by David Lawson
Following Morphy’s blindfold performance at Birmingham, a splendid soirée took place with Lord Lyttelton presiding. As Edge states, in his concluding remarks, Lyttelton
paid a tribute to the extraordinary merit of Mr. Morphy as a Chess player, and characterized his feat of playing eight antagonists at one time, as the most wonderful thing he had ever beheld. He trusted that Mr. Morphy would be successful in all his games but one, while absent from his native land; and that one his Lordship, amidst much laughter, trusted would be won by the veteran English player, Staunton. . . . Mr. Morphy then expressed his deep sense of gratitude for the cordial wishes of the President, as well as for his reception by the Association. In conclusion, speeches were delivered by Messrs. Avery, Staunton, Salmon and other gentlemen.
It would appear that the general impression at Birmingham, implied by Lord Lyttelton’s hope that Morphy “would be successful in all his games but one,” was that the Staunton match was just a matter of time. The same was also indicated by the activity of Staunton’s friends at the St. George’s Club in raising funds for the match. And had not Staunton replied to Morphy, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton and others, that “if you will consent to the postponement, I will see my publishers, and let you know the exact date within a few days”?
Staunton had now publicly committed himself, although “the exact date” had not yet been set. Morphy therefore decided he now had time to visit Paris. But upon his return to London the next day, August 28, he read the following statement in Staunton’s chess column, presumably in reply to a correspondent. It was said that Staunton often used imaginary correspondents in his column, and “Anti-book” and others were thought to be such. In Morphy Gleanings, Sergeant states it was “a favorite device of Staunton’s. Another was the publication of letters supporting his side of the case, without the writer’s real signature.”
August 28—Anti-book. As you surmise, “knowing the authority,” the slang of the sporting pages in question regarding the proposed encounter between Mr. Staunton and the young American is “bunkum.” In matches of importance it is the invariable practice in this country, before anything definite is settled, for each party to be provided with representatives to arrange the terms and money for the stakes. Mr. Morphy has come here unfurnished in both respects; and, although both will no doubt be forthcoming in due time, it is clearly impossible, until they are, that any determinate arrangement can be made.
2. The statement of another contemporary that the reduction in the amount of stakes from £1000 a side to £500 was made at the suggestion of the English amateur is equally devoid of truth; the proposal to reduce the amount having been made by Mr. Morphy.
On reading the above, Edge asked Morphy to demand an immediate retraction, but Morphy refused to do so. He merely said to Edge, “When a man resorts to such means as these, he will not stop until he has committed himself irremediably. Let him go on.” Morphy took no public notice of the “Anti-book” statement at this time for another reason also; he was determined not to do anything that might adversely affect the Staunton match. Instead, he patiently awaited Staunton’s naming “the exact date” of the match, as promised.
It is singular that Staunton should remark that “Mr. Morphy has come here unfurnished . . . with representatives to arrange the terms and money for the stakes,” for Morphy, in his letter of August 14, had asked Staunton “to settle the preliminaries during this week” and “to be good enough to state some early period when your seconds can meet mine.” Also, upon meeting Staunton and renewing the challenge of the New Orleans Chess Club, Morphy had told Staunton that his “stakes would be forthcoming the moment he [Staunton] desired.” Of course the readers of Staunton’s chess column knew nothing of these previous oral and written statements by Morphy.
In regard to Staunton’s remark about the reduction in the amount of stakes, Edge says:
I was perfectly astonished when I read this statement: “Mr. Morphy had caused the stakes to be reduced from £1000 to £500 a side.” Without mentioning Englishmen, there were Americans in London and Paris who asserted that Morphy could be backed against Mr. Staunton for £10,000 and the money be raised within twenty-four hours. I mentioned this fact to a noble lady in Paris, in order to show the confidence in which the young American was held, and she replied, “Oh, as regards that, you may tell Mr. Morphy from me, that for £10,000 against Mr. Staunton or any player in Europe, he must not go further than my house.”
Extracts of two letters of a London publisher, Charles N. Skeet, probably to Fiske, are also of interest:
July 6, 1858, London
Dear Sir. . . .
Your American Chess Champion Mr. Morphy called upon me last week and we conversed on the subject of his contemplated match with Mr. Staunton. I find that funds to any amount will be supplied to back him and therefore the thousand pounds which was mentioned by Mr. Staunton as his mark will be no obstacle to the match. Morphy is a wonder for his age but the old fox will be too much for him.
Truly yours
Chas. N. Skeet
The intent of Morphy’s visit and Skeet’s remark that “I find that funds to any amount will be supplied” are unknown. It should also be noted that Skeet must have confused the £1,000 offer of Staunton’s with the New Orleans Chess Club’s offer of that amount to Staunton.
After witnessing Staunton’s ultimate treatment of Morphy four months later, Skeet had this to say:
November 9, 1858, London
Dear Sir. . . .
Mr. Morphy has won golden opinions here for his chivalrous conduct and Mr. Staunton has terribly sank in our estimation for the manner he has adopted. When Mr. Morphy first landed he must have been off his play to some extent which must account for the opinion that I passed on him in relation to Staunton. Now it is considered that nobody can approach him in excellence.
Truly yours
Chas. N. Skeet
If there be any further question that Staunton’s “Anti-book” statement was a gross misrepresentation of the facts, the following statement about Morphy, which appeared in George Walker’s Bell’s Life in London of July 4, 1858, should lay them to rest:
The celebrated American chess player, Mr. Morphy has arrived in London, and requests us to announce in all courtesy and respect that he is prepared to play any man living a match of chess for any sum from one hundred to one thousand pounds. The match to consist of twenty-one games, exclusive of draws; to be begun directly, and the money posted down. Mr. Morphy would like to commence at once, as he intends visiting Birmingham, end of August, to play at the great chess gathering then and there to be holden. We believe Mr. Morphy’s views as to details to be gentlemanlike and chess-like in every respect. He would object to playing in a private room, preferring to have his play looked over; he would leave the selection of the arena, we believe, to his opponent, but we do not bind ourselves to state more than an outline of his views. He would like to play daily, say from noon till the game was ended; but would object to leave games unfinished, and would, we hope, insist on some plan of regulating the time, without limiting the period really required by his opponent for calculating his move, would prevent all shoddy recourse to delay, such as sitting for hours over a single move when the King is in check and has but one square to go to. Mr. Morphy means chess and nothing but chess. He has come from New Orleans purposely to challenge Europe, and his chivalrous offer should be responded to as it deserves.
It is evident that Morphy made the request that Walker mentions, within a week after meeting Staunton, apparently hoping to have a match with someone while waiting for Staunton. Note that he asked for play to begin “directly” with “the money posted down,” and note also that he suggested that the stakes be anywhere from £100 to £1,000. Obviously Morphy was unconcerned about the amount of the stakes.
Unfortunately for Morphy, money stakes were generally a necessary ingredient for a chess match, and it becomes evident that in less than two weeks after his arrival in London, Morp
hy wrote to Fiske about the chess match with Staunton. On July 10, Staunton had publicly acknowledged in the Illustrated London News that he had accepted Morphy’s challenge “conditionally that the terms of play are such as he can agree to without infraction of his present literary engagements.”
Morphy and Staunton probably met about five or six days before the announcement in the Illustrated London News and had agreed on the £500-a-side stakes. The challenge having been accepted, Morphy immediately wrote to Fiske that the match was in way of being arranged and that stakes in amount of £500 would be needed. Because of Staunton’s conditions, a month’s time “to brush up on his openings and endings,” etc., Morphy was uncertain how soon it might start.
Money stakes were something that Morphy himself disliked in principle, and he now knew, as will be soon seen, that his family was strongly against them and opposed to any Morphy money being used for such a purpose. And so was he, preferring that others provide them if they wished to see a match, as indeed the New Orleans Chess Club had offered to do for a Morphy-Staunton match.
We now come to a revelation that threatened Morphy’s chess career. Fiske, on receiving Morphy’s letter and knowing the length of time required for communicating with London, telegraphed Maurian, who replied:
New Orleans, 27 July, 1858
D. W. Fiske, Esq.
Dear Sir.
I have received your telegraphic dispatch a few days ago. I have not given you an immediate answer because circumstances for which I was unprepared have complicated matters to such an extent, that not being able to give you at length all the necessary explanations in a telegram the whole matter would have been unintelligible to you. I will relate things as they actually happened.
I had hardly received your message than I hastened to Mr. Le Carpentier, Paul’s uncle and lately his tutor. I thought it my duty to see him first of all, he being at the same time a chess player and deeply interested in all chess matters. I accordingly gave him the letter and after a hasty perusal of its contents, he told me, that he could in a half hour raise ten time[s] the amount wanted, but would not do so, as it had been expressly agreed by Paul and his family that he should under no circumstances challenge another or accept himself a challenge to play a money match.
He added however that he would consult with some other members of the family and that he would give me an answer today. This reception somewhat surprised me. I was quite unprepared for it. I had thought that he would have gladly attended to the affair and worked with the rest of us to raise for Paul the required amount.
The agreement by which Paul pledged himself not to play a money match under any circumstances was quite new to me.
This morning I went to see Mr. Le Carpentier. Fully comprehending the difficulty of Paul’s position, I explained to him to what extremity his nephew would be reduced in the event of his not being supported after having gone so far. I gave him to understand that even if he would not meddle with the affair Paul had friends enough both here and elsewhere who were prepared to back him. (Laboring all the time under the impression that he only disapproved the match). He answered that after consulting with the rest of the family, they had resolved not only not to help raising the amount wanted, but that moreover they should not allow him to play a money match either with his own money or anybody else’s. That in the event of his being in anyway aided they were ready to send some responsible agent to London whose duty it would be to let Mr. Morphy know that he must either decline playing or continuing the match or that he will be brought home by force if necessary; that they were determined to prevent a money match by all means. It is pretty clear that they have no right to act thus [Paul was no longer a minor].
But I am afraid they would be as good as their word; and if they were to carry their desperate resolution into effect it would reduce Paul to the very painful alternative of discontinuing the match or of resisting the parental orders. In either case a heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of his backers.
I need not tell you my dear sir how much I am grieved at seeing these things. My own position is one of extreme difficulty being on terms of intimacy both with Paul and with his family. I have laid the matter before several members of the Club and finally have resolved to write to you and explain the whole matter. I have given you these particulars but of course on account of Paul would not desire them to be known. I rely entirely upon your judgment and discretion. I would ask you in particular not to mention Mr. Le Carpentier’s name and avoid as much as possible using mine. I am trying in all this to do what is best. If you should have any suggestion to make[,] a few words from you would be most acceptable. In conclusion I would beg you to believe that were it not for this unexpected difficulty the £500 would be very soon raised and forwarded. Please write to Paul as soon as possible, if I knew his address I would gladly do so myself.
Yours truly
Chas. A. Maurian
It is true that Morphy had disregarded his family’s wishes in accepting Lowenthal’s challenge at one hundred pounds a side. (Le Carpentier says he “expressly agreed” not to challenge or accept a money challenge.) But since he did not intend to keep the stakes if he won, Morphy probably did not consider it a real money match. He had accepted Lowenthal’s challenge and provided his own stake money, as none had yet arrived from New Orleans. Confident that he would win, he would return the winnings in some form.
As for Staunton, immediately upon arriving in England Morphy had challenged him, saying that his stakes would be ready as soon as arrangements could be made for the match. He was determined, regardless of obstacles, to meet any who challenged his supremacy and did not intend to let the question of stakes get in his way. Doubtless he had mental reservations when he promised his family not to play matches for money stakes. But all this must have weighed heavily on him while abroad. In all probability, he never mentioned his family’s attitude to Edge; we have seen that he had not even told Maurian.
It is difficult to reconcile Maurian’s startling disclosure of the family attitude on money matches with Morphy’s past chess history. There had been no inkling of family disapproval when Morphy wanted to engage Staunton in the $5,000-a-side match in New Orleans. Surely the family knew all about it, for the letter and terms had been printed in New Orleans papers. It would seem that Paul’s father had not previously taken the same severe position on money matches, for Ernest Morphy, Alonzo’s brother, would not have endeavored to get Paul a match for $300 a side in 1856 (as reported earlier) if his brother had objected. Also, there appears to have been no family disapproval of Paul’s match with Stanley at $100 a side. At that time Paul was a minor and subject to the family’s wishes. In fact, Paul expected family support in the Stanley match, for in his letter to Maurian of November 16, 1857, quoted in Chapter 6, he had added the following postscript:
P.S. Do not forget to see Rousseau, my uncle Charles Le Carpentier (and every New Orleans player willing to stake anything on the result) in reference to this match.
Evidently he had expected and received family approval.
Also, as co-editor of the Chess Monthly, Morphy announced in the January 1858 issue that he was extending the same challenge and terms to “all the leading practitioners of the United States.” Again, nothing was heard of family disapproval. All together, this change in the family’s attitude is difficult to understand.
Morphy’s mistake was in not taking Maurian into his confidence when he left New Orleans. Morphy was inclined to be secretive and at times even devious. Apparently he told Maurian that he was going only to Birmingham and expected to meet strong European players there. He suggested to Maurian that he confine his remarks in the Sunday Delta (of which Maurian was then chess editor) to such generalities, without reference to any special match. This Maurian did, never mentioning the Staunton match.
Had Maurian known the family attitude, he would have consulted with members of the New Orleans Chess Club, and the club would have forwarded the required stake funds without
bringing the family into it. This Morphy had hoped would occur when he wrote to Fiske, requesting that he act for him in the matter. However, it should be mentioned that as of June 1858 Morphy had reached his majority and was no longer legally subject to his family’s wishes.
In any case, the New Orleans Chess Club acted quickly, and Maurian was able to send the following letter to Fiske:
New Orleans, 29 July, 1858
D. W. Fiske
Dear Sir:
I have yesterday mailed a letter to your address in which I gave you an account of the views of the Morphy family with respect to the proposed match. Since that time the Club has met and decided that they must help our friend by all means, that whatever the family might think on the subject was a private matter with which they had nothing to do. This I believe is quite right and makes me happy. As to the threat of somebody going to London, I hope it will not be carried into effect by the family. It would be useless if not worse. The amount is raised, you must have been appraised of it by telegraph.
Yours truly,
Chas. A. Maurian
The New Orleans Chess Club forwarded the £500 requested to the House of Heywood & Company, bankers of London, where it remained to the account of Paul Morphy until August 1859.
