Part 1 (2/2)
It may be instructive now to inquire as to the antiquity of the ”old English game” from which baseball is said to have sprung. Deferring for the present the consideration of its resemblance to base-ball, what proof have we of its venerable existence? Looking, primarily, to the first editions of old English authorities on out-door sports, I have been unable to find any record that such a game as ”rounders” was known.
I may have been unfortunate in my searches, for, though I have exhausted every available source of information, I have not discovered any mention of it.
The first standard English writer to speak of rounders is ”Stonehenge”
in his Manual of Sports, London, 1856. Since then almost every English work on out-door sports describes the ”old [with an emphasis] English game of rounders,” and in the same connection declares it to be the germ of the American base-ball; and yet, curiously enough, not one of them gives us any authority even for dubbing it ”old,” much less for calling it the origin of our game. But in 1856 base-ball had been played here for many years; it had already attracted attention as the popular sport, and by 1860 was known in slightly differing forms all over the country.
To all these later English writers, therefore, its existence and general principles must have been familiar, and it is consequently remarkable that, in view of their claim, they have given us no more particulars of the game of rounders. Are we to accept this a.s.sertion without reserve, when an investigation would seem to indicate that baseball is really the older game? If this English game was then a common school-boy sport, as now claimed, it seems almost incredible that it should have escaped the notice of all the writers of the first half of the century; and yet no sooner does base-ball become famous as the American game than English writers discover that there is an old and popular English game from which it is descended. Many of the games which the earlier writers describe are extremely simple as compared with rounders, and yet the latter game is entirely overlooked!
But upon what ground have these later writers based their a.s.sumption?
Many, doubtless, have simply followed the writings from this side of the Atlantic; others have been misled by their ignorance of the actual age of our game, for there are even many Americans who think base-ball was introduced by the Knickerbocker and following clubs; a few, with the proverbial insular idea, have concluded that base-ball must be of English origin, if for no other reason, because it ought to be.
It is not my intention to declare the old game of rounders a myth. There is ample living testimony to its existence as early perhaps as 1830, but that it was a popular English game before base-ball was played here I am not yet ready to believe. Before we accept the statement that base-hall is ”only a species of glorified rounders,” we should demand some proof that the latter is really the older game. In this connection it will be important to remember that there were two English games called ”rounders,” but entirely distinct the one from the other. Johnson's Dictionary, edition of 1876, describes the first, and presumably the older, as similar to ”fives” or hand-ball, while the second is the game supposed to be allied to base-ball. ”Fives” is one of the oldest of games, and if it or a similar game was called ”rounders,” it will require something more than the mere occurrence of the name in some old writing to prove that the game referred to is the ”rounders” as now played. And if this cannot be shown, why might we not claim, with as much reason as the other theory has been maintained, that the ”old English game of rounders” is only a poor imitation of the older American game of base-ball?
Up to this point we have waived the question of resemblance between the two games, but let us now inquire what are the points of similarity.
Are these, after all, so striking as to warrant the a.s.sumption that one game was derived from the other, no matter which may be shown to be the older? In each there are ”sides;” the ball is tossed to the striker, who hits it with a bat; he is out if the ball so hit is caught; he runs to different bases in succession and may be put out if hit by the ball when between the bases. But with this the resemblance ceases. In base-ball nine men const.i.tute a side, while in rounders there may be any number over three. In base-ball there are four bases (including the home), and the field is a diamond. In rounders the bases are five in number and the field a pentagon in shape. There is a fair and foul hit in base-ball, while in rounders no such thing is known. In rounders if a ball is struck at and missed, or if hit so that it falls back of the striker, he is out, while in base-ball the ball must be missed three times and the third one caught in order to retire the striker; and a foul, unless caught like any other ball, has no effect and is simply declared ”dead.”
In rounders the score is reckoned by counting one for each base made, and some of the authorities say the run is completed when the runner has reached the base next on the left of the one started from. In base-ball one point is scored only when the runner has made every base in succession and returned to the one from which he started. In rounders every player on the side must be put out before the other side can come in, while in base-ball from time immemorial the rule has been ”three out, all out.” The distinctive feature of rounders, and the one which gives it its name, is that when all of a side except two have been retired, one of the two remaining may call for ”the rounder;” that is, he is allowed three hits at the ball, and if in any one of these he can make the entire round of the bases, all the players of his side are reinstated as batters. No such feature as this was ever heard of in base-ball, yet, as said, it is the characteristic which gives to rounders its name, and any derivation of that game must certainly have preserved it.
If the points of resemblance were confined solely to these two games it would prove nothing except that boys' ideas as well as men's often run in the same channels. The very ancient game of bandy ball has its double in an older Persian sport, and the records of literary and mechanical invention present some curious coincidences. But, as a matter of fact, every point common to these two, games was known and used long before in other popular sports. That the ball was tossed to the bat to be hit was true of a number of other games, among which were club ball, tip cat, and cricket; in both of the latter and also in stool ball bases were run, and in tip cat, a game of much greater antiquity than either base- ball or rounders, the runner was out if hit by the ball when between bases. In all of these games the striker was out if the ball when hit was caught. Indeed, a comparison will show that there are as many features of base-ball common to cricket or tip cat as there are to rounders.
In view, then, of these facts, that the points of similarity are not distinctive, and that the points of difference are decidedly so, I can see no reason in a.n.a.logy to say that one game is descended from the other, no matter which may be shown to be the older.
There was a game known in some parts of this country fifty or more years ago called town-ball. In 1831 a club was regularly organized in Philadelphia to play the game, and it is recorded that the first day for practice enough members were not present to make up town-ball, and so a game of ”two-old-cat” was played. This town-ball was so nearly like rounders that one must have been the prototype of the other, but town- ball and base-ball were two very different games. When this same town- ball club decided in 1860 to adopt base-ball instead, many of its princ.i.p.al members resigned, so great was the enmity to the latter game.
Never, until recently, was the a.s.sertion made that base-ball was a development of town-ball, and it could not have been done had the writers looked up at all the historical facts.
The latest attempt to fasten an English tab on the American game is noteworthy. Not content to stand by the theory that our game is sprung from the English rounders, it is now intimated that baseball itself, the same game and under the same name, is of English origin. To complete the chain, it is now only necessary for some English writer to tell us that ”in 1845 a number of English gentlemen sojourning in New York organized a club called the Knickbockers, and introduced to Americans the old English game of base-ball.” This new departure has not yet gained much headway, but it must be noticed on account of the circ.u.mstances of its appearance.
The edition of Chambers' Encyclopedia just out, in its article on ”base- ball” says that the game was mentioned in Miss Austen's Northanger Abbey, written about 1798, and leaves us to infer that it was the same game that we now know by that name. It was not necessary to go into the realm of fiction to find this ancient use of the name. A writer to the London Times in 1874 pointed out that in 1748 the family of Frederick, Prince of Wales, were represented as engaged in a game of base-ball.
Miss Austen refers to base-ball as played by the daughters of ”Mrs.
Morland,” the eldest of whom was fourteen. In Elaine's Rural Sports, London, 1852, in an introduction to ball games in general, occurs this pa.s.sage: ”There are few of us of either s.e.x but have engaged in base- ball since our majority.” Whether in all these cases the same game was meant matters not, and it is not established by the mere ident.i.ty of names. ”Base,” as meaning a place of safety, dates its origin from the game of ”prisoners' base” long before anything in the shape of base-ball or rounders; so that any game of ball in which bases were a feature would likely be known by that name. The fact that in the three instances in which we find the name mentioned it is always a game for girls or women, would justify the suspicion that it was not always the same game, and that it in any way resembled our game is not to be imagined. Base- ball in its mildest form is essentially a robust game, and it would require an elastic imagination to conceive of little girls possessed of physical powers such as its play demands.
Besides, if the English base-ball of 1748, 1798, and 1852 were the same as our base-ball we would have been informed of that fact long ago, and it would never have been necessary to attribute the origin of our game to rounders. And when, in 1874, the American players were introducing base-ball to Englishmen, the patriotic Britain would not have said, as he then did, that our game was ”only rounders with the rounder left out,” but he would at once have told us that base-ball itself was an old English game.
But this latest theory is altogether untenable and only ent.i.tled to consideration on account of the authority under which it is put forth.
In a little book called Jolly Games for Happy Homes, London, 1875, dedicated to ”wee little babies and grown-up ladies,” there is described a game called ”base-ball.” It is very similar in its essence to our game and is probably a reflection of it. It is played by a number of girls in a garden or field. Having chosen sides, the ”leader” of the ”out” side tosses the ball to one of the ”ins,” who strikes it with her hand and then scampers for the trees, posts, or other objects previously designated as bases. Having recovered the ball, the ”scouts,” or those on the ”outs,” give chase and try to hit the fleeing one at a time when she is between bases. There must be some other means, not stated, for putting out the side; the ability to throw a ball with accuracy is vouchsafed to few girls, and if the change of innings depended upon this, the game, like a Chinese play, would probably never end. It is described, however, as a charming pastime, and, notwithstanding its simplicity, is doubtless a modern English conception of our National Game.
To recapitulate briefly, the a.s.sertion that base-ball is descended from rounders is a pure a.s.sumption, unsupported even by proof that the latter game antedates the former and unjustified by any line of reasoning based upon the likeness of the games. The other attempt to declare base-ball itself an out-and-out English game is scarcely worthy of serious consideration.
But if base-ball is neither sprung from rounders nor taken bodily from another English game, what is its origin? I believe it to be a fruit of the inventive genius of the American boy. Like our system of government, it is an American evolution, and while, like that, it has doubtless been affected by foreign a.s.sociations, it is none the less distinctively our own. Place in the hands of youth a ball and bat, and they will invent games of ball, and that these will be affected by other familiar games and in many respects resemble them, goes without saving.
The tradition among the earliest players of the game now living, is that the root from which came our present base-ball was the old-time American game of ”cat-ball.” This was the original American ball game, and the time when it was not played here is beyond the memory of living man.
There were two varieties of the game, the first called ”one-old-cat,” or one-cornered-cat, and the other ”two-old-cat.”
<script>