Pre-Steinitz chess

Morphy was far from perfect and blundered, as does every chess player who ever lived.  His place in chess history, however, is firmly establish. Having lived in a time when, and subscribing to the idea that, chess must be little more than a recreation - in that it's role must be subordinate to "important" endeavors (though, ironically, and very unfairly, Morphy was often criticized in the media as having wasted his life on the frivolous enterprise known as Chess) and should be appreciated for creative beauty more than for scientific technique, one can only marvel at the heights Morphy and some of his contemporaries scaled.  To be among the best endgame players in the middle of the 19th century probably doesn't seem such a great thing compared to the abilities of even experts of today. But, as Shibut, who treated Morphy quite dispassionately and without prejudice, wrote about Morphy, that after playing at odds or a gambit, he too often entered his few endgames at a disadvantage.  And it was true of most Romantic players that endgames weren't as common as they are today since combinations, sound or unsound more often eliminated the need for an endgame, just as the connections between openings and endings wasn't so apparent. As Valeri Beim pointed out, players were able to grasp the complexities of Steinitz' (explained) theories far easier than they could Morphy's (unexplained) intuitive simplicity, just as it's often easier to grasp scientific ideas than artistic ones. So, Morphy remained an enigma even into the 20th century.  Philip Sergeant noted that there are two main types of people when it comes to appreciating Morphy - those who idolize him and think he will never be equalled and those who think he has been overrated for various reasons.  The rationale approach, as usual, probably falls somewhere inbetween. I feel Morphy was simply Morphy. As one toaster claimed, he outdid Caesar - he came, he didn't see (he played blindfold) and he conquered. Well, he did conquer everyone he played - great players in even games, lesser ones at often great odds. He never made excuses when he lost and always played for a win.  He only hung around serious chess about 18 months, yet produced games people cherish even today.  Whether he was the greatest chess player ever or an overrated hack seems sort of irrelevant to me. He was Morphy, uniquely Morphy and his games give us great pleasure. . . and that's plenty for me.

Batgirl: what exactly is known about chess literature that was available to Morphy ? I reckon that he would have had access to Philidor's book, what else was there ? Did he have / read Lolli's and Ponziani's manuals ?

There was Bilguer's Handbook, the most comprehensive book of its era I think. I never heard that he had a copy though.

All we kniow for certain was that Morphy owned just a few books and claimed to have never learned anything from a chess manual that he hadn't already intuited on his own. I would seem likely that the Morphys, both Alonzo and Ernest (as well as the New Orleans Chess Club) had chess libraries and subscribed to some chess magazines. Morphy also knew, seemingly by heart, even obsure master games, not to mention the more famous ones, so he apparently played over published games.

Here's the sources:

In his book, The Exploits and Triumphs in Europe of Paul Morphy, Frederick Milne Edge wrote, concerning Morphy and chess literature:

In answer to a gentleman in Paris as to whether he [Morphy] had not studied many works on chess, I heard him state that no author had been of much value to him, and that he was astonished at finding various positions and solutions given as novel - certain moves producing certain results. etc. for he had made the same deductions himself, as necessary consequences. 

In her little 1926 booklet, The Life of Paul Morphy in the Vieux Carré of New-Orleans and Abroad, Regina Morphy-Voitier writes about Maurian's reminiscences at Spring Hill in which he again stresses Morphy's lack of chess involvement.  Additionally, Maurian noted that until the American Chess Congress of 1857,  Paul had only ever possessed five chess books:
Chess Studies by Horwitz and Kling
La Regénce collection of Lionel Kieseritzky
The Chess Tournament by Howard Staunton
Chess Player's Handbook and Companion by Howard Staunton (owned by Maurian)
Treatise on the Game of Chess by William Lewis (owned by Maurian)

Okay, thanks for the info, Batgirl. It would appear then, if these statements are to be believed, that Morphy did not possess some of the endgame manuals that were already published at the time. But then Capablanca said that he didn't own a chess board, which I think we can be pretty sure wasn't true.