﻿484 . ON THE BURMIIA 



in an early part of bis career ; yet notwitlistanding 

 these proofs of antiquity and originality, Sir Vv illiam 

 Jones was of opinion that this rudimental and com- 

 plex game is a more recent invention than the re- 

 fined game of the Persians and Eurojjeans ; which 

 he also states to have been certainly invented in 

 India, and appears, therefore, to have considered 

 the original. But, to admit this, wouki, I conceive, 

 be inverting: the usual order of things. 



Two other distinctions are remarkable of the 

 Hindoo game; tiie introduction of a ship or boat 

 amongst troops, &c. embattled on a plain ; and the 

 use of dice, which determine tlie moves, and, as 

 Sir William justly observes, exclude it from the rank 

 which has been assi^jned to chess amonjj the sciences. 



In respect to the first of these distinctions, I can- 

 not help suspecting a mistake in translating the 

 passage, which I must leave to abler critics to de- 

 cide. In explaining the meaning of Chatur-anga, 

 Sir William says, " that is the four angas or mem- 

 bers of an army, which are said in the Amaracosha 

 to be, Hastif asica rntlia paddtam, or elephants, 

 horses, chariots, and foot soldiers. " And the same 

 names are used in India at this day *. 



Sir William notices the Chinese game as having a 

 river described on the board, which the Indian board 

 has not ; and seems to infer that a ship or boat might 

 be introduced in the Chinese game with propriety. 

 Hence a query might arise whether the Indian board, 

 as now used, is the. aiicient one appropriate to the 

 game, in which a boat is said to be introduced in- 

 stead of a chariot ; but in the Chinese game, of 

 which I have an account before me, although what 

 is erroneously termerl a river is delineated on the 

 board, yet there is no ship or boat among the pieces. 



Instead 



* See note at the end of this paper. 



