved negligently, and in a careless manner. The Khalif perceived it, and got wroth, and upset the board and men, and said, 'He wants to deceive me, and to practise on my understanding;' and he vowed an oath that this person should never play with him again." In like manner, it is related of another Khalif, that when one of his courtiers, on purpose to lose the game, played negligently at chess, the Khalif struck him a blow on the head with the queen, saying, "Woe unto thee! art thou playing chess, and in thy senses?" The following rule also occurs among the ethics of chess. "Even if asked to decide a dispute at chess, do not; but say, 'I did not see,' unless attending the match expressly as an arbitrator." Another rule recommends not talking too much at the game, as it disturbs the adversary; nor again, to be tediously silent; not to swear at chess; and when play is over, and any one asks, "Who won ?" even though you have won all the games, not to say, "I won ;" but "I won some, and my opponent some.' In short, so to play chess that it may become a source of love and not of hatred. A beautiful rule this last, and well worthy of the attention of our younger readers!

To facilitate the equalization of skill in the players by giving odds, a chapter is devoted in the Persian MS. to the respective value of the pieces. The calculation is ingeniously made in money, as in some of our own treatises, but the proportions are laid down with much greater nicety. Thus a rook is said to be worth 6d., the knight the same; the queen, 3d., or, according to some, 3 d.; the pawns, one with another, 1d., but the side pawns, as of inferior importance, are worth but half this sum, while the king's and queen's pawns are worth 2d. These gradations are carried out very fully, but, of course, apply only to the Eastern mode of play, as will be obvious from the instance given. The smallest advantage is, as with us, the having the first move.

We are next introduced to several ingenious games and amusements on the chess-board. Many are the same as with ourselves: we will mention only the following :Eight red pawns placed on the line of the pieces are to move, one by one, in four moves of the knight each, into the corresponding squares on the black side. Two other games are, to take all the pawns in as many moves as the

knight; the pawns, in one example, being placed diagonally across the board. More difficult than either is the problem of covering the sixty-four squares of the board with the knight in as many moves. One of the games is Dilaram's Mate, which has already appeared in the Palamede. The solution is given in a couplet of extreme terseness:-

O king! sacrifice your two rooks, and not Dilaram; Advance the bishop and pawn, and checkmate with the knight.

Chapter the twelfth, and last, of the Persian treatise, is on the art of playing without seeing the board; a degree of skill once considered the exclusive acquirement of the celebrated Philidæ, but since exercised by the most distinguished French player of modern times, M. de la Bourdonnais, and now frequently exhibited, and even taught on system by many professors of the game. Similar instances of skill in Arabian players are quoted by Hyde; but none that can at all compete with those related in this Persian work, though all of them far exceed the highest degree of perfection to which that branch of the art has yet arrived in the modern European chess-play; thus verifying the proverb so often exemplified, that "there is nothing new under the sun," and showing that whatever wonders have been produced by mechanical science in the civilization of mankind, mere intellectual powers have accomplished in other nations, and in earlier times, almost every degree of skill which the supposed improvement of the present age seems to claim as an undivided right. Some," says the writer, "have arrived to such a degree of perfection, as to have played blindfold at four or five boards at a time, nor to have made a mistake in any of the games, and to have recited poetry during the match :" and he adds, "I have seen it written in a book, that a certain person played in this manner at ten boards at once, and gained all the games, and even corrected his adversaries when a mistake was made."

Having now skimmed the lighter portions of this learned treatise, we next proceed to consider an important controversy which it has just reopened, and to the decision of which Mr. Bland devotes a large portion of his excellent review. This question is with regard to the origin of chess. Till lately, authorities were almost unanimous in favour of its Indian origin; and, also, were inclined to the belief that the larger game (known in Oriental works as Timur's game), was an after-expansion of the original board of sixty-four squares. To make this clear, we must explain that Timur's game, as described by Ibn Arabshah, was played on a board of 110 squares, with fifty-six men; while chess, in its usual form, has but thirty-two pieces on sixty-four squares. The one is clearly derived from the other; either the smaller abridged from the large, or larger augmented the small. This latter opinion has hitherto prevailed, and the supposed additions have been attributed by Hyde even to Timur himself; and this assertion has been copied, apparently without further inquiry, into almost all European works on chess. From this theory, it also followed that the Indian, or shorter game, was borrowed by the Persians.

To this opinion, the author of our Persian MS. places himself in direct opposition, maintaining chess, in its perfect and orignal form, to have been invented in Persia, and taken to India, from whence it returned in its abridged or modern state. The fact, whether the game existed first in a larger or smaller form, of course, mainly affects the question. If the great chess were the original, there would be a strong argument in favour of the author's view; but the contrary, if the alteration had been from the simple to the more complicated system. Our author is strictly consistent throughout the whole of his treatise, and both in writing of its history, and of the principles of its play, constantly presents the great chess as the more

ancient, scientific, and complete; and the short game as an abridged and modern form, inferior in interest, and less symbolical of its original objects.

To those who feel an antiquarian's zeal on this question, we must recommend the entire perusal of Mr. Bland's article: our space here will only allow us to sum up briefly the reasons which he gives for concurring in the opinion of his Oriental authority. The stronghold of the opposite opinion is, that the Persian word for chess, shatiang, having no obvious derivative of its own, must be derived from the Sanskrit chaturanga. To this, Mr. Bland replies, that there are several words in the Persian significant of the nature of the game from which shatiang might be easily derived; and he thinks that etymologists might as reasonably refer the Persian appellation to the Chinese seang ke, as to the Sanskrit chatu

ranga.

Objections have been made to the rukh and the elephant; to the first, as professing to be derived from the Indian rath or roth (a chariot), and to the other as foreign to Persia. The reviewer rightly rejects the first of these etymologies; and shows further, that elephants, even if of Indian origin, might well be used in Persian chess. They appear in the Shah Namah in the armies of Iran and Turan, and figure in the description of ehess in that poem; while to the Arabs, they are familiar from the chapter of the Koran which bears their name.

Mr. Bland thinks that sufficient importance is not attached to the circumstance, that the board described in the Shah Namah contains 100 squares and forty pieces, thus demonstrating the existence of a game of larger dimensions and greater powers 400 years before the age of Timur ; and it is a fair question for examination, whether that form may not be an indication of a still larger, and more ancient, kind of chess agreeing with the great chess. Firduse's description, whether authentic or imaginative, abundantly proves that the large board ascribed to Timur was not of his invention, although he might possibly, from his enthusiastic love of chess, have been led to revive and adopt an obsolete variety of it. There remains, then, only the question of prior antiquity between the long and the short game, and of the circumstances under which they were respectively modified, and, in some degree dependent on that question, the locality of the invention of the original game, in whatever form that may have been. Mr. Bland classes his objections generally under three general heads, which are as follow:"If chess, in any near resemblance to that which we now play, was known in carlier ages to the Hindus, where are their historical or romantic records of its invention or its use? Does any ancient Sanskrit treatise exist on its principles or practice? And as the Persians are supposed to acknowledge its introduction into their country from India, do the annals of the Hindus themselves equally relate their share in the transaction ?

"If chess is of Indian birth, and even allowing chaturanga to be its parent, how did it retain the name of the game only, and yet change the names of all the pieces? The Persian terms endure in all the languages of Europe, although their powers have been modified, and their original attributes forgotten.

"If chaturanga was the origin of all Eastern chess, where and at what period did it undergo that sudden and almost total transformation necessary to obtain a resemblance to the Persian form, under which it makes its next appear ance? Was, then, the chaturanga its purer form of being, and shatiang only its avatar among its more distant worshippers ?"

These arguments are weighty, and we do not pretend to dispute them; but we think that Mr. Bland has passed over one important consideration, namely, that in almost all inventions of this class, the simpler is usually the earlier form, and the complicated game the result of after