by David Lawson
The next day Morphy caught a cold, after having taken a nap near an open window, and the following morning he was feverish, but Edge could not prevent him from meeting Harrwitz, who was now willing to play the seventh game. He said to Edge, “I would sooner lose the game, than that anybody should think I had exhausted myself by a tour de force, as some will do if I am absent at the proper hour.”
Morphy arrived at La Régence at the agreed time but Harrwitz was not there. Some time later a message came from him objecting to playing in the public café and insisting on the private room of the chess club upstairs. This aroused great resentment among those present, especially Harrwitz’s backers, for it had been agreed, Harrwitz had even insisted, that all games be played in the public café. Finally, when it seemed the match would go no further, the club room was opened to them, and Morphy went upstairs.
Harrwitz had the opening move but soon lost the attack. By the forty-first move it was obvious that Morphy could easily win the game. Edge says:
But, in process of administering the coup de grace, Morphy’s feverish state told upon him, and he committed an oversight which lost him a rook, when within a move or two of winning. It was so stupid a mistake, that he immediately burst out laughing at himself. Harrwitz picked off the unfortunate rook with the utmost nonchalance, as though it were the result of his own combinations, and actually told me afterwards, “Oh, the game was a drawn one throughout.”
Again, some days passed before Harrwitz would sit down with Morphy, although the former was still playing daily with others until past midnight. It was October 4 before Harrwitz would resume play, and again Morphy won. The score now stood Morphy five, Harrwitz two, and one game drawn. The next day, Morphy—not willing to grant another “sick leave” of fifteen days—received the following message: “Mr. Harrwitz resigned the match, on account of ill health.”
The terms of the match called for seven games to be won, and Harrwitz’s backers were furious that he should have terminated the match in this way, without even mentioning his intention to them. Harrwitz also told the stakeholder to hand over the stake money, and so Lequesne called at Morphy’s hotel for that purpose. Morphy declined to accept the stakes, considering the unusual circumstances, although in any case he would have refused the money.
However, such turmoil developed between Harrwitz and his backers that he finally agreed to resume the match. Edge reports that Morphy now refused, saying, “Mr. Harrwitz having resigned the contest, there was an end of the matter but that he [Morphy] was ready to commence a second match immediately.” Harrwitz declined the offer. However, the matter of the stakes had to be resolved. Morphy did not wish to accept them, but letters and protests poured in, complaining that a decision about the match and stakes was necessary for the settlement of all the bets placed on the match. Morphy finally agreed to accept the title of winner of the match and the stakes of 295 francs.
Morphy immediately deposited the amount with M. Delannoy, proprietor of La Régence, and had a notice posted that any of the subscribers to the stakes were at liberty to withdraw the amount of their subscriptions, the balance to be forwarded to Adolf Anderssen, to defray expenses for his expected trip to Paris and his contest with Mr. Morphy.
The news of Morphy’s victory over Harrwitz, the renowned professional, was received with enthusiasm in New York, and Augustus B. Sage, well known for his historical tokens in bronze, had a medal struck for him. The American medalist George H. Lovett was the designer. The obverse side of the coin had a likeness of Morphy, while the reverse read: “He has beaten Harrwitz in chess playing and Staunton in courtesy.”
Morphy continued to frequent La Régence for some time after the Harrwitz match, meeting any and all, regardless of strength. He tried on numerous occasions to induce Harrwitz to play another match or even casual games, but to no avail.
But Morphy’s success—his winning almost every game at La Régence, whether even or at odds—prompted Monsieur Laroche, the strongest of French players, to suggest that Morphy offer odds to all players, himself included. Laroche had come to Paris, as had other old-time players, especially to meet Morphy.
He had previously hesitated, but now, encouraged by Laroche, Morphy had Edge inform Delannoy, proprietor of La Régence, that in the future, he (Morphy) would play no one without giving odds. As the Chess Monthly of January 1859 reported, “The chess world had not listened to such language since the days of Deschapelles and Labourdonnais.” However, Morphy was willing to make an exception with Harrwitz, hoping in vain to get him to play.
In December, Harrwitz, wishing to show that he was as capable as Morphy, undertook to play eight blindfold games, for which he said he had practiced. Adolf Anderssen, who had just arrived in Paris, was present (Morphy was too ill to attend, had he wished to do so) and reported, as Edge quotes him, that “many of the players left pieces en prise, as though designedly.” Edge remarked that “the strangest affair in connection with this display is, that although Harrwitz edited a chess column in the Monde Illustré, he never gave a single one of his blindfold games, nor would he permit any to be made public.”
Harrwitz, who for years had been installed as the professional at La Régence after Kieseritzky, lost favor with the proprietor because of his poor sportsmanship and disgraceful conduct and, obliged to leave, went to London.
CHAPTER 11
The Staunton Miscarriage
All throughout the Harrwitz match, Staunton had hovered in Morphy’s mind. November approached, and there was still no word from him. Rankling over Staunton’s unblushing “Anti-book” statement—that it was his (Morphy’s) lack of seconds and funds that was holding up their match—Morphy addressed another letter to him. Skeptical that the letter would go further than Staunton and desiring that his position in the matter be made known to the public, which knew only the “Anti-book” version, Morphy sent copies of the letter with a short note to the chess editors of the Era, Bell’s Life in London, the Field, and the Sunday Times. The letter and note appeared as given below in all those papers on October 10, 1858. Morphy also sent a copy of the letter to the editor-in-chief of the Illustrated London News, as advised by an American friend.
To the Editor of the Era:
Café de la Régence, Paris, October 6, 1858
Sir:
May I request you to add to the great kindness shown me by your paper since my arrival in Europe, by publishing in your forthcoming number the accompanying copy of a letter to Howard Staunton, Esq. I shall esteem it a favor, as I am most desirous that my true position with reference to that gentleman should at length be put in its proper light before the public.
I have the honor to remain, sir,
Your very obedient servant
Paul Morphy
Café de la Régence, Paris, October 6, 1858
Howard Staunton, Esq.
Sir,—On my arrival in England, three months since, I renewed the challenge to you personally which the New Orleans Chess Club had given some months previously. You immediately accepted, but demanded a month’s delay, in order to prepare yourself for the contest. Subsequently, you proposed that the time should be postponed until after the Birmingham meeting, to which I assented. On the approach of the period you had fixed, I addressed you a communication, requesting that the necessary preliminaries might be immediately settled, but you left London without replying to it.
I went to Birmingham for the express purpose of asking you to put a stop to further delay, by fixing a date for the opening of our match; but before the opportunity presented itself, you came to me, and, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Avery, and other gentlemen, you stated that your time was much occupied in editing a new edition of Shakespeare, and that you were under heavy bonds to your publishers accordingly. But you reiterated your intention to play me, and said that if I would consent to a further postponement until the first week in November, you would, within a few days, communicate with me and fix the exact date. I have not heard further from you, eith
er privately, by letter, or through the columns of the Illustrated London News.
A statement appeared in the Chess department of that Journal a few weeks since [August 28, “Anti-book”], that “Mr. Morphy had come to Europe unprovided with backers or seconds;” the inference being obvious that my want of funds was the reason of our match not taking place. As you are the editor of that department of the Illustrated London News, I felt hurt that a gentleman who had always received me at his club, and elsewhere, with great kindness and courtesy, should allow so prejudicial a statement to be made in reference to me—one, too, which is not strictly in accordance with fact.
Permit me to repeat what I have invariably declared in every Chess community I have had the honor of entering, that I am not a professional player—that I never wished to make any skill I possess the means of pecuniary advancement—and that my earnest desire is never to play for any stake but honor. My friends in New Orleans, however, subscribed a certain sum, without any countenance from me, and that sum has been ready for you to meet a considerable time past. Since my arrival in Paris I have been assured by numerous gentlemen, that the value of those stakes can be immediately increased to any amount; but, for myself, personally, reputation is the only incentive I recognize.
The matter of seconds cannot, certainly, offer any difficulty. I had the pleasure of being first received in London by the St. George’s Chess Club, of which you are so distinguished a member; and of those gentlemen I request the honor of appointing my seconds, to whom I give full authority in settling all preliminaries.
In conclusion, I beg leave to state that I have addressed a copy of this letter to several editors, being most desirous that our true position should no longer be misunderstood by the community at large.
Again requesting you to fix the date for commencing our match.
I have the honor to remain, Sir,
Your very humble servant,
Paul Morphy
Only Staunton found no room for Morphy’s letter in his chess column that weekend.
Morphy also addressed the following letter:
Café de la Régence, October 8, 1858
T. Hampton, Esq.,
Secretary of the St. George’s Chess Club:
Sir,—I beg respectfully to inform you that the New Orleans Chess Club has deposited £500 at the Banking House of Messrs. Heywood & Co., London: that sum being my proportion of the stakes in the approaching match with Mr. Staunton.
I shall esteem it a great honor if the St. George’s Chess Club will do me the favor of appointing my seconds in that contest. To such gentlemen as they may appoint I leave the settling of all preliminaries.
May I request you to lay this communication before the members of the Club, and to oblige me with an early answer?
I have the honor to remain, Sir,
Your very humble and obed’t serv’t,
Paul Morphy
Although Staunton did not give Morphy’s letter publicity that weekend, he replied at once by private letter:
London, October 9, 1858
Sir,—In reply to your letter, I have to observe that you must be perfectly conscious that the difficulty in the way of my engaging in a chess-match is one over which I have no control. You were distinctly appraised, in answer to the extraordinary proposal of your friends that I should leave my home, family, and avocations, to proceed to New Orleans for the purpose of playing chess with you, that a long and arduous contest, even in London, would be an undertaking too formidable for me to embark in without ample opportunity for the recovery of my old strength in play, together with such arrangements as would prevent the sacrifice of my professional engagements. Upon your unexpected arrival here, the same thing was repeated to you, and my acceptance of your challenge was entirely conditional on my being able to gain time for practice.
The experience, however, of some weeks, during which I have labored unceasingly, to the serious injury of my health, shows that not only is it impracticable for me to save time for that purpose, but that by no means short of giving up a great work on which I am engaged, subjecting the publishers to the loss of thousands, and myself to an action for breach of contract, could I obtain time even for the match itself. Such a sacrifice is, of course, out of all question.
A match at chess or cricket may be a good thing in its way, but none but a madman would for either forfeit his engagements and imperil his professional reputation. Under these circumstances, I waited only the termination of your late struggle with Mr. Harrwitz, to explain that, fettered as I am at this moment, it is impossible for me to undertake any enterprise which would have the effect of withdrawing me from duties I am pledged to fulfil.
The result is not, perhaps, what either you or I desired, as it will occasion disappointment to many; but it is unavoidable, and the less to be regretted, since a contest, wherein one of the combatants must fight under disadvantages so manifest as those I should have to contend against, after many years retirement from practical chess, with my attention absorbed and my brain overtaxed by more important pursuits, could never be accounted a fair trial of skill.
I have the honor to be,
Yours, &c. H. Staunton
Paul Morphy, Esq.
P.S. I may add that, although denied the satisfaction of a set encounter with you at this period, I shall have much pleasure, if you will again become my guest, in playing you a few games sans façon.
Morphy was now determined that all communications concerning the match be public and aboveboard, and did not even acknowledge receipt of the letter. The following week, on October 16, Staunton placed the following notice in the correspondence section of his chess column:
P.M., Paris—Mr. Morphy’s games this week exclude both his letter and Mr. Staunton’s reply. If we can spare space for them, they shall be given in the next number.
October 23 came and the Illustrated London News carried Morphy’s letter and Staunton’s reply. But while Staunton’s reply was given in full, two important paragraphs of Morphy’s letter had been deleted, one of which quoted from Staunton’s damaging “Anti-book” statement. And so the readers of Staunton’s chess column, the most widely read of all, saw only Morphy’s abbreviated letter. Even some American papers got only Staunton’s version. Without doubt, he thought the matter would go no further, at least from Morphy, and he judged Morphy well.
Heretofore, public discussion of Morphy’s doings and his prospective chess match with Staunton had been confined to editors of the press. But now anonymous letters appeared, attacking Morphy for again asking Staunton to fix “the exact date” for their match. Suspicions were voiced that the anonymous writers were perhaps Staunton himself, but in any case it was surprising that Morphy’s letter could generate such derogatory invectives as “young adventurer,” “Morphy’s jeremiads sound ineffably absurd,” “vanity of an antagonist,” and “does not speak much for that man’s sense of honor.”
All but one of the papers, apart from the Illustrated London News, refused to print them. Bell’s Life in London published two of them on October 17, one signed “M.A.” and the other “Fair Play.” (These letters will be found in the Appendix, together with two letters in Morphy’s defense—one from Edge and one signed “Pawn and Two.”) After giving the “M.A.” and “Fair Play” letters, the chess editor of Bell’s Life in London, George Walker, appended the following:
We regret these lucubrations are anonymous, as not showing how far they really represent the opinions of Mr. Staunton himself and his friends on the subject. Regarding their style and phraseology Mr. Staunton may perhaps ask to be saved from his friends, but that is matter of taste. . . . Inferiority once admitted, no matter from what cause, if Mr. Staunton takes the ground indicated in the above epistles, Mr. Morphy has but cheerfully and quietly to drop the subject, and will certainly as a gentleman never challenge Mr. Staunton again. Morphy’s friends may still reasonably inquire why all this was not said in June last, instead of giving apparent acceptance to the young American�
��s challenge.
Morphy refused to be drawn into any newspaper discussion, but several friends would not let the “M.A.” and “Fair Play” letters go unanswered, and four of their replies appeared in the October 24 issue of Bell’s Life in London. The first of the four letters was by Edge, who summed up the whole matter as follows:
1. Mr. Morphy came to Europe to play Mr. Staunton.
2. Mr. Staunton made everybody believe he had accepted the challenge from Mr. Morphy.
3. Mr. Staunton allowed the St. George’s Chess Club to raise the money to back him.
4. Mr. Staunton asked for a delay of one month, in order to brush up his openings and endings.
5. Mr. Staunton requested a postponement until after the Birmingham meeting.
6. Mr. Staunton fixed the beginning of November for the commencement of the match.
If all this do[es] not mean “I will play,” then is there no meaning in language. I beg to subscribe myself, Mr. Editor, most respectfully yours.
Frederick Milne Edge
Hotel Breteuil, Paris, Oct. 20, 1858
It was true that Staunton, by publishing his October 23 reply to Morphy’s letter, had now publicly stated that he would not contest him in a match. But Morphy was concerned that Staunton might later find that he could arrange to play a match at a time when it might be impossible for Morphy to alter his departure plans. Staunton had added in his postscript that he could not play “at this period” of time, but might he find some way to transfer the failure of the match to materialize to Morphy?
It would seem that Staunton’s final attitude toward Morphy was fore-shadowed by earlier comments in his chess column, when he said, “Mr. Morphy came to this country unattended by seconds or bottleholder” on August 7, and later when he said Morphy was “unfurnished in both respects,” i.e., seconds and funds. Had Morphy taken public notice of the first remark perhaps the second would not have been made. However, Morphy had chosen to ignore all such remarks.