Regarding "Meurice's" I had this reply from a helpful French newsgroup:

Oui, il y avait un hôtel Meurice à Paris. Il est situé au 226, rue de
Rivoli. Voici son adresse internet : http://www.meuricehotel.com

Whether the same hotel was there in 1858 is not clear to me.

Regards,

John Townsend

Let me explain why I enquired where Morphy was staying in Paris.

In a letter to "The Field", published 27 November 1858, Staunton wrote:

" ... and, thirdly, because I had already written to a friend in Paris with
whom, through my introduction, Mr. Morphy was living upon intimate terms, an
explanation touching the notice Mr. Morphy professes to be so concerned at;
and from my friend's reply, which intimated that Mr. M. was about to write
to me in an amicable spirit, I of course supposed there was an end to the
matter ..." (Acknowledgement to "Howard Staunton 1810-1874" by David Levy,
1975)

I initially took "living" to mean dwelling with, but it has occurred to me
since that Staunton meant merely that Morphy was having daily social contact
with Staunton's friend.

Morphy subsequently denied that he had any introduction whatever from
Staunton to any friend of his in Paris or France, or that he had any
knowledge of Staunton's explanation, or that he had led anybody to suppose
that he was intending further correspondence with Staunton on the subject.

Can anyone throw light on this mystery, please? Who was the friend? Or
should we accept Morphy's implication that the introduction was a complete
fabrication by Staunton?

Best wishes,

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

John Townsend wrote:
Or
should we accept Morphy's implication that the introduction was a complete
fabrication by Staunton?

There is at least one more possibility: it could also have been a complete
fabrication on the part of Staunton's friend, whoever it may have been.

--
Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath

John Townsend wrote:

Let me explain why I enquired where Morphy was
staying in Paris.

In a letter to "The Field", published 27 November
1858, Staunton wrote:

" ... and, thirdly, because I had already written
to a friend in Paris with whom, through my
introduction, Mr. Morphy was living upon intimate
terms, an explanation touching the notice Mr. Morphy
professes to be so concerned at; and from my friend's
reply, which intimated that Mr. M. was about to write
to me in an amicable spirit, I of course supposed
there was an end to the matter ..." (Acknowledgement
to "Howard Staunton 1810-1874" by David Levy, 1975)

I initially took "living" to mean dwelling with, but
it has occurred to me since that Staunton meant merely
that Morphy was having daily social contact with
Staunton's friend.

Morphy subsequently denied that he had any introduction
whatever from Staunton to any friend of his in Paris or
France, or that he had any knowledge of Staunton's
explanation, or that he had led anybody to suppose that
he was intending further correspondence with Staunton on
the subject.

Can anyone throw light on this mystery, please? Who was
the friend? Or should we accept Morphy's implication
that the introduction was a complete fabrication by
Staunton?

_
This matter was discussed in Edward Winter's Chess
Notes feature #1932. G. H. Diggle came up with
a conjecture about what might have happened. What
I am about to present is an elaboration and slight
modification of what he proposed while trying to
clearly separate what is known from what is just
guesswork:

Known: On August 28, 1858, at a time when Staunton
was still privately putting off the proposed Morphy
-Staunton match, Staunton's Illustrated London News
column portrayed Staunton as waiting for Morphy.

Guess: Knowing that Morphy was going to Paris,
Staunton wrote to Jules Arnous de Riviere, telling
him to expect Morphy.

Known: Frederick Milns Edge's book mentions a
discussion between Edge and the "dame du comptoir"
at the Cafe de la Regence in Paris on September 1,
1858. Edge wrote that he was told that de Riviere
"had just received a letter from a friend in London,
apprising him that [Morphy] had left the English
capital, and was en route for Paris."

Known: Morphy became friends with de Riviere,
even setting out to collaborate with him on a
(never finished) book on the openings.

Known: On October 6, 1858, Morphy sent a letter
that publicly complained about the misleading
August 28 Staunton column.

Known: A considerable public row started with
individuals (calling themselves "Fair Play" and
"M. A.") defending Staunton and attacking Morphy,
while Edge and others defended Morphy and attacked
Staunton.

Known: Staunton sent a private reply to Morphy
on October 9, 1858, making no reference to the
August 28, 1858 column, and informing Morphy
of his decision to cancel the match.

Guess: Staunton wrote privately to de Riviere,
asking him to convey privately to Morphy Staunton's
apology for the August 28, 1858 column.

Guess: De Riviere (on some occasion when
Edge was not present) spoke briefly about
the matter to Morphy, saying something like,
"You know Staunton really is sorry about
the August column," and Morphy replied
with something like, "Never mind," and
indicated that he would be writing to
Staunton.

Guess: De Riviere wrote to Staunton,
predicting that he would soon receive a
letter from Morphy "in an amicable spirit."

Known: Edge wrote that he talked Morphy
out of writing a private letter to Staunton,
arguing that, in view of Staunton's behavior,
all communication should be public.

Known: Staunton's October 23, 1858 column
reproduced part of Morphy's October 6
public letter, leaving out any reference
to the August 28, 1858 column. Staunton's
October 9, 1858 letter (that ignored the
August column matter and announced the
cancellation of the match) was also
reproduced.

Known: The public row continued, touching
on the August column and other matters.
Staunton's November 20, 1858 column
mentioned that he had "written to a friend
in Paris with whom, through my introduction,
Mr. Morphy was living upon intimate terms,
an explanation touching [the August 28, 1858
column]" and that Staunton's "friend's reply
.... intimated that Mr. Morphy was about to
write to me in an amicable spirit".

Known: Towards the end of 1858, Morphy was
having health problems. (The New York Times
mentioned "an attack of the influenza".)
Also, Edge mentioned that he answered letters
that were sent to Morphy.

Guess: Without knowing about Staunton's
contact with de Riviere or Morphy's brief
discussion with de Riviere (and assuming
that he would know if what Staunton had
written was true) Edge wrote on behalf
of Morphy to the Field.

Known: In the Field, on November 27, 1858,
it was reported that "Mr. Morphy had no
introduction whatever from Mr. Staunton to
any friend of his in Paris or France. ..."

Guess: Staunton realized that some might
think it had been an exaggeration for him
to have characterized his August letter to
de Riviere as an "introduction". He also
did not want it to become generally known
that he had admitted that there was anything
wrong with his August column. He therefore
decided to say no more about the matter.

Guess: Morphy was sick of the whole business
and decided not to say any more about it.

Guess: De Riviere realized that he had
perhaps not done an adequate job as an
intermediary and decided not to say anything
about the matter, thinking, in any event,
that by December of 1858, people were getting
tired of the public debate.

I am grateful to Louis Blair for his explanation about the "friend". It
does sound as if the friend was Arnous de Riviere, particularly as Edge
received a message from him that Riviere had had a letter from a friend in
London, i.e. Staunton.

It seems odd that Morphy (through Edge?) issued such an emphatic denial that
there had ever been an introduction, or a friend, or an explanation, or that
he was intending further correpsondence with Staunton on the subject. This
emphatic denial, of course, gave people the impression that Staunton had
made the whole thing up, which is, clearly, not the case.

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

John Townsend wrote:

Edge received a message from him that Riviere had had
a letter from a friend in London, i.e. Staunton.

_
In case I did not make it clear, all that we know
is that Edge reported a reference to a "friend"
We do not know that the friend was Staunton. That
just seems like a good guess.


John Townsend wrote:

It seems odd that Morphy (through Edge?) issued
such an emphatic denial ...

_
Again, the theory is (and G. H. Diggle seemed to
agree with me on this point) that Edge wrote to
the Field on behalf of Morphy without actually
consulting Morphy. Morphy may have been having a
bad day in bed with influenza (doctors in those
days believed in crazy practices such as leeching)
and Edge may have felt that he would have known
about it if what Staunton had described had
happened. Another possibility is that the
friend (whoever it was) did not make it clear
that he was relaying a message directly from
Staunton. Also, certainly it is possible that
Morphy did not know about the letter to de
Riviere that Edge mentioned in his book. Edge
himself apparently did not know who the friend
was.


John Townsend wrote:

... is, clearly, not the case.

_
My opinion is that nothing is "clear" here.
Too much is guesswork. To me, this particular
aspect of the Morphy-Staunton confrontation
looks like communications garbled by the
use of intermediaries. Since nobody seems
to have made any great effort to clarify
matters, I suspect that everyone was at
least a little bit at fault and nobody
was really greatly at fault.