+------------------------------------------------+
     |                    Note:                       |
     |                                                |
     | Chinese characters are labeled [Chinese].      |
     | Bold surrounding =text=.                       |
     | Italics surrounding _text_.                    |
     |                                                |
     +------------------------------------------------+





CHINESE POTTERY AND PORCELAIN

_This Edition is limited to 1,500 copies, of which this is_

    _No 669_

[Illustration]

[Illustration: Statue of a Lohan or Buddhist Apostle, T'ang dynasty
(618-906 A.D.)

    Height with stand 50 inches.              _British Museum._
]




    CHINESE POTTERY
    AND PORCELAIN

    AN ACCOUNT OF THE POTTER'S ART IN CHINA
    FROM PRIMITIVE TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY

    BY

    R.L. HOBSON, B.A.

    Assistant in the Department of British and Mediæval Antiquities and
    Ethnography, British Museum. Author of the "Catalogue of the
    Collection of English Pottery in the Department of British
    and Mediæval Antiquities of the British Museum";
    "Porcelain: Oriental, Continental, and British";
    "Worcester Porcelain"; etc.; and Joint Author
    of "Marks on Pottery"

    _Forty Plates in Colour and Ninety-six in Black and White_

    VOL. I

    Pottery and Early Wares


    CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD
    London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne
    1915




CONTENTS


    CHAPTER                                                PAGE

    INTRODUCTION                                             xv

    BIBLIOGRAPHY                                          xxvii

    1. THE PRIMITIVE PERIODS                                  1

    2. THE HAN [CHINESE] DYNASTY, 206 B.C. TO 220 A.D.        5

    3. THE TANG [CHINESE] DYNASTY, 618-906 A.D.              23

    4. THE SUNG [CHINESE] DYNASTY, 960-1279 A.D.             43

    5. JU, KUAN, AND KO WARES                                52

    6. LUNG-CH´ÜAN YAO [Chinese]                             76

    7. TING YAO [Chinese]                                    89

    8. TZ´Ŭ CHOU [CHINESE] WARE                             101

    9. CHÜN WARES AND SOME OTHERS                           109

    10. MIRABILIA                                           136

    11. PORCELAIN AND ITS BEGINNINGS                        140

    12. CHING-TÊ CHÊN                                       152

    13. THE YÜAN [CHINESE] DYNASTY, 1280-1367 A.D.          159

    14. KUANGTUNG [CHINESE] WARES                           166

    15. YI-HSING [CHINESE] WARE                             174

    16. MISCELLANEOUS POTTERIES                             184

    17. MARKS ON CHINESE POTTERY AND PORCELAIN              207




LIST OF PLATES

STATUE OF LOHAN OR BUDDHIST APOSTLE, T´ANG DYNASTY (618-906 A.D.).
_British Museum_ (_Colour_) _Frontispiece_


    PLATE                                                    FACING PAGE

    1. CHOU POTTERY                                                    4

    Fig. 1.--Tripod Food Vessel. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Jar with deeply cut lozenge pattern.
              _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    2. HAN POTTERY                                                     8

    Fig. 1.--Vase, green glazed. _Boston Museum._

    Fig. 2.--Vase with black surface and incised designs.
             _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Vase with designs in red, white and black pigments.
            _British Museum._

    Fig. 4.--"Granary Urn," green glazed. _Peters Collection._


    3. HAN POTTERY                                                    12

    Fig. 1.--"Hill Jar" with brown glaze. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Box, green glazed. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--"Lotus Censer," green glazed. _Rothenstein Collection._


    4. MODEL OF A "FOWLING TOWER"                                     12

    Han pottery with iridescent green glaze. _Freer Collection._


    5. T´ANG SEPULCHRAL FIGURES                                       26

    Fig. 1.--A Lokapala or Guardian of one of the Quarters, unglazed.
    _Benson Collection._

    Fig. 2.--A Horse, with coloured glazes. _Benson Collection._

    Fig. 3.--An Actor, unglazed. _Benson Collection._


    6. T´ANG SEPULCHRAL FIGURES, UNGLAZED                             26

    Figs. 1, 2 and 4.--Female Musicians. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Attendant with dish of food. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    7. T´ANG SEPULCHRAL POTTERY                                       26

    Fig. 1.--Figure of a Lady in elaborate costume, unglazed.
             _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase, white pottery with traces of blue mottling.
             _Breuer Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Sphinx-like Monster, green and yellow glazes.
             _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    8. THREE EXAMPLES OF T´ANG WARE WITH COLOURED GLAZES:
    IN THE _Eumorfopoulos Collection_        (_Colour_)               30

    Fig. 1.--Tripod Incense Vase with ribbed sides; white pottery
     with deep blue glaze, outside encrusted with iridescence.

    Fig. 2.--Amphora of light coloured pottery with splashed glaze.

    Fig. 3.--Ewer of hard white porcellanous ware with deep purple
      glaze.


    9. T´ANG POTTERY                                                  32

    Fig. 1.--Ewer of Sassanian form with splashed glazes; panels of
     relief ornament. _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase with mottled glaze, green and orange.
           _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Ewer with dragon spout and handle; wave and cloud
      reliefs; brownish yellow glaze streaked with green.
           _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    10. T´ANG POTTERY                                                 32

    Fig. 1.--Dish with mirror pattern incised and coloured blue, green,
     etc.; inner border of _ju-i_ cloud scrolls on a mottled yellow
     ground, outer border of mottled green; pale green glaze underneath
     and three tusk-shaped feet. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Ewer with serpent handle and trilobed mouth; applied
     rosette ornaments and mottled glaze, green, yellow and white.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    11. T´ANG WARES                                                   32

    Fig. 1.--Cup with bands of impressed circles, brownish yellow
      glaze outside, green within. _Seligmann Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Cup of hard white ware with greenish white glaze.
        _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Melon-shaped Vase, greyish stoneware with white slip and
      smooth ivory glaze. _Breuer Collection._

    Fig. 4.--Cup of porcellanous stoneware, white slip and crackled
      creamy white glaze, spur marks inside. _Breuer Collection._


    12. T´ANG POTTERY WITH GREEN GLAZE                                40

    Fig. 1.--Bottle with impressed key-fret. _Eumorfopoulos
      Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Ewer with incised foliage scrolls. _Alexander
      Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Vase with foliage scrolls, painted in black under the
     glaze, incised border on the shoulder. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    13. T´ANG POTTERY                                                 40

    Fig. 1.--Pilgrim Bottle with lily palmette and raised rosettes,
    green glaze. KOECHLIN COLLECTION.

    Fig. 2.--Pilgrim Bottle (neck wanting), Hellenistic figures of
     piping boy and dancing girl in relief among floral scrolls,
     brownish green glaze. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    14. T´ANG WARES 40

    Fig. 1.--Incense Vase, lotus-shaped, with lion on the cover,
     hexagonal stand with moulded ornament; green, yellow and brown
     glazes. _Rothenstein Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Sepulchral Amphora, hard white ware with greenish white
     glaze, serpent handles. _Schneider Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Ewer with large foliage and lotus border in carved relief,
     green glaze. _Koechlin Collection._

    Fig. 4.--Sepulchral Vase, grey stoneware with opaque greenish grey
     glaze. Incised scrolls on the body, applied reliefs of dragons,
     figures, etc., on neck and shoulder. (?) T´ang. _Benson
      Collection._


    15. SUNG WARES                                                    48

    Fig. 1.--Peach-shaped Water Vessel, dark-coloured biscuit, smooth
     greenish grey glaze. (?) Ju or Kuan ware. _Eumorfopoulos
      Collection._

    Figs. 2 and 3.--Shallow Cup with flanged handle, and covered box,
     opalescent grey glaze. Kuan or Chün wares. _Rothenstein
       Collection._


    16. SUNG WARES        (_Colour_)                                  58

    Fig. 1.--Bowl with six-lobed sides; thin porcellanous ware, burnt
    brown at the foot-rim, with bluish green celadon glaze irregularly
    crackled. _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Tripod Incense Burner. White porcelain burnt pale red under
    the feet. (?) Lung-ch´üan celadon ware. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    17. TWO EXAMPLES OF SUNG WARES OF THE CHÜN OR KUAN FACTORIES
                                                           (_Colour_) 64

    Fig. 1.--Bowl with lavender glaze, lightly crackled. _O. Raphael
      Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase with smooth lavender grey glaze suffused with purple.
      _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    18. SUNG DYNASTY                                                  66

    Fig. 1.--Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green
    celadon glaze. Northern Chinese. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey
     stoneware, burnt reddish brown, milky grey glaze, closely
     crackled. _Freer Collection._


    19. VASE OF CLOSE-GRAINED, DARK, REDDISH BROWN STONEWARE,
      WITH THICK, SMOOTH GLAZE, BOLDLY CRACKLED. Ko ware
      of the Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection_      (_Colour_) 70


    20. DEEP BOWL OF REDDISH BROWN STONEWARE, WITH THICK,
      BOLDLY CRACKLED GLAZE. Ko ware of the Sung dynasty.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection_                            (_Colour_) 74


    21. THREE EXAMPLES OF LUNG-CH´ÜAN CELADON PORCELAIN               80

    Fig. 1.--Plate of spotted celadon. (?) Sung dynasty.
           _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Octagonal Vase with crackled glaze and biscuit panels
     moulded with figures of the Eight Immortals in clouds. (?)
     Fourteenth century. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Dish with engraved lotus scrolls and two fishes in
     biscuit. Sung dynasty. _Gotha Museum._


    22. VASE OF LUNG-CH´ÜAN PORCELAIN                                 88

    With grey green celadon glaze of faint bluish tone, peony scroll
     in low relief. Probably Sung dynasty. _Peters Collection._


    23. IVORY-WHITE TING WARE, WITH CARVED ORNAMENT. Sung dynasty     96

    Fig. 1.--Bowl with lotus design. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Dish with ducks and water plants. _Alexander Collection._


    24. SUNG AND YÜAN PORCELAIN                                       96

    Fig. 1.--Ewer, translucent porcelain, with smooth ivory white
     glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty. _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase of ivory white Ting ware with carved lotus design.
     Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    25. TING WARE WITH MOULDED DESIGNS. Sung dynasty                  96

    Fig. 1.--Plate with boys in peony scrolls, ivory white glaze.
          _Peters Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Bowl with flying phœnixes in lily scrolls, crackled
     creamy glaze; t´u ting ware. _Koechlin Collection._


    26. T´U-TING WARE, SUNG DYNASTY, WITH CREAMY CRACKLED GLAZE       96

    Fig. 1.--Brush washer in form of a boy in a boat. _Rothenstein
     Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Figure of an elephant. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    27. VASE OF BRONZE FORM, WITH ROW OF STUDS AND MOULDED BELT OF
    _k´uei_ DRAGON AND KEY-FRET PATTERNS                              96

    "Ostrich egg" glaze. (?) Kiangnan ware, of Ting type; Sung dynasty.
     _Peters Collection._


    28. VASE OF BRONZE FORM, WITH BANDS OF RAISED KEY PATTERN         96

    Thick creamy glaze, closely crackled and shading off into brown
     with faint tinges of purple. (?) Kiangnan Ting ware. Fourteenth
     century. _Koechlin Collection._


    29. VASE OF PORCELLANOUS STONEWARE                               104

    With creamy white glaze and designs painted in black. Tz´ŭ Chou
     ware, Sung dynasty (960-1279 A.D.). _In the Louvre._


    30. FOUR JARS OF PAINTED TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE                          104

     Fig. 1.--Dated 11th year of Chêng T´ing (1446 A.D.)
      _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Painted in red and green enamels. (?) Sung dynasty.
      _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Lower half black, the upper painted on white ground.
     Sung dynasty. _Benson Collection._

    Fig. 4.--With phœnix design, etched details. Sung dynasty.
      _Rothenstein Collection._


    31. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE                                               104

    Fig. 1.--Tripod Incense Vase in Persian style with lotus design
     in pale aubergine, in a turquoise ground. Sixteenth century.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Pillow with creamy white glaze and design of a tethered
     bear in black. Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    32. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE                                               104

    Fig. 1.--Figure of a Lohan with a deer, creamy white glaze coloured
     with black slip and painted with green and red enamels. Said to be
     Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase with graffiato peony scrolls under a green glaze.
     Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    33. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE                                               104

    Fig. 1.--Vase with panel of figures representing music, painted in
     black under a blue glaze. Yüan dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase with incised designs in a dark brown glaze, a sage
     looking at a skeleton. Yüan dynasty. _Peters Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Vase with painting in black and band of marbled slips.
     Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    34. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE                                               104

    Fig. 1.--Bottle of white porcellanous ware with black glaze and
     floral design in lustrous brown. Sung dynasty or earlier. (?)
     Tz´ŭ Chou ware. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Bottle with bands of key pattern and lily scrolls cut
     away from a black glaze. Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Bottle with _graffiato_ design in white slip on a
    mouse-coloured ground, yellowish glaze. Sung dynasty.
      _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    35. FLOWER POT OF CHÜN CHOU WARE OF THE SUNG DYNASTY  (_Colour_) 112

    Grey porcellanous body: olive brown glaze under the base and the
     numeral _shih_ (ten) incised. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    36. CHÜN WARE                                         (_Colour_) 116

    Fig. 1.--Flower pot of six-foil form. Chün Chou ware of the Sung
     dynasty. The base is glazed with olive brown and incised with the
     numeral _san_ (three). _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Bowl of Chün type, with close-grained porcellanous body
     of yellowish colour. Sung dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    37. CHÜN CHOU WARE WITH PORCELLANOUS BODY (_tz´ŭ t´ai_). Sung
     dynasty                                                         118

    Fig. 1.--Flower Pot, with lavender grey glaze. Numeral mark _ssŭ_
     (four). _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Bulb Bowl, of quatrefoil form, pale olive glaze clouded
     with opaque grey. Numeral mark _i_ (one). _Freer Collection._


    38. CHÜN WARE                                         (_Colour_) 122

    Fig. 1.--Bowl of eight-foil shape, with lobed sides, of Chün type.
     Sung dynasty. _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Pomegranate shaped Water Pot of "Soft Chün" ware. Probably
     Sung dynasty. _Alexander Collection._


    39. TWO EXAMPLES OF "SOFT CHÜN" WARE                  (_Colour_) 126

    Fig. 1.--Vase of buff ware, burnt red at the foot rim, with thick,
     almost crystalline glaze. Found in a tomb near Nanking and given in
     1896 to the FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge. Probably Sung dynasty.

    Fig. 2.--Vase of yellowish ware with thick opalescent glaze. Yüan
     dynasty. _Alexander Collection._


    40. CHÜN CHOU WARE                                               128

    Fig. 1.--Bulb Bowl, porcellanous ware with lavender grey glaze
     passing into mottled red outside. Numeral mark _i_ (one). Sung
     dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase of dense reddish ware, opalescent glaze of pale misty
     lavender with passages of olive and three symmetrical splashes of
     purple with green centres. Sung or Yüan dynasty.
       _Peters Collection._


    41. CHÜN CHOU WARE                                               128

    Fig. 1.--Dish with peach spray in relief. Variegated lavender grey
     glaze with purplish brown spots and amethyst patches, frosted in
     places with dull green. Sung dynasty. _Freer Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase and Stand, smooth lavender grey glaze. Sung or Yüan
     dynasty. _Alexander Collection._


    42. Two _Temmoku_ BOWLS, DARK-BODIED CHIEN YAO OF THE SUNG DYNASTY
                                                                     130

    Fig. 1.--Tea Bowl (_p´ieh_), purplish black glaze flecked with
     silvery drops. _Freer Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Tea Bowl with purplish black glaze shot with golden brown.
     _British Museum._


    43. THREE EXAMPLES OF "HONAN _temmoku_," PROBABLY T´ANG DYNASTY  132

    Fig. 1.--Bowl with purplish black glaze, stencilled leaf in golden
     brown. _Havemeyer Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Ewer with black glaze. _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Covered Bowl, black mottled with lustrous brown. _Cologne
     Museum._


    44. EARLY TRANSLUCENT PORCELAIN, PROBABLY T´ANG DYNASTY          150

    Fig. 1.--Cinquefoil Cup with ivory glaze clouded with pinkish buff
     stains. _Breuer Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase of white, soft-looking ware, very thin and translucent,
     with pearly white, crackled glaze powdered with brown specks.
     _Peters Collection._


    45. T´ANG AND SUNG WARES                                         150

    Fig. 1.--Square Vase with engraved lotus scrolls and formal borders.
     _T´u-ting_ ware, Sung dynasty. _Peters Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Ewer with phœnix head, slightly translucent porcelain with
     light greenish grey glaze with tinges of blue in the thicker parts;
     carved designs. Probably T´ang dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    46. TING WARE AND YÜAN PORCELAIN                                 162

    Fig. 1.--Bottle with carved reliefs of archaic dragons and
     _ling chin_ funguses. _Fên ting_ ware, said to be Sung dynasty.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Bowl with moulded floral designs in low relief, unglazed
     rim. Translucent porcelain, probably Yüan dynasty. _Eumorfopoulos
     Collection._


    47. VASE OF BUFF STONEWARE                            (_Colour_) 170

    With scroll of rosette-like flowers in relief: thick flocculent
     glaze of mottled blue with passages of dull green and a substratum
     of brown. Kuantung ware, seventeenth century. _Benson Collection._


    48. KUANGTUNG WARE                                               172

    Fig. 1.--Dish in form of a lotus leaf, mottled blue and brown glaze.
     About 1600. _British Museum._

    Fig. 2.--Vase with lotus scroll in relief, opaque, closely crackled
     glaze of pale lavender grey warming into purple. (?) Fourteenth
     century. _Peters Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Figure of Pu-tai Ho-shang, red biscuit, the draperies
     glazed celadon green. Eighteenth century. _British Museum._


    49. COVERED JAR OF BUFF STONEWARE                                172

    With cloudy green glaze and touches of dark blue, yellow, brown
     and white; archaic dragons, bats and storks in low relief;
     border of sea waves. Probably Kuangtung ware, seventeenth
     century. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    50. YI-HSING STONEWARE, SOMETIMES CALLED _Buccaro_               176

    Figs. 1 to 4.--Teapots in the Dresden Collection, late seventeenth
     century.
      (1) Buff with dark patches.
      (2) Red ware with pierced outer casing.
      (3) Black with gilt vine sprays.
      (4) Red ware moulded with lion design.

    Fig. 5.--Peach-shaped Water Vessel, red ware. _Dresden Collection._

    Fig. 6.--Red Teapot, moulded design of trees, etc. Inscription
     containing the name of Ch´ien Lung. _Hippisley Collection._


    51. TWO VASES WITH GLAZE IMITATING THAT OF THE CHÜN CHOU WARE
                                                          (_Colour_) 180

    Fig. 1.--Vase of Fat-shan (Kuangtung) Chün ware. Late Ming.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Bottle-shaped Vase, the base suggesting a lotus flower and
     the mouth a lotus seed-pod, with a ring of movable seeds on the rim.
     Thick and almost crystalline glaze of lavender blue colour with a
     patch of crimson. Yi-hsing Chün ware of the seventeenth century.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    52. WINE JAR WITH COVER AND STAND                     (_Colour_) 186

    Fine stoneware with ornament in relief glazed green and yellow
     in a deep violet blue ground. Four-clawed dragons ascending and
     descending among cloud scrolls in pursuit of flaming pearls; band
     of sea waves below and formal borders including a _ju-i_ pattern on
     the shoulder. Cover with foliate edges and jewel pattern, surmounted
     by a seated figure of Shou Lao, God of Longevity. About 1500 A.D.
     _Grandidier Collection, Louvre._


    53. VASE WITH CHRYSANTHEMUM HANDLES                   (_Colour_) 192

    Buff stoneware with chrysanthemum design outlined in low relief and
     coloured with turquoise, green and pale yellow glazes in dark purple
     ground. About 1500 A.D. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    54. VASE WITH LOTUS HANDLES                           (_Colour_) 196

    Buff stoneware with lotus design modelled in low relief and coloured
     with aubergine, green and pale yellow glazes in a deep turquoise
     ground. About 1500 A.D. Grandidier Collection, Louvre.


    55. MING POTTERY WITH DULL _san ts´ai_ GLAZES                    200

    Fig. 1.--Wine Jar with pierced outer casing, horsemen and attendants,
     rocky background. Fifteenth century. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Tripod Incense Vase, dragons and peony designs and a panel
     of horsemen. Dated 1529 A.D. _Messel Collection._


    56. MISCELLANEOUS POTTERY                                        200

    Fig. 1.--Jar with dull green glaze and formal lotus scroll in relief
     touched with yellow and brown glazes. About 1600. _Goff Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Beaker of bronze form, soft whitish body and dull green
     glaze. (?) Seventeenth century. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

    Fig. 3.--Vase of light buff ware with dull black dressing,
     vine reliefs. Mark, _Nan hsiang t´ang_. Eighteenth century.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    57. SEATED FIGURE OF KUAN YÜ, THE WAR-GOD OF CHINA, A DEIFIED
     WARRIOR                                              (_Colour_) 204

    Reddish buff pottery with blue, yellow and turquoise glazes,
     and a colourless glaze on the white parts. Sixteenth century.
     _Eumorfopoulos Collection._


    58. MISCELLANEOUS POTTERY                                        206

    Fig. 1.--Jar with lotus design in green, yellow and turquoise glazes
     in an aubergine ground. About 1600. _Hippisley Collection._

    Fig. 2.--Vase of double fish form, buff ware with turquoise, yellow
     and aubergine glazes. (?) Seventeenth century. _British Museum._

    Fig. 3.--Roof-tile with figure of Bodhidharma, deep green and creamy
     white glazes. Sixteenth century. _Benson Collection._

    Fig. 4.--Bottle with archaic dragon (_ch´ih lung_) on neck,
     variegated glaze of lavender, blue and green clouded with purple and
     brown. (?) Eighteenth century. Yi-hsing ware. _Peters Collection._




INTRODUCTION


When we consider the great extent of the Chinese Empire and its teeming
population--both of them larger than those of Europe--and the fact that a
race with a natural gift for the potter's craft and a deep appreciation of
its productions has lived and laboured there for twenty centuries (to look
no farther back than the Han dynasty), it seems almost presumptuous to
attempt a history of so vast and varied an industry within the compass of
two volumes. Anything approaching finality in such a subject is out of the
question, and, indeed, imagination staggers at the thought of a complete
record of every pottery started in China in the past and present.

As far as pottery is concerned, we must be content with the identification
of a few prominent types and with very broad classifications, whether
they be chronological or topographical. Indeed, the potteries named in
the Chinese records are only a few of those which must have existed; and
though we may occasionally rejoice to find in our collections a series
like the red stonewares of Yi-hsing, which can be definitely located,
a very large proportion of our pottery must be labelled uncertain or
unknown. How many experts here or on the Continent could identify the
pottery made in South Germany or Hungary a hundred years ago? What chance,
then, is there of recognising any but the most celebrated wares of China?

In dealing with porcelain as distinct from pottery, we have a simpler
proposition. The bulk of what we see in Europe is not older than the Ming
dynasty and was made at one of two large centres, viz. Ching-tê Chên in
Kiangsi, and Tê-hua in Fukien. Topographical arrangement, then, is an easy
matter, and there is a considerable amount of information available to
guide us in chronological considerations.

The antiquity of Chinese porcelain, its variety and beauty, and the
wonderful skill of the Chinese craftsmen, accumulated from the traditions
of centuries, have made the study of the potter's art in China peculiarly
absorbing and attractive. There is scope for every taste in its
inexhaustible variety. Compared with it in age, European porcelain is but
a thing of yesterday, a mere two centuries old, and based from the first
on Chinese models. Even the so-called European style of decoration which
developed at Meissen and Sèvres, though quite Western in general effect,
will be found on analysis to be composed of Chinese elements. It would be
useless to compare the artistic merits of the Eastern and Western wares.

It is so much a matter of personal taste. For my own part, I consider
that the decorative genius of the Chinese and their natural colour sense,
added to their long training, have placed them so far above their European
followers that comparison is irrelevant. Even the commoner sorts of old
Chinese porcelain, made for the export trade, have undeniable decorative
qualities, while the specimens in pure Chinese taste, and particularly the
Court wares, are unsurpassed in quality and finish.

The merits and beauty of porcelain have always been recognised by the
Chinese, who ranked it from the earliest days among their precious
materials. Chinese poets make frequent reference to its dainty qualities,
its jade-like appearance, its musical ring, its lightness and refinement.
The green cups of Yüeh Chou ware in the T´ang dynasty were likened to
moulded lotus leaves; and the white Ta-yi bowls surpassed hoar-frost and
snow. Many stanzas were inspired by the porcelain bowls used at the tea
and wine symposia, where cultivated guests capped each other's verses.
In a pavilion at Yün-mên, in the vicinity of Ching-tê Chên, is a tablet
inscribed, "The white porcelain is quietly passed all through the night,
the fragrant vapour (of the tea) fills the peaceful pavilion," an echo
of a symposium held there by some distinguished persons in the year 1101
A.D., and no doubt alluding to wares of local make. Elsewhere[1] we read
of a drinking-bout in which the wine bowls of white Ting Chou porcelain
inspired a verse-capping competition. "Ting Chou porcelain bowls in colour
white throughout the Empire," wrote one. Another followed, "Compared with
them, glass is a light and fickle mistress, amber a dull and stupid female
slave." The third proceeded: "The vessel's body is firm and crisp; the
texture of its skin is yet more sleek and pleasing."

The author of the _P´ing hua p´u_, a late Ming work on flower vases,
exhorts us: "Prize the porcelain and disdain gold and silver. Esteem pure
elegance."

In their admiration of antiques the Chinese yield to none, and nowhere
have private collections been more jealously guarded and more difficult of
access. Even in the sixteenth century relatively large sums were paid for
Sung porcelains, and £30 was not too much for a "chicken wine cup" barely
a hundred years old. The ownership of a choice antique--say, of the Sung
dynasty--made the possessor a man of mark; perhaps even a marked man if
the local ruler chanced to be of a grasping nature.

A story is told on p. 75 of this volume of a Ko ware incense burner
(afterwards sold for 200 ounces of gold), which brought a man to
imprisonment and torture in the early Ming period; and, if the newspaper
account was correct, there was an incident in the recent revolution which
should touch the collector's heart. A prominent general, who, like so many
Chinese grandees, was an ardent collector, was expecting a choice piece
of porcelain from Shanghai. In due course the box arrived and was taken
to the general's sanctum. He proceeded to open it, no doubt with all the
eagerness and suppressed excitement which collectors feel in such tense
moments, only to be blown to pieces by a bomb! His enemies had known too
well the weak point in his defence.

Collecting is a less dangerous sport in England; but if it were not so,
the ardent collector would be in no way deterred. Warnings are wasted on
him, and he would follow his quarry, even though the path were strewn
with fragments of his indiscreet fellows. Still less is he discouraged
by difficulties of another kind, as illustrated 'by the story[2] of
T´ang's white Sung tripod, which was so closely imitated that its owner,
one of the most celebrated collectors of the sixteenth century, could not
distinguish the copy from the original. An eighteenth century Chinese
writer points the moral of the story: "When connoisseurs point with
admiration to a vessel, calling it Ting ware, or, again, Kuan ware, how
can we know that it is not a 'false tripod' which deceives them?" The
force of this question will be appreciated by collectors of Sung wares,
especially of the white Ting porcelains and the green celadons; for there
is nothing more difficult to classify correctly than these long-lived
types. There are, however, authentic Sung examples within reach, and
we can train our eyes with these, so that nothing but the very best
imitations will deceive us; and, after all, if we succeed in obtaining
a really first-rate Ming copy of a Sung type we shall be fortunate, for
if we ever discover the truth--which is an unlikely contingency--we may
console ourselves with thoughts of the enthusiast who eventually bought
T´ang's false tripod for £300 and "went home perfectly happy."

In spite of all that has been written in the past on Oriental ceramics,
the study is still young, and it will be long before the last word is
said on the subject. Still our knowledge is constantly increasing, and
remarkable strides have been made in recent years. The first serious
work on Chinese porcelain was Julien's translation of the _Ching-tê
Chên t´ao lu_, published in 1856. The work of a scholar who was not an
expert, it was inevitably marred by misunderstanding of the material,
and subsequent writers who followed blindly were led into innumerable
confusions. The Franks Catalogue, issued in 1876, was one of the first
attempts to classify Oriental wares on some intelligible system; but it
was felt that not enough was known at that time to justify a chronological
classification of the collection, and the somewhat unscientific method
of grouping by colours and processes of decoration was adopted as a
convenient expedient. At the end of last century Dr. S.W. Bushell
revolutionised the study of Chinese porcelain by his _Oriental Ceramic
Art_, a book, unfortunately, difficult to obtain, and by editing Cosmo
Monkhouse's excellent _History and Description of Chinese Porcelain_.
These were followed by the South Kensington Museum Handbook and by the
translation and reproduction of the sixteenth century Album of Hsiang
Yüan-p´ien, and later by the more important translation of the _T´ao shuo_.

It would be impossible to over-estimate the importance of Bushell's
pioneer work; and I hasten to make the fullest acknowledgment of the free
use I have made of his writings, the more so because I have not hesitated
to criticise freely his translations where necessary. The Chinese language
is notoriously obscure and ambiguous, and differences of opinion on
difficult passages are inevitable. In fact, I would say that it is unwise
to build up theories on any translation whatsoever without verifying the
critical passages in the original. For this reason I found it necessary to
work laboriously through the available Chinese ceramic literature, a task
which would have been quite impossible with my brief acquaintance with
the language had it not been for the invaluable aid of Dr. Lionel Giles,
who helped me over the difficult ground. I have, moreover, taken the
precaution of giving the Chinese text in all critical passages, so that
the reader may satisfy himself as to their true meaning.

While Dr. Bushell's contributions have greatly simplified the study of
the later Chinese porcelains, little or no account was taken in the older
books of the pottery and early wares. The materials necessary for the
study of these were wanting in Europe. Stray examples of the coarser
types and export wares had found their way into our collections, but not
in sufficient numbers or importance to arouse any general interest, and
the condition of the Western market for the early types was not such as
to tempt the native collector to part with his rare and valued specimens.
In the last few years the position has completely changed. The opening
up of China and the increased opportunities which Europeans enjoy, not
only for studying the monuments of ancient Chinese art, but for acquiring
examples of the early masterpieces in painting, sculpture, bronze, jade,
and ceramic wares, have given the Western student a truer insight into
the greatness of the earlier phases of Chinese art, and have awakened a
new and widespread enthusiasm for them. An immense quantity of objects,
interesting both artistically and archæologically, has been discovered in
the tombs which railway construction has incidentally opened; and although
this rich material has been gathered haphazard and under the least
favourable conditions for accurate classification, a great deal has been
learnt, and it is not too much to say that the study of early Chinese art
has been completely revolutionised. Numerous collections have been formed,
and the resulting competition has created a market into which even the
treasured specimens of the Chinese collectors are being lured. Political
circumstances have been another factor of the situation, and the Western
collector has profited by the unhappy conditions which have prevailed in
China since the revolution in 1912.

The result of all this, ceramically speaking, is that we are now familiar
with the pottery of the Han dynasty; the ceramic art of the T´ang period
has been unfolded in wholly unexpected splendour; the Sung problems no
longer consist in reconciling ambiguous Chinese phrases, but in the
classification of actual specimens; the Ming porcelain is seen in clearer
perspective, and our already considerable information on the wares of
the last dynasty has been revised and supplemented by further studies.
So much progress, in fact, has been made, that it was high time to take
stock of the present position, and to set out the material which has been
collected, not, of course, with any thoughts of finality, but to serve as
a basis for a further forward move. That is the purpose of the present
volumes, in which I have attempted merely to lay before the reader the
existing material for studying Chinese ceramics as I have found it, adding
my own conclusions and comments, which he may or may not accept.

The most striking additions to our knowledge in recent years, have without
doubt been those which concern the T´ang pottery. What was previously a
blank is now filled with a rich series covering the whole gamut of ceramic
wares, from a soft plaster-like material through faïence and stoneware
up to true porcelain. The T´ang potters had little to learn in technical
matters. They used the soft lead glazes, coloured green, blue, amber, and
purplish brown by the same metallic oxides as formed the basis of the
cognate glazes on Ming pottery. They used high-fired feldspathic glazes,
white, brownish green, chocolate brown, purplish black, and tea-dust
green, sometimes with frothy splashes of grey or bluish grey, as on the
Sung wares. Sometimes these glazes were superposed as on the Japanese
tea jars, which avowedly owed their technique to Chinese models. It is
evident that streaked and mottled effects appealed specially to the taste
of the time, and marbling both of the glaze and of the body was practised.
Carving designs in low relief, or incising them with a pointed instrument
and filling in the spaces with coloured glazes, stamping small patterns
on the body, and applying reliefs which had been previously pressed out
in moulds, were methods employed for surface decoration. Painted designs
in unfired pigments appear on some of the tomb wares, and it is now
practically certain that painting in black under a green glaze was used
by the T´ang potters. Moreover, the existence of porcelain proper in the
T´ang period is definitely established.

One of the most remarkable features of T´ang pottery is the strong
Hellenistic flavour apparent in the shapes of the vessels and in
certain details of the ornament, particularly in the former. Other
foreign influences observable in T´ang art are Persian, Sassanian,
Scytho-Siberian, and Indian, and one would say that Chinese art at
this period was in a peculiarly receptive state. As compared with
the conventional style of later ages which we have come to regard as
characteristically Chinese, the T´ang art is quite distinctive, and almost
foreign in many of its aspects.

The revelation of T´ang ceramics has provided many surprises, and
doubtless there are more in store for us. There are certainly many gaps
to fill and many apparent anomalies to explain. We are still in the dark
with regard to the potter's art of the four hundred years which separate
the Han and T´ang dynasties. The Buddhist sculptures of this time reveal a
high level of artistic development, and we may assume that the minor arts,
and pottery among them, were not neglected. When some light is shed from
excavation or otherwise upon this obscure interval, no doubt we shall see
that we have fixed our boundaries too rigidly, and that the Han types must
be carried forward and the T´ang types carried back to bridge the gap.
Meanwhile, we can only make the best of the facts which have been revealed
at present, keeping our classification as elastic as possible. Probably
the soft lead glazes belong to the earlier part of the T´ang period and
extend back to the Sui and Wei, linking up with the green glaze of the
Han pottery, while the high-fired glazes tended to supersede these in the
latter part of the dynasty.

The high-fired feldspathic glazes seem to have held the field entirely in
the Sung dynasty, and the lead glazes, as far as our observation goes, do
not reappear until the Ming dynasty.

The Sung is the age of high-fired glazes, splendid in their lavish
richness and in the subtle and often unforeseen tints which emerge from
their opalescent depths. It is also an age of bold, free potting, robust
and virile forms, an age of pottery in its purest manifestation. Painted
ornament was used at certain factories in black and coloured clays,
and, it would seem, even in red and green enamels; but painted ornament
was less esteemed than the true ceramic decoration obtained by carving,
incising, and moulding--processes which the potters worked with the clay
alone.

If we could rest content with a comprehensive classification of the Sung
wares, as we have had perforce to do in the case of the T´ang, one of the
chief difficulties in this part of our task would be avoided. But the
Chinese have given us a number of important headings, under which it has
become obligatory to try and group our specimens. Some of these types have
been clearly identified, but there are others which still remain vague and
ill-defined; and there are many specimens, especially among the coarser
kinds of ware, which cannot be referred to any of the main groups. But
the true collector will not find the difficulties connected with the Sung
wares in any way discouraging. He will revel in them, taking pleasure in
the fact that he has new ground to break, many riddles to solve, and a
subject to master which is worthy of his steel.

Apparently a coarse form of painting in blue was employed at one factory
at least in the Sung period,[3] and we may now consider it practically
certain that the first essays in painting both under and over the glaze
go back several centuries earlier than was previously supposed. Blue
and white and polychrome porcelain chiefly occupied the energies of the
Imperial potters at Ching-tê Chên in the Ming dynasty, and the classic
periods for these types fall in the fifteenth century. The vogue of the
Sung glazes scarcely survived the brief intermediate dynasty of the Yüan,
and we are told by a Chinese writer[4] that "on the advent of the Ming
dynasty the _pi sê_[5] began to disappear." Pictorial ornament and painted
brocade patterns were in favour on the Ming wares; and it will be observed
that as compared with those of the later porcelains the Ming designs are
painted with more freedom and individuality. In the Ch´ing dynasty the
appetite of the Ching-tê Chên potters was omnivorous and their skill was
supreme. They are not only noted for certain specialities, such as the
K´ang Hsi blue and white and _famille verte_, the _sang de bœuf_ and
peach-bloom reds, and for the development of the _famille rose_ palette,
but for the revival of all the celebrated types of the classic periods of
the Sung and Ming; and when they had exhausted the possibilities of these
they turned to other materials and copied with magical exactitude the
ornaments in metal, carved stone, lacquer, wood, shell, glass--in a word,
every artistic substance, whether natural or artificial.

The mastery of such a large and complex subject as Oriental ceramics
requires not a little study of history and technique, in books and in
collections. The theory and practice should be taken simultaneously, for
neither can be of much use without the other. The possession of a few
specimens which can be freely handled and closely studied is an immense
advantage. They need not be costly pieces. In fact, broken fragments
will give as much of the all-important information on paste and glaze as
complete specimens. Those who have not the good fortune to possess the
latter, will find ample opportunity for study in the public museums with
which most of the large cities of the world are provided. The traveller
will be directed to these by his "Baedeker," and I shall only mention a
few of the most important museums with which I have personal acquaintance,
and to which I gratefully express my thanks for invaluable assistance.

_London._--The Victoria and Albert Museum possesses the famous Salting
Collection, in which the Ch´ing dynasty porcelains are seen at their
best: besides the collection formed by the Museum itself and many smaller
bequests, gifts, and loans, in which all periods are represented. The
Franks Collection in the British Museum is one of the best collections for
the student because of its catholic and representative nature.

_Birmingham_ and _Edinburgh_ have important collections in their art
galleries, and most of the large towns have some Chinese wares in their
museums.

_Paris._--The Grandidier Collection in the Louvre is one of the largest
in the world. The Cernuschi Museum contains many interesting examples,
especially of the early celadons, and the Musée Guimet and the Sèvres
Museum have important collections.

_Berlin._--The Kunstgewerbe Museum has a small collection containing
some important specimens. The Hohenzollern Museum and the Palace of
Charlottenburg have historic collections formed chiefly at the end of the
seventeenth century.

_Dresden._--The famous and historic collection, formed principally by
Augustus the Strong, is exhibited in the Johanneum, and is especially
important for the study of the K´ang Hsi porcelains. The Stübel Collection
in the Kunstgewerbe Museum, too, is of interest.

_Gotha._--The Herzögliches Museum contains an important series of the Sung
and Yüan wares formed by Professor Hirth.

_Cologne._--An important and peculiarly well-arranged museum of
Far-Eastern art, formed by the late Dr. Adolf Fischer and his wife, is
attached to the Kunstgewerbe Museum.

_New York._--The Metropolitan Museum is particularly rich in Ming and
Ch´ing porcelains. It is fortunate in having the splendid Pierpont Morgan
Collection and the Avery Collection, and when the Altmann Collection is
duly installed in its galleries it will be unrivalled in the wares of the
last dynasty. The Natural History Museum has a good series of Han pottery.

_Chicago._--The Field Museum of Natural History has probably the largest
collection of Han pottery and T´ang figurines in the world. It has also
an interesting series of later Chinese pottery, including specimens from
certain modern factories which are important for comparative study. These
collections were formed by Dr. Laufer in China. There is also a small
collection of the later porcelains in the Art Institute.

_Boston._--The Museum of Fine Arts has a considerable collection of
Chinese porcelain, in which the earlier periods are specially well
represented. The American collections, both public and private, are
especially strong in monochrome porcelains, and in this department they
are much in advance of the European.

To acknowledge individually all the kind attentions I have received from
those in charge of the various museums would make a long story. They will
perhaps forgive me if I thank them collectively. The private collectors
to whom I must express my gratitude are scarcely less numerous. They have
given me every facility for the study of their collections, and in many
cases, as will be seen in tile list of plates, they have freely assisted
with the illustrations. I am specially indebted to Mr. Eumorfopoulos,
Mr. Alexander, Mr. R. H. Benson, Mr. S. T. Peters, and Mr. C. L. Freer,
who have done so much for the study of the early wares in England and
America. Without the unstinted help of these enthusiastic collectors it
would have been impossible to produce the first volume of this book.
What I owe to Mr. Eumorfopoulos can be partly guessed from the list of
plates. His collection is an education in itself, and he has allowed me
to draw freely on it and on his own wide experience. Of the many other
collectors who have similarly assisted in various parts of the work, I
have to thank Sir Hercules Read, Mr. S. E. Kennedy, Dr. A. E. Cumberbatch,
Mr. C. L. Rothenstein, Dr. Breuer, Dr. C. Seligmann, M. R. Koechlin, Mr.
O. Raphael, Mr. A. E. Hippisley, Hon. Evan Charteris, Lady Wantage, Mr.
Burdett-Coutts, the late Dr. A. Fischer, Mr. L. C. Messel, Mr. W. Burton,
Col. Goff, Mrs. Halsey, Mrs. Havemeyer, Rev. G. A. Schneider, and Mrs.
Coltart. A portion of the proofs has been read by Mr. W. Burton. Mr. L.
C. Hopkins has given me frequent help with Chinese texts, and especially
in the reading of seal characters; and my colleague, Dr. Lionel Giles, in
addition to invaluable assistance with the translations, has consented to
look through the proofs of these volumes with a special view to errors in
the Chinese characters. Finally, I have to thank my chief, Sir Hercules
Read, not only for all possible facilities in the British Museum, but for
his sympathetic guidance in the study of a subject of which he has long
been a master.

    R. L. HOBSON.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: In the _Kuei ch´ien chih_ quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix.,
fol. 10.]

[Footnote 2: See p. 95.]

[Footnote 3: See p. 99.]

[Footnote 4: In the _Ai jih t´ang ch´ao_, quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk.
ix., fol. 18 verso.]

[Footnote 5: The _pi sê_, or "secret colour," is used as a general term
for glazes of the celadon type, among which the writer in question
includes all the celebrated wares of antiquity from the T´ang "green
(_ts´ui_) of a thousand hills," the Yüeh ware, the Ch´ai "blue (_ch´ing_)
of the sky after rain," to the Sung Ju, Kuan, Ko, Tung-ch´ing, and
Lung-ch´üan wares.]




BIBLIOGRAPHY


    ANDERSON, W., Catalogue of the Japanese and Chinese Paintings in the
    British Museum. 1886.

    BINYON, L., "Painting in the Far East."

    BRETSCHNEIDER, E., "Mediæval Researches from Eastern Asiatic
    Sources," Truebner's Oriental Series. 1878.

    BRINKLEY, CAPT. F., "China, its History, Arts and Literature," vol.
    ix. London, 1904.

    BURTON, W., "Porcelain: A Sketch of its Nature, Art and
    Manufacture." London, 1906.

    BURTON, W., AND HOBSON, "Marks on Pottery and Porcelain." London,
    1912.

    BUSHELL, S.W., "Chinese Porcelain, Sixteenth-Century coloured
    illustrations with Chinese MS. text," by Hsiang Yüan-p´ien,
    translated by S.W. Bushell. Oxford, 1908. Sub-title "Porcelain of
    Different Dynasties."

    BUSHELL, S. W., "Chinese Porcelain before the Present Dynasty," being
    a translation of the last, with notes. Peking, 1886.

    BUSHELL, S. W., "Description of Chinese Pottery and Porcelain," being
    a translation of the _T´ao shuo_. Oxford, 1910.

    BUSHELL, S. W., "Oriental Ceramic Art, Collection of W.T. Walters."
    New York, 1899.

    BUSHELL, S. W., Catalogue of the Pierpont Morgan Collection. New York.

    BUSHELL, S. W., "Chinese Art," 2 vols., "Victoria and Albert Museum
    Handbook." 1906.

    CHAVANNES, EDOUARD, "La Sculpture sur pierre en Chine au temps des
    deux dynasties Han." Paris, 1893.

    CHAVANNES, EDOUARD, "Mission Archéologique dans la Chine
    Septentrionale." Paris, 1909.

    The _Chiang hsi t´ung chih_ [Chinese]. The topographical history of
    the province of Kiangsi, revised edition in 180 books, published in
    1882.

    The _Ch´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng_ [Chinese]. The
    encyclopædia of the K´ang Hsi period, Section XXXII. Handicrafts
    (_k´ao kung_). Part 8 entitled _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, and Part 248
    entitled _Tz´ŭ ch´i pu hui k´ao_.

    _Chin shih so_ [Chinese] "Researches in Metal and Stone," by the
    Brothers Fêng. 1821.

    The _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_ [Chinese] "A Storehouse of Artistic
    Rarities," by Chang Ying-wên, published by his son in 1595.

    The _Ching-tê Chên t´ao lu_ [Chinese], "The Ceramic Records of
    Ching-tê Chên," in ten parts, by Lan P´u, published in 1815. Books
    VIII. and IX. are a corpus of references to pottery and porcelain
    from Chinese literature.

    The _Ching tê yao_ [Chinese], "Porcelain of Ching-tê Chên," a volume
    of MS. written about 1850.

    The _Cho kêng lu_ [Chinese], "Notes jotted down in the intervals of
    ploughing," a miscellany on works of art in thirty books, by T´ao
    Tsung-i, published in 1368. The section on pottery is practically
    a transcript of a note in the _Yüan chai pi hêng_, by Yeh Chih, a
    thirteenth-century writer.

    D'ENTRECOLLES, PÈRE, "Two Letters written from Ching-tê Chên in
    1712 and 1722," published in _Lettres édifiantes et curieuses_, and
    subsequently reprinted in Bushell's "Translation of the _T´ao shuo_"
    (q.v.), and translated in Burton's "Porcelain" (q.v.).

    DE GROOT, J. J. M., "Les Fêtes Annuellement Célébrées à Émoi,"
    "Annales du Musée Guimet," Vols. XI. and XII. Paris, 1886.

    DE GROOT, J. J. M., "The Religious System of China." Leyden, 1894.

    DILLON, E., "Porcelain" (The Connoisseur's Library).

    DUKES, E. J., "Everyday Life in China, or Scenes in Fuhkien." London,
    1885.

    FOUCHER, A., "Étude sur l'iconographie bouddhique de l'Inde." Paris,
    1900.

    FRANKS, A. W., Catalogue of a Collection of Oriental Porcelain and
    Pottery. London, 1879.

    GILES, H. A., A Glossary of Reference on Subjects connected with the
    Far East. Shanghai, 1900.

    GRANDIDIER, E., "La Céramique Chinoise." Paris, 1894.

    GRÜNWEDEL, A., "Mythologie des Buddhismus in Tibet und der
    Mongolei." Leipzig, 1900.

    GULLAND, W. G., "Chinese Porcelain." London, 1902.

    HIRTH, F., "China and the Roman Orient." Leipzig, 1885.

    HIRTH, F., "Ancient Porcelain," a Study in Chinese Mediæval Industry
    and Trade. Leipzig, 1888.

    HIRTH, F., AND W.W. ROCKHILL, "Chau Ju-kua, his Work on the Chinese
    and Arab Trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, entitled
    _Chu-fan-chi_." St. Petersburg, 1912.

    HOBSON, R. L., "Porcelain, Oriental, Continental and British," second
    edition. London, 1912.

    HOBSON, R. L., "The New Chaffers." London, 1913.

    HOBSON, R. L., AND BURTON, "Marks on Pottery and Porcelain," second
    edition. London, 1912.

    HSIANG YÜAN-P´IEN. See BUSHELL.

    JACQUEMART, A., AND E. LE BLANT, "Histoire de la Porcelaine." Paris,
    1862.

    JULIEN, STANISLAS, "Histoire et Fabrication de la Porcelaine
    Chinoise." Paris, 1856. Being a translation of the greater part of
    the _Ching-tê Chên t´ao lu_, with various notes and additions.

    The _Ko ku yao lun_ [Chinese], "Essential Discussion of the Criteria
    of Antiquities," by Tsao Ch´ao, published in 1387 in thirteen books;
    revised and enlarged edition in 1459.

    LAUFER, BERTHOLD, "Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty," Leyden, 1909.

    LAUFER, BERTHOLD, "Jade, a Study in Chinese Archæology and
    Religion," Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series,
    Vol. X. Chicago, 1912.

    The _Li t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pien_ [Chinese], by Chang Chin-chien.
    1877.

    MAYERS, W. F., "The Chinese Reader's Manual." Shanghai, 1874.

    MEYER, A. B., "Alterthümer aus dem Ostindischen Archipel."

    MONKHOUSE, COSMO, "A History and Description of Chinese Porcelain,
    with notes by S.W. Bushell." London, 1901.

    PLAYFAIR, G. M. H., "The Cities and Towns of China." Hong-Kong, 1910.

    The _Po wu yao lan_ [Chinese], "A General Survey of Art Objects," by
    Ku Ying-t´ai, published in the T´ien Ch´i period (1621-27).

    RICHARD, L., "Comprehensive Geography of the Chinese Empire."
    Shanghai, 1908.

    SARRE, F., AND B. SHULZ, "Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst." Berlin,
    1901-10.

    STEIN, M. A., "Ruins of Desert Cathay." London, 1912.

    STEIN, M. A., "Sand-buried Ruins of Khotan." London, 1903.

    _Shin sho sei_, etc., "Japan, Antiquarian Gallery." 1891.

    _T´ao lu._ See _Ching-tê Chên t´ao lu_.

    _T´ao shuo_ [chch 2], "A Discussion of Pottery," by Chu Yen, in six
    parts, published in 1774. See BUSHELL.

    _Toyei Shuko_, An Illustrated Catalogue of the Ancient Imperial
    Treasury called Shoso-in, compiled by the Imperial Household. Tokyo,
    1909.

    _T´u Shu._ See _Chin ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng_.

    WARNER, LANGDON, AND SHIBA-JUNROKURO, "Japanese Temples and their
    Treasures." Tokyo, 1910.

    WILLIAMS, S. WELLS, The Chinese Commercial Guide. Hongkong, 1863.

    YULE, SIR H., "The Book of Ser Marco Polo." London, 1903.

    ZIMMERMANN, E., "Chinesisches Porzellan." Leipzig, 1913.


CATALOGUES AND ARTICLES IN PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS

    BAHR, A. W., "Old Chinese Porcelain and Works of Art in China."
    London, 1911.

    BELL, HAMILTON, "'Imperial' Sung Pottery," _Art in America_, July,
    1913.

    BÖRSCHMANN, E., "On a Vase found at Chi-ning Chou," _Zeitschrift für
    Ethnologie_, Jahrg. 43, 1911.

    BRETSCHNEIDER, E., _Botanicon Sinicum_, Journal of the North-China
    Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. New Series, Vol. XVI., Part 1,
    1881.

    BRINKLEY, F., Catalogue of the Exhibitions at the Boston Museum of
    Arts, 1884.

    _Burlington Magazine, The_, _passim._

    BUSHELL, S. W., "Chinese Porcelain before the Present Dynasty,"
    Journal of the Peking Oriental Society, 1886.

    Catalogue of a Collection of Early Chinese Pottery and Porcelain,
    Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1910.

    CLENNELL, W. J., "Journey in the Interior of Kiangsi," Consular
    Report. H. M. Stationery Office.

    COLE, FAY-COOPER, "Chinese Pottery in the Philippines, with
    postscript by Berthold Laufer," Field Museum of Natural History,
    Publication 162. Chicago, 1912.

    EITEL, E. J., "China Review," Vol. X., p. 308, "Notes on Chinese
    Porcelain."

    GROENEVELDT, W. P., Notes on the Malay Archipelago, Verhandelingen
    van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, Deel.
    xxxix.

    HIPPISLEY, A. E., Catalogue of the Hippisley Collection of Chinese
    Porcelains, Smithsonian Institute. Second Edition. Washington, 1900.

    HOBSON, R. L., Catalogue of a Collection of Early Chinese Pottery and
    Porcelain, Burlington Fine Arts Club. 1910.

    HOBSON, R. L., Catalogue of Chinese, Corean and Japanese Potteries.
    New York Japan Society, 1914.

    HOBSON, R. L., _Burlington Magazine_, Wares of the Sung and Yüan
    Dynasties, in six articles, April, May, June, August, and November,
    1909, and January, 1910.

    HOBSON, R. L., "On Some Old Chinese Pottery," _Burlington Magazine_.
    August, 1911.

    HOBSON, R. L., AND O. BRACKETT, Catalogue of the Porcelain and Works
    of Art in the Collection of the Lady Wantage.

    KERSHAW, F. S., Note in Inscribed Han Pottery, _Burlington Magazine_,
    December, 1913.

    LAFFAN, W., Catalogue of the Pierpont Morgan Collection in the
    Metropolitan Museum, New York.

    MARTIN, DR., Note on a Sassanian Ewer, _Burlington Magazine_,
    September, 1912.

    MEYER, A. B., "On the Celadon Question," _Oesterreichische
    Monatsschrift_, January, 1885, etc.

    MORGAN, J. P., Catalogue of the Morgan Collection of Chinese
    Porcelains, by S.W. Bushell and W.M. Laffan. New York, 1907.

    PARIS, Exposition universelle de 1878, Catalogue spécial de la
    Collection Chinoise.

    PERZYNSKI, F., "Towards a Grouping of Chinese Porcelain,"
    _Burlington Magazine_, October and December, 1910, etc.

    PERZYNSKI, F., "Jagd auf Götter," in the _Neue Rundschau_, October,
    1913.

    PERZYNSKI, F., on T´ang Forgeries, _Ostasiatischer Zeitschrift_,
    January, 1914.

    READ, C. H., in _Man_, 1901, No. 15, "On a T´ang Vase and Two Mirrors
    from a Tomb in Shensi."

    REINAUD, M., "Relation des Voyages faits par les Arabes et les
    Persans dans l'Inde et à la Chine dans la IX⚭ siècle de l'ére
    chrétienne." Paris, 1845.

    SOLON, L., "The Noble Buccaros," North Staffordshire Literary and
    Philosophic Society, October 23rd, 1896.

    TORRANCE, REV. TH., "Burial Customs in Szechuan," Journal of the N.
    China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XLI., 1910, p. 58.

    VORETZSCH, E. A., Hamburgisches Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Führer
    durch eine Ausstellung Chinesischer Kunst, 1913.

    WILLIAMS, MRS. R. S., Introductory Note to the Catalogue of a Loan
    Exhibition of Chinese, Corean, and Japanese Potteries held by the
    Japan Society of New York, 1914.

    ZIMMERMANN, E., "Wann ist das Chinesische Porzellan erfunden und wer
    war sein Erfinder?" _Orientalisches Archiv. Sonderabdruck._




CHINESE POTTERY AND PORCELAIN




CHAPTER I

THE PRIMITIVE PERIODS


POTTERY, as one of the first necessities of mankind, is among the earliest
of human inventions. In a rude form it is found with the implements of the
late Stone Age, before there is any evidence of the use of metals, and all
attempts to reconstruct the first stages of its discovery are based on
conjecture alone.

We have no knowledge of a Stone Age in China, but it may be safely assumed
that pottery there, as elsewhere, goes back far into prehistoric times.
Its invention is ascribed to the mythical Shên-nung, the Triptolemus of
China, who is supposed to have initiated the people in the cultivation of
the soil and other necessary arts of life. Huang Ti, the semi-legendary
yellow emperor, in whose reign the cyclical system of chronology began
(2697 B.C.), is said to have appointed "a superintendent of pottery,
K´un-wu, who made pottery," and it was a commonplace in the oldest Chinese
literature[6] that the great and good emperor Yü Ti Shun (2317-2208
B.C.) "highly esteemed pottery." Indeed, the Han historian Ssŭ-ma Ch´ien
(163-85 B.C.) assures us that Shun himself, before ascending the throne,
"fashioned pottery at Ho-pin," and, needless to say, the vessels made at
Ho-pin were "without flaw."

According to the description given in the _T´ao shuo_, the evolution of
the potter's art in China took the usual course. The first articles made
were cooking vessels; then, "coming to the time of Yü (i.e. Yü Ti Shun),
the different kinds of wine vessels are distinguished by name, and the
sacrificial vessels are gradually becoming complete."[7]

I should add that the author of the _T´ao shuo_, after accepting the
earlier references to the art, inconsistently concludes: "I humbly suggest
that the origin of pottery should strictly be placed in the reign of Yü Ti
Shun, and its completion in the Chou dynasty" (1122-256 B.C.).

Unfortunately, none of the writers can throw any light on the first use
of the potter's wheel in China. It is true that, like several other
nations, the Chinese claim for themselves the invention of that essential
implement, but there is no real evidence to illuminate the question, and
even if the wheel was independently discovered in China, the priority
of invention undoubtedly rests with the Near Eastern nations. Palpable
evidence of its use can be seen on Minoan pottery found in Crete and
dating about 3000 B.C., and on Egyptian pottery of the twelfth dynasty
(about 2200 B.C.); while it is practically certain that it was used in the
making of the Egyptian pottery of the fourth dynasty (about 3200 B.C.).

So far, the Chinese have nothing tangible to oppose to these facts earlier
than the Chou writings, in which workers with the wheel (_t´ao jên_) are
distinguished from workers with moulds (_fang jên_), the former making
cauldrons, basins, colanders, boilers, and vessels (_yü_), and the latter
moulding the sacrificial vessels named _kuei_ and _tou_. We learn that at
this time the Chinese potters also used the compasses and the polishing
wheel or lathe. With this outfit they were able, according to the _T´ao
shuo_, to effect the "completion" of pottery.

Whatever the truth of this pious statement may be, reflecting as it does
the true Chinese veneration of antiquity, it is certain, at any rate, that
the potter was not without honour at this time: for we read in the _Tso
Chuan_[8] that "O-fu of Yü was the best potter at the beginning of the
Chou dynasty. Wu Wang relied on his skill for the vessels which he used.
He wedded him to a descendant of his imperial ancestors, and appointed him
feudal prince of Ch´ên."

Examples of these early potteries have been unearthed from ancient burials
from time to time, and the _T´ao shuo_ describes numerous types from
literary sources. But neither the originals, as far as we know them,
nor the verbal descriptions of them, have anything but an antiquarian
interest.

The art of the Chou dynasty, as expressed in bronze and jade, is fairly
well known from illustrated Chinese and Western works. It reflects a
priestly culture in its hieratic forms and symbolical ornament. It
is majestic and stern, severely disdainful of sentiment and sensuous
appeal. Of the pottery we know little, but that little shows us a purely
utilitarian ware of simple form, unglazed and almost devoid of ornament.

On Plate 1 are two types which may perhaps be regarded as favourable
examples of Chou pottery. A tripod vessel, almost exactly similar to Fig.
1, was published by Berthold Laufer,[9] who shows by analogy with bronzes
of the period good reasons for its Chou attribution, which he states is
confirmed by Chinese antiquarians. His example was of hard "gray clay,
which on the surface has assumed a black colour," and it had the surface
ornamented with a hatched pattern similar to that of our illustration.
It has been assumed that this hatched pattern is a sure sign of Chou
origin, and I have no doubt that it was a common decoration at the time.
But its use continued after the Chou period, and it is found on pottery
from a Han tomb in Szechuan, which is now in the British Museum. It is,
in fact, practically the same as the "mat marking" on the Japanese and
Corean pottery taken from the dolmens which were built over a long period
extending from the second century B.C. to the eighth century A.D.

The taste of the time is reflected in a sentence which occurs in the
_Kuan-tzŭ_, a work of the fifth century B.C.: "Ornamentation detracts
from the merit of pottery."[10] The words used for ornamentation are _wên
ts´ai_ [Chinese] (lit. pattern, bright colours), and they seem to imply
a knowledge of some means of colouring the ware. As there is no evidence
of the use of glaze before the Han period, and enamelling in the ordinary
ceramic sense is out of the question, we may perhaps assume that some of
the pottery of the Chou period was painted with unfired pigments, a method
certainly in use in the Han dynasty. There is a vase in the British Museum
of unglazed ware with painted designs in black, red and white pigments,
which has been regarded as of Han period, but may possibly be earlier
(Plate 2, Fig. 3).

In addition to the Chou tripod, Laufer[11] illustrates five specimens of
pre-Han pottery, excavated by Mr. Frank H. Chalfant "on the soil of the
ancient city of Lin-tzŭ in Ch´ing-chou Fu, Shantung," a district which was
noted for its pottery as late as the Ming period.[12] This find included
two pitchers, a deep, round bowl, a tazza or round dish on a high stem,
and a brick stamped with the character _Ch´i_, all unglazed and of grey
earthenware. From this last piece, and from the fact that Lin-tzŭ, until
it was destroyed in 221 B.C., was the capital of the feudal kingdom of
Ch´i, Laufer concluded that these wares belonged to a period before the
Han dynasty (206 B.C. to 220 A.D.).

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1        Fig. 2

Plate 1.--Chou Pottery.

Fig. 1.--Tripod Food Vessel. Height 6⅛ inches.

Fig. 2.--Jar with deeply cut lozenge pattern. Height 6¾ inches.

_Eumorfopoulos Collection._]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 6: e.g. the K´ao Kung chi, a relic of the Chou dynasty (1122-256
B.C.).]

[Footnote 7: _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 1. See S.W. Bushell, Chinese
Pottery and Porcelain, being a translation of the _T´ao shuo_, Oxford,
1910, p. 34.]

[Footnote 8: A work of the fifth century B.C., quoted in the _Ching-tê
Chên T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 1.]

[Footnote 9: _Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty_, Leyden, 1909, pp.
10-14.]

[Footnote 10: Quoted in the _Ching-tê Chên T´ao lu_, bk. ix. fol. 1.]

[Footnote 11: Loc. cit.]

[Footnote 12: See p. 200.]




CHAPTER II

THE HAN [Chinese] DYNASTY, 206 B.C. TO 220 A.D.


TWO centuries of internecine strife between the great feudal princes
culminated in the destruction of the Chou dynasty and the consolidation
of the Chinese states under the powerful Ch´in emperor Chêng. If this
ambitious tyrant is famous in history for beating back the Hiung-nu Turks,
the wild nomads of the north who had threatened to overrun the Chou
states, and for building the Great Wall of China as a rampart against
these dreaded invaders, he is far more infamous for the disastrous attempt
to burn all existing books and records, by which, in his overweening
pride, he hoped to wipe out past history and make good to posterity his
arrogant title of Shih Huang Ti or First Emperor. His reign, however, was
short, and his dynasty ended in 206 B.C. when his grandson gave himself up
to Liu Pang, of the house of Han, and was assassinated within a few days
of his surrender.

The Han dynasty, which began in 206 B.C. and continued till 220 A.D.,
united the states of China in a great and prosperous empire with widely
extended boundaries. During this period the Chinese, who had already
come into commercial contact with the kingdoms of Western Asia, sent
expeditions, some peaceful and others warlike, to Turkestan, Fergana,
Bactria, Sogdiana, and Parthia. They even contemplated an embassy to Rome,
but the envoys who reached the Persian Gulf turned back in fear of the
long sea journey round Arabia, the length and danger of which seem to have
been vividly impressed upon them by persons interested, it is thought, in
preventing their farther progress.[13] A considerable trade, chiefly in
silks, had been opened up between China and the Roman provinces, and the
Parthians who acted as middlemen had no desire to bring the two principals
into direct communication.

Needless to say, China was not uninfluenced by this contact with the
West. The merchants brought back Syrian glass, the celebrated envoy Chang
Ch´ien in the second century B.C. introduced the culture of the vine from
Fergana and the pomegranate from Parthia, and some years later an armed
expedition to Fergana returned with horses of the famous Nisæan breed. But
from the artistic standpoint the most important event was the official
introduction of Buddhism in 67 A.D. at the desire of the Emperor Ming Ti
and the arrival of two Indian monks with the sacred books and images of
Buddha at Lo-yang. The Buddhist art of India, which had met and mingled
with the Greek on the north-west frontiers since Alexander's conquests,
now obtained a foothold in China and began to exert an influence which
spread like a wave over the empire and rolled on to Japan. But this
influence had hardly time to develop before the end of the Han period, and
in the meanwhile we must return to the conditions which existed in China
at the beginning of the dynasty.

The hieratic culture of the Chou, and the traditions of Chou art with
its rigid symbolism and formalised designs, had been broken in the long
struggles which terminated the dynasty and banned by the iconoclastic
aspirations of the tyrant Chêng, and though partially revived by Han
enthusiasts, they were essentially modified by the new spirit of the
age. Berthold Laufer,[14] in discussing the jade ornaments of the Chou
and Han periods, speaks of the "impersonal and ethnical character of the
art of that age"--viz. the Chou. "It was," he continues, "general and
communistic; it applied to everybody in the community in the same form; it
did not spring up from an individual thought, but presented an ethnical
element, a national type. Sentiments move on manifold lines, and pendulate
between numerous degrees of variations. When sentiment demanded its right
and conquered its place in the art of the Han, the natural consequence was
that at the same time when the individual keynote was sounded in the art
motives, also variations of motives sprang into existence in proportion to
the variations of sentiments. This implies the two new great factors which
characterise the spirit of the Han time--individualism and variability--in
poetry, in art, in culture, and life in general. The personal spirit
in taste gradually awakens; it was now possible for everyone to choose
a girdle ornament according to his liking. For the first time we hear
of names of artists under the Han--six painters under the Western Han,
and nine under the Eastern Han; also of workers in bronze and other
craftsmen.[15] The typical, traditional objects of antiquity now received
a tinge of personality, or even gave way to new forms; these dissolved
into numerous variations, to express correspondingly numerous shades of
sentiment and to answer the demands of customers of various minds."

Religion has always exerted a powerful influence on art, especially among
primitive peoples, and the religions of China at the beginning of the Han
dynasty were headed by two great schools of thought--Confucianism and
Taoism. These had absorbed and, to a great extent, already superseded the
elements of primitive nature worship, which never entirely disappear.
Confucianism, however, being rather a philosophy than a religion, and
discouraging belief in the mystic and supernatural, had comparatively
little influence on art. Taoism, on the other hand, with its worship
of Longevity and its constant questing for the secrets of Immortality,
supplied a host of legends and myths, spirits and demons, sages and
fairies which provided endless motives for poetry, painting and the
decorative arts. The Han emperor Wu Ti was a Taoist adept, and the story
of the visit which he received from Hsi Wang Mu, the Queen Mother of the
West, and of the expeditions which he sent to find Mount P´êng Lai, one of
the sea-girt hills of the Immortals, have furnished numerous themes for
artists and craftsmen.

It is not yet easy for people in this country to study the monuments of
Han art, but facilities are increasing, and a good impression of one phase
at least may be obtained from reproductions of the stone carvings in
Shantung, executed about the middle of the Han dynasty, which have been
published from rubbings by Professor E. Chavannes.[16] On these monuments
historical and mythological subjects are portrayed in a curious mixture of
imagination and realism.

But these general considerations are leading us rather far afield, and it
remains to see how much or how little of them is reflected in the pottery
of the time.

As far as our present knowledge of the subject permits us to see, there
is nothing in the pre-Han pottery to attract the collector. It will only
interest him remotely and for antiquarian reasons, and he will prefer
to look at it in museum cases rather than allow it to cumber his own
cabinets. With the Han pottery it is otherwise. The antiquarian interest,
which is by no means to be underestimated, is now supplemented by æsthetic
attractions caught from the general artistic impetus which stirred the
arts of this period of national greatness. Not that we must expect to
find all the refinements of Han art mirrored in the pottery of the time.
Chinese ceramic art was not yet capable of adequately expressing the
refinements of the painter, jade carver, and bronze worker. But even with
the somewhat coarse material at his disposal the Han potter was able to
show his appreciation of majestic forms and appropriate ornament, and to
translate, when called upon, even the commonplace objects of daily use
into shapes pleasant to the eye. In a word, the ornamental possibilities
of pottery were now realised, and the elements of an exquisite art may be
said to have made their appearance. From a technical point of view, the
most significant advance was made in the use of glaze. Though supported
by negative evidence only, the theory that the Chinese first made use
of glaze in the Han period is exceedingly plausible.[17] In the scanty
references to earlier wares in ancient texts no mention of glaze
appears, and, indeed, the severe simplicity of the older pottery is so
emphatically urged that such an embellishment as glaze would seem to have
been almost undesirable. The idea of glazing earthenware, if not evolved
before, would now be naturally suggested to the Chinese by the pottery of
the Western peoples with whom they first made contact about the beginning
of the Han dynasty. Glazes had been used from high antiquity in Egypt,
they are found in the Persian bricks at Susa and on the Parthian coffins,
and they must have been commonplace on the pottery of Western Asia two
hundred years before our era.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 3        Fig. 4

    Fig. 1        Fig. 2

Plate 2.--Han Pottery.

Fig. 1.--Vase, green glazed. Height 14 inches. _Boston Museum._

Fig. 2.--Vase with black surface and incised designs. Height 16 inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 3.--Vase with designs in red, white and black pigments. Height 11½
inches. _British Museum._

Fig. 4.--"Granary urn," green glazed. Height 12 inches. _Peters
Collection._]

It is possible, of course, that evidence may yet be forthcoming to carry
back the use of glaze in China beyond the limits at present prescribed,
but all we can state with certainty to-day is that the oldest known
objects on which it appears are those which for full and sufficient
reasons can be assigned to the Han period. To explain all these reasons
would necessitate a long excursion into archæology which would be out of
place here. Many of them can be found in Berthold Laufer's[18] excellent
work on the subject, and others will in due course be set out in the
catalogue of the British Museum collections. But it would be unfair to ask
the reader to take these conclusions entirely on trust, and some idea of
the evidence is certainly his due.

There are a few specimens of Han pottery inscribed with dates, such as
the vase (Plate 2, Fig. 1) from the Dana Collection, which is now in the
Boston Museum; but in almost every case the inscriptions have proved to
be posthumous and must be regarded at best as recording the pious opinion
of a subsequent owner. It will be safer, then, to leave inscriptions out
of consideration and to rely on the close analogies which exist between
the pottery and the bronze vessels of the Han period and between the
decorative designs on the pottery and the Han stone sculptures, and, where
possible, on the circumstances in which the vessels have been found.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the Han pottery which has reached Europe in
recent years has passed through traders' hands, and no records have
been kept of its discovery. But there are exceptional cases in which we
have first-hand evidence of Han tombs explored by Europeans, and in two
instances their contents have been brought direct to the British Museum.
Both these hauls are from the rock-tombs in Szechuan, the one made by
the ill-fated Lieutenant Brooke, who was murdered by the Lolos, the other
by the Rev. Thomas Torrance, to whom I shall refer again. The evidence of
both finds is mutually corroborative; it is supported by Han coins found
in the tombs, by inscriptions carved on their doorways, and by the rare
passages of decoration on the objects themselves, which correspond closely
to designs on stone carvings published by Chavannes. In this way a whole
chain of unassailable evidence has been welded together until, in spite of
the remoteness of the period, we are able to speak with greater confidence
about the Han pottery than about the productions of far more recent times.

The Han pottery is usually of red or slaty grey colour, varying in
hardness from a soft earthenware to something approaching stoneware, and
in texture from that of a brick to the fineness of delft. These variations
are due to the nature of the clay in different localities and to the
degree of heat in which the ware was fired. No chronological significance
can be attached to the variations of colour, and to place the grey ware
earlier than the red is both, unscientific and patently incorrect. Most of
the Szechuan ware is grey and comparatively soft, while of the specimens
sent from Northern China the majority seem to be of the red clay. Some of
the ware from both parts is unglazed, and in certain cases it has been
washed over with a white clay and even painted with unfired pigment,
chiefly red and black. The bulk of it, however, is glazed, the typical
Han glaze being a translucent greenish yellow, which, over the red body,
produces a colour varying from leaf green to olive brown, according to
the thickness of the glaze and the extent to which the colour of the
underlying body appears through it. Age and burial have wonderfully
affected this green glaze, and in many cases the surface is encrusted in
the process of decay with iridescent layers of beautiful gold and silver
lustre. In other cases the decay has gone too far, and the glaze has
scaled and flaked off. Another feature which it shares with many of the
later glazes is a minute and almost imperceptible crackle. This feature
is almost universal on the softer Chinese pottery glazes, and has nothing
to do[19] with the deliberate and pronounced crackle of later Chinese
porcelain, being purely accidental in its formation.

The colour of the glaze shows considerable variations, being sometimes
brownish yellow, sometimes deep brown, and occasionally mottled like that
of our mediæval pottery. A passage in the _T´ao shuo_[20] seems to imply
the existence of a black glaze as well, but it is a solitary literary
reference, and it is not perfectly clear whether a black earthenware or a
black glaze is meant. It was thought at one time that the fine white ware
with pale straw-coloured or greenish glaze, of which much of the T´ang
mortuary pottery is made, was in use as early as the Han period, but I am
now convinced that this is a later development, and cannot be included in
the ware of the Han dynasty.

Among the technical peculiarities of Han pottery, the marks--usually
three in number--of small, oblong rectangular kiln supports will often
be noticed under the base or on the mouth of the wares. These so-called
"spur-marks" were made by the supports or rests on which the ware was
placed when in the kiln. In many cases, too, large drops of glaze have
formed on the mouth of the piece, proving that the vessel was fired in an
inverted position, which directed the down flow of the glaze as it melted
towards the mouth. This is by no means universal. Indeed, the glaze drops
on other pieces are found on the base even when the "spur-marks" appear on
the mouth. The explanation of these apparently contradictory phenomena is
that to economise space one piece was sometimes placed on top of another
in the kiln.

The ornamentation of Han pottery was accomplished in several ways: by
pressing the ware in moulds with incuse designs, which produced a low
relief on the surface of the pottery; by the use of stamps or dies[21];
and more especially by applying strips of ornament which had been
separately formed in moulds. All these ornaments were covered by the glaze
when glaze was used. Laufer has made an exhaustive study of Han decoration
in his book, and it will be sufficient here to give a few typical examples.

On Plate 2, Fig. 1 is a green-glazed vase of typical Han form with two
handles representing rings attached to tiger masks which are borrowed,
like the general form of the piece, from a contemporary bronze. This
vase, formerly in the Dana Collection and now in the Fine Arts Museum at
Boston, has a posthumous date[22] incised on the neck corresponding to the
year 133 B.C.

Fig. 2 is a rare specimen with reddish body and polished black surface
in which are incised designs of birds, dragons and fish, and bands of
vandykes, lozenges and pointed quatrefoil ornaments. It has the usual mask
handles, and stands 16 inches high.

On Plate 3, Fig. 1, is a "hill jar" with brown glaze, standing on three
feet which are moulded with bear forms. On the side is a frieze in strong
relief with hunting scenes of animals, such as the tiger, boar, monkey,
deer, hydra and demon figures, spaced out by conventional waves. This kind
of frieze is frequently found ornamenting the shoulders of vases such as
Fig. 1 of Plate 2, and the animals are usually represented in vigorous
movement, often with fore and hind legs outstretched in a "flying gallop."
The cover is moulded to suggest mountains rising from sea waves (the
sea-girt isles of the Taoist Immortals), peopled with animals.

Fig. 2 is a green-glazed box or covered bowl of elegant form, the cover
moulded in low relief with a quatrefoil design surrounded by a frieze of
animals.

Fig. 3 is an incense burner of rare form derived from a bronze. It is a
variation of the more usual "hill censer" (_po shan lu_) which has the
same body with a cover in the form of hills as on Fig. 1. In this case the
cover suggests a lotus flower in bud, and is surmounted by a duck. The
whole is coated with an iridescent green glaze.

A few choice specimens of green-glazed Han pottery in the S.T. Peters
Collection includes a well-modelled duck, a handsome vase with mask
handles and hexagonal base, and a good example of the "granary urn." The
last is a grain jar which derives its form from a granary tower. In some
instances the tiled roof of the tower is represented by tile-mouldings on
the shoulder; but in this instance the form is entirely conventionalised
into a cylindrical vase supported by three bear-shaped feet. The bear,
an emblem of strength, is commonly employed in this capacity in Han art.
Another ornamental form borrowed from a homely object is the model of a
well-head, of cylindrical shape, with arched superstructure, in the centre
of which a pulley-wheel is represented. The well bucket is usually added,
resting on the edge of the well.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 3

Plate 3.--Han Pottery.

Fig. 1.--"Hill Jar" with brown glaze. Height 9½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._

Fig. 2.--Box, green glazed. Height 5½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._

Fig. 3.--"Lotus Censer" green glazed. Height 10½ inches. _Rothenstein
Collection._]

[Illustration: Plate 4.--Model of a "Fowling Tower."

Han pottery with iridescent green glaze. Height 30 inches.

_Freer Collection._]

Plate 4 illustrates a remarkable structure which seems to represent a
fowling tower. Models of houses and shrines have been found frequently
in Han tombs, showing most of the elements which are combined in this
complex ornament. The structure of wooden beams and galleries and the
roofs with their tubular tile-ridges, the formal ox-heads supporting the
angles of the lower gallery, the ornamentation of combed lines, are all
features which occur in architectural tomb ornaments of the Han period.
Here we have apparently a sporting tower, with persons engaged in shooting
with crossbows at the pigeons which tamely perch on the roof. The dead
birds have fallen into the saucer-like stand below. This rare and curious
specimen is made of green-glazed pottery, and measures about 30 inches in
height.

As already indicated, our knowledge of Han pottery is mainly derived from
the articles disinterred from the tombs of the period, and this will
explain the curious fact that Han pottery was almost unknown until quite
recent times, and that information on the subject in Chinese ceramic
literature is of the most meagre and least satisfying description. The
ancestor-worshipping Chinese have always been averse to the systematic
exploration of graves. Whatever their practice may have been when the
opportunity occurred of rifling a grave unobserved, this at any rate
has been the avowed principle. The result is that though China must be
honeycombed with graves and tombs, they have not been overtly disturbed
in any numbers until recent years, when extensive railway cuttings have
opened up the ground. To the progress of railway engineering the sudden
appearance of considerable quantities of mortuary pottery is chiefly due.

On the other hand, one of our most interesting finds was made away from
the railway in Szechuan. Here, in the neighbourhood of Ch´êng-tu and
along the banks of the Min, the soft sandstone hills which line the
river had in ancient times been extensively tunnelled with elaborate
chambers protected by small entrance doors. Whether these were ever
used as dwellings is uncertain, but they certainly became eventually
the tenements of the dead. The deposits of ages have covered over the
entrances to these tombs, but from time to time torrential rain or some
other cause exposed their approaches to the country folk, who invariably
pillaged them for coins and smashed and scattered their less marketable
contents. The Rev. Thomas Torrance, when stationed at Ch´êng-tu, had the
opportunity of exploring some of these caverns, and even succeeded in
discovering some unrifled tombs, part of the contents of which he brought
over and presented to the British Museum. The funeral furniture of these
tombs varied according to the wealth and status of the owner. In the poor
man's tomb were unprotected skeletons, small images in a niche, an iron
cooking pot, and a few coins. In the rich man's were terra cotta coffins,
encased in ornamented slabs, images apparently of the members of his
household, a quantity of crockery, and a perfect menagerie of domestic
animals and birds. To quote Mr. Torrance's own words:[23] "Standing with
your reflector in the midst of a large cave, it seems verily an imitation
Noah's Ark."

The practice of burying with the dead the objects which surrounded him in
life has never entirely ceased in any country. Among primitive peoples it
has taken the revolting form of immolating, or even burying alive, the
household of a dead chieftain. Instances of this practice in China occur
as late as the third century b.c., and voluntary acts of sacrifice at the
tomb are recorded much later in China as in India. When humaner counsels
prevailed figures of wood, straw and clay were substituted, straw images
being suggested for the purpose by Confucius himself. In the Han dynasty
the tomb of the well-to-do was furnished with models of his house, his
shrine, his farmyard, threshing floor, rice-pounder, his cattle, sheep,
dogs, and poultry, besides his retainers and certain half-human creatures
which may have been his guardian spirits; it was provided with vases
for wine and grain, models of the stove and kitchen range with cooking
pots and implements--the last merely indicated in low relief on the
kitchen range--besides the more stately sacrificial vessels for wine and
incense.[24] All these were modelled in pottery, and must have fostered a
flourishing potter's trade, and given a tremendous impetus to the growth
of modelling and design. The underlying idea of all this was, no doubt, to
provide the spirit of the dead with the means of pursuing the habits of
his lifetime, and the modern practice of supplying his needs by means of
paper models which are transmitted to the spirit world through the medium
of fire serves the same purpose in a more economical fashion. But a fuller
note on the grave furniture of the Han and T´ang periods will be given in
the next chapter.

Little or nothing is at present known of the potteries in which the Han
wares were made, but we may fairly assume that the manufacture was very
general and that local potteries supplied local demands. An incidental
reference in the _T´ao lu_ gives us one solitary name, Nan Shan, where the
potteries of the Emperor Wu Ti (140-85 B.C.) were situated;[25] and there
is a mention of potteries in Kiangsi in the place which was afterwards the
site of the celebrated porcelain centre, Ching-tê Chên.

The interval between the Han and T´ang periods, from 221 to 618 A.D., is
marked by a rapid succession of short-lived dynasties, an age of conflict
and division, in which China was again split up into warring states. The
conditions were not favourable to the steady development of the ceramic
industry, and little is known of the pottery of this period. From the few
references in Chinese literature, however, we infer that new kinds of
pottery appeared from time to time, and it is certain that the evolution
which culminated in porcelain made sensible advances. This latter fact is
proved by the scientific analysis of some vases obtained by Dr. Laufer
near Hsi-an Fu in Shensi. There is a similar vase in the British Museum
with ovoid body strongly marked with wheel-ridges, short neck and wide
cup-shaped mouth, and loop handles on the shoulders. The ware is in
appearance a reddish stoneware, and the glaze which covers the upper part
is translucent greenish brown with signs of crackle. Dr. Laufer's vases
are in the Field Museum at Chicago, where the body and glaze have been
analysed by Mr. Nicholls, the results showing that the body is composed
of a kaolin-like material (probably a kind of decomposed pegmatite) and
is, in fact, an incipient porcelain, lacking a sufficient grinding of
the material. The glaze is composed of the same material softened with
powdered limestone and coloured with iron oxide. An iron cooking stove
found with these vases has an inscription indicating by its style a date
in the Han dynasty or shortly after it; and the nature of the pottery, in
spite of its coarse grain and dark colour, which is probably due in part
to the presence of iron in the clay, seems to show that the manufacture of
porcelain was not far distant.

Meanwhile, there is little doubt that the Han traditions were kept alive,
and the discovery of green glazed ware of Han type in the ruins of
Bazaklik, in Turfan,[26] a site which from other indications appears to
belong to the T´ang civilisation, shows that this type, at any rate, was
long-lived. Two vases from a grave on the Black Rock Hill in Fu Chou, and
now in the British Museum, which are proved to belong to a period anterior
to the seventh century, seem to combine Han and T´ang characteristics.
They are of dark grey stoneware with a mottled greenish brown glaze,
ending considerably above the base in a wavy line, which is a common
feature of T´ang wares.

It is highly probable that some of the tomb pottery discussed in the
next chapter belongs to the later part of this intermediate period.
Indeed among the pottery figures of this class there are specimens with
slender, graceful bodies and elaborate details of costume (see Plate 7)
which closely resemble the stone statues of the Northern Wei and the Sui
dynasties; but with our present imperfect information on the tomb finds,
it will be more convenient to treat these nearly related figures as one
group.

Turning to Chinese literature, in default of other and more tangible
evidence, we read in the _T´ao shuo_[27] of pottery dishes and wine
vessels in the Wei dynasty (220-264 A.D.), and in the _T´ao lu_ of pottery
made at Kuan Chung, in the district of Hsi-an Fu, and at Lo-yang for
Imperial use. The poet P´an Yo, of the Chin dynasty (265-419 A.D.), speaks
of "cups of green ware." The actual words used are _p´iao tz´ŭ_,[28]
of which the former is elsewhere used to describe "the bright tint of
distant, well-wooded mountains," and as a synonym for _lü_ (green),
though, like the common colour word _ch´ing_, it is capable of meaning
both blue and green. The ceramic glaze which most closely corresponds to
the description _p´iao_ is the bluish green celadon best known from Corean
wares, but we have not yet sufficient grounds for assuming the existence
of this particular type at such an early date.

Another poet[29] of the same period bids his countrymen, when selecting
cups for tea-drinking, to choose the ware of Eastern Ou, a place in the
Yüeh territory, and apparently in the neighbourhood of, if not identical
with, the Yüeh Chou, which was celebrated for its wares in the T´ang
dynasty. The period of the "Northern and Southern Dynasties" provides
but two references, to a kind of wine vessel known as "crane cups" but
otherwise unexplained, and to _chün-ch´ih_ of fine and coarse ware,[30]
which appear to have been Buddhist water vases for ceremonial washing, or
_Kundikâ_, which the Chinese have transcribed in the form _Chün-ch´ih-ka_.

Buddhism was making great strides in China at this time. It was proclaimed
the state religion of the Toba Tartars or Northern Wei, who ruled the
north from 386 to 549 A.D., and Buddhist thought and the canons of
Buddhist art were now firmly imposed upon the Chinese. The rock sculptures
of this period visited and photographed by Chavannes show unmistakable
traces of the Græco-Buddhist art of Gandhara; and in one remarkable
instance among the figures which were sculptured round the entrance of a
Buddhist grotto were deities with a thyrsus like that of Dionysus and a
trident like Poseidon's.

In the annals of the brief Sui dynasty (581-617 A.D.), we find that a man
named Ho Ch´ou succeeded in exactly imitating a glassy material called
_liu li_ by means of green ware. The exact meaning of this interesting
passage is discussed elsewhere (p. 144), but it is difficult to imagine
any but a porcellanous ware which could satisfy the conditions implied.
Under the circumstance it is not surprising if theorists see in this green
ware (_lü tz´ŭ_) something in the nature of the later celadon porcelain.


NOTE ON THE EARLY CHINESE TOMB WARES

With reference to the figures of men and animals and the other objects
which were placed in the ancient tombs of China, much information will
be found in Dr. J.J.M. de Groot's _Religious System of China_. The
fundamental idea underlying these burial practices seems to have been
that the soul of the dead was the actual tenant of the grave; but it is
not clear in every case whether the sepulchral furniture was provided
in expectation of a bodily resurrection, or in the belief that it would
minister to the wants of the dead in his spiritual existence. Both
ideas appear to have obtained in early times, though it is certain that
the second alone explains the more modern custom of burning either the
objects themselves or paper counterfeits of them at the tomb, and thus
transmitting them through the medium of fire direct to the spirit world.

The older custom of burying with the dead all that was necessary for the
continuation of the pursuits of his lifetime, dates back to the farthest
limits of history, so that we read without surprise that in the Chou
dynasty (1122-255 B.C.) there were placed in the tomb "three earthen pots
with pickled meat, preserved meat, and sliced food; two earthen jars with
must and spirits,"[31] besides "clothes, mirrors, weapons, jade and food
pots." It became customary to hold a preliminary exhibition of the funeral
articles at the dead man's house before removing them to the tomb, and
this, as we may well imagine in a country of ancestor-worshippers, led to
ostentation and extravagance which legislators of various periods vainly
endeavoured to curtail.

The magnificent burials of the Chin and early Han emperors, the vast
mausolea built by forced labour and stocked with costly furniture and
treasure, chariots and live animals, and even human victims, must have
been an intolerable burden to the community. There is no lack of instances
of the immolation, voluntary or otherwise, of relatives and retainers at
the tombs of great personages in ancient China, though the practice never
seems to have been general, and was strongly reprobated by Confucius
(551-479 B.C.). The sage even went so far as to condemn the substitution
of wooden puppets, "for was there not a danger of their leading to the use
of living victims?"[32] Images of straw were all that he would permit.

When humaner influences prevailed, the ladies of the harem, and the
military guards, instead of following their Imperial master to the spirit
world, were condemned to reside within the precincts of the mausoleum; and
doubtless the clay figures of women and warriors placed in the graves of
more enlightened times were intended to relieve their human prototypes of
this irksome duty. The earliest recorded allusion[33] to clay substitutes
appears to be the words of Kuang Wu (in the first century A.D.), that
"anciently, at every burial of an emperor or king, human images of
stoneware (_t´ao jên_), implements of earthenware (_wa ch´i_), wooden
cars, and straw horses were used."

De Groot[34] quotes a long list of objects supplied for an Imperial burial
of the Later Han (25-220 A.D.), including "eight hampers of various
grains and pease; three earthen pots of three pints, holding respectively
pickled meat, preserved meat, and sliced food; two earthen liquor jars
of three pints, filled with must and spirits; ... one candlestick of
earthenware; ... eight goblets, tureens, pots, square baskets, wine jars;
one wash-basin with a ewer; bells, ... musical instruments, ... arms; nine
carriages, and thirty-six straw images of men and horses; two cooking
stoves, two kettles, one rice strainer, and twelve caldrons of five pints,
all of earthenware; ... ten rice dishes of earthenware, two wine pots of
earthenware holding five pints." The use of earthenware substitutes for
the actual belongings of the dead was due in part to the spirit of economy
preached by certain rulers at this time, and in part to the feeling that
graves containing valueless objects would be safe from the desecration of
the robber.

In addition to the general precepts of economy, we learn that definite
regulations were issued prescribing the number and even the nature of
the articles to be used by the various ranks of the nobility and by
the proletariat. Thus in 682 A.D. Kao Tsung rebuked the competitive
extravagance of the people in burial equipments, which even the ravages
of famine had failed to diminish; and in the K´ai Yüan period an Imperial
decree[35] of the year 741 A.D. reduced the number of implements allowed
to the various ranks in burial, officers of the first, second, and third
classes of nobility being allowed seventy, forty, and twenty implements
in place of ninety, seventy, and forty respectively; while for the common
people fifteen only were permitted. Moreover, all such implements were to
be of plain earthenware (_ssŭ wa_), wood, gold, silver, copper, and tin
being forbidden.

It is clear that at an early date wood was regarded as preferable to
pottery as a material for sepulchral furniture, for the _Yin-yang tsa
tsu_,[36] written in the eighth century, states that "houses and sheds,
cars and horses, male and female slaves, horned cattle, and so forth, are
made of wood." Indeed, the decree of 741 notwithstanding, wood seems to
have become the standard material for grave implements from this time
onward. Thus, Chu Hsi of the Sung dynasty taught in his Ritual of Family
Life "the custom of burying the dead with a good many _wooden_ servants,
followers, and female attendants, all holding in their hands articles
for use and food"; and the contents of the Ming graves included "a
furnace-kettle and a furnace, both of _wood_, saucer with stand, pot, or
vase, an earthen wine-pot, a spittoon, a water basin, an incense burner,
two candlesticks, an incense box, a tea-cup, a tea-saucer, two chopsticks,
two spoons, etc., two _wooden_ bowls, twelve _wooden_ platters, various
articles of furniture, including bed, screen, chest, and couch, all of
wood; sixteen musicians, twenty-four armed lifeguards, six bearers, ten
female attendants; the spirits known as the Azure Dragon, the White Tiger,
the Red Bird, and the Black Warrior; the two Spirits of the Doorway and
ten warriors--all _made of wood_ and one foot high." These were among the
implements permitted in the tombs of grandees; the regulations of 1372
allowed only one kind of implement in the tombs of the common folk.

From the foregoing passages it may be inferred that wood superseded
pottery to a very great extent in the funeral furniture of the Sung and
Ming periods, and consequently that the tombs in which a full pottery
equipment has been found are most probably not later than the first half
of the T´ang dynasty. Needless to say, the wooden paraphernalia rapidly
perished under the ground, and while the pottery implements have preserved
their original form and appearance, the wooden objects have mostly
disintegrated.

An amusing fragment of folklore, translated by de Groot[37] from the
_Kuang i chi_, "a work probably written in the tenth century," will form a
fitting conclusion to this note, revealing as it does the thought of the
Chinese of this period with regard to the burial customs which we have
discussed:--

"During one of the last generations there lived a man, who used to travel
the country as an itinerant trader in the environs of the place where
his family was settled. Having been accompanied on one of his excursions
for several days by a certain man, the latter unexpectedly said, 'I am
a ghost. Every day and every night I am obliged to fight and quarrel
with the objects buried in my tomb for the use of my manes, because they
oppose my will. I hope you will not refuse to speak a few words for me,
to help me out of this calamitous state of disorder. What will you do in
this case?' 'If a good result be attainable,' replied the trader, 'I dare
undertake anything.' About twilight they came to a large tomb, located
on the left side of the road. Pointing to it, the ghost said: 'This is
my grave. Stand in front of it and exclaim, "By Imperial Order, behead
thy gold and silver subjects, and all will be over." Hereupon the ghost
entered the grave. The pedlar shouted out the order, and during some
moments he heard a noise like that produced by an executioner's sword.
After a while the ghost came forth from the tomb, his hands filled with
several decapitated men and horses of gold and silver. 'Accept these
things,' he said; 'they will sufficiently ensure your felicity for the
whole of your life; take them as a reward for what you have done for
me.' When our pedlar reached the Western metropolis he was denounced
to the prefect of the district by a detective from Ch´ang-ngan city,
who held that such antique objects could only have been obtained from
a grave broken open. The man gave the prefect a veracious account of
what had happened, and this magistrate reported the matter to the higher
authorities, who sent it on to the Throne. Some persons were dispatched
to the grave with the pedlar. They opened the grave, and found therein
hundreds of gold and silver images of men and horses with their heads
severed from their bodies."

In the present day[38] at important sacrifices to ancestors (and
presumably at the funeral itself), it is customary to burn counterfeits
of all kinds of furniture and objects which might be useful in the
spirit-world. In general these counterfeits take the form of small square
sheets of cheap paper adorned with pictures, stamped with a rudely carved
wooden die, and representing houses, chairs, implements for cooking,
writing and the toilette, carts and horses, sedan chairs, attendants and
servants, slaves (male and female), cattle, etc. It is not clear when
this custom first came into being, but it evidently replaced an earlier
practice of burning real furniture, clothing, etc., at the tomb; and de
Groot implies, at any rate, that the two practices existed side by side
in the eleventh century. "Bonfires of genuine articles," he says,[39]
"and valuables continued for a long time to hold a place side by side
with bonfires of counterfeits. We read e.g. that at the demise of the
Emperor Shêng Tsung of the Liao dynasty (1030 A.D.) the departure of the
cortège of death from the palace was marked by a sacrifice, at which they
took clothes, bows and arrows, saddles, bridles, pictures of horses, of
camels, lifeguards, and similar things, which were all committed to the
flames." Marco Polo,[40] in describing the city of Kinsai, relates that
the inhabitants burnt their dead, and "threw into the flames many pieces
of cotton paper upon which were painted representations of male and female
servants, horses, camels, silk wrought with gold, as well as gold and
silver money."


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 13: See Hirth, _China and the Roman Orient_.]

[Footnote 14: Berthold Laufer, _Jade_, Field Museum of Natural History,
Publication 154, Anthropological Series, vol. x., Chicago, 1912, pp. 232
and 233.]

[Footnote 15: Occasionally of potters.]

[Footnote 16: _La Sculpture sur pierre en Chine au temps des deux
dynasties Han_, Paris, 1893. A few of these are figured by Bushell in
_Chinese Art_, vol. i. See also Chavannes, _Mission archéologique dans la
Chine septentrionale_, Paris, 1909.]

[Footnote 17: If geological arguments could be accepted at their face
value, a vase found at Chi-ning Chou, in Shantung, would go far to prove
the existence of a highly sophisticated glazed pottery at a date not
less than 500 years B.C. The find is described and illustrated in the
_Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, Jahrg. 43, 1911, p. 153, by Herr Ernst
Börschmann. The vase, which is 10 cm. high, is of globular form, with a
short straight neck and two loop handles. It is of hard buff ware, with a
chocolate brown glaze with purplish reflexions of a metallic appearance,
and the glaze covers only the upper part of the exterior and ends in
an uneven line with drops. One would say Sung or possibly T'ang, and
of the type associated with the name Chien yao. This pot was found not
in a tomb, but in the undisturbed earth at a depth of seven metres, by
a German architect, while sinking a well; and a reasoned case from the
stratification of the soil is made out to prove that it must have at least
an antiquity of twenty-four hundred years. It is, however, proverbial
that geological arguments applied to relatively modern archæology lead to
results more startling than correct; and I refuse to accept this solitary
specimen as evidence to upset the whole theory of the evolution of Chinese
pottery. For it must do nothing less. This piece is of a style which is at
present unknown before the T'ang dynasty. It has nothing in common with
Han pottery as we know it, still less with Chou, and to accept its Chou
date would be to believe that an advanced style of manufacture was in use
500 years B.C., that it was forgotten again for some twelve centuries, and
then reappeared in precisely the same form. Fukien white porcelain seals
have been found in an Irish bog in positions from which geologists might
infer a colossal antiquity, but the history of porcelain has not been
disturbed on that account; and I cannot help thinking that this strange
phenomenon at Chi-ning Chou must be regarded in much the same light.]

[Footnote 18: Berthold Laufer, _Pottery of the Han Dynasty_, Leyden, 1908.]

[Footnote 19: Laufer seems to have mistaken it for the beginning of the
regular Chinese crackle (see op. cit., p. 8). The Han green glaze contains
a large proportion of lead oxide and is coloured with oxide of copper.]

[Footnote 20: See Bushell, _Chinese Pottery and Porcelain_, p. 96. "In the
tomb of the Empress Tao, consort of Wu Ti (140-85 B.C.) there was found
one lac-black earthenware dish."]

[Footnote 21: One of these, in the form of a small roller, by which a
continuous pattern could be impressed, is figured by Laufer, op. cit.
Plate xxxvi.]

[Footnote 22: See _Burlington Magazine_, December, 1913, where it is
published with a note on the inscription by F.S. Kershaw.]

[Footnote 23: _Burial Customs in Szechuan_, Journal of the North-China
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xli., 1910, p. 58, etc.]

[Footnote 24: A very large series of Han sepulchral pottery, including
most of the known types, is in the Field Museum, Chicago; but most of our
large museums possess specimens enough to give a good idea of the ware.]

[Footnote 25: Bk. ix., p. 3, quoting the _Chêng tzŭ t´ung_, which in turn
quotes the _Han Shu_, or Han Histories. Presumably this is the Nan Shan
near Lung Chou, in Shensi.]

[Footnote 26: Fragments of this ware which were brought back by the
Grünwedel expedition in 1903 are in the Museum für Völkerkunde, in Berlin.]

[Footnote 27: See Bushell, op. cit., p. 97.]

[Footnote 28: [Chinese]. See also Bushell's translation of the _T´ao
shuo_, pp. 97 and 98.]

[Footnote 29: Tu Yü, in his "Verses upon Tea." See _T´ao shuo_, Bushell's
translation, p. 98. The words used are _Ch´i tsê t´ao chien_ [Chinese] for
which Bushell has given the free and rather misleading version, "Select
cups of fine porcelain."]

[Footnote 30: _tz´ŭ wa_, a phrase which Bushell has translated "porcelain
and earthenware," though it is improbable that porcelain was meant at this
early period (see Chap. XI.)]

[Footnote 31: J. J. M. de Groot, _The Religious System of China_. Leyden,
1894, vol. ii., p. 383.]

[Footnote 32: Loc. cit., p. 807.]

[Footnote 33: Loc. cit., p. 808.]

[Footnote 34: De Groot, loc. cit., p. 401.]

[Footnote 35: Loc. cit., p. 696.]

[Footnote 36: Loc. cit., p. 808.]

[Footnote 37: De Groot, loc. cit., p. 809.]

[Footnote 38: De Groot, loc. cit., p. 717.]

[Footnote 39: Loc. cit., p. 718.]

[Footnote 40: Who visited China about 1280.]




CHAPTER III

THE T´ANG [Chinese] DYNASTY, 618-906 A.D.


THE Chinese Empire, reunited by the Sui emperors, reached the zenith of
its power under the world-famed dynasty of the T´ang (618-906 A.D.).
A Chinese general penetrated into Central India and took the capital,
Magadha, in 648. Chinese junks sailed into the Persian Gulf, and the
northern boundaries of the empire extended into Turkestan, where traces of
a flourishing civilisation have been discovered in the sand-buried cities
in the regions of Turfan and Khotan, recently explored by Sir Aurel Stein
and by a German expedition under Professor Grünwedel. In return, we read
of Arab settlers in Yunnan and in Canton and the coast towns, and the last
of the Sassanids appealed to China for help. A host of foreign influences
must have penetrated the Middle Kingdom at this time, including those of
the Indian, Persian, and Byzantine arts. Proof of this, if proof were
needed, is seen in the wonderful treasures preserved in the Shoso-in at
Nara in Japan, a temple museum stocked in the eighth century chiefly with
the personal belongings of the Emperor Shomu, most of which had been sent
over from China. Indeed, the Nara treasure is, in many respects, the most
comprehensive exhibition of T´ang craftsmanship which exists to-day.

The long period of prosperity enjoyed by China under the T´ang is famed in
history as the golden age of literature and art. The age which produced
the poet Li Po, the painter Wu Tao-tzŭ, and the poet-painter Wang Wei,
whose "poems were pictures and his pictures poems," was indeed an age of
giants. It is certain that the potter's art shared in no small measure
the progress of the period, though at this distance of time we can hardly
expect that many monuments of this fragile art should have survived.
Indeed, it has been the custom of writers in the past to dismiss the
T´ang pottery in a few words, or to disregard it entirely as an unknown
quantity Here, however, we have again been well served by the ancient
burial customs of the Chinese, which still held good for part, at least,
of the T´ang period.

The T´ang mortuary wares are similar in intention to those of the Han,
but bespeak a much maturer art. The modelling of the tomb figures, which
have been aptly compared with the Tanagra statuettes of ancient Greece,
displays greater skill, spirit, and delicacy, and the materials used are
more refined and varied. The body of the ware, which is usually fine as
pipeclay, varies in hardness from soft earthenware, easily scratchable
with a knife, to a hard porcellanous stoneware, and in colour from
light grey and pale rosy buff to white, like plaster-of-Paris. The
usual covering is a thin, finely crackled glaze of pale straw colour or
light transparent green, and sometimes the surface has a wash of white
clay between the body and the glaze. Some of the figures, however, are
more richly coated in amber brown and leaf green glazes with occasional
splashes of blue, while on others are found traces of unfired red and
black pigments.

But as the mortuary pottery[41] comprises the largest and most important
group of T´ang wares at present identified, we cannot do better than
consider it first and as a separate class, setting forth at once the
reasons for assigning it to this particular period. As will be seen in
the note to the previous chapter (p. 17), earthenware appears to have
been to a great extent superseded by wood as the fashionable material for
sepulchral furniture towards the end of the T´ang period. This in itself
is strong _primâ facie_ evidence that the tombs furnished throughout with
pottery are not later than the T´ang dynasty. Another argument of an
ethnographical nature is supplied by the figures of ladies with feet of
normal size. The fashion of cramping the feet, though it may have begun
before the T´ang period, was certainly not universal until the end of this
long dynasty.[42]

But there are other cogent reasons which will appeal more directly to
the student of ceramics. Among the few specimens of pottery in the Nara
Collection,[43] there are several bowls and a dish, accorded in the
official catalogue the meagre description "China ware," which have a
peculiar glaze of creamy yellow with large, green mottling, and there is
besides a drum-shaped vase, "green with yellowish patches." This type of
glaze is found on many of the tomb wares, some of which have amber brown
and violet blue splashes in addition. From these data it is possible to
identify a series of T´ang glazes, including creamy white, straw yellow,
faint green, leaf green, amber and violet blue, all soft and more or less
transparent with minutely crackled texture and closely analogous to the
coloured lead glazes used on our own "Whieldon" pottery of Staffordshire
in the eighteenth century. Three years ago a Parisian dealer was offering
for sale the contents of an important tomb. For once in a way, the chief
articles of the find had been kept together; at least so it was positively
asserted, and there was nothing improbable in the circumstance. They
included two splendidly modelled figures and a saddled horse in the
typical T´ang ware, with bold washes of green and brown glazes, and with
them was a stone slab engraved with an inscription. I was able to examine
a photograph and a rubbing of this stone, in which excellent judges could
find no sign of spurious work. The inscription was long and difficult
to translate, but the main facts were clear. It commemorated a princely
personage of the name of Wên, whose style was Shou-ch´êng, a man of
Lo-yang in Honan, who died at Ho-yang Hsien on the 16th day of the first
month of the second year of Yung Shun, viz. 683 A.D.

Among the T´ang figurines the horse is conspicuous not only in its
comparative frequency, but for the spirit and character with which it
is portrayed. The men of T´ang were clearly great horse lovers. Their
pictorial artists excelled in painting the noble beast, and the "Hundred
Colts" by the celebrated painter Han Kan is a classic of horse painting.
Among the precious fragments of T´ang pictures on silk which Sir Aurel
Stein brought back from his first expedition in the Taklamakan Desert
there were several with scenes in which horsemen figured. I have compared
these with the tomb figures and found them to tally with wonderful
exactitude, not only in pose and style and in the characteristic
rendering of the head and neck, but also in the details of the harness,
the saddle with high arched front and shelving back support, the square
stirrups, bridle and bit and tassel-like pendant under the mouth.

A complete set of grave goods from a tomb opened by the Lao-tung railway
near Lao Yang in the Honan Fu have been acquired by the British Museum
through a railway engineer on the spot. They may be taken as a typical
and, I believe, quite reliable, example of the grave furniture of a
T'ang personage of importance. They include six covered jars of graceful
oval form, made of hard white ware and coated with thin glaze of pale
yellowish or faint green tint, which ends in the characteristic T'ang
fashion in a wavy line several inches above the base. They measure about
thirteen inches in height. These are presumed to have held the six kinds
of grain. Next comes a graceful vase, probably for wine, with ovoid body,
tall, slender neck, with two horizontal bands, a cup-shaped mouth, and
two high, elegantly carved handles with serpent heads which bite on to
the rim (Plate 14, Fig. 2). The only other vessels were a circular tray,
on which stood a small, squat vase, with trilobe sides, small mouth, and
three rudimentary feet, surrounded by seven shallow cups. Like the wine
vase and covered jars, these have flat bases, in most cases carefully
smoothed and lightly bevelled at the edge.[44] The retinue consisted of a
charming figure of a lady on a horse, eight other ladies (probably of the
harem) with high, peaked head-dress, low-necked dresses with high waists,
and a shawl over the shoulders and falling down from the arms like two
long sleeves; natural feet are indicated in every case. With these were
two figures of priestly appearance, with long cloaks and hoods, three
other men in distinctive costumes, eleven retainers in civil costume with
peaked head-gear, long coats with lappets open at the neck, waist belts,
and high boots, their right hands held across the breast and their left
at the side. One of these figures is remarkable for his foreign features,
with exaggerated and pointed nose, suggesting a Western Asiatic origin.
There are, besides, four men, apparently in armour, and two tall figures
who seem to wear cap helmets with camail falling down the neck and
breast armour, recalling in many ways our own mediæval men-at-arms. The
supernatural element is represented by two strange, squatting quadrupeds
with legs like a bull, human heads with large ears and a single horn
which are called by the Chinese _t'u kuai_ or "earth-spirits." Finally,
in addition to man and super-man, the animal world was represented by
two saddled horses, two dromedaries, two pigs, two sheep, a beautifully
modelled dog, and a goose. What more could a man desire in the underworld?
All these figures are of the usual white plaster-like body, with the
pale, straw-coloured or greenish glazes which long burial has dissolved
into iridescence where it has not actually caused it to flake away. Some
of them stand on flat, plain bases; others on their own feet and robes.
The latter kind are all hollow beneath, and the quadrupeds have a large
cavity under the belly, a feature common to the T'ang and Han animals,
and one which I have noticed on bronzes of the same periods. Needless
to add, these figures were made in moulds, the seams of which are still
visible.[45]

[Illustration: Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Plate 5.--T'ang Sepulchral Figures. _In the Benson Collection._

Fig. 1.--A Lokapala or Guardian of one of the Quarters, unglazed.

Fig. 2.--A Horse, with coloured glazes. Height 27 inches.

Fig. 3.--An Actor, unglazed.]

[Illustration: Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Plate 6.--T'ang Sepulchral Figures, unglazed.

Figs. 1, 2 and 4.--Female Musicians.

Fig. 3.--Attendant with dish of food. Height 9½ inches.

_Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

[Illustration: Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Plate 7.--T'ang Sepulchral Pottery.

Fig. 1.--Figure of a Lady in elaborate costume, unglazed. Height 14½
inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase, white pottery with traces of blue mottling: the glaze has
perished. Height 8½ inches. _Breuer Collection._

Fig. 3.--Sphinx-like Monster, green and yellow glazes. Height 25 inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

A few examples of the tomb figures are illustrated in the adjoining
plates. The tall, slender figure on Plate 7, Fig. 1, seems to represent a
lady of distinction. The elaborate head-dress and costume, the necklace
and pendant and the belt are all carefully modelled; and the Elizabethan
appearance of the collar is curious and interesting. The ware is soft
and white like pipeclay, though still caked with the reddish loess clay
from which it was exhumed. The style of this figure with its slender
proportions is analogous to that of the graceful stone sculptures of the
Northern Wei period. The genial monster in white clay and splashed green
and yellow glazes illustrated on Plate 7 is one of the many sphinx-like
creatures found in the tombs over which they were supposed to exercise
a beneficial influence. Sometimes they have human heads on the bull
body, and they are then described as _t'u kuai_ or earth-spirits. In the
present example we have a form which strongly resembles certain Persian or
Sassanian monsters in bronze; and it is highly probable that the idea of
this creature came from a western Asiatic source.

Plate 5 shows a fine example of a horse in coloured glazes, a fierce
figure in warrior's guise, who is, no doubt, one of the Lokapalas or
Guardians of the Four Quarters in the Buddhist theogony, and a figure of
an actor. The amusements, as well as the serious occupations of the dead,
were provided for in the furniture of the tombs. A whole troop of mimes
in quaint costumes and dramatic poses is shown in the Field Museum at
Chicago, and Plate 6 illustrates three seated figures of musicians as well
as a standing figure holding a dish of fruit.

A study of the salient features of these and other authenticated specimens
leads naturally to the identification of fresh types, and so the series
grows. For instance, the type of wine vase with serpent handles is found
in glazes of various colours, till of the mottled T'ang kind, and with
slight additions, such as the palmette-like ornaments in applied relief
on a large example in the British Museum. These ornaments in their turn
appear on bowls and incense vases often of globular form, like the
well-known Buddhist begging bowl, but fitted with three legs. Splashed,
streaked and mottled glazes further declare these to be T'ang, and the
varying colour and hardness of their body material give us a deeper
insight into the T'ang ware. All of these show the marks of the wheel, and
many are neatly finished with simple wheel-made lines and ridges; stamped
ornaments in applied relief are their commonest form of decoration.

A fine specimen in the British Museum will serve to illustrate this
type of bowl. It has a hard, white body, of typical globular form, with
slightly constricted mouth, three legs with strongly modelled lion masks
on the upper part, and between them pads of applied relief with lion mask
ornaments. The glaze is not of the mottled kind, but is rather streaked;
it is deep, cucumber green and minutely crackled, and has run down into
drops under the bowl. This fluidity is also the cause of the streakiness
of the colour, which was evidently a characteristic feature of the T'ang
pottery, for it appears unmistakably indicated in a T'ang painting figured
by Sir Aurel Stein.[46] This painting, a silk banner of the T'ang period,
was found in a walled-up library at Tun-huang, and depicts a standing
Buddhist figure carrying a begging bowl with boldly streaked exterior.

[Illustration: PLATE 8.

Three examples of T'ang ware with coloured glazes: in the Eumorfopoulos
Collection.

Fig. 1.--Tripod Incense Vase with ribbed sides; white pottery with deep
blue glaze outside encrusted with iridescence. Height 4⅝ inches.

Fig. 2.--Amphora of light coloured pottery with splashed glaze. Mark
incised _Ma Chên-shih tsao_ ("made by Ma Chên-shih"). Height 8¼ inches.

Fig. 3.--Ewer of hard white porcellanous ware with deep purple glaze.
Height 4¾ inches.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3
]

In addition to the mottled glazes--which, by the way, are the forerunners
of the so-called "tiger-skin" porcelains of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries--and the single colours already mentioned, instances have been
identified on the principles already indicated of wares with a full yellow
glaze and a streaky, brownish yellow. An interesting piece (Plate 8) in
the Eumorfopoulos Collection is covered with a deep violet blue glaze on
a fine white body. Others, again, have a dark chocolate brown glaze on a
reddish buff body, and a rare ewer in the British Museum is distinguished
by a deep olive brown glaze flecked with tea green, which seems to
anticipate by a thousand years the "tea dust" glazes of the Ch'ien Lung
period.[47]

Another variety of T'ang glaze, of which I have seen one example, was an
olive brown with large splashes of a light colour, a greyish white, but
with surface so frosted over by decay that its original intention remained
in doubt. One might say that this was the father of the Japanese Takatori
glazes with deep brown under-colour and large patches of frothy white.
We may mention here three remarkable specimens found in a grave with a
T'ang mirror and described in _Man_ in 1901,[48] which are in the British
Museum. One is an oblate ovoid vase, with small neck and mouth, of hard,
light buff body, coated with a dull greenish black glaze with minute
specks of lighter colour. The others are tea bowls of hard buff ware with
dull brick-red glaze, not far removed in colour from the Samian ware of
Roman times. No exact Chinese parallel has yet been found to these three
pieces, though something approaching them is seen in certain bowls in the
Eumorfopoulos collection which have a reddish brown glaze breaking into
black, being apparently of the type associated with the name of Chien
yao,[49] and which are known in Japan as _kaki temmoku_. This early kind
of _temmoku_, which was probably made in Honan, has a hard whitish body,
and the glaze is sometimes flecked with tea green as well as with golden
brown. In some cases, too, a floral design or a leaf has been impressed
or stencilled on the black glaze and appears in the brown or green colour
(Plate 43, Fig. 1). It is said that a somewhat similar brown _temmoku_
ware was made in Corea as well.

The survival of the leaf green glaze of Han type has already been noted.
It occurs in Plates 12 and 13.

A pale bluish green glaze, somewhat akin to a later variety of celadon,
appears on a few small bowls and jars which have the characteristic
T'ang finish: I have seen several figures of lions with a crackled light
greenish brown glaze; and a considerable class of bowls and melon-shaped
vases have been found in Shansi with a hard buff stoneware body, coated
with white slip under a transparent and almost colourless glaze, the
combination producing a solid white or ivory colour (Plate 11, Fig. 3).
These bowls have been considered by some Chinese authorities to be a
production of the Ta Yi[50] kilns in Szechuan, but as there were factories
in Shansi,[51] where wares of this type are reputed to have been made in
T'ang times, it seems more probable that they are of local make. It should
be added that the brown, tea dust, black, celadon and white glazes are
high-fired and essentially different from the soft, crackled lead glazes
previously described.

Apart from modelling in the round, an art in which we have seen that the
T'ang potters excelled, the decorative ornament of the pottery hitherto
discussed has been confined to applied reliefs. The processes of carving
and engraving come early in the evolution of the potter's art in China,
and we should expect to find in the T'ang wares some indications of the
skill in these methods for which the Sung potters were so celebrated.
Plate 12, Fig. 2, illustrates the use of engraved ornament under a green
glaze, and the piece is remarkable not only for its elegant design, but
for the beautiful lines of its simple form. A few years ago I saw for
the first time one or two stands and boxes with patterns intricate as
brocade work, floral scrolls, and geometrical designs, engraved with a
point, and the spaces filled in with coloured glazes. They were reputed
to be of T'ang date, and though no further evidence existed to prove that
objects of such advanced technique and mature design really belonged to
this remote period the proposition did not seem an impossible one. The
textiles, inlaid woodwork, and painted lacquer in the Nara collections
have just such designs which at first sight fill one with amazement at
their modern feeling. A piece of brocade of undoubted T'ang origin,
figured by Sir Aurel Stein,[52] with floral scrolls worked in silk, looks
like a piece of late Persian embroidery. And is not the art of the T´ang
painters essentially modern in the directness of its appeal?

[Illustration: Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Plate 9.--T'ang Pottery.

Fig. 1.--Ewer of Sassanian form with splashed glazes; panels of relief
ornament, in one a mounted archer. Height 13 inches. _Alexander
Collection._ Fig. 2.--Vase with mottled glaze, green and orange. Height
3⅝ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._ Fig. 3.--Ewer with dragon spout
and handle; wave and cloud reliefs; brownish yellow glaze streaked with
green. Height 11⅝ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

[Illustration: Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Plate 10.--T'ang Pottery. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 1.--Dish with mirror pattern incised and coloured blue, green, etc.;
inner border of _ju-i_ cloud scrolls on a mottled yellow ground, outer
border of mottled green; pale green glaze underneath and three tusk-shaped
feet. Diameter 15 inches. Fig. 2.--Ewer with serpent handle and trilobed
mouth; applied rosette ornaments and mottled glaze, green, yellow and
white. Height 10⅝ inches.]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 3

    Fig. 4

Plate 11.--T´ang Wares.

Fig. 1.--Cup with bands of impressed circles, brownish yellow glaze
outside, green within. Height 2⅝ inches. _Seligmann Collection._
Fig. 2.--Cup of hard white ware with greenish white glaze. Height 2⅜
inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._ Fig. 3.--Melon-shaped Vase, greyish
stoneware with white slip and smooth ivory glaze. Height 4 inches.
_Breuer Collection._ Fig. 4.--Cup of porcellanous stoneware, white slip
and crackled creamy white glaze, spur marks inside. Height 3¼ inches.
_Breuer Collection._]

The truth is, our knowledge of T´ang pottery has only just begun, and
now that the ware is esteemed in Europe at its proper worth, the choicer
specimens which have been treasured in China are finding their way
westward. Every fresh arrival tells us something new and surprising,
and it only wanted such a piece as Fig. 1, Plate 10, to establish the
identity of the specimens whose T´ang origin we had before only ventured
to conjecture. Here we have a form of dish which is found among the tomb
wares of the T´ang period, made of the typical T´ang white-body and
finished in characteristic fashion and decorated with engraved designs
of the most advanced type, filled in with coloured glazes, in addition
to bands of mottling in green and white, and yellow and white. There
are, besides, other specimens of similar make but with simpler, though
scarcely less interesting, design of a mirror-shaped panel formed of
radiating lotus leaves engraved in the centre with a stork in white and
green, all in a deep violet blue ground. The coloured glazes used in the
T´ang polychrome pottery are light and translucent lead glazes of the
kind which reappears on the Ming and Ch´ing pottery and porcelain, and,
as on the later wares, they are covered with minute accidental crackle.
In their splashed and mottled varieties they have, as already noted, a
resemblance to the glazes of the eighteenth-century Whieldon ware of
Staffordshire, and it is interesting to note that the T´ang potters also
used another form of decoration which was much fancied in Staffordshire
about a thousand years later. This is the marbling of the ware, not merely
by mottling the glaze as in Fig. 2 of Plate 9, or by marbling the surface,
but by blending dark and light clays in the body as in the "solid agate"
ware of Staffordshire. It only remains to prove that painting with a brush
was practised by the T´ang potters, and though one is loath to accept such
a revolutionary idea without positive proof, there is very good reason
to think that such pieces[53] as Fig. 3, Plate 12, belong to the T´ang
period. They have a white pottery body, painted in bold floral scroll
designs in black under a beautiful green glaze. We are getting used to
surprises in connection with T´ang pottery, and probably in a year's time
painted T´ang wares, which are now only accepted with reserve, will be an
established fact which passes without comment.

Stamped patterns are not uncommon, and we often find small rings or
concentric circles, singly, as in Fig. 1 of Plate 11, or stamped in
clusters of five or seven, forming rosettes[54]; or, again, impressed key
fret, as in Fig. 1 of Plate 12, which has a deep leaf green glaze.

The influence of the Western Asiatic civilisations has been already
mentioned in casual hints, but it appears in concrete form in the peculiar
shape of the ewer on Plate 9. The bird-headed vessel is found in Persian
pottery of an early date, one example of which may be seen in the British
Museum. Another remarkable instance of this form was illustrated and
discussed by Dr. Martin in the _Burlington Magazine_, September, 1912.[55]
It had, in addition, applied relief ornaments of a kind which we have
already noticed, and Dr. Martin expressed his opinion that both the
form and the ornaments are nearly related to Sassanian metal work. The
fact that the last Sassanid king sought help from China[56] points to
intercourse between the two realms, and in any case the northern trade
route through Turkestan into Western Asia gave ample opportunity for the
traffic in Persian and Sassanian wares. But more remarkable still is the
classical spirit displayed in the piping boy and dancing girl[57] on a
wonderful flask in the Eumorfopoulos Collection (Plate 18, Fig. 2). The
Græeco-Buddhist influence on early Chinese sculpture has already been
remarked, and several classical designs are commonly pointed out on the
T´ang metal mirrors; but here we have in pottery a figure which might have
been taken from a Herculaneum fresco, surrounded by scroll-work worthy of
the finest T´ang mirror. The body of the ware is whitish pottery, and
the beautifully moulded surface is covered with a brownish green glaze,
which, like that of Fig. 1, Plate 12, is clearly a survival of the Han
glaze. Other instances might be quoted of Græco-Roman influences reflected
in T´ang wares. There are obvious traces of the "egg and tongue" and
"honeysuckle" patterns in border designs, and the shapes of vases and
ewers often betray a feeling which is more Greek than Chinese.

Reverting to the engraved T´ang ornament, there is a little oblong box
in the Kunstgewerbe Museum at Berlin with incised rosettes of prunus
blossom form, glazed white and yellow in a green ground and finished
almost with the neatness of Ch´ien Lung porcelain, but of undoubtedly
T´ang origin. The same prunus design occurs on a typical T´ang bowl, in
the Eumorfopoulos Collection, stencilled white in a green ground. I have
postponed reference to these pieces because of the bearing of the latter
on the decoration of the wonderful figure illustrated in the frontispiece,
which will make a fitting climax to our series of T´ang specimens.

This figure, with its stand, measures 50 inches in height, and represents
one of sixteen Lohan or Arhats, the Buddhist apostles. Its provenance
has been kept discreetly concealed,[58] but we may infer that it was
taken from a temple or mausoleum, and we know that there were others
with it, two of which were exhibited at the Musée Cernuschi, in Paris,
in June, 1913. This one, however, has the advantage over the others of
being complete with its pottery stand. The ware is white and comparatively
hard; the colourless glaze on the fleshy parts has acquired a brown
stain from the dripping of the cave moisture, and developed a minute
crackle, both of which features are observable on some of the glazed
vases from T'ang tombs; the pupils of the eyes are black. The draperies,
of which the flowing folds are worthy of the finest classic sculpture,
are glazed with mottled green, the upper robe with brownish yellow, both
of T'ang type, and the latter is patched (in true Buddhist fashion) with
green-edged bands with white designs resembling divided prunus blossoms in
a yellow ground, in style recalling the decoration of the bowl previously
mentioned. The technique, then, is that of the T'ang wares, but instead of
being made in a mould like the grave statuettes, this monumental figure
is modelled in the round by an artist worthy to rank with the masters of
sculpture and painting who made the T'ang period famous.

When one looks at the powerful modelling of the head, the strong features
composed in deep contemplation, and the restful pose of the seated form,
one realises that here, at last, we have the great art which inspired the
early Buddhist sculptors of Japan. It is no conventional deity which sits
before us. The features are so human as to suggest an actual portrait,
but for the supernatural enlargement of the ears in Buddhist fashion. The
contracted brows bespeak deep concentration; the eyes, dreamy yet awake,
look through and past us into the infinite; the nostrils are dilated in
deep breathing; the lips compressed in firm yet compassionate lines. It
is the embodiment of the Buddhist idea of abstraction and aloofness;
yet it lives in every line, the personification of mental energy in
repose. But so rare are examples of this style, that, unless we turn to
painted pictures or frescoes such as have been brought back by the recent
expeditions in Turfan, we must look in the temples of Japan, not, indeed,
for similar Chinese work, but for the Japanese masterpieces in bronze,
wood and lacquer, of the same period, which avowedly followed the Chinese
art. The Yuima in the Hokkeji nunnery, ascribed to the middle of the
eighth century; the portrait figure of the priest Ryoben (✝ 773) in the
Todaiji monastery, and the portrait figure of Chisho Daishi (✝ 891) in
the Onjoji monastery,[59] are all conceived in the same grand style, and
bespeak a kindred art.

But high as this figure ranks as sculpture, it is far more remarkable as
pottery. To fire such a mass of material without subsidence or cracking
would tax the capabilities of the best equipped modern pottery, while
the skill displayed in the modelling is probably unequalled in any known
example of ceramic sculpture. The contemporary grave figures hold a high
place in ceramic modelling, but this statue is as far above the best
of them as Dwight's stoneware bust of Prince Rupert towers above the
Staffordshire figurines. Dwight's masterpiece has long been an object of
wonder and admiration in the ceramic ante-room in the British Museum,
and, with the help of the National Art Collections Fund and of several
munificent individuals, the British Museum has been able to acquire this
wonderful Chinese figure, which is now exhibited in the King Edward VII.
galleries.

It is too early yet to attempt seriously the classification of the T´ang
wares under their respective factories. Before this is possible the
meagre allusions in Chinese literature must be supplemented by far fuller
information. At present our knowledge of the T´ang factories is chiefly
drawn from casual references in Chinese poetry and in the Chinese Classic
on Tea, the _Ch´a Ching_, written by Lu Yü in the middle of the eighth
century. From this we gather that the Yüeh Chou[60] kilns enjoyed a high
reputation. An early allusion to this factory in reference to the "bowls
of Eastern Ou" in the Chin dynasty has already been recorded.[61] The
author of the Tea Classic tells us that among tea-drinkers the Yüeh bowls
were considered the best, though there were some who ranked those of Hsing
Chou[62] above them. Lu Yü, however, thought the judgment of the latter
connoisseurs was wrong, because the Hsing Chou bowls resembled silver
while the Yüeh bowls were like jade, because the Hsing bowls were like
snow, the Yüeh like ice, and because the Hsing ware, being white, made
the tea appear red, while the Yüeh ware, being green (_ch´ing_), imparted
a green (_lü_) tint to the tea. The T´ang poet, Lu Kuei-mêng, further
tells us that the Yüeh bowls "despoiled the thousand peaks of their blue
green[63] colour." Yüeh Chou is the modern Shao-hsing Fu in the province
of Chêkiang. It was celebrated in the tenth century for a special ware
made exclusively for the princes of Wu and Yüeh, of the Ch´ien family,
who reigned at Hung Chou from 907 to 976. This was the _pi sê_ or "secret
colour" ware which was made at Yüeh Chou until the Southern Sung period
(1127-1279), when the manufacture was removed to Yü-yao.[64] The _pi
sê_[65] ware has caused endless mystification among writers on Chinese
porcelain. The name--which means literally "secret colour"--has been taken
by some to imply that the colour was produced by a secret process (the
most natural but not the generally accepted meaning), and by others that
it was a forbidden colour, i.e. only permitted to be used by the princely
patrons of the house of Ch´ien.[66] The author of the _Ching-tê Chen t´ao
lu_[67] states that "it resembled the Yüeh ware in form, but surpassed
it in purity and brilliance." This is, however, only the opinion of a
nineteenth-century writer who does not claim to have seen a specimen of
either. A tenth-century writer[68] makes use of the vague expression, "the
secret colour preserves the note of the green (_ch´ing_) ware (_tz´ŭ_),"
which apparently means that the secret-colour glaze did not rob the ware
of the musical quality of usual _ch´ing_ ware, implying a difference of
some kind between the _pi sê_ and the _ch´ing_ glaze.

Literary references of this kind are open to so many inferences that their
value is slight without some tangible specimen to help us to realise their
import. This difficulty is greatly increased in dealing with Chinese
descriptions because of the ambiguity of Chinese colour words, which is
discussed elsewhere. But in the case of Yüeh Chou ware, or at any rate
of one kind of it, we have an important clue in another Chinese work.
Hsü Ching, who accompanied the Chinese Ambassador to Corea in 1125, in a
description of the Corean wares, makes the remark that "the rest of them
have a general likeness to the old _pi sê_ ware of Yüeh Chou and the new
Ju Chou ware."[69] Fortunately, we can speak with considerable confidence
of the Corean wares of this time, many examples of which have been taken
from the tombs of the period. The British Museum has a fair number of
examples, quite enough to show the typical Corean glaze, a soft grey green
celadon of decidedly bluish tint, a thick smooth glaze often of great
delicacy and beauty of tone.

In view of this the colour of the Yüeh bowls, the blue-green of the hills,
is easily visualised. But China boasts so many makes of celadon[70] that
he would be a bold man who would single out any one piece and say this
is Yüeh ware. Among the numerous specimens of celadon which have reached
Europe from various sources it is far from improbable that some were baked
in the Yüeh kilns, but at present, alas, we are impotent to identify them.

The author of the _Ching-tê Chên t´ao lu_[71] places the Hsing Chou
factory at the modern Hsing-t´ai Hsien, a dependency of Shun-tê Fu, in
Chihli. Little else is recorded about the white Hsing ware beyond a
general statement in the annals of the T´ang dynasty[72] that the "white
ware (_tz´ŭ_) cups of Nei Ch´iu were used by rich and poor throughout the
empire." Nei Ch´iu, it should be explained, is identified as a township
in the Hsing Chou. We may add that the ware of both Yüeh Chou and Hsing
Chou was used for "musical cups" by Kuo Tao-yüan.[73] One of the criteria
which the Chinese recognise in distinguishing ordinary pottery from the
finer wares of a porcellanous nature is the note emitted by the ware when
smartly tapped with the finger, and we may fairly infer that any bowls
which were suitable for use as musical chimes would be of a sonorous, hard
fired material if not actually porcelain.

The _Ch´a Ching_ enumerates five other T´ang factories which supplied
tea bowls, all of them inferior in reputation to the Yüeh Chou kilns.
Ting Chou [Chinese] in the Hsi-an Fu,[74] in Shensi; Wu Chou [Chinese]
in the Chin-hua Fu, in Chêkiang; Yo Chou [Chinese] in Hunan; Shou Chou
[Chinese] in Kiangnan; and Hung Chou [Chinese], the modern Nan-ch´ang Fu,
in Kiangsi, the district in which is Ching-tê Chên, afterwards the ceramic
metropolis of China. Of these wares we have only the meagre information
that the Yo Chou ware was of green (_ch´ing_) colour; the Shou Chou ware,
yellow; and that the Hung Chou ware was a brownish colour,[75] and made
the tea appear black. The Hung Chou factory is also named in the _Ko ku
yao lun_,[76] which tells us that "vessels made at Hung Chou in Kiangsi
are yellowish black in colour." A sixth factory, apparently of some
reputation though not mentioned in the _Ch´a Ching_, is named in a poem
by Tu Fu, president of the Board of Works,[77] in the T´ang dynasty, who
says: "The ware (_tz´ŭ_) baked at Ta-yi is light but strong. It gives out,
when struck, a sound like the plaintive note of the Chin-ch´êng jade. The
white bowls of your Excellency surpass the frost and snow. In pity hasten
to send one to the pavilion of my studies." Ta-yi was in the department of
Ch´iung Chou, in Szechuan.

The five brief dynasties which fill the interval between the T´ang and
Sung periods are only known to ceramic history for two wares, the identity
of which remains a matter of conjecture. The first is the _pi sê_ ware
of Yüeh Chou, which has already been discussed; and the second is the
celebrated but intangible Ch´ai ware. Chinese writers wax poetical over
the Ch´ai ware. "Men of old," says a late Ming writer,[78] "described
Ch´ai ware as blue like the sky, brilliant like a mirror, thin like paper,
and resonant like a musical stone." An earlier and less hyperbolical
description of it given in the _Ko ku yao lun_[79] states that it was
made at Chêng Chou, in Honan, and named _ch´ai_ by Shin Tsung (of the
Posterior Chou dynasty, who reigned for five years from 954 to 959); that
its colour was sky blue; that it was "rich, refined, and unctuous," and
had fine crackle-lines; that in many cases there was coarse yellow clay on
the foot of the wares; and that it was rarely seen in the writer's time.
Elsewhere[80] we read that, according to tradition, Shih Tsung, on being
asked what kind of ware he would require for palace use, commanded that
its colour for the future should be "the blue of the sky after rain as
seen in the rifts of the clouds."[81] As early as the sixteenth century
the Ch´ai ware had virtually ceased to exist, and a writer[82] of that
time tells us "Ch´ai ware is no longer to be found. I once saw a fragment
of a broken piece mounted in a girdle-buckle. Its colour was brilliant,
and answered to the usual description of the ware, but the ware itself was
thick." A century afterwards the ware was nothing more than a tradition,
and later it developed a legendary character. Fragments of it were said
to dazzle the eyes, and when worn on armour to turn aside missiles in
battle.[83]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 3

Plate 12.--T´ang Pottery with green glaze.

Fig. 1.--Bottle with impressed key-fret. Height 7½ inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Ewer with incised foliage scrolls. Height 4¼ inches.
_Alexander Collection._

Fig. 3.--Vase with foliage scrolls, painted in black under the glaze,
incised border on the shoulder. Height 4¼ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 13.--T´ang Pottery.

Fig. 1.--Pilgrim Bottle with lily palmette and raised rosettes, green
glaze. Height 7½ inches. _Koechlin Collection._

Fig. 2.--Pilgrim Bottle (neck wanting), Hellenistic figures of piping boy
and dancing girl in relief among floral scrolls, brownish green glaze.
Height 8½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 3

    Fig. 4

    Fig. 2

Plate 14.--T´ang Wares.

Fig. 1.--Incense Vase, lotus-shaped, with lion on the cover, hexagonal
stand with moulded ornament; green, yellow and brown glazes. Height 19¾
inches. _Rothenstein Collection._

Fig. 2.--Sepulchral Amphora, hard white ware with greenish white glaze,
serpent handles. Height 19¼ inches. _Schneider Collection._

Fig. 3.--Ewer with large foliage and lotus border in carved relief, green
glaze. Height 6½ inches. _Koechlin Collection._

Fig. 4.--Sepulchral Vase, grey stoneware with opaque greenish grey glaze.
Incised scrolls on the body, applied reliefs of dragons, figures, etc., on
neck and shoulder. (?) T´ang. Height 20 inches. _Benson Collection._]

Chinese writers have been troubled by the apparent inconsistency of the
descriptions, "thin as paper" and "having coarse yellow clay on the foot."
The latter may, however, merely refer to patches of coarse clay or sand
which had served to support the ware in the kiln, and which had partially
adhered to the base, a thing not uncommon in the earlier manufactures. The
expression has, however, led some later writers[84] to identify the Ch´ai
ware with a fairly well-known type of comparatively soft buff pottery,
coated with a luscious turquoise or pale lavender blue glaze, which we
shall have occasion to discuss later.[85] Needless to say, there is no
probability of this type being the real Ch´ai. Its comparative commonness
alone puts the supposition out of court, but the suggestion serves to show
that some Chinese thinkers, at any rate, see the Ch´ai colour in just such
glazes as the pale lavender blue of Plate 88, Fig. 2, which undoubtedly
satisfies in many respects the description "blue of the sky after rain."

On the other hand, the celebrated Ju Chou ware of the Sung dynasty,
which aspired to equal the Ch´ai in colour, was evidently of the grey
green celadon type, with perhaps a tinge of blue like the early Corean
wares.[86] We have, then, two theories on the nature of the Ch´ai glaze:
(1) that it was an opalescent, turquoise glaze, such as is seen on the
Chün type of wares; and (2) that it belonged to the smooth grey green
celadon class, with the bluish tint strongly developed. There may be other
theories[87] besides, but it matters little, as no authentic specimen is
known to exist. In fact, the discussion under the circumstances would have
but little interest were it not for its bearing on some of the Sung wares,
which will be discussed in the next chapter.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 41: No doubt this mortuary pottery was made locally to supply
local needs, and there is no occasion to refer it to any of the better
known pottery centres, though we do find mention of an imperial order for
sepulchral ware sent to the potters at Hsin-p´ing (the old name for the
district town of Ching-tê Chên) in the T´ang dynasty. See _T´ao lu_, bk.
viii., fol. 2, quoting from the _Hsiang ling ming huan chih_.]

[Footnote 42: See _A Glossary of Reference on Subjects Connected with the
Far East_, by H.A. Giles, Shanghai, 1900. "The practice among Chinese
women of cramping the feet is said by some to have originated about 970
A.D. with Yao Niang, concubine of the pretender Li Yü. The lady wished to
make her feet like the new moon. Others say that it was introduced by Pan
Fei, the favourite of the last monarch of the Ch´i dynasty, 501 A.D."]

[Footnote 43: See the _Toyei Shuko_ (Illustrated Catalogue of the ancient
Imperial Treasure called Shoso-in, by Omura Seigai, Tokyo, 1910), Nos.
154, 155 and 156.]

[Footnote 44: Another common characteristic of the T'ang base is a central
ring, or one or two concentric circles incised on the wheel.]

[Footnote 45: Laufer (_Jade_, p. 247) sounds a note of warning about the
reconstruction of many of the T'ang figures. They were very frequently
broken in the course of excavation, and when a head was missing its place
was commonly supplied from another find. Another and more serious warning
is given by F. Perzynski in the _Ostasiatischer Zeitschrift_, January to
April, 1914, p. 464, in an article describing forgeries of coloured T'ang
figures, and vases and ewers with mottled green and yellow glazes, in
Honan Fu.]

[Footnote 46: _Ruins of Desert Cathay_, vol. ii., p, 195. Similarly bowls
with spotted glaze are indicated in several of the silk pictures found by
Sir Aurel Stein at Tun-huang, which are temporarily exhibited in the King
Edward VII. galleries in the British Museum.]

[Footnote 47: Fragments of similarly glazed ware were discovered by Sir
Aurel Stein on sites in Turfan, which were supposed to be of T'ang date
(see p. 134).]

[Footnote 48: In a paper by Sir C. Hercules Read in the fifteenth number
of _Man_, a publication of the Anthropological Institute.]

[Footnote 49: See p. 130.]

[Footnote 50: See A.W. Bahr, _Old Chinese Porcelain and Works of Art in
China_, Plate IV.]

[Footnote 51: At P'ing-yang Fu, at Ho Chou, and elsewhere (see p. 97).]

[Footnote 52: _Ruins of Desert Cathay_, vol. 11., fig. 197.]

[Footnote 53: Mr. C.L. Freer has in his collection in Detroit a vase of
hard reddish ware with a freely drawn lotus design in brown under a pale
green glaze, with parts of the flower in dry reddish brown slip or pigment
over the glaze. It has the characteristic T´ang base and appears to belong
to that period.]

[Footnote 54: The small rosettes which commonly occur In the inlaid Corean
designs recall these stamped T´ang patterns. Indeed the analogy between
the Corean patterns in general and those found on T´ang pottery is most
significant.]

[Footnote 55: It is now in the collection of Mrs. Potter Palmer.]

[Footnote 56: Yesdijird III., after his overthrow by the Arabs In 641,
fled to Merv, and there appealed for aid to the Chinese Emperor. He
does not appear to have fled for refuge to China, as has been sometimes
asserted.]

[Footnote 57: The classical prototype is seen in a vase In the Fourth Vase
Room (Case C) in the British Museum, on which we find two similar figures
in relief surrounded by a grape vine scroll.]

[Footnote 58: Since writing the above note my attention has been drawn
to a delightful article in the _Neue Rundschau_ (Oct., 1913, p. 1427) by
F. Perzynski, entitled _Jagd auf Götter_. Mr. Perzynski describes his
hazardous journey to an almost inaccessible cave temple on a mountain
top near Ichou in Chihli, and there is little doubt that this is the
place from which our wonderful figure came. He speaks of the hill as the
Acthlohanberg, implying a tradition of eight of these figures of Lohan,
which had apparently been concealed in this and other caverns for safety
during a period of iconoclasm, such as occurred in the ninth and the
thirteenth centuries, when thousands of Buddhist shrines were wrecked. He
found the shrine bare of the Lohan, except for a few fragments. The rest
had been pillaged, and several of the figures had evidently been broken in
the attempt to remove them through the narrow aperture of the caves, or to
conceal them afterwards. Parts of them, and a sadly damaged Lohan, were
actually shown to him in the neighbourhood; and he afterwards succeeded in
obtaining a complete figure and a torso, which were exhibited by him in
Berlin. On the altar of the shrine he found an incense burner of glazed
ware, which he attributed to the Yüan dynasty, and there was a tablet
recording the restoration of the altar in the reign of Chêng Tê (early
sixteenth century). It is interesting to note that Mr. Perzynski assumed
at once that these figures are of T´ang date. Incidentally, he mentions
a visit to a hill which he calls the Kuanyinberg, where a cavern temple
exists containing the remains of a colossal statue of Kuanyin. It is now
broken, but Mr. Perzynski saw it standing in its enormous stature of three
metres high, to which must be added a stand a metre high and two in width.
This figure was originally in glazed pottery, possibly also of the T´ang
period, but a great part of it had been restored in wood and plaster in
the seventeenth century.]

[Footnote 59: See _Japanese Temples and their Treasures_, by
Shiba-junrokuro, with translations by Mr. Langdon Warner, Tokyo, Shimbi
Shoin, 1910, vol. ii., nos. 238, 268, and 300.]

[Footnote 60: [Chinese].]

[Footnote 61: See p. 17.]

[Footnote 62: [Chinese], sometimes written [Chinese].]

[Footnote 63: [Chinese] ts´ui sê. Ts´ui is the colour of "a bird with
blue-green feathers: a kingfisher" (Giles), and it seems to have been used
indifferently to express a bluish green colour and greenish blue like
turquoise. In Lu Kuei-mêng's poem it suggests the colour of distant hills.
A passage in a seventeenth-century work, the _Ch´i sung t´ang shih hsiao
lu_ (quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 8), seems to imply that there
were lustrous reflections in the glaze of some of the Yüeh wares. It runs,
"Yüeh yao cups with small feet are of the light green (_ch´ing_) of the
chestnut husk; when turned sideways they are the colour of emerald green
jade (_fei ts´ui_)."]

[Footnote 64: See Julien, op. cit., p. 10.]

[Footnote 65: [Chinese]]

[Footnote 66: See T´ao shuo, bk. ii., fol. 5 recto, quoting the Sung
work, _Kao chai man lu_, and _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 9, quoting a
twelfth-century work, the _Ch´ing pi tsa chih_, "The _pi sê_ vessels were
originally the wares offered daily to the house of Ch´ien when it ruled
over the country. No subject was allowed to have them. That is why they
were called _pi sê_."]

[Footnote 67: Bk. v., fol. 4 recto.]

[Footnote 68: See _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 5 verso.]

[Footnote 69: For further reference to this important passage, see p. 54.]

[Footnote 70: See ch. vi.]

[Footnote 71: Bk. vii., fol. 13 recto.]

[Footnote 72: _T´ang kuo shih pu_, quoted in the _T´ao shuo_; see
Bushell's translation (_Chinese Pottery and Porcelain_), p. 36. It is
worthy of note that Hsing Chou was in the same district as Tz´ŭ Chou,
which has long been celebrated for its pottery. See p. 101.]

[Footnote 73: As stated in _Yo fu tsa lu_, a tenth-century work on music,
quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 4 recto. Twelve cups were used,
and they were sometimes marked with numerals.]

[Footnote 74: Not to be confused with the more celebrated Ting Chou
[Chinese] in Chihli.]

[Footnote 75: _ho_ [Chinese], a coarse cloth or serge, used to suggest a
brownish tint; cf. _sê ho ju t´ung_ = colour _ho_ like copper.]

[Footnote 76: As quoted in the _T´ao lu_ (see Julien, p. 5). The reference
does not appear in the British Museum copy of the _Ko ku yao lun_.]

[Footnote 77: Quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 5 recto, and bk.
v., fol. 3 recto.]

[Footnote 78: Ku Ying-t´ai in the _Po wu yao lan_, published in the T´ien
Ch´i period (1621-1627).]

[Footnote 79: By Ts´ao-chao in 1387; republished in a revised and enlarged
edition by Wang-tso in 1459.]

[Footnote 80: In the _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 5 verso.]

[Footnote 81: [Chinese] _yü kuo t´ien ch´ing yün p´o ch´u chê_. It will be
observed that the colour word used is _ch´ing_, which has the meaning of
blue or green, indifferently.]

[Footnote 82: Chang Ying-wên, in the _Ch´ing pi tsang_, written at the end
of the sixteenth century.]

[Footnote 83: In the _Ju shih we wên_, quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix.,
fol. 19, where we are told that "merchants bring fragments of Ch´ai ware
to sell for 100 ounces of silver. They say that if inlaid in the helmet at
the approach of battle, they are able to turn aside the fire implements
(_huo ch´i_)."]

[Footnote 84: For example, in the _Li t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pien_, a modern
work, we find: "As to what they call at present Yüan and Chün wares,
these in material, colour, sound, and brilliancy are similar to Ch´ai
yao, but they differ in thickness, and are perhaps the common folk's
imitation wares, and not the Imperial Shih Tsung ware. But we are not yet
able to say. If the ware has sky blue colour, clear and brilliant on a
coarse yellow brick-earth body, and rings like bronze, it must be Ch´ai
ware. As to Chün ware ... the specimens have in every case red colour and
variegated surface...."]

[Footnote 85: See p. 48.]

[Footnote 86: See pp. 39 and 54.]

[Footnote 87: I have seen, for instance, a remarkable ware of white
porcellanous type, with a transparent glaze of a faint bluish tinge, to
which the name Ch´ai was boldly given. It was certainly an early type,
perhaps as early as the Sung dynasty, but it belonged to a class of
porcelain which is almost certainly Corean. The only specimen I have seen
with a mark of the Posterior Chou period is not a blue-glazed piece but a
large vase with wonderful purplish black glaze of the Chien-yao type in
the Eumorfopoulos collection. The mark, however, has been cut at some time
subsequent to the manufacture, and can only be regarded as reflecting some
unknown person's opinion as to the date of the piece.]




CHAPTER IV

THE SUNG [Chinese] DYNASTY, 960-1279 A.D.


WITH the Sung dynasty firmly established in 960 A.D., the Chinese Empire
entered upon a long period of prosperity rendered glorious by the
cultivation of the arts of peace. It is true that the boundaries of the
Empire were contracted and the Tartar tribes on the north-west had made
good their independence and remained a constant menace to the frontiers
of China. In 1127 the dam was broken and the desert warriors, no longer
to be kept in check by diplomacy or force, burst upon Northern China and
drove the peace-loving Sung from their capital, the modern K´ai-fêng Fu
in Honan. The Emperor Kao Tsung and his Court fled across the Yangtze to
their new capital at Hang Chou, where the dynasty continued under the name
of the Southern Sung until 1279. The description given by Marco Polo of
Hang Chou, which he considered, even in 1280, to be "beyond dispute the
finest and the noblest city in the world," presents a wonderful picture of
the refinement and luxury of the Sung civilisation. The great city had its
network of canals and its twelve thousand stone bridges, its flourishing
guilds of craftsmen, its merchant princes who lived "nicely and delicately
as kings," its three hundred public baths of hot water, its ten principal
markets, its great lake lined with houseboats and barges, and its
streets thronged with carriages. The citizens themselves were peaceful
and orderly, neither wearing arms nor keeping them in their homes, and
their cordiality to foreigners was hardly less than the good will and
friendliness which marked their relations to one another.

The conditions which produced such a community as this were ideal for the
development of literature and art, and the Sung dynasty has been described
as a prolonged Augustan age for poets, painters, and art workers of every
persuasion. It was, moreover, an age of connoisseurs and collectors.
Treatises were written on artistic subjects, encyclopædias were published,
and illustrated catalogues issued by the order of the Emperor and his
followers. Among the best known of these last publications are the _Hsüan
Ho po ku t´u lu_, "Illustrated discussion of the antiquities in the
palace of Hsüan Ho," and the _Ku yü t´u p´u_, "Illustrated description of
ancient jade." It is true that modern criticism has seriously impugned
the archæological value of both these classic works. It is said that
ingenious conjectures and reconstructions, based on the reading of
earlier literature, too often take the place of practical archæology and
first-hand knowledge of the art of the Shang and Chou dynasties. Sung
archæology, in fact, appears to have been in much the same theoretical
condition as the Homeric criticism in Europe before the days of
Schliemann. But for us these works must always have great interest, if
only for the records they preserve of T´ang and Sung ideas. An excellent,
if extreme, instance of the inherent weakness of Sung archæology is given
by Laufer.[88] In describing certain objects of the Chou dynasty early
writers had been in the habit of speaking of "grain pattern" and "rush
pattern," assuming a knowledge in their readers which subsequent ages did
not possess. In the Sung period the current ideas with regard to these
patterns were expressed by the illustrator of the Sung edition of the _Li
Chi_ by ornamenting jade discs, in the one case with ears of wheat and in
the other with a clump of rushes. Modern archæologists have identified
the patterns in question on objects found in Chou burials, the grain
pattern being symbolically rendered by a number of small raised discs,
representing either grains of corn or heaps of grain, and the rush pattern
by a kind of matting diaper, geometrically drawn. This instance serves
to illustrate the salient differences between the Chou and Sung art,
the two extremes; the Chou art is symbolical and geometrical, the Sung
impressionist and naturalistic. The Sung poets and painters[89] communed
with Nature in the wilds and threw into their verse or on to their silks
vivid impressions and ideal conceptions of the natural phenomena. The
Chinese art of after years owes many of its noblest inspirations to Sung
masters, but nowhere are these ideas developed with the same freshness and
power as in the Sung originals.

The Sung dynasty was an age of achievement for the potter. The ceramic
art now took rank beside that of the bronze worker and jade carver, and it
received a great impetus from regular Imperial patronage. The Ting Chou
and Ju Chou factories in the north worked under Imperial mandate. In the
south the pottery centre in the Ch´ang-nan district received a new name
from the _nien hao_ of the Emperor Ching Tê (1004-1007), and developed
into the world-famed Ching-tê Chên. In the succeeding century the Imperial
factories at Hang Chou were celebrated for the Kuan yao or royal ware;
and numerous kilns were opened in the eighteen provinces, successfully
following the lead of the Imperial potteries.

Subsequent ages have never ceased to venerate the Sung as the classic
period of Chinese ceramic art, and in the eighteenth century the Emperor
Yung Cheng sent down selected Sung specimens from the palace collection to
be imitated by the Imperial potters at Ching-tê Chên. The same sentiment
pervades Chinese ceramic literature. It harks back perpetually to the Sung
wares as the ideal, collectors rave about them, and eulogy of the Ju,
Kuan, Ko, Ting, and Lung-ch´üan wares has been almost an obsession with
later Chinese writers.

Until recent years the European student has been almost entirely dependent
for his knowledge of the subject on these literary appreciations or
on relatively modern reproductions of the wares. Latterly, however,
the interest aroused among Western collectors in the earlier wares and
their consequently enhanced value have lured many authentic specimens
from China, and our information on the Sung potteries has considerably
expanded. But the difficulties of classification are still only in
part surmounted. Many important problems remain unsolved, and for the
understanding of several celebrated groups we are still at the mercy of
Chinese textbooks and encyclopædias. Obscurity of phrase, ambiguity of
colour words, quotations from early authorities passed on from writer to
writer with diminishing accuracy, are among the many stumbling-blocks
which the student of these books must surmount at every turn. Many of the
treatises occur in small encyclopædias and miscellanies on works of art,
which are each merely a corpus of quotations from similar works of the
past. Moreover, an accurate first-hand knowledge of the wares themselves
does not seem to have been held essential for the Chinese compiler. It
is true that the same might be said of many of our own art-manuals, and
with less excuse, for the Chinese can at any rate plead the veneration
for the writers of the past in an ancestor-worshipping people, whereas
our own shortcomings in this matter are due mainly to commercial reasons.
But if the Chinese manuals are often misleading and obscure, they are
at least brief--too brief, in many cases, and assuming a power to read
between the lines which no European student can be expected to possess.
The result is that where we have no actual specimens to help us, there is
unlimited scope for conflicting theories on the meaning of the original
text. However, as our collections grow and guiding specimens arrive, more
of the Chinese descriptions are explained, and working back from the known
to the unknown we are able to penetrate farther into the obscurities of
the subject.

To take a single instance. The well-known celadon ware, with strongly
built greyish white body, and beautiful smooth, translucent sea-green
glaze, has been identified beyond all doubt with the Lung-ch´üan ware of
Chinese books. When we read of the green porcelain (_ch´ing tz´ŭ_) bowls
with fishes in relief inside or on the bottom, our thoughts at once turn
with confidence to such specimens as Fig. 3, Plate 21, and we realise
that for once we are certain of the meaning of the elusive colour word
_ch´ing_. In the same way other phrases here and there can be run to
earth; and when we meet the same descriptive words in other contexts,
the key to their meaning is already in our hands. In this way no little
profit can even now be got from the study of Chinese works, and it tends
to increase steadily, though, of course, one living example is more
instructive than a host of descriptions.

The Sung wares are true children of the potter's craft, made as they are
by the simplest processes, and in the main decorated only by genuine
potter methods. The adventitious aid of the painter's brush was, it is
true, invoked in a few cases, but even then the pigments used were almost
entirely of an earthy nature, and it is very doubtful if painting in
enamels had yet been thought of. Two years ago enamel-painting on Sung
porcelain would have been denied in the most uncompromising terms. But
the claims of certain specimens of the Tz´ŭ Chou type, with brick-red and
leaf-green enamel on the glaze, to belong to the Sung period have been
so persistently urged that they cannot be entirely ignored. At present
I am unconvinced of their Sung origin; but our knowledge of T´ang wares
has developed with such surprising rapidity that we must be prepared for
similar surprises in connection with the Sung. Meanwhile it would be well
to suspend judgment on this interesting point.

The bulk of the Sung wares, at any rate, and among these the best of
them, were either wholly undecorated--that is, wholly dependent on form
and glaze, or else ornamented by such methods as moulding, stamping,
application of clay reliefs, carving, or etching with a fine point. All
these processes were applied while the clay was still unfixed, and the
glaze was afterwards added and the ware finished once and for all in
a single firing. It follows, then, that the glaze must be capable of
standing the fierce heat required to bake the body, and as the Sung bodies
are mostly of a high-fired porcellanous nature, the glazes used on them
were limited to the refractory kinds composed largely of petuntse or
porcelain stone. It follows also that any impurity, any particle of iron,
for instance, in the clay would make its presence felt in the glaze and
influence the colour of the latter, locally at any rate.

There is a striking contrast between the characteristic coloured glazes of
the Sung and the T'ang periods. The latter are, as a rule, comparatively
soft lead glazes, resembling in their colour, texture, and their minute
crazing the latter glazes on Ming pottery. The former are thick and hard,
and the crackle where it exists is positive and well defined.

Mr. W. Burton[90] makes some interesting comments on these high-fired
glazes: "There are certain technical points of great interest to be drawn
from a study of the Sung productions. In the first place, they prove that
the Chinese, from a very early period, had learnt to fire their pottery
at a much higher temperature than the contemporary potters of the West
were using.... A third point of even greater interest, which seems to have
escaped the notice of every previous writer, is that the method of firing
used by the Chinese naturally produced glazes in which the oxide of iron
and oxide of copper were present in the lowest state of oxidisation; and
this is the explanation of the seeming paradox that the green glazes,
known to us as celadon, and the copper-red glazes, were amongst the
earliest productions of the Chinese porcelain-makers, while in Europe they
have been among the latest secrets to be acquired."

The most important feature of the Sung wares lies in their glaze, which
holds _la qualité maîtresse de la céramique_, as an enthusiastic French
writer has expressed it. Its richness, thickness, lustre, translucency,
and its colour and crackle are the main criteria of the wares in the
eyes of Chinese connoisseurs. _Tzŭ jun_ (rich and unctuous), _hsi ni_
(fine and glossy), _jung_ (lustrous), _t´ung jung_ (lustrous throughout
or transparent) are among the phrases most constantly met in their
appreciations. A word, too, is usually added on colour of the body
material, which in many cases would appear to have been of a red or
brown tint, iron-coloured or copper-coloured. Not that it is necessary
to infer that in every instance the ware was red or brown throughout. It
is a matter of observation that in many of the early wares the exposed
places (usually confined to the edge of the foot rim or the unglazed
base) have assumed a rusty red colour in the firing, while a flake broken
from the glaze elsewhere reveals a white or greyish white porcelain body
within. This will often explain the seeming inconsistency of the Chinese
descriptions in which the word porcelain is applied to an apparently
dark-coloured material. At the same time, it is well to remember that the
Chinese words which we translate as porcelain were far more comprehensive
than our own term.

Our speculations on the nature of the Ch´ai ware in a previous chapter
brought us face to face with two main types of glaze, the thick opalescent
glaze of pale lavender or turquoise tint, and the smooth translucent
celadon glaze in which green is the dominant colour. These types are
prominent on the Sung wares, and almost all the varieties of coloured
Sung glazes--with such obvious exceptions as black and chocolate
brown--have more or less affinity to these two. So that if we place the
old turquoise[91] glaze at one end of the series and the green celadon at
the other, the rest will find an intermediate place, with leanings, of
course, towards one or other of the extremes. One of the puzzling features
in the study of the Sung wares is the interrelation of the various makes,
such as the Ju, Kuan, Ko, Lung-ch´üan, Tung ch´ing and Chün, which all
appear to have had points of mutual resemblance, although the descriptions
of individual specimens differ over a wide range. If, however, it can be
assumed that the same fundamental principles of manufacture were observed
in all these factories, and that the divergences in the wares arose from
local conditions, such as variety of clays, different conditions of firing
and slight variations in the composition of the glaze, a formula is
established which will cover most of our difficulties. I am assured by no
less an authority on glazes than Mr. W. Burton[92] that this assumption
is perfectly justifiable, and that one and the same glaze might emerge
from the kiln as a celadon green, a grey green, dove grey, lavender grey,
or lavender turquoise under slightly varying conditions of firing, and
according to the presence or absence of an infinitesimal proportion of
iron or copper oxide in the body or glaze. Even with their empirical
methods the old Chinese potters must have soon discovered the conditions
which favoured certain results, but in the meantime quite a number of
apparently different wares would have emerged from the same factory, and
yet, in spite of local peculiarities, a general relationship might be
observed in productions of different districts. So that when one Chinese
writer compares the Ju ware to the Ch´ai, another the Kuan to the Ju,
another the Ko to the Kuan, and another the Lung-ch´üan to the Ko, it
is not necessary to assume that these porcelains were all grass-green
celadons because we happen to know that that colour was the prevailing
tint of the Lung-ch´üan ware. The Ch´ai and the Lung-ch´üan may have been
as far apart as lavender and celadon green, and the chain of relationship
linked up by the Chinese writers still hold firm.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 15.--Sung Wares.

Fig. 1.--Peach-shaped Water Vessel, dark-coloured biscuit, smooth greenish
grey glaze. (?) Ju or Kuan ware. Length 5¼ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._

Figs. 2 and 3.--Shallow Cup with flanged handle, and covered box,
opalescent grey glaze. Kuan or Chün wares. Length of cup 7½ inches.
Diameter of box 6 1/16 inches.

_Rothenstein Collection._]

No one but an experienced potter can speak with confidence of the methods
by which the varying colour effects in the Sung glazes were obtained,
but it is quite certain that the Sung potters were not ignorant of the
value of such colouring agents as the oxides of iron, copper, cobalt, and
perhaps even of antimony. Green, blue, yellow, and brown glazes, which
owed their tint to these minerals, had appeared some centuries before on
the T´ang wares. But to what extent the men of Sung made deliberate use of
these oxides is another question. It is certain, for instance, that the
green celadon owed its colour to the presence of iron oxide, but whether
that was a natural element in the clay of certain districts, or whether
it was introduced in the glaze by the admixture of ferruginous clay, is
not always clear. Again, those bursts of contrasting colour, usually red,
which enrich the opalescent grey and lavender glazes, are most readily
explained by the local presence of copper or iron oxide in an appreciable
quantity. No doubt these effects were at first accidental, but it is
certain that observation and experiment eventually taught the potters
to produce them systematically. Otherwise, how explain the appearance
of these colours in symmetrical splashes? The _flambé_ glazes of the
eighteenth century are known to have been produced by means of copper
oxide, and it is not unreasonable to infer its presence in similar effects
at an early date. But it is equally certain that many of the changing
tints in the thick, uneven, bubbly glazes of the Sung and Yüan wares are
due to opalescence alone. This has been proved to demonstration by Mr.
Burton, who has produced from his kilns a porcelain glaze with passages of
pale lavender, and even flushes of warm red, by using nothing but a thick,
opalescent glaze entirely innocent of any colouring oxide.

Finally, a word of explanation is needed with regard to the frequent
references to thinly potted specimens among the principal Sung wares.
Almost all of the existing examples are of a thick and rather heavy type.
Not that we would have them thinner, for much of their charm is due to the
massive opulence of the thick opalescent glaze with its prismatic depths
and changing hues. But the Chinese writers constantly refer to a thinner
ware as well as the thick. Where are these thin and elegant pieces?
The suggestion that, being more fragile, they have by now all perished
has been coldly received as an obvious and easy answer to a difficult
question. But it is reasonable enough, after all, when one remembers that
upwards of a thousand years have passed since their manufacture. The
alternative that they existed only in the poetical imagination of later
Chinese writers is far less probable, though doubtless account must be
taken of the exaggerations indulged in by men who were describing the
ideal wares of a classic period. "Thin as paper," for instance, must
have been a poetic licence as applied to the Ch´ai ware. I shall not
cite the illustrations in the Album of Hsiang Yüan-p´ien[93] as proof of
the fineness and trim regularity of the best Sung specimens. Whatever
the value of this manuscript may originally have been, no reliance can
be placed on the illustrations as reproduced in _Porcelain of Different
Dynasties_.[94] The original was unfortunately destroyed by fire in 1888,
and what we have now is, at best, the reproduction of a copy, and probably
that of a copy of a copy. It is quite possible that the thinner Sung wares
are still represented in Chinese collections, rare though they must of
necessity be. But I believe that even our own collections are capable of
supplying proof that, making reasonable allowance for verbal exaggeration,
the Sung potters did make wares which could fairly be described as thin.
Many of the white Ting wares are thin enough to be translucent; no one
questions the correctness of the description as applied to them. It only
wants one specimen to prove the case for the celadon glazes, and that may
be seen in the beautiful bowl in Mr. Alexander's loan collection at the
Victoria and Albert Museum (Plate 16). As for the Ju and Kuan ware, it is
useless to consider their case until we are quite satisfied that we have
established their identity; and in the nature of things the opalescent
glazes and those described as "thick as massed lard" by the Chinese can
only have accompanied a relatively thin body. On the other hand, many
of the Corean celadons are of unimpeachable thinness, and as they were
contemporary with the Sung porcelains and were almost certainly copied
from them, there seems no real ground to withhold belief entirely from the
Chinese statements with regard to the thinness of certain coloured Sung
wares.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 88: _Jade_, op. cit., p. 17.]

[Footnote 89: See L. Binyon, _Painting in the Far East_, chap. ix.]

[Footnote 90: _Porcelain, A Sketch of its Nature, Art and Manufacture_, p.
56.]

[Footnote 91: This colour is quite distinct from the turquoise of the
_demi-grand feu_, a more lightly fired colour familiar on the later
porcelains.]

[Footnote 92: Mr. Burton's practical experiments and the beautiful results
obtained by following out his conceptions of Chinese methods are well
known to all admirers of the Lancastrian pottery.]

[Footnote 93: A late sixteenth-century work, published with translations
by Dr. S.W. Bushell, 1908, under the title of _Porcelain of Different
Dynasties_.]

[Footnote 94: I have already had occasion to criticise the inconsistencies
in the colouring, etc. of this work. See _Burlington Magazine_, April,
1909, p. 23.]




CHAPTER V

JU, KUAN, AND KO WARES


_Ju yao_ [Chinese]

THOUGH no authenticated example of Ju ware is known in Europe, it is
impossible to ignore a factory whose productions were unanimously
acclaimed by Chinese writers as the cream of the Sung wares. Its place
of origin, Ju Chou, in the province of Honan, lies in the very district
which was celebrated in a previous reign for the Ch´ai pottery, and it is
probable that the Ju factories continued the traditions of this mysterious
ware. Nothing, however, is known of them until they received the Imperial
command to supply a _ch´ing_ (blue or green) porcelain to take the place
of the white Ting Chou porcelain which had fallen into temporary disfavour
on account of certain blemishes. This event, which took place towards the
end of the Northern Sung period (960-1127 A.D.), implies that whatever
had been their past history, the Ju Chou factories were at this period
pre-eminent for the beauty of their _ch´ing_ porcelain. It would appear
from the _Ch´ing po tsa chih_,[95] which was written in 1193, that the Ju
Chou potters were set to work in the "forbidden precincts of the Palace,"
and that selected pieces only were offered for Imperial use, the rejected
specimens being offered for sale. Even at the end of the twelfth century
we are assured that it was very difficult to obtain examples of the ware.

From the various accounts on which we have to depend for our conception
of the ware, it is clear that the body was of a dark colour.[96] The
glaze was thick and of a colour variously described as "approaching the
blue of the sky after rain" (i.e. like the Ch´ai ware), pale blue or
green,[97] and "egg white"[98] which seems to imply a white ware with a
faint greenish tinge. The author of the _Ch'ing pi tsang_,[99] a work of
considerable repute published in 1595, gives a first-hand description of
the ware: "Ju yao I have seen. Its colour is 'egg white' and its glaze
is lustrous and thick like massed lard. In the glaze appear faint 'palm
eye' markings like crabs' claws.[100] Specimens with sesamum designs (lit.
flowers), finely and minutely engraved on the bottom, are genuine. As
compared with Kuan yao in material and make, it is more rich and unctuous
(_tzŭ jun_)." Two mysterious peculiarities have been attributed to the Ju
ware, viz. that powdered cornaline was mixed with the glaze, and that a
row of nail heads was sometimes found under the base. The first has been
taken as merely an imaginative explanation of the lustre of the glaze,
but it is certain that some kind of pulverised quartz-like stone was used
in the composition of later glazes, such as the "ruby red" (see vol.
ii., p. 123). The second, which has been seriously interpreted to mean
that actual metal nails were found protruding from the glaze (a physical
impossibility, as the metal would inevitably have melted in the kiln), is
probably due to a misunderstanding of a difficult Chinese phrase, _chêng
ting_,[101] which may mean "engraved with a point" or "cut nails." The
former seems to satisfy the requirements of the case, though it would be
possible to render the sentence, "having sesamum flowers on the bottom and
fine small nails," referring to the little projections often found on the
bottom of dishes which have been supported in the kiln on pointed rests or
"spurs."

In the list of porcelains made at the Imperial potteries about the year
1730[102] we read of imitations of Ju ware from specimens sent down from
the Imperial collections. These imitations had in one case an uncrackled
glaze on a copper-coloured body, and in the other a glaze with crackle
like fish roe; and we may fairly infer that the originals had the same
peculiarities. A reputed specimen[103] of modern Ju glaze[104] has a pale
greyish green tint, with just a suspicion of blue, and would answer fairly
well to the description _tan ch´ing_ or _fên ch´ing_.

But probably our safest clue to the appearance of Ju ware is to be found
in the important passage already mentioned,[105] in which a Sung writer
describes the Corean wares as in general appearance like the old _pi-sê_
ware of Yüeh Chou and the _new_ Ju Chou ware. The typical Corean wares of
this time are not uncommon, and their glaze--a soft grey green or greenish
grey, with a more or less obvious tinge of blue--would satisfy the Chinese
phrases, _tan ch´ing_ and _fên ch´ing_, and in the bluer specimens might,
by a stretch of poetic phrase, even be likened to the sky after rain.
The "egg white," however, must have been a somewhat paler tint if the
expression can be taken in any literal sense.

From the foregoing considerations we may conclude that the Ju porcelain
was a beautiful ware of celadon type, varying in tint from a very pale
green to a bluish green.

Though it is nowhere definitely stated how long the Ju Chou factories
retained their supremacy, it is tolerably clear from Hsü Ching's reference
in 1125, or very soon after, to the "modern porcelain of Ju Chou," that
they came into prominence towards the end of the Northern Sung period,
perhaps in the last half of the eleventh century; and as we have no
further information about them, we may perhaps infer that they sank into
obscurity when the Sung emperors were driven from the North of China by
the invading Tartars in 1127. In any case, the Ju ware seems to have
become as extinct as the Ch´ai by the end of the Ming dynasty. Hsiang
Yüan-p´ien, late in the sixteenth century, states that "Ju yao vessels are
disappearing. The very few which exist are almost all dishes, cups, and
the like, and many of these are damaged and imperfect."[106] A few years
later another writer[107] declares that the Ch´ai and Ju porcelains had
ceased to exist.

It is not to be supposed that Ju Chou had the monopoly of the particular
kind of _ch´ing_ ware in which its factories excelled. A number of other
and not distant potteries were engaged in a similar manufacture, though
with less conspicuous success. We read,[108] for instance, that "it was
made in the districts of T´ang, Têng, and Yao on the north of the (Yellow)
River, though the productions of Ju Chou were the best."

It has been already remarked that we possess no authenticated example
of Ju porcelain. Doubtless there are many pieces which are tentatively
assigned to Ju Chou by hopeful owners. But it must be confessed that the
few which have hitherto been published as such are singularly unfortunate
choices. Dr. B. Laufer, for instance, in his excellent work on jade,[109]
incidentally figures two vases for divining rods of a well-known form, of
which he hazards the remark "that both have presumably been made in the
kilns of Ju-chou."

Dr. Laufer does not claim to have made a particular study of Chinese
ceramics apart from the Han pottery, but if these pieces are Ju yao,
then Ju yao, so far from having been extinct for some centuries, is a
comparatively common ware. Another instance is the "funeral vase," now in
the Victoria and Albert Museum, published[110] by its former owner, Dr.
Bushell, as a specimen of Ju ware, mainly, I suppose, on the strength of
the description, "Kuan Yin vase of Ju Yao," engraved on the stand by the
Chinese collector[111] through whose hands it had previously passed. This
form of certificate is always open to doubt, and had it really been a
specimen of undoubted Ju yao, it is most improbable that the Chinese would
have allowed it at that time to pass into foreign hands.

But a glance at the piece itself is sufficient to dispel all illusions
on that point. So far from excelling other Sung wares, this piece is
decidedly inferior in every detail to the most ordinary Sung specimens.
It has a coarse, sandy, greyish buff body and impure greyish green
tinge, such as appears on some of the early funeral wares which make
no pretence to finished workmanship. The ornament consists of applied
reliefs perfunctorily moulded, and though its archæological interest is
considerable, and, like almost all Chinese wares, it possesses a certain
charm, any attempt to place it on a high artistic plane can only end in a
_reductio ad absurdum_.

Many other examples of this ware have since arrived in Europe, and they
all belong to the same type. Some, however, appear to be later than the
others, having reliefs of white porcelain instead of the usual pottery.
They are always described as "funeral vases" by the Chinese, and it is
exceedingly probable that the description is correct. The subjects of
the reliefs are always of a hieratic kind, including such figures as the
dragon of the East, the tiger of the West, the tortoise of the North, and
the red bird of the South, the sun disc, and a ring of indistinguishable
figures, perhaps Buddhist deities. There is no reason why such a type of
sepulchral vase may not have been in use for many centuries, and if the
porcelain reliefs in one specimen suggest a date no earlier than the Ming
dynasty, the glaze in another has strong analogies to some of the rougher
T´ang wares. The majority of these vases are of coarse, rough make; others
are superior in finish and of comparatively attractive form. A good
example, belonging to Mr. R.H. Benson, is shown on Plate 14. It is of
dense grey stoneware, with opaque greenish grey glaze, with a balustrade
supported by four figures on the shoulder, and a dragon and a figure on
a tiger (perhaps representing the mythical Fêng Kan), besides some small
figures with indistinct attributes on the neck. The height is 20 inches.

It is, of course, possible that some of these represent the coarser
makes of the T´ang, Têng, and Yao districts (see p. 55), and that the
attribution of the Bushell vase by Liu Yen-t´ing may refer to a lower
quality of Ju yao which included these wares, or may be even the wares
made at Ju Chou before or after its period of Imperial patronage.[112]

My own conception of the Ju yao is most nearly realised by the lovely but
sadly damaged bowl in the Alexander Collection lately in the Loan Court
at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Its peculiar form is difficult to
reproduce by photographic means, but Fig. 1 of Plate 16 gives a fair idea
of it. The colour is precisely that of the most beautiful bluish green
Corean bowls, but the usual Corean finish and the sand marks on the base
are absent, and the glaze is broken by a large, irregular crackle. Surely
this cannot be far removed from the "secret colour" of the Yüeh ware and
the _fên ch´ing_ of the Ju?

[Illustration: PLATE 16.


Sung Wares

Fig. 1.--Bowl with six-lobed sides; thin porcellanous ware, burnt brown
at the foot-rim, with bluish green celadon glaze irregularly crackled.
_Alexander Collection._ Diameter 9½ inches.

Fig. 2.--Tripod Incense Burner. White porcelain, burnt pale red under
the feet. P Lung-ch´üan celadon ware. This kind of celadon is known as
_kinuta. seiji_ in Japan, where it is highly prized. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._ Height 4⅛ inches.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2
]

Another specimen of reputed Ju ware is an exquisite peach-shaped
brush-washer or cup in the Eumorfopoulos Collection (Plate 15, Fig.
1). It has a dark-coloured body and a beautiful smooth glaze of pale
greenish grey tint, and whatever its origin, it is certainly a refined and
beautiful example of the potter's art.


_Kuan yao_ [Chinese]

This ware is only second in importance to the Ju yao, and its exact
nature is scarcely less speculative. The name, which means "official" or
"Imperial" ware, seems to have been first applied to the porcelains made
for Imperial use at the Northern Sung capital, the modern K´ai-fêng Fu,
in Honan. The factory was established at the command of the Emperor Hui
Tsung in the Chêng Ho period (1111-1117), according to the earliest[113]
or in the preceding Ta Kuan period (1107-1110), according to a later[114]
account. Its career, however, was interrupted by the flight of the Sung
Court south of the Yangtze in 1127, though it is probable that a number
of the potters followed the Court. At any rate, the traditions of the
original factory were continued at the new capital, Hang Chou, by an
official named Shao Ch´êng-shang, who set up kilns in the Imperial
precincts, in the department called _Hsiu net ssŭ_. Another writer locates
this factory under the Phœnix Hill. Shortly afterwards a new pottery was
started "below the suburban altar" at Hang Chou, which copied the forms of
the older Kuan ware, but without equalling its quality. We have then no
fewer than three different makes all included in the name of Kuan yao, all
following one tradition but differing, as we shall see, in material and
quality.

The first is the K´ai-fêng Fu variety. The earlier writers in the _Cho
kêng lu_ and _Ko ku yao lun_ make no attempt to differentiate[115] this
porcelain from the later Kuan yao, but we find in a sixteenth-century
collection of miscellanies, the _Liu ch´ing jih cha_, the following scrap
of information: that "specimens (of the K´ai-fêng ware) with streaky
colour, white on the upper part and thin as paper, were inferior to Ju
ware"; and the more modern _T´ao lu_ informs us that the K´ai-fêng Kuan
ware was made of fine unctuous material with thin body, the colour of
the glaze being _ch´ing_ (blue or green) with a tinge of pale red (_fên
hung_) and of varying depth of tone. It is further stated that in the Ta
Kuan period moon white or _clair de lune_ (_yüeh pai_), pale green or blue
(_fên ch´ing_) and deep green (_ta lü_) glazes were esteemed, whereas in
the Chêng Ho period only the _ch´ing_ colour in varying depth of tone was
used. Moreover, the glaze had "crab's claw crackle," and the vessels had
a "red-brown mouth and iron foot." The latter phrase (explained below)
is not consistent with the account in the _Liu ch´ing jih cha_, "white
on the upper part," which certainly implies a light-coloured clay, but I
confess that I have little confidence in the subtle distinctions of the
_T´ao lu_ in this passage. They are mere assertions, without any reasons
given, and it is not difficult to find a source from which they may in
part, at least, have been derived, and which in itself guarantees no
such differentiation.[116] It is likely enough that the K´ai-fêng ware
differed in body from the red ware of Hang Chou, but it is not likely to
have differed very greatly in other respects, seeing that the southern
variety continued the traditions of the northern, and that the earliest
authorities do not trouble to distinguish the two wares at all.

Another critic,[117] discussing Kuan ware as a whole, makes its
characteristics practically the same as those of the Ko ware, to which we
shall come next, and states that "in regard to colour, in both cases the
pale ch´ing (_fên ch´ing_) specimens are the best, the 'pale white' (_tan
pai_[118]) are second, while those with ash-coloured (_hui sê_) glaze are
very inferior." From the same writer we gather that artificial staining
of the crackle was employed on both Kuan and Ko wares, for he speaks of
"ice-crackle with lines red as eel's blood" and "plum-blossom[119] crackle
with ink-coloured lines," besides an inferior type of crackle with fine
lines which did not suggest any particular pattern.

The Hang Chou Kuan ware, variously described as _Kuan yao_, _Hsiu nei ssŭ
yao_, _Nei yao_, and _Shao yao_ from the locality of the factory and the
name of its manager, is described in both the _Cho kêng lu_ and the _Ko
ku yao lun_. In the former it was said to be a _ch´ing_ ware, "finely
levigated clay[120] is the rule, and it is of very exquisite make; the
coloured glaze is translucent[121]; it is the delight of the age."[122]
The latter,[123] which makes no mention of an earlier Kuan ware, gives
the following description of the _Nei yao_: "The material is fine and
unctuous, the colour _ch´ing_ with a flush of pale red (_tai fên hung_)
and of varying intensity. Specimens with crab's-claw crackle, brown
mouth, and iron foot, and of good colour rank with Ju yao. There are,
besides, specimens with a black body which are called _wu ni yao_. All the
imitations which are made at Lung-ch´üan are without crackle."

Further information is given in the _Po wu yao lan_, viz. that the clay
used at the factory below the Phœnix Hill at Hang Chou for making Kuan yao
was of reddish brown (_tzŭ_) colour, and that this explains the phenomenon
of the "brown mouth and iron foot"[124]; for "the brown mouth is due to
the fact that the vessel's mouth points upwards and the glaze flows
downwards and is thinner at the mouth than on the rest of the body, so
that the brown colour (of the clay) is disclosed at the mouth." The iron
foot is, of course, the raw edge of the clay which appears at the foot
rim. As this peculiarity is not noted in the _Cho kêng lu_, we are at
liberty to infer that it was not a constant feature of the Kuan wares, and
that some of them, as already hinted in the quotation from the _Liu ch´ing
jih cha_, had a whitish body.

Of the third Kuan yao made "below the suburban altar" at a slightly later
date, we know nothing except that it followed the style of the older
wares, but with inferior results.

Though we do not pretend to attach much weight to the illustrations in
Hsiang's Album, the descriptions in the accompanying text cannot be
ignored. They include ten specimens of Kuan yao,[125] five of which are
explained as _fên ch´ing_ (pale blue or green). Of the rest one is "pale
_ch´ing_ clear and lustrous like a sapphire blue jewel,"[126] evidently
with a decidedly blue tinge; another is "kingfisher, blue as the clear
blue sky,"[127] recalling the Ch´ai "blue of the sky after rain "; another
is "sky blue" (_t´ien ch´ing_); another "onion green" (_ch´ing ts´ung_),
the colour of onion sprouts; and another is "egg green" (_luan ch´ing_),
which recalls and perhaps explains the _luan pai_ (egg white) of the Ju
yao.

[Illustration: PLATE 17

Two examples of Sung wares of the Chün or Kuan factories.

Fig. 1.--Bowl with lavender glaze, lightly crackled. _O. Raphael
Collection._ Height 4½ inches.

Fig. 2.--Vase with smooth lavender grey glaze suffused with purple.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._ Height 3¾ inches.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2
]

Among the various Sung and Yüan wares with more or less opalescent glazes
which have reached Europe in recent years, it is possible to differentiate
a considerable group whose characteristics seem to point to the Kuan yao.
Their body is usually of fine grain, whitish colour and porcellanous
texture, but assuming a rusty brownish tint in the exposed parts. It is,
in fact, very much finer than the Yüan wares, usually so called, and
all but the choicest wares of Chün type (see ch. ix.). The glaze, too,
though generally opalescent, shows marked differences from that of the
Chün and Yüan pieces. It is smooth and even instead of being lumpy and
irregular, and it ends close up to the foot rim in a comparatively
regular line instead of ending short of the base in a thick roll or in
heavy drops. And the base instead of being quite bare or covered with a
brown glaze, has a patch of the surface glaze underneath. The colours of
this glaze show wide variations from a deep brownish green, which suggest
the _ta lü_, to pale dove grey (_fên ch´ing_) and pale lavender blue
tints, which approximate to the Chinese _t´ien ch´ing_ or sky blue, though
perhaps not so closely as does the so-called "old turquoise." Some of
these glazes, especially the pale lavender and dove greys, are broken by
passages of red or crimson, which in turn shade off into green and brown
tints. Although the expression _tai fên hung_ in the _Ko ku yao lun_[128]
has already been rendered in its most natural sense, "with a tinge of
red," we should perhaps mention a possible alternative which might make
it refer to these very passages of red colour; and the fact that they
sometimes assume fantastic shapes will explain why the Chinese saw in them
"butterflies, birds, fish, unicorns, and leopards."[129] On the other
hand, it is clear that these passages of red are not always accidental,
for they sometimes take symmetrical forms, and it is quite possible
that even the bird and fish forms may have been roughly designed in the
colouring medium.

Plate 17 will serve to illustrate this group of possible Kuan wares.
Another example is a dish in the British Museum which has a whitish
porcellanous body and a slightly crackled pale lavender grey glaze of
singular beauty. Other specimens in the same collection include a small
tea bowl with misty grey glaze of the _fên ch´ing_ type, smooth and
uncrackled, and a body which appears deep reddish brown at the foot; and a
small bottle-shaped vase, with lobed body of melon shape, which, though of
doubtful antiquity, answers closely to the Chinese descriptions. It has a
dark-coloured but well levigated body, deep brown at the foot, and showing
a brown tinge where the glaze has run thin at the lip, and the colour
is a pale bluish grey with rosy tinges where the body colour is able to
penetrate the semi-translucent glaze. Another doubtful specimen, with very
similar characteristics, was figured by me in the _Burlington Magazine_
some years ago.[130]

Since the genuine Sung specimens were sent to the Imperial factories to
be closely copied (about 1730), it might be supposed that the relatively
modern imitations would supply some clue to the original types. There
are one or two examples of eighteenth-century copies of Kuan ware in the
British Museum on which the glaze is definitely lavender blue in tint,
with a crackle which in one case is wide and emphasised by blackened
lines, and in the other of a finer mesh.[131] The natural tendency,
however, of modern imitative wares is to exaggerate some characteristic
which this or that potter might imagine to be specially important, and as
it is impossible to say in many cases exactly when the piece in question
was made, we cannot be sure how far the potters in each case may have
strayed from the original type.[132] No doubt in time these imitations
would become a mere convention. It should be said in passing that the
modern copies have a white porcelain body, and to obtain the appearance of
"brown mouth and iron foot" the potters had recourse to the expedient of
colouring the parts concerned with brown ferruginous clay.

The _Cho kêng lu_[133] refers to three minor wares which were regarded
as inferior to Kuan ware, and later writers have assumed that they
belonged to the same category. These are the Hsü wares, Yü-hang wares, and
_wu-ni_ wares. The first[134] is so little known that its identity has
been lost in variant readings, such as Hsün [Chinese] in later writers,
which is very near in appearance to _tung_ [Chinese], a common form used
for the Tung ware (see p. 82); and we can safely leave it until some
clearer information is forthcoming. The second, according to the _T´ao
lu_,[135] was a Sung ware made at Yü-hang Hsien, in the prefecture of
Hang Chou. "Its colour was like Kuan porcelain without its crackle, its
lustre (_jung_), and its unctuous richness (_jun_)." The _wu-ni_ ware is
dark-bodied earthenware, which is discussed on p. 133.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 18.--Sung dynasty.

Fig. 1.--Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green celadon
glaze. Northern Chinese. Diameter 7¾ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey stoneware,
burnt reddish brown, milky grey glaze, closely crackled. Height 7 inches.
_Freer Collection._]


_Ko yao_ [Chinese]

_Ko yao_ (the elder brother's ware), or _Ko ko yao_, as it is sometimes
called with the first character repeated, is unanimously ranked by Chinese
writers with the Ju and Kuan wares. According to the traditional accounts,
it was first made by the elder of the two brothers Chang [Chinese],
who were potters of Lung-ch´üan Hsien in the Ch´u-chou Fu, province of
Chekiang, each having a separate factory in the Liu-t´ien district. Most
of the Chinese authorities are content to give the date of these brothers
as some time in the Sung dynasty, but one account[136] narrows the period
down to the Southern Sung (1127-1279 A.D.). Professor Hirth takes the
rationalistic view that the story of the brothers is a myth embodying the
fact that there were two distinct types of ware made in the Lung-ch´üan
district. Be this as it may, the Ko yao is of considerable interest to us
as forming a link between the obscure Ju and Kuan wares and the well-known
Lung-ch´üan celadon, approaching the latter in its grass green and sea
green varieties and the former in its most highly prized specimens of
bluish green or grey tones.

Of its close resemblance to the Kuan ware there can be no doubt, for
two highly reputable Chinese writers[137] describe the two wares
simultaneously and under one heading, enumerating their various colours
in order of merit as _fên ch´ing_, _tan pai_, and _hui sê_ (see p. 60),
besides mentioning the several kinds of crackle which appeared in the
glaze. The only distinctions which the author of the _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_
draws between the two wares are that (1) the Kuan yao crackle is of the
"crab's claw"[138] type, while that of the Ko is like fish-roe,[139] and
(2) the Ko glaze is somewhat less beautiful than the Kuan. With regard
to the crackle, other writers assert that short cracks are characteristic
of the Ko yao, and one author uses the picturesque phrase, "crackle of a
hundred dangers."[140]

Accidental splashes of contrasting colour, which sometimes assumed
fantastic forms, were common to the Ko and Kuan wares, as mentioned on p.
65, and the author of the _Po wu yao lan_ explains these as "originating
in the colour of the glaze and forming on its outer surface," and as "due
to the fire's magic transmutation."

Another account of the ware given in the _Ko ku yao lun_ depicts it as of
deep or pale _ch´ing_ colour, with brown mouth and iron foot, and adds
that when the colour was good it was classed with Tung[141] ware. The same
passage further informs us that a great quantity of the ware "recently
made at the end of the Yüan dynasty" was coarse and dry in body and
inferior in colour, a statement to which we shall return presently.

[Illustration: PLATE 19.

Vase of close-grained, dark reddish brown stoneware with thick, smooth
glaze, boldly crackled. Ko ware of the Sung dynasty.

    Height 10⅝ inches.                _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]

Other descriptive references to Ko yao include a verse on a Ko ink
palette belonging to Ku Liu,[142] which was "green (_lü_) as the waves in
spring"; the eighteenth-century list of Imperial wares[143] which mention
"Ko glazes on an iron body," of two kinds, viz. millet-coloured and
pale green[144] (or blue), both stated to have been copied from ancient
specimens sent down from the palace; and a single specimen in Hsiang's
Album, which is given as _fên ch´ing_.

In these various descriptions it is possible to recognise a celadon green
ware, green as the waves of spring, while the familiar stone grey and
buff crackled wares, which range from greyish white to pale grey green
and greenish yellow, seem to be indicated in the expressions _mi sê_,
_fên ch´ing_, _tan pai_, and _hui sê_. The modern versions of the latter
class, which are fairly common, are usually known even to-day as _Ko yao_,
the expression in potter's language being practically synonymous with
"crackled wares."[145] Other ancient factories where similar wares were
made are Hsiang-hu and Chi Chou.[146]

As for the finer Ko wares, which appear to have been indistinguishable
from the Kuan, we may look for them in the group described on p. 65,
and in such beautiful pieces as that illustrated on Plate 19, a vase
of fine oval form with delicate grey glaze of faint bluish tone boldly
crackled. The solid quality of the glaze of this last specimen and the
texture of the surface, which is smooth but lustrous, suggest some natural
substance such as the shell of an egg or a smooth polished stone rather
than an artificial material. The colour perhaps more truly answers the
description "egg white" (_luan pai_) than any other Sung glaze which I
have seen. Plate 20 illustrates another choice example but with a yellower
tone of glaze; and a large square vase in the Freer Collection[147] with
thick, misty grey glaze showing a faint tinge of red, which recall the
_sê ch´ing tai fên hung_ of the Kuan ware, was shown in the New York
exhibition of 1914. All these three specimens have a dark reddish brown
body of fine close grain, and their glaze is very thick and unctuous with
a tendency to contract into thick wax-like drops under the base.

From certain passages in the Chinese works it appears that a revival of
the Ko yao took place in the Yüan dynasty, if indeed the manufacture
had not been continuous. The _Ko ku yao lun_, for instance, under the
heading of Ko yao, states that the "ware recently made at the end of
the Yüan dynasty was coarse and dry in body and inferior in colour." In
the _Po wu yao lan_[148] we read that "certain Ko wares made in private
factories took their clay from the Phœnix Hill" (at Hang Chou, where the
Kuan potteries were located), and the _T´ao lu_[149] definitely states
that clay was brought from Hang Chou for this later Ko ware. Add to these
the remark in the _Ko ku yao lun_ on the subject of Kuan ware[150]--"all
the imitations which are made at Lung-ch´üan are without crackle"--and
it is clear that the Lung-ch´üan potters in the fourteenth century were
busy copying both the Kuan and Ko wares, and that to obtain a closer
resemblance to the former they actually sent to Hang Chou for the red clay
which would produce the "brown mouth and iron foot." The alleged absence
of crackle would indicate a departure from the original Ko methods, but
we are at liberty to doubt the universal application of such sweeping
statements, and I ventured to suggest[151] that a remarkable bowl in the
British Museum was a Yüan example of Ko ware, because, in spite of its Ko
crackle, it corresponds so closely to the other points in the descriptions
of this make. In any case, there is little doubt that it belongs to an
early period of manufacture.

[Illustration: PLATE 20.

Deep Bowl of reddish brown stoneware with thick, boldly crackled glaze. Ko
ware of the Sung dynasty.

    Height (without stand) 4 inches.        _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]

The following extract from a work entitled _Pi chuang so yü_,[152] which
would be still more interesting if we knew its date, serves to illustrate
some of the difficulties the Chinese collector had to face in the past:
"Ancient examples of Ko yao of the Sung period have survived, though for
a long time past genuine and counterfeit have been confused together.
Among men there are very many who seek for the genuine Sung, but refined
and beautiful specimens are exceedingly few.... Ts´ao Chiung, a man of
high birth, secured an incense burner, in height about two inches and in
width proportionate. The cover was beautiful jade carved with a pattern
of sea waves of _Tung ch´ing_[153] colour, with a handle in form of a
crane, a genuine piece, and exceedingly beautiful. It came to the ears
of the eunuch Mai, governor of the district, and he put Chiung in prison
and subjected him to the inquisition. His son had no choice but to offer
the vessel as a gift. Later the powerful hand of the superintendent of
the Board of Rites seized it. In the Chêng Tê period (1522-66) it was
stolen, and, coming to the district below Wu, it became the property of
Chang Hsin-fu of Tien-shan, Shanghai, who sold it for 200 ounces of gold.
After that it came again into the hands of a connoisseur, and the Imperial
authorities in the end did not succeed in recovering it. This was a
genuine antique Ko vessel."


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 95: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 9 verso. We gather
from this passage that Ju Chou potters were summoned to the Imperial
precincts at K´ai-fêng Fu; for Ju Chou itself is some distance from the
capital.]

[Footnote 96: The _Liu ch´ing jih cha_--a Ming work quoted in the _T´ao
shuo_--describes it as "in colour like Ko ware, but with a faint yellowish
tinge"; and the more modern _T´ao lu_ (bk. vi., fol. 2) speaks of it as
having "clay fine and lustrous like copper."]

[Footnote 97: [Chinese] _tan ch'ing_, according to the _Ko ku yao lun_.]

[Footnote 98: [Chinese] _luan pai_; according to the _Po wu yao lan_. Of
three specimens figured in Hsiang's Album (op. cit., pp. 19, 22 and 34),
two are described as _yü lan_ (i.e. sky blue), and _fên ch'ing_ (pale blue
or green), and the third is undescribed.]

[Footnote 99: Pt. i., fols. 8 and 9.]

[Footnote 100: It is not clear what these markings were, whether spots in
the glaze or a kind of crackle. The simile of "crabs' claws" is applied to
crackle in other passages.]

[Footnote 101: [Chinese]]

[Footnote 102: This interesting list, given in the _Chiang hsi t'ung
chih_, bk. xciii., fol. ii., is summarised in vol. ii., ch. xii. It is
also quoted in the _T'ao lu_, and translated by Bushell, _O.C.A._, p. 369.]

[Footnote 103: See Bushell, _O.C.A._, plate 77.]

[Footnote 104: In a passage referring to modern imitations, the _T´ao lu_
(bk. vii., fol. 10) states that "at Ching-tê Chên, the makers of the large
vases known as _kuan ku_ (imperial antiques) for the most part imitate
the colour of Ju yao glaze. Beautiful specimens of these (imitations) are
commonly called 'blue of the sky after rain.'"]

[Footnote 105: P. 39. Account of a mission to Corea in 1125 by Hsü Ching.]

[Footnote 106: Hsiang's Album, op. cit., Fig. 19.]

[Footnote 107: Son of the author of the _Ch´ing pi tsang_. His father (see
p. 53) declared that he had seen Ju porcelain.]

[Footnote 108: In the _Cho kêng lu_, published in 1368, but of special
interest because it repeats the statements of a Sung writer, Yeh-chih,
author of the _Yüan chai pi hêng_.]

[Footnote 109: Op. cit., plate 20.]

[Footnote 110: Cosmo Monkhouse, _Chinese Porcelain_, plate 1, and Bushell,
_Chinese Art_, vol. ii., pg. 7.]

[Footnote 111: Liu Yen-t´ing.]

[Footnote 112: It would seem as if the manufacture had never entirely
ceased at Ju Chou, for we read in Richard's Geography, p. 61, "The
environs (of Ju Chou) were formerly very industrial, but have lost their
activity. The manufacture of common pottery is still carried on and gives
it some importance."]

[Footnote 113: The _Cho kêng lu_, published in 1368, but based on a
thirteenth-century Sung work (see p. 55).]

[Footnote 114: The _T´ao lu_ (bk. vi., fol. 2 verso). It is obvious that
the term Kuan yao (Imperial ware) is liable to cause confusion, as it
might be--and indeed was--equally applied to any ware made at any time at
the Imperial factory. In recognition of this fact the Sung Kuan yao was
sometimes named in later writers _Ta Kuan_ [Chinese] ware, after the Ta
Kuan period.]

[Footnote 115: A passage quoted in _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 13, from an
eighteenth-century work, the _Wên fang ssŭ k´ao_, forms a commentary on
this attitude. "The old capital Kuan factory," It says, "had only a brief
existence, so that we must consider the _Hsiu nei ssŭ_ make to be first
and the 'recent wares' to be second."]

[Footnote 116: The list of wares made at the Imperial factories at
Ching-tê Chên about 1730, and published in the _Chiang hsi t´ung chih_
(vol. xciii., fol. 11), refers to the imitation of Kuan wares as follows:
"Ta Kuan glazes on an iron-coloured body. These are three kinds--yüeh
pai, fên ch´ing, ta lü--all imitating the colour and lustre of Sung ware
sent to (or from) the palace (_nei fa sung ch´i_)." There is no reason to
suppose that _Ta Kuan_ here is more than a mere synonym for _Kuan_ (ware).]

[Footnote 117: Chang Ying-wên in the _Ch´ing pi tsang_, published in 1595.]

[Footnote 118: [Chinese] a phrase which is not very lucid. In fact, I
suspect a confusion with another _tan_ [Chinese], which means "egg," and
would give the sense "egg white," like the _luan pai_ of the Ju yao.]

[Footnote 119: On the subject of crackle, see vol. ii., p. 197. The idea
of a crackle assuming the form of round four- or five-petalled flowers
like plum blossoms was carried out by the Ch´ien Lung potters on some of
the medallion bowls (see vol. ii., p. 244), with a ground of bluish green
enamel on which a network of lines and plum blossoms was traced in black.]

[Footnote 120: [Chinese] _Ch´êng ni_, lit. "pure, limpid, or clear clay,"
an expression which is explained in the _T´ao shuo_ (bk. i., fol. 4 verso)
as "refined earth," the word _ch´êng_ (or _ling_) being equivalent to
[Chinese] _t´ao_, which means to wash.]

[Footnote 121: [Chinese] _jung ch´ê_, lit. "brilliant penetrate, or
brilliant right through."]

[Footnote 122: The age is here probably the Sung period, for we must
bear in mind that the author of the _Cho kêng_ lu is practically quoting
verbatim from the Sung writer Yeh-chih.]

[Footnote 123: _Ko ku yao lun_, bk. vii., fol. 22.]

[Footnote 124: It may also explain the ruddy tinge of the green glaze,
which, being transparent, would allow the reddish brown body colour to
show through in the thinner parts.]

[Footnote 125: An early sixteenth-century work, the _Tu kung t´an tsuan_
(quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 8 verso) tells of a Chinese
sybarite Li Fêng-ming, who held a "lotus flower banquet. There were
crystal tables twelve in number, and on them a series of vessels, all of
Kuan porcelain, a display of elegance rarely seen at any time."]

[Footnote 126: _Ya ku ch´ing pao shih._ _Ya ku_ is explained by
Bretschneider (_Mediæeval Researches_, vol. i., p. 174) as equivalent to
the Arabic _yakut_, and meaning a corundum, of which the Chinese recognise
various tints, including deep blue, pale blue, muddy blue, besides yellow
and white.]

[Footnote 127: _Ch´ing ts´ui jo yü lan t´ien._]

[Footnote 128: _Sê ch´ing tai fên hung._ A more literal rendering of this
phrase is "the colour of the glaze is _ch´ing_, with a tinge of red,"
which would refer to the reddish tone of a pale lavender glaze. On the
other hand, the word _tai_ is apparently used to describe the contrasting
colours in parti-coloured jade and agate, e.g. _huang sê tai t´u pan_
in Laufer (_Jade_, p. 140) to describe "yellow jade with earthy spots,"
and again (op. cit., p. 142), _ch´ing yü tai hei sê_, "green jade with
passages of black colour."]

[Footnote 129: _Po wu yao lan_ (quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, vol. iii., fol.
13 verso). These accidental effects are mentioned on both the Kuan and Ko
wares, and are said to be either of a yellowish or a brownish red tint.]

[Footnote 130: "Wares of the Sung and Yüan Dynasties," _Burlington
Magazine_, May, 1909, Plate i., fig. 4.]

[Footnote 131: See _Burlington Magazine_, May, 1909, Plate i., fig. 28;
Plate ii., fig. 6.]

[Footnote 132: Speaking of the imitations of Kuan yao early in the
nineteenth century, the _T´ao lu_ (bk. ii., fol. 10) remarks: "Originally
there were special departments for imitating Kuan yao. Now, only the
imitators of the crackled wares make it. As for the imitations made at the
(Imperial) factory, they are more beautiful," sc. than those made in the
private factories.]

[Footnote 133: Bk. xxix., fol. 11.]

[Footnote 134: The word _Hsü_ [Chinese] has the meaning "continuation,"
and if it be not a place-name at present unidentified, it might
conceivably be "the continuation or later Kuan ware."]

[Footnote 135: Bk. vii., fol. 6 verso.]

[Footnote 136: The _Ch´i hsiu lei k´ao_, quoted by Hirth, _Ancient Chinese
Porcelain_, p. 37.]

[Footnote 137: The authors of the _Po wu yao lan_ and the _Ch´ing pi
ts´ang_.]

[Footnote 138: [Chinese] _hsieh chao wên_, a debatable phrase, which seems
best explained as a large irregular crackle resembling the tangle of claws
seen on the top of a basket of crabs.]

[Footnote 139: [Chinese] _Yü tzŭ_. A crackle of finer mesh, which French
writers describe as _truité_, or resembling the scales of a trout.]

[Footnote 140: [Chinese] _pai chi sui_, used by the author of the _P´ai
shih lei p´ien_; see other references in the _T´ao shuo_ and the _T´ao
lu_.]

[Footnote 141: See p. 82.]

[Footnote 142: Quoted in the _T´ao shuo_ (bk. v., fol. 9 verso).]

[Footnote 143: See vol. ii., p. 223.]

[Footnote 144: [Chinese] [Chinese] _mi sê fên ch´ing_. _Mi sê_ is rendered
in Giles's Dictionary, "Straw colour, the colour of yellow millet," and
all Chinese authorities whom I have questioned agree that it is a yellow
colour. Bushell in much of his published work rendered it "rice coloured,"
following Julien's _couleur du riz_, and others, including myself, have
been misled by this rendering. Bushell, however, in a note in Monkhouse's
_Chinese Porcelain_, p. 67, which is quoted at length in vol. ii., p. 220,
pronounces in favour of the rendering yellow. The difficulty of finding
a true yellow among the Sung wares to support the comparison with yellow
millet has further complicated the question. The vase in the Victoria
and Albert Museum, which is figured in Monkhouse (fig. 22) as a specimen
of old _mi sê_, is probably a Yung Chêng reproduction of the Sung type.
It has a stone-coloured crackle glaze, overlaid with a brownish yellow
enamel, a technique which is foreign to the Sung wares. Possibly one type
of Sung _mi sê_ was illustrated by the "shallow bowl with spout, of grey
stoneware with opaque glaze of pale sulphur yellow," which Mr. Alexander
exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910 (Cat. K. 18). Another
kind is described by Bushell in the catalogue of the Morgan collection
(p. 38) as follows: "Shallow bowl (_wan_). Greenish yellow crackled
glaze of the Sung dynasty, leaving a bare ring at the bottom within. A
specimen of ancient _mi sê_ or millet-coloured crackle from the Kiang-hsi
potteries. Formerly the possession of His Excellency Chang Yinhuan. D. 6
inches." Specimens of this type, with greenish and brownish yellow crackle
glaze, have been found in Borneo, where they have been reputed to be of
enormous age; there are several examples in the British Museum. The Hirth
collection in the Gotha Museum includes four high-footed bowls of brownish
yellow colour which seem to belong to this class.]

[Footnote 145: As explained in the _T´ao lu_ (bk. ii., fol. 10 verso): "At
Ching-tê Chên there is no special factory devoted to the imitation of Ko
yao, but the manufacturers of crackled wares make it in addition to their
own special line, and that is why they have the general name of Ko yao
houses (_Ko yao hu_). Formerly, the manufacturers were acquainted with
the origin of the word, but nowadays those who imitate Ko yao only copy a
fixed model without knowing why it is called Ko yao."]

[Footnote 146: The Hsiang-hu wares were imitated at Ching-tê Chên in
the Imperial factory about 1730. T´ang Ying himself gives the following
note on them in the _T´ao Ch´êng shih yü kao_, written about this time:
"Twenty _li_ south-west of Ching-tê Chên is a waste place called Hsiang-hu
[Chinese], where there were formerly the foundations of Sung kilns. It
used to be easy to find porcelain (_tz´ŭ_) fragments of old vessels and
waste pieces. The material was very thin, and the ware was evidently
millet-coloured (_mi sê_) and pale green (_fên ch´ing_)." The memoir of
Chiang (1322) states that "the ware was beautiful and lustrous, but not
greatly prized at that time." See _T´ao lu_, bk. viii., fol. 12, and bk.
v., fol. 2. For Chi Chou ware, see p. 98.]

[Footnote 147: See _Chinese_, _Corean_, and _Japanese Potteries_, New
York, Japan Society, 1914 No. 307.]

[Footnote 148: Bk. ii., fol. 4.]

[Footnote 149: Bk. vi., fol. 5 verso.]

[Footnote 150: See above, p. 61.]

[Footnote 151: See _Burlington Magazine_, May, 1909, "Wares of the Sung
and Yüan Dynasties," Plate iii., fig. 11.]

[Footnote 152: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 9.]

[Footnote 153: Celadon green; see p. 82.]




CHAPTER VI

LUNG-CH´ÜAN YAO [Chinese]


IN discussing the celebrated Lung-ch´üan celadons, we are able to build
our structure on a more solid basis. For one group of them, at any
rate, is so familiar that we should be tempted to abandon the difficult
Chinese descriptions and construct an essay on the ware from actually
existing specimens, were it not that in so doing we should miss our chief
opportunity of applying a living test to the Chinese phrases.

The district of Lung-ch´üan in the prefecture of Ch´u-chou, province of
Chekiang, was noted for its potteries as early[154] as the beginning
of the Sung dynasty, but its greatest celebrity was attained by the
market town of Liu-t´ien, where the Chang brothers are reputed to have
worked.[155] The story that the elder Chang moved to Liu-t´ien while
the younger brother remained at Lung-ch´üan is, I believe, based on a
misreading of a Chinese passage,[156] the true meaning of which seems to
be that while the elder brother made new departures which earned for his
ware the distinctive name of Ko yao, the younger continued the Lung-ch´üan
traditions, and consequently his ware was known as Lung-ch´üan yao. It
appears that one vital difference between the two wares was crackle, which
was used by the elder and not by the younger brother.

The productions of the Lung-ch´üan district are variously named in the
_Ko ku yao lun_, "_Ch´u_ ware" (from Ch´u-chou Fu, the name of the
prefecture), "_ch´ing_ ware," and "old _ch´ing_ ware," and the various
Chinese accounts agree in distinguishing two broad classes, the one having
a thin body of fine material, and the other a thick body of coarser and
heavier make.

The first of these two classes includes the Chang yao, or ware of the
younger Chang, of which the _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_ gives the following
description: "There is one kind in the manufacture of which white clay
is used, and the surface of the ware is covered with _ts´ui_[157] glaze
through which the white shows in faint patches. This is what was made by
the Chang family in the Sung dynasty, and is called Chang yao. Compared
with the Lung-ch´üan ware in style and make, it gives the impression of
greater delicacy and refinement." Another writer[158] describes it as
"single-coloured and pure, like beautiful jade, and ranking with the Kuan
yao; whereas the Ko yao was pale in colour."

The eleven examples figured and described in Hsiang's Album are all
apparently of this class, and their colour is variously described as
"green, of jade-green tint (_ts´ui pi_), like a wet, mossy bank or slender
willow twigs," "green like the green of onion (sprouts)" (_ts´ui jo ch´ing
ts´ung_), "green like parrot's feathers," "green like the dull green
(_lü_) of a melon," and "soft jade-green like onion sprouts in autumn."
Hsiang's similes leave no doubt as to the prevailing tint of the ware,
which clearly aimed at rivalling the tint of the prized green jade. As
might be expected, few if any of Chang's celadons are to be found in our
collections. Relatively few in numbers, assuming them to have been the
work of one lifetime, and slender in structure, it is improbable that many
of them can have survived the chances of eight or nine hundred years, and
even supposing that any of them have reached Europe, their identity now
could only be a matter of conjecture.

The second class is best known to us in those thick, massive porcelains
with greyish white body and smooth grey green glaze which have been named
in Persian countries _martabani_ and in Europe _celadon_. The former name
is no doubt derived from the port of Martaban, on the coast of Pegu, a
meeting place of Eastern and Western traders, from which the Chinese goods
were shipped or transhipped for Europe and the nearer East. The latter
name has a more capricious origin, deriving from the shepherd Céladon, a
stage personality whose familiar grey green clothing suggested a name for
the grey green porcelain. He appeared in one of the plays founded on the
early seventeenth-century romance, _L'Astrée_, written by Honoré d'Urfé.

Large dishes and plates, bowls, vases, bulb bowls and jars of this green
ware have found their way to all parts of Europe in considerable numbers,
and they evidently formed a staple of far Eastern trade in the Middle
Ages. The subject of their distribution will be treated presently. First,
we must complete their description.

The ware, as a general rule, has a greyish white mass varying from
porcelain to stoneware, and with the peculiar quality of assuming a
reddish brown tint wherever the glaze is absent and the "biscuit" was
exposed to the fire of the kiln. It has, in fact, the "iron foot" though
not the "brown mouth," for the body is of a whitish colour under the
glaze, and consequently the mouth of the vessel varies from green to
greenish white, according to the thickness of the glaze. The decoration
is either carved, etched with fine point, or raised in relief by pressing
in an intaglio mould or by the application of small ornaments separately
formed in moulds. All these processes are applied to the body before the
glaze is added, and the glaze, though covering them over, is transparent
enough to allow the details to appear fairly distinctly. In the case of
the applied reliefs, however, the glaze is often locally omitted, and the
ornaments stand out in biscuit, which has assumed the usual reddish brown
tint. This is well illustrated on Plate 21, in which two brown fishes are
represented swimming round a sea green dish. A dish in the British Museum
shows three fishes swimming beneath the green surface of the glaze. This
fish design was frequent enough to have earned special notice in Chinese
books, which are excessively niggard in their enumeration of designs. The
_Ko ku yao lun_,[159] for instance, says "there is one kind of dish on the
bottom of which is a pair of fishes, and on the outside are copper rings
attached to lift it."

Elaborate designs of flowers, flying phœnixes in peony scrolls, dragons in
clouds or waves, formed in relief by pressure in moulds, were certainly
used on Sung celadons just as they were in the white Ting wares, but
they seem to have been still more common on the Ming wares. But the
best and most characteristic Sung decoration was a beautiful freehand
carving executed with admirable spirit and taste, in those bold, half
naturalistic, half idealised sketches which distinguish the art of
the time. Complex ornament, such as landscape and figure subjects, is
occasionally found on old celadons; and there is one kind of bowl of
rounded form with rather high narrow foot which is decorated inside with
groups of figures carved or impressed in intaglio, the subjects being
the eight Taoist Immortals, or historical personages such as Confucius,
the chess-playing General, etc., usually labelled with their names in
Chinese characters. The glaze on these bowls varies widely in colour and
texture, being sometimes smooth celadon green, sometimes yellowish or
brownish green or again a pale apple green with crackled surface; and it
is possible that they come from some district other than Lung-ch´üan.[160]

The Lung-ch´üan celadon glaze is singularly beautiful with its soft,
smooth translucent texture and restful tints, which vary from olive green
through grass green and sea green to pale greenish grey, occasionally
showing a decidedly bluish tone. The ware has enjoyed immense popularity
in almost every part of the world for untold years, and nowhere more than
in Japan, where choice specimens have always been highly valued, and it
is not a little surprising to find that in this country alone its merits
are underestimated. The Chinese themselves have been always loud in their
praises of the finer varieties, though they have not always spoken in
complimentary terms of the thick and massive types which were so suitable
for the export trade. Of these the _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_ observes that they
readily withstand usage and handling, and do not easily break; but the
workmanship is somewhat clumsy, and the designs are lacking in antique
elegance. With the finer examples within reach, these strictures were
perhaps only natural; but there has never been any doubt of the Chinese
appreciation of the celadon glaze, for while they have never ceased to
reproduce it in other factories, it is always the old Lung-ch´üan ware
which serves as their standard and model.

The modern celadon glaze is made by mixing ferruginous clay with the
ordinary feldspathic glaze and adding a pinch of cobalt (the mineral from
which the blue colour is obtained) to give it the requisite tone[161];
and it is certain that the colour of the old celadons is due to the
presence of oxide of iron, whether assisted or not by oxide of cobalt.
Possibly the earliest celadons were the accidental result of the iron in a
strongly ferruginous clay escaping in the heat of the kiln and imparting
a green tinge to an otherwise colourless glaze. The conditions in the
Lung-ch´üan district would have specially favoured such an accident,
for the local clays were of the ferruginous kind, as is shown by their
peculiarity, which we have already noted, of turning red or reddish brown
when exposed without protection to the heat of the kiln. The presence of
iron in greater or less quantity is a common feature of potter's clays
all the world over, and it is usual in modern potteries to pass the clay
over strong magnets in order to remove this disturbing element when a
pure white ware is in view. This fact alone will explain the prevalence
of green tints of the celadon type among the earlier Chinese wares, and
observation of these results would naturally lead to the discovery that a
certain quantity of particular clay mixed with the ordinary glaze would
produce a beautiful green colour, resembling jade. The reddish brown spots
occasionally observed in old celadon glazes are no doubt due to flaws in
the glaze-covering, which allowed a partial exposure of the body, or to
a local excess of iron oxide in the material. Like a great many other
accidental effects, these were turned to account by the Chinese, and in
some examples we find patches of brown which evince a deliberate intention
(Plate 21). These effects are highly prized by the Japanese, who call the
ware _Tobi seiji_ or "spotted celadon."

The manufacture of celadon must have been very extensive in the
Lung-ch´üan district. Besides the principal factories at Liu-t´ien Shih,
there were minor works at Chin-ts´un already mentioned, and according to
the _T´ao lu_[162] at Li-shui Hsien[163] in the Ch´u-chou Fu, the latter
already operative in the Sung dynasty. Its wares were included in the
comprehensive term _Ch´u yao_, and "the material was coarse and thick, the
colour similar to that of Lung-ch´üan ware, both dark and light, but the
workmanship was coarser."

At the beginning of the Ming dynasty, we are told[164] that the
Lung-ch´üan factories were removed to Ch´u-chou, and that the ware made on
the new site was green (_ch´ing_), with a white body which, like the older
ware, assumed a red colour in the exposed parts, but that the ware was not
so good as the old. Local tradition asserts that the celadon industry in
the district came to an end with the Ming dynasty.[165]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 21.--Three examples of Lung-ch´üan Celadon Porcelain.

Fig. 1.--Plate of spotted celadon. (?) Sung dynasty. Diameter 6½
inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Octagonal Vase with crackled glaze and biscuit panels moulded
with figures of the Eight Immortals in clouds. (?) Fourteenth century.
Height 9¼ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 3.--Dish with engraved lotus scrolls and two fishes in biscuit. Sung
dynasty. Diameter 11 inches. _Gotha Museum._]

Connoisseurs are much exercised over the differences between Sung and Ming
celadons. The _T´ao lu_ tells us nothing beyond the bare statement that
the Ming ware was not so good, and the two general rules which have been
laid down[166] for our guidance--viz. (1) that the colour of the Sung
wares is deeper and more grass green, that of the Ming more grey green,
and (2) that the bottoms of the Ming vessels are distinguished by an
unglazed ring of reddish brown colour--can only be accepted with reserve.
Of the two the colour test is probably the more reliable, but I have found
too many exceptions in which the grey green occurs on pieces of obviously
Sung origin to feel any great confidence in its guidance. The ring test
breaks down in practice, and is illogical in its conception, implying,
as it does, that the use of a circular support in the kiln was limited
to one particular place and period. On the contrary, we know that this
method of support was usual in the Siamese factories at Sawankalok,[167]
and apparently before the Ming period, and as the Siamese potteries were
started by Chinese, probably sent from Western China, it is only fair to
suppose that this method of manufacture was in general use at an early
date. The safest criterion of Sung workmanship is the style of the ware,
and especially the boldness and freedom of the carved designs. In the
Ming period the Sung patterns already exhibit an inevitable staleness and
conventionality with a tendency to overcrowding of detail. In some cases,
too, the designs are of a later order, and closely analogous to those of
the blue and white Ming porcelains.

In addition to the Lung-ch´üan and Ch´u-chou celadons, which are readily
recognised by their peculiar glaze and their reddish brown foot rims,
there are many other kinds which are not easy to classify. Some of these
have a dry, buff stoneware body and brownish green glaze, while others
have a glaze of decided grey or blue grey tone. In conjecturing the
origin of these we must take into consideration the private factories
which existed under the Northern Sung at Ch´ên-liu[168] and other
localities in the neighbourhood of the eastern capital (_tung ching_),
now named K´ai-fêng Fu, in Honan. The _Ko ku yao lun_[169] describes the
ware of these parts under the heading _Tung yao_[170]: "It is pale green
(_ch´ing_) in colour, with fine crackle, and in many cases has a brown
mouth and iron foot. Compared with Kuan ware it lacks the red tinge, and
its material is coarse, wanting in fineness and lustre, and far from
equalling that of the Kuan ware. At the present day (i.e. 1887) it is
rarely seen." Other writers repeat this passage with little alteration,
though the author of the _T´ao lu_ adds that the clay was of black colour
and the glaze of varying depth. Hsiang's Album includes one specimen of
the _tung ch´ing tz´ŭ_, describing the colour as _t´ieh ts´ui_, which
probably means the blue green shade of distant hills.[171] _Tung ch´ing_
glaze is included in the list of those imitated in the Imperial factories
about 1780, two kinds, pale and deep, being specified; and the _T´ao
lu_[172] informs us that the _Tung ch´ing_ was copied to a considerable
extent at Ching-tê Chên in the early nineteenth century, and that the
modern glaze was exactly like the old. That this modern glaze was only a
variety of celadon is shown by the recipe given in the same work,[173]
viz. "to add to the ordinary glaze some of the mixture containing
ferruginous earth," which differs from that given for the modern
Lung-ch´üan glaze only in the absence of the pinch of cobalt (see vol ii.,
p. 189).

A verse from a poem by Chang-lei (1046-1106) indicates the green colour of
the ware: "Green jade (_pi yü_) when carved makes a vessel; know it to be
the porcelain (_tz´ŭ_) of the Tung kilns [Chinese]."[174]

In the classification of old celadons due account must be taken of the
imitations made from the earliest times at Ching-tê Chên. Many of these
would be distinguishable by their white porcelain body, the ordinary
porcelain clay of the district not having the peculiar qualities of the
Lung-ch´üan and Ch´u-chou Fu material. In fact, we know that it has been a
common practice in recent times among the Ching-tê Chên potters to dress
the exposed parts of their ware with brown ferruginous earth when they
wished to reproduce the "brown mouth or iron foot" of the archaic wares.
Another method which was found effective by imitators of the antique was
to use a coarse yellowish clay for the body of the ware. This, however,
should be generally recognisable. But the skill of the Chinese copyist
is proverbial, and a good instance of his cunning is given in the now
celebrated letters of Père d'Entrecolles, a Jesuit missionary stationed
at Ching-tê Chên in the K´ang Hsi period. The passage[175] is interesting
enough to be quoted in full:

"The mandarin of _Kim tê Chim_, who honours me with his friendship, makes
for his patrons at the Court presents of old porcelain which he has
himself a genius for fabricating. I mean that he has discovered the art of
imitating antique porcelain, or at least that of comparative antiquity;
and he employs a number of workmen for this purpose. The material of these
false _Kou tom_, viz. counterfeit antiques, is a yellowish clay, obtained
in a place quite near _Kim tê Chim_, called _Ma ngan chan_. They are
constructed very thick. The mandarin has given me a plate of this make,
which weighs as much as ten ordinary plates. There is nothing peculiar in
the manufacture of these kinds of porcelain beyond that they are covered
with a glaze made of yellow stone, mingled with the ordinary glaze, the
latter predominating in the mixture, which gives the porcelain a sea green
colour. When it is fired it is placed in a very rich broth made of chicken
and other meats; in this it is baked a second time, and after that it is
put in the foulest drain that can be found and left for a month or more.
On issuing from this drain it passes for three or four hundred years old,
or at any rate for a representative of the preceding Ming dynasty, when
porcelain of this colour and thickness was appreciated at Court. These
counterfeit antiques resemble the genuine pieces also in their want of
timbre when struck, and if one holds them to the ear they produce no
reverberation."

The worthy father's acquaintance with the antiques was probably limited,
or he would not have instanced the last quality as evidence of good
imitation. On the contrary, the lack of timbre would be regarded by
Chinese connoisseurs as indication of a spurious ware, the note of the old
porcelains being one of the criteria of their excellence. But the passage
is otherwise most instructive.

It should be remembered, too, that at the time of which d'Entrecolles
speaks, an extensive use was being made at Ching-tê Chên of a beautiful
celadon glaze on a fine white porcelain body. These celadons of the period
will be discussed in their proper place, as they make no pretence of
antiquity and are easily distinguished by their pure white body and pale
soft green glaze. Indeed, they often have the ordinary white glaze under
the base and a period mark in blue.

Another factory which made free use of the celadon glaze was that of Yang
Chiang, province of Kuangtung. As a rule, the ware is recognisable by its
reddish brown stoneware body, but in cases where the biscuit is lighter in
colour and more porcellanous in texture, confusion may easily arise.

Nor must we forget the extensive manufacture of celadons outside China
itself. The Corean wares have already been mentioned. As a rule, their
soft velvety glaze is recognised by its peculiar bluish grey tone,
difficult to describe but easy to remember when once seen. The colour,
however, varies to distinctly greener and browner shades, which are liable
to be confused with Chinese celadons of the Lung-ch´üan and northern
types. Fortunately, most, though not all, of the Corean decorations are
very characteristic, particularly the delicate inlaid designs[176] in
white and black clays; and the finish of the ware underneath is usually
distinctive, a very low foot rim, the base slightly convex, and the
disfiguring presence of the sand, which in three little piles supported
the ware in the kiln.

There are, however, quite a number of ambiguous celadons with a brownish
green glaze, usually bowls, of which some are decorated inside with
beautiful carved and moulded designs of bold foliage (Plate 18, Fig. 1)
and even with the design of boys among flowering branches and the slight
combed patterns which are found on the Corean white wares. Were it not
for the apparently Chinese provenance of so many of these bowls, and the
absence of the Corean characteristics in their bases, one would be tempted
to class them as Corean on the strength of their general appearance.
Probably we have in this group both the Chinese prototypes and the close
imitations made by the Corean potters who followed these models just
as they followed the white ware of Ting Chou. One of the combed bowls
formerly treasured as a tea bowl in Japan is now in the Kunstgewerbe
Museum, Berlin, but unfortunately the Japanese name _shuko-yaki_, by
which Dr. Kümmel informs me it was known in Japan, sheds no light on the
question of its origin.

The Sawankalok wares of Siam, too, have already had a passing mention.
These are easily distinguished by their coarse grey body, reddish at the
base, and thin, watery green glaze, very transparent and showing a bluish
efflorescence where it has run thick. Once seen, they are hardly likely
to be confused with any Chinese celadon, except a few of the coarser Ming
and later types, in which the glaze happens to be very pale and thin. The
Siamese wares, moreover, usually have a small raw irregular ring under the
base, made by the end of a tubular kiln support, and differing from the
broad regular ring on the Lung-ch´üan dishes described above.

But the most puzzling of the external celadons are those made at various
times and places in Japan. They are, as a rule, close and careful copies
of Chinese types, with which they are readily confounded by persons not
familiar with Japanese peculiarities. In many cases, too, they will
puzzle the most expert. It is well-nigh impossible to put into words any
distinctive criteria of these wares. The biscuit is usually white and
porcellanous, and though it sometimes assumes a natural tinge of red at
the base, the colour is not so deep and decided as on the Lung-ch´üan
wares. The chief distinction is an inevitable Japanese flavour in the form
and decoration of the ware, but this, again, is an intangible feature
which can only be realised by the practised eye. Finally, it should be
said that remarkably close copies of the celadon green glaze (and of the
typical ornament as well) were made in Egypt and Persia in the late Middle
Ages. At a short distance they might often be taken for Chinese, but on
inspection the body will be found to have that soft, sandy texture which
is an unmistakable characteristic of the near-Eastern pottery.

It is impossible to leave the subject of celadon without a few words
on the distribution of the ware in the Middle Ages, though I have no
intention of embarking on the lengthy discussion which the interesting
nature of the subject invites, nor of reopening the much-debated
_Celadonfrage_ which elicited many interesting contributions[177] from
Professors Karabacek, A.B. Meyer, and Hirth, and Dr. Bushell. Probably
no single article of commerce can tell so much of the mediæval trade
between China and the West as the old celadon porcelains whose fragments
are constantly unearthed on the sites of the old-world trading stations.
The caravan routes through Turkestan and the seaborne trade through the
Eastern Archipelago and the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf, Red Sea,
and east coast of Africa can be followed by porcelains deposited at the
various trading centres and ports of call. Much, too, has been learnt from
the writings of Chinese, Arab, and European travellers and geographers.
Professor Hirth, as early as 1888, worked out the principal routes of
Chinese seaborne trade from the "Records of Chinese Foreign Trade and
Shipping,"[178] compiled by Chao Ju-kua about 1220 A.D., starting from the
Tingui[179] of Marco Polo, which he identifies with Lung-ch´üan itself,
and finishing in Egypt and Zanzibar. The porcelain was carried by land and
river to the great port of Ch´üan-chou Fu, and thence in junks to Bruni
in Borneo, Cochin China, and Cambodia, Java, Lambri, and Palembang, in
Sumatra, where the traders of the East and West met and exchanged goods.
Thence the trade proceeded to Quilom in Malabar, Guzerate, Cambray,
and Malwa, and as far as Zanzibar. Numerous other localities might be
mentioned, and much has been written[180] of the veneration in which old
Chinese wares have always been held in the Philippines and Borneo, and of
the magic powers attributed to the old dragon jars by the natives of these
countries.

The green celadon was highly valued in India and Persia, where it was
reputed to have the power of disclosing the presence of poison. An early
reference to the Chinese porcelain occurs in the writings of the Persian
geographer Yacut,[181] who mentions "four boxes full of Chinese porcelain
and rock crystal" among the effects of a native of Dour-er-Raçibi in
Khouzistan, who died in 913 a.d. The trade with Egypt is indicated in the
much-quoted incident of the gift of forty pieces of Chinese porcelain
sent from Egypt by Saladin to Nur-ed-din in Damascus in 1171, and by the
later gift of porcelain vases sent in 1487 by the Sultan of Egypt to
Lorenzo de' Medici. A large proportion of the celadons in our collections
has been brought and still comes from India, Persia, and Egypt.[182] The
Sultan's treasure at Constantinople[183] teems with celadons collected
in mediæval times. Fragments of celadon are unearthed on almost every
important mediæval site which is excavated in the East. The British
Museum has small collections of such fragments from Bijapur in India, the
island of Kais in the Persian Gulf, Rhages in Persia, Ephesus, Rhodes,
Cairo, and Mombasa, to mention a few sites only. Fragments of celadon
were found, in company with Chinese coins ranging in date from 990-1111
A.D., by Sir John Kirk and Lieut. C. Smith, near Kilwa in Zanzibar, and
the former, while British representative in Zanzibar, was able to form
a considerable collection of complete specimens which were treasured by
the natives with almost religious care. A story told by Sir John Kirk
illustrates the attitude of the native mind towards these treasured wares.
A celadon dish with particularly fine carving was the subject of a family
dispute, and to satisfy the rival claims a local Solomon decided that
it should be divided between the disputants. One large fragment of it
is now in Sir John Kirk's collection, which includes many interesting
dishes, crackled and plain, and ranging in colour from dark olive green
to the pale watery tint of the Sawankalok[184] wares. Other specimens of
interest are the large, wide-mouthed, bowl-shaped vases with sides deeply
ribbed or carved in high relief with bold floral designs. They have the
peculiar feature of being constructed at first without a bottom, which was
separately made in the form of a saucer and dropped in, the glaze holding
it firmly in position. Similar vases[185] have been found in India and
elsewhere. One of the first pieces of celadon to arrive in this country
was the celebrated Warham bowl, which was bequeathed to New College,
Oxford, in 1530 by Archbishop Warham. It is of dull grey green celadon,
the outside faintly engraved with four lotus petals, each containing a
trefoil, and in the bottom inside is the character _ch´ing_ [Chinese]
(pure) surrounded by rays. It has a fine silver-gilt mount of English
make.[186] It would be possible to multiply references to the traffic in
celadon wares which was carried on briskly between China and the West in
the Middle Ages, but enough has been said to give some idea of the extent
and nature of the trade, which was mainly in the coarsest types of ware.
Apart from the unlikelihood that very fine or precious porcelains would be
embarked on such long and hazardous journeys, there was actually a law in
force in China as early as the eighth century[187] which forbade, under
penalty of imprisonment, the exportation of "precious and rare articles,"
anticipating by a thousand years the restrictive legislation of the
Italian Government.

[Illustration: Plate 22.--Vase of Lung-ch´üan Porcelain.

With grey green celadon glaze of faint bluish tone, peony scroll in
low relief. Probably Sung dynasty. Height 19½ inches. _Peters
Collection._]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 154: See _T´ao lu_, bk. vi., fol. 4. A factory of inferior
reputation is supposed to have existed at the neighbouring village of
Chin-ts´un (see Hirth, _Ancient Chinese Porcelain_, p. 38). And the
_T´ao lu_ (bk. vii., fol. 6) describes a factory at Li-shui Hsien in the
Ch´u-chou district, whose productions were also known as Ch´u ware.]

[Footnote 155: In the _T´u shu_, bk. ccxlviii., section _Tz´ŭ ch´i pu hui
k´ao_, fol. 13, we are told that the brothers Chang worked beneath the Han
liu hill at Lung-ch´üan in the Sung and Yüan dynasties.]

[Footnote 156: _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 12 recto.]

[Footnote 157: _Ts´ui_ has already been explained as meaning "kingfisher:
a bird with bluish green plumage." That it also connotes the idea of a
green colour is shown by the expression _ts´ui yü_, which is rendered in
Giles's Dictionary, "emerald green jade."]

[Footnote 158: Author of the _Ch´un fêng t´ang sui pi_, quoted in the
_T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 12.]

[Footnote 159: Bk. vii., fol. 24 verso.]

[Footnote 160: Two examples in the Gotha Museum were figured in the
_Burlington Magazine_, June, 1909, Plate iv.]

[Footnote 161: See _T´ao lu_, bk. iii., fol. 12 verso.]

[Footnote 162: Bk. vii., fol. 7 recto.]

[Footnote 163: [Chinese]]

[Footnote 164: _T´ao lu_, bk. vi., fol. 6.]

[Footnote 165: See Hirth, _Ancient Chinese Porcelain_, p. 31.]

[Footnote 166: See Bushell, _Oriental Ceramic Art_, p. 150.]

[Footnote 167: A large number of fragments and wasters, besides a few
complete specimens, found on the site of these potteries, about 200 miles
north of Bangkok, are now in the British Museum. The prevailing type of
ware has grey porcellanous body and a thin transparent glaze of watery
green celadon colour, often distinctly tinged with blue.]

[Footnote 168: [Chinese] See _T´ao lu_, vol. vi., fol. 3.]

[Footnote 169: Bk. vii., fol. 22.]

[Footnote 170: [Chinese] A phrase which the author of the _T´ao lu_
considers to be a mistake for the homophone [Chinese] (_tung yao_ or
Eastern ware). He also quotes another misnomer for the ware, viz.
[Chinese] _tung ch´ing ch´i_ (winter green ware). This Tung ware is
constantly alluded to in other works as _tung ch´ing_ [Chinese].]

[Footnote 171: [Chinese] lit. duplicated kingfisher green. Bushell, in
his translation, renders it literally "kingfisher feathers in layers," a
metaphor from the well-known jewellery with inlay of kingfisher feathers,
which would suggest a turquoise tint. On the other hand, we find in
Giles's Dictionary the phrase [Chinese] _Yüan shan t´ieh ts´ui_, "the
distant hills rise in many green ranges" (the two forms of _t´ieh_ being
alternatives), a phrase recalling the "green of a thousand hills," which
is used in reference to early green wares. See p. 16.]

[Footnote 172: Bk. ii., fol. 9.]

[Footnote 173: Bk. iii., fol. 12.]

[Footnote 174: Quoted from the _Yün tsao_ (a selection of verses) in the
_T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 3.]

[Footnote 175: See _Recueil des lettres édifiantes et curieuses_. The
above passage occurs in a long letter dated from Jao Chou, September 1st,
1712. See Bushell, _Chinese Pottery and Porcelain_, Appendix, p. 206.]

[Footnote 176: The only example which I have seen of an inlaid celadon
which might be taken for Chinese is a dish in the Stübel Collection in the
Kunstgewerbe Museum, Dresden. It has a faint design, apparently inlaid, in
a brownish colour.]

[Footnote 177: In the _Oesterreichische Monatschrift_, January, 1885,
and succeeding numbers, A.B. Meyer's _Alterthümer aus dem Ostindischen
Archipel_, etc. etc.]

[Footnote 178: The _Chu fan chih_, the author of which was Imperial
inspector of foreign shipping, etc., in the province of Fukien. See
Hirth, _Ancient Chinese Porcelain: A Study in Chinese Mediæval Industry
and Trade_, Leipsig, 1888; and the translation of the _Chu fan chih_,
published by Hirth and Rockhill, 1912.]

[Footnote 179: Where Marco Polo (see Yule, bk. ii., p. 218) states that
"they make vessels of porcelain of all sizes, the finest that can be
imagined ... and thence it is exported all over the world."]

[Footnote 180: See A.B. Meyer, op. cit.; Ling Roth, _The Natives of
Borneo_; Carl Bock, _Head Hunters of Borneo_; Fay-Cooper Cole, _Chinese
Pottery in the Philippines_, Chicago 1912.]

[Footnote 181: A thirteenth-century writer, one of whose works is
translated by Barbier and Maynard, _Dictionnaire Géographique de la
Perse_. See p. 240 of this book. Fragments of celadon porcelain were found
on the ninth-century site of Samarra on the Euphrates. (See p. 148.)]

[Footnote 182: Much of the celadon found in Egypt would seem to be as late
as the early part of the sixteenth century, to judge from the general name
given to it by Egyptian merchants, "_baba ghouri_," after the sultan who
reigned at that time.]

[Footnote 183: See E. Zimmermann in the _Cicerone_, III. _Jahrgang_, s.
496 ff.]

[Footnote 184: See _Burlington Magazine_, June, 1909, p. 164. Other
pieces, apparently of Siamese make, have been found in Egypt, and it
is most probable that Siamese celadons were shipped by the traders at
Martaban in Pegu and sold by them along with the Chinese goods.]

[Footnote 185: See _Catalogue of the Early Chinese Pottery and Porcelain_,
Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1910, B. 27.]

[Footnote 186: See _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, E 20, and Plate.]

[Footnote 187: See _Chau Ju-kua_ (translated by Hirth and Rockhill), p. 9.]




CHAPTER VII

TING YAO [Chinese]


TING ware is by general consent ranked among the finer Sung porcelains,
and it is happily, like the Lung-ch´üan celadons, fairly well known to
Western collectors. Its name derives from its place of origin, Ting Chou,
the modern Chên-ting Fu, in the province of Chihli, where the manufacture
of a white ware, if not actually a white porcelain, appears to have
existed from remote times. Indeed, the "white ware (_pai tz´ŭ_) of Ting
Chou" is mentioned in the middle of the seventh century,[188] though
nothing further is heard of it until it came to enjoy the patronage of the
Sung emperors. As already hinted in connection with the Ju Chou porcelain,
the Ting ware suffered a temporary eclipse at Court owing to some defects
in the glaze; but it was not long in recovering its reputation, for the
_Ko ku yao lun_ states that it was at its best in the Chêng Ho and Hsüan
Ho periods, which extended from 1111 to 1125 A.D., and we learn that
the Ting Chou potters accompanied the Court in its flight across the
Yangtse in 1127. The manufacture seems to have been re-established after
this event in the neighbourhood of Ching-tê Chên, and the _nan ting_ or
Southern Ting ware is said to have so closely resembled the original that
to distinguish the two in after years was regarded as a supreme test of
connoisseurship.[189]

Ting ware has a white body of fine grain and compact texture, varying from
a slightly translucent porcelain to opaque porcellanous stoneware. Though
not so completely vitrified as the more modern porcelains, and lacking
their flint-like fracture, it was nevertheless capable of transmitting
light in the thinner and finer specimens, and consequently it can be
regarded as one of the earliest Chinese wares which fulfils the European
definition of porcelain. The glaze is of ivory tint, sometimes forming
on the outsides of bowls or dishes in brownish gummy tears, which were
regarded by Chinese collectors as a sign of genuineness.[190] The finer
and whiter varieties are known as _pai ting_ (white Ting) and _fên ting_
(flour Ting), as distinct from the coarser kind, whose opaque, earthy body
and glaze of yellowish tone, usually crackled and stained, earned it the
name of _t'u ting_ or earthen Ting.

In the best period the pure white undecorated Ting ware, with rich
unctuous glaze, compared to "congealed fat" or "mutton fat," was most
esteemed, though ornament was freely used, especially on the Southern
Ting. Designs carved in low relief or etched with a point were considered
best, the moulded and stamped ornament being rightly regarded as inferior.
There is a remarkable, though sadly damaged, example of Northern Ting
ware in the British Museum. It was found in a Manchurian tomb of the
twelfth century, and bears out the current descriptions of the ware with
its fine white body, rich ivory glaze, and "tear drops" on the reverse.
The ornament, a lotus design in bold freehand carving, displays all the
freshness and power of Sung craftsmanship. This dish has, moreover, a
characteristic common to the Sung Ting bowls and dishes, viz. the mouth
rim is bare of glaze. Many of the early wares were fired upside down,
whence the bare mouth rim, which was usually hidden by a metal band.[191]

Favourite carved designs with the Ting potters seem to have been the
mu-tan peony, the lily, and flying phœnixes. They are, at any rate,
usually singled out for mention by Chinese writers.[192] Garlic and rushes
are also incidentally mentioned as motives, and a few examples of a
beautiful design of ducks on water are known in Western collections. The
moulded ornament is generally more elaborate, dense peony scrolls with
phœnixes flying through them, radiating panels of flowers, dragons in
clouds, fishes among water plants and wave patterns, etc. To judge from
Hsiang's Album, carved designs borrowed from ancient bronzes must have
been highly prized.

Of the three kinds of ornament usually associated by Chinese writers
with the Ting ware; the _hua hua_ (carved decoration) and the _yin hua_
(stamped or moulded decoration) have already been mentioned. The meaning
of the third, _hsiu hua_,[193] is not so clear, as the phrase can bear
two interpretations, viz. painted ornament or embroidered ornament. In
the latter sense it would suggest a rich decoration like that of brocade
without indicating the method by which it was applied. But in the former
it was the usual Chinese expression for painted ornament, and it is
difficult to imagine that it was intended to indicate anything else in
the present context. On the other hand, no examples of painted Ting ware
are known to exist either in actual fact or in Chinese descriptions. This
anomaly, however, may perhaps be explained in one of two ways. A creamy
white ware of _t´u ting_ type, boldly painted with brown or black designs,
is known to have been made at the not far distant factories of Tz´ŭ
Chou[194] in the Sung dynasty, and it is possible that either the painted
Ting ware has been grouped with the Tz´ŭ Chou ware in modern collections,
or that Chinese writers mistook the Tz´ŭ Chou ware for painted Ting ware
and added this third category to the Ting wares by mistake. In any case
they regarded the painted ware as an inferior article.

The high estimation in which fine specimens of white Ting ware have always
been held by Chinese connoisseurs is well illustrated by a passage in
the _Yün shih chai pi t´an_.[195] It tells how Mr. Sun of the Wu-i river
estate treasured in his mountain retreat Ting yao incense-burners, and
among them one exquisite specimen of the Sung period. It was a round
vessel with ear handles and three feet, and the inscription _li hsi yai_
([Chinese]) was engraved in seal characters on the stand. During the
Japanese raids in the Chia Ching period this vessel passed into the hands
of one Chin Shang-pao, who sold it to T´ang, the President of Sacrifices
(_t´ai ch´ang_), of P´i-ling. T´ang, whose residence bore the romantic but
chilly name of Ning-an (Frozen Hut), is the celebrated collector mentioned
in connection with another Ting vessel on p. 95. "Although T´ang had many
wonderful porcelains," the story runs, "when this vessel arrived, they
all, without exception, made way for it. And so throughout the land when
men discuss porcelains, they give the first place to T´ang's white incense
vase. T´ang, they say, did not readily allow it to be seen." And in this
respect, if all accounts are true, T´ang was not unlike a good many
Chinese collectors of the present day.

On the other hand, the Ting ware was often marred by certain blemishes
which are not always easy to understand. The "awns" (_mang_), for
instance, which degraded it at Court in favour of the Ju Chou ware in the
early Sung period were probably flaws in the glaze. The "bamboo thread
brush marks" mentioned in the _Liu ch´ing jih cha_[196] may perhaps be
lines left in the glaze which was applied by means of a bamboo brush.
Three other defects which rendered the ware comparatively worthless are
named in the _Ko ku yao lun_,[197] viz. _mao_ (thatch), _mieh_ (bamboo
splints), and _ku ch´u_ (bare bones). The author fortunately explains that
(1) to thatch (_mao_) means to cover over defects, (2) bamboo splints
(_mieh_) is used of lines and recalls the brush marks mentioned above, and
(3) bare bones (_ku ch´u_) are patches where the glaze is defective and
the body shows through. _Ku_, in the sense of "body or biscuit," we are
further informed, is a "curio-market expression." Modern collectors will
probably not be so fastidious as the Chinese of the fourteenth century,
and will welcome a Sung specimen of Ting porcelain, even though it suffer
from _mang_ and _ku ch´u_.

The _pai ting_ and the _t´u ting_, the fine and coarse white varieties,
alone have been identified in Western collections; but there are coloured
Ting porcelains which are known to us by literary references. An
apocryphal red Ting ware[198] (_hung ting_) is mentioned in two passages
of ambiguous meaning which need not necessarily have implied a true red
glaze. In any case it finds no place in the older works, such as the _Ko
ku yao lun_ and _Ch´ing p´i tsang_, which only speak of purple or brown
(_tzŭ_) Ting, and black Ting. "There is purple[199] Ting," says the _Ko
ku yao lun_, "the colour of which is purple; there is ink Ting, the colour
of which is black, like lacquer. The body in every case is white, and the
value of these is higher than that of white Ting."

Hsiang, who figured five specimens in his Album, compared them to the
colour of ripe grapes and the skin of the aubergine fruit or brinjal,
one specimen being _tzŭ ts´ui_ (purple blue); and he further states that
out of a hundred and more specimens of Ting ware he had only seen ten of
purple and one of black colour.

The solitary specimen of black Ting, which appears in a very unconvincing
illustration in Hsiang's Album,[200] is divided into two zones, one
black, the other white, and Hsiang regards it as inestimably rare and
precious. In this appreciation he follows the _Ko ku yao lun_, but other
writers, such as the author of the _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_, take an entirely
different view, holding neither the purple nor the black Ting ware of
much account. With us at present the question is of academic interest
only, as no examples of either kind worthy of notice have been identified
in Western collections. The nearest approach to the description of the
purple variety which I have seen is a small box from a tomb in Shansi,
made of white porcellanous ware with a purplish black glaze on the cover.
It is, however, a crude object, and of no particular merit. As for the
black Ting, the nearest analogue to that which I can quote is the vases
with black or brown black glaze belonging to the Tz´ŭ Chou class. Some
of these (see Plate 30) have zones of black and white recalling Hsiang's
description. It is, perhaps, worth noting in this connection that the
black glaze on these wares was liable to shade off into lustrous brown,
indicating the presence of iron oxide, and to resemble in this respect
the so-called "hare's fur" or "partridge" glazes of the celebrated Chien
yao tea bowls.[201] This fact may account for a passage in an early
writer,[202] who says "the ancients favoured as tea bowls Ting ware with
hare's fur marking, and these were used in the powdered-tea competitions,"
but the work deals with tea rather than ceramics, and it is probable that
a confusion had arisen in the author's mind between the Chien yao tea
bowls and Ting ware. On the other hand, it would appear that bowls with
glaze which has some analogies with the "hare's fur" were made at an early
date in Northern China. (See Fig. 1 of Plate 43 and p. 132.)

Though little is heard of the coloured Ting wares after the Sung
period,[203] the manufacture of white Ting and the commoner _t´u ting_
continued at Ching-tê Chên and elsewhere. In fact, it cannot be said to
have suffered intermission up to the present day. A few of these imitative
wares of later date were of such excellence as to merit historical
notice. In the Yüan dynasty, for instance, P´êng Chün-pao, a goldsmith of
Ho Chou, in Shansi,[204] was celebrated for his imitations of old Ting
wares, and the _Ko ku yao lun_, an almost contemporary work, describes
his productions as exactly like Ting ware when of fine body,[205] but as
being "short" and "brittle," and consequently not really worth much. "But
dealers in curiosities give them the name of _hsin ting_ or New Ting, and
amateurs collect it at great cost, which is most ridiculous." Again, the
_Po wu yao lan_ describes another wonderful imitation of Ting ware made
in the sixteenth century[206] by Chou Tan-ch´üan, a native of Wu-mên, who
settled at Ching-tê Chên, and was reputed the best potter of his time.
Though, generally speaking, his material was not as fine as the original,
still his copies of _Wên wang_ censers[207] and sacrificial vessels with
"monster heads and halberd ears" so closely resembled the originals that
it was only necessary to "rub away the kiln-gloss all over the surface" to
make the illusion complete. Among the literary references to pottery and
porcelain collected in books viii. and ix. of the _T´ao lu_ is a story
narrated in the _Yün shih chai pi t´an_, illustrating the cleverness of
Chou Tan-ch´üan. Julien[208] has translated it as follows: "One day he
(Chou) embarked on a merchant boat from Kin-tchong and landed on the right
bank of the Kiang. Passing P´i-ling, he called on T´ang, the President of
the Sacrifices (_T´ai ch´ang_), and asked permission to examine at leisure
an ancient tripod of Ting porcelain[209] which was one of the gems of his
collection. With his hand he took the exact measurements of the vessel;
then he made an impression of the patterns on the tripod with some paper
which he had hidden in his sleeve, and returned at once to Ching-tê Chên.
Six months after he returned and paid a second visit to Mr. T´ang. Taking
from his sleeve a tripod, he said to him, 'Your Excellency owns a tripod
censer of white Ting porcelain. Here is its fellow, which belongs to me.'
T´ang was astounded. He compared it with the old tripod, which he kept
most carefully preserved, and could find no difference. He tried its feet
against those of his own vessel and exchanged the covers, and found that
it matched with perfect precision. T´ang thereupon asked whence came this
wonderful specimen. 'Some time ago,' answered Chou, 'I asked your leave
to examine your tripod at leisure. I then took all its measurements with
my hand. I assure you that this is a copy of yours, and that I would not
deceive you in the matter.' The _T´ai ch´ang_, realising the truth of this
statement, bought for forty ounces of silver the tripod, which filled him
with admiration, and placed it in his collection beside the original as
though it were its double. In the Wan Li period (1573-1619), Tu-chiu, of
Huai-an, came to Fou-liang. Smitten with a deep longing for T´ang's old
censer, he could think of nothing else, and even saw it in his dreams.
One day he went with Kien-yu, the _T´ai ch´ang's_ nephew, and after much
importunity he succeeded in getting from him for a thousand ounces of
silver the imitation made by Chou, and returned home completely happy."

Other examples of Ting imitations in the late Ming period, described in
the _Po wu yao lan_, include "magnolia blossom cups; covered censers and
barrel-shaped censers with chain-armour pattern, ball and gate embroidery
and tortoise pattern mingled together in an ornamental ground." But we
gather that though these have been confounded with Chou's work they were
inferior both in material and workmanship to his early masterpieces.

At any rate, it is certain that besides these conspicuous craftsmen
whose names have become historical, there were many nameless potters at
Ching-tê Chên who devoted their skill to the imitation of _pai ting_
porcelain in the Ming and Ch´ing dynasties. Very beautiful wares of this
class are occasionally seen which have a "slickness" of decoration and a
mechanical refinement of finish characteristic of an art which is already
crystallised and has lost its freshness and spontaneity. These are, no
doubt, the work of later copyists. Indeed, we are expressly told in the
_T´ao lu_[210] that at the end of the eighteenth century there were still
potters at Ching-tê Chên who made a specialty of _pai ting ch´i_ or white
Ting wares. These, moreover, were makers of curiosities and ornamental
wares (_wan_), and they sometimes painted their wares with underglaze blue.

Among the provincial wares of the Ting type the _Ko ku yao lun_ mentions
Hsiang yao, which "has crab's claw crackle. When rich and lustrous it is
highly esteemed, but when yellow and of coarser material, it is of little
merit or value." Another work[211] gives this ware a flattering mention in
stating that the Ting ware resembled Hsiang yao in colour. The locality
of its manufacture is left in doubt, but it was probably Hsiang-shan, in
the Ning-po prefecture of Chekiang. The _T´ao lu_ names a good number
of producers of white ware, some definitely described as of Ting type,
among the lesser factories. Su Chou,[212] for instance, in Anhui, in the
modern prefecture of Fêng-yang, had a pottery dating from the Sung period.
Its productions resembled Ting ware in colour, and had a considerable
reputation. In fact, when the Ting porcelain became scarce the Su Chou
ware was largely bought in Northern China as a substitute, though in
reality it was far from equal to the genuine Ting.

Ssŭ Chou,[213] too, another place in Anhui, had a pottery dating from Sung
times, which made wares of Ting type, and "persons who liked a bargain
often bought them in place of Ting porcelain." In the same district,
during the Yüan and Ming periods, a thin white ware with "earthen" body
was made at Hsüan Chou,[214] which was evidently of _t´u ting_ type.
Brinkley[215] speaks of a pottery of this kind which is greatly esteemed
by the Japanese under the name of Nyo-fu ware[216]; and a little wine cup
with a slight engraved floral decoration in the British Museum is possibly
an example of this class. It has an earthy looking body, and creamy white
glaze, and is thin and very light to handle. Under the base are engraved
the words [Chinese] _han hsing_ ("to contain fragrance").

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 23.--Ivory white Ting Ware, with carved ornament. Sung dynasty.

Fig. 1.--Bowl with lotus design. Diameter 8½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._

Fig. 2.--Dish with ducks and water plants. Diameter 8¾ inches.
_Alexander Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 24.--Sung and Yüan Porcelain.

Fig. 1.--Ewer, translucent Porcelain, with smooth ivory white glaze. Sung
or Yüan dynasty. Height 6 inches. _Alexander Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase of ivory white Ting ware with carved lotus design. Sung
dynasty. Height 11½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collin._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 25.--Ting Ware with moulded designs, Sung dynasty.

Fig 1. Plate with boys in peony scrolls, ivory white glaze. Diameter 7¾
inches. _Peters Collection._

Fig. 2. Bowl with flying phœnixes in lily scrolls, crackled creamy glaze;
_t´u ting_ ware. Diameter 6 inches. _Koechlin Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 26.--T´u ting Ware, Sung dynasty, with creamy crackled glaze.

Fig. 1.--Brush washer in form of a boy in a boat. Length 7⅛ inches.
_Rothenstein Collection._

Fig. 2.--Figure of an elephant. Length 10½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._]

[Illustration: Plate 27.--Vase of bronze form with row of studs and
moulded belt of _k´uei_ dragon and key-fret patterns.

"Ostrich egg" glaze. (?) Kiangnan ware, of Ting type; Sung dynasty. Height
17⅝ inches. _Peters Collection._]

[Illustration: Plate 28.--Vase of bronze form with two bands of raised key
pattern.

Thick creamy glaze, closely crackled and shading off into brown with faint
tinges of purple. (?) Kiangnan Ting ware. Fourteenth century. Height
15½ inches. _Koechlin Collection._]

In Kiangsu, the western portion of Kiang-nan, is the "white earth village"
Pai-t´u Chên,[217] where potteries existed from Sung times, making a ware
of the local clay, very thin, white and lustrous, beautiful in form and
workmanship. Thirty kilns were worked, chiefly by families of the name
Tsou, under the direction of a headman, the potters numbering several
hundreds.

Under the heading of Hsi yao,[218] the _T´ao shuo_ alludes to four
factories in the province of Shansi, which are interesting to-day in
view of the various wares excavated in the railway cuttings now under
construction in that province. A fuller description of these potteries
is given in the _T´ao lu_, which mentions P´ing-yang Fu in the southern
half of Shansi as a pottery centre in the T´ang and Sung dynasties, where
the ware was white but disqualified by a glaze lacking in purity. At Ho
Chou, in the same district, a superior ware was made as early as the
T´ang dynasty, which was even considered worthy of mention in the _Ko ku
yao lun_, probably because of the connection of P´êng Chün-pao (see p.
94) with this place in the Yüan dynasty. The _T´ao lu_ tells that the
Ho ware was made of fine rich material, the body unctuous and thin, and
the colour usually white, and that it was more beautiful than P´ing-yang
ware--a qualified compliment! A coarse pottery made at Yu-tzü Hsien, in
the T´ai-yüan prefecture in the north, and at P´ing-ting Chou in the
west, complete the quartet. The former dated from T´ang times, and the
latter, dating from the Sung, was made of a dark-coloured clay which gave
a dusky tinge to the white glaze. A small melon-shaped vase, reputed to
have come from a tomb in Shansi, is shown in Plate 11. It has a hard, buff
grey body, with a dressing of white slip and white glaze, the effect of
the combination being a pleasing surface of solid-looking ivory white. A
factory which made white wares in the neighbouring province of Shansi is
named in the twelfth century _Ch´ing po tsa chih_.[219] It was situated
at Huang-p´u Chên, in Yao Chou, where, as we are told in the _T´ao shuo_,
they had at an early date made flat-bottom bowls which were called "little
seagulls." The place is near Hsi-an Fu.

Wares of the _t´u ting_, the "earthy" Ting, type, with creamy glaze, were
made at Nan-fêng Hsien,[220] in the province of Kiangsi, during the Yüan
dynasty; and at Chi Chou[221] in the same province there were factories in
the Sung dynasty which deserve some attention. The latter were situated
at Yung-ho Chên, in the Chi Chou district, in the prefecture of Chia-an
Fu, and one of the productions appears to have resembled the purple
(_tzŭ_) Ting ware, though it was coarser and thicker, and of no great
merit. The _Ko ku yao lun_[222] speaks of five factories in this place
producing white and purple (_tzŭ_) wares, flower vases of large size and
considerable value, and small vases which were ornamented, and crackled
wares of great beauty. The best of these potteries belonged to a man named
Shu [Chinese]. We are further informed by the _Chü chai tsa chi_[223] that
Shu, the old man (_Shu wêng_), was skilled in making ornamental objects,
and that his daughter, _Shu chiao_ (the fair Shu), excelled him. Her
incense burners and jars of various kinds commanded a price almost equal
to that of Ko yao. The author proceeds to describe a dish and a bowl in
his own collection as of "grey ware with invisible blue[224] glaze, which
was capable of keeping water sweet for a month." It has been assumed that
the decoration of the "small vases" was painted,[225] but the expression
in the text (_yu hua_)[226] gives no clue to the kind of decoration, and
we are left quite in the dark as to its real nature.

The industry seems to have ended abruptly at the beginning of the Yüan
dynasty, the story being that when the Sung minister Wên was passing by
all the ware in the kilns turned to jade, and the potters, fearing that
the event might reach the Emperor's ears, closed down the kilns and fled
to Ching-tê Chên. The meaning of this myth has never been satisfactorily
explained, but it was pointed out that a large number of Yung-ho names
appear in the early lists of Ching-tê Chên potters, and the _Ko ku yao
lun_ asserts that excavations on the site of the kilns were made in the
Yung Lo period (1403-1424), and that several kinds of jade cups and bowls
were found--cautiously adding, however, that this might or might not have
been the case. The ruins of the Yung-ho potteries seem to have been still
visible in the fifteenth century.[227]

From a passage in the _T´ao lu_ we learn that crackle was a speciality
of some of the Yung-ho potters. Under the heading of _Sui ch´i yao_[228]
(crackle wares), we are told that "these are the wares made in the
Southern Sung period. Originally, they were a special class of the ware
made at Yung-ho Chên.... The clay was coarse but strong, the body thick,
the material heavy. Moreover, there were 'millet coloured' (_mi sê_)
and pale green (_fên ch´ing_) kinds.[229] The potters used _hua shih_
(steatite) in the glaze, and the crackle was in running lines, like a
broken thing. They smeared and blackened the ware with coarse ink or
ochreous earth; then they finished it. Afterwards they rubbed it clean,
and it was found to have hidden lines and stains of red or black, like
cracked ice, beautiful to look at. There were besides pieces with plain
crackled ground, to which they added blue decoration." This appears to be
the first mention of painted blue decoration, and if it is true that it
was made in the Sung period, it carries this important method back farther
than has been usually supposed. Possibly the ware was of the same type as
the coarse crackled porcelain, with roughly painted blue designs, found in
Borneo and Malaysia, where it is credited with great antiquity. There is a
very interesting specimen in the Kunstgewerbe Museum, Berlin, which bears
on this question. It came from Japan, where it had been treasured as a
Chinese tea bowl of the Sung period, and it has a brownish green crackled
glaze painted in dark blue with the characters _O mi t´o fo_ (Amitabha
Buddha), which was sometimes written in this way as a charm against evil.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 188: See Hirth, _Ancient Chinese Porcelain_, op. cit., p. 4.
The passage discovered by Hirth occurs in the _T´ang pên ts´ao_, the
pharmacopœia of the T´ang dynasty, compiled about 650 A.D.]

[Footnote 189: See _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 7 verso.]

[Footnote 190: See _Ko ku yao lun_, bk. vii., fol. 23. "Specimens with
tear stains (_lei hên_) outside are genuine."]

[Footnote 191: The _T'ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 13, quotes from _T'ang shih
ssŭ k'ao_ the following passage which bears on this point: "The Ting and
Ju ware used by the Court generally have a copper band on the mouth. This
was regarded as destroying their value. But modern collectors of Ting and
Ju wares have come to regard the copper band on the mouth as a sign of
genuineness. Dealers in curios declare it to be a sign of age."]

[Footnote 192: e.g. _Po wu yao lan_, _T'ao lu_, etc.]

[Footnote 193: [Chinese] or [Chinese]. The word _hua_ (lit. flowers)
is used in the general sense of "ornament." The attempts of certain
translators to confine it to the literal sense "flowers" has led to
ridiculous results.]

[Footnote 194: See p. 101.]

[Footnote 195: An early eighteenth-century work, quoted in the _T´ao lu_,
bk. ix., fol. 11.]

[Footnote 196: See _T´ao shuo_, bk., ii., fol. 7.]

[Footnote 197: Bk. vii., fol. 23.]

[Footnote 198: The _Memoir of Chiang_ (see p. 159), written in the Yüan
dynasty, says that the "pure white ware of Ching-tê Chên in the Sung
dynasty, when compared with the red porcelain (_hung tz´ŭ_) of Chên-ting
and the Lung-ch´üan green ware, emulated these in beauty." Chên-ting
is the Chên-ting Fu, the prefectural town of Ting Chou, and the ware
indicated is no doubt Ting ware; but here the comparison clearly seems to
be between white wares, and unless the word _hung_ (red) applies to some
variety of the Ting biscuit as distinct from the glaze, it is difficult to
understand.]

[Footnote 199: [Chinese] _tzŭ_, "purple or dark red brown," is, like
most Chinese colour-words, a somewhat elastic term. The dictionary gives
instances in which it is applied to "red sandal wood," "brown sugar," the
ruby, the violet, and the peony.]

[Footnote 200: Op. cit., fig. 35.]

[Footnote 201: See p. 131. I have seen a single specimen of a bowl with
carved design and creamy white glaze inside and all the appearances of
a Ting ware, but coated on the exterior with a lustrous coffee brown
monochrome. But without any other example to guide one's judgment, I
should hesitate to say that this piece was older than the Ming dynasty.]

[Footnote 202: Hsü Tz´ŭ-shu, author of the _Ch´a Su_, a book on tea,
quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, bk. v., fol. 15 verso.]

[Footnote 203: The potteries in the Chên-ting Fu district were active up
to the end of the Ming dynasty, at any rate (see p. 199); and no doubt
many of the coarse _t´u ting_ specimens belong to the Ming period, but as
their forms are archaic it is almost impossible nowadays to differentiate
them.]

[Footnote 204: Julien, op. cit., p. 21, places this town in Kiang-nan, but
this is clearly an error.]

[Footnote 205: In contrast with these there were specimens with "green
mouth," _ch´ing k´ou_ which were "wanting in richness and lustre."]

[Footnote 206: The date of Chou Tan-ch´üan is not given, but he is
mentioned in the _Ni ku lu_, a mid-sixteenth-century work.]

[Footnote 207: A well-known type of bronze incense burner of the Shang
dynasty. See the _Shin sho sei_, bk. i., fol. 2; and Hsiang's Album, fig.
1, where a Ting ware copy is illustrated.]

[Footnote 208: Julien, op. cit., pp. xxxiii.-xxxv.; the reference in the
_T´ao lu_ is bk. viii., fol. 5.]

[Footnote 209: Perhaps the celebrated "white Ting censer" described on p.
92.]

[Footnote 210: Bk. ii., fol. 9 verso.]

[Footnote 211: The _Liu ch´ing jih cha_, written by T´ien Yi-hêng in the
Ming dynasty.]

[Footnote 212: [Chinese] _T´ao lu_, vol. vii., fol. 9 verso. See also
bk. ix., fol. 9, where the _Ch´ing po tsa chih_ (1193 A.D.) is quoted as
follows: "The wares used at the present day, which are made at So Chou and
Ssŭ Chou, are not genuine Ting ware."]

[Footnote 213: [Chinese] _T´ao lu_, vol. vii., fol. 9 verso.]

[Footnote 214: [Chinese] _T´ao lu_, vol. vii., fol. 10 verso.]

[Footnote 215: F. Brinkley, _Japan and China_, vol. ix., p. 259.]

[Footnote 216: Nyo-fu is the Japanese name for Kiang-nan, the province of
which Anhui forms a part.]

[Footnote 217: In the district of Hsiao Hsien, department of Hsü Chou. The
ware is described in the _T´ao lu_ (bk. vii., fol. 7) under the name Hsiao
[Chinese] yao.]

[Footnote 218: [Chinese].]

[Footnote 219: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 9.]

[Footnote 220: [Chinese]]

[Footnote 221: [Chinese]]

[Footnote 222: Bk. vi., fol. 23 verso. This account does not appear in the
original edition, and was added in the later edition of 1459.]

[Footnote 223: Quoted in the _T´ao shuo_.]

[Footnote 224: [Chinese] _yu_, which means "black," or "invisible blue or
green."]

[Footnote 225: See Bushell, _T´ao shuo_, p. 48.]

[Footnote 226: "Have ornament."]

[Footnote 227: See _Ko ku yao lun_, loc. cit.]

[Footnote 228: [Chinese] _T´ao lu_, bk. vi., fol. 7 recto and verso.]

[Footnote 229: These must have resembled Ko yao. Hence, perhaps, the
comparison in value between the fair Shu's ware and the Ko yao, p. 98.]




CHAPTER VIII

TZ´Ŭ CHOU [Chinese] WARE


A LARGE and important class of wares, closely related to the Ting
group, was made at Tz´ŭ Chou, formerly in the Chang-tê Fu in Honan, and
now included in the Kuang-p´ing Fu in Chihli. The name of the place,
previously Fu-yang, was changed to Tz´ŭ Chou in the Sui dynasty (589-617
A.D.), and as it was derived, as Chinese writers are careful to explain,
from the _tz´ŭ_ stone from which the ware was made, we may infer that
this material, and no doubt the local potteries, assumed importance at
this early date. There were, in fact, a few fragments of pottery of the
Tz´ŭ Chou type, decorated with brown spots, among the Chinese wares found
on the ninth-century site of Samarra, in Persia, by Professor Sarre
(see p. 148); and a finely painted fragment of a Tz´ŭ Chou vase in the
Anthropological Museum at Petrograd was brought from a site in Turfan,
which was in all probability as early as the tenth century. Moreover,
it is constantly asserted by traders in China that this or that piece
of painted Tz´ŭ Chou ware was found in a T´ang tomb, and in many cases,
such as that of the brown-painted vase with lotus design mentioned on p.
33, the form of the specimen and the style of the decoration are quite
consistent with a T´ang attribution. There is, however, no information on
the subject earlier than the Sung dynasty, when the Tz´ŭ Chou factories
enjoyed a high reputation.[230] The _Ko ku yao lun_ gives the following
brief notice of them under the heading "Old Tz´ŭ wares":--

"Old Tz´ŭ wares (_tz´ŭ ch´i_) were made at Tz´ŭ Chou, in the Chang-tê Fu
in Honan. Good specimens closely resemble Ting ware, but have not the
tear-stains. There are, besides, specimens with engraved and painted[231]
ornament. The plain white pieces command a higher price than Ting ware.
The recent (i.e. late fourteenth century) productions of the factory are
not worthy of consideration."

If, as this account seems to imply, the Tz´ŭ Chou factories were in low
water at the end of the Yüan dynasty, like many other potteries at this
time, they managed to retrieve their fortunes, for they still carry on
an unbroken tradition to this day.[232] The ware is in general use among
the common folk of Peking and Northern China,[233] and is still decorated
(though coarsely) in the antique style with free and sketchy painted
designs in dark brown and maroon slip, the body being greyish white, with
creamy crackled glaze. This is, of course, only one kind out of many, but
the traditions have been so closely preserved that from this type alone it
is easy to identify many Tz´ŭ Chou specimens among the early wares which
have lately come from excavations in China.

The quantity of pottery produced at Tz´ŭ Chou in the last nine or ten
hundred years must have been enormous, but as the post-Sung wares do not
seem to have appealed to Chinese connoisseurs, little has been heard of
it until recent times, and the stray specimens which did find their way
to Europe were either unclassified or grouped with Corean specimens in
deference to a mistaken Japanese opinion.[234] Now, however, considerable
interest has been taken in the ware by Western collectors, and a plentiful
supply is forthcoming, so that it is possible to make a comparative study
of the different types, and to appreciate the varied and clever decorative
methods of the Tz´ŭ Chou potters. But the conservative nature of the wares
will always make it extremely difficult for us to fix the exact period
during the many centuries when any individual piece was made, and the
early dates assigned indiscriminately, though perhaps excusable on account
of the archaic character of the painted decoration, should be accepted
with caution.

The plain white Tz´ŭ Chou wares of the Sung period, which favourably
compared with the Ting porcelain, have been identified in a few instances
only by peculiarities of shape. Indeed, it is unlikely that we shall
have any other means of discriminating them from the latter ware. But by
far the largest group of the Tz´ŭ Chou family consists of the painted
wares. Like the rest of the Tz´ŭ Chou pottery which has so far been
identified, these have a greyish buff body of porcellanous stoneware
usually coated with a white clay slip and covered with a transparent glaze
almost colourless, but with a creamy tinge. On this glaze, and sometimes
under it, the painters executed rapid, bold, and rather impressionist
designs in shades of brown, varying from black to a soft sepia colour.
The earliest specimens seem to have been of this kind, and it is certain
that this method of decoration was practised in the Sung period, if not
earlier.[235] In a few cases the glaze seems to have been omitted, the
brown painting appearing on a lustreless white slip; and where the brown
or black colour was laid on in broad washes, details were often etched
out with a pointed instrument. The black, moreover, when in considerable
areas, sometimes developed passages of lustrous coffee brown[236] (due to
the presence of iron), such as is seen in the "partridge cups" of Chien
yao. It is probable that the Sung Tz´ŭ Chou ware, with its solid ivory
white surface, often crackled, and its sketchy floral designs, may have
served as a model to the Japanese for the Kenzan style of decoration and
the ivory white Satsuma faience.

Another style of ornament, which may date from Sung times, and is
certainly common on later wares, consists of a broad band of floral
scrolls, with large lily or aster flowers, enclosed by smaller zones of
floral pattern or formal designs. Next come the large panels of figure
subjects, usually of Taoist sages, or birds and animals in foliage,
enclosed by bands of formal ornament or floral scrolls. In some cases a
beautiful pale blue glaze of turquoise tint covers this class of ornament
(Plate 32, Fig. 1), strangely recalling the Persian and Syrian pottery
with still black paintings under a turquoise glaze. Indeed, it was a
common error a few years back to class the stray specimens of this type
as Persian; but a comparison with the brown-painted Tz´ŭ Chou specimens
shows their true origin, and the discovery of a small dish of this kind
in a Sung tomb[237] proves the antiquity of this method of decoration in
China.

The brown and black was supplemented, in the Ming period if not earlier,
first by a maroon slip and later by iron red and green enamel.[238] A
specimen with panelled decoration in these colours was described by
Brinkley[239] as having been preserved in Japan since 1598, showing that
this class of decoration was at any rate contemporary with the "red and
green family" of porcelain. A specimen in the Benson Collection shows,
further, that aubergine and green were sometimes used in combination with
turquoise glaze, as in the Ming "three-colour porcelain." Under-glaze blue
is also found on Tz´ŭ Chou wares, but we have no clue to the date when it
was introduced.

The ordinary ware, made in quite modern times at Tz´ŭ Chou, is illustrated
by a small flask and a figure obtained by Dr. Bushell, and now in the
British Museum. Though decorated in the characteristic style with slight
sketchy design in brown and maroon, they show a decided falling off
when compared with the older specimens. The body is a hard, greyish
white stoneware; there is no slip covering, and the glaze is yellowish,
soft-looking, and freely crackled, without the solid qualities of the
older ivory glaze on a white slip coating. I am inclined to think that
this degenerate type of ware dates back no farther than the nineteenth
century, and that the Tz´ŭ Chou pottery preserved its character up to and
perhaps throughout the eighteenth century. There are several examples of
pottery pillows, with body and glaze of good quality and finely painted
in black and brown, with panelled designs sometimes containing floral
motives, sometimes figure subjects. One of these, exhibited at the
Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910,[240] was tentatively ascribed to the
late Ming period. Since then the British Museum has acquired another,
and I have heard of two more in private hands. The three last bear the
mark of a potter named Chang,[241] and on some of them we find additional
inscriptions containing the words _ku hsiang_ (of old Hsiang) and _hsiang
ti_ (of the region of Hsiang). Hsiang, I find, is the old name of
Chang-tê Fu, the prefecture in which Tz´ŭ Chou is situated, and this fact
definitely connects the ware with the factories under discussion. At the
same time the relatively large number of these pieces in our collections
and the style of Chang's mark seem to indicate that they are of fairly
recent date, probably not older than the seventeenth century.

[Illustration: Plate 29.--Vase of Porcellanous Stoneware.

With creamy white glaze and designs painted in black. Tz´ŭ Chou ware, Sung
dynasty (960-1279 A.D.). Height 17 inches. _In the Louvre._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1      Fig. 2

    Fig. 3      Fig. 4

Plate 30.--Four Jars of painted Tz´ŭ Chou Ware.

Fig. 1.--Dated 11th year of Chêng T´ing (1446 A.D.). Height 9½ inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Painted in red and green enamels. (?) Sung dynasty. Height 4½
inches. _Alexander Collection._

Fig. 3.--Lower half black, the upper painted on white ground. Sung
dynasty. Height 15½ inches. _Benson Collection._

Fig. 4.--With phœnix design, etched details. Sung dynasty. Height 9¾
inches. _Rothenstein Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 31.--Tz´ŭ Chou Ware. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 1.--Tripod Incense Vase in Persian style with lotus design in pale
aubergine, in a turquoise ground. Sixteenth century. Height 6½ inches.

Fig. 2.--Pillow with creamy white glaze and design of a tethered bear in
black. Sung dynasty. Length 12½ inches.]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 32.--Tz´ŭ Chou Ware. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 1.--Figure of a Lohan with a Deer, creamy white glaze coloured
with black slip and painted with green and red enamels. Said to be Sung
dynasty. Height 12½ inches.

Fig. 2.--Vase with _graffiato_ peony scrolls under a green glaze. Sung
dynasty. Height 16 inches.]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 33.--Tz´ŭ Chou Ware.

Fig. 1.--Vase with panel of figures representing music, painted in black
under a blue glaze. Yüan dynasty. Height 11½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase with incised designs in a dark brown glaze, a sage looking
at a skeleton. Yüan dynasty. Height 12⅞ inches. _Peters Collection._

Fig. 3.--Vase with painting in black and band of marbled slips. Sung
dynasty. Height 16 inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 34.--Tz´ŭ Chou Ware. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 1.--Bottle of white porcellanous ware with black glaze and floral
design in lustrous brown. Sung dynasty or earlier. (?) Tz´ŭ Chou ware.
Height 13½ inches.

Fig. 2.--Bottle with bands of key pattern and lily scrolls cut away from a
black glaze. Sung dynasty. Height 9¼ inches.

Fig. 3.--Bottle with _graffiato_ design in white slip on a mouse-coloured
ground, yellowish glaze. Sung dynasty. Height 13 inches.]

On the other hand, a greater age has been credited to these pillows in
the belief that they are "corpse pillows" recovered from ancient tombs,
a theory for which a quotation from a Ming writer in the _T´ao shuo_ is
responsible.[242] It is stated that "the pillows of ancient porcelain
that are two feet and a half long and six inches broad may be used.
Those only one foot long are known as 'corpse pillows,' and are among
the things found in ancient tombs; and even when these are of white Ting
Chou porcelain of the Sung dynasty, they ought not to be used." Now the
pillows made by Chang and others are rarely more than a foot long, and
according to this passage should be regarded as corpse pillows. But I
cannot help thinking that either the measurements given are incorrect, or
that the figures are inaccurately quoted; for apart from the difficulty of
making porcelain pillows thirty inches long, such a size would be wholly
unnecessary, and is, in fact, more than twice the length of the ordinary
Chinese pillow, as we know from existing examples in various materials.
At the present day there is no such distinction in size between the two
sorts of pillow, and de Groot[243] assures us that the head of the corpse
is rested on a small pillow "not differing from those in use among the
living."

From the same passage in the _T´ao shuo_ we learn that a curious belief
existed in China that porcelain pillows were "efficacious in keeping the
eyes clear and preserving the sight, so that even in old age fine writing
can be read," and that this belief obtained as early as the Sung dynasty,
much use of such pillows having been made in the court of Ning Tsung.

Among the many types of Tz´ŭ Chou ware, old and new, figures and
statuettes, usually of deities, played an important part. There are
examples of coarse modern figures in the British Museum, but there are
others,[244] strong and forcefully modelled, which rank with the best
ceramic statuary. These, no doubt, belong to the older and better periods.
A good example is shown in Plate 32.

The other large group of Tz´ŭ Chou wares, that with engraved designs
(_hua, hua_), is perhaps the most interesting of the three. One class,
the white ware with carved ornament, if it existed, has been merged, like
the plain white, in the Ting wares. The vase (Plate 33, Fig. 2) with
brown glaze and panelled design exactly corresponding to those of the
typical painted wares, but engraved with a pointed instrument through
the brown glaze, forms a link between the two main groups.[245] But the
more characteristic Tz´ŭ Chou engraved ornament is executed by what is
usually known as the _graffiato_ process, the lines of the design being
cut through a layer of slip which contrasts in colour with the underlying
material. This is illustrated by those vases on which the ornament is
etched through a covering of white slip disclosing the greyish body
beneath, or, better still, by specimens like Plate 34, Fig. 3, in which
the ground of the pattern is freely cut away, exposing considerable areas
of the body.[246] The greyish body colour combines with the transparent
but creamy glaze to produce a delicate mouse-coloured surface, from which
the pattern stands out in ivory white. In other cases a thick lustrous
brown black glaze has been boldly carved, leaving the design to contrast
with an unglazed grey biscuit (Plate 34, Fig. 3). By varying and combining
these different methods, and by changing and counter-changing the slips,
a great diversity of effects was readily obtained. It has been frequently
remarked that some of the engraved specimens with bands of large foliage
scrolls have an astonishing resemblance to Italian _graffiato_ ware of the
sixteenth century; and this resemblance is particularly striking when, as
sometimes happens, a green glaze is used instead of the ordinary creamy
covering. No doubt these carved wares, like their fellows with painted
ornament, were made for many centuries, but there is good reason to think
that they date back to early times, for fragments both of the _graffiato_
with white slip and mouse-coloured ground, and of the dark brown glaze
cut away, were found in Sir Aurel Stein's excavations in Turfan on sites
which can hardly have been open after the twelfth century.[247] An
important example recently acquired by the British Museum actually bears
a Sung date. It is a pillow with carved panels on the sides containing
each a large flower and formal foliage; and on the top is a panel with
the four characters _Chia kuo yung an_ ("everlasting peace in the family
and state") etched in a ground powdered with small circles. This panel
is flanked by two incised inscriptions stating that the pillow was made
by the Chao family in the fourth year of Hsi Ning (i.e. 1071 A.D.). I
have seen one other dated specimen of _graffiato_ Tz´ŭ Chou ware with
beautifully carved floral designs and an inscription of the year 1063.
Another Tz´ŭ Chou type is seen in a pillow in the Eumorfopoulos Collection
which has passages of marbling in black and brown, and small black rosette
ornaments inlaid in Corean fashion. The variety of decorations used on
this group of wares seems to be inexhaustible.

It has already been hinted that other factories were at work on the
same lines as Tz´ŭ Chou, and as we have no means of identifying their
peculiarities, it would perhaps be safer to use some such formula as
"Tz´ŭ Chou type" in the ascription of doubtful pieces. Po-Shan Hsien, in
Shantung, was mentioned in a note on p. 103, and the _T´ao lu_[248] gives
a short account of another factory at Hsü Chou,[249] in Honan, where the
_tz´ŭ_ stone (see p. 101) was also used in wares which were both plain
white and decorated. This factory was active in the Ming dynasty, and it
is stated that its wares were superior to the "recent productions"[250] of
Tz´ŭ Chou.

A reference to porcelain figures in Honan in the Sung dynasty may be
quoted in this connection. It occurs in the _Liang ch´i man chih_, an
early thirteenth-century work by Fei Kuan, and runs as follows: "In Kung
Hsien (in the Honan Fu) there are porcelain (_tz´ŭ_) images called by the
name of Lu Hung-chien. If you buy ten tea vessels you can take one image.
Hung-chien was a trader who dealt in tea--unprofitably, for he could not
refrain from brewing his stock. Hung-chien formerly was very fond of tea,
and it brought him to ruin." Possibly the images of Hung-chien, which
were given away with ten tea vessels, were made at Tz´ŭ Chou or Hsü Chou.
Figures are still part of the stock-in-trade of the former factory.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 230: See _T´ao lu_, bk. vii., fol. 13 verso.]

[Footnote 231: _Hsiu hua_, lit. "embroidered ornament," but see p. 91.]

[Footnote 232: For incidental reference to Tz´ŭ Chou vases and wine jars
in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see p. 128.]

[Footnote 233: See Bushell, _O.C.A._, p. 164.]

[Footnote 234: See Brinkley, _Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Boston
Museum of Arts_, 1884; also _Burlington Magazine_, August, 1911, p. 264.]

[Footnote 235: The pottery found in Sung tombs near Wei Hsien, in
Shantung, in 1903, includes a few examples of this type of ware with
sketchy brown designs. Laufer (_Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty_,
Appendix ii.) has illustrated this important find, though he is inclined
to think that it may have been made at the neighbouring potteries of Po
Shan Hsien. If this is so, we must reckon with the fact, in itself not at
all surprising, that other factories besides Tz´ŭ Chou were working on the
same lines. See p. 107.]

[Footnote 236: It would appear that the Tz´ŭ Chou potters were capable of
producing these lustrous brown passages in the black glaze intentionally,
for the floral design on Fig. 1 of Plate 34 is expressed in this manner.]

[Footnote 237: At Wei Hsien. See note on p. 103.]

[Footnote 238: There are specimens--mostly small bowls--of a very archaic
appearance, with the red and green painting which are persistently claimed
as of Sung period. But see p. 46 and Plate 30.]

[Footnote 239: _Catalogue of the Boston Exhibition_, op. cit., 1884.]

[Footnote 240: _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, E 63. This example has the mark of
Wang Ch´ih-ming. See p. 221.]

[Footnote 241: See p. 221.]

[Footnote 242: See Bushell, op. cit., p. 122.]

[Footnote 243: Op. cit., vol. i., p. 91.]

[Footnote 244: See _Burlington Magazine_, August, 1911, and _Cat. B.F.A._,
D 19 and 41.]

[Footnote 245: The link is strengthened by the presence of the black
painted bands which border the main designs. See also _Burlington
Magazine_, loc. cit., August, 1911, "On Some Old Chinese Pottery."]

[Footnote 246: On a few specimens, the date of which is by no means
certain, a design of leaves is executed by a peculiar process, in which
an actual leaf seems to have been used as a stencil, being stuck on to
the ware while the slip was applied, and afterwards removed, leaving a
leaf-shaped pattern in reserve. A somewhat similar use of leaf stencilling
is described on p. 133.]

[Footnote 247: See p. 134.]

[Footnote 248: Bk. vii., fol. 14. Some authorities seem to have considered
that the Hsü Chou factories go back to Sung times.]

[Footnote 249: [Chinese].]

[Footnote 250: The _T´ao lu_ was written at the end of the eighteenth
century.]




CHAPTER IX

CHÜN WARES AND SOME OTHERS


_Chün Chou_ [Chinese] _ware_[251]

THE Chün ware is said to have been first made in the early part of
the Sung dynasty at Chün Chou or Chün-t´ai, the modern Yü Chou in the
K´ai-fêng Fu in Honan. Like the Lung-ch´üan celadon, thanks to its
strength and solidity, it has survived in sufficient numbers to give
us some idea of the qualities which Chinese writers have described in
picturesque terms. That it finds no mention in the _Cho kêng lu_ and the
_Ko ku yao lun_ seems to imply that it was not appreciated by the virtuosi
of the fourteenth century, owing, no doubt, to the fact that, as hinted
in later works, it was chiefly destined for everyday uses and aimed at
serviceable qualities rather than "antique elegance." By the end of the
Ming dynasty, however, its beautiful glazes had won it a place among
the celebrated Sung wares, although even at this time certain varieties
only were considered estimable. The _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_, for instance,
which appears to rank the Chün ware above that of Lung-ch´üan, gives the
following criticism: "The Chün Chou ware, which is red like rouge, is
highly prized; that which is _ch´ing_ like onion blue (_ts´ung ts´ui_),
and that which is purplish brown (_tzŭ_) like ink, are esteemed second;
single-coloured pieces, which have the numerals one, two, etc., as marks
on the bottom, are choice; the specimens of this ware with mixed colours
(_tsa sê_) are not worth collecting." It was not long, however, before
even the despised "mixed colours" were not only appreciated by collectors,
but studiously imitated by the Ching-tê Chên potters.

The body of the wares, which are now classed as "Chün type," varies
considerably in quality and texture. The choicest examples in Western
collections, usually deep flower pots or shallow bulb bowls with lovely
glazes of dove grey, lavender, crushed strawberry, dappled purple and
crimson, and other tints, are made of a clay which, though dark-coloured
on the exterior, shows considerable refinement and closeness of texture
within. It is, in fact, a porcellanous ware of whitish grey tone. It is
noticed that these pieces are almost always marked with incised Chinese
numerals, and there are critics who would confine the Chün wares to this
group alone. But it is clear from a passage in the _Po wu yao lan_[252]
that there were other types in which the body was of "yellow sandy
earthenware," coarse and thick, and without refinement, with all the
characteristics, in fact, of the ware which these same critics habitually
relegate to the category of _Yüan tz´ŭ_, or ware of the Yüan dynasty. But
we shall return to this question later. Modern Chinese collectors, we
are told,[253] in recognition of these distinctions, classify Chün wares
in two groups, _tz´ŭ t´ai_ (porcelain body) and _sha t´ai_ (sandy, or
coarse-grained, body).

The Chün glazes are of the thick, opalescent kind which flows sluggishly
and often stops short of the base in a thick, wavy roll or in large drops.
On the upper edges of the ware they are thin and more or less transparent
and colourless, but in the lower parts and the hollows in which the glaze
collects in thick masses the depth and play of the colour are wonderful.
These irregularities are specially noticeable on the coarse bodies, but
even on the more refined specimens where the glaze has a smoother flow and
more even distribution, the colour is never quite continuous or unbroken.
In the opalescent depths of the glaze, bubbles, streaks, hair-lines, and
often decided dappling are observed, and a scarcely perceptible crackle is
usually present.[254] Some of these markings which variegate the surface
of the Chün wares have been noticed by Chinese writers as "hare's fur
marking" and "flames of blue."[255] Others, which appear to be irregular
partings in the colour of the glaze, have been named _ch´iu ying wên_ or
"earthworm marks." These last rarely appear except on the finer type of
Chün wares, and, like the "tear stains" on the Ting porcelains, they are
regarded as signs of authenticity.

[Illustration: PLATE 35

Flower pot of Chün Chou ware of the Sung Dynasty.

Grey porcellanous body; olive brown glaze under the base and the numeral
_shih_ (ten) incised. Height (without the wooden stand) 5⅞ inches.

    _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]

Though the beautiful Chün wares of the _tz´ŭ t´ai_ group will always be
rare and costly, Western collectors have been fortunate in securing a fair
number of specimens, and a wonderful series of them was brought together
in March, 1914, in the exhibition held by the Japan Society of New York.
The forms of the flower pots vary considerably. Some have globular body
with high spreading neck and wide mouth; others are bell-shaped like a
deep cup; others are deep bowls with sides shaped in six or eight lobes
like the petals of a flower; others are of quatrefoil form; and others of
oblong rectangular shape with straight sides expanding towards the mouth.
The saucers in which they stood are shallow bowls corresponding in form
to the pots, but supported by three or four feet which are usually shaped
like the conventional cloud scroll or _ju-i_ head. They are otherwise
without ornament, except in the case of the plain rounded saucers, which
have two bands of raised studs or bosses, borrowed, no doubt, from a
bronze vessel. These flower pots and saucers are almost invariably incised
with a numeral under the base, and the fact that when the pots and saucers
fit properly the numerals on each are found to tally seems to indicate
they are, as suggested below, size numbers. But there is no doubt that
the saucers or stands were often used separately as bulb bowls, like the
vessels of similar shape which are found in celadon and other wares.
Vases of the fine Chün ware are occasionally seen. There is a choice
example in the Pierpont Morgan Collection, a small ovoid vase with flat
base; and in the same collection is a low beaker-shaped vase with flaring
neck and globular body strengthened with four square ribs in imitation
of a bronze.[256] No numbers have appeared so far on any of these vases,
nor, as far as I am aware, on any Sung Chün wares except the flower pots
and saucers. I have, however, seen dishes on which a number has been
subsequently cut, and numbers occur on later copies of the Chün types
described below.

The numerals engraved under the base of the flower pots, saucers, and bulb
bowls in the finer Chün wares range from 1-10. Their significance has
given rise to some debate, but the most reasonable theory seems to be that
they indicate the sizes of the different forms, No. 1 being the largest,
though an extra large bulb bowl[257] in the Eumorfopoulos Collection has
the additional mark [Chinese] _ta_ (great). This is the view which, I
believe, is usually accepted in China, and Mr. Eumorfopoulos, who has an
exceptional series of these wares, has applied the test to all he has
seen, and has found the size theory to hold good in all but a few cases,
for which an explanation may yet be found.[258] Another suggestion,
supported by some American collectors of note, such as Mr. Freer and
Mr. Peters, is that the numbers refer to the Imperial kilns, and that
the pieces so marked are Imperial wares. Whether the former theory will
continue to stand the test of application to every fresh specimen remains
to be seen. With regard to the latter, I shall give reasons presently for
doubting that any special Imperial patronage was extended to this kind of
ware; and whatever truth there may be in this explanation of the numbers,
it is highly improbable that any serious evidence can ever be produced to
sustain it.

[Illustration: PLATE 36


Chün Wares

Fig. 1.--Flower pot of six-foil form. Chün Chou ware of the Sung dynasty.
The base is glazed with olive brown and incised with the numeral san
(three). Height 7¾ inches. _Alexander Collection._

Fig. 2.--Bowl of Chün type, with close-grained porcellanous body of
yellowish colour. Sung dynasty. Diameter 5¾ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2
]

It would be possible to construct a formidable list of the colours which
appear in the Chün glazes, though many of the accidental effects would
be very difficult to describe. On the edge and salient parts where the
glaze is thin the colour is usually a transparent olive green which
passes with the thickening of the glaze into a frothy grey shot with fine
purple streaks. The grey sometimes remains thick and opaque, covering
large areas, and it is liable to become frosted over with a dull film of
crab-shell green. It is in this frosting and in the opaque curded grey
that the =V=-shaped and serpentine partings known as "earthworm marks"
most frequently occur; and sometimes a steel blue colour emerges in these
partings and in small spots in the grey. For under the grey there seems
to be always blue and red struggling upwards towards the surface. Hence
the blue and lavender tinge which is so constant, the _t´ien lan_ of the
Chinese. But it is the red which almost always triumphs, emerging in
fine streaks of purple, crimson or coral, like the colour lines in shot
silk, or in strong flecks and dappling, completely overpowering the grey,
which only remains on sufferance in a few fleecy clouds. The fine lines
of colour are usually associated with a smooth silken surface to which a
faint iridescence gives additional lustre; whereas the strongly dappled
and mottled glaze is full of bubbles and pinholes (sometimes called "ant
tracks" by the Chinese) which give the surface the seeded appearance of a
strawberry. The red dappling is usually opaque and tending towards crimson
or rouge red. It will be seen that the red varies in quantity from a mere
tinge or flush to the intensity almost of a monochrome, and in tone from a
pale or deep lavender to aubergine, plum purple, rose crimson, and rouge
red. Making allowance for the capricious nature of Chinese colour words,
these tints will be found to correspond with several of those indicated in
the Yung Chêng list quoted on p. 119. On rare examples the grey and red
colours are in abeyance, and the dominant tint is the transparent olive
green, which is usually confined to the edges. This and the crab-shell
green mentioned above supply the green shades which the Chinese writers
include among the Chün colours.

But none of these glazes can with strict accuracy be described as
monochromes "of uniformly pure colour" which the _Po wu yao lan_ seems
to have regarded as indispensable in the first-class Chün ware. In fact,
it is difficult to conceive the possibility of a Chün glaze of perfectly
uniform tint, without any trace of the perpetual war waged in the kiln
between the red, grey, and blue elements. The nearest approach to a single
colour is seen in some of the grey glazes, but here, too, the colour is
only relatively pure; and I am convinced that the expression used by the
_Po wu yao lan_ is exaggerated, and the meaning is that the nearer the
Chün colours approach to uniformity the more they were prized. It is true
that several examples depicted in Hsiang's Album are monochrome purple,
but I have no more confidence in the colouring of these illustrations
than in the carved decoration which is indicated under their glaze, a
phenomenon unrecorded in any other Chinese work, unexampled in any known
specimen of the ware, and unlikely in view of the nature and the thickness
of the Chün glaze itself.

It is clear, however, that an exaggerated mottling of the glaze and a
confusion of many colours was viewed with disfavour by the old Chinese
connoisseurs. These effects were explained in the _Po wu yao lan_ as due
to insufficient firing. Regarded in this light they were viewed with
contempt by the earlier Chinese writers and labelled with mocking names,
such as _lo kan ma fei_ (mule's liver and horse's lung), pig's liver, and
the like. In reality, they were the forerunners of the many delightful
_flambé_ glazes which the eighteenth-century potters were able to produce
at will when they had learnt that, like all the Chün colours except the
brown glaze on the base, they could be obtained from oxide of copper
under definite firing conditions. How far the old Chün effects were due
to opalescence[259] it is impossible to say, but we know that all of them
can be obtained, whether turquoise, green, crimson, or lavender grey, by
that "Protean medium," oxide of copper, according as it is exposed in the
firing to an oxidising or reducing atmosphere, conditions which could be
regulated by the introduction of air on the one hand, or wood smoke on the
other, at the right moment into the kiln.

It should be added that the finer Chün wares as seen in the flower pots
and stands have an olive or yellowish brown glaze over the base, which in
rare instances is overrun by frothy grey or lavender. Another constant
feature of these pieces is a ring of small scars or "spur marks" on the
base.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 37.--Chün Chou Ware with porcellanous body (_tz´ŭ t´ai_). Sung
dynasty.

Fig. 1.--Flower Pot, with lavender grey glaze. Numeral mark, _ssŭ_ (four).
Diameter 8¾ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Bulb Bowl, of quatrefoil form, pale olive glaze clouded with
opaque grey. Numeral mark, _i_ (one). Length 10 inches. _Freer
Collection._]

The list of porcelains made at the Imperial factories about 1730[260]
includes a series of imitations of Chün glazes from specimens sent from
the palace collections, which serve at once to show the variety of Chün
colours and the extent to which they were copied. The actual colours
described are:

(1) Rose purple (_mei kuei tzŭ_ [Chinese]).

(2) Cherry apple red (_hai t´ang hung_ [Chinese]).

(3) Purple of the aubergine flower (_ch´ieh hua tzŭ_ [Chinese]).

(4) Plum bloom (_mei tzŭ ch´ing_ [Chinese]).

(5) Donkey's liver and horse's lung (_lü kan ma fei_ [Chinese]), with the
addition of four kinds obtained from other sources.[261]

(6) Deep purple (_shên tzŭ_ [Chinese]).

(7) "Millet colour" (_mi sê_ [Chinese]).

(8) Sky blue (_t´ien lan_ [Chinese]).

(9) Furnace transmutation or _flambé_ (_yao pien_ [Chinese]).

The potters of the Yung Chêng period (1723-35) succeeded wonderfully
in their work of imitation, and existing examples bear witness to the
beautiful colour effects which they obtained. The body of the ware,
however, was, as a rule, a fine white porcelain,[262] which had to be
carefully concealed by the brown glaze on the base. Many of the Yung Chêng
specimens are marked with the seal mark of the period, and occasional
instances occur in which this mark has been ground off in order to pass
the piece as old. I have such a specimen, which was actually bought in the
trade for Sung. It is a small dish, with beautiful turquoise green glaze
in the centre and a _flambé_ red on the sides. The place where the mark
has been ground away when washed clean showed a fine white porcelain body.
It is stated in the _T´ao lu_ that the potters at Ching-tê Chên began to
imitate the Chün wares towards the end of the Sung dynasty. No evidence is
given to support the assertion, which may be merely a local tradition; but
one certainly sees occasional specimens with a porcelain body masked by
a dark brown clay dressing under the base, the glazes of which obviously
imitate the Chün. There are, for instance, saucers and bowls of this kind
with purple glaze finely shot with grey on the exterior and a lavender
grey inside which appear to be older than the Yung Chêng period, though
their shape precludes a greater age than the Ming dynasty.

There are, however, many other imitations of Chün ware in which the body
is not of tell-tale white porcelain. The _Po wu yao lan_, for instance,
written at the end of the Ming dynasty, states that "in the present day
among the recent wares all this type of ware (viz. the Chün type) has the
sandy clay of Yi-hsing[263] for its body; the glaze is very similar to
the old, and there are beautiful specimens, but they do not wear well."
Yi-hsing is the place where the red stoneware tea pots, often called
Chinese "buccaro," were made, and we know that a Yi-hsing potter, named
Ou, was famous at the end of the Ming dynasty for his imitations of Ko,
Kuan, and Chün glazes.[264] A bowl in the British Museum seems to answer
the description of Ou's ware. It has a hard red stoneware body, and a
thick undulating glaze of pale lavender blue colour, the comparative
softness of which is attested by the well-worn surface of the interior.

The "Yung Chêng list" includes yet another type based upon Chün ware. It
is called "Chün glaze of the muffle kiln," clearly a low-fired enamel
rather than a glaze, whose colour is between the Kuangtung ware and the
added[265] glaze of Yi-hsing, though in surface-markings, undulations and
transmutation tints it surpasses them. This appears to be the "robin's
egg" type of glaze,[266] to use the American collector's phrase, a thick,
opaque enamel of pale greenish blue tint flecked with ruby red (see Plate
128).

The manufacture of glazes of the Chün type has continued at Yi-hsing since
the days of Ou, and what is called Yi-hsing Chün is still manufactured
in considerable quantity, the streaky lavender glazes being of no little
merit. When applied to incense burners and vessels of archaic form,
they are capable of being passed off as old, though the initiated will
recognise them by their want of depth and transparency and by the peculiar
satiny lustre of their surface.

[Illustration: PLATE 38


Chün Wares

Fig. 1.--Bowl of eight-foil shape, with lobed sides, of Chün type. Sung
dynasty. Close-grained porcellanous ware of yellowish colour. Height 1⅞
inches. _Alexander Collection._

Fig. 2.--Pomegranate-shaped water pot of "Soft Chün" ware. Probably Sung
dynasty. Height 3½ inches. _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2
]

Another ware which has a superficial resemblance to Chün yao has been made
for a long period at the Kuangtung factories,[267] if it does not actually
go back to Sung times. A typical specimen, shown in Plate 51, is a vase of
baluster form with wide shoulders strengthened by a collar with foliate
edge, and small neck and mouth, ornamented with a handsome lotus scroll in
relief. The body is a buff stoneware, and the glaze is thick, opaque, and
closely crackled, and of pale lavender grey warming into purple.

Glazes of this kind have been made at several potteries in Japan e.g.
Hagi, Akahada, and Seto.[268] Besides such specimens as this, there
are many of the streaky, mottled Canton stonewares which are remotely
analogous to the variegated Chün wares. The glazes of this type are more
fluescent than those described in the preceding paragraph and have greater
transparency, and the intention of their makers to imitate Chün types is
shown by incised numerals which are occasionally added under the base.
They are known in China as Fat-shan Chün, from the locality in which they
are made, and though some examples may go back to Ming times, the best
may, as a rule, be ascribed to the eighteenth century and the indifferent
specimens to the present day.

From this digression on Chün imitations to which the mention of Yi-hsing
led us, we must return to the original wares. It has been said that
Chinese connoisseurs recognise two groups of Chün ware, the _tz´ŭ t´ai_
and the _sha t´ai_, and there is no doubt that the contrast between the
body material of the two is very marked. In explanation of this the
Chinese to-day allege[269] that the flower pots and stands were made
of a tribute clay sent annually from the Ching-tê Chên district to the
"Imperial kilns" at Chün Chou, and that the coarser articles were made of
native clays. The story has the air of an _ex post facto_ explanation,
and it is open to many grave objections. In the first place it is
nowhere mentioned in Chinese literature, and in the second place the
Chün Chou kilns, so far from having been described as "Imperial" in the
Sung dynasty, are entirely ignored by the earlier writers, and even in
the late Ming works, where they are first mentioned, the Chün wares are
reckoned as of secondary importance. Thirdly, there does not seem to have
been any need to import kaolin, for Chün Chou was in one of the kaolin
producing districts of China.[270] There are, moreover, many specimens
of the Chün type which hold an intermediate position between the finer
flower pots and the coarse "Yüan tz´ŭ" wares, and these have a decidedly
porcellanous body, though inclined to be yellowish at the base rim. Some
of these have glazes almost as smooth and even as the flower pots, and of
a beautiful lavender grey colour with patches or large areas of aubergine
or amethystine purple, which in rare cases covers the entire exterior of
a bowl. In their finer types they are scarcely distinguishable from the
specimens which we have tentatively classed as Kuan on p. 65, and in their
coarser kinds they seem to belong to the so-called "Yüan tz´ŭ" which are
discussed at the end of this chapter.

Meanwhile, we must consider a very distinctive group to which the term
_sha t´ai_, in its sense of "sandy body," applies with particular
exactitude. In the catalogue of the New York exhibition of March, 1914,
I ventured to differentiate this type by the name of "soft Chün," which
its general appearance seems to justify. It is well illustrated in Plates
38 and 39. The body is buff and varies in texture from stoneware to a
comparatively soft earthenware not far removed in colour from that of
delft or maiolica, though, like so many Chinese bodies, it has a tendency
to assume a darker red brown tint where exposed at the foot rim. The glaze
is unctuous and thick, but not opaque, often, indeed, showing considerable
flow and transparency: it is opalescent, and at times almost crystalline,
and endued with much play of colour. It varies from a light turquoise blue
of great beauty to lavender and occasionally to a strong blue tint, and,
as a rule, it is broken by one or more passages of crimson red or dull
aubergine purple, sometimes in a single well-defined patch, sometimes in
a few flecks or streaks, and sometimes in large irregular areas. This
glaze usually covers the entire exterior and appears again under the base,
leaving practically no body exposed except at the actual foot rim. It has
been attributed to various factories. The pure turquoise specimens have
even been called Ch´ai, and a little piece of this kind was figured by
Cosmo Monkhouse[271] as Kuan ware. On the other hand, I am told[272] that
it is widely known in China as _Ma chün_,[273] and is usually thought to
be of the Ming dynasty, but no reason is assigned for either the name or
the date, and both seem to be based on traders' gossip to which no special
importance need be attached. A fine vase of this kind in the British
Museum has been much admired by Chinese connoisseurs, and they have, as a
rule, pronounced it to be Sung. The important specimen (Plate 39) in the
FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge, was obtained from a tomb near Nanking,[274]
a circumstance which is in favour of an early origin. In other respects
this class of ware seems to answer to the aubergine and "sky blue" Chün
types described by Chinese writers, and I regard it as one of the Sung
varieties of Chün Chou ware, with "yellow, sandy earthenware" body of
which the _Po wu yao lan_ makes mention.[275]

[Illustration: PLATE 39

Two examples of "Soft Chün" ware.

Fig. 1.--Vase of buff ware, burnt red at the foot rim, with thick, almost
crystalline glaze. Found in a tomb near Nanking and given in 1896 to the
FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge. Probably Sung dynasty. Height 8⅛ inches.

Fig. 2.--Vase of yellowish ware with thick opalescent glaze. Yüan dynasty.
Height 13⅜ inches.

    _Alexander Collection._

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2
]

That it continued to be made after the Sung period is practically certain,
and there are specimens which one would unhesitatingly regard as Ming or
Yüan from their form. But, on the other hand, the prevailing shapes are
of the Sung kind, and we have very little to guide us in dealing with the
various Chün types except the form and the quality of the ware. The "soft
Chün" was very closely imitated at Yi-hsing on a yellowish body which
resembles the original in colour, but is generally harder, with a thick
unctuous glaze of somewhat crystalline texture and a turquoise lavender
colour, with rather thin and feeble patches of dull crimson, which lack
the spontaneous appearance of the originals. These Yi-hsing copies are
often marked with an incised numeral like the Canton Chün.

With regard to the duration of the Chün Chou factories, the standard
Chinese works on ceramics are curiously silent. They take no account of
the ware after the Sung period, and leave us to infer that it either
ceased to be made or ceased to be worthy of mention after that time. In
two places only have I found any hint of its survival in later times. One
is an incidental mention of Sung, Yuan, and Ming Chün wares in a modern
work,[276] and the other is in the pottery (not the porcelain) section
in the great K´ang Hsi Encyclopædia.[277] The latter passage is taken
from the administrative records of the Ming dynasty, and contains two
references to large supplies of vases (_p´ing_ and _t´an_) and wine jars
obtained from Chün Chou and Tz´ŭ Chou in the Hsüan Tê period (1426-1436)
and in the year 1553 of the Chia Ching period. We further learn that in
1563 an Imperial edict abolished both the tax which had previously been
levied on the Chün Chou wares and the subsidy which had to a great extent
counterbalanced the tax. These documents prove beyond doubt that potteries
of considerable size existed at Chün Chou in the Ming dynasty, though
their mention in this particular context seems to imply that the ware was
no longer ranked among the porcelains, and had apparently ceased to be
regarded as an artistic production.

From this time onwards to the present day the ceramic history of this
district is a blank, and we are unable to say whether the modern Yü Chou
pottery is a continuation or only a revival of the ancient art of the
place. A specimen of this modern ware in the Field Museum, Chicago, has
close affinities with the "soft Chün." Its base shows a buff stoneware
body washed over with dark brown clay, and the glaze is somewhat
opalescent though thinner than the old glaze, and its colour is a light
blue of a tint more grey than turquoise. Quantities of this modern Yü Chou
ware are to be found in Peking, and occasionally it is passed off as old
Chün, but no one with experience of the originals would be deceived by it.

Finally, there is the important group of wares obviously belonging to
the Chün family but commonly described as Yüan tz´ŭ or ware of the Yüan
dynasty (1280-1367), although no sanction for this name is found in the
older Chinese books. The ware, however, is fairly common in the form of
bowls, shallow dishes, and, more rarely, vases and incense burners. The
bowls which are the most familiar examples are usually of conical form,
with slightly contracted mouth and small foot, coated with thick fluescent
glazes, which form in deep pools at the bottom within, and end outside
in thick drops or a billowy line some distance above the base, leaving a
liberal amount of the body material exposed to view. The body is of the
_sha t´ai_ class and usually of coarse grain, varying from a dark iron
grey to buff stoneware and soft brick red earthenware, though, as already
noted, there are finer specimens which link it with the _tz´ŭ t´ai_
group. It is this roughness of substance which has caused the ware to be
relatively little esteemed in China, for the glaze is often of singular
beauty. The varieties in colour are innumerable and clearly due to the
opalescence of the thick, bubbly glaze, combined with the ever-changing
effects of copper oxide on a highly fired ware. Lavender grey, dove grey,
brown, and grey green are conspicuous, but as the thickness of the glaze
varies with its downward flow, so the colour changes in tone and intensity
from a thin, almost colourless skin on the upper edges to deep pools of
mingled tints where the glaze has collected in thick masses. It is usually
streaky and shot with fine lines of colour, but sometimes there are large
areas of misty grey or greenish brown tones too subtle for description. A
section of these glazes will generally disclose the presence of red, and
this red often bursts out on the surface in patches which contrast vividly
with the surrounding tones. If the patches are large they will be found
to shade off into green in the centre or at the edges. It should be added
that crackle is almost always present, though it varies much in intensity
and does not seem to have been intentional.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 40.--Chün Chou Ware.

Fig. 1.--Bulb Bowl, porcellanous ware with lavender grey glaze passing
into mottled red outside. Numeral mark, _i_ (one). Sung dynasty.
Diameter 9¼ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase of dense reddish ware, opalescent glaze of pale misty
lavender with passages of olive and three symmetrical splashes of purple
with green centres. Sung or Yuan dynasty. Height 10⅜ inches. _Peters
Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 41.--Chün Chou Ware.

Fig. 1.--Dish with peach spray in relief. Variegated lavender grey glaze
with purplish brown spots and amethyst patches, frosted in places with
dull green. Sung dynasty. Diameter 8½ inches. _Freer Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase and Stand, smooth lavender grey glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty.
Height 7¾ inches. _Alexander Collection._]

Decoration of any kind is unusual on these wares except on the large
tripod incense burners, which often have slight applied reliefs in the
form of animals, dragons, or peony sprays. Mr. Freer's dish (Plate 41,
Fig. 1) with the raised floral spray is quite exceptional.

Whatever the verdict may be on the technical qualities of these rugged
pieces as compared with more finely finished porcelain, there can be no
doubt of the artistic merit of the subtle glaze colours, and I have seen
people whose undoubted taste in other forms of art had not previously been
directed to things ceramic, display a sudden and unexpected enthusiasm
over the rough Yüan bowls. The peculiar shape of these bowls--which,
without their foot take the form of a half coco-nut--has raised the
question whether it can be in any way connected with the Polynesian khava
bowls. The latter are actually made of coco-nut, and, curiously enough,
their interior after much use acquires a vivid patina, whose colour
recalls some of the Yüan tz´ŭ glazes. The resemblance, however, remarkable
as it is, can only be accidental, for it is practically certain that
the tints of these ceramic glazes were quite unforeseen. Long use has
usually given the surface of the Yüan tz´ŭ a smooth, worn feeling, but
in its first freshness the glaze had a very high and brilliant lustre.
This is shown by a few pieces which have lately been sent from China,
where they were excavated evidently on the site of the old factory, and
still remain in their seggars or fireclay cases to which they became
attached by some accident in the kiln. These and other spoilt pieces or
wasters would be of immense interest if only the circumstance of their
finding had been faithfully recorded. Unfortunately, however, they passed
through many hands before reaching Europe, and we have only hearsay to
support the statement that they were found in the neighbourhood of Honan
Fu. The locality is a likely enough spot and not remote from Chün Chou,
but we must consider that the real origin of the Yüan tz´ŭ has yet to be
settled, and we must still remain in doubt whether the ware is a coarse
variety of Sung Chün Chou ware, a continuation of that manufacture in
the Yüan dynasty, or the production of a different factory. Judging
from the character of the glazes, I am inclined to accept the first
two alternatives, which are not mutually exclusive, for while many of
the specimens have the appearance of Sung wares, there is every reason
to suppose that the manufacture continued through the Yüan period. The
formula, "Sung or Yüan ware of Chün type," adopted in the catalogue of
the exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910, is a discreet
compromise which may well be retained till further evidence from China is
forthcoming.

The evidence of Sir Aurel Stein's excavations in the regions of Turfan,
imperfect as it is, points to the existence of this kind of ware at least
as early as the Sung dynasty. Fragments with the typical glaze of the
so-called Yüan-tz´ŭ were found, for instance, on a site which was thought
to have been closed in the Sung dynasty, and again at Vash-shahri, which
was "believed to have been occupied down to the eleventh or twelfth
century." Making ample allowance for error in calculating the dates of
these buried cities, we may still fairly consider that some of these finds
come within the limits of the Sung dynasty.


_Chien_ [Chinese] _yao_

This ware, which has already been mentioned in several passages,
originated at Chien-an, but the factory was subsequently removed to the
neighbouring Chien-yang. Both places are in the Chien-ning Fu, in the
province of Fukien, and the term Chien yao derives from the character
_chien_, which occurs in all these place names. The beginning of the
manufacture is unknown, but it certainly dates back to the early Sung
period, being mentioned in a tenth-century work,[278] and the potteries
were still flourishing at the commencement of the Yüan dynasty.[279] A
characteristic specimen figured in Plate 42 is a tea bowl with soft, dark
brown earthenware body and thick, lustrous, purplish black glaze, mottled
and streaked with golden brown. The brown forms a solid band at the mouth
and tails off into streaks and drops on the sides, finally disappearing
in a thick mass of black. The spots and streaks of brown suggested to
Chinese writers the markings on a partridge's breast or on hare's fur,
and the bowls are usually known as "hare's fur cups"[280] or "partridge
cups." The dark colour of the glaze made them specially suitable for the
tea-testing competitions which were in fashion in the Sung period, the
object of the contest being to see whose tea would stand the largest
number of waterings, and it was found that the least trace of the tea was
visible against the black glaze of the Chien bowls. The testimony of an
eleventh-century writer[281] on this point is of interest. "The tea," he
says, "is light in colour and suits the black cups. Those made at Chien-an
are purplish black (_kan hei_) with markings like hare's fur. Their
material, being somewhat thick, takes long to heat, and when hot does not
quickly cool, which makes them specially serviceable. No cups from any
other place can equal them. Green (_ch´ing_) and white cups are not used
in the tea-testing parties."

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 42.--Two _Temmoku_ Bowls, dark-bodied Chien yao of the Sung dynasty.

Fig. 1.--Tea Bowl (_p´ieh_), purplish black glaze flecked with silvery
drops. Diameter 7½ inches. _Freer Collection._ Fig. 2.--Tea Bowl with
purplish black glaze shot with golden brown. Height 3¾ inches. _British
Museum._]

The Chinese tea contests were adopted by the Japanese, who elaborated
them into the curious ceremony known as _Cha no yu_, which later assumed
a semi-political aspect. The Japanese _Cha jin_ (initiates of the tea
ceremony) have always prized the Chien yao bowls, to which they gave
the name _temmoku_, and Brinkley speaks of a great variety of Chien yao
glazes which he saw in Japan. Of some he says that "on a ground of mirror
black are seen shifting tints of purple and blue; reflections of deep
green, like the glossy colour of the raven's wing; lines of soft silver,
regular as hair." The tea-testing contests seem to have lost popularity
in China at an early date, and late Ming writers took little interest
in the partridge cups, which one[282] at least of them voted "very
inferior." In Japan, on the other hand, the vogue of the tea ceremonies
has continued unabated to modern times, and no doubt the Chien bowls were
eagerly acquired by the Japanese æsthetes. Hence their rarity in China
to-day. Moreover, the Japanese potters of Seto and elsewhere have copied
them with astonishing cleverness, so that the best Seto imitations are
exceedingly difficult to distinguish from the originals. The ordinary run
of the Japanese copies, however, are recognised by a body of lighter tint
and finer, more porcellanous texture, besides their general imitative
character and the Japanese touch which is learnt by observation but is not
easy to define in words.

Though we hear nothing further of this Chien yao after the Yüan dynasty
it is practically certain that the manufacture of pottery of some
sort continued in the district. A small pot of buff stoneware with a
translucent brown glaze (much thinner than that of the hare's fur bowls
and without the purple tint or the golden brown markings) was found in a
tomb near, Chien-ning Fu with an engraved slab dated 1560. The find was
made by the Rev. H.S. Phillips, who presented the pot, with a rubbing of
the inscription, to the British Museum.

In addition to the characteristic _temmoku_ we have now quite a large
family of bowls, dishes, jars, and vases with thick purplish black
glazes more or less diversified by golden brown and tea-dust green,
which are at present grouped with the Chien yao pending some more
precise information as to their origin. They are, however, distinguished
by a coarse porcellanous body of greyish white or buff colour, and I
understand that many of the bowls have come from excavations in Honan;
and there are features in the ornament and in the ware itself which
suggest that they date back as far as the T´ang period. Fig. 3 of Plate
43, for instance, with its large brown mottling on a black glaze, is
analogous in form and material to the white-glazed T´ang wares and in the
mottling of the glaze to the typical T´ang polychrome. The bowls, which
are usually small and shallow with straight sides, wide mouth, and very
narrow foot, or with rounded sides slightly contracting at the mouth,
have neither the weight of material nor smooth solidity of glaze which
characterise the true Chien yao. On the other hand, they are more varied
in the play of black and brown, and in some cases they have designs and
patterns which are clearly intentional. The two extremes of colour are a
monochrome black, usually of purplish tint but sometimes brownish, and a
lustrous brown often decidedly reddish in tone. Between these come the
black glazes which are more or less variegated with brown in the form
of mottling, streaks, tears, irregular patches, and definite patterns.
The glaze in these bowls usually extends to the foot rim, and sometimes
reappears in a patch under the base. The ornament in some cases takes the
form of rosettes or plum blossom designs in T´ang style incised through
the glaze covering; in others, as in Fig. 1 of Plate 43, we find a leaf
design (evidently stencilled from a real leaf) expressed in brown or dull
tea green; and occasionally there are more ambitious designs, such as a
hare or bird or foliage, incised. On a red brown bowl in the Museum für
Ostasiatische Kunst at Cologne there are traces of a floral pattern in a
lustrous medium which resembles faded gilding.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 43.--Three Examples of "Honan _temmoku_," probably T´ang dynasty.

Fig. 1.--Bowl with purplish black glaze, stencilled leaf in golden brown.
Diameter 6 inches. _Havemeyer Collection._

Fig. 2.--Ewer with black glaze. Height 4¾ inches. _Alexander
Collection._

Fig. 3.--Covered Bowl, black mottled with lustrous brown. Height 7 inches.
_Cologne Museum._]

We have already noted how the purplish black glaze of the Tz´ŭ Chou ware
breaks into lustrous brown; the black Ting ware and the debateable red
Ting have been discussed; and if we add this family which may perhaps be
provisionally described as Honan _temmoku_, it would appear that glazes
analogous to those of the Chien yao "hare's fur" bowls were widely used in
Northern China at an early date.

A word of explanation may appropriately be added here of the expression
_wu-ni yao_,[283] which occurs in several passages in Chinese books on
pottery. It means "black clay ware," and as a general term would naturally
include the "hare's fur bowls." Indeed, one passage[284] actually speaks
of the _wu-ni yao_ of Chien-an, and the _T´ao lu_, which gives the ware a
paragraph to itself, states that it was made at Chien-an, in Chien-ning
Fu, beginning in the Sung dynasty, and that its clay was black. It further
adds that the glaze is "dry and parched" and that it was sometimes green
(_ch´ing_). It is clear from the above quotations that _wu-ni yao_ was a
general expression for the dark-bodied Chien ware; and there the matter
would have ended had not early works, such as the _Cho kêng lu_ and _Ko
ku yao lun_, mentioned it in the category of Kuan and Ko wares, the
former naming it with the Hsün and Yu-hang wares, which were inferior to
the Kuan, and the latter adding to the passage dealing with Kuan wares
the following note: "There are black wares which are called _wu-ni yao_,
all of which were imitated at Lung-ch´üan. They have no crackle." The
_Po wu yao lan_, however, explains that these wares "were admitted _by
confusion_ into the category of Kuan and Ko wares," and that the "error
has been handed down to this day." Probably it was the green variety
which caused the confusion, as there seems no reason why the black glazes
should have been associated with the Kuan class, though the dark red clay
of the Phœnix Hill from which the Hang Chou Kuan ware was made may have
had some resemblance to the dark red brown body of the Chien yao. As for
the Lung-ch´üan imitations, we can only imagine that the statement refers
to the later Ko wares, which are said to have been made with material
brought from Hang Chou,[285] and that their glaze, too, was of the green
variety, as would be expected in the Lung-ch´üan district, the home of the
green celadons. At the same time it will be remembered that _wu-ni yao_
means simply "black clay ware," and might have been fairly applied to any
dark-bodied ware wheresoever made.

As already mentioned, many fragments of pottery were included in the
important finds made by Sir Aurel Stein in his excavations in Turfan.
Unfortunately, many of the sites have little evidential value, because
they have clearly been revisited at comparatively late periods; but there
are a few localities which ceased to be inhabited as early as the Sung
dynasty, and which furnished fragments of glazed pottery and porcellanous
wares. I only mention those sites which, as far as these finds are
concerned, were not vitiated by the occurrence of obviously recent wares.
On one site named Ushaktal, supposed to have been abandoned in the Sung
dynasty, if not before, were fragments of greenish brown celadon with
combed ornament on the body, such as was certainly made in Corea and
probably in China as well. The same site produced opalescent glazes of the
Chün and Yüan type. The site of Vash-shahri, which was "occupied probably
down to the eleventh or twelfth century," produced a number of interesting
fragments (1) with buff and grey stoneware bodies and glazes of the
opalescent Chün and Yüan kinds, (2) the same body with emerald green
crackled glaze, (3) celadon glazes over carved ornament, (4) speckled
olive brown glaze resembling the later "tea dust," (5) opaque dark brown
glaze, (6) speckled dark purplish brown glazes, (7) thick greenish glaze
evenly dappled with pale bluish grey spots.

Early wares found on the mixed sites, such as Kan Chou and Hsi Yung
ch´êng, which were occupied down to Sung times but evidently visited
later, include carved white porcelain and creamy white ware of the _t´u
Ting_ class, and several kinds of _Tz´ŭ Chou_ wares, the _graffiato_, as
well as the black painted. But evidence from excavations of this kind is
always open to the objection that the ruins may have been visited later,
and the broken pottery dropped by subsequent explorers. This objection,
however, cannot reasonably be offered to more than a small proportion of
the objects found, and these finds, though not in themselves conclusive,
may be regarded, at any rate, as valuable corroboration of existing
theories.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 251: [Chinese] is an alternative form of [Chinese].]

[Footnote 252: Bk. ii., fol. 7 verso. In discussing the glazes with mixed
colour, the author says: "Of these wares, the sword-grass bowls and their
saucers alone are refined. The other kinds, like the garden seats, boxes,
square vases, and flower jars, are all of yellow sandy earthenware.
Consequently, they are coarse and thick, and not refined." The first
sentence is difficult, and has given rise to much discussion. The word
_ti_, which Bushell has (rightly, I think) rendered saucers, literally
means "bottom" or "base." Hirth reads it, "Those which have bottoms like
the flower pots in which sword-grass is grown are considered the most
excellent"; and Julien appears to have quite misunderstood the application
of the passage. The original is [Chinese]. The shallow saucers in which
the deep flower pots stood are often included among the bulb bowls. See
Plates 37 and 40.]

[Footnote 253: See the excellent account of the Chün wares by Mrs.
Williams in the introduction to the _Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of
Chinese, Corean, and Japanese Potteries held by the Japan Society of New
York, 1914_.]

[Footnote 254: Shrivelled glaze is sometimes seen on the Chün types of
pottery. Probably this was at first, at any rate, an accidental effect;
but it is the prototype of the "dragon skin" glazes which the Japanese
made at a later date. There is a good example in the Eumorfopoulos
Collection of a bowl with thick grey Chün glaze, with a patch of reddish
colour, and which is shrivelled in the most approved fashion, the glaze
contracting into isolated drops and exposing the body between them.]

[Footnote 255: See _T´ao shuo_, bk. ii., fol. 15 verso, quoting the _Liu
ch´ing jih cha_. In the case of the former (_t´u ssŭ wên_) some confusion
has been caused by a variant reading [Chinese] of the word [Chinese]
(_t´u_ = hare), which refers the simile to the "dodder"; but the commoner
phrase, "hare's fur marking," is far more descriptive of a dappled
surface. Brinkley's explanation of the second phrase, _huo yen ch´ing_,
as referring to the blue centre of a tongue of flame, applying the simile
to the passages of blue which sometimes occur in the variegated Chün
glazes, seems to meet the case. The flame-like effects are mentioned in an
interesting passage in the _T´ang chien kung t´ao yeh t´u shuo_ (quoted in
the _T´ao lu_, bk. viii., fol. 13): "Men prize the Chün cups, tripods, and
incense burners with smoke and flame glaze (_yen huan sê_). Although only
pottery, still they combine the unexpected colours produced by the blowing
tube (_t´o yo_)." The _t´o yo_ [Chinese] seems to have been "a pipe for
blowing up the furnace."]

[Footnote 256: See Hamilton Bell, "'Imperial' Sung Pottery," _Art in
America_, July, 1913, p. 182. The Chinese numerals are given on p. 211.]

[Footnote 257: _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, B 42.]

[Footnote 258: There is an obvious analogy in the "_size 3_" and "_S 2_,"
etc., incised under the Derby porcelain figures.]

[Footnote 259: See p. 50.]

[Footnote 260: See _Chiang hsi t´ung chih_, vol. xciii, fol. 11 and seq.
Quoted also in the _T´ao lu_, and translated by Bushell, _O.C.A._, p. 369;
and vol. ii., p. 223, of this work.]

[Footnote 261: _Wai hsin tê_ [Chinese], lit. "recently obtained from
outside." Wai evidently contrasts here with _nei_ (the palace), which
precedes the first five. Julien, however, gives it the sense "_émaux
nouvellement inventés_."]

[Footnote 262: See _T´ao lu_, bk. vi., fol. 7. "As to the ware made at
Ching-tê Chên at the present day in imitation of the Chün wares, the body
material is all of beautiful quality." This carries the imitation up to
the end of the eighteenth century. There are, however, imitations made on
a soft pottery body which bear the Yung Chêng mark.]

[Footnote 263: See p. 174.]

[Footnote 264: See p. 181. The list quoted on p. 223 of vol. ii. of the
wares made at the Imperial potteries in 1730 includes "glazes of Ou:
imitated from old wares of a man named Ou. There are two kinds, one with
red markings, the other with blue."]

[Footnote 265: _kua yu_ [Chinese] "applied or added glaze." The
significance of the epithet _kua_ lies in the fact that the bulk of the
Yi-hsing ware was unglazed.]

[Footnote 266: See Bushell, _O.C.A._, p. 374.]

[Footnote 267: See p. 168.]

[Footnote 268: See _Burlington Magazine_, November, 1909, Plate iv., opp.
p. 83.]

[Footnote 269: See Mrs. Williams, loc. cit., p. 33.]

[Footnote 270: The modern Yü Chou. See vol. ii., p. 107.]

[Footnote 271: Op. cit., Plate 1.]

[Footnote 272: By Mr. A.W. Bahr.]

[Footnote 273: The name _Ma_ is supposed to be that of a potter, but the
statement is based on oral tradition only. The character used is _ma_
(horse).]

[Footnote 274: It was deposited in the FitzWilliam Museum by Mr. W.H.
Caulfield in 1896.]

[Footnote 275: See p. 110.]

[Footnote 276: The _Li t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pien_, of which the British
Museum possesses a copy dated 1877.]

[Footnote 277: The _Ch´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng_, fol. 10 of the
subsection dealing with _t´ao kung_ (the pottery industry), entitled _T´ao
kung pu hui k´ao_.]

[Footnote 278: The _Ch´ing yi lu_, quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, bk. v.,
fol. 16 verso: "In Min (i.e. Fukien) are made tea bowls with ornamental
markings like the mottling and spots on a partridge (_chê ku pan_). The
tea-testing parties prize them." Oddly enough, the only specimen of this
type of ware which I have seen with a date-mark was dated in the reign
of Hsien Tê (954-960) of the Posterior Chou dynasty; but the inscription
had been cut subsequently to the firing of the ware, and carries little
weight. The piece in question is a remarkably large bottle-shaped vase
with a splendid purplish black glaze with "hare's fur" marking, in the
Eumorfopoulos Collection.]

[Footnote 279: See _T´ao lu_, bk. vii., fol. 8 verso.]

[Footnote 280: [Chinese] _t´u hao chan_.]

[Footnote 281: Ts´ai-hsiang, quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, bk. v., fol. 16
verso.]

[Footnote 282: The _Liu ch´ing jih cha_.]

[Footnote 283: [Chinese]]

[Footnote 284: In the _Liu ch´ing jih cha_.]

[Footnote 285: See p. 72.]




CHAPTER X

MIRABILIA


MANY strange things are recorded by the early Chinese writers in
connection with pottery and porcelain, and the tales are solemnly
repeated from book to book, though occasionally a less credulous author
adds some such comment as "This may be true, or, on the other hand, it
may not." It is difficult, however, entirely to discredit the serious
and circumstantial account given by a provincial governor of a curious
custom which prevailed in his district. Fan Ching-ta, who was appointed
administrator in Kuang-si in 1172, tells[286] us that "the men of Nan
(-ning Fu) practise nose-drinking. They have pottery vessels such as
cups and bowls from the side of which stands up a small tube like the
neck of a bottle. They apply the nose to this tube and draw up wine or
hot fluids, and in the summer months they drink water. The vessels are
called nose-drinking cups. They say that water taken through the nose and
swallowed is indescribably delicious. The people of Yung Chou have already
recorded the facts as I have done. They grow a special kind of gourd for
the purpose." Another extract from the same writer's works alludes to
"drums with contracted waist" made of pottery in the villages of Lin-kuei
and Chih-t´ien. The village people made a speciality of the manufacture
of this pottery (_yao_), and baked it to the correct musical tone. On the
glaze, we are told, they painted red flower patterns by way of ornament.
The allusion to painting in red on the glaze at this early period is
interesting, but it is quite likely that the designs were only in some
unfired pigment.

Some of the stories may be regarded merely as figurative descriptions of
the superhuman skill of the artist in rendering "life-movement." Thus we
are told[287] of "four old porcelain (_tz´ŭ_) bowls painted with coloured
butterflies. When water was poured in, the butterflies floated on the
surface of the water, fluttering about as if alive." It was an unnatural
proceeding for butterflies in any case, and we can quite understand why
"those who saw this, all maintained secrecy and did not divulge it."

A somewhat similar poetic licence is taken by the same author in another
passage with reference to certain cups and bowls, apparently of the Sung
dynasty, which were found in the K´ang Hsi period on the site of an old
temple. "The bowls had a minute wave pattern which moved and undulated
as in a picture by Wu Tao-tzŭ. As for the cups, when a little water was
poured into them four fishes arose out of the sides and swam and dived."

But most curious of all were the Chinese views on the subject of "furnace
transmutations" (_yao pien_) and the fables which sprang from them. At
the present day the strange behaviour of metallic oxides, notably copper,
under certain firing conditions, is well known and turned to good account.
But in early times, when the unexpected happened, and a glaze which
contained an infinitesimal quantity of copper oxide was accidentally
subjected to an oxidising or reducing atmosphere in the kiln (by the
admission of air or smoke at the critical moment), instead of coming out
a uniform colour, was streaked and mottled all over with red, green and
blue, or locally splashed with crimson or mixed colour, the potters saw in
the phenomenon something supernatural. It was a terrifying portent, and
on one occasion, we are told, they broke the wares immediately, and on
another they even destroyed the kilns and fled to another place.

However, the irregular formation of the Chinese kilns greatly favoured
these accidental effects, and in time they became comparatively common,
so that these true "furnace transmutations" were taken for granted; and
though they were not clearly understood before the end of the K´ang Hsi
period, fairly rational explanations of them were offered by some of the
late Ming writers. Thus the curious splashes of contrasting colour which
appeared on the Kuan, Ko and Chün wares were attributed to the "fire's
magical transmutation."

In these cases only a partial transmutation had taken place, affecting
the glaze alone. But the idea of transmutation in the fire was carried
farther in the Chinese imagination, and stories grew of cases in which
"the vessel throughout was changed and became wonderful." Su Tung-p´o has,
for instance, left a poem on a vase organ, in the preface of which it is
related[288] that in the year 1100 A.D., "while they were drinking at a
farewell banquet to Liu Chi-chung, they heard the sounds of an organ and
flute," and that on investigation "it was discovered that the sounds came
out of a pair of vases, and that they stopped when the meal was over."
Another story of the Sung dynasty tells of a wonderful basin in which the
moisture remaining after it had been emptied displayed, when frozen, a
fresh pattern every day. At first it was a spray of peach blossom, then a
branch of peony with two flowers, then a winter landscape, "with water and
villages of bamboo houses, wild geese flying, and herons standing upon one
leg."

The story of the "self-warming cups" told by an early Sung writer[289]
evidently belongs to the realm of pure fiction: "In the treasury of T´ien
Pao (742 A.D.) there were green (_ch´ing_) ware (_tz´ŭ_) wine cups with
markings like tangled silk. They were thin as paper. When wine was poured
into them it gradually grew warm. Then it had the appearance of steaming,
and next of boiling. Hence the name 'self-warming cups.'"

Scarcely less marvellous is the incident recorded in the _Yü chang ta shih
chi_, written about 1454.[290] "At the time when the temple of the god (of
pottery) was in existence, an Imperial order was given to Ching-tê Chên
to make a wind-screen; but it was not successful, and was changed in the
kiln into a bed six feet long and one foot high. At the second attempt
it was again changed and became a boat three feet long. Inside the boat
were the various fittings all complete. The officials of the prefecture
and district all saw it. But it was pounded to pieces with a pestle, for
they did not dare to let it go to court." Another story[291] tells how
Chia and I (John Doe and Richard Roe) when hunting were led in pursuit of
a wounded hare into an ancient tomb in the mountains, where they found
a large jar containing two white porcelain vases and an ink slab. Chia
broke one of the vases, but I stopped any further vandalism and carried
the other specimens home. He used the vase for flowers, but for several
days he noticed "an, emanation from within issuing from the _Yin yün_
(generative power of nature) like a vapour of cloud." Being puzzled, he
tried plucking the stalks of the flowers, and "found that they contained
no moisture, and yet the plants did not wither. Moreover, the buds kept
strong, as if they had rooted in the clay of the vase. So he began to be
astonished at the vase, regarding it as a kind of _yao pien_. One day,
during a great storm of wind and rain, suddenly there was a flash and
a peal of thunder, and the vase was shaken to pieces. I was very much
alarmed and distressed."

The _Yang hsien ming hu hsi_ speaks of instances in which the Yi-hsing
teapots were affected in a peculiar way, the ware changing from drab
to rosy red when filled with tea; and we have already seen that Hsiang
Yüan-p'ien illustrates in his Album examples of this, which he solemnly
assures us he would not have believed had he not seen it happen before his
eyes. In all these cases the ware was supposed to have been completely
changed in the kiln and to have acquired supernatural properties. "The
magic of the god had entered into the ware in the firing and had not left
it."


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 286: In the _Kuei hai yü hêng chih_, quoted in the _T´ao lu_,
bk. ix., fol. 2 verso.]

[Footnote 287: In the _Ning chai ts´ung hua_, quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk.
ix., fol. 4.]

[Footnote 288: See _T´ao shuo_, Bushell, op. cit., p. 47.]

[Footnote 289: In the _Yün* hsien tsa chi_, quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk.
ix., fol. 1 verso.]

[Footnote 290: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. viii., fols. 12 and 13.]

[Footnote 291: From the _Erh shih lu_, quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix.,
fol. 15.]




CHAPTER XI

PORCELAIN AND ITS BEGINNINGS


THE reader will have noticed that the word porcelain, which was avoided
in the discussion of the earlier periods, has insensibly crept into
the chapters which deal with the Sung wares. It was no longer right or
proper that it should be excluded, and it is high time that our attitude
on the interesting question of its origin was defined. Unfortunately,
that attitude is still--and must necessarily remain--one of doubt
and uncertainty, but we can at least clear away some of the existing
misapprehensions on the subject.

The myth which carried back the manufacture of porcelain some eighteen
centuries before our era has been definitely discredited, and the snuff
bottles supposed to have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs which gave
rise to the idea are now known to be of quite modern make. The more modest
computation which placed the invention in the Han dynasty (206 B.C. to 220
A.D.) might have been almost as lightly dismissed had not Dr. Bushell,
after disposing of the theory in his _Oriental Ceramic Art_[292] in 1899,
seen fit to reverse his decision in later publications.[293]

The reasons given for this later attitude are on the surface so convincing
that it is necessary to consider them in detail and to examine the
authorities on which they are based. Bushell's statement runs as follows:
"It is generally agreed that porcelain was first made in China, but
authorities differ widely in fixing a date for its invention. The Chinese
attribute its invention to the Han dynasty, when a new character _tz'ŭ_
was coined to designate, presumably, a new substance. The official memoir
on 'Porcelain Administration' in the topography of Fou-liang, the first
edition of which was published in 1270, says that according to local
tradition the ceramic works at Hsin-p'ing (an old name of Fou-liang)
were founded in the time of the Han dynasty, and had been in constant
operation ever since. This is confirmed by T'ang Ying, the celebrated
superintendent of the Imperial potteries, appointed in 1728, who states in
his autobiography that the result of his researches shows that porcelain
was first made during the Han dynasty at Ch'ang-nan (Ching-tê Chên), in
the district of Fou-liang."

From this and the passages immediately following it is clear that Bushell
at that time leant strongly to the Han theory, which he had previously
discarded, for three reasons, which we shall now examine. The first
rests on the character _tz'ŭ_. Whether the character _tz'ŭ_ was coined
to designate a new substance in the Han dynasty is by no means certain.
It undoubtedly appears in the Han dictionary, the _Shuo Wên_, but with
the meagre definition "pottery ware,"[294] and without any further
indication of its nature. The second is based on a passage in the Annals
of Fou-liang, which on examination proves to contain only the general word
_t'ao_ (ware) and not the character _tz'ŭ_ at all. The actual passage
runs: "The manufacture of pottery (_t'ao_) at Hsin-p'ing began in the Han
dynasty. Speaking generally, this pottery was strong, heavy, and coarse,
being fashioned of rich clay with moisture added, after methods handed
down from the ancients." The third invokes the authority of T'ang Ying,
but on reference to the autobiography of this distinguished ceramist in
the _Chiang hsi t'ung chih_, we again find reference only to _t'ao_ and
not to _tz'ŭ_, viz. "It (_t'ao_) is not the growth of one day. Research
shows that it began in the Han dynasty and was transmitted through
succeeding generations. Its place (of manufacture) changed (from time to
time), but it flourished at Ch'ang-nan." One obvious place for T'ang's
research would be the Annals of Fou-liang, and I shrewdly suspect that
his conclusions were based on the very passage quoted above, of which his
words give a clear echo. But in any case, neither passage has any bearing
on the origin of porcelain unless we assume that _t'ao_ is the same as
_tz'ŭ_, and that both words definitely mean _porcelain_, an assumption
which is not only quite unwarranted but in any case begs the whole
question.

The Chinese words used at the present day for porcelain are _tz'ŭ_,
_t'ao_, and _yao_, all of considerable antiquity, though their forms have
undergone various changes and their meaning has been modified from time
to time to keep pace with the evolution of the ware. The word _tz'ŭ_
[Chinese], as we have seen, was defined in the Han dictionary as merely
"pottery ware." Its modern definition is a hard, fine-grained variety of
_t'ao_, and if we add to this the quality of resonance--i.e. of emitting
a musical note when struck--we have all the requirements of porcelain
according to the Chinese definition. The synonym [Chinese], containing
the radical [Chinese] _shih_ (a stone), which is also pronounced _tz'ŭ_,
has come in the last two centuries to be used interchangeably with the
older word [Chinese], in spite of the protests of eighteenth-century
purists.[295]

The word _t'ao_ [Chinese] is a term even more comprehensive than our word
"china." In the Han dictionary it appeared in the form [Chinese] _t'ao_
or _yao_ (previously pronounced _fou_), composed of [Chinese] _fou_
(earthenware) and the radical [Chinese] _pao_ (to wrap), and its meaning
was _kiln_, and by extension the _products of the kiln_. At that time the
word in its modern form was only used as a proper name.

The third character _yao_ (the Japanese _yaki_) is precisely synonymous
with _t'ao_, meaning first a _kiln_ and then _wares_ of any kind. In its
form [Chinese] it occurs in the Han dictionary; another form is [Chinese],
which, according to a Sung writer,[296] dates from the T'ang period, and a
third form [Chinese] is current in modern dictionaries.

In short, the Chinese terms are all of a general and comprehensive kind,
capable of embracing pottery, stoneware, and porcelain impartially, and
there is no single Chinese word which corresponds to our precise term
"porcelain." Under these circumstances it is clear that no theory on
the origin of porcelain can be based merely on the occurrence of any of
these words in early Chinese texts. Still less can any such theory be
constructed from the very promiscuous use of the word "porcelain" in
European translations, and it is a thousand pities that both Julien and
Bushell were not more discriminating in this matter, or that they did not
always (as Julien sometimes and Professor Hirth usually did) give the
Chinese character in parentheses when any reasonable doubt could exist.
Had this been done we should have been spared misleading references to
"two porcelain cups of the Han dynasty,"[297] and such loose writing[298]
as "In the Wei dynasty (221-264 A.D.) which succeeded the Han we read of
a glazed celadon ware made at Lo Yang for the use of the palace, and in
the Chin dynasty (265-419) we have the first mention of blue porcelain
produced at Wên-chou, in the province of Chehkiang, the progenitor of the
sky-blue glazes tinted with cobalt, which afterwards became so famous."
The "glazed celadon," needless to say, is purely conjectural, pottery
(_t'ao_) vessels being all that is specified in the passage on which the
statement is obviously based; and the "blue porcelain" is evidently no
other than the _p'iao tz'ŭ_ (mentioned by the poet P'an Yo and discussed
on p. 16), which is better rendered "green ware."[299]

The same kind of criticism applies to all the other references in early
writers until we reach the Sui dynasty (581-617 A.D.). In the annals of
this period there is a much discussed passage in which it is stated that
the art of making a substance known as _liu-li_[300] had been lost in
China, and that the workmen did not dare to experiment, but that one Ho
Ch'ou [Chinese], a connoisseur in pictures and antiquities, succeeded in
making it with green ware (_lü tz'ŭ_), and that his imitations were not
distinguishable from the original substance.

To understand the full import of this passage it is necessary to explain
the nature of _liu-li_, and this is fortunately made quite clear by the
author of the _T'ao shuo_ in a commentary so interesting that I give it in
full:

"I find that _liu-li_ comes from the countries of Huang-chih, Ssŭ-t'iao
and Jih-nan.[301] That produced in Ta-ch'in (the eastern provinces of
the Roman Empire) is in ten colours--pink, white, black, yellow, blue,
green, deep purple, deep blue (or green), red, and brown. _Liu-li_ was
originally a natural substance.[302] Yen Shih-ku,[303] commenting in the
Annals of the Han Dynasty, says, 'At the present time they commonly use
molten stones, adding a number of chemicals and then pouring the substance
(into moulds) and forming it; but it is unsubstantial, brittle, and not
a successful casting.' In the Northern Wei dynasty, in the reign of T'ai
Wu (424-451 A.D.), a man of the Ta Yüeh-chih[304] who came to trade at
the capital, said he could make _liu-li_ by melting stones. Eventually
he collected the ore and made it (_liu-li_), and the finished article
surpassed the original in its brilliance and colour. The method has been
handed down to the present day, and it was probably only an accidental
intermission which occurred in the Sui dynasty. But the Chinese castings
are brittle in substance, and when hot wine is poured into them they fly
to pieces in the hand. What a pity the Yüeh-chih method has been handed
down instead of Ch'ou's!"

The allusions to melting stones, casting, etc., in this passage leave
no doubt that the _liu-li_, as made in China, was a kind of glass,
imitating a natural stone.[305] It is, in fact, usually translated in the
dictionaries as "opaque glass," and in connection with pottery it has the
sense of glaze--e.g. _liu li wa_ "glazed pottery."

We can now return to Ho Ch'ou, who "took green ware and made
_liu-li_."[306] It has been thought that what he made must have been a
kind of porcelain, but there is no indication of any such achievement,
for though it is possible to make an artificial porcelain with glass as a
constituent, the converse is not true: you cannot make glass out of either
pottery or porcelain. The most probable explanation of the passage seems
to be that Ho Ch´ou (who was apparently not a potter) experimented at some
pottery with the materials used in glazing the green ware, and found that
he could make a very good glass (_liu-li_) with the potter's green glaze,
and perhaps other ingredients, a result which is in no way surprising,
seeing that the softer ceramic glazes have a very close affinity to glass.
But no further inferences can be drawn from this passage, and it is not
even clear that Ho Ch´ou made a ceramic ware at all. All we are told
is that he made _liu-li_. I have rather laboured this negative point,
because Professor Zimmermann has published a declaration of belief that
Ho Ch´ou was the discoverer of porcelain.[307] Apart from the obvious
criticism which the writer himself anticipates, that such an epoch-making
discovery would hardly have escaped the notice of Ho Ch´ou's biographer,
Professor Zimmermann opens his case with a fundamental error, for which
he has to thank Dr. Bushell. It is true that he only names Julien as
the source of his information, but his version of the story of Ho Ch´ou
is taken verbatim from Bushell's _Oriental Ceramic Art_,[308] where the
crucial passage is unfortunately rendered "but he (Ho Ch´ou) succeeded in
making vessels of green porcelain which could not be distinguished from
true glass." This mistranslation puts an entirely different complexion
on the passage, and goes a long way to justify Professor Zimmermann's
inferences that Ch´ou made a glassy ware of the nature of porcelain. It is
an instructive instance of the pitfalls which beset the student of Chinese
subjects, especially when he has to rely on other people's translations.

Strange to say, a similar mistranslation occurs in Dr. Hirth's short but
excellent treatise on _Ancient Chinese Porcelain_,[309] in a passage
which is nevertheless of great importance to our quest. It has been the
custom with Chinese compilers of reference works to incorporate the
material of previous editions, adding their own commentaries and any
further information which happened to have reached them, and to this we
are indebted for the preservation of many passages from ancient writers
which would otherwise be extremely difficult of access. Thus Hirth found
embalmed in the Sung Pharmacopœia two early references to the material
_pai o_ [Chinese] which he shows to be without doubt the kaolinic earth
used in the manufacture of porcelain, and which, like many other strange
materials, entered into Chinese medicinal prescriptions. The first
mention of this substance is taken from the writings of T´ao Yin-chü,
who died in 536 A.D., to the effect that the _pai o_, besides being used
in medicines, was employed at that time for painting pictures; and Hirth
argues that so celebrated a writer on scientific subjects as T´ao Yin-chü
could not have failed to note it if the _pai o_ had been in general use
for ceramic purposes as well. This is followed by a quotation from the
T´ang Pharmacopœia (compiled about 650 A.D.): "It (_pai o_) is now used
for painter's work, and rarely enters into medicinal prescriptions; during
recent generations it has been prepared from white ware[310] (_tz´ŭ_)." By
rendering the last sentence "during recent generations it has been used to
make white porcelain," Hirth invested the passage with a greater interest
than it actually possesses. But even when stripped of this fictitious
importance, it constitutes the first literary evidence we have of the
use of kaolin by Chinese potters. This is followed by another quotation
from the T´ang Pharmacopœia recommending for medicinal purposes a powder
prepared from the white ware of Ting Chou.[311]

Whether we are to understand that the Chinese pharmacist ground up broken
pieces of Ting ware or merely made use of the refined and purified clay
obtained at the potteries, matters little. Neither proceeding would be
without parallel in Europe in far later times than the T´ang period. But
the specific reference to white Ting ware at this early date is most
interesting in view of the fact that Ting Chou was celebrated in the Sung
dynasty for a white ware which is undoubtedly a kind of porcelain.

The presence of a kaolin-like material in a dark-coloured ware, probably
of the third century, which was disclosed by the analysis made by Mr.
Nicholls in Chicago, has already been recorded (p. 15). We have no means
of ascertaining what length of time elapsed before a white material of
this nature was evolved, but it was clearly in existence in the beginning
of the sixth century. Possibly it was not porcelain according to the
strict European definition, but there is every reason to suppose that it
was a hard white ware, such as the Chinese would not hesitate to include
in their porcelain category. Such a ware appears on some of the funeral
vases which may safely be referred to the early T´ang period (see p. 26),
and in default of other evidence I think we can say that porcelain in the
Chinese sense already existed at the end of the Sui dynasty.[312]

Though this period happens to coincide with the lifetime of Ho Ch´ou,
neither his name nor any other has been associated with the event by the
Chinese, and it is highly probable that porcelain only came into being by
a process of evolution from pottery and stoneware, the critical moment
arriving with the discovery of deposits of kaolinic earth. As a mere
speculation, I would suggest that the deposits were those at Han tan, the
modern Tz´ŭ Chou, which supplied material for the Ting Chou potters.[313]
It is, at any rate, significant that the new name, which we are led to
suppose was derived from the _tz´ŭ_ stone,[314] was given to that place in
the Sui dynasty.

Numerous literary references from this time onwards have already been
quoted which are highly suggestive of porcelain. The "false jade vessels"
of T´ao Yü in the early years of the seventh century; the eighth-century
tea bowls of Yu Chou and Hsing Chou which were compared respectively to
jade and ice, to silver and snow, the former being green and the latter
white. The twelve cups used for musical chimes by Kuo Tao-yüan; the white
bowls immortalised by the poet Tu "of ware (_tz´ŭ_) baked at Ta-yi, light
but strong, which gives out a note like jade when struck."

The quality of translucency which in Europe[315] is regarded as
distinctive of porcelain is never emphasised in Chinese descriptions.
I can find no mention of it in any of the earlier writings,[316] and
the first unmistakable literary evidence of its existence[317] comes
from a foreign source. The Arab traveller, Soleyman, who describes his
experiences in China in the ninth century, states that "they had a fine
clay (_ghādar_) from which bowls were made, and in the transparency of the
vessels the light of the water was visible; and they were (made of) fine
clay."[318] This statement practically proves the existence of translucent
porcelain in the T´ang dynasty, and we confidently await the arrival of
specimens from Chinese excavations. Some of the export porcelains of the
time have been actually unearthed at Samarra on the Euphrates by Professor
Sarre,[319] of the Kaiser Friederik Museum, Berlin, and they include (1)
bowls of gummy white porcelain with unglazed gritty base; (2) greenish
white ware; (3) yellowish white with small crackle; and (4) a pure white
porcelain with relief designs, such as birds and fishes, under the glaze.
Other pottery found on that site included mottled ware of typical T´ang
type, and a creamy white of the Tz´ŭ Chou type with brown spots.[320]

From considerations of form and the general character of the ware, I am
inclined to regard three specimens in Plates 44 and 45 as belonging to
the T´ang period. Fig. 1 of Plate 44 has a thin ivory white glaze running
in gummy drops and clouded with pinkish buff staining outside and with
a reddish discoloration within. Fig. 2 of the same Plate is remarkable
in many ways. It is so thin as to seem to consist of little else but
glaze, and is consequently almost as translucent as glass. The colour of
the glaze is pearly white powdered with tiny specks, and the crackle is
clearly marked. The base is flat and discloses a dry white body of fine
grain. But its most conspicuous feature is the arresting beauty of its
outline, which recalls some choice specimen of Græco-Roman glass, and
displays a classic feeling frequently observed in T´ang pottery and in the
Corean wares which owe so much to T´ang models.

Fig. 2, Plate 45, shows the celebrated phœnix ewer belonging to Mr.
Eumorfopoulos which has proved so difficult to classify.[321] It is a
white porcellanous ware translucent in the thinner parts, and the glaze
is of light greenish grey with a tendency to blue in places. The form and
ornament show strong analogies with specimens of T´ang pottery. The neck,
for instance, may be compared with Fig. 2 of Plate 14; the phœnix head and
the foliate mouth with Fig. 1 of Plate 9, and the carved ornament on the
body with Fig. 3 of Plate 14.

Among the Sung wares many of the white Ting specimens are found to be
translucent in their thinner parts, and these may be fairly regarded as
porcelain proper. A considerable number of other white porcelains have
come over of late under the description of Sung wares, and many of them
are certainly early enough in form and style to belong to that period.
They are true hard porcelain, translucent, and of a creamy white colour.
Being for the most part without decoration, they can only be judged by
their forms, and in view of the conservative habits of the Chinese, it
would be rash to assert too emphatically their Sung origin. Yüan and even
early Ming dates are suggested by the more cautious critics; but the
possibility of a Sung origin having been established, I am inclined to
give the evidence of form its full weight.

There are, besides these, other well-defined types of translucent
porcelain which may confidently be attributed to a period as early as
the Sung, but here the possibility--nay, probability--of a Corean origin
has to be considered. It is certain that many of them have been found
in Corean tombs; the provenance of the rest is doubtful. One type is a
delicious smooth white porcelain with glaze of faintly bluish tinge,
highly translucent, and worked very thin at the edges. The base of the
vessels (usually small shallow bowls or saucers) is unglazed, and shows a
soft-looking sugary body of close texture, rather earthy than glassy, and
slightly browned by the fire. They have, in fact, almost the appearance
of a "soft-paste" porcelain like that of Chelsea. These are so different
from any known Chinese type that I strongly incline to a Corean origin
for them. Another type is of hard but translucent ware with glaze of
distinctly bluish tinge. A bowl in the British Museum is a good example
of this. Of the usual conical form, it has a plain outside, and the
inside is decorated with an incised design of not very clear meaning,
but apparently a close foliage ground with highly formalised figures of
boys. If this interpretation is correct, it is a conventional rendering
of the well-known pattern of boys in foliage, Chinese in origin, but
frequently used by the Corean potters. The design ends in Corean fashion,
about an inch below the rim, leaving a plain band above it. The glaze is
a faint bluish colour all over, and is powdered with specks, a fault in
the firing; the base is almost entirely unglazed, and the biscuit, where
exposed, has turned reddish brown. The style of this piece is strongly
Corean. The same peculiarities in the base are shared by another type
of small bowl, usually decorated inside with a sketchy design in combed
lines. Some of these are creamy white; others are bluish white with a
decided blue tinge in the well of the bowl where the glaze has formed
thickly.[322] Another group, which is also said to be represented among
the Corean tomb wares, is practically indistinguishable from the creamy
white Ting Chou porcelain.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 44.--Early Translucent Porcelain, probably T´ang dynasty.

Fig. 1.--Cinquefoil Cup with ivory glaze clouded with pinkish buff stains.
Diameter 3¾ inches. _Breuer Collection._

Fig. 2.--Vase of white, soft-looking ware, very thin and translucent with
pearly white, crackled glaze powdered with brown specks. Height 3⅛
inches. _Peters Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 45.--T´ang and Sung Wares.

Fig. 1.--Square Vase with engraved lotus scrolls and formal borders.
_T´u-ting_ ware, Sung dynasty. Height 20 inches. _Peters Collection._

Fig. 2.--Ewer with phœnix head, slightly translucent porcelain with light
greenish grey glaze with tinges of blue in the thicker parts; carved
designs. Probably T´ang dynasty. Height 15¼ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._]

The whole question of these interesting porcelains is complicated by
the fact that the Coreans were admittedly indebted to the Ting Chou
potters for many of their designs;[323] and by the fact that while
close intercourse between China and Corea existed the Coreans may well
have imported Chinese wares and deposited some of them in the tombs. An
authentic find of these porcelains in a Chinese tomb would give important
evidence on this point, but so far there is no evidence of their being
found in China beyond the statement of traders, and it is quite certain
that they have been found in Corean tombs. It may be added that the
Japanese class them as _hakugorai_ or white Corean ware, and stoutly
support their Corean origin.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 292: Op. cit., pp. 17-20.]

[Footnote 293: _Chinese Art_, vol. ii., p. 17, and the _Catalogue of the
Morgan Collection_ (1907), p. xlviii.]

[Footnote 294: [Chinese] _wa ch'i yeh_. The _Shuo Wên_ was compiled by
Hsü Shên and published first in 120 A.D. The word _tz'ŭ_ [Chinese] is
compounded of the radical _wa_ [Chinese] (a tile, earthenware), and the
phonetic _tz'ŭ_ [Chinese] (second, inferior), and carries no inherent
suggestion of porcelain. If connoting a new material, it may be a name
applied specially to glazed pottery which seems to date from the Han
period, or even to stoneware as opposed to soft earthenware or brick.]

[Footnote 295: Thus the author of the _T'ang shih ssŭ k'ao_ (quoted
in the _T'ao lu_, bk. viii., fol. 9 verso): "The characters [Chinese]
and [Chinese] are not interchangeable. The latter is a hard and fine
kind of _t'ao_. The material from which it is made is clay. The former
[Chinese], on the other hand, is the name of a real stone which comes
from the ancient Han-tan, which is the modern Tz'ŭ Chou. This department
has potteries in which they use the _tz'ŭ_ stone for the body of the
ware. Hence the name _Tz'ŭ ch'i_ (Tz'ŭ wares), not that the ware from the
potteries of this place is all porcelain. I hear that at Ching-tê Chên the
common usage is to employ the character [Chinese] for porcelain in writing
and speaking. I have consulted friends whom I meet, and many use the two
terms interchangeably. Truly this is altogether ridiculous. Tz'ŭ Chou is
still making pottery at the present day." For the Tz'ŭ Chou pottery, see
ch. viii.]

[Footnote 296: _Yeh chih_, quoted in the _T'ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 13
recto.]

[Footnote 297: _T'ao shuo_, translated by Bushell, op. cit., p. 95.]

[Footnote 298: Bushell, _Chinese Art_, vol. ii., p. 18.]

[Footnote 299: See _T'ao shuo_ (Bushell, op. cit., pp. 97 and 99). See
also bk. ix., fol. 1 verso, where the passage from the Annals of the Sui
Dynasty is quoted.]

[Footnote 300: [Chinese] See _T'ao shuo_, bk. iv., fol. 17 recto and
verso.]

[Footnote 301: The first two are apparently unidentified, but Jih-nan
is Cochin China, whither, no doubt, the substance came as an article of
trade.]

[Footnote 302: Early writers refer to it as _pi liu li_, which is a
transcription of the Sanskrit _Vaidurya_, a stone supposed to be of the
beryl type, but the identification is a matter of dispute. See Laufer,
_Jade_, p. 111, footnote.]

[Footnote 303: A seventh-century writer.]

[Footnote 304: The _Ta Yüeh-chih_ have been identified with the Massagetæ,
who in the fifth century were in possession of Afghanistan. See Bushell,
_T'ao shuo_, op. cit., p. 100.]

[Footnote 305: The substance is discussed at length in connection with
_pi-liu-li_ by Laufer (_Jade_, pp. 109-112), but this author seems very
loath to admit the meaning glass for _liu-li_, though he allows that it
is a common term for ceramic glaze. But the passage quoted above from the
_T'ao shuo_ can hardly be explained in any other way than in reference to
a kind of glass.]

[Footnote 306: The exact words of the text are [Chinese] (_Ch'ou i lü tz'ŭ
wei chih yü chên wu i_). "Ch'ou took green ware and made it (_liu-li_) not
different from the real."]

[Footnote 307: _Orientalisches Archiv_, Bd. ii., 1911, and _Chinesisches
Porzellan_, p. 24.]

[Footnote 308: Op. cit., p. 20. Dr. Bushell, in his translation of the
_T´ao shuo_, has given the more correct rendering, "Ch´ou made _some_
(i.e. _liu-li_) of green porcelain."]

[Footnote 309: Op. cit., pp. 3 and 4.]

[Footnote 310: [Chinese] _Chin tai i pai tz´ŭ wei chih_ = "in recent
generations with white ware they make it."]

[Footnote 311: [Chinese] _Ting chou pai tz´ŭ._ For the Ting Chou ware, see
ch. vii.]

[Footnote 312: Père d'Entrecolles (in his letter dated from Ching-tê Chên
in 1712) makes the statement that the district of Ching-tê Chên sent
regular supplies of its ware, which he terms porcelain, to the Emperor
from the second year of the reign of _Tam ou te_ (sic). Though he gives
the date as 422, it is clear that he really refers to the first Emperor,
Wu Tê, of the T´ang dynasty (618-627 A.D.). It is not clear how he arrived
at the conclusion that the ware in question was porcelain, and as he
refers to the Annals of Fou-liang as his authority, we may assume that
the Chinese phrase contained the inconclusive term _tz´ŭ_. or _t´ao_. He
adds that "nothing is said as to the inventor, nor to what experiments or
accident the invention was due."]

[Footnote 313: See p. 101.]

[Footnote 314: See p. 142.]

[Footnote 315: The European definition of porcelain may be stated thus:
"Porcelain comprises all varieties of pottery which are made translucent
by adding to the clay substances some natural or artificial fluxing
material." In China the usual constituents are _kaolin_, which forms
the clay substance, and _petuntse_ (china stone), which is the natural
fluxing material. I should add that it is doubtful whether we are strictly
justified in using the word _kaolin_ as a general name for porcelain
earth (_o t´u_); but the term has been consecrated by usage, and has
practically passed into our language in this sense. A slight translucency
is observable near the rim on a white T´ang cup in the Eumorfopoulos
Collection. The body of this piece is a soft white material, and the
translucency is caused by a mingling of the glaze with the body where it
is very thin, and it may be compared with the translucency of the Persian
"gombroon" ware. But neither of these wares can be ranked as porcelain
proper.]

[Footnote 316: It is, however, mentioned in connection with some of the
Sung wares (the Kuan, for example), but only in relation to the glaze.]

[Footnote 317: It is true that Bushell, in his translation of the _T´ao
shuo_ (op. cit., p. 102) implies this quality in a "brown ware (_tz´ŭ_)
bowl" sent as tribute by the P´o-hai in 841 A.D. which is described as
"translucent both inside and outside, of a pure brown colour, half an inch
thick but as light as swan's down." The words of the text [Chinese] _nei
wai t´ung jung_ ("inside and out throughout lustrous") are in themselves
capable of suggesting translucence, but the remaining features--the brown
glaze and the great thickness--are sufficient to preclude the idea of a
translucent ware; and I imagine that the quality of lustre or translucency
here applies only to the glaze. The P´o-hai appear to have been a subject
state of Corea.]

[Footnote 318: I am indebted for this literal translation of the
much-quoted passage to Mr. Edwards, of the Oriental MSS. Department of the
British Museum. It has been more freely rendered by M. Reinaud, _Relation
des voyages faits par les Arabes_, etc., Paris, 1845, p. 34.]

[Footnote 319: See F. Sarre, "Kleinfunde von Samarra und ihre Ergebnisse,"
in _Islam_, July, 1914.]

[Footnote 320: Fragments of white porcelain with carved designs were found
in some of the sites excavated by Sir Aurel Stein in Turfan, and there
are fragments similar to the Samarra finds obtained from ancient sites in
the Persian Gulf and now in the British Museum. But the evidence of these
pieces is not conclusive, for the sites were inhabited for many centuries.
That of Samarra, on the other hand, is most important, for the city was
only of a mushroom growth, which began and ended in the ninth century. See
also p. 134.]

[Footnote 321: See _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, A 43.]

[Footnote 322: See _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, F 9 and 14.]

[Footnote 323: See passage from Hsü Ch´ing's notes, p. 39.]




CHAPTER XII

CHING-TÊ CHÊN


CHING-TÊ CHÊN, the metropolis of the ceramic world, whose venerable and
glorious traditions outshine Meissen and Sèvres and all the little lights
of Europe, and leave them eclipsed and obscure, is an unwalled town or
mart (_chên_) on the left bank of the Ch´ang River, which flows into
the Po-yang Lake, on the northern border of the province of Kiangsi. In
ancient times it was known as Ch´ang-nan Chên, the mart on the south of
the Ch´ang, but when the Sung Emperor Chên Tsung commanded that officially
manufactured porcelain (_kuan chih tz´ŭ_) should be sent to the capital,
and that the workmen should inscribe the pieces with the _nien hao_ or
name of the period, which in this case was Ching Tê (1004-1007), the name
of the place was changed to Ching-tê Chên.

The district town is Fou-liang, seven miles higher up the river, a
place of relatively small importance, but the residence of the district
magistrate; and both Fou-liang and Ching-tê Chên are within the
prefectural jurisdiction of Jao Chou Fu, which is situated near the mouth
of the Ch´ang.

The wares of Ching-tê Chên are distributed by various routes, some
overland to Chi-mên or to Wu-yuan and thence to Hang Chou, Su Chou,
Shanghai, etc.; the rest by boat down the Ch´ang, and thence either to
Kiu-kiang on the Yangtze for further dispatch to Chin-kiang and northwards
via the Grand Canal, or to the south-west corner of the lake and up the
estuary of the Kan River to Nan-Ch´ang Fu. From this latter town they
could be carried by water (with an interruption of thirty miles of road)
all the way to Canton. They are known under various names in Chinese
books--Chên yao, Ching-tê yao, Fou-liang yao, Jao Chou yao, Jao yao,
Ch´ang-nan yao, and Nan-ch´ang yao--all of which are easily explicable
from the foregoing paragraph.

The old name of Fou-liang was Hsin-p´ing, and according to the Annals
of Fou-liang the manufacture of pottery[324] was traditionally held to
have begun in the district of Hsin-p´ing in the Han dynasty. In the same
passage the development of the local industry is traced by means of a few
significant incidents. In the first year of Chih Tê in the Ch´ên dynasty
(583 A.D.) the potters of the district were called upon to provide plinths
for the Imperial buildings at Chien-k´ang (afterwards Nanking), but the
plinths, when finished, though cleverly made, were not strong enough to
carry the weight of the columns. In the fourth (or, according to another
reading, the second) year of Wu Tê of the T´ang dynasty (621 A.D.),
"porcelain jade"[325] was offered as tribute to the Emperor under the name
of false jade vessels (_chia yü ch´i_), and from this time forward the
duty (of supplying the Emperor) became an institution,[326] and a potter
named Ho Chung-ch´u gained a great reputation. In the Ching Tê period of
the Sung dynasty, as already stated, officially manufactured porcelain was
sent to the capital, where it supplied the needs of the palaces and great
establishments. In the T´ai Ting period of the Yüan dynasty (1324-1327)
the porcelain factory came under the inspection of the Intendant of the
Circuit, who supplied the required wares when orders had been received,
and closed the factory if there were no orders (from the Court).

Continuing into the Ming dynasty, the same authority gives details of the
various administrative changes which may perhaps be "taken as read," one
or two important facts only calling for mention. Thus in the thirty-fifth
year[327] of Hung Wu, we are told that the factories were opened, and that
supplies of porcelain were sent to the Court. There seems to have been
some difference of opinion about the building of the Imperial Ware Factory
(_Yü ch´i ch´ang_).

Some authorities place this event in the Hung Wu period, but the _Chiang
hsi t´ung chih_,[328] though quoting the other opinions in a note,
mentions only the building of the Imperial Factory in the reign of Chêng
Tê (1506-1521) in the main text, viz.: "In the beginning of the Chêng Tê
period the Imperial Ware Factory was established for dealing specially
with the Imperial wares." The Imperial establishment was burnt down in the
Wan Li period, and again destroyed in the revolt of Wu San-kuei in 1675,
but the most serious blow dealt to the prosperity of Ching-tê Chên fell
in the T´ai p´ing rebellion in 1853, when the town was sacked and almost
depopulated. The Imperial Factory was rebuilt in 1864, and the industry
has in a great measure revived, though it is still but the shadow of its
former greatness.

Though this great porcelain town has traded with the whole world for
several centuries, "bringing great profit to the Empire and to itself
great fame" (to quote from the _T´ao lu_), it seems to have been rarely
visited by Europeans, and first-hand descriptions of it are few. We
are fortunate, however, in possessing in the letters[329] of Père
d'Entrecolles an intimate account of the place and its manufactures,
written by a Jesuit missionary who was stationed in the town in the early
years of the eighteenth century. These interesting letters are so well
known that I shall not quote them extensively here. The picture they give
of the enormous pottery town, with its population of a million souls and
the three thousand furnaces which, directly or indirectly, provided a
living for this host, and of the arresting spectacle of the town by night
like a burning city spouting flames at a thousand points, a description
which inspired the oft-quoted lines in Longfellow's "Keramos," shows us
the place in the heyday of its prosperity.

A more modern but scarcely less interesting account of Ching-tê Chên and
the surrounding country appears in a Consular report, made in 1905, of
a _Journey in the Interior of Kiangsi_,[330] from which I have taken the
following paragraphs:

"During the last forty-five years Ching-tê Chên has had time to recover,
in a very large measure, from this last calamity, but it is said to be not
so busy or so populous as before the T´ai p´ing rebellion.

"Everything in Ching-tê Chên either belongs to, or is altogether
subordinate to, the porcelain and earthenware industry. The very
houses are for the most part built of fragments of fireclay (called
'_lo-p´ing-t´u_') that were once part either of old kilns or of the
fireclay covers in which porcelain is stacked during firing. The river
bank is covered for miles[331] with a deep stratum of broken chinaware and
chips of fireclay, and, as far as one could judge, the greater part of the
town and several square miles of the surrounding country are built over,
or composed of, a similar deposit. A great industry, employing hundreds
of thousands of hands, does not remain localised in a single spot for 900
years without giving to that spot a character of its own.

"This is perhaps what struck me most forcibly in Ching-tê Chên--that it is
unlike anything else in China. The forms, the colour, the materials used
in the buildings, the atmosphere, are somewhat reminiscent of the poorer
parts of Manchester, but resemble no other large town that I have ever
visited.

"At present there are 104 pottery kilns in the town, of which some thirty
or so were actually in work at the time of my visit. The greater part of
the kilns only work for a comparatively short season every-summer. During
this busy season, when every kiln is perhaps employing an average of 100
to 200 men, the population of Ching-tê Chên rises to about 400,000, but of
this nearly, if not quite, half are labourers drawn from a wide area of
country, chiefly from the Tuch´ang district, who only come for the season,
live in rows of barrack-like sheds, and do not bring their families with
them."

It is interesting to compare this modern account with the Memoirs of
Chiang,[332] written in the Yüan dynasty, from which we see that the work
was carried on in the same intermittent fashion, the potters receiving
land to cultivate instead of payment, living round the master of the
pottery, and being liable to be summoned to the kilns when required. The
opening of the kilns in those days was in some measure dependent on the
success of the harvest, and in any case the work depended on the season,
as the paste would freeze in winter, and could not be worked.

The hills which surround Ching-tê Chên are rich in the materials required
by the potters, china clay and china stone of various qualities, fireclay
for the seggars (cases to protect the porcelain in the kiln), or for
mixing in the coarser wares, and numerous other minerals. There was
water-power which could be used in the mills for crushing and refining the
minerals, and abundant wood for firing. Although coal is worked nowadays
not many miles away, the potters still adhere to the wood, which has
served their kilns from time immemorial. It should be added that at the
present day--and no doubt for some time past--the local clays have been
supplemented from various districts, supplies coming overland from Chi-mên
and by water from greater distances.

A good Chinese map of Ching-tê Chên is given in the _T´ao lu_ (bk. i.,
fol. 1), and a large map of the district is attached to Mr. W. Clennell's
report, which is easily obtainable.

This description of Ching-tê Chên has led us far from the period with
which we are at present concerned. In the Sung dynasty the place had
already arrived at considerable importance, and the record of its 300
kilns implies a very large population. The excellence of its porcelain had
already won for it the onerous privilege of supplying Imperial needs, and,
as we have seen, it was consecrated under the new and Imperial name of
Ching-tê Chên in the opening years of the eleventh century. The earliest
existing record of its productions, the Memoirs of Chiang, written at the
beginning of the fourteenth century, tells us that the Sung porcelains
made at Ching-tê Chên were pure white[333] and without a flaw, and were
carried for sale to all parts under the proud name of "Jao Chou jade." It
rivalled the "red porcelain" of Chên-ting Fu and the green of Lung-ch´üan
in beauty.

The _Ko ku yao lun_ describes the Imperial ware of this time as "thin
in body and lustrous," and mentions "plain white pieces with contracted
waist," adding that the specimens "with unglazed rim,"[334] though thin in
body, white in colour, lustrous, and surpassingly beautiful, are lower in
price than the Ting wares.

It is not too much to assume that some of this "Jao Chou jade" has
survived to the present day, and we may look for it among the early
translucent white porcelains, of which a considerable number have reached
Europe during the last few years. Many of these have Sung forms and the
Sung style, though, of course, plain white wares are always difficult to
date. In the specimens to which I refer the glaze is usually of a warm
ivory tone, tending to cream colour; it is hard and usually discontinued
in the region of the base, both underneath and on the side, and the
exposed body is rather rough to the touch. (See Plate 24, Fig. 1.)

It is not clear whether we are to infer from the comparison with
Lung-ch´üan ware quoted above that the Ching-tê Chên potters produced
a celadon in the Sung dynasty, but it is probable enough that they did
so, and that the green or greenish white (_ch´ing pai_)[335] made in the
Yüan period was a continuation of this. If we can believe the statement
in the _T´ao lu_, they began early to copy the wares of other factories,
imitating the Chün Chou ware at the end of the Sung period and the
crackled Chi Chou ware in the Yüan.

It seems to me possible that the reference to the imitation of
Chün ware may be explained by an interesting passage from a late
twelfth-century[336] writer quoted in the _T´ao lu_, who says that in
the Ta Kuan period (1107-1110) there were among the Ching-tê Chên wares
"furnace transmutations" (_yao pien_) in colour red like cinnabar.[337]
He is inclined to attribute this phenomenon to the fact that "when the
planet Mars in the Zodiac approaches its greatest brightness, then things
happen magically and contrary to the usual order." The potters were
evidently disturbed by the appearance of the wares, and broke them. He
tells us, further, that he stayed at Jao Chou and obtained a number of
specimens (of the local ware), and after examining them he could say
that, "compared with the red porcelain (_hung tz´ŭ_) of Ting Chou,[338]
they were more fresh and brilliant in appearance." It will be remembered
that an echo of this last sentence occurred in the Memoirs of Chiang.

A passage in the _Po wu yao lan_[339] might be taken to mean that
blue-painted porcelain, "blue and white," was made at Ching-tê Chên prior
to the Yüan period, but as the remainder of the sentence seems to be
based on the _Ko ku yao lun_, and no evidence is given for the words in
question, too much importance need not be attached to a phrase which may
be a confusion arising from the _ch´ing pai_ of earlier writers.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 324: See p. 141.]

[Footnote 325: [Chinese] _t´ao yü._ There are variant readings to this
passage as given in the _Chiang hsi t´ung chih_ (bk. xciii., fol. 5
verso), which make _t´ao yü_ the name of a man, the passage being read
"T´ao-yü forwarded as tribute false jade vessels." As pointed out
elsewhere, this expression "false jade" seems to imply a porcellanous
ware. The comparison of porcelain and even fine pottery to jade is a
commonplace in China, and it is not necessary to infer that any particular
colour, green or otherwise, is indicated.]

[Footnote 326: The text is simply [Chinese] _chih wu_ = "established
duty."]

[Footnote 327: In order to bring this date into Hung Wu´s lifetime, it is
necessary to reckon from the year 1364, when he was proclaimed Prince of
Wu. But other records (see _T´ao lu_, bk. v., fol. 4 recto) give the date
as second year of Hung Wu--i.e. 1369, instead of 1398 as above. Hung Wu
was proclaimed Emperor in 1368, and died in 1398.]

[Footnote 328: Bk. cxiii., fols. 7 and 8. The _T´ao shuo_ makes
practically the same statement in connection with both periods, and
Bushell (_O.C.A._, p. 287) gives us to understand that the first structure
was burnt down and that erected in the Chêng Tê period was a rebuilding.
The _T´ao lu_ states that a special Imperial factory was erected on
the Jewel Hill in the Hung Wu period, and that there were other kilns
scattered over the town working for the palace, and that the name _Yü ch´i
ch´ang_ was given to all of them in the Chêng Tê period.]

[Footnote 329: Dated 1712 and 1722 from Ching-tê Chên, and preserved
among the _Lettres édifiantes et curieuses_. They have been frequently
published in part or in full, e.g. translated in W. Burton's _Porcelain_,
and printed in French as an appendix to Bushell's _Translation of the T´ao
shuo_.]

[Footnote 330: By Walter J. Clennell, H.M. Consul at Kiu-kiang, printed
for H.M. Stationery Office.]

[Footnote 331: The long river front, "crowded for three miles by junks,"
was a feature of the place, which was sometimes known as the "thirteen
_li_ mart." A _li_ is about 630 English yards.]

[Footnote 332: See p. 159.]

[Footnote 333: An incidental reference to white porcelain bowls at
Hsin-p´ing (the old name for the district town of Ching-tê Chên) in
1101 A.D. occurs in the _Ch´ang nan chih_ (quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk.
viii., fol. 15). It is a verse on the subject of tea drinking: "The white
porcelain is quickly passed from hand to hand all night; the fragrant
vapour fills the peaceful pavilion."]

[Footnote 334: [Chinese] _mao k´ou chê_, lit. "hair mouth things." Bushell
renders "with unglazed mouth." See _Ko ku yao lun_, bk. vii., fol. 24
verso, under the heading of "Old Jao wares."]

[Footnote 335: See p. 160.]

[Footnote 336: Chou Hui, author of the _Ching po tsa chih_, a miscellany
published in 1193, quoted in _T´ao lu_, bk. viii., fol. 6 r. and v.]

[Footnote 337: Cf. descriptions of Chün Chou ware, chap. ix.]

[Footnote 338: See p. 92.]

[Footnote 339: Bk. ii., fol. 8 verso. "The body was thin and glossy
(_jun_), the colour white, the ornament blue (or green) ([Chinese] _hua
ch´ing_), and compared with Ting ware it was little inferior."]




CHAPTER XIII

THE YÜAN [Chinese] DYNASTY, 1280-1367 A.D.


THE Yüan dynasty, which lasted from 1280 to 1367, was established by
Kublai Khan, grandson of the great Mongol conqueror, Genghis Khan.
The Mongols completely subjugated China, and though their rule was
comparatively brief, it had a disastrous effect on the artistic
development of the country. The Mongol governors whose services to the
reigning house had been rewarded by all the lucrative posts, made full use
of their opportunities to enrich themselves by extortion and oppression.
Trade and industry were convenient subjects for their exactions, and these
consequently languished. The ceramic industry was among the sufferers,
and many of the old potteries were closed down in this troubled period.
The potteries at Ching-tê Chên, which had gradually risen to a position
of great importance in the Sung dynasty, suffered for this eminence by
being brought under the immediate care of a Mongol commissioner, and much
of their trade passed into the hands of manufacturers in Kiangsi and
Fukien.[340] The earliest account[341] which we have of the industry in
this important centre, written at the beginning of the fourteenth century,
ends with a bitter cry against the depredations of the governors and
the subordinate officials, who were banded together to rob the people,
and against whom no redress could be obtained. Dr. Bushell published a
translation of the chief part of it in _Oriental Ceramic Art_,[342] and
apart from the sorrowful picture which it draws it gives a good idea of
the productions of the district in the Yüan dynasty. A short notice in
the _T´ao lu_ gives a slightly different impression, and leads us to
suppose that the heavy hand of the Mongol officials was felt chiefly at
the Imperial potteries, while the private factories were comparatively
flourishing and even supplied some of the wares required by the Court.

We learn from the Memoirs of Chiang that a variety of porcelains were made
to meet the tastes of the different regions of Southern China. The market
in Northern China does not seem as yet to have been studied. Thus, while
the kilns at Hu-t´ien,[343] on the river bank opposite to Ching-tê Chên,
supplied a brownish yellow[344] ware which was popular in the province
of Chêkiang, the greenish white[345] porcelain of Ching-tê Chên found
a profitable market in Hunan and Hupeh, Szechuan, and Kuangtung. The
inhabitants of Kiangsu and Anhui seem to have been less critical, for the
inferior wares known as "yellow stuff" (_huang liao_), which did not sell
in Kiangsi, Kiangnan, Kuangtung, Fukien, and Chêkiang, was foisted on them.

The finest porcelain was made of the stone (_shih_) from Chin-kêng, while
stone and earth from other neighbouring sites were used for mixing in
the inferior wares and for making seggars[346] and moulds. The glaze was
made of "glaze earth" from Ling-pei mixed with the ashes of brushwood
from the Yu-shan hills which had been burnt with lime and persimmon wood.
I mention these technical details because their similarity with the
description of the manufacture in the eighteenth century show that the
method of porcelain making at both periods was essentially the same. The
decoration was effected by stamping or pressing in moulds, by painting or
by carving[347]; and the ware was fired either upright or inverted.

Some idea of the forms and ornament of these wares may be gathered from
another passage which would be far more illuminating if the fanciful names
used were less difficult to understand. Bushell has boldly translated them
according to his ideas, and I quote his renderings in inverted commas and
in the pious hope that they may be correct, giving at the same time the
original characters.

There were bowls (_wan_), with high feet and with fish and water
ornament; platters (_t´ieh_) with "glazes shaded in different
tones,"[348] sea eyes, and snow flowers[349]; dishes (_p´an_) of the horse
hoof and betel-nut kinds, the latter suggesting a brownish red colour;
large bowls (_yü_) with lotus ornament (or shaped like a lotus flower),
or of "square form with indented corners"[350]; bowls and platters (_wan
t´ieh_) with painted decoration,[351] with silver designs,[352] with
"fluted sides,"[353] and with "encircling strings."[354] Such wares as
these had a profitable market in Chêkiang, Kiangnan, Kiangsi and Fukien.

There were besides incense burners of many forms, most of which were
modelled after bronzes, e.g. those shaped like the fabulous beast _i_,
"which eats tigers and can go five hundred _li_ at a bound"[355]; those
like the bronze incense burners on three or four feet (_ting_), like the
cups used in the ancestral temple (_i_), like the large iron cauldrons
(_li_). Others had elephant legs, and others were shaped like incense
caskets or barrels. The vase forms include the goblet (_ku_),[356] the
gall-bladder (_tan_), the wine pot (_hu_) with spout and handle, the
Buddhist washing vessel (_ching_), the gardenia (_chih tzŭ_), the lotus
leaf (_ho yeh_), the gourd (_hu lu_), musical pipes (_lü kuan_), vessels
with ring-and-mask handles _shou huan_,[357] and glass (_liu li_) forms.

The _Ko ku yao lun_, which was written about sixty years later than
the publication of the Memoirs of Chiang, supplements this information
in a short paragraph on "Old Jao Chou wares." "Of the Yüan wares," it
says,[358] "those with small foot and moulded ornament (_yin hua_), and
the specimens inscribed inside with the characters _shu fu_[359] are
highly valued. The recently made wares with large foot and plain white
(_su_) glaze are wanting in brilliancy (_jun_). There are also green
(_ch´ing_) wares and those with enamelled (_wu sê_)[360] ornament, and
they are very common. Of the modern (i.e. beginning of the Ming dynasty)
wares good specimens with white colour and lustrous material are very
highly valued. There are besides dark green[361] wares with gilt ornament.
They are chiefly wine pots and wine cups, which are very lovely."

The _T´ao lu_ has a paragraph on the _shu fu_ wares which reflects (not
always very clearly) these earlier accounts, adding that "this is the ware
made in the private (_min_) factories and supplied to the palace; the
material had to be fine, white and unctuous clay, and thin specimens were
preferred.... Inside them were written the characters _shu fu_ as a mark.
At the time the private factories also issued imitations of these wares;
but of the porcelains destined for the Emperor ten out of a thousand,
one out of a hundred, only were selected. The private factories were
unable to achieve uniform success." The author has inserted the gilt and
enamelled,[362] and a large number of the other wares mentioned in the
Memoirs of Chiang and the _Ko ku yao lun_ in that irresponsible fashion
which makes much of the Chinese ceramic literature exceedingly difficult
to handle. Indeed, one is tempted to ask what was his authority for the
statement that the "private factories" made the _shu fu_ ware, in spite of
the very circumstantial tone of the passage.

It is clear that the best of the Yüan wares made at Ching-tê Chên was
plain white or white with engraved and moulded designs; and in this
connection it is interesting to find an example of _shu fu_ porcelain
described and illustrated in Hsiang's Album.[363] It is a small,
bottle-shaped vase with bulbous mouth, engraved with a dragon and cloud
design, and stated to be marked with the characters _shu fu_ under the
base. We are told that in colour, form, and design it was copied from a
specimen of the Northern Ting ware, and that the _shu fu_ ware, itself
copied from Ting Chou originals, served as a model for the fine white
engraved porcelains of the Yung Lo and Hsüan Tê periods of the Ming
dynasty. It stood, in short, midway between the soft, opaque-looking,
creamy white Sung ware and the thin, hard, and highly translucent
Ming porcelain, such as the white Yung Lo bowl in the Franks Collection
(see Plate 59). Just such an intermediate position as this is held by a
bowl[364] in the British Museum with white, translucent body, soft-looking
glaze of faint creamy tinge and engraved design of phœnixes and peony
plants in Sung style. It has, moreover, a raw mouth rim which shows that
it was fired inverted, and as there is no _shu fu_ mark it may well have
been one of the copies of the Palace types which the _T´ao lu_ informs us
were made at the private factories.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 46.--Ting Ware and Yüan Porcelain.

Fig.1.--Bottle with carved reliefs of archaic dragons and _ling chih_
funguses. _Fèn ting_ ware, said to be Sung dynasty. Height 8¾ inches.

Fig. 2.--Bowl with moulded floral designs in low relief, unglazed
rim. Translucent porcelain, probably Yüan dynasty. Diameter 8 inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

It is always difficult to determine the age of plain white wares, but
among the archaic specimens of translucent porcelain with creamy white
glaze and rough finish at the base which have come from China in recent
years under the varying descriptions of Sung, Yüan and early Ming, there
are, no doubt, several examples of the Yüan wares of Ching-tê Chên (see
Plate 46, Fig. 2).

The mention, in the Memoirs of Chiang and the _Ko ku yao lun_, of painted
decoration, enamelled ornament, silvering, and gilding, though apparently
but crudely used and little appreciated, is nevertheless of great interest
from the historical standpoint.

The potteries at Hu-t´ien which are mentioned in the Memoirs of Chiang
(see p. 160) were only separated from Ching-tê Chên by the width of the
river. They are described in the _T´ao lu_[365] as active at the beginning
of the Yüan dynasty and producing a ware which, though of coarse grain,
had "a considerable amount of antique elegance," and appealed to the taste
of the inhabitants of the Chêkiang. The clay was hard and tough, and the
colour of the ware brownish yellow[366] as a rule, but even when of a
"watery white" tone it was tinged with the same brown colour. At the end
of the eighteenth century all trace of the factories had disappeared,
though the village still existed[367] and the old wares were still to be
found.

Brinkley, who seems to have met with examples of the ware in Japan,
describes it as follows[368]: "The _pâte_ is thick and dense, without
any of the delicacy of porcelain, and the glaze is muddy yellow.... The
surface of the pieces is generally relieved by deeply incised designs
of somewhat archaic character, figure subjects being most common. Some
examples are preserved in Japanese collections, where they are known as
_Ningyo-de_ (figure subject variety) in allusion to the nature of the
incised designs." In spite of its apparent roughness it was thought worthy
of imitation at Ching-tê Chên in the Ming dynasty.[369]

Among the causes to which was attributed the lack of prosperity at
Ching-tê Chên in the Yüan period, the Memoirs of Chiang includes (1) the
uncertainty of the season on which the opening of the factory partly
depended, (2) the intolerable taxation and the exactions of officials, and
(3) the competition of the potteries at Lin-ch´uan, Nan-fêng Hsien, and
Chien-yang, all of which, as Bushell indicates, lay on the trade route
between Ching-tê Chên and south-eastern coast towns.

Of these we learn in the _T´ao lu_ that Lin-ch´uan[370] in the Fu-chou
Fu in Kiangsi (not far south of Ching-tê Chên) made a ware of fine clay
and thin substance, the colour of which was mostly white with a slight
yellowish tinge, and that some of the pieces were coarsely ornamented,
though we are not informed how the ornament was applied. The same
authority informs us that Nang-fêng Hsien[371] in the Chien-yang Fu (also
in Kiangsi) made a ware of refined clay but somewhat thick substance,
which was, as a rule, decorated with blue designs (_ch´ing hua_), though
some had the colour of the _t´u ting_ ware, i.e. the coarser and yellower
variety of Ting Chou porcelain.

From this passage it appears that "blue and white" may be added to the
types of ware made in the Yüan period.

The third factory, at Chien-yang in Fukien, has already been discussed at
some length. It was chiefly celebrated for the dark-coloured wares (_wu-ni
yao_) and the "hare's fur" and "partridge" tea bowls.[372]

These names by no means exhaust the list of factories which were active in
the Yüan period. Others have been incidentally mentioned elsewhere under
the headings of Yüan-tz´ŭ, P´êng ware, Hsin Ting ware, etc.[373]

The _Ko ku yao lun_ enumerates certain pottery forms which, it asserts,
were not in use before the Yüan period. As usual, the Chinese descriptions
are exceedingly difficult to visualise, and in many cases are open to
several interpretations, and are not easy to reconcile with established
facts. However, I quote the passage as it stands: "Men of old when they
drank tea used _p'ieh_[374] (? bowls with curved sides), which were easy
to drain and did not retain the sediment. For drinking wine they used cups
(_chan_); they had not yet tried cups with handles (_pa chan_[375]), and
in old times they had no _ch'üan p'an_.[376] The Ting ware _ch'üan p'an_
which one sees nowadays are the brush washers (_hsi_) of olden times. The
men of old used 'decoction vases' for pouring wine, and did not use ewers
(_hu p'ing_) or bowls with contracted lip or tea cups (_ch'a chung_) or
dishes with rims.[377] These were all forms used by the Mongols. The men
of China only began to use them in the Yüan dynasty. They never appear in
old Ting or Kuan wares."[378]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 340: See p. 164.]

[Footnote 341: The Memoirs of Chiang Ch´i, entitled _T´ao chi lüo_, which
were incorporated in the Annals of Fou-liang in 1322, and again in the
geographical annals of the province of Kiangsi (_Chiang hsi t´ung chih_,
bk. xciii., fol. 5 verso).]

[Footnote 342: Op. cit., pp. 178-183.]

[Footnote 343: See p. 163.]

[Footnote 344: _huang hei_, lit. yellow black or, perhaps, yellow and
black.]

[Footnote 345: _Ch´ing pai_, a term also applied to greenish white jade;
probably a pale celadon tint.]

[Footnote 346: i.e. cases in which the porcelain was fired.]

[Footnote 347: [Chinese] _yin hua_, [Chinese] _hua hua_, and [Chinese]
_tiao hua_.]

[Footnote 348: The text is [Chinese] _fa yün_, lit. "emit mist," perhaps
in the sense of "clouded."]

[Footnote 349: These are literal renderings of _hai mu_ and _hsüeh hua_,
but I have no clue to their meaning.]

[Footnote 350: The text is [Chinese] _Shua chio_, lit. "sport corners."]

[Footnote 351: [Chinese] _hsiu hua_, lit. "embroidered ornament." See p.
91.]

[Footnote 352: _yin hsiu_, lit. "silver embroidery or painting."]

[Footnote 353: [Chinese] _p´u ch´un_, which literally means "rush (or
matting) lips."]

[Footnote 354: [Chinese] _lung hsien_, lit. "play lute."]

[Footnote 355: See Giles's Dictionary.]

[Footnote 356: [Chinese]. Bushell renders it "trumpet-shaped beakers."]

[Footnote 357: Lit. "animal rings."]

[Footnote 358: Bk. vii., fols. 24 and 25.]

[Footnote 359: [Chinese] lit. "pivot palace"; i.e. Imperial palace.]

[Footnote 360: Lit. "five-coloured."]

[Footnote 361: _ch´ing hei._ Bushell renders the two words "greenish
black."]

[Footnote 362: [Chinese] _i yu ch´uang chin wu sê hua chê_. The expression
_ch´uang chin_, which also occurs in the _Ko ku yao lun_, apparently
carries the idea of gilding, though its literal meaning ("originate gold")
is very vague. Bushell renders the phrase "pencilled with designs in
gold," and Julien "rehaussée d'or."]

[Footnote 363: Op. cit., Fig. 21.]

[Footnote 364: See _Burlington Magazine_, August, 1909, p. 298.]

[Footnote 365: Bk. v., fol. 3 verso.]

[Footnote 366: _huang hei_, lit. "yellow black."]

[Footnote 367: The village [Chinese] Hu-t´ien Shin and the pagoda are
marked in the map of Ching-tê Chên (_T´ao lu_, bk. i., fol. 1) on the
south of the river and opposite to the Imperial factories.]

[Footnote 368: _China and Japan_, vol. ix., p. 303.]

[Footnote 369: See _T´ao lu_, bk. ii., fol. 4 verso; and Julien op. cit.,
p. 42.]

[Footnote 370: [Chinese]. See _T´ao lu_, bk. vii., fol. 10 verso.]

[Footnote 371: [Chinese].]

[Footnote 372: See p. 131.]

[Footnote 373: See pp. 94, 128, etc.]

[Footnote 374: [Chinese]. Bushell (_O.C.A._, p. 186) renders "wide shallow
bowls."]

[Footnote 375: [Chinese]. The handles may be either long stems or handles
in the modern sense, but both these types are found on far more ancient
wares, e.g. the tazza or high footed goblet in Chou pottery, and the small
cups with round handles of the T'ang dynasty.]

[Footnote 376: [Chinese], lit. "exhort dishes." Bushell renders "rounded
dishes." They were probably flat-bottomed shallow bowls, used as saucers.]

[Footnote 377: [Chinese] _t'ai p'an_, lit. "terraced dishes."]

[Footnote 378: _Ko ku yao lun_, bk. vii., fol. 25 verso.]




CHAPTER XIV

KUANGTUNG [Chinese] WARES


THOUGH the province of Kuangtung has long been celebrated for its
pottery, only very meagre information is procurable on the history of its
factories. A single reference in the _T´u shu_[379] carries us back to the
T´ang dynasty (618-906), when we learn that earthenware cooking vessels
were made in the potteries (_t´ao chia_) of Kuang Chou (i.e. Canton),
which when glazed were better than iron vessels and more suitable for the
decoction of drugs. "A vessel of the capacity of a bushel sold for ten
cash: and they were things which were worth preserving."

The next mention occurs in the _T´ao lu_, which gives a short account of
the wares under the heading _Kuang yao_, but beyond the statement that
the industry originated at Yang-Chiang, it gives no information as to the
date or circumstances of its commencement.[380] For the rest this account
is very confused and unsatisfactory, and seems in part to refer to the
porcelain decorated at Canton (see vol. ii., p. 211), or more probably to
the Canton enamels. It is only in the last passage that we come into touch
with a ware which is readily recognised as the familiar Canton stoneware.
This is a hard-fired ware, usually dark brown at the base, but varying
at times to pale yellowish grey and buff, with a thick smooth glaze
distinguished from other ceramic glazes by its characteristic mottling
and dappling. The colour is often blue, flecked and streaked with grey
green or white over a substratum of olive brown, or again green with grey
and blue mottling. At times the brown tints predominate, but the most
prized varieties are those in which the general tone is blue. These were
specially selected for imitation at the Imperial factories under T´ang
Ying, and they are highly valued in Japan, where the ware in general goes
by the name of _namako_.[381] In other specimens the glaze has a curdled
appearance, and sometimes it seems to have boiled up like lava. The
mottled glazes at times have a superficial resemblance to the dappled Chün
wares, and there is no doubt that in recent times these imitative effects
have been studied.

The dating of the mottled Kuangtung wares, or Canton stonewares as they
are commonly named, is always a difficult matter. They are still made and
exported in large quantities, but it is certain that they go back at least
to late Ming times. Sir Arthur Church exhibited a tray of this ware at the
Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910[382] which bore a date corresponding to
1625, and the name of the maker, Chin-shih. The glaze of this interesting
piece is remarkably deep, rich and lustrous, and it may be regarded as
typical of the finest period of the ware. The tray illustrated by Fig.
1 of Plate 48 closely resembles it in colour and quality. Stamped marks
occasionally occur in these wares, the most frequent being the seals
used by two potters, apparently brothers, named Ko Ming-hsiang and Ko
Yüan-hsiang (see p. 221). It was formerly said that they lived at the end
of the Ming period, but Dr. Bushell in his _Chinese Art_[383] reduced
their antiquity to the reign of Ch´ien Lung (1736-1795). No reason is
given for either of these dates, but their work is familiar, and as some
of the examples have a decidedly modern aspect, I am strongly in favour of
the later attribution. Plate 47 is a fine example of a Kuangtung glaze, in
which the blue is conspicuous.[384] It is probably of seventeenth-century
date.

Another Kuangtung group consists chiefly of figures and objects modelled
in the round and coated with rich crimson red _flambé_ or pea green
celadon glazes, with a liberal display of dark brown or red biscuit.
Figures of the god of War and other deities are often represented, the
draperies heavily glazed and the flesh parts in unglazed biscuit, which
sometimes has the appearance of being browned by a dressing of ferruginous
clay. (See Plate 48.)

[Illustration: PLATE 47

Vase of buff stoneware with a scroll of rosette-like flowers in relief:
thick flocculent glaze of mottled blue with passages of dull green and a
substratum of brown. Kuangtung ware, seventeenth century.

    Height 10¼ inches.      _Benson Collection._
]

Brinkley[385] describes several additional types of Kuang yao, including
a buff stoneware with "creamy crackled glaze of t´u Ting type."[386] "The
characteristic type is a large vase or ewer[387] decorated with a scroll
of lotus or peony in high relief and having paint-like, creamy glaze
of varying lustre and uneven thickness, its buff colour often showing
tinges of blue." Vases of similar make seem also to aim at copying the
red-splashed lavender glazes of the Chün and Yüan wares, and sometimes the
colour is very beautiful, but the glaze has distinctive characteristics
(see Plate 48, Fig. 2). It is opaque, and lacks the translucent and
flowing character of the originals, and the surface has a peculiar sticky
lustre, and something of that silken sheen which distinguishes the Canton
and Yi-hsing glazes of this class. The crackle, too, is more open
and obvious. Some of these pieces have the appearance of considerable
antiquity, and are reputed to date back to Sung times.[388] Midway between
these and the familiar mottled Canton stoneware come what are known in
China as the Fat-shan Chün.[389] Their obvious intention to imitate the
old Chün wares is declared by the appearance of numerals incised in
Chün Chou fashion under the base. A typical example (see Plate 51) is a
high-shouldered flower vase with short neck and small mouth (not a Sung
but a Ming form, be it noted), with thick, rolling, crackled glaze of
pinkish cream colour, shading into lavender and flushing deep red on the
shoulders. In rare instances the crimson spreads over the greater part
of the surface. The biscuit at the base is brownish grey if its light
tint is not concealed by a wash of dark clay. The glaze, unlike that of
the type described by Brinkley, is fairly fluescent, thin at the mouth,
and running thick in the lower levels. Other examples of this class
have heavily mottled grey or blue glazes nearer in style to the Canton
stoneware. Indeed, they are clearly made at the same factory as the
latter, for we have a connecting link between the two groups in a vase
in the Eumorfopoulos Collection, a tall cylinder with streaky lavender
blue glaze and the usual silken lustre, the base of buff colour washed
with brown slip and marked with the square seal of Ko Ming-hsiang. Many
of these "Fat-shan Chün" wares are exceedingly attractive, but by far the
most beautiful are the rare dishes in which the glaze has been allowed to
form in deep pools of glass in the centre.[390] In these pieces all the
changing tints of the surrounding glaze are concentrated in the cavity in
a crystalline mass of vivid colour. Such wares are, I think, not older
than the Ch´ing dynasty, though they have been erroneously described by
some writers as Sung.[391]

With regard to the dates of the Fat-shan Chün types, the remarks made
on the Canton stoneware apply equally to them. Many are frankly modern;
the finer pieces may be assigned to the eighteenth century, and a few
perhaps go back to the Ming dynasty. From the current name we infer
that they are made at Fat-shan, but this is the only evidence existing
on the question. Fat-shan is situated a few miles south-west of Canton
with which it is connected by railway. It is a large town, "renowned for
its vast silk manufactures, cloth-making, embroidery, cutlery, matting,
paper, and porcelain."[392] No doubt the word porcelain in this context
is a comprehensive term, and includes stoneware and pottery, if, indeed,
it means anything else. But the precise provenance of the various kinds
of Kuang yao is far from clear. All that we learn from the _T´ao lu_
is that the Kuang yao originated at Yang-chiang. Probably the type of
mottled glaze which characterises the Canton stoneware was first made
there, and was afterwards adopted in the factories which sprang up in the
neighbourhood of Canton. Other localities in the province of Kuangtung in
which the ceramic industry is represented include Chao-Ch´ing Fu,[393]
which may be only a trading centre for the wares; Shih-wan, in Po-lo
Hsien, a few miles east of Canton, which is said[394] to supply the Canton
markets with "pots, dishes, and jars of every needed shape and size,
some of the latter as large as hogsheads, glazed and unglazed, together
with a large variety of imitation grotto work and figures for gardens,
gallipots, little images, etc."; and the prefecture of Lien-chou, in the
extreme south of the province, which exports its wares from Pak-hoi. A
few specimens bought in the neighbourhood of the Shih-wan potteries, and
no doubt of local make, are in the British Museum. They consist of lion
joss-stick holders, crab-shaped pots for growing lily bulbs, and small
figures of a hard, rough stoneware of buff or drab colour. The bulb pots
have an opaque green glaze with passages of transparent _flambé_ colours,
not unlike the Yi-hsing or Canton Chün glazes, and the other pieces have
washes of the thin, translucent green, turquoise, yellow, and purplish
brown glazes which are usually applied on the biscuit of pottery or
porcelain. The exhibits at the Paris Exhibition[395] in 1878 included "tea
jars, tobacco pots, medicine jars, cassolettes, various pots, plates,
sauce vessels, rice bowls, wine and rice cups, spoons, bird-cage pots,
mortars, candlesticks, crucibles and lamps" from the Pak-hoi district.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 48.--Kuangtung Ware.

Fig. 1.--Dish in form of a lotus leaf, mottled blue and brown glaze.
About 1600. Diameter 8¼ inches. _British Museum._ Fig. 2.--Vase with
lotus scroll in relief, opaque, closely crackled glaze of pale lavender
grey warming into purple. (?) Fourteenth century. Height 7⅞ inches.
_Peters Collection._ Fig. 3.--Figure of Pu-tai Ho-shang, red biscuit, the
draperies glazed celadon green. Eighteenth century. Height 8¼ inches.
_British Museum._]

[Illustration: Plate 49.--Covered Jar of Buff Stoneware.

With cloudy green glaze and touches of dark blue, yellow, brown and
white; archaic dragons, bats and storks in low relief; border of sea
waves. Probably Kuangtung ware, seventeenth century. Height 33 inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 379: The _T´u shu_, Section xxxii., Part viii., section entitled
_T´ao kung pu tsa lu_, fol. 1 verso; quoting from the _Ling piao lu i_
[Chinese], by _Liu Hsün_, of the T´ang dynasty.]

[Footnote 380: Bk. vii., fol. 16. "This is the ware which was first made
at Yang-chiang Hsien [Chinese] in the Chao-ch´ing Fu in Kuangtung. It is,
in fact, an imitation of the _Yang-tz´ŭ_ ware. Consequently, the Records
of the Province state that the productions of Yang-chiang in Kuangtung
include 'porcelain wares' (_tz´ŭ ch´i_). I have seen incense burners
(_lu_), vases (_p´ing_), cups (_chien_), plates (_t´ieh_), bowls (_wan_),
dishes (_p´an_), pots (_hu_), and boxes (_ho_) of this manufacture. They
are very ornamental and bright, but in taste, fineness, elegance, and
lustre they are not equal to porcelain wares. Nor have they been able to
avoid the occurrence of flaws exposing the body, which are unsightly.
Still they are imitated at T´ang's manufactory, the imitations being
admirable in their elegance and lustre, and excelling the Kuang yao.
These, like the Tz´ŭ-Chou and Hsü-Chou types of ware, are none of them
made of porcelain clay." The _T´ao chêng chi shih_ states: "He (i.e. T´ang
Ying) imitates singularly well the Kuang yao glaze, being particularly
successful with the spotted blue (_ch´ing tien_ [Chinese]) kind of glaze.
Following this author, imitations were also made of the copies produced
at T´ang's factory." The greater part of this passage seems to contain
a confusion of ideas. _Yang-tz´ŭ_ [Chinese] or "foreign porcelain" was
the name given to the painted Canton enamels which are described on the
next page of the _T´ao lu_ under that heading. The passage beginning "I
have seen" and ending "equal to porcelain wares" is taken almost verbatim
from the sections which deal with Canton enamels and cloisonné enamels.
The remark on "imitation of the Yang-tz´ŭ ware" could by no stretch of
imagination be applied to the mottled Kuang yao; but it does apply to
the large group of porcelain obtained in the white from Ching-tê Chên
and painted at Canton precisely in the style of the Canton enamels (see
vol. ii., p. 243). This is no doubt what the author had in his mind. The
sentence about the unsightly flaws can apply to either the enamels or the
Kuang yao, but more particularly to the latter. For the rest, "T´ang's
factory" is the Imperial factory at Ching-tê Chên, which was under the
management of the celebrated T´ang Ying between 1728 and 1749.]

[Footnote 381: From its supposed resemblance to the colour of the
sea-snail (_namako_).]

[Footnote 382: _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, K 43. Like so many Chinese dates, this
was cut in the ware after the firing, but there is every reason to suppose
that it indicates the true date of the manufacture. Sir Arthur has since
presented this tray to the British Museum.]

[Footnote 383: Op. cit., vol. ii., p. 15.]

[Footnote 384: Modern English potters produce flocculent glazes of the
Canton type by means of zinc, and Mr. Mott, of Doulton's, showed me a
specimen illustrating the effect of zinc which was remarkably like the
glaze of Plate 47 both in the blue dappling and the greenish frosting.
Possibly the use of zinc was known to the Kuangtung potters and gave them
their characteristic types of glaze. Other effects resembling the Canton
glazes were produced by Mr. Mott by both zinc and tin in the presence of
cobalt and iron.]

[Footnote 385: _Japan and China_, vol. ix., p. 261.]

[Footnote 386: See p. 90.]

[Footnote 387: Such a piece from the British Museum collection is figured
in the _Burlington Magazine_, January, 1910, p. 218.]

[Footnote 388: See _Burlington Magazine_, January, 1910, p. 220.]

[Footnote 389: I am indebted to Mr. A.W. Bahr for much information on
these and the Yi-hsing Chün imitations.]

[Footnote 390: Three beautiful examples were exhibited at the Burlington
Fine Arts Club in 1910, (_Cat._, K 20, 23 and 41), on the last of which
the lavender tints on the sides passed into a glassy pool of brilliant
peacock blue.]

[Footnote 391: There is an interesting example of this crystalline glaze
in Mrs. Potter Palmer's collection. It is a bowl of coarse grey porcelain,
with blue glaze on the exterior. Inside is a crimson red glaze of Canton
type, in the centre of which is a pool of amber glass. The explanation
seems to be that we have here a bowl of coarse export porcelain treated at
a Canton factory with their crystalline glaze.]

[Footnote 392: Richards, _Comprehensive Geography of the Chinese Empire_,
1908, p. 210.]

[Footnote 393: Richards, op. cit., p. 209. "Considerable trade is carried
on in tea, porcelain, etc."]

[Footnote 394: S. Wells Williams, _Commercial Guide to China_, 1863, p.
13. Speaking of pottery the author says: "The charges for freight forbid
it to be carried far, and manufactures of it are numerous; that for Canton
is at Shih-hwan." No doubt this is Shih-wan [Chinese]. Another name for
Canton pottery is Shakwan ware, which is probably a variant of Shih-wan.]

[Footnote 395: _Catalogue spécial de la Collection Chinoise à l'Exposition
Universelle_, Paris, 1878, pp. 10-12.]




CHAPTER XV

YI-HSING [Chinese] WARE


THE potteries at Yi-hsing Hsien, in the prefecture of Ch´ang-chou, in
Kiangsu, at no great distance from Shanghai, have long been celebrated
for elegantly shaped teapots of unglazed stoneware in red and other
colours. They have, in fact, been honoured with a special book, the
_Yang-hsien ming hu hsi_,[396] or "Story of the teapots of Yang-hsien"
(an old name for Yi-hsing), written in the seventeenth century[397]; but
though extracts from this work occur in the _T´ao lu_ and elsewhere,
I have been unable to get access to any copy of the original. This
deficiency, however, has been made good by an important translation given
by Brinkley[398] of a short Japanese work which, he says, "owes nothing
to Japanese research, being merely transcribed from Chinese annals."
The legendary story of the discovery of the all-important clay deposits
in Mount Tao-jung Shu-shan is followed by a description of the chief
varieties of this material which include light yellow clay for mixing;
another, yellow clay called _shih huang_ (stone yellow) which turned to
cinnabar red in the firing; a blue clay which turned to dark brown; a clay
which produced a "pear skin" colour; a light scarlet clay which produced
a pottery of the colour of pine spikelets; a light yellow clay making a
green ware; and another producing a light red pottery. The "pear skin"
clay mixed with white sand formed a material of a light ink brown colour.

With these materials, and with their conspicuous skill in blending
clays, it may well be imagined that the Yi-hsing potters were able to
make innumerable varieties in their ware. The commonest shades, however,
are deep and light red, chocolate brown, buff, drab and black brown;
occasionally the clays are speckled--e.g. buff ware with blue specks--or
powdered with minute particles of quartz, and frequently two or more
clays are used in contrasting tints on the same piece. The body of the
ware is sometimes soft enough to powder under the knife, but as a rule
it is a very hard stoneware, capable of receiving a fine polish on the
lapidary's wheel. The choicest teapots are unglazed, though often a sort
of natural gloss has formed on the surface in the kiln.

But to continue the history of the factories as outlined in Brinkley's
translation, we are told that the first maker of "choice utensils of
pottery for tea-drinking purposes" was a priest of the Chin-sha temple
about thirteen miles south-east of Yi-hsing, and that the first really
great Yi-hsing potter was Kung Ch´un [Chinese] who flourished in the Chêng
Tê period (1506-1521). Though it would appear that Kung Ch´un, while
attending his master Wu I-shan at the Chin-sha temple, surreptitiously
learnt the secrets of the priest, his fame completely eclipsed that of
his teacher, and he is usually venerated as the founder of the Yi-hsing
potteries. His pots are described as being "hand made, and in most of
them thumb-marks are faintly visible. Generally their colour is that of
a chestnut, and they have a subdued lustre like oxidised gold. Their
simplicity and accuracy of shape are inimitable; worthy to be ascribed to
divine revelations."

Supernatural qualities form the only point in common between this
description and that of the two teapots figured in Hsiang's Album,[399]
and confidently assigned to Kung Ch´un. One of these is a drab ware and
of hexagonal shape, which appears to have been formed in a mould; the
other is in the form of a wine ewer and of vermilion red; and both are
stated to have the wonderful quality of changing colour when filled
with tea. In fact, in the second illustration the artist has depicted
this phenomenon, the pot being vermilion red above and green below the
tea-line. The price of these two pots in the sixteenth century was no
less than 500 taels or ounces of silver.[400] Brinkley's translation
gives a considerable list of Yi-hsing potters who made a reputation in
the Ming dynasty, but as the characters are not added it does not always
help us to identify the names,[401] among the potter's marks, and in
most cases the characteristics assigned to them are entirely vague. We
learn, for instance, that one man's "forte was beauty of decoration," and
that three others were "renowned for the excellence of their pottery."
On the other hand, it is important to read that Tung Han in the Wan Li
period (1573-1619) was "the first potter who ornamented the surface of
the Yi-hsing ware with elaborate designs in relief," and that many of the
pieces designed by Ch´ên Chung-mei,[402] who had formerly been a porcelain
maker, "such as perfume boxes, flower vases, paper weights, and so forth,
show singularly fine moulding and chiselling. His vases were shaped in the
form of flowers, leaves, and fruits, and were decorated with insects. His
dragons sporting among storm-clouds, with outstretched claws and straining
eyes; his statuettes of the goddess Kuanyin, her features at once majestic
and benevolent--these are indeed wonderful productions, instinct with
life." This passage shows, at any rate, that in the Ming period the
Yi-hsing potters did not confine their attention to tea wares. Perhaps
the most celebrated Yi-hsing potter was Shih Ta-pin, who followed in the
footsteps of the great Kung Ch´un, and eventually surpassed him.

Brinkley's translation gives us very precise views of what the true form
of the teapot should be. It should be small, so that the bouquet of the
tea be not dispersed, and every guest should have a pot to himself.
It should be shallow, with a cover which is convex inside; and it is
very important that the spout should be straight. Crooked spouts were
very liable to become obstructed by the tea leaves. "One drinks tea for
pleasure, and one may justly feel irritated if the beverage declines
to come out of the pot." The true form of teapot, we are told, began
with Kung Ch´un, from which one infers that the tea bowls of the T´ang
and Sung usage were in vogue up to his time. But the correct shape once
established, the Yi-hsing potters soon began to take liberties with
it, and to twist it into all manner of fanciful forms, such as fruits
(persimmon, pomegranate, finger citron), the leaf or the seed-pod of the
lotus, creature forms such as fish leaping from waves, a phœnix, and
innumerable other quaint shapes, always skilfully modelled and often of
high artistic merit.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1      Fig. 2

    Fig. 3      Fig. 4

    Fig. 5      Fig. 6

Plate 50.--Yi-hsing Stoneware, sometimes called _Buccaro_.

Figs. 1-4.--Teapots in the Dresden Collection, late seventeenth century.
(1) Buff with dark patches. Height 5 inches. (2) Red ware with pierced
outer casing. Diameter 5½ inches. (3) Black with gilt vine sprays.
Height 4½ inches. (4) Red ware moulded with lion design. Height 4¾
inches. Fig. 5.--Peach-shaped water vessel, red ware. Diameter 4⅛
inches. _Dresden Collection._ Fig 6.--Red teapot, moulded design of trees,
etc. Inscription containing the name of Ch´ien Lung. Diameter 4½
inches. _Hippisley Collection._]

The ware, as already stated, is chiefly red, dark and light, chocolate
brown, buff, and drab, and it is usually without glaze. The decoration
consists of: (1) Engraved designs, cut in the ware while it was still
soft. These are usually inscriptions of a poetic nature, great importance
being attached to the calligraphy. Indeed, we are told that "some of
the potters of Yi-hsing owed their reputation chiefly to their skill in
carving inscriptions. Such a man was Chan-chien, whose style of writing
has been much imitated by modern artists. Another was Ta-hsin, who was
employed by Shih Ta-pin to write inscriptions, and who was such a master
of penmanship that his inscriptions have been carefully transcribed
and are used by connoisseurs as a standard of excellence." (2) Low
reliefs, either formed in the teapot mould or separately stamped out and
stuck on. Occasionally gilding is found on these, but it is probably a
European addition. (3) Stamped diapers of key fret, and other familiar
patterns, usually forming the background for relief ornament or borders.
(4) Openwork designs applied in panels over an inner lining which was
usually washed with a light-tinted clay. The pierced work is commonly of
floral design, often the prunus, bamboo and pine pattern, and on dishes
and saucers it has no backing but is left _à jour_. All these methods
of ornament are found on the examples which reached Europe at the end
of the seventeenth century, and they supplied designs for the European
potters of that period. (5) A later type of ornament consists of opaque
coloured enamels in painted designs or as ground-colours completely hiding
the surface of the ware. The colours are always of the _famille rose_
variety, including opaque pink,[403] and I do not know of any example
which suggests an earlier date than Ch´ien Lung (1736-1795). Most, indeed,
appear to be nineteenth century.

In addition to these, certain less familiar styles of ornament are found
on the smaller objects, such as the heads of opium pipes, which are
beautifully made and tastefully decorated. The red ware is sometimes
coated with a transparent glaze of yellowish tint, giving a surface of
warm reddish brown, exactly similar to the eighteenth century Astbury
ware of Staffordshire; or, again, it is polished on the lapidary's wheel
like the Böttger ware of Dresden. Inlaid designs in fine white clay and
marbling are further varieties; and occasionally coloured glazes of great
beauty occur. But these will be discussed presently.

There is no limit to the variety of articles made by the Yi-hsing
potters, but they chiefly excelled in small and dainty articles for the
writing-table, the toilet, and the tea-table, and personal ornaments.
Their tea wares have always been highly prized in Japan, where they have
been cleverly copied in Banko ware and by the Kioto potters. Similarly,
when tea-drinking became an institution in Europe in the last half of
the seventeenth century, and the East India companies set themselves to
supply the necessary apparatus from China, the Yi-hsing red teapots became
fashionable, and were immediately imitated by enterprising potters. The
Dutch and English seem to have been the first to succeed in this new
departure, and we read that Ary de Milde and W. van Eenhorn, of Delft,
applied for a monopoly of the manufacture in Holland in 1679, while
John Dwight, of Fulham, included the "Opacous, redd and Dark coloured
Porcellane or China" in the patent taken out in London five years
later. The brothers Elers, of Dutch extraction, started the industry
in Staffordshire about 1693, and made red stoneware teapots scarcely
distinguishable from the Chinese, and which sold for a guinea a piece.

The Yi-hsing wares in the celebrated Chinese ceramic collection formed by
Augustus the Strong at Dresden supplied designs for the fine red stoneware
made in the first years of the eighteenth century by Böttger, who also
discovered the secret of true porcelain in Europe and founded the famous
Meissen porcelain factory.

From the earliest days of their importation the Yi-hsing wares have
been known in Europe, especially in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, by the
Portuguese name of _buccaro_. The true _buccaro_ is a scented pottery,
first imported from Central and South America, where it was made by the
Indian population and afterwards manufactured in Portugal and Spain;
and Count Lorenzo Magalotti, who wrote in 1695, protested against the
application of the name "to certain unglazed pieces of Oriental origin,"
asserting that "true Buccaro never came from China or Japan, and that they
must not be looked for out of the pottery sent over from Central America
or the Portuguese imitations."[404] But the protests of purists were
unavailing, and _buccaro_ seems to have become a regular term for unglazed
pottery, even the archaic black ware from the Etruscan tombs receiving the
name of _buchero nero_.

[Illustration: PLATE 51

Two Vases with glaze imitating that of the Chün Chou wares: in the
Eumorfopoulos Collection.

Fig. 1.--Vase of Fat-shan (Kuangtung) Chün ware. Late Ming.
Height 9¾ inches.

Fig. 2.--Bottle-shaped Vase, the base suggesting a lotus flower and the
mouth a lotus seed-pod, with a ring of movable seeds on the rim. Thick
and almost crystalline glaze of lavender blue colour with a patch of
crimson. Yi-hsing Chün ware of the seventeenth century. Height 9¾
inches.

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2
]

Another important group of Yi-hsing wares presents an entirely different
aspect, and indeed it is little understood in Europe, though it is
probably bought by unwary collectors for the Sung types which it purports
to imitate. This is the Yi-hsing Chün, to which allusion has already
been made in discussing the imitation Chün wares. The traditions of this
manufacture go back to the Ming dynasty, when a potter named Ou [Chinese]
gained a great reputation for his glazes, which "copied the Ko ware in
crackle and the Kuan and Chün wares in colour."[405] This is, no doubt,
the manufacture mentioned in the _Po wu yao lan_ in the passage dealing
with Chün yao: "At the present time (i.e. 1621-1627), among the recent
manufactures this kind of ware is all made with the sandy clay (_sha t´u_)
of Yi-hsing as body; the glaze is rather like the original, and in some
cases beautiful, but it does not wear well."

Though the original glazed wares of Ou are probably rarer to-day than
their Chün Chou prototypes, there is no reason to suppose that Ou´s
successors have not kept up the continuity of the manufacture. It is
certainly very much alive to-day, and an early eighteenth century
reference to "the applied glaze of Yi-hsing"[406] seems to imply its
existence at that time. I have before me as I write a tripod incense
burner of archaic form, the body a light buff stoneware and the glaze a
deep lavender, breaking into blue. It is a thick and rather opaque glaze,
sufficiently flowing to have left the upper edges almost bare and formed
thickly on the flatter and lower levels; the colour is broken by streaks
and clouding, which mark the downward flow of the glaze; the surface has
a barely perceptible crackle, which will no doubt become more marked with
age, and a subdued lustre between the brilliancy of the old opalescent
Chün types and the viscous, silken sheen of the Canton glazes[407] which
also imitate them. The colour and glaze are distinctly attractive, and
have much in common with the old Chün glazes, and though this is a frankly
modern piece, it shows the potentialities of the ware. Similar specimens
made, say, a hundred or two hundred years ago, and proportionately aged by
time and usage, might well cause trouble to the collector.

There are, besides, quantities of common glazed pottery made at Yi-hsing
in the present day, and probably for a considerable time back, which has
no mission to imitate the antique. Many of the modern ginger pots are said
to come from this locality, and their glazes--some with clear colours
(yellow, green, or purple), others opaque and clouded, often covering
moulded ornament in low relief--may help us to identify kindred types of
glaze on pieces which are more ornamental and perhaps much older. But
pottery, as distinct from porcelain and the finer stonewares, has never
commanded much interest in China, and it has never been systematically
collected and studied. The result is that it is extremely difficult to
place the various types which appear from time to time except in large and
ill-defined groups. A series of typical pieces of modern Yi-hsing pottery,
for instance, would no doubt be of the greatest value in identifying the
rather older wares made in the same place under similar traditions, but no
one in Europe[408] has thought it worth their while to form one.

I have noticed that a certain type of glazed pottery is distinguished by a
concave base which serves instead of the usual hollowed-out foot and foot
rim, and by a glaze which stops a little short of the base in an even,
regular line which is quite distinct from the wavy glaze line of the Yuan
and earlier wares. A jar of this type in the British Museum has a typical
Yi-hsing glaze, and though this is not perhaps sufficient ground for
generalising, I would suggest that this peculiar finish is an indication
of Yi-hsing manufacture.


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 396: [Chinese].]

[Footnote 397: By Chou Kao-ch´i. See Bushell, _O.C.A._, p. 635.]

[Footnote 398: F. Brinkley, _Japan and China_, vol. ix., pp. 355-63.]

[Footnote 399: Op. cit., figs. 45 and 46.]

[Footnote 400: A tael is about one Mexican dollar and a third, i.e.
approximately thirty pence.]

[Footnote 401: Four of the most celebrated names, however, are
incidentally mentioned in the _T´ao lu_ (bk. vii., fol. 11 verso), viz.
(1) _Shih Ta-pin_ [Chinese]; (2) _Li Chung-fang_ [Chinese]; (3) _Hsü
Yu-ch´üan_ [Chinese]; (4) _Ch´ên Chung-mei_ [Chinese]; and (5) _Ch´ên
Chün-ch´ing_ [Chinese].]

[Footnote 402: The _Yang-hsien ming hu hsi_ (quoted in the _T´ao lu_,
bk. viii., fol. 8 verso) states that Ch´ên Chung-mei began by making
porcelain at Ching-tê Chên. "It was exceedingly clever, and of an
ornamental kind, made with supernatural ingenuity. But the results of his
trade were far from sufficient to establish a name, so he gave it up and
came to Yang-hsien (i.e. Yi-hsing). He took a delight in blending the
teapot clays, putting his heart and soul into the work, and his ware was
considered superhuman."]

[Footnote 403: I have seen specimens of Yi-hsing red ware coated with a
dappled bird's egg glaze of blue green ground flecked with crimson, a type
which was thought to represent the "Chün glaze of the muffle kiln." See
vol. ii., p. 217.]

[Footnote 404: For this and other information on the subject, see M.L.
Solon's paper on "The Noble Buccaros" in the North Staffordshire Literary
and Philosophic Society's _Proceedings_, October 23rd, 1896.]

[Footnote 405: See _T´ao lu_, bk. vii., fol. 11 verso: "(Ou ware) was
made in the Ming dynasty by a man of Yi-hsing ... who took the name of
Ou, and everybody called it Ou's ware. It included wares which imitated
Ko ware in crackle, Kuan and Chün wares in colour. Ou's bright coloured
glazes were very numerous. The wares consist of flower dishes, stands
for boxes, etc. The glazes with red and blue markings are particularly
choice. At Ch´ang-nan the factory of T´ang used to imitate them." The last
sentence refers to the celebrated T´ang Ying, who supervised the Imperial
factory at Ching-tê Chên from 1728-1749. The statement that Tang's factory
imitated them is no doubt based on the oft-quoted list given in the
_Chiang hsi t´ung chih_ of wares made at the Imperial factory about 1730,
which include "glazes of Ou. Imitations of the old ware of the potter
named Ou, including two kinds, that with red and that with blue markings."]

[Footnote 406: In the list quoted in the last note. The words are
[Chinese], _Yi hsing kua yu_. The word _kua_, which means "suspended,
applied," is probably inserted because the Yi-hsing ware was usually
unglazed.]

[Footnote 407: A similar effect is produced by zinc and tin on modern
English wares. See note on p. 168. It has been suggested that these
minerals were used on the Kuangtung stonewares, and appearances, at any
rate, point to their presence in the Yi-hsing _flambé_ glazes as well.]

[Footnote 408: Dr. Laufer collected a considerable series of wares made in
certain modern factories which he visited in China, and they may be seen
in the Field Museum, Chicago, and in the Natural History Museum in New
York.]




CHAPTER XVI

MISCELLANEOUS POTTERIES


IN addition to the factories which have received individual notice, there
are numerous others which are only names to us; and, on the other hand,
there is a host of nameless wares which have reached Europe at various
times and through divers channels, and are now awaiting classification
with very little chance of being definitely located. A consideration,
however, suggested by the _Chinese Commercial Guide_[409] may help towards
the grouping of these miscellaneous wares. We are told that the charges
for freight forbid the wares to be carried far in the ordinary way of
internal trade, and that manufactures of pottery are numerous, supplying
the local needs. Now the number of ports open to foreign trade in China
is limited, and in the past the sea trade was of far smaller volume, and
was concentrated in a few of the southern coast towns. Consequently, in
dealing with pottery which we may assume to have been brought by the
export trade to Europe, it will be necessary for general purposes to take
account only of the factories in the neighbourhood of the seaports in
question. These will be found to be almost entirely in the southern half
of China.

Thus, starting from the south and following the coast line, we come first
to the potteries which supplied Pak-hoi and Canton, and we may assume that
Hongkong and Kowloon would be supplied from the neighbourhood of Canton.
These have already been discussed, and we can pass on to Swatow, which
would draw supplies from the Ch´ao-chou Fu potteries. This neighbourhood
furnished an exhibit to the Paris Exhibition of 1878, consisting of "tea
jars, tobacco jars, braziers and pots, lamps, tiles, flower pots, fruit
jars, spoons, vases of various sorts, figures, dishes, cups and saucers,
and spittoons."

[Illustration: PLATE 52

Wine Jar with Cover and Stand. Fine stoneware with ornament in relief
glazed green and yellow in a deep violet blue ground. Four-clawed dragons
ascending and descending among cloud-scrolls in pursuit of flaming pearls;
band of sea-waves below and formal borders including a _ju-i_ pattern on
the shoulder. Cover with foliate edges and jewel pattern, surmounted by a
seated figure of Shou Lao, God of Longevity. About 1500 A.D.

    Height 22½ inches.      _Grandidier Collection, Louvre._
]

At the same exhibition, Amoy, to which we come next, was represented by
"dishes, rice bowls, wine cups, saucers and spoons, preserve jars, wine
bottles, etc., in common porcelain," besides tiles of various kinds, which
implies the manufacture of pottery as well. These wares, we are informed
in the catalogue, are largely exported to Saigon, Siam, Manilla, etc.; a
statement confirmed by the _Chinese Commercial Guide_,[410] which adds
India, the Archipelago, and the southern provinces. This is interesting in
view of the quantities of coarse china, blue and white[411] and coloured,
which is brought from these parts by collectors who take its crude
appearance as evidence of age. The factories are located at Pa-kwoh, a
village near Shih-ma, which lies between Amoy and Chang-chou Fu. Tung-an
Hsien in the same neighbourhood is also named as a pottery centre.

There are several important factories within easy reach of Shanghai. Those
at Yi-hsing have been discussed at some length, but there is another large
centre of the industry on the east side of the Lake T´ai-hu opposite to
Yi-hsing. This is Su Chou [Chinese], which, according to the catalogue of
the Paris Exhibition, was still celebrated for its pottery in 1878. But
the reputation of Su Chou does not rest on its modern achievements. Its
name occurs frequently in the pottery section of the great encyclopædia
(compiled by order of the Emperor K´ang Hsi) as one of the prominent
pottery centres in the Ming dynasty. Tiles for the palaces and temples
of Nanking were made there, and vases and wine vessels for the Imperial
Court. The nature of these last can be guessed from a hint given in one
passage of the encyclopædia[412]: "At Su Chou iron rust (_hsiu_) and other
materials are used for the yellow wares. For the vessels with dragon and
phœnix destined for Imperial use, a resinous substance[413] and cobalt
blue[414] are used."

In the Hsüan Tê period (1426-1435), Su Chou was noted for the manufacture
of artistic pots for holding fighting crickets. In reference to these
we are informed in the _T´ao shuo_ (see Bushell, op. cit., p. 140) that
"those fabricated at Su Chou by the two makers named Lu [Chinese] and Tsou
[Chinese] were beautifully moulded, and artistically carved and engraved,
and the pots made by the Elder and the Younger Hsiu [Chinese], two
daughters of Tsou, were the finest of all. At this time fighting crickets
was a favourite pastime, and hundreds and thousands of cash were staked
upon the event, so that they did not grudge spending large sums upon the
pots, which were decorated in this elaborate way, and consequently far
surpassed the ordinary porcelain of the period."

The large and important potteries at Po-shan Hsien [Chinese] in the
Ch´ing-chou Fu, in Shantung, were represented only by a small exhibit at
the Paris Exhibition of 1878, consisting of "a bottle of glazed pottery,
three tea jars in red ware, ten specimens of glazed pottery, a brazier in
terra cotta, and seven crucibles." Laufer tells us that these potteries
date back to Sung times, and have preserved the old traditions of
manufacture. The district is also noted for its glass, enamels and glazing
materials, but it is situated inland, and not conveniently near any of the
treaty ports.

In the early days of the European trading companies, pottery, as distinct
from porcelain, does not seem to have received much attention from the
merchants, and we may fairly assume that most of the earthenwares which
reached Europe before the last century hailed from the neighbourhood of
Canton or from Yi-hsing and the Shanghai district. But long before the
first European vessels reached the coasts of China, Arab and Chinese
merchantmen had carried cargoes of pottery and coarse porcelain to the
Philippines, the East Indian Archipelago, the Malay Peninsula, Siam,
Ceylon, and India. The Arabs had a trading station in Canton in the eighth
century, and Chinese junks sailed from Canton and the Fukien ports in
the Sung, Yüan, and Ming dynasties. A Chinese account of the sea trade
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries may be read in the work of Chao
Ju-kua,[415] and it will be found from this book and from Marco Polo's
accounts that Ch´üan-chou Fu on the Fukien coast was a busy centre of
foreign trade in the Sung and Yüan periods. Hirth[416] has traced the
probable route by which the Lung-ch´üan celadons reached this port
for shipment, and doubtless the other wares, including coarse white
porcelain, stonewares and pottery, which are found in the Philippines and
Borneo (to name only two of many localities) were largely supplied from
the Fukien potteries. Many of these wares are of undoubted antiquity,
and some of the types are unknown in China to-day. They may have been
made solely for export, but in any case their disappearance in China is
quite intelligible. For even in the eighth century the merchants were
forbidden[417] to export "precious and rare articles," and most of these
trade goods are of coarse make and unlikely to be preserved by the Chinese
at home.

On the other hand, the natives of the Philippines and the Dyaks of Borneo
have preserved these old potteries with scrupulous care. The various types
of jars have been christened with special names[418] alluding to their
form or decoration; they have been credited with supernatural powers; and
numerous legends have grown endowing them with life and movement, power of
speech, and influences malevolent or benign.

A good collection of these pots would be of considerable interest, but the
value attached to them by their native owners is out of all proportion to
their intrinsic worth, and makes them difficult to procure. An important
series, however, of the Philippine jars has been formed by the Field
Museum at Chicago, and they are described with full illustration in one of
the excellent publications of that institution.[419] Among other things
we are told that "every wild tribe encountered by the writer in the
interior of Luzon, Palawan, and Mindanao possesses these jars, which enter
intimately into the life of the people. Among many the price paid by the
bridegroom for his bride is wholly or in part in jars. When a Tinguian
youth is to take his bride, he goes to her house at night, carrying with
him a Chinese jar which he presents to his father-in-law. The liquor
served at ceremonies and festivals is sometimes contained in these jars,
while small porcelain dishes contain the food offered to the spirits."[420]

A general similarity in form is noticeable in the Philippine jars,
an ovoid body more or less elongated being common to all, while the
neck varies a little in its height and width. A series of loop handles
or pierced masks on the shoulder, to hold a cord for suspension, is a
constant feature. The older types, which are said to date back to a period
ranging from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, are frequently
decorated with one or two large dragons coiling round the sides, and
either modelled in low relief or incised in the body. Others are quite
plain, and the glazes include black, brown, dark green, and a brownish
yellow of varying depth. A later group, not older than the end of the Ming
dynasty, is without ornament, but coated with single-colour or variegated
glazes of the Canton and Yi-hsing types--e.g. speckled blue with green
flecks, green with blue streaks and lines, blue and green mottled and
crackled, light bluish green--the glaze often ending short of the base in
an even line, which is, perhaps, characteristic of Yi-hsing.

The British Museum has a small series from Borneo, which includes, among
the older types of pottery, a jar with black-brown glaze and bands of
cloud design and stiff leaves deeply incised, and an ovoid jar with many
loop handles on the shoulders, two dragons in relief, and a ground of
incised wave pattern all covered with a yellowish brown glaze which ends
in a regularly waved line some way short of the-base. Of later make is
a jar with translucent purplish brown glaze, and four circular panels
with figure ornament in low relief glazed green, a type described by the
Japanese as "Old Kochi."[421] There are, besides, a jar with roughly
painted blue dragon designs under a crackled white glaze, the ware being
a coarse porcellanous stoneware; another with enamel colours in addition
to the underglaze blue including the rose pink which is not older than
the eighteenth century; and another type with rough stoneware or earthen
body covered with a crackled, greyish white enamel of putty-like surface
on which enamel colours are coarsely painted. The typical jar which the
island natives so highly prize is of the ovoid form with a number of loop
handles on the shoulder and dragons in relief.[422] An unusually ornate
example is shown on Plate 49. It has a cloudy green crackled glaze with
dragons of both the ordinary and the archaic kind, besides storks and a
bat in low relief, and there are touches of dark blue and yellow, white
and brown in the glaze. It is probably of Canton make and not older than
the seventeenth century. In modern times jars are made in Borneo itself by
the Chinese in the coast towns.

[Illustration: PLATE 53

Vase with chrysanthemum handles: buff stoneware with chrysanthemum design
outlined in low relief and coloured with turquoise, green and pale yellow
glazes in a dark purple ground. About 1500 A.D.

    Height 19½ inches.      _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]

A certain amount of Chinese pottery found its way, like the celadon
porcelains in early times, by the caravan routes into Turkestan, India,
Persia, and Western Asia. Such wares would be more naturally drawn from
the potteries in Honan, Chihli, and the north-western provinces, and it is
not surprising that the fragment found by Sir Aurel Stein in the buried
cities of Turkestan should have included the brown painted wares of Tz´ŭ
Chou.

But the greatest difficulties in classification are presented by the
miscellaneous pottery which collectors have picked up from time to time
in China, or antique dealers have sent over to supply the demand created
by the increasing interest taken in Chinese pottery by Western amateurs.
These come, as a rule, without any hint as to their place of origin, and
in most cases it is quite impossible to locate them. There are, however,
certain well-defined groups which come together naturally.

One of these is represented by the Tradescant jar in the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford. It was exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in
1910, and described in the catalogue[423] as "Jar with globular body,
short neck, and wide mouth; five loop handles; stoneware covered with a
bright green glaze; the ornament consists of floral scrolls in yellow
with touches of brown and is in low relief; round the base a formal
design. Height, 12 inches." A similar jar is shown on Plate 56, and in
the Goff collection in the Brighton Museum is another of the same make,
but with the design incised with a point instead of applied in relief.
The Tradescant Collection was given to Elias Ashmole in 1659 by John
Tradescant. It was formed by the father of the donor, who died in 1627, so
that at the lowest computation the antiquity of these wares is fixed in
the late Ming period. Another group is represented by Plate 58, Fig. 2.
Its characteristics are a comparatively thin buff earthenware body, soft
enough to powder under the knife, and a sparing use of brownish yellow,
bright turquoise, green[424] and aubergine glazes of the usual crackled
type applied direct to the body. The specimens are generally vases or
incense burners of curious and archaic forms, with ornament moulded in
low relief, the whole bearing the unmistakable signs of a ware which has
been pressed in a mould. The inside and bottom of the incense burners are
usually unglazed. The colours, as a rule, are pleasing and soft, and it
is the common practice to label them indiscriminately Ming. As nothing
definite is known of their place of origin, this chronology can only be
based on their archaistic appearance, or on the fact that they have the
usual "on biscuit" glazes, which seems to be the accepted signal for a
Ming attribution. Needless to say, the use of this method of colouring
survived the demise of the last Ming emperor, and it is improbable that
wares which must be comparatively common in China (judging from the
handsome way in which the quite recently created demand for them has been
answered) should have a minimum antiquity of two hundred and seventy years.

The fact is that dating of these glazed potteries is as difficult as that
of the cognate glazed tiles, and it is as unreasonable to exclude a Ch´ing
origin as it would be to exclude a Ming. The balance of probabilities,
at any rate, is in favour of the bulk of them being no older than the
eighteenth century.

[Illustration: PLATE 54

Vase with lotus handles: buff stoneware with lotus design modelled in low
relief and coloured with aubergine, green and pale yellow glazes in a deep
turquoise ground. About 1500 A.D.

    Height 18 inches.      _Grandidier Collection, Louvre._
]

A third group is also consistently labelled Ming, but with better reason,
though even here a little more elasticity in the dating is advisable. It
has an exact parallel in porcelains of undoubted Ming origin, viz. those
represented by Plate 61, etc., which usually take the form of jars and
vases with designs outlined in fillets of clay, or channelled or even
pierced _à jour_. The spaces between the outlines are filled with coloured
glazes which are fired, in the case of porcelain, in the cooler parts of
the biscuit kiln. These are the glazes _de demi-grand feu_, according to
the French definition, and they consist of turquoise and aubergine
purple or violet and green (the three colours or _san ts´ai_, all minutely
crackled), supplemented by a white formed by slip and a thin brownish
yellow. Occasionally the purple is so deep as to appear almost black;
and the details of the designs are often etched in the paste with a fine
point. Precisely similar wares are found with an earthenware body; and
they are, no doubt, contemporary with the analogous porcelains, though
how long the traditions of this type of ware continued has never been
precisely determined. The porcelain on which washes of turquoise and
aubergine glaze are combined is a development of this type, and this has
certainly survived to comparatively modern times. Reticulated ornament
was used on the three-colour pottery vases no less than on the porcelain
(Plate 55); and besides the covered wine jars and vases there are figures
and grotto pieces of similar style both in pottery and porcelain, many of
which must date from Ming times.

Plate 53 illustrates a beautiful vase in the Eumorfopoulos Collection
which belongs to a cognate group. It has a buff stoneware body, the
ornament is outlined in relief, and the glazes which fill the outlines are
very similar to those of our main group, though some of the colours are
more transparent and glassy and wanting in the solidity of the latter.
The chrysanthemum handles are a frequent feature of the vases of this
class, of which a notable instance is in the Salting Collection. Plate 54
illustrates another vase of similar kind, but with lotus handles, lotus
designs, and a fine turquoise ground. Of the same type, but less rare,
are certain wide-mouthed jars, bowls, and flower pots with bold floral
designs, lotuses, etc., outlined in fillets of clay and filled with the
same kinds of glaze, the background now turquoise and now aubergine
(Plate 58, Fig. 1). The base is usually washed over with a thin purplish
brown. These several types were copied in the Japanese Kishiu pottery
in the nineteenth century, and though the copies are rarely difficult
to distinguish by the eye alone the Japanese glazes (particularly the
aubergine) will be found on handling to have a peculiar moist and rather
sticky surface. Though no doubt of Ming origin, it is extremely probable
that the manufacture of the Chinese bowls and flower pots of this class
continued into the last dynasty.

Fig. 2 of Plate 56 exemplifies another kind of pottery with fine white
body like pipeclay, and usually with sharply moulded designs in antique
bronze style and in the bronze forms of beakers and four-legged incense
burners. The glaze is usually leaf green, but it often breaks out into
a frothy grey scum, such as is seen on some of the Canton and Yi-hsing
glazed pottery. It is a common practice to label these wares as T´ang, but
I am inclined to place them in a much more recent period (seventeenth or
eighteenth century), and to locate them among the miscellaneous Kuangtung
wares, pending further information on the subject.

There are other specimens with a somewhat similar white and relatively
soft body material, not glazed but stained with a brownish black dressing
of clay, and somewhat recalling bronze. These are usually vases of
elegant, well-moulded form, such as Plate 56, Fig. 3, and they are often
marked _Nan hsiang t´ang_.[425] They are, no doubt, of relatively modern
make.

Though it would be easy to suggest many possible places of origin for
these wares, such speculation can be of no real value without far more
definite evidence than we possess at present. Still, it may serve some
useful purpose in the future, if not at once, if we add one or two more
records, however meagre, to the existing lists of Chinese potteries. The
section of the _T´u shu_, which is devoted to _T´ao kung_ (the pottery
industry), mentions the following factories as of some importance in the
Ming dynasty. In the province of Honan, in addition to the well-known
potteries of Chün Chou and Ju Chou, we read that there was a factory in
the Ju-ning Fu at the village of Ts´ai [Chinese], which was intermittently
active in the first half of the fifteenth century.[426]

From another passage we learn that in the valleys of Ching[427] [Chinese]
and the hills of Shu (or Szech´uan) there are black and yellow clays
suitable for pottery; that the potters had their kilns in holes in the
mountains; and that they used the yellow clay for the body of the ware
and overlaid it with the black, making jars, drug pots, cauldrons, pots,
dishes, bowls, sacrificial vessels, and the like. They also made one kind
of ware which resembled that of Chün Chou.

Specimens of modern pottery in the Field Museum, Chicago, include
ornamental wares such as pomegranate-shaped water pots, etc., covered
with an oily green glaze recalling some of the Sung types. The body is
apparently dark coloured, and shows brown at the edges where the glaze is
thin. This ware is made at Ch´êng-tu in Szech´uan.

The geographical annals of the province of Shensi are quoted[428] with
reference to potteries in the T´ung-chou Fu as follows: "The inhabitants
of Lei-hsiang and Pai-shui[429] are good potters, and the porcelains
(_tz´ŭ ch´i_) which they make are of surpassingly clever workmanship.
These are what are commonly called _lei kung ch´i_ (vessels of the Lord of
Thunder). Some say that the potteries of Hsiang only began to be active
when the original wares had ceased to be made. The village of Lei-hsiang
is east of Shên Hsien, and it is the place of the temple of the Hsiang
family. The inhabitants of the place sometimes dig up castaway Hsiang
wares. Their shape and style are archaic; the colour of the ware is green
(_lü_), deep and dark, but brilliant. One kind has slight ornament in
raised clay, but if the hand is passed over it, the surface feels smooth
and without perceptible relief or indentation.[430] When compared with
the Hsüan,[431] Ko and other wares, it may be said to surpass them." The
description in the last part seems to apply to the older wares which
preceded those made in the district at the time of writing.

The modern potteries at Yo Chou in Shensi are represented in the Field
Museum, Chicago, by a black-painted ware in Tz´ŭ Chou style, by a greyish
white ware with sketchy blue designs, and by a black slag-like earthenware
which is extremely light to handle. It is also suggested that a well known
type of pottery, painted with free floral designs in black and white on
a creamy glaze which is stained a pinkish brown colour, is an earlier
product of the same potteries.

The potteries at Ch´ü-yang Hsien [Chinese] in the Chên-ting Fu, in Chihli,
are mentioned[432] in the administrative records of the Ming dynasty in
the Hsüan Tê period, and again under the dates 1553 and 1563, as supplying
wine jars and vases for the Court. This place is only a few miles east of
Ting Chou, which was celebrated for its white wares in the Sung period,
and these references carry the record of the industry in that district to
the last part of the Ming dynasty. Unfortunately, nothing is said of the
nature of the wares made at this time for the Court.

Reference is made elsewhere (p. 202) to the potteries at Wu-ch´ing Hsien,
in the Peking district. Possibly these are the potteries described, by
Bushell[433] as still active in modern times. "The ordinary glaze," he
remarks, "is a reddish brown of marked iridescence, shining with an
infinity of metallic specks, an effective background to the moulded
decoration which covers the surface. The designs are generally of hieratic
character."

The "sun-stone" glazes made at the Rookwood Potteries (Cincinnati, Ohio,
U.S.A.) and on the Lancastrian wares[434] are of this kind, the infinity
of metallic specks being due to "super-saturation" of the glaze with iron
oxide. A specimen of this modern Peking ware may be seen in the British
Museum.

The tile works at Liu-li-chü, near Peking, date back to the Yüan dynasty,
and their modern productions as represented in the Field Museum include
a pottery with incised designs filled in with yellow, green, and dark
aubergine glazes, not unlike in style to the Japanese Sanuki ware. Another
type has forms taken from bronzes and is distinguished by a shining green
glaze.

In the province of Shantung, besides the tile works at Lin-ch´ing,[435]
the important, potteries at Yen-shên Chên [Chinese] in the Ch´ing-chou Fu
are noticed[436] as follows: "The inhabitants have inherited from their
ancestors the art of making good pottery. The usual wares are cisterns
(_kang_), jars (_ying_), cauldrons (_fu_), and such-like pottery (_fou_),
made without flaw. The profit to the people is not less than that made at
Ching-tê Chên on the right bank of the Yangtze." Yen-shên Chên is quite
close to Po-shan Hsien, and no doubt the industry at the two places is
intimately connected. The latter, which is noted to this day for its
manufactures of pottery and glass, has already been mentioned[437] more
than once.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

Plate 55.--Ming Pottery with dull _san ts´ai_ glazes.

Fig. 1.--Wine Jar with pierced outer casing, horsemen and attendants,
rocky background. Fifteenth century. Total height 19½ inches.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._ Fig. 2.--Tripod Incense Vase, dragons and
peony designs and a panel of horsemen. Dated 1529 A.D. Height 22 inches.
_Messel Collection._]

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 3

Plate 56.--Miscellaneous Pottery.

Fig. 1--Jar with dull green glaze and formal lotus scroll in relief
touched with yellow and brown glazes. About 1600. Height 12 inches. _Guff
Collection._ Fig. 2--Beaker of bronze form, soft whitish body and dull
green glaze. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 16½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._ Fig. 3.--vase of light buff ware with dull black dressing,
vine reliefs. Mark, _Nan hsiang t´ang_ (see p. 219). Eighteenth century.
Height 11½ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._]

At Yi-chên [Chinese] in the Yang-chou Fu, in Kiangsu, there were factories
which supplied wine jars, etc., to the palace at Nanking in the early
years of the Ming dynasty; and in the seventh year of Chia Ching (1528)
supplies of similar vessels were sent from Ning-kuo Fu [Chinese] in the
south-west of Anhui.[438] The latter place is mentioned elsewhere[439]
under its earlier name of Hsüan Chou [Chinese] as producing a thin white
ware made of "plastic clay" in the Yüan and Ming periods. A verse of
Wang Shih-chêng (1526-1593) speaks of the "snow white porcelain of Hsüan
Chou."[440] The _T´ao lu_ enumerates factories which began in the Ming
dynasty and continued to the nineteenth century, and apparently produced
an inferior type of porcelain, and probably pottery as well. They were
located at Huai-ch´ing Fu [Chinese], I-yang Hsien [Chinese], Têng-fêng
Hsien [Chinese], and Shan Chou [Chinese] in Honan; at Yi Hsien [Chinese]
and Tsou Hsien [Chinese] in Yen-chou Fu in Shantung; in the Lung Shang
[Chinese] district in Shensi, and at Hêng-fêng [Chinese] in Kiangsi.
The last-mentioned factory was established by a man named Ch´ü Chih-kao
from Ch´u-chou Fu in the early Ming period. In the Chia Ching period
(1522-1566) it was transferred to the I-yang [Chinese] district to a
place called Ma-k´êng, not many miles south of Ching-tê Chên. Both the
Lung-shang and Ma-k´êng wares are described as very coarse.

The value of pottery for architectural purposes was recognised in China
from the earliest times. Unglazed bricks and tiles of Han and pre-Han
periods are preserved by Chinese collectors, particularly when they
happen, as is often the case, to have inscriptions in old seal characters,
or other ornament. The familiar Chinese roof tile is a long convex object
like a horizontal section of a tube, and those intended for the border
are ornamented at one end with a disc, usually stamped with a dragon or
other design in sunk relief. Here and there, on the apex of the roof or
at the corners, are ornamental tiles carrying figures of deities, heroes,
mythical creatures or birds, modelled in the round and usually with great
force and skill. Besides these, architectural mouldings and antefixal
ornaments in pottery are commonly used on temples and pavilions of an
ornamental kind.

The use of tiles--and, no doubt, of other architectural embellishments
in pottery--was encouraged by government enactments at various times. In
the T´ang dynasty (618-906 A.D.),[441] in the districts south and west of
the Yangtze, under the inspectorship of a man named Tan [Chinese], the
inhabitants were ordered to use tiles on their houses in place of wood in
order to lessen the risk of fire; kilns were erected to provide the tiles,
and those who were too poor to carry out the alterations by themselves
received State help. A somewhat similar but more important edict was
issued in the twenty-seventh year of Hung Wu[442] (1394), that bricks
and tiles should be used in all the buildings in the capital, which was
then Nanking, and that kilns should be set up every year on the _Chü-pao
shan_ for their manufacture. It was not long after this that the famous
"porcelain pagoda" was erected at Nanking,[443] the lower part of which
was faced with white porcelain bricks, the remaining storeys with pottery
with coloured glazes.

Tile factories existed in all parts of China to supply local needs, and
the few singled out for mention in the _T´u Shu_[444] were perhaps of more
than usual importance in the Ming dynasty. They are Lin-ch´ing [Chinese]
in the extreme west of Shantung; Su Chou [Chinese] in Kiangsu, on the east
side of the lake T´ai-hu, and facing the potteries of Yi-hsing, which
supplied tiles for the palaces and temples of Nanking; the neighbouring
Ch´ang-chou Chên, and Yi-chên and Kua Chou in the Yang-chou Fu of the same
province; Wu-Ch´ing Hsien [Chinese], in the district of Peking, where the
potters asked for permission to make tiles for public use in 1574.

The tile works at Liu-li-chü (mentioned on p. 200) date from the Yüan
dynasty. They are also situated in the neighbourhood of Peking, but
whether in the Wu-ch´ing Hsien or not, I have failed to discover.

When Peking became the capital of the Ch´ing emperors, no doubt the
tile factories at Wu-ch´ing Hsien assumed still greater importance; and
according to the catalogue of the exhibition in Paris in 1878,[445] the
neighbourhood of Amoy was then celebrated for its bricks and tiles. This
branch of the potter's industry is represented by a small collection of
bricks, tiles, mouldings, and antefixal ornaments in the British Museum.
It includes unglazed bricks from the Great Wall of China, which may date
from 220 B.C., a few Han bricks and tile-ends with moulded ornament;
white porcelain bricks and coloured pottery tiles and mouldings from
the Nanking pagoda; and tiles from the Ming tombs near Nanking, which
were built in 1400 A.D., and like the pagoda destroyed in the T´aip´ing
rebellion in 1853. The Nanking tiles and mouldings are of hard buff
pottery with translucent glazes of green and yellow colour, minutely
crackled, additional colours being formed with red and creamy white slips.
The tile-ends are ornamented with dragon medallions.

[Illustration: PLATE 57

Seated figure of Kuan Yü, the war-god of China, a deified warrior. Reddish
buff pottery with blue, yellow and turquoise glazes, and a colourless
glaze on the white parts. Sixteenth century.

    Height 20⅜ inches.      _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]

Other architectural pottery in the same collection came from the Imperial
pleasure grounds at Peking, which were wrecked in 1860. These include
tiles and antefixal ornaments from the pavilions and temples in the Yüan
Ming Yüan and from the Summer Palace, and a few blue-glazed tiles from the
Temple of Heaven. Numerous tiles with relief figures and pottery figures
from niches were picked up in the ruins of the temples and pavilions
in the Imperial grounds after their capture in 1860; and many of the
mouldings were found to display strong European influences, due, no doubt,
to the designs of the Jesuits Attiret and Castiglione, who assisted the
Emperor Ch´ien Lung in erecting some of the buildings. Some of these are
in the British Museum besides antefixes in the form of yellow dragon
heads from the Winter Palace at Peking and from the celebrated Temple of
Kin-shan, or Golden Island, in the Yangtze; and a tile from the Huang-ssŭ,
the Great Lama temple, built by K´ang Hsi in 1647. The tile in question is
evidently part of a restoration, for it bears the date corresponding to
1770.

The ordinary tiles and mouldings are not likely to be extensively
collected by private individuals, but many of the ridge tiles, with
figures of deities, horsemen, lions, _ch´i-lin_, and phœnixes, have
found their way into collections to which their spirited modelling has
served as a passport. The glazes on these are often richly coloured, and
include yellow, green, violet purple, aubergine and purplish black, and
occasionally high-fired glazes with _flambé_ or variegated colours. By
accident or design, the figures are not infrequently detached from their
tiles and mounted on wooden stands. The pottery figures from niches in the
walls of temples and public buildings are often finely modelled and richly
glazed, and, needless to say, they find a welcome in Western collections
(Plate 58).

It is a common but illogical practice to assign all these figures in
architectural pottery to the Ming dynasty; illogical, because so many
of them have been brought from the Imperial buildings at Peking which
are known to have been mostly erected in the K´ang Hsi and Ch´ien Lung
period. On the other hand, nothing is more difficult to date than this
type of glazed pottery, in which the ware, the colours, and the decorative
traditions seem to have continued almost unchanged from the early Ming
times to the present day. The tiles from the Nanking pagoda and from the
eighteenth-century buildings at Peking are practically interchangeable.

Nor must we forget that the potters who made the architectural pottery
often turned their hands and materials to the manufacture of vases and
figures and other ceramic ornaments for domestic use, and even imposing
altar sets for the temples. An important example of this work is seen in
Fig. 2 of Plate 55, a large incense vase[446] of traditional form (from
an altar set) with bowl-shaped body, wide mouth, two upstanding handles,
and three feet with lion masks. It is ornamented with a peony scroll and
two dragons in high relief, and is made of pottery with a dull turquoise
green glaze. An inscription on the handles proclaims the fact that it was
"dedicated by the chieftain Kuo Hsin-shê; made in the eighth year of Chia
Ching," i.e. 1529. In more recent times the tile works near Peking have
turned their attention to the manufacture of vases and bowls with rich
soft monochrome glazes, yellow, green, turquoise and aubergine in the
manner of the similarly coloured porcelains which are highly prized, and,
as Bushell tells us, "the soft excipient (i.e. the pottery body) seems to
impart an added softness" to the glazes. "The fact that yellow clay," he
continues, "used often to be mixed with the porcelain earth in the old
fabrics to enhance the brilliancy of the glaze colours, gives a certain
vraisemblance to the fraudulent reproductions which I have seen sold for
as many dollars as they would cost in cents to produce." It is unlikely
that the issue of these by-products of the tile factories is confined to
the neighbourhood of Peking. Among the miscellaneous potteries I should
add that Ka-shan,[447] in Chekiang, is reputed to have been noted in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for a fine porcellanous stoneware
with opaque, camellia-leaf green glaze minutely crackled.

[Illustration:

    Fig. 1      Fig. 2

    Fig. 3      Fig. 4

Plate 58.--Miscellaneous Pottery.

Fig. 1.--Jar with lotus design in green, yellow and turquoise glazes in an
aubergine ground. About 1600. Height 6½ inches. _Hippisley Collection.
_Fig. 2.--Vase of double fish form, buff ware with turquoise, yellow and
aubergine glazes. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 5¾ inches. _British
Museum._ Fig. 3.--Roof-tile with figure of Bodhidharma, deep green and
creamy white glazes. Sixteenth century. Height 10⅞ inches. _Benson
Collection._ Fig. 4.--Bottle with archaic dragon (_ch´ih lung_) on neck,
variegated glaze of lavender, blue and green clouded with purple and
brown. (?) Eighteenth century Yi-hsing ware. Height 10 inches. _Peters
Collection._]


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 409: S. Wells Williams, _Chinese Commercial Guide_, 1863, p.
132.]

[Footnote 410: Op. cit., p. 114.]

[Footnote 411: A coarse blue and white porcelain, often decorated with
dragons which overlap the rim and are continued on the reverse of the
bowls and dishes, seems to belong to one of these provincial factories.
The glaze is thick and bubbly, and the blue of the decoration rather
dull and dark; but these pieces have a certain age, and belong to the
first half of the eighteenth century, for they were copied at Worcester
and Lowestoft. They often have marks "of commendation," such as _hsi yü_
("western jade"), etc.]

[Footnote 412: The _Ch´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng_, section viii.,
subsection named _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, fol. 15.]

[Footnote 413: [Chinese] _sung hsiang_, rendered "turpentine" by Bushell,
_O.C.A._, p. 264.]

[Footnote 414: [Chinese] _wu ming i_, "nameless rarity," the designation
under which cobalt was imported in the Sung dynasty. (See Bushell,
_O.C.A._, p. 439.)]

[Footnote 415: _Chau Ju-kua_, translated by F. Hirth and W.W. Rockhill.
St. Petersburg, 1912.]

[Footnote 416: _Ancient Chinese Porcelain_, op. cit. See also p. 86.]

[Footnote 417: See _Chau Ju-kua_, Introduction, p. 9.]

[Footnote 418: e.g. gusi, rusa, naga, tempajan, blanga.]

[Footnote 419: _Chinese Pottery in the Philippines_, by Fay-Cooper Cole,
with a postscript by Berthold Laufer, Field Museum of Natural History,
Publication No. 162, Chicago U.S.A., 1912.]

[Footnote 420: _Ibidem_, p. 14.]

[Footnote 421: Kochi, the Japanese name for Kochin China, seems to have
been used in a vague and comprehensive sense for Southern China, and we
understand by _Kochi yaki_ the old pottery shipped from the coast towns
of Fukien and Kuangtung. This category in Japan seems to include not only
a variety of earthenware with coloured glazes--green, yellow, aubergine,
turquoise, and violet--but the coarser, yellowish white wares of the _t´u
ting_ (see p. 90) type. See Brinkley, op. cit., vol. ix. p. 29.]

[Footnote 422: On the subject of pottery among the Dyaks in Borneo, see H.
Ling Roth, _The Natives of Sarawak and British North Borneo_, vol. ii., p.
284; A.W. Neuwenhais, _Quer durch Borneo_, vol. ii., plate 40; Hose and
McDougall, _The Pagan Tribes of Borneo_, 1912, vol. i., pp. 64 and 84,
and plates 46-48. See also A.B. Meyer, _Alterthümer aus dem Ostindischen
Archipel_.]

[Footnote 423: _Cat. B.F.A._, 1910, I., 11.]

[Footnote 424: A little flask in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Case
24, No. 809, 1883) of this type of ware with a green glaze was obtained
in 1883 in the neighbourhood of Canton. Possibly a portion of this group
comes from one of the Canton factories, but it is the kind of ware which
might have been made in any pottery district, and there are quite modern
examples of the same type of glaze and biscuit in the Field Museum of
Chicago which were manufactured at Ma-chuang, near T´ai-yüan Fu, in
Shensi.]

[Footnote 425: See p. 219.]

[Footnote 426: _T´u Shu_, op. cit., section _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, fol.
9.]

[Footnote 427: Ching is the name of the old state of Ch´u, which included
Hunan and Hupeh, so that the expression here used covers an enormous tract
of Central China. See _T´u shu_, section _T´ao kung pu tsa lu_, fol. 2.]

[Footnote 428: _T´u Shu_, section _T´ao kung pu chi shih_, fol. 2 recto.]

[Footnote 429: [Chinese] and [Chinese].]

[Footnote 430: This appears to mean that the glaze covering up the reliefs
filled all the surrounding hollows and made an even surface.]

[Footnote 431: i.e. ware of the Hsüan Tê period (1426-1435 A.D.).]

[Footnote 432: _T´u Shu_, section _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, fol. 10.]

[Footnote 433: _O.C.A._, p. 637.]

[Footnote 434: Made at Pilkington's Tile Works, Clifton Junction, by
Manchester.]

[Footnote 435: See p. 202.]

[Footnote 436: _T´u Shu_, section entitled _T´ao kung pu tsa lu_, fol. 2
verso.]

[Footnote 437: On pp. 103 and 188.]

[Footnote 438: _T´u Shu_, section xxxii, _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, fol. 9.]

[Footnote 439: _T´ao lu_, bk. vii., fol. 10 verso.]

[Footnote 440: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 2.]

[Footnote 441: Recorded in the _T´ang Shu_, the passage in question being
quoted in the encyclopædia, _T´u Shu_, section xxxii, _T´ao kung pu chi
shih_, fol. 1 verso.]

[Footnote 442: See the _T´u Shu_, section _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, fol. 7
verso.]

[Footnote 443: It was completed in 1430, and destroyed by the T´aip´ing
rebels in 1853.]

[Footnote 444: In the section _T´ao kung pu hui k´ao_, fol. 9.]

[Footnote 445: _Catalogue spécial de la Collection Chinoise_, op. cit.,
pp. 10-12. The exhibits from Amoy included "carreaux de pavage, tuiles
pour toitures."]

[Footnote 446: See _Catalogue B.F.A._, 1910, L. 1.]

[Footnote 447: See Dr. Voretzsch, _Catalogue of Chinese Pottery._]




CHAPTER XVII

MARKS ON CHINESE POTTERY AND PORCELAIN


THE custom of placing on works of art the name of the maker, the date of
manufacture, or some sign or symbol indicating the intention with which
they were made, dates back in China at least as far as the Han dynasty.
Such marks occur on pottery and porcelain rarely at first, but with a
frequency which increases in proportion as we draw nearer to modern times.
They are incised or stamped in the soft body of the ware, or painted under
the glaze (usually in blue) or over it in enamel colours or gold; and they
are generally placed on the base of the ware, though there are fairly
numerous instances in which the mark is written along the mouth rim or in
some other more or less conspicuous position.

The earliest marks, as far as I am aware, are incised, and those on the
Han, T´ang, and Sung potteries, not to mention the intermediate dynasties,
should be scrutinised with the greatest care to make sure whether the
incisions were made before the pottery was baked or afterwards. There
should be no difficulty in determining this point, for the lines cut with
a sharp instrument in the fired ware are necessarily harder and less free
than those incised in the soft clay, and the edges of the incisions will
present obvious differences in the two cases. Unfortunately the early
date-marks which I have seen up to the present have almost all been cut
after the firing. It does not necessarily follow that such inscriptions
are modern additions. Indeed in many cases they are in a style which
is clearly old. But their value as evidence is very small, for it is
impossible to prove the exact time of their carving; and at best we can
only regard them as representing the opinion of some former owner as to
the date of the vessel in question. At their worst, they are deliberate
frauds added by modern vendors with intent to deceive.

Incised or stamped marks have always been common on pottery, but porcelain
is usually marked by painting with a brush, and for this purpose
underglaze blue is the commonest medium, red and other on-glaze colours
being used chiefly on the relatively modern wares decorated in _famille
rose_ enamels. Similarly the ordinary script is usual in marks, and seal
characters are quite exceptional on porcelain earlier than the eighteenth
century.

It is not safe to take the older date-marks on porcelain at their face
value. The Chinese with their proverbial veneration for antiquity
habitually placed the date-marks of the classical reigns on their
porcelain whether decorated in the style of the period mentioned or
not. Already in the sixteenth century the Hsüan Tê and Ch'êng Hua marks
were used in this way, and in the K'ang Hsi period the names of these
two classic reigns were used more frequently than that of the K'ang Hsi
period itself. In fact the Hsüan Tê and Ch'êng Hua are on the whole the
most familiar marks of all, though the actual wares of these two periods
are among the rarest. The date-marks of the other Ming Emperors are less
frequently plagiarised, except upon the deliberate imitations of the wares
of the time, such as those made at the Imperial factory in the Yung Chêng
period, which we may be sure were carefully marked with the appropriate
_nien hao_. Moreover, the Japanese, who have expended much ingenuity on
reproducing Ming wares, have made free with Ming date-marks, especially
those of Chia Ching and Wan Li.

In the year 1677 the potters at Ching-tê Chên were forbidden by an order
of the district prefect[448] to inscribe the period-name of the Emperor or
any sacred writing on their porcelain, lest the names should be profaned
in the breaking of the ware. It is certain that this prohibition was not
effective for long; but probably the current date-mark was suppressed
for a time at least, and it is quite likely that we should trace to this
interval the custom of putting symbols or conventional marks inside
the double ring which was usually occupied by the _nien hao_, a common
practice in the K'ang Hsi period. In many cases, too, the rings were left
empty; but it is a mistake to regard this as an infallible sign of K'ang
Hsi manufacture, for it is a thing which might happen at any time through
negligence, the rings being made by one person and the marks written by
another. There are, besides, well authenticated instances of the empty
double ring on Wan Li porcelain,[449] and on post K'ang Hsi wares. It
was, however, such a frequent occurrence on the K'ang Hsi wares that the
modern imitators make a common practice of leaving the rings blank on
their copies of the K'ang Hsi blue and white. It is not clear whether
the prefect's prohibition applied to the names of Ming emperors, but
probably it did not, as it is unlikely that the adherents of the reigning
dynasty would be sensitive about the titles of the house which they had
exterminated. In any case, Ming marks, especially those of the fifteenth
century, are very common on the K'ang Hsi porcelain, and the K'ang Hsi
mark itself is comparatively rare except on the specimens which must
belong to the later years of the reign.

_En revanche_, the K'ang Hsi mark is freely used on quite modern wares,
that period being now regarded as classical; so that we are confronted
with the paradox that if a specimen of fine quality[450] is marked Ch'êng
Hua, it may generally be assumed that it was made in the K'ang Hsi period,
while the bulk of the pieces which bear the K'ang Hsi mark are of modern
date.

The Yung Chêng and Ch'ien Lung porcelains are highly esteemed to-day, and
consequently the marks of these periods are considered worthy of a place
on modern imitations; but on the whole the bulk of the specimens bearing
these marks will be found to belong to the period indicated, and the
imitations are generally so coarse as to be unmistakable. The temptation
to borrow the reign marks of the subsequent periods is so slight that we
may safely accept the later marks as correct indications of date.

Marks written in enamel colours and even in gold become increasingly
common on the _famille rose_ porcelains from the Yung Chêng period
onwards, the red mark being more familiar on the modern wares than the
blue; and seal characters frequently replace the ordinary script in the
reign marks of the Yung Chêng and subsequent periods. Date marks in
seal form before the eighteenth century are very unusual, and should be
regarded with suspicion.

It will be seen from the foregoing notes that Chinese date marks must be
treated with great caution. In fact it is safer to regard them merely as
secondary evidence, first basing one's judgment on the paste and glaze,
the style of decoration and the quality of the colours. The one exception
to this declaration of unfaith is the marks on the Imperial porcelain.
These would naturally be correct and reliable, except where deliberate
imitations of the older wares were undertaken; and then, no doubt, the
mark of the period imitated would be used to make the illusion complete.
The Imperial marks were the work of calligraphers who were selected for
the purpose, and the writing is careful and in good style. In fact a
well-written mark is almost as certain a sign of Imperial ware as the
five-clawed dragon itself.[451]

At the private factories the marks were often carelessly, even illegibly,
written, and probably little trouble was taken with this part of the
decoration except on the choicer specimens. On a large proportion of the
private wares the mark was omitted altogether.

The marks on Chinese pottery and porcelain may be conveniently grouped
under the following headings:--

(1) Date marks.

(2) Hall marks.

(3) Potters' names and factory marks.

(4) Marks of dedication, felicitation, commendation, etc.


(1) _Date marks._

The date marks conform to the two Chinese systems of chronology, (_a_) the
cyclical and (_b_) the reign names of the Emperors.

(_a_) The system by which the years are divided into cycles of sixty, each
year of the cycle having a name, carries back Chinese chronology to the
year 2637 B.C., from which the first cycle is dated. We are at present in
the 76th cycle.

The year names are composed of two characters, the first being one of
the Ten Stems, and the second one of the Twelve Branches; and as the
stems and the branches are taken in strict rotation, it is clear that the
combinations will not be exhausted until sixty have been formed, that
number being the least common multiple of ten and twelve.

The Ten Stems [Chinese] _Shih kan_ are as follows:--

     1 [Chinese] _chia_  }
                         } corresponding to the element [Chinese] _mu_
     2 [Chinese] _i_     }   = wood.

     3 [Chinese] _ping_  }
                         } corresponding to the element [Chinese] _huo_
     4 [Chinese] _ting_  }   = fire.

     5 [Chinese] _wu_
          or _mou_       }
                         } corresponding to the element [Chinese] _t´u_
     6 [Chinese] _chi_   }   = earth.

     7 [Chinese] _kêng_   }
                          } corresponding to the element [Chinese] _chin_
     8 [Chinese] _hsin_   }    = metal.

     9 [Chinese] _jên_    }
                          } corresponding to the element [Chinese] _shui_
    10 [Chinese] _kuei_   }    = water.

The Twelve Branches [Chinese] _shih êrh chih_, which correspond to the
twelve animals of the zodiac, and through them to the twelve divisions of
the day are as follows:--

                     _Appertaining to the
                        sign of the_              _Corresponding to_

   1 [Chinese] _tzŭ_   ..  rat     ..  Aries       11-1 a.m.  N.
   2 [Chinese] _ch´ou_ ..  ox      ..  Taurus       1-3 a.m.  N.N.E. 3/4E.
   3 [Chinese] _yin_   ..  tiger   ..  Gemini       3-5 a.m.  E.N.E. 3/4N.
   4 [Chinese] _mao_   ..  hare    ..  Cancer       5-7 a.m.  E.
   5 [Chinese] _ch´ên_ ..  dragon  ..  Leo          7-9 a.m.  E.S.E. 3/4S.
   6 [Chinese] _ssŭ_   ..  serpent ..  Virgo       9-11 a.m.  S.S.E. 3/4E.
   7 [Chinese] _wu_    ..  horse   ..  Libra  11 a.m.-1 p.m.  S.
   8 [Chinese] _wei_   ..  sheep   ..  Scorpio      1-3 a.m.  S.S.W. 3/4W.
   9 [Chinese] _shên_  ..  monkey  ..  Sagittarius  3-5 a.m.  W.S.W. 3/4W.
  10 [Chinese] _yu_    ..  cock    ..  Capricornus  5-7 a.m.  W.
  11 [Chinese] _hsü_   ..  dog     ..  Aquarius     7-9 a.m.  W.N.W. 3/4N.
  12 [Chinese] _hai_       boar    ..  Pisces      9-11 a.m.  N.N.W. 3/4W.

The table of cycles subsequent to the Christian era,[452] i.e. cycles
45-76, dating from 4-1928 A.D., will be useful in calculating the year of
the cyclical dates with the help of the accompanying table of numerals:--

           (_a_)                    (_b_)         (_c_)

     1 [Chinese] ..  _i_      .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese] or [Chinese]
     2 [Chinese] ..  _êrh_    .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese] "  [Chinese]
     3 [Chinese] ..  _san_    .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese] "  [Chinese]
     4 [Chinese] ..  _ssŭ_    .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese]
     5 [Chinese] ..  _wu_     .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese]
     6 [Chinese] ..  _liu_    .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese]
     7 [Chinese] ..  _ch´i_   .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese]
     8 [Chinese] ..  _pa_     .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese]
     9 [Chinese] ..  _chiu_   .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese]
    10 [Chinese] ..  _shih_   .. [Chinese] .. [Chinese] or [Chinese]

(_a_) is the normal form; (_b_) is commonly used for accounts; (_c_) is
used on drafts, pawntickets, etc.


TABLE OF CYCLICAL DATES FROM A.D. 4

                       CYCLE BEGINNING

                        4    64
                      304   364   124   184   244
                      604   664   424   484   544
    Cyclical Signs.   904   964   724   784   844
                     1204  1264  1024  1084  1144
                     1504  1564  1324  1384  1444
                     1804  1864  1624  1684  1744

    [Chinese]        04    64    24    84    44
    [Chinese]        05    65    25    85    45
    [Chinese]        06    66    26    86    46
    [Chinese]        07    67    27    87    47
    [Chinese]        08    68    28    88    48
    [Chinese]        09    69    29    89    49
    [Chinese]        10    70    30    90    50
    [Chinese]        11    71    31    91    51
    [Chinese]        12    72    32    92    52
    [Chinese]        13    73    33    93    53
    [Chinese]        14    74    34    94    54
    [Chinese]        15    75    35    95    55
    [Chinese]        16    76    36    96    56
    [Chinese]        17    77    37    97    57
    [Chinese]        18    78    38    98    58
    [Chinese]        19    79    39    99    59
    [Chinese]        20    80    40   100    60
    [Chinese]        21    81    41   101    61
    [Chinese]        22    82    42   102    62
    [Chinese]        23    83    43   103    63
    [Chinese]        24    84    44   104    64
    [Chinese]        25    85    45   105    65
    [Chinese]        26    86    46   106    66
    [Chinese]        27    87    47   107    67
    [Chinese]        28    88    48   108    68
    [Chinese]        29    89    49   109    69
    [Chinese]        30    90    50   110    70
    [Chinese]        31    91    51   111    71
    [Chinese]        32    92    52   112    72
    [Chinese]        33    93    53   113    73


                       CYCLE BEGINNING

                        4    64
                      304   364   124   184   244
                      604   664   424   484   544
    Cyclical Signs.   904   964   724   784   844
                     1204  1264  1024  1084  1144
                     1504  1564  1324  1384  1444
                     1804  1864  1624  1684  1744

    [Chinese]        34    94    54    14    74
    [Chinese]        35    95    55    15    75
    [Chinese]        36    96    56    16    76
    [Chinese]        37    97    57    17    77
    [Chinese]        38    98    58    18    78
    [Chinese]        39    99    59    19    79
    [Chinese]        40   100    60    20    80
    [Chinese]        41   101    61    21    81
    [Chinese]        42   102    62    22    82
    [Chinese]        43   103    63    23    83
    [Chinese]        44   104    64    24    84
    [Chinese]        45   105    65    25    85
    [Chinese]        46   106    66    26    86
    [Chinese]        47   107    67    27    87
    [Chinese]        48   108    68    28    88
    [Chinese]        49   109    69    29    89
    [Chinese]        50   110    70    30    90
    [Chinese]        51   111    71    31    91
    [Chinese]        52   112    72    32    92
    [Chinese]        53   113    73    33    93
    [Chinese]        54   114    74    34    94
    [Chinese]        55   115    75    35    95
    [Chinese]        56   116    76    36    96
    [Chinese]        57   117    77    37    97
    [Chinese]        58   118    78    38    98
    [Chinese]        59   119    79    39    99
    [Chinese]        60   120    80    40   100
    [Chinese]        61   121    81    41   101
    [Chinese]        62   122    82    42   102
    [Chinese]        63   123    83    43   103

It will be seen that cyclical dates without any indication of the
particular cycle intended are merely tantalising. On the other hand when
the reign is specified as well, the combination gives the most precise
form of date. But unfortunately there are many cases in which the reign
name is absent, and we can only judge the cycle by the style of the ware,
a calculation which is always open to dispute. It is not often that the
cycle is so clearly indicated by an indirect method as in the oft-quoted
mark _yu hsin ch´ou nien chih_ [Chinese] = made in the _hsin ch´ou_
year recurring (_yu_).This can only be 1721, when the _hsin ch´ou_ year
actually recurred in the (sixty-first year of) reign of K´ang Hsi.[453]

(_b_) The more usual form of date mark is that which gives the reign name
of an Emperor. On ascending the throne the Emperor discarded his family
name and assumed a title by which his reign was thenceforth known. This is
the name which appears in the date marks, and it is known as the _nien_
(period) _hao_ (name). After his death the Emperor received another title,
the _miao hao_, or name under which he was canonised; but though reference
might be made to him in history under his _miao hao_, it is obvious that
the posthumous name cannot occur on contemporary date marks.

In reckoning the date of an Emperor's reign it was not usual to include
officially the year in which his predecessor had died, but to date the
reign from the first day of the year following. Thus, though K´ang Hsi
became Emperor in 1661, his reign is dated officially from 1662.

The Imperial date mark is usually written in six characters beginning with
the name of the dynasty and ending with the words _nien chih_ (made in the
period): the _nien hao_ coming in the middle:--

           1      2         3       4      5        6
    e.g. _Ta_ _ming_ _ch´êng_ _hua_ _nien_ _chih_ = made (_chih_)

    4 [Chinese] 1
    5 [Chinese] 2
    6 [Chinese] 3

in the Ch´êng Hua period (_nien_) of the great Ming (dynasty).

Occasionally the word _nien_ is replaced by _yü_ [Chinese] (Imperial),
_yü chih_ meaning made by Imperial command; and in place of _chih_ we
sometimes find the word _tsao_ [Chinese] or more rarely _tso_ [Chinese]
both of which have the same meaning "made."

The six characters may be written in two lines of three, or in three lines
of two, or again in one long line read from right to left; and for reasons
of space, and sometimes for no apparent reason, the first two characters
are omitted, e.g. [Chinese]. The omission of the _nien hao_ is rare except
on a few Japanese copies of Chinese porcelain, e.g. [Chinese] _ta ming
nien chih_ = made in the great Ming dynasty.

As already mentioned, the seal forms of the mark were frequently employed
from the eighteenth century onwards (see p. 209). An archaic form of seal
character occurs in the Yung Lo mark which is given below.

The use of the _nien hao_ on the Imperial wares made at Ching-tê Chên was
made obligatory by a command issued in the Ching-tê period (1004-1007),
when the name of the town was altered to Ching-tê Chên.

_Ming Dynasty_

[Illustration: [Chinese] HUNG WU, 1368-1398.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] YUNG LO, 1403-1424.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in archaic characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] HSÜAN TÊ, 1426-1435.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] CH´ÊNG HUA, 1465-1487.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters (the first two omitted).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] HUNG CHIH, 1488-1505.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] CHÊNG TÊ, 1506-1521.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] CHIA CHING, 1522-1566.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] LUNG CH´ING, 1567-1572.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] WAN LI, 1573-1619.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] T´IEN CH´I, 1621-1627.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] CH´UNG CHÊNG, 1628-1643.]

_Ch´ing Dynasty._

[Illustration: [Chinese] SHUN CHIH, 1644-1661.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

_Ch´ing Dynasty_

[Illustration: [Chinese] K´ANG HSI, 1662-1722.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] YUNG CHÊNG, 1723-1735.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] CH´IEN LUNG, 1736-1795.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] CHIA CH´ING, 1796-1820.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] TAO KUANG, 1821-1850.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] HSIEN FÊNG, 1851-1861.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] T´UNG CHIH, 1862-1874.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] KUANG HSÜ, 1875-1909.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Same in seal characters.]


(2) _Hall marks._

The "hall mark," which is of frequent occurrence on both porcelain and
pottery, is so called because it includes the word _t´ang_ [Chinese]
(hall) or some equivalent such as _chai_ [Chinese] (a study), _t´ing_
[Chinese] (a pavilion), _hsien_ or _hsüan_ [Chinese] (a porch, balcony or
pavilion), _kuan_ [Chinese] (a residence or hostelry), _fang_ [Chinese]
(a room or house), _chü_ [Chinese] (a dwelling). The word _t´ang_ as
explained in Giles's Dictionary is "a hall: especially a hall of justice
or court; the ancestral hall; an official title." _T´ang ming_ is "the
family hall name--a fancy name usually consisting of two characters
followed by _t´ang_ (e.g. _wu tê t´ang chin_ = Chin of the military valour
hall), and referring to some event in family history. It is generally
inscribed in one of the principal rooms of the house, and is used in
deeds, on graves, boundary stones, etc."

The hall mark, then, may contain the studio name of the maker or of the
recipient of the ware, or it may have reference literally to the building
for which the ware was intended. The last interpretation can be generally
applied to the marks referring to halls or pavilions in the precincts
of the Imperial palace. Again, the hall may be the shop of a dealer
who ordered the goods. But in the absence of prepositions, it is not
always--not often, I should perhaps say--possible to determine which of
these alternatives is implied in any particular hallmark; e.g. [Chinese]
_Lin yü t´ang chih_ may mean "made in the Abundant-Jade Hall," or "for"
the same, or by a man whose studio name was _Lin-yü t´ang_.

As to the antiquity of hall marks, it was not considered anachronistic
to cut one on a Han granary urn which is now in the British Museum; but
unfortunately as the cutting was done after the ware was baked it is now
impossible to say at what period it was executed. A Sung example is quoted
in the _Ni ku lu_ (written in the middle of the sixteenth century) as
inscribed on a Ting Chou vase in the handwriting of the Mi family, viz.,
_jên ho kuan_ [Chinese] (Hotel of Benevolence and Harmony). A similar mark
similarly placed is [Chinese] _jên ts´un t´ang_ (Hall of Benevolence), on
a Tz´ŭ Chou jar in the Eumorfopoulos Collection.

Hall marks on Ming porcelain are rare. There is, however, one which occurs
fairly often on late Ming porcelains of various kinds, including pieces
decorated in blue and blue and white, underglaze red, blue and enamel
colours, pierced designs and slip. This is [Chinese] _yü t´ang chia ch´i_,
"beautiful vessel for the Jade Hall."

It is improbable that the _yü t´ang_ was a factory name, as the specimens
so marked have little homogeneity. Giles's Dictionary tells us that _yü
t´ang_ is a name for the Han Lin College at Peking, which was so called
in memory of Chou Chih-lin of the Sung dynasty, upon whom the Emperor
bestowed these two characters in admiration of his qualities. From this
we might infer that the wares so marked were made for the Han Lin; but
why, one asks, in that case should the examples in our collections be so
many and so evidently of the same period? On the whole I prefer to regard
the mark as of general (and complimentary) significance, i.e. "beautiful
vessel for the home of pure worth," like another mark much affected on
late Ming porcelain _fu kuei chia ch´i_ ("fine vessel for the rich and
honourable!").

Hall marks are very frequent on the porcelains of the Ch´ing dynasty, and
enough are given below to illustrate their various forms. Many of them are
no doubt hall names of makers and decorators, and as such belong to the
category of artists' signatures.

Special interest attaches to those hall marks which have been identified
as referring to pavilions in the precincts of the Imperial palace. We are
told by Bushell[454] that the "fashion of inscribing upon porcelain made
for the Imperial palace the name of the particular pavilion for which
it was intended seems to have begun in the reign of Yung Chêng," and
observation shows that these hall marks only become frequent on the later
porcelains. In fact most of the examples with which I am acquainted are
nearer in style to the Tao Kuang than to the Yung Chêng wares, and the
majority of the hall marks written in red on the glaze will be found to be
of early nineteenth century date.


HALL MARKS

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yü t´ang chia ch´i_ = fine vessel for the jade
hall (late Ming).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yü hai t´ang chih_ = made for the Yü-hai (jade
sea) hall (about 1700).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ts´ai hua t´ang chih_ = made for the hall of
bright painting (nineteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ts´ai jun t´ang chih_ = made for the hall of
bright colours (nineteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Nan hsiang t´ang_ = south aspect hall (on
eighteenth century pottery).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chih lan chai chih_ = made for the epidendrum
hall (seventeenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ku yüeh hsüan chih_ = made by Ku-yüeh-hsüan.
(See Vol. ii., p. 215.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yu ch´ai_ = quiet pavilion--a studio name of a
painter.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Wan shih chü_ = myriad rocks retreat; studio
name of a painter.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chu shih chü_ = red rocks retreat; studio name
of a painter.]


PALACE HALL MARKS

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ch´êng tê t´ang chih_ = ordered for the
Ch´êng-tê (complete virtue) hall.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ching wei t´ang chih_ = made for the Ching-wei
(reverent awe) hall.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Hsü hua t´ang chih_ tsêng = made for the Hsü-hua
hall, for presentation.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Tan ning chai chih_ = made for the Tan-ning
(peace and tranquillity) pavilion.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ssŭ pu chai chih_ = made for the Ssŭ-pu pavilion
(i.e. pavilion for meditation for the correction of faults).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Shên tê t´ang chih_ = made for the Shên-tê
(cultivation of virtue) hall. (See Vol. ii., p. 264.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Shên tê t´ang po ku chih_ = antique made for the
Shên-tê hall.]


(3) _Potters' names, etc._

Marks which include potters' names (apart from the uncertain hall marks)
are rare on Chinese porcelain though frequent enough on pottery. But it
will be remembered that at Ching-tê Chên at any rate the porcelain passed
through so many hands that the individuality of the work was lost, and
consequently a personal mark would be, as a rule, misleading. The question
of signatures in the field of the decoration has been discussed[455] with
the conclusion that they belong rather to the artists who painted the
original copied by the pot-painters than to the pot-painter himself.

Perhaps we should include here a fairly common type of mark, usually in
the form of a small seal of a conventional and quite illegible character,
which goes by the name of "shop marks." But it is not clear whether they
refer to the maker or the firm who ordered the porcelain.


POTTERS' MARKS

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ma chên shih tsao_ = made by ma ch´ên-shih (on a
T´ang vase).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chang chia tsao_ = made by the Chang family (on
Tz´ŭ Chou ware). (See Vol. i., p. 105.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Wang shih ch´ih ming_ = Mr. Wang Ch´ih-ming (on
Tz´ŭ-Chou ware).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _I shêng_ = harmonious prosperity. Perhaps a
potter's name (on Kuangtung ware).]


MARKS ON KUANGTUNG WARE

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ko ming-hsiang chih_ = made by Ko Ming-hsiang
(eighteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ko yüan hsiang chih_ = made by Ko Yüan-hsiang
(eighteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Huang yün chi_ = mark of Huang-yün (nineteenth
century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Li Ta-lai_ = potter's name.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Hou-ch´ang_ = potter's name.]

POTTERS' MARKS--_continued_.

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yi hsing tzŭ sha_ = brown earth (lit. sand) of
Yi-hsing.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ming-yüan_ = a late Ming potter at Yi-hsing.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Hui mêng-chên_ = name of a late Ming potter at
Yi-hsing, copied on modern wares.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ch´ên Ming Yüan chih_ = made by Ch´ên Ming-Yüan,
Yi-hsing.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yü lan pi chih_ = secretly made by Yü-lan;
Yi-hsing (nineteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Wan li ting yu ch´ên wên ching su_ = Ch´ên
Wên-ching modelled it in the ting-yu year of Wan Li (i.e. 1597).]


MARKS ON FUKIEN WHITE PORCELAIN

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chao-chin_ = a potter's name.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chung t´un shih_ = Chung-t´un family.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] (?) _Li-chih_ = a potter's name.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Shan jên ch´ên-wei_ = the hermit Ch´ên-wei.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Lai-kuan_ = potter's name.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chao tsung ho yin_ = seal of Ho Chao-tsung.]

POTTERS' NAMES, ETC.

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chiang ming kao tsao_ = made by Chiang Ming-kao
(about 1700).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ch´ên kuo chih tsao_ = made by Ch´ên Kuo-chih
(about 1700).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Tao kuang ting wei wên lang shan chih_ = made by
Wên Lang-shan in the _ting-wei_ year of Tao Kuang (i.e. 1847).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yü fêng yang lin_ = Yang Lin of Yü-fêng. (See
Vol. ii., p. 212.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] (?) Trader's mark on export porcelain. (See Vol.
ii., p. 136.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Wang tso t´ing tso_ = made by Wang Tso-t´ing
(early nineteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Wang ping jung tso_ = made by Wan Ping-jung
(early nineteenth century).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] [Chinese] _Ling nan hui chê_ = Ling-nan (Canton)
painting. Seal of _Pai-shih_ (white rock). (See Vol. ii., p. 211.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Fu fan chih tsao_ = made on the borders of
Fukien. (See Vol. ii., p. 108.)]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Three examples of "shop marks."]


(4) _Marks of dedication, felicitation_, etc.

In many cases the place of a date mark, hall mark, or potter's name is
taken by a word or phrase commending or describing the ware or invoking a
benediction on the possessor. Such marks may be conveniently subdivided
into marks of (_a_) dedication, (_b_) felicitation, (_c_) commendation; to
which may be added (_d_) symbols used as marks.

(_a_) _Marks of dedication_ indicating the destination or intention of the
ware contain the name of a place or person or some word suggesting the use
to which the vessel was dedicated. This group naturally overlaps that of
the hall marks, there being no essential difference between a palace hall
mark and such a mark as _Shu fu_ [Chinese] (Imperial palace) which was
inscribed on the Imperial porcelain of the Yüan dynasty.

A few marks of dedication are mentioned in the _Po wu yao lan_[456]
e.g. [Chinese] _t´an_ (altar) on the altar cups of the Hsüan Tê period;
[Chinese] _ch´a_ (tea), [Chinese] _chiu_ (wine), [Chinese] _tsao t´ang_
(decoction of jujubes), and [Chinese] _chiang t´ang_ (decoction of
ginger), which were inscribed inside the altar cups of the Chia Ching
period, besides [Chinese] _chin lu_ (golden seal), [Chinese] _ta chiao_
(great sacrifice), and [Chinese] _t´an yung_ (altar use), which were
written beneath them; all indicating the offerings and the altars for
which the cups were destined.

Dedications to temples, institutions, and even to individuals, often of
considerable length, also occur not infrequently.

(_b_) _Marks of felicitation_ include good wishes such as _ch´ang ming
fu kuei_ (long life, riches and honour), _wan fu yu t´ung_ (may infinite
happiness embrace all your affairs), both of which have been noted on Ming
porcelain; words of good omen such as _fu_, _lu_, _shou_, separately or
together, [Chinese] _chi_ (good luck), [Chinese] _ch´ing_ (prosperity),
etc.

(_c_) _Marks of commendation_ are also frequent, especially in the K´ang
Hsi period and on blue and white porcelain. They allude to the beauty of
the ware, comparing it with jade or gold or gems, or to the subject of
the decoration; and they vary in length from a single character such as
[Chinese] _yü_ (jade) to a sentence like _ch´i shih pao ting chih chên_ (a
gem among precious vessels of rare stone).

(_d_) A sacred symbol or emblematic ornament often replaces the mark
on K´ang Hsi porcelain; but as these will be found among the symbols,
etc., described in vol. ii., ch. xvii., there is no need to discuss them
any further. The most frequently used are the _pa pao_ (Eight Precious
Things), and the _pa chi hsiang_ (the Eight Buddhist Emblems of Happy
Augury).


MARKS OF FELICITATION, ETC.

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Shun_ = harmony.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Lu_ = prosperity.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Shou_ = longevity (seal form).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] The same, with the Swastika interwoven.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] The "spider" mark, a fanciful form of _shou_.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _hsi_ (joy) repeated = double joy, a
wedding symbol.]

[Illustration:  [Chinese] _tê hua ch'ang ch'un_ = virtue culture and
enduring spring; enclosed by _Wan li nien tsao_ = made in the Wan Li
period (1573-1619).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] Mark resembling a "cash" or coin inscribed
_ch'ang ming fu kuei_ = long life, riches, and honours!]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _fu kuei ch'ang ch'un_ = riches, honours,
and enduring spring!]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Wan fu yu t'ung_ = a myriad happinesses embrace
all (your affairs)!]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Kung ming fu kuei Hung fu ch'i t'ien_ = a
famous name, riches and honours, vast happiness equalling heaven!]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _t'ien t'i yi chia ch'un_ = spring time for
the whole family of heaven and earth.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _ta ya chai_ = pavilion of grand culture.
The Empress dowager's mark.]


MARKS OF COMMENDATION

[Illustration: [Chinese] _t´ien_ = heaven.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chên_ = a gem.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ya wan_ = elegant trinket.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ch´üan_ = complete.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Yü_ = jade.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Chên wan_ = precious trinket.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _fu kuei chia ch´i_ = fine vessel for the rich and
honourable.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Nan ch´uan chin yü_ = embroidered jade of
Nan-ch´uan (i.e. Ching-tê Chên).]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ch´i shih pao ting chih chên_ = a gem among
precious vessels of rare stone.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _Ai lien chên shang_ = precious reward of the
lover of the lotus.]

[Illustration: [Chinese] _han hsing_ = to contain fragrance.]

For other marks on porcelain and pottery see _Marks on Pottery and
Porcelain_, by W. Burton and R.L. Hobson, and _The New Chaffers_.


MISCELLANEOUS MARKS AND SYMBOLS

[Illustration: Conch-shell.]

[Illustration: Incense-burner (_ting_).]

[Illustration: _ju-i_ head.]

[Illustration: Knot (_chang_).]

[Illustration: Swastika (_wan_).]

[Illustration: Swastika in a lozenge symbol.]

[Illustration: Stork (on a late Ming blue and white dish).]

[Illustration: The moon hare.]

[Illustration: The moon hare.]

[Illustration: The moon hare.]

[Illustration: Artemisia leaf.]

[Illustration: Fungus (_ling-chih_).]

[Illustration: Fungus (_ling-chih_).]

[Illustration: _Fu_ (one of the twelve ornaments on ancient embroidery).]

    END OF VOL. I.

    PRINTED BY

    CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE,
    LONDON, E.C.

    F 15.115


FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 448: See _T'ao lu_, bk. viii., fol. 14 verso (quoting the _I
chih_): "In the sixteenth year of K'ang Hsi the district magistrate, Chang
Ch'i-chung, a man of Yang-ch'êng, forbade the workmen of Ching-tê Chên to
inscribe on the porcelain vessels the _nien hao_ of the Emperor or the
handwriting (_tzŭ chi_ [Chinese]) of the holy men, to prevent their being
broken and injured."]

[Footnote 449: See _Catalogue B.F.A._, 1910, E 4.]

[Footnote 450: This qualification is very necessary, because there are
plenty of inferior pieces with the Ch'êng Hua mark which are quite modern.]

[Footnote 451: The Ch´ien Lung enamelled Imperial ware is frequently
marked in red within a square panel reserved in the opaque bluish green
enamel which so often covers the base.]

[Footnote 452: For the complete tables of cycles see Mayers, op. cit., p.
362.]

[Footnote 453: Though the reign of K´ang Hsi officially dates from 1662,
in reality it began with the death of the previous Emperor in 1661; see p.
216.]

[Footnote 454: _O. C. A._, p. 79.]

[Footnote 455: Vol. ii., p. 167.]

[Footnote 456: Vol. ii, p. 34.]

       *       *       *       *       *

    +------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                 Transcriber's Notes:                       |
    |                                                            |
    | P. xxi. 'browish green', changed 'browish' to brownish'.   |
    | Taken hyphen out of 'Kuang-tung' to Kuangtung.             |
    | Taken hyphen out of 'Shan-tung' to Shantung.               |
    | 'Kiang-nan', not taking out hyphen.                        |
    | 'Po-lo' not taking out hyphen.                             |
    | Taken hyphen out of 'Kiang-su' to Kiangsu.                 |
    | Taken hyphen out of 'Chih-li' to Chihli.                   |
    | Taken hyphen out of 'Kuan-yin' to Kuanyin.                 |
    | Added hyphen in 'Pakhoi' to 'Pak-hoi.                      |
    | Corrected various punctuation.                             |
    +------------------------------------------------------------+