Chapter I: Of the Origin and Name of Cards (1)

Man has been distinctively termed "a _cooking_ animal;" and Dr. Franklin has defined him to be "a _tool-making_ animal." He may also, with equal truth, be defined to be "a _gambling_ animal;" since to gamble, or venture, on chance, his own property, with the hope of winning the property of another, is as peculiar to him, in distinction from other animals, as his broiling a fish after he has caught it with his hands, or making for himself a stone hatchet to enable him to fell a tree. Whether this gambling peculiarity is to be ascribed to the superiority of his intellectual or of his physical constitution, others may determine for themselves.

Other animals, in common with man, will fight for meat, drink, and lodging; and will do battle for love as fiercely as the ancient knights of chivalry, whose great incitements to heroic deeds--in plain English, killing and wounding--were ladye-love and the honour of the peacock. There is, however, no well-authenticated account of any of the lower orders of animals ever having been seen risking their property at "odd or even," or drawing lots for choice of pasturage. No shepherd has ever yet succeeded in teaching his sagacious colley to take a hand at cards with him on the hill side; the most knowing monkey has never been able to comprehend the mysteries of "tossing;" and even the learned pig, that tells people their fortune by the cards, is never able to learn what is trumps.

Seeing, then, that to gamble is exclusively proper to man,--_secundum essentiam consecutive_,--and admitting that,

"The proper study of mankind is man,"

it plainly follows, that as Playing Cards are the instruments of the most fascinating species of gambling that ever was devised by the ingenuity of man, their origin and history are a very proper subject for rational discussion. The cooking, tool-making, gambling animal displays its rationality, according to Dr. Franklin, by its knowing how to find or invent a plausible pretext for whatever it has an inclination to do.

Judging from the manner in which the origin and history of Playing Cards have been treated by various authors within the last hundred and fifty years, it is evident that the subject, whatever they may have made of it, is one of great "capability," to use the favorite term of a great designer in the landscape-gardening line; and it seems no less evident that some of those authors have been disposed to magnify its apparent insignificance by associating it with other topics, which are generally allowed to be both interesting and important. In this respect they have certainly shown great _tact_; for though many learned men have, at different periods, written largely and profoundly on very trifling subjects, yet it does seem necessary for a man, however learned and discreet, to set forth, either in his title-page or in his proemium, something like an apology for his becoming the historiographer of Playing Cards,--things in themselves slightly esteemed even by those who use them most, and frequently termed by pious people "the devil's books." The example which has thus been set I am resolved to follow; for though, in the title-page, I announce no other topic for the purpose of casting a borrowed light on the principal subject, I yet wish the reader to understand that I am writing an apology for it now; and in the progress of the work I doubt not that I shall be found as discursive as most of those who have previously either reasoned or speculated on Playing Cards.

A history of Playing Cards, treating of them in all their possible relations, associations, and bearings, would form nearly a complete cyclopædia of science and art; and would still admit of being further enlarged by an extensive biographical supplement, containing sketches of the lives of celebrated characters who have played at cards,--or at any other game. CARDS would form the centre--the _point_, having position, but no space,--from which a radius of indefinite extent might sweep a circle comprehending not only all that man knows, but all that he speculates on. The power of reach, by means of the point and the radius, being thus obtained, the operator has his choice of topics; and can arrange them round his centre, and colour them at his will, as boys at school colour their fanciful segments of a circle.

To exemplify what has just been said about the capability of cards as a subject of disquisition:--One writer, Père Menestrier,[1] preluding on the invention of cards, says, _apropos_ to the term JEU--_ludus_, a game--that, to the Supreme Being the creation of the world was only a kind of game; and that schoolmasters with the Romans were called Ludi Magistri--masters of the game or sport. Here, then, is a fine opportunity for a descant on creation; and for showing that the whole business of human life, from the cradle to the grave, is but a game; that all the world is a great "gaming-house,"--to avoid using a word offensive to ears polite,--

"And all the men and women merely _players_."

Illustrative of this view of human life, a couple of pertinent quotations, from Terence and Plutarch, are supplied by another brother of the same craft, M. C. Leber.[2]

According to Père Daniel,[3]--a reverend father of the order of Jesuits, who wrote an elaborate history of the French Military Establishments,--the game of Piquet is symbolic, allegorical, military, political, and historical, and contains a number of important maxims relating to war and government. Now, granting, for the sake of argument, that the game, with respect to its esoteric principles, is really enigmatic, it may be fairly denied that Père Daniel has succeeded in explaining it correctly; his fancied discoveries may be examined in detail, and shown, with very little trouble, to be the mere seethings of his own working imagination; others may be proposed, and, as a matter of course, supported by authorities, ancient and modern, on the origin, use, and meaning of symbols and allegories, and illustrated with maxims of war and state policy, carefully selected from the bulletins, memoirs, and diplomatic correspondence of the great military chiefs and statesmen of all nations: thus a respectable volume--in point of size at least--might be got up on the subject of Piquet alone, without trenching on the wide field of cards in general.

Court de Gebelin,[4] a Gnostic, at least in the philosophic, if not in the religious, sense of the word, finds in the old Italian Tarocchi cards the vestiges of the learning of the ancient Egyptians, somewhat mutilated and disguised, indeed, by Gothic ignorance, which suspected not the profound knowledge concealed in its playthings, but still intelligible to the penetrating genius which initiates itself into all ancient mysteries, is fond of exploring the profoundly obscure, and becomes oracular, talking confidently of what it _sees_, when it is only groping in the dark. Court de Gebelin's theory suggests at once a general history of science and art, which, as everybody knows, had their cradle in ancient Egypt, and induces dim, but glorious visions of the ancient Egyptian kings,--Sesonch, Rameses, and Amonoph: the chronologers, Sanchoniathon, Manetho, and Berosus, follow, as a matter of course, whether originally known from Bishop Cumberland, or from Mr. Jenkinson, in the 'Vicar of Wakefield.' Then who can think of the knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, and of its essence being contained in the symbolic characters of a pack of cards, without hieroglyphic writing coming into his mind?[5] and this subject, being once started, leads naturally, in chronological order, to Clemens Alexandrinus, Horapollo, Athanasius Kircher, Bishop Warburton, Dr. Thomas Young, and Mons. Champollion. To write properly a history of Playing Cards in connexion with the learning of the Egyptians, as suggested by the dissertation of Court de Gebelin, would require the unwearied energy of one of those brazen-bowelled scholars who flourished at Alexandria when ancient science and art, sinking into a state of second childhood, had again found a cradle in Egypt. Oh, Isis, mother of Horus, how is thy image multiplied! Though changed in name, millions still worship it, ignorant of the type of that before which they bow.[6] All is symbol: the cards of the gamester are symbolic; full of meaning of high import, and yet he is ignorant of it, cares not to know it, though Court de Gebelin would teach him; is indifferent about his soul, and prays only that he may hold a good hand of trumps,--symbol again![7]

As cards are printed on paper, from engraved blocks of wood, and as wood-engraving appears to have suggested the art of typography, or printing from moveable types, Breitkopf combines in one general essay his inquiries into the origin of playing cards, the introduction of linen paper, and the beginning of wood-engraving in Europe;[8] this essay being but a portion of the author's intended History of Printing. Singer[9] follows very nearly the same plan as Breitkopf; but though his Researches form a goodly quarto, both in point of size and appearance, he yet has not looked into every corner. The wide field of Playing Cards still admits of further cultivation; for, though often turned up by the heavy subsoil plough of antiquarian research and well harrowed by speculation, it remains undrained.

In the 'Nouvelles Annales des Voyages,'[10] we find a dissertation by M. Rey, on Playing Cards, and the Mariner's Compass; apparently two incongruous things, yet indissolubly connected by the fleur-de-lis, which is to be seen on the drapery of some of the court or _coat_ cards, and which also forms an ornament to the north point. It appears that this dissertation on cards and the compass is but a fragment of a work composed by M. Rey, on the flag, colours, and badges of the French monarchy. Judging of his talents, from this "fragment," he appears to have been admirably fitted to write a general history of cards; and it is to be regretted that he did not give to his so-called "fragment," that comprehensive title, and introduce the essay on the mariner's compass and the history of the French flag as incidental illustrations of the fleur-de-lis, for certainly the fragment on cards,--rent from a history of the French flag,--does seem a little out of place, in a general collection of voyages and travels, unless, indeed, it be there introduced as a traveller's tale.

Mons. C. Leber, one of the most recent writers on Playing Cards,[11] is an author, whom it is very difficult to follow in his devious course; for though he is always picking up something that appears to relate to his subject, he yet does not seem to have had any clear idea of what he was seeking for. The grand questions, he says, are, "Where do cards come from; what are they; what do they say; and what ought we to think of them?" These questions, however, Mons. Leber, by no means undertakes to answer. He confines himself, as he says, to a very narrow path--a very crooked one too, he might have added--avoiding the wide and flowery field of conjecture, but diligently amassing _facts_ to guide other inquirers into the origin and primary use of Playing Cards. He is certain that they are of ancient origin, and of Eastern invention; and that primarily they constituted a symbolic and moral game. He professes to be guided in his researches by the evidence of cards themselves; but though a diligent collector of cards of all kinds, he does not appear to have been successful in extracting answers from his witnesses. They all stand mute. In short, Mons. Leber, notwithstanding his diligence as a collector of cards, and his chiffonier-like gathering of scraps connected with them, has left their history pretty nearly the same as he found it. In the genuine spirit of a collector, he still longs for more old cards,--but then, how to find them?

Such precious reliques are not to be obtained by mere labour; they turn up fortuitously, mostly in the covers of old books, and as none that have hitherto been discovered explain their origin and presumed emblematic meaning, it is a _chance_ that the materials for a full and complete history of Playing Cards will ever be obtained. "In the mean time," says Mons. Leber, "we must wait till this work of time and perseverance shall be accomplished."[12] To interpret his words from his own example, "to wait," may mean, to keep moving without advancing, like a squirrel in a wheel. Notwithstanding all the old cards that have been discovered, and all that has been collected on the subject, from both tale and history, "how far are we from possessing," exclaims Mons. Leber, "and who shall ever amass, all the elements necessary for a positive history of playing cards."[13] Thus much may serve by way of introduction, and as evidence of the "capability" of the subject.

Man, as a gambling animal, has the means of indulging in his hopeful propensity, as soon as he has acquired a property either real or personal, and can distinguish odd from even, or a short straw from a shorter. The first game that he played at, in the golden age of happy ignorance, would naturally be one of pure chance. We have no positive information about this identical game in any ancient or modern author; but we may fairly suppose, for no one can prove the supposition to be false, that it was either "drawing lots," or guessing at "odd or even."[14] Imagination suggests that the stakes might be acorns, or chesnuts; and though reason may "query the fact," yet she cannot controvert it. It is evident that at either of the two simple games above named, a player, when it came to his turn to hold, might improve his chance of winning, by means of a little dexterous management, vulgarly called cheating, and thus, to a certain extent, emancipate himself from the laws of blind Fortune,--a personification of chance which a gambler, most assuredly, first elevated to the rank of a divinity.[15] That cheating is nearly coeval with gaming, cannot admit of a doubt; and it is highly probable that this mode of giving an eccentric motion to Fortune's wheel was discovered, if not actually practised, at the first regular bout, under the oaks of Dodona, or elsewhere, before the flood of Thessaly.[16]

Man, having left the woods for the meadows, progressing from the sylvan or savage state to that of a shepherd, now not only roasts his chesnuts, but also eats a bit of mutton to them; and after having picked the leg clean, forms of the small bones, between the shank and the foot, new instruments of gaming. Taking a certain number of those bones, three for instance, he makes on four sides of each a certain number of marks: on one side a single point, and on the side opposite six points; on another side three points, and on the opposite four. Putting these bones into a cow's horn, he shakes them together, and then throws them out; and accordingly, as the points may run high, or as the cast may be of three different numbers, so does he count his game.[17] Conventional rules for playing are now established; definite values, independent of the number of points, are assigned to different casts; some being reckoned high, while others are counted low, and sometimes positively against the player, although the chance of their turning up be the same as that of the former. The game now becomes more complicated; and the chances being more numerous, and the odds more various, a knowing gamester who plays regularly, and makes a calculation of the probability of any given number, or combination of points, being thrown, either at a single cast, or out of a certain number, has an advantage in betting over his more simple-minded competitors. "Luck is all!" exclaims the novice,--and guesses; the adept mutters, "Knowledge is power,"--and counts.

The cutting of bones into cubes, or dice, and numbering them on all their six sides, would probably be the next step in gaming; and there are grounds for supposing that the introduction of dice was shortly followed by the invention of something like backgammon; a game which affords greater scope for calculation than dice, and allows also of the player displaying his skill in the management of his men. Should it be asked, what has any of those games to do with the origin of cards? I answer, in the words of an Irish guide, when pointing out to a traveller several places which he was not wanting to find,--"Well, then, none of them's it."

The next game, which it seems necessary to notice, is the Πεττεια of the Greeks, and the Latrunculi of the Latins; as in the sequel it may perhaps be found to have some positive, though remote, relation to the game of cards. It would be superfluous here to inquire if the game of Πεττεια, or Latrunculi, were really that which was invented by Palamedes during the Trojan War; it may be sufficient to remark, that it is mentioned by Homer, who, in the first book of the Odyssey, represents Penelope's suitors playing at it:

"Before the door they were amusing themselves at _tables_,
Sitting on the skins of oxen which they themselves had killed."[18]

In whatever country the game may have been invented, or however it may have been originally played, it was certainly not a game of chance. It was a scientific game requiring the exercise of the mind, and wholly dependent as to its result on the comparative skill of the two players; he who displayed the greatest judgment in moving his pieces, according to the rules of the game, being the winner.[19]

This game appears to have been similar to that described in Strutt's 'Sports and Pastimes,' under the name of Merrels, which is still played in many parts of England, and which was, and may be still, a common game in almost every country in Europe. It appears to have branched out into several species, with the Greeks and Romans; and though, in some of them, the game was very intricate, it yet never attained with those people to the perfection of chess. One of those varieties of Petteia, or Latrunculi, seems to have been very like the game of draughts; it was played with pieces or men, of two different colours, placed on a board divided into several squares, and a man of one party could be taken by the opponent when he succeeded in inclosing it between two of his own.[20]

Whatever may have been the origin of chess, it seems to be generally admitted that the game, nearly the same in its principles as it is now played,--with its board of sixty-four squares, and men of different grades,--was first devised in India; and, without giving implicit credit to the well-known account of its invention by an Indian named Sissa, we may assume that the date assigned to it, namely, about the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era, is sufficiently correct for all practical purposes: a difference of two or three hundred years, either one way or the other, is of very little importance in a conjecture about the game, as connected with Playing Cards. Having now arrived at Chess, we fancy that we see something like "land," though it may be but a fog-bank after all. To speak without figure, it seems likely that the game of cards was suggested by that of chess.

The affinity of the two games, and the similarity between the coat cards and the principal pieces in the game of chess, have already been pointed out by Breitkopf;[21] and he is so copious on the latter topic, that he has left but little for any of his successors to do, in this respect, except to condense his diffuse notes; for, as was said of William Prynne, his brains are generally to be found scattered about the margin of his works, and not in the text.

A side, or suit, of chessmen consists of six orders, which in the old oriental game were named--1, _Schach_, the king; 2, _Pherz_, the general; 3, _Phil_, the elephant; 4, _Aspen-suar_, the horseman, or chevalier; 5, _Ruch_, the camel; and, 6, _Beydel_ or _Beydak_, the footmen or infantry. In this suit there was no queen, as the introduction of a female into a game representing the stratagems of war would have been contrary to the oriental ideas of propriety; and long after the introduction of chess into Europe, the second piece, now called the Queen, retained its Eastern name under the form of _Fierce_, _Fierche_, or _Fierge_, even after it had acquired a feminine character.[22] _Fierge_ at length becomes confounded with the French _Vierge_, a maid; and finally, the piece is called _Dame_, the lady, and so becomes thoroughly European, both in name and character. With respect to the changes which the other pieces have undergone in the European game of chess, it is only necessary to observe that _Phil_, the elephant, is now the _Fol_ or _Fou_ of the French, and the _Bishop_ of the English; _Aspen-suar_, the horseman, is the French _Chevalier_, and the English _Knight_; _Ruch_, the camel, is the French _Tour_, and the English _Rook_ or _Castle_; and the _Beydel_ or _Beydak_, the footmen, are now the French _Pions_, and the English _Pawns_.

Now the very same change that has taken place in the second piece in chess--namely, from a male to a female--has also happened to the second principal figure in French and English cards. Among the oldest _numeral_ cards that have yet been discovered no Queen is to be found; the three principal figures or coat cards being the King, the Knight, and the Valet or Knave. There was no Queen in the old Spanish pack of cards; nor was there usually in the German in the time of Heineken and Breitkopf. In the Spanish, the coat cards of each suit were the King (_Rey_), the Knight (_Cavallo_), and the Knave, groom, or attendant (_Sota_); in the German, the King (_König_), a chief officer (_Ober_), and a Subaltern (_Unter_).[23] The Italians, instead of making any change in the old coat cards, sometimes added the Queen to them, so that they had four instead of three, namely, _Re_, _Reina_, _Cavallo_, and _Fante_.

The following extracts from an Essay on the Indian Game of Chess, by Sir William Jones, printed in the second volume of the 'Asiatic Researches,' seem to establish more clearly than anything that has been expressly written on the subject, either by Breitkopf or others, the affinity between cards and chess: "If evidence be required to prove that chess was invented by the Hindus, we may be satisfied with the testimony of the Persians; who, though as much inclined as other nations to appropriate the ingenious inventions of a foreign people, unanimously agree, that the game was imported from the west of India, together with the charming fables of Vishnusarman in the sixth century of our era. It seems to have been immemorially known in Hindustan by the name of _Chaturanga_, that is the FOUR _angas_, or members of an army, which are said, in the Amaracosha, to be elephants, horses, chariots, and foot-soldiers; and in this sense the word is frequently used by epic poets in their descriptions of real armies. By a natural corruption of the pure Sanscrit word, it was changed by the old Persians into Chatrang; but the Arabs, who soon after took possession of their country, had neither the initial nor final letter of that word in their alphabet, and consequently altered it further into _Shatranj_,[24] which found its way presently into the modern Persian, and at length into the dialects of India, where the true derivation of the name is known only to the learned. Thus has a very significant word in the sacred language of the Brahmans been transferred by successive changes into Axedras, Scacchi, Echecs, Chess; and, by a whimsical concurrence of circumstances, given birth to the English word _check_, and even a name to the _Exchequer_ of Great Britain.

"Of this simple game, so exquisitely contrived, and so certainly invented in India, I cannot find any account in the classical writings of the Brahmans. It is indeed confidently asserted that Sanscrit books on Chess exist in this country; and if they can be procured at Benares, they will assuredly be sent to us. At present, I can only exhibit a description of a very ancient Indian game of the same kind; but more complex, and, in my opinion, more modern than the simple chess of the Persians. This game is also called _Chaturanga_, but more frequently _Chaturaji_, or the _Four Kings_, since it is played by four persons, representing as many princes, two allied armies combating on each side. The description is taken from the Bhawishya Puran, in which Yudhist'hir is represented conversing with Vyasa, who explains, at the king's request, the form of the fictitious warfare, and the principal rules of it. 'Having marked eight squares on all sides,' says the sage, 'place the _red_ army to the east, the _green_ to the south, the _yellow_ to the west, and the _black_ the north.'"[25]--It is worthy of remark, that these colours form the ground of four of the suits of one of the divisions of an eight-suit pack of Hindostanee cards.

It appears that in this game the moves were determined by casts with dice, as in backgammon, so that it was one of chance as well as skill. On this point Sir William Jones observes: "The use of dice may, perhaps, be justified in a representation of war, in which _fortune_ has unquestionably a great share, but it seems to exclude Chess from the rank which has been assigned to it among the sciences, and to give the game before us the appearance of _Whist_, except that pieces are used only instead of cards, which are held concealed."

Though Sir William Jones mentions Whist in particular, it is yet apparent, from his own description, that the similarity of _Chaturaji_ to any other game of cards played by four persons is precisely the same. This evidence of the similarity, between a game of cards and an ancient Indian game of chess, is the more important, as the fact appears to have forced itself upon the notice of the writer, rather than to have been sought for.

It may here be observed, that in the wardrobe accounts of Edward I, there is an item, of money paid for the use of the king for playing at the Four Kings--Quatuor Reges--and that it has been conjectured that the game was cards. The Hon. Daines Barrington, who appears to have been of this opinion, says: "the earliest mention of cards that I have yet stumbled upon is in Mr. Anstis's History of the Garter, where he cites the following passage from the Wardrobe Rolls, in the sixth year of Edward the First, [1278]: 'Waltero Sturton, ad opus regis ad ludendum ad _quatuor reges_ viiis. _vd._' From which entry Mr. Anstis with some probability conjectures, that playing cards were not unknown at the latter end of the thirteenth century; and perhaps what I shall add may carry with it some small confirmation of what he supposes."[26] As this is not the place to discuss the question, if playing cards were known in England so early as the reign of Edward I, it may be sufficient to remark that the substance of what Mr. Barrington has adduced in confirmation of Anstis's conjecture consists in a statement of the fact of Edward having been in Syria, and that he might have learned the game of cards there[27]--taking it for granted that cards were of Eastern invention, and known in Syria at that period,--and in a second-hand reference to Breitkopf for a passage in the Güldin Spil, wherein it is stated that a certain game--cards being unquestionably meant--first came into Germany about the year 1300.

From Sir William Jones's account of the game of _Chaturanga_ or, more specifically, _chaturaji_--the Four Rajas, or Kings--there can scarcely be a doubt that the game of the Four Kings played at by Edward I, was chess, and that this name was a literal translation of the Indian one. Assuming this, then, as an established fact, we have evidence of the number four being associated in Europe at that period with the game of chess, which, as has been previously shown, bore so great a resemblance to a game of cards.

Now, whatever may have been the origin of the name of cards, it is undeniable that the idea of the number _four_ is very generally associated with them; there are four suits, and in each suit there are four honours, reckoning the ace;--to say nothing of the very old game of All Fours, which may have originally meant winning in each of the four Angas or divisions, now represented by High, Low, Jack, and the Game. It is also certain that, in this country, cards were called the Books of the Four Kings, long before the passage relating to the game of _Quatuor Reges_, which might have suggested the name, appeared in Anstis's History of the Garter. They are so called by Sir Thomas Urquhart, in his translation of Rabelais, in chapter 22, book i, which contains an account of the games that Gargantua played at: "After supper, were brought into the room the fair wooden gospels, and the books of the _Four Kings_, that is to say, the tables and cards."[28] Cards are not indeed called the Books of the Four Kings in the original text of Rabelais; though it is certain that they were known in France by that name, and that the Valets or Knaves were also called _fous_--a term which, as Peignot remarks, corroborates Breitkopf's theory of the analogy between chess and cards.[29] Mrs. Piozzi, speaking of cards, in her Retrospection, published in 1801, says, "It is a well-known vulgarity in England to say, 'Come, Sir, will you have a stroke at the history of the Four Kings?' meaning, Will you play a game at cards?" A writer in Fraser's Magazine, for August, 1844, also calls cards the books of the Four Kings, as if they were well known by that name.

Now as _chahar_, _chatur_, or, as the word is sometimes written in English, _chartah_, signifies four in the Hindostanee language, as it enters into the composition of _chaturanga_, and as chess probably suggested the game of cards, I am inclined to think that both games were invented in Hindostan, and that _chahar_ or _chatur_ in the language of that country formed a portion of the original name of cards. The common term for cards in Hindostan, is _Taj_ or _Tas_; and its primary meaning, as I am informed, is a leaf, _folium_. But as it is also used in a figurative sense to signify a diadem or crown, and as the term signifying a _crown_ is frequently used in most languages to signify regal authority, the compound term _chahar-taj_, or _chahar-tas_, would be suggestive of nearly the same idea as "the Four Kings," and be almost identical in sound with the Latin _chartæ_ or _chartas_. The name, whatever it might be, would be liable to change in passing from Hindostan, through other countries, into Europe; in the same manner as we find _Chaturanga_, the Sanscrit name of chess, transformed into the Persian _Chatrang_, the Arabic _Shatranj_, the Greek _Zatrikion_, the Spanish _Axedrez_, the Italian _Scacchi_, the German _Schach_, the French _Echecs_, and the English _Chess_.

The name given to cards by the earliest French and German writers who mention them, is, respectively, _Cartes_ and _Karten_--in Latin, _Chartæ_; but as _Charta_ signifies _paper_, and as cards are made of paper, it has generally been supposed that they received their name from that circumstance. But if a part of their original name signified the number _four_, whether derived from an eastern root, or from the Latin _quarta_, it can scarcely be doubted that they acquired the name of _chartæ_, not in consequence of their being made of paper, but because the Latin word which signified paper had nearly the same sound as another word which signified four,--in the same manner as _Pherz_, the General, in chess, found a representative in _Fierge_, and subsequently became confounded with _Vierge_: the ideal change of _Vierge_ into _Dame_, the wife of the king, followed of course, like "wooed,--an' married an' a'."

It is deserving of remark, that in several old French works, written within fifty years of the time when we have positive evidence of the game of cards being known in France, the word is sometimes spelled _quartz_ or _quartes_, as if, in the mind of the writer, it was rather associated with the idea of _four_ than with that of _paper_. The possible derivation of _cards_ from _quarta_, was suggested by Mr. Gough, in his Observations on the Invention of Cards, in the eighth volume of the 'Archæologia,' though he was of opinion that they obtained their name from the paper of which they were made. "Perhaps," says he, "it may be too bold a conjecture that the '_quartes_, ludus _quartarum_ sive cartarum,' by which Junius [in his Etymologicon] explains _cards_, may be derived from _quarta_, which, Du Cange says, is used simply for the fourth part of any thing, and so may be referred to the _quatuor reges_; but as Du Cange expressly says, that _quarta_ and _carta_ are synonymous, I lay no stress on this, but leave it to the critics."

To carry still further this speculation on the Indian origin of Playing Cards,--both name and thing,--it is to be observed that cards are called _Naibi_, by the earliest Italian writers who mention them; and that they have always been called _Naypes_, or _Naipes_, in Spain, since the time of their first introduction into that country. Now in Hindostan, where we find the word Chahar, Chatur, or Chartah, they have also the word Na-eeb, or Naib, which, judging from the sound only, appears at least as likely to have been the original of _naibi_ and _naipe_, as it is of the English _Nabob_.[30] This word _Na-eeb_ signifies a viceroy, lieutenant, or deputy, who rules over a certain district, as a feudatory who owes allegiance to a sovereign. Now, as the game of chess was known in Hindostan by the name of the Four Kings, if cards were suggested by chess, and invented in the same country, the supposition that they might have been called _Chatur-Nawaub_--the Four Viceroys, as the cognate game of chess was called the Four Kings--and that this name subsequently became changed into _Chartah-Naib_, is, at least, as probable as the derivation of Naipes from N.P., the initials of Nicolas Pepin, their supposed inventor. Though this last etymology has very much the appearance of a conundrum, propounded in jest for the purpose of ridiculing a certain class of etymologists who always seek for roots at the surface, it is nevertheless that which received the sanction of the royal Spanish Academy, and which is given in their Dictionary.[31] Several Spanish writers, however, of high reputation for their knowledge of the formation of their native language, have decidedly asserted that the word _Naipes_, signifying cards, whatever it might have originally meant, was derived from the Arabic; and if the testimony of Covelluzzo, a writer quoted in Bussi's History of the City of Viterbo, could be relied on, the question respecting the word Naibi or Naipes, and cards themselves, having been brought into Europe through the Arabs, would appear to be determined. His words are: "Anno 1379, fu recato in Viterbo el GIOCO DELLE CARTE, CHE VENNE DE SERACINIA, e chiamisi tra loro NAIB."[32] That is, "In the year 1379, was brought into Viterbo the game of cards, which comes from the country of the Saracens, and is with them called NAIB." It may be observed, that the very word here given as the Arabic name for cards still signifies in Arabia a deputy of the Sultan. Even though it may not be a word of Hindostanee origin, it may have been introduced into that language when a great portion of Hindostan was subjected to the Mahometan yoke, and when many of the Rajahs of native race were superseded by the _Naibs_ or deputies of a Mahometan sovereign.[33] There appears reason to believe that the word _Naipe_ or _Naipes_, as applied to cards, did not primarily signify _cards_ generally, but was rather a designation of the game played with cards; in the same manner as "the Four Kings" signified the game at cards, in consequence of a king being the chief of each of the four suits. In Vieyra's Portuguese Dictionary, 1773, one of the explanations of the word "Naipe" is, "a Suit of Cards;" and the phrase, "Náo tenho nenhuma daquelle naipe," is translated, "I have none of that suit."

It is not unlikely that the Greek word χαρτης,--Latin, _Charta_, paper,--was derived from the East, and that it was originally associated with the idea of "four," as expressive of a _square_--_quarré_--of paper, in contra-distinction to a long strip of paper or parchment, which, when _rolled_ up, formed an ενειλεμα, or _volume_. In middle-age Greek, the word χαρταριον, or χαρτιον,[34]--which is unquestionably derived from the same root as χαρτης,--appears to have been used to convey the idea of a square, or four-sided piece of wood, and to have specifically signified a square wooden trencher: the top of the trencher-cap worn at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and at some of our public schools, may be considered as a representative of the general form of the thing. It is curious to trace how a word primarily expressive of the number _four_ has, in Greek, Latin, French, and English, been employed to signify either paper generally, or a portion of paper. From the French _Cahier_ or _cayer_[35]--which may be traced through _carré_ or _quarré_, to the Latin _quartus_, from _quatuor_--we have the old English _quair_, a little paper book consisting of a few sheets; and the modern _quire_, now signifying a definite number of sheets of paper.

In Hindostanee the word _chit_ signifies, I believe, a note or letter, and is in this sense synonymous with the Latin _Epistola_, and the German _Briefe_. Should it also signify paper,[36] either in general, or of a particular kind, and be cognate with _chahar_, _chatur_, or _chartah_,[37]--"four,"--the preceding speculations on the primary meaning of χαρτης, _charta_, and _cards_, will be materially corroborated. I leave, however, the investigation of this point to those who understand the Hindostanee language, as all the knowledge that I have of the word in question, is derived from one of Theodore Hook's tales, Passion and Principle, in the first series of 'Sayings and Doings.' Wherever he might have picked it up, the effect with which he uses it is peculiarly his own.

Breitkopf, who is decidedly of opinion that cards are of Eastern invention, and of great antiquity, considers that the name Naibe, or Naipes, by which they were first known to the Italians and the Spaniards, is derived from an Arabic word--_Nabaa_--signifying divination, foretelling future events, fortune-telling, and such like. In this opinion he says he is confirmed by the exposition of the Hebrew word _Naibes_, which he seems to think cognate with the Arabic Nabaa.[38] He, however, produces no evidence to show that cards were known either to the Arabians or the Jews by the name of Naibe, and from a subsequent passage in his work, it is evident that the conjecture was suggested merely from the circumstance of cards being occasionally employed for the purposes of fortune-telling.

Heineken, who contends that cards were invented in Germany, alleges the name--_Briefe_--given to them in that country in support of the presumed fact. "Playing Cards," he observes, "were called with us _Briefe_, that is _letters_, in Latin, _Epistolæ_, and they are called so still. The common people do not say, 'give me a pack of cards,' but 'a _Spiel Briefe_' (un jeu de lettres); and they do not say 'I want a card,' but 'I want a _Brief_' (a letter). We should, at least, have preserved the name _cards_, if they had come to us from France; for the common people always preserve the names of all games that come from other countries."[39] This argument is contradicted by the fact of cards having been called _Karten_ in Germany, before they acquired there the name of _Briefe_; and this very word _Briefe_, which is merely a translation of the Latin _Chartæ_, is presumptive evidence of the Germans having obtained their knowledge of cards from either the French or the Italians, with whom the name cards, when "done" into Latin, had the same meaning as the German word _Briefe_.

With respect to the term Naibes, or Naipes, there are two etymologies which seem deserving of notice here; the one propounded by Bullet, in his 'Recherches Historiques sur les Cartes à jouer;' and the other by Eloi Johanneau, in his 'Mélanges d'Origines Etymologiques.' Mons. Bullet thinks that cards are of French origin, and that they were not invented before the introduction of linen paper,--his chief reason for fixing this epoch as a ne-plus-ultra being evidently founded on their Latinised name, _chartæ_. From France he supposes that they passed into Spain by way of Biscay, and acquired in their passage the name of Naipes. This word, according to Mons. Bullet, is derived from the Basque term _napa_, signifying "plat, plain, uni," which very properly designates cards, and corresponds with the Latin _charta_. This etymology is fanciful rather than felicitous; if _charta_ were synonymous with _mensa_,--a table,--the Basque term _napa_ would appear to correspond more nearly with it. But the Basque language, like the Celtic, is one peculiarly adapted for etymological speculation; a person who understands a little of it, may readily grub up in its wild fertility a root for any word which he may not be able to supply with a radical elsewhere.[40]

Mons. Eloi Johanneau is of opinion that cards are of much higher antiquity than they are generally supposed to be; and with respect to their Spanish name, Naipes, the origin of it, is, to him, too plain and simple to require the aid of any scarce or voluminous works to prove it; it is, in short, one of those truths which, to be perceived, requires only to be enounced. This incontestable truth is, that the word _naipe_, a card, comes from the Latin _mappa_, the _m_ being merely changed into an _n_. Of this antithesis, or change of a letter, several examples are produced; as the French _nappe_, a table-cloth, also from _mappa_; _nefle_ and _neflier_ from _mespilum_ and _mespilus_; and _faire la Sainte Mitouche_, for _faire la Sainte Nitouche_. Then _naipe_ and _mappa_ have an analogous meaning. Naipes, Playing Cards, scarcely differ from a _map_,--which is a geographic card,--or, except in point of size, from a _nappe_, which is spread like a chart on the table. In ancient times, too, mappa signified the _tessara_, or signal, which was displayed at the games of the circus. Tertullian, speaking of those games in his 'Diatribe De Spectaculis,' says: "Non vident missum quid sit. _Mappam_ putant; sed est diaboli ab alto præcipitati gula,"--"They perceive not what is displayed. They think it the _mappa_, but it is the jaws of the devil." It is evident from this, that in Tertullian's estimation, there was something very wicked in the _mappa_; and the bad odour which, even at that early period, the word was in, appears to have been retained by its presumed derivative, _naipes_, ever since: _Servavit odorem diu_. But then for the grand discovery: Mons. Johanneau finds, in Ducange's Glossary, a passage cited from Papias, a lexicographer of the eleventh century, which proves that the word _mappa_ then signified a Playing Card, and that the game of cards was known at least three centuries previous to the period assigned to its invention by the Abbé Rive.[41] "Mappa," according to Papias, "is a napkin; a picture, or representation of games, is also called mapa; whence we say mapa mundi,"--a map of the world. An ancient Latin and French glossary, also cited by Ducange, explains the passage from Papias to the following effect: "Mapamundi, a mapemunde (or geographic map); and it is derived from _mapa_, a _nappe_, a picture or representation of games."[42] Though it may be admitted that _nappe_, a table-cloth, or napkin, is derived from mappa, and that the latter word was sometimes used to signify a picture of some kind of game; it yet does not appear to be incontrovertibly true, either that _mappa_, as explained by Papias, signified a card, or a game of cards, or that the word _naipes_ was derived from it. What Mons. Johanneau considers to be a self-evident truth, appears in reality to be no better than one of those confident assertions entitled, by courtesy, moral truths, in consequence of the sincerity of the author's belief. A great many truths of this kind pass current in the business of life, and maintain their nominal value, long after their real character is known, upon the credit of the indorsers.

Wherever cards may have been first invented, and whatever may be the etymology of the words _chartæ_ and _naipes_, or _naibi_, it is certain that cards are now well known in Hindostan, where they form the amusement of the natives, both Hindoos and Moslems. That they were invented there, may be a matter of dispute; but that they have been known there from an early period, and were not introduced there from Europe, appears to be undeniable. The Hindoo cards are usually circular; the number of suits is eight, and in some packs ten; and the marks of the suits, though in some instances showing an agreement with those of European cards, are evidently such as are peculiar to the country, and identified with the customs, manners, and opinions of the people. They coincide with the earliest European cards in having no queen, the two coat cards--being a king and his principal minister or attendant--and in the suits being distinguished by the colour as well as by the form of the mark or emblem.

It appears necessary here to notice an objection, which readily suggests itself to the supposed derivation of _chartæ_, cards, from a word of eastern origin, signifying "four." It is this: if the ancient Hindoo pack consisted of _eight_ or even _ten_ suits, would it not be preposterous to derive the European name from a word which implies that there were only _four_. Facts most assuredly are stubborn things, and no speculation, whether lame of a leg, or going smoothly on "all fours," can stand against them. It is not, however, proved that the most ancient Hindoo cards consisted of eight or ten suits; and till this be done, the speculation must just pass for what it is worth. Whether there were eight, ten, or twenty suits, the derivation of χαρτης, _charta_, paper, from a word of Eastern origin, would still be unaffected. If the game of cards were suggested by that of chess, I am inclined to think that the earliest pack would consist of only two suits, and that more were subsequently added to satisfy the wants of "busy idleness," for a more complicated game. Be this as it may, cards did not arrive at Europe from Hindostan "per saltum;" it is probable that their progress through the intervening countries was comparatively slow; and even if they left home with a "suite" of eight, it is not impossible that they might lose half of them by the way. But, to meet the objection by a fact: from a description of a pack of Hindostanee cards to be subsequently noticed, and of the game played with them, it appears that the _eight_ suits are not considered as a single series, but as two divisions of _four_ suits each.[43] This partition corroborates both the theory of the game of cards being suggested by that of chess, and of the name being derived from a word primarily signifying the number four.

On the supposition, then, that cards were invented in the East, it seems advisable to first give some account of the cards now used in Hindustan, before entering into any investigation of the period when the game was first brought into Europe. A high antiquity, indeed, no less than a thousand years, is claimed for one of the packs subsequently described; but rejecting t as a pure fiction, which the apparent newness of the cards themselves contradicts, it may be fairly assumed, seeing that in the East customs are slowly changed, that the figures and symbols, or marks, on those cards are, in their forms and signification generally, of at least as early a date as those which are to be found on the oldest European cards.

There is no collection of Hindostanee cards in the Museum of the East India Company; the purveyors, it would seem, not considering them likely to be interesting even to the Lady Proprietors, who, though they have no voice, at least in Leadenhall Street, yet have considerable influence, by their votes, in the choice of Directors. The natives of Hindustan always speak of "the Company" as if, in the abstract, the great body of proprietors were a female,--"Mrs. Company;"[44] and it would appear that the "direction" of things at home, is rapidly approximating to a pure Gynecocracy.[45]

In the Museum of the Royal Asiatic Society, there are three packs of Hindostanee cards, one of them consisting of ten suits, and the other two of eight suits each. In each suit, when complete, the number of cards is twelve; that is two coat cards, or honours, and ten others, whose numerical value is expressed by the number of marks upon them, in a mode similar to that by which English cards, from the ace to the ten, are distinguished by the number of the "pips." The cards of all the packs are circular; the diameter of the largest is 2-3/4 inches, and of the smallest about 2-1/8 inches. The material of which they are formed would appear to be canvas,[46] but so stiffened with varnish, that each single card feels like a piece of wood. All the figures and marks appear to be executed by hand, not printed nor stencilled; each pack is contained in an oblong box, the cards being placed on their edges; and on the top and sides of the box, the marks or emblems of the several suits are depicted. From the style of their execution, I should conclude that card-painting in Hindostan, was a regular profession, though possibly combined with some other, to "make ends meet," just as card-painting was combined with wood-engraving generally, in Germany in the latter part of the fifteenth century; or just as shaving and hair-cutting might, in former times, afford a decent subsistence when eked out with a little surgery, such as blood-letting, tooth-drawing,--"_Quæ prosunt omnibus artes_."

In giving a separate description of each of those packs, it seems most proper to begin with that for which the highest antiquity is claimed. This pack is one of the two which consist of eight suits; and, from a memorandum which accompanies it, I have obtained the following particulars respecting a former possessor and the presumed antiquity of the cards. They formerly belonged to Captain D. Cromline Smith, to whom they were presented, about the year 1815, by a high-caste Bramin, who dwelt at Guntoor, or some other place in one of the northern Sircars of Southern India. The Bramin considered them to be a great curiosity, and informed Capt. Smith that they had been handed down in his family from time immemorial. He supposed that they were a thousand years old, or more; he did not know if they were perfect, but believed that originally there were two more colours or suits. He said they were not the same as the modern cards; that none knew how to play at them; and that no books give any account of them. Such is the sum of the Bramin's information. The writer of the memorandum,--looking at the costume of the figures and the harness of the animals, and considering that the Mahometans do not tolerate painted images,[47]--concludes that these cards are Hindostanee.

The pack consists of eight suits, each suit containing two honours and ten common cards--in all ninety-six cards. In all the suits the King is mounted on an elephant; and in six, the Vizier, or second honour, is on horseback; but in the blue suit,--the emblem or mark of which is a red spot with a yellow centre--he rides a tiger; and in the white suit,--the mark of which appears like a grotesque or fiendish head,--he is mounted on a bull. The backs of all the cards are green. The following are the colours of the _ground_ on which the figures are painted in the several suits, together with the different marks by which the suits and the respective value of the common cards were also distinguished.

COLOURS. MARKS.

1. FAWN Something like a pineapple in a shallow cup.
2. BLACK A red spot, with a white centre.
3. BROWN A "tulwar," or sword.
4. WHITE A grotesque kind of head.
5. GREEN Something like a parasol without a handle, and with
two broken ribs sticking through the top.
6. BLUE A red spot, with a yellow centre.
7. RED A parallelogram with dots on it, as if to represent
writing (shortest side vertical).
8. YELLOW An oval.