Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess

by David Lawson

  I had already written to a friend in Paris with whom, through my introduction, Mr. Morphy was living upon intimate terms, an explanation touching the notice Mr. Morphy professes to be so concerned at; and from my friend’s reply, which intimated that Mr. Morphy was about to write to me in an amicable spirit, I, of course, supposed there was an end of the matter. . . .

  Morphy denied having received any such introduction as Staunton mentioned, as will be seen in the following, which appeared a week later in the London Field of November 27, together with Mr. Boden’s comments on Staunton’s letter, which had appeared in the Illustrated London News of November 20:

  After perusing the above letter, we had intended observing, among other things, that, although we accord to Mr. Staunton all the good-will and sympathy which he is entitled to, as a retiring chess-player and author of great eminence, yet he does not touch upon the two chief points at issue. The two are, the contents of the omitted paragraphs of Mr. Morphy’s letter, and the reasons why the public and Mr. Morphy were kept in suspense and delusion for more than two months. We wish that Mr. Staunton had said he regretted his mistake in saying that Mr. Morphy had come over unprovided with seconds, &c., and that during the two months which elapsed between his accepting and declining Mr. Morphy’s challenge he was endeavoring strenuously, though unsuccessfully to gain time enough to play. Such, we trust, is the case, though not expressed in Mr. Staunton’s letter. Any further comments of our own, however, are prevented by our having just received the following notice from Mr. Morphy anent Mr. Staunton’s letter above.

  MR. MORPHY’S STATEMENT

  Mr. Morphy begs to state, in reply to Mr. Staunton’s late letter to the editor of the Illustrated London News, that it was not merely because Mr. Staunton had published many of his (Mr. Morphy’s) games in that paper, but also from the eminent services rendered by that gentleman to the interests of chess, that he worded the suppressed paragraph so as to afford the amplest opportunity for a satisfactory explanation. Mr. Staunton’s private reply was published verbatim in a subsequent number of the Illustrated News, and did not contain the slightest reference to the statement complained of.

  To the other assertion in Mr. Staunton’s letter Mr. Morphy desires to give the most emphatic denial. He had no introduction whatever from Mr. Staunton to any friend of his in Paris or France. He is totally ignorant that Mr. Staunton ever made any explanation, directly or indirectly, and he certainly never led anybody to suppose that he was intending further correspondence with Mr. Staunton on the subject, being at length satisfied that he could not obtain justice from him. Mr. Morphy hopes that that gentleman will now correct the mis-statement to which the suppressed paragraph refers.

  As regards the friend commissioned by Mr. Staunton to explain away the difficulty relating to backers, &c., Mr. Morphy is desirous that it should be understood this is the first he has heard of him.

  The Morphy–Staunton match affair had aroused the English chess world and general interest to an extent not since equaled, because English pride was involved. Boden had a final word on the subject in the London Field on December 4, 1858, on the same day that Staunton unfortunately muddied the water still more:

  Now it cannot be denied that the English, as a nation, are too fond of finding fault with their descendents, on the score of a deficiency in honorable conduct in their transactions between man and man. For this reason, we cannot but deplore the humiliating position into which English Chess-players have been plunged by the proceedings of their champion, Mr. Staunton, towards his American rival, Mr. Morphy.

  This gentleman crossed the Atlantic in the most chivalrous manner, with the determination of “trying a fall” with the European masters of the game, and, immediately on his landing, threw down his glove to Mr. Staunton in particular (to whom he allowed his own terms), and, in the meantime, was ready to play all comers. Nothing could be more straight-forward than Mr. Morphy’s conduct throughout the long period of time in which he has been kept in suspense, and during which time he has displayed an amount of patience and good temper, only to be equaled by himself when finally engaged over the board.

  On the other hand, we are driven to the contemplation of the shifts to which Mr. Staunton has been induced to resort, and which are so ably detailed by our correspondent, “Pawn and Two,” whose condemnation of them is shared by nearly all the leading players in Paris and London. National pride would lead us to support our own side, if we could do so without compromising our national honor; but since it appears that in the present contest, the former is doomed to succumb, let us guard the latter all the more carefully, and while we pity the feelings of the individual, let us show, that as a nation, we do not sympathize with his actions.

  For him the excuse may possibly be made that he could not afford to risk his position as the acknowledged head of English Chess; but no apology can atone for the attitude which he has assumed towards Mr. Morphy, from the moment that he found there was a certainty of being compelled to come to a definite conclusion; and so far from his maneuvers being successful, they have had quite an opposite effect. We cordially agree, therefore, with our correspondent, that a new champion must be sought for; but we can hardly expect to meet with a player of Mr. Morphy’s strength in our hour of need, and we are afraid that Europe, as well as England, must bow the neck to America, and acknowledge themselves.

  At the same time, let us co-operate with “Pawn and Two” who himself stands high among the metropolitan players in the laudable attempt to remove everything which tends to the disparagement of this noble game, and, above all, let us do homage to such talent as is exhibited by Mr. Morphy, without considering whether he is English or American.

  But Staunton has had his defenders. Notably, H. J. R. Murray, in the British Chess Magazine of November-December 1908, presented him favorably as a man and as a chess player, but he was nevertheless very critical of Staunton as a chess editor. With regard to the New Orleans challenge, he considers Staunton’s reply to have been a courteous refusal to play. As to the controversy that broke out over the match, Murray remarks that “on the whole, Morphy was the better served.” However, Murray also said that Staunton “misused his editorial position again and again” and “right down to the end he indulged in ill-natured statements in the columns of the Illustrated London News. . . . He hit out at his enemies, real or supposed, under the cover of answers to correspondents. There were people who refused to credit the existence of these correspondents.” Murray also said that “he would have stood no chance against Morphy in 1858, even if he had retained his chess strength of 1843.”

  Another stout defender of Staunton was B. Goulding Brown, of whom Sergeant took notice. Brown, in the British Chess Magazine of June 1916, said:

  The most serious point against Staunton is the paragraph of August 28 [“Anti-book”] alleging that Morphy had come to England unprovided with seconds or money for the stakes. This was ungenerous, but was it untrue? Staunton solemnly repeated his statement on December 4th. “Mr. Morphy may infer what he chooses from the paragraph in question. All we are concerned about is its truth, and since he persists in complaining that it was not ‘consonant with fact,’ we shall be obliged with his showing in what particular. We asserted that he came to England without representatives to arrange the terms, and without money for the stakes.” Morphy let some weeks elapse before taxing Staunton on his letter of October 6th with the original paragraph. And his letter to the St. George’s Club, announcing the deposit of his stakes at Heywood’s Bank is dated October 8th. Is it not likely that the money had arrived in the interval?

  Knowing no more than he did, Brown’s assumption that the stakes arrived “in the interval” seems reasonable. But as shown earlier, the New Orleans Chess Club had forwarded the stake funds to Morphy on July 29, and they probably had arrived August 14. In any case, Morphy had his own funds, which he would have used in the interim, as he did with Lowenthal.

  But Staunton had said more on December 4 than Mr. Brown q
uoted of him. He had also said, “We assert, too, that in not appearing at the Birmingham Tournament to compete with Mr. Staunton, and in not accepting his offer to play a few games at his residence, Mr. Morphy plainly shows that ‘reputation’ is not ‘the only incentive’ he recognizes.” As for Morphy’s refusal of Staunton’s October 9 invitation to have some “friendly” games at his residence, he must have known that with the existing very strained relations between them, the invitation was a meaningless gesture. Sergeant made the following comment in A Century of British Chess about Staunton’s insinuation:

  The allusion, in the words about reputation not being the only incentive, to the paragraph which he had himself suppressed in Morphy’s letter of October 6, when he published it in the Illustrated London News was an unjustifiable sneer. What, then, did he mean to suggest was Morphy’s incentive? Is not the implication that it was not one to his credit?

  Sergeant also took up Staunton’s reference to seconds in the same book:

  In an answer to real or imaginary Correspondent, on August 7th, Staunton had said: “Mr. Morphy came to this country unattended by seconds or bottleholder.” Passing over the elegance of the last expression, we are entitled to ask whether Morphy was expected to bring seconds with him from America. Staunton knew that in his match against Lowenthal in July and August, in which he himself was umpire, Morphy had as his seconds Lord Arthur Hay and the Rev. John Owen. Were these gentlemen not respectable enough? From what hierarchy, on either side of the Atlantic, were Morphy’s seconds to be produced?

  What manner of man was Staunton? G. A. MacDonnell, in his book Chess Life-Pictures, describes him at the time of his meeting Morphy as an impressive personality: “Tall, erect, and broad-shouldered, he was military in his air, and graceful in every movement. It was summertime, yet he wore, as was his custom, a lavender zephyr outside his frock-coat. His apparel was slightly gaudy, his vest being an embroidered satin.”

  At one time, before, and perhaps during, his meetings with Morphy, Edge notes that “he [Staunton] actually wore shirts with kings, rooks, pawns, etc. printed over the bosoms and tails.” For the benefit of the chess public, Staunton described these shirts in the May 1847 Chess Players Chronicle. “The patterns of the Chess shirts consist of the several Chess pieces prettily arranged and linked together.”

  Staunton’s contributions to chess were great in terms of games, books, magazines, and even in terms of his chess column, although he often abused his editorial privileges. He must also be credited with organizing the first international chess tournament, a giant step in chess history. Nor were his interests limited to chess, for he edited a new edition of Shakespeare. But he is mainly remembered for his chess activity and doubtless was the world chess champion of the 1840s.

  But Staunton’s disposition was not the best. MacDonnell says that his “manner was very quiet, and his voice always gentle.” His voice was gentle, except editorially. Even Murray said he “would fain ignore” his petty personalities, likes and dislikes if he could, and that, “His most faithful friends were those who rarely met him in the flesh. Personal intercourse inevitably ended before long in a breach.”

  In the British Chess Magazine of February 1891, Charles Tomlinson told of Henry T. Buckle, the historian and a very strong chess player, being asked whether he had ever played a match with Staunton and his replying, “No. I was always careful to maintain friendly relations with him.”

  Years later, in 1874, Paul Morphy, in an offhand conversation (Dubuque Chess Journal, December 1874), expressed the following opinion of Mr. Staunton as a chess master:

  Mr. Staunton’s knowledge of the theory of the game was no doubt complete; his powers as an analyst were of the very highest order, his coup d’oeil and judgment of position and his general experience of the chess board, great; but all these qualities which are essential to make a GREAT chess player do not make him a player of GENIUS. These must be supplemented by imagination and by a certain inventive or creative power, which conceives positions and brings them about. Of this faculty (he said) he saw no evidence in the published games of Mr. Staunton.

  In a given position, where there is something to be done, no matter how recondite or difficult the idea, Mr. Staunton will detect it, and carry out the combination in as finished a style as any great player that ever lived, but he will have had no agency in bringing about the position.

  Therefore in his best day, Mr. Staunton in his opinion could not have made a successful fight against a man who had the same qualities as himself and who, besides, was possessed of the creative power above mentioned, such as were Anderssen of Germany, M’Donnell of England, and La Bourdonnais of France.

  To all that had been said concerning Mr. Staunton personally, his brilliant conversational powers, etc. (he said) he could himself bear witness, and he had had frequent occasions to meet Mr. Staunton in social intercourse.

  As a chess author, he thought, as everybody does, that Mr. Staunton’s ability was of the very highest order, and that he had done more for the diffusion and propagation of chess than almost anybody else. As a commentator on games actually played, aside from the personalities, he was at times too prone to indulge in, he stood absolutely without a rival.

  As a player he was entitled to a very high rank indeed, and perhaps he was, as is claimed for him, the ablest player of his day; at the same time he was not prepared to admit that Mr. Staunton possessed to any very great degree GENIUS FOR CHESS, as he understands the term.

  In summing up the Staunton affair, we might do well to quote Philip W. Sergeant in his book, Morphy’s Games of Chess, who, after referring to Murray’s defense of Staunton, concludes that

  It is not shown: (1) that Staunton had a genuine desire for the match; (2) that, if he had, he treated Morphy fairly in the interval between his letter of April 3 and that of October 9, when he refused any longer to entertain the idea of the match; (3) that if he had not, his apparent (though conditional) readiness to play can be justified; and (4) that he had any right to use his chess column, as he did, to depreciate and sneer at Morphy.

  Morphy’s case is clear. He came to Europe above all to play Staunton, whom he complimented by regarding as the leading master in Europe. He, possibly erroneously, but at least in good faith, took Staunton’s statement in his chess column on April 3 as meaning that he would find him ready to play him in London [More clearly stated in Staunton’s letter to the New Orleans Chess Club as given earlier.]; but, in that case, it was easy for Staunton to correct his wrong impression as soon as they met at the St. George’s. So far from doing this, right up to October 9 Staunton let Morphy think that a match could be played in 1858, if he would only wait until Staunton could find a date. And finally Morphy, being himself a chivalrous gentleman, had a title to be treated chivalrously by anyone who claimed also to be a gentleman. The chivalry of ridiculing your opponent as an adventurer without backing, or hinting furtively that he is a professional, is not apparent. Morphy sickened of chess tactics—off the board.

  And, as Sergeant concluded, “So ends what can only be regarded as a melancholy chapter in English chess history.”

  CHAPTER 12

  La Régence and Society

  Morphy’s last letter to Staunton was written as his match with Harrwitz drew to its abrupt close. When he received Staunton’s reply that the match would be “impossible, fettered as I am at this moment,” Morphy knew there was no need for a quick return to London.

  While he could no more get Harrwitz to play additional games at La Régence than he had been successful with Staunton at the St. George’s Club, there were other players at La Régence, many the strongest France had to offer, eager to measure their strength against him even at odds.

  But even after offering odds to Prèti, Journoud, Lequesne, Laroche, Delannoy, and the well-known Budzinsky of Poland, the results were hardly different than when meeting them on even terms. After winning all games at Pawn and two moves against Delannoy, with whom Rivière, the most promising Fr
ench player, had not been successful, Morphy offered Delannoy the odds of Queen’s Knight. Before commencing, Delannoy called all to witness, as recorded in the New Orleans Sunday Delta of March 13, 1859, that “Mr. Morphy would not win a game” at Knight odds. However, the first series ended Morphy thirteen, Delannoy four.

  Almost a quarter century later, Delannoy wrote of Morphy in Brentano’s Chess Monthly of May 1881:

  Erudite, endowed with an amiable temper, charming, possessing first-rate manners, great, generous and magnanimous, he drew everybody towards him on his first appearance, and the sympathies of all players. The superiority of his play, the distinction of his language, and the elevation of his mind soon compelled the enthusiasm and the admiration of these same players.

  His name, during his sojourn in Paris, made a great noise; it even fills it now. In his presence, the triumphs and glory of his predecessors were almost forgotten, and the shades of Philidor, Deschapelles and Labourdonnais started at the bottom of their graves.

  With Rivière, a friend, Morphy continued to play without odds. Eugène Rousseau was in Paris for some time and gloried in Paul’s triumphs. Morphy now became the cynosure of high society. As of September 16, 1858, Edge had written to Fiske:

  I can assure you they treat him here like a God. The other night at the Théâtre Français nearly the entire orchestra stood up to look at him, he perfectly unconscious until we pointed it out to him. Everybody tries to get introduced to him, and the old players of the time of Labourdonnais treat him with the greatest reverence, telling him his games are worthy of that great master.

  Among Morphy’s first social invitations was one from the Duchess de la Trémoille. The Duchess told Morphy she had been playing chess since a child and had wanted to meet such an eminent practitioner of the game. Of the five games played the evening of their meeting, each won two, the fifth being drawn. The Princess Murat was also present and contested a game with Morphy. Rivière mentioned in his chess column in L’Illustration that other “grande dames” received the odds of a Queen.