Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Hartston seems to be sugar-coating the issue a
bit, doesn't it? Lawson (pg 292) also seems to
indicate that there was no evidence of any
disturbance in Morphy's mind before 1875,

_
I would agree that Hartston is somewhat careless
about chronology, but, at the moment, I can find
no Lawson quote that could reasonably be taken
as indicating that there is no evidence of any
disturbance in Morphy's mind before 1875. In
what I could find, Lawson seemed to me to be
indicating that the dating of Morphy's mental
problems is approximate. Lawson himself mentioned
the 1873 Woodbury letter.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Do you really think that Paul Morphy was well at
any time from 1873 until his death?

_
Depends on what one means by well. In 1877, Maurian
wrote that Morphy was "practicing law". Can we rule
out that this was true?


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

I imagine that his illness started well before this,
though excuses were made for him; distraught over
the war, loss of fortune, etc.

_
Imagination is no substitute for fact. If there were
instances of illness well before 1873, where are
the reports of them, with or without excuses?


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Hard to pin down when his illness started, but
Hartston's quote seems to underplay it considerably.

_
It seems to me that "considerably" has not yet
been established.

Anyway, this discussion was originally about the
notion that "given the medical knowledge of the time,
it was very rational to believe that blindfold chess
.... drove Morphy crazy". It may be true that "after
Morphy's death ... there was a feeling" expressed by
some "that his blindfold stunts had caused his insanity",
but one must ask whether this opinion was held by
anyone properly acquainted with the chronology of
Morphy's life. Few were better acquainted with
Morphy than Maurian, and he seemed to think that
chess had "nothing to do with [Morphy's derangement]".

In article t.com, Louis Blair writes:
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| Hartston seems to be sugar-coating the issue a
| bit, doesn't it? Lawson (pg 292) also seems to
| indicate that there was no evidence of any
| disturbance in Morphy's mind before 1875,

Perhaps I am reading too much into the line on pg 292 "It was in 1875 that
Maurian first began to notice some strange talk by Morphy as mentioned in his
letter below."
|
| _
| I would agree that Hartston is somewhat careless
| about chronology, but, at the moment, I can find
| no Lawson quote that could reasonably be taken
| as indicating that there is no evidence of any
| disturbance in Morphy's mind before 1875. In
| what I could find, Lawson seemed to me to be
| indicating that the dating of Morphy's mental
| problems is approximate. Lawson himself mentioned
| the 1873 Woodbury letter.

I am not, in general, trying to be critical of Lawson's biograhy, which I feel is
very well done. Nevertheless, I think there is a tendency, quite common even in
good biographies, to be overly generous to the point of view of the person
studied. For example, pm page 282, Lawson states that "It is almost certain that
his success at the chessboard worked against his success at the bar." I disagree
strongly. As the son of a prominent lawyer and as a celebrity, Morphy had
advantages other potential lawyers could only dream of; that he did not benefit
from them needs some other explanation, in my opinion.

|
|
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| Do you really think that Paul Morphy was well at
| any time from 1873 until his death?
|
| _
| Depends on what one means by well. In 1877, Maurian
| wrote that Morphy was "practicing law". Can we rule
| out that this was true?
|
|
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| I imagine that his illness started well before this,
| though excuses were made for him; distraught over
| the war, loss of fortune, etc.
|
| _
| Imagination is no substitute for fact. If there were
| instances of illness well before 1873, where are
| the reports of them, with or without excuses?
|

Nothing as clear as direct evidence of irrational behavior, but there is enough
remarkable behavior so that it seems to be too simple to say that there was no
evidence of any disturbance before 1875 (or 1873, if we start with Woodbury's
letter).

Examples:
December 1862 (pg 273 Lawson): when declining all chess offers, the NY Times
correspondent sees fit to mention that Morphy says that "He has also matters of
more importance to occupy his mind, and seems to be in feeble health."

February 1863 (pg 275): Declining to go to Vienna and earn money with chess
giving as one key reason that he is too caught up following the course of the
war. Instead, he pawns a watch for getting a large loan from Riviere. This
strikes me at least as odd behavior, though it wouldn't get him institutionalized
of course.

1867 (page 286): .. "his mother grew concerned about his monotonous and melancholy
life" (so decides to take him to Paris). At the least, this hints at a fairly
severe depression.

1867 (page 287, from a letter recalling Morphy in Paris): "Events had proved
disastrous to his parents, and also blighted his prospects, which had such a
depressing influence on his over-wrought mind, that it perfectly paralyzed his
energies."

This does not sound like a healthy person to me. Many people suffered much worse
in the Civil War, and Morphy had opportunities available to few others; he just
chose not to take advantage of them.

Lawson says that we know very little of what Morphy did other than chess in 1865
and 66. My best guess is that Morphy's first signs of illness came with bouts of
depression in this period, escalating slowly until they became so severe in 1875
that even his dear ones had to seek drastic measures.



|
| Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
|
| Hard to pin down when his illness started, but
| Hartston's quote seems to underplay it considerably.
|
| _
| It seems to me that "considerably" has not yet
| been established.
|
| Anyway, this discussion was originally about the
| notion that "given the medical knowledge of the time,
| it was very rational to believe that blindfold chess
| ... drove Morphy crazy". It may be true that "after
| Morphy's death ... there was a feeling" expressed by
| some "that his blindfold stunts had caused his insanity",
| but one must ask whether this opinion was held by
| anyone properly acquainted with the chronology of
| Morphy's life. Few were better acquainted with
| Morphy than Maurian, and he seemed to think that
| chess had "nothing to do with [Morphy's derangement]".

I don't think blindfold chess drove Morphy crazy. However, consider the view of
the people at the time. Blindfold chess was considered awesome but a potential
risk. Morphy, after astonishing the world, disappears except for a few
where-are-they-now columns, and the next thing they hear he is apparently insane
at quite a young age. People could not know that later we would find that some
masters could play far more than 8 games blindfold with no apparent harm, and
could quite rationally believe that Morphy was driven insane by blindfold chess.

Jerry Spinrad

(Jeremy Spinrad) wrote in message
...(to Louis Blair):
I don't think blindfold chess drove Morphy crazy.
However, consider the view of the people at the time.
Blindfold chess was considered awesome but a potential risk.
Morphy, after astonishing the world, disappears except for a few
where-are-they-now columns, and the next thing they hear he is apparently
insane at quite a young age. People could not know that later we would find
that some masters could play far more than 8 games blindfold with no apparent
harm, and could quite rationally believe that Morphy was driven insane by
blindfold chess.

Let's suppose that there had been a 19th century woman who had chess talent
that approached Paul Morphy's. Let's suppose further that, without ever
playing any blindfold chess, she had become one of the best chess-players
in the world (comparable to Judit Polgar's ranking today) in a short but
spectacular playing career before she decided to quit chess in favour of
becoming a married woman. Let's suppose still further that, during the
remainder of her brief unhappy life, she had been afflicted by many of the
same woes that have afflicted some great male chess-players until she met
a tragic end by committing suicide while in an evident state of insanity.

Would the presumably misogynistic medical experts of the 19th century (being
unable to foresee the emergence of Judit Polgar) have likely concluded that she
must have been driven out of her wits by having dangerously played chess (which
was evidently not regarded as properly "women's work" or "women's play") at a
level far beyond what was considered 'natural' for a woman's poor brain?

Then would most men of the 19th century have drawn the self-evident
'rational conclusion' that all women must be banned from playing chess
because of the 'evidence' that it tends to drive the 'weaker sex' mad?

--Nick

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Lawson states that "It is almost certain that his
success at the chessboard worked against his success
at the bar." I disagree strongly.

_
I would be reluctant to come to strong conclusions
about a time and place where attitudes were quite
different from what they are today. Even today,
it seems to me that we might notice something
similar. How easy would it be for, say, a
famous singer, to become accepted as a lawyer?


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

As the son of a prominent lawyer and as a celebrity,
Morphy had advantages other potential lawyers could
only dream of; that he did not benefit from them
needs some other explanation, in my opinion.

_
Does Lawson assert that other factors were not
involved? One worth considering (from page
270 of Lawson):

"The men of the good families in New Orleans,
a group to which young Morphy certainly
belonged, were nearly all members of the
'Louisiana Tigers,' the Seventh Regiment of
New Orleans. Morphy had refused to join with
these old-time associates in the attempt
to over-throw the Republic. This brought
him into social isolation." - Putnam


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
I imagine that his illness started well before [1873],
though excuses were made for him; distraught over
the war, loss of fortune, etc.

I wrote:
Imagination is no substitute for fact. If there were
instances of illness well before 1873, where are
the reports of them, with or without excuses?


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Nothing as clear as direct evidence of irrational
behavior, but there is enough remarkable behavior so
that it seems to be too simple to say that there was
no evidence of any disturbance before 1875 (or 1873,
if we start with Woodbury's letter).

Examples:
December 1862 (pg 273 Lawson): when declining all
chess offers, the NY Times correspondent sees fit
to mention that Morphy says that "He has also matters
of more importance to occupy his mind, and seems to
be in feeble health."

_
I see nothing "remarkable" about "feeble health" and
nothing to indicate that the health problem was mental.
Nor is it surprising that Morphy apparently decided
that he had had enough of the petty behavior that he
had experienced in 1857-8.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

February 1863 (pg 275): Declining to go to Vienna
and earn money with chess giving as one key reason
that he is too caught up following the course of the
war. Instead, he pawns a watch for getting a large
loan from Riviere. This strikes me at least as odd
behavior, though it wouldn't get him institutionalized
of course.

_
Again, I see nothing remarkable here. Morphy had grown
up with the attitude (common in his day) that disapproved
of earning money by such things as playing chess. Morphy
had a history of avoiding the appearance of earning
money in this way, arranging to give away the money that
he won. Moreover, if Morphy was having health problems
(physical, not mental), that alone could explain his
reluctance to travel to Vienna.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

1867 (page 286): .. "his mother grew concerned about his
monotonous and melancholy life" (so decides to take him
to Paris). At the least, this hints at a fairly severe
depression.

_
Again, there is nothing remarkable about an unemployed
person being depressed.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

1867 (page 287, from a letter recalling Morphy in Paris):
"Events had proved disastrous to his parents, and also
blighted his prospects, which had such a depressing
influence on his over-wrought mind, that it perfectly
paralyzed his energies."

_
I must object to this quote being cut short. It continued:

"He lost his taste for chess entirely, and Neumann
told us in 1867 that he never could prevail upon
Morphy to play ..."

and on and on in this manner. I see nothing to indicate
that Sheriff W. C. Spens was talking about anything other
than Morphy's reluctance to play chess. What else could
Spens have been expecting Morphy to do in Paris in 1867?


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

This does not sound like a healthy person to me. Many
people suffered much worse in the Civil War, and Morphy
had opportunities available to few others; he just chose
not to take advantage of them.

_
The opportunities from Lawson that Jeremy Spinrad mentions
were all opportunities to play chess.

"[Morphy's aversion to chess] was caused, no doubt,
by his being constantly bored to death by all sorts
of persons who thought it a nice thing to play a game
with the champion of the world, or to ask him in how
many moves he could force mate in a game, or what was
the best way to open the game, or to be kind enough
to solve this or that problem &c, to say nothing of
the mountains of stupid letters he was called upon
to read." - Maurian

"I am more strongly confirmed than ever in the belief
that the time devoted to chess is literally frittered
away. It is, to be sure, a most exhilarating sport,
but it is only a sport; and it is not to be wondered
at that such as have been passionately addicted to
the charming pastime, should one day ask themselves
whether sober reason does not advise its utter
dereliction." - Morphy


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Lawson says that we know very little of what Morphy did
other than chess in 1865 and 66. My best guess is that
Morphy's first signs of illness came with bouts of
depression in this period, escalating slowly until they
became so severe in 1875 that even his dear ones had
to seek drastic measures.

_
There is no doubt that Morphy was depressed, but depression,
under the circumstances, is not remarkable, and, in any
event, is not what people usually have in mind when they
talk about Morphy's mental illness ("persecution mania").

I wrote:
Anyway, this discussion was originally about the
notion that "given the medical knowledge of the time,
it was very rational to believe that blindfold chess
... drove Morphy crazy". It may be true that "after
Morphy's death ... there was a feeling" expressed by
some "that his blindfold stunts had caused his insanity",
but one must ask whether this opinion was held by
anyone properly acquainted with the chronology of
Morphy's life. Few were better acquainted with
Morphy than Maurian, and he seemed to think that
chess had "nothing to do with [Morphy's derangement]".


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

I don't think blindfold chess drove Morphy crazy.
However, consider the view of the people at the
time. Blindfold chess was considered awesome but
a potential risk. Morphy, after astonishing the
world, disappears except for a few where-are-they
-now columns, and the next thing they hear he is
apparently insane at quite a young age.

_
Hardly "the next thing they hear". Upon his return
from England in 1858 he made many many public appearances
- appearances that were described in detail by people
who certainly did not give the impression that they
thought Morphy was having mental trouble. The reports
of mental trouble were more than a decade later.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:
People could not know that later we would find that
some masters could play far more than 8 games blindfold
with no apparent harm, and could quite rationally believe
that Morphy was driven insane by blindfold chess.

_
If Jeremy Spinrad wants to hypothesize that a sufficiently
poorly informed individual might have "rationally" jumped
to such a conclusion, I suppose that we could allow that,
but it strikes me as a bit of a stretch on the meaning
of "rational". Surely part of "rational" includes making
some sort of proper effort to obtain relevant information.
The "escalating slowly" process (extended over more than
a decade) that Jeremy Spinrad has himself hypothesized does
not square very well with the notion of a mental problem
caused by the strain of a blindfold demonstration.

People IN MORPHY'S TIME expressed skepticism about the
strain theory and their writings seem far more rational
to me than those of the strain theory advocates.

Louis Blair wrote:

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

snip



People IN MORPHY'S TIME expressed skepticism about the
strain theory and their writings seem far more rational
to me than those of the strain theory advocates.

Me too. The facts seem to point towards the dislocation of Scottish &
Irish sheep farmers having to make a go of it in the "deep" southern
American regions, becoming successful etc. employing slaves to
accumulate wealth & co. yet, always the 'yearning' for home. Such is
brilliance, & it only came about by the grace of the English redcoat.
Eee! by-gumm! ..

Louis Blair wrote in message
t.com...

Again, I see nothing remarkable here. Morphy had grown
up with the attitude (common in his day) that disapproved
of earning money by such things as playing chess. Morphy
had a history of avoiding the appearance of earning
money in this way, arranging to give away the money that
he won ...

Did Morphy grow up with the attitude, or did he acquire it?

I have wondered whether this aversion to chess in a professional capacity
could have originated from Staunton. Staunton spent time talking to Morphy
in 1858 - I think he entertained Morphy at his home in Streatham - and I can
imagine Staunton projecting himself as a gentleman scholar and disapproving
of the amount of time Morphy seemed to find for chess, to the detriment of
any more serious pursuits such as Staunton was engaged in. (Staunton, of
course, was "poacher turned gamekeeper"!)

Staunton claimed at one stage that the stake money had been a barrier to
their match taking place - a position from which he was forced to retreat -
so I suppose Louis Blair is probably right that Morphy's attitude was one
which he had grown up with. All the same, it seems at least possible that
Staunton reinforced it for him.

Incidentally, I don't believe for one moment that Morphy's mental illness
was the result of blindfold chess. It seems to me more likely the result of
psychological problems, but we really need a psychiatrist at this point.

Best wishes,

John Townsend
Howard Staunton research project:
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/page7.html

Many players disliked the idea of individual chess games being played for money;
they didn't want chess to be confused with gambling, which was controversial in
many countries at the time. Morphy went further than any serious player in
seeming to disapprove of matches played for a stake. Staunton was derided by
some other players for his later position against "professional chess"; I don't
have the exact quote, which appeas in MacDonnell's book, but one player said
something to the effect that he knew Staunton when he was very glad to play for a
shilling? a game.

Exactly where Morphy's attitude comes from is unclear. Lawson sometimes seems to
say that it came from his family, but at other times seems to think that he took
this more strictly than his family did, since they approved of some earlier money
matches. The New Orleans chess club was happy to back him in matches, showing
that it was not an attitude of New Orleans society in general.

I do not plan to respond to Louis' comments on my post, not because I think that
they are beneath comment, but because we simply come down to a different view of
the existing facts. I find Morphy's behavior quite odd, while Louis does not; it
is hard to say more on this.

The one clarification I would make is that I feel Morphy certainly had
opportunities in lawand business as well as chess, if he cared to use his
celebrity as a chess player. People wanted to be seen with Morphy, and all things
being equal would like to have him as a lawyer. Many people would be charming,
tell some chess stories, and make everyone happy; that doesn't seem to be
Morphy's reaction when the subject of chess came up.

This is just my view, but (outside of Morphy telling people, perhaps) the view
that Morphy was hurt in business by being a celebrity in chess is stated by many
people, and does not seem to have any more solid basis than my opposing view.

Jerry Spinrad

In article , "John Townsend" writes:
| Louis Blair wrote in message
| t.com...
|
| Again, I see nothing remarkable here. Morphy had grown
| up with the attitude (common in his day) that disapproved
| of earning money by such things as playing chess. Morphy
| had a history of avoiding the appearance of earning
| money in this way, arranging to give away the money that
| he won ...
|
| Did Morphy grow up with the attitude, or did he acquire it?
|
| I have wondered whether this aversion to chess in a professional capacity
| could have originated from Staunton. Staunton spent time talking to Morphy
| in 1858 - I think he entertained Morphy at his home in Streatham - and I can
| imagine Staunton projecting himself as a gentleman scholar and disapproving
| of the amount of time Morphy seemed to find for chess, to the detriment of
| any more serious pursuits such as Staunton was engaged in. (Staunton, of
| course, was "poacher turned gamekeeper"!)
|
| Staunton claimed at one stage that the stake money had been a barrier to
| their match taking place - a position from which he was forced to retreat -
| so I suppose Louis Blair is probably right that Morphy's attitude was one
| which he had grown up with. All the same, it seems at least possible that
| Staunton reinforced it for him.
|
| Incidentally, I don't believe for one moment that Morphy's mental illness
| was the result of blindfold chess. It seems to me more likely the result of
| psychological problems, but we really need a psychiatrist at this point.
|
| Best wishes,
|
| John Townsend
| Howard Staunton research project:
| http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/page7.html
|
|
|
|
|

I wrote:
Morphy had grown up with the attitude
(common in his day) that disapproved
of earning money by such things as
playing chess. Morphy had a history
of avoiding the appearance of earning
money in this way, arranging to give
away the money that he won ...


John Townsend wrote:

Did Morphy grow up with the attitude,
or did he acquire it?

I have wondered whether this aversion
to chess in a professional capacity
could have originated from Staunton.
Staunton spent time talking to Morphy
in 1858 - I think he entertained Morphy
at his home in Streatham - and I can
imagine Staunton projecting himself as a
gentleman scholar and disapproving of
the amount of time Morphy seemed to
find for chess, to the detriment of
any more serious pursuits such as
Staunton was engaged in. (Staunton,
of course, was "poacher turned
gamekeeper"!)

_
Morphy's feelings about money seem to
have originated before 1858. There is
a well-known story of Morphy giving
money that he won from Stanley to
Stanley's wife in 1857.

On the other hand, Morphy had reportedly
already read Staunton's 1851 tournament
book that declared:

"... if we regard [chess] as an
idle or a gambling pursuit, we
degrade it. Chess never was, and
while society exists, never can
be a profession."

On the other hand, there are reports
from a number of sources that Morphy's
family was opposed to using chess to
earn money.


John Townsend wrote:

I suppose Louis Blair is probably
right that Morphy's attitude was one
which he had grown up with. All the
same, it seems at least possible that
Staunton reinforced it for him.

_
Similar thoughts have occurred to me
as well.

Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Lawson sometimes seems to say that it came
from his family, but at other times seems to
think that he took this more strictly than
his family did, since they approved of some
earlier money matches.

_
It has to be remembered that there was more
than one person in Morphy's family. Reports
of Morphy's early chess activity seem to me
to be pretty consistant in depicting Morphy's
mother as only reluctantly agreeing to his
activities.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

The New Orleans chess club was happy to
back him in matches, showing that it was
not an attitude of New Orleans society in
general.

_
It strikes me as a little questionable to
take the attitude of the New Orleans chess
club as a reflection of the attitude of
New Orleans society in general.


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

People ... would like to have [Morphy] as a
lawyer.

_
Fact or imagination?

"The men of the good families in New Orleans,
a group to which young Morphy certainly
belonged, were nearly all members of the
'Louisiana Tigers,' the Seventh Regiment of
New Orleans. Morphy had refused to join with
these old-time associates in the attempt
to over-throw the Republic. This brought
him into social isolation." - Putnam


Jeremy Spinrad wrote:

Many people would be charming, tell some
chess stories, and make everyone happy; that
doesn't seem to be Morphy's reaction when
the subject of chess came up.

_
To judge from the 1859 reports, Morphy made
people happy for awhile, making many social
appearances in the U. S. and also in France
and England before his return to the U. S.
It was only as the years passed that:

"[Morphy's aversion to chess] was caused, no doubt,
by his being constantly bored to death by all sorts
of persons who thought it a nice thing to play a game
with the champion of the world, or to ask him in how
many moves he could force mate in a game, or what was
the best way to open the game, or to be kind enough
to solve this or that problem &c, to say nothing of
the mountains of stupid letters he was called upon
to read." - Maurian

Louis Blair wrote:

snip

On the other hand, Morphy had reportedly
already read Staunton's 1851 tournament
book that declared:

"... if we regard [chess] as an
idle or a gambling pursuit, we
degrade it. Chess never was, and
while society exists, never can
be a profession."

With all due respect Louis, such a statement by the aforementioned
Staunton is tantamont to boring fartdom & besides is illogical. Given
that Staunton pompously declaimed himself this, that & the next thing &
had no compunction about intimidating 'them' he considered by birth, his
inferiors, it is unsurprising this blowhard failed to consumate his
hot-air, with regard to playing out a match with the brilliant Morph..