Apparently a coarse form of painting in blue was employedat 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 thepi 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 andfamille verte, thesang de bœufand peach–bloom reds, and for the development of thefamille rosepalette, 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.
BirminghamandEdinburghhave 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 inMing 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.
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.,ANDHOBSON, "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 theT´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.TheChiang hsi t´ung chihChinese characters. The topographical history of the province of Kiangsi, revised edition in 180 books, published in 1882.TheCh´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êngChinese characters. The encyclopædia of the K´ang Hsi period, Section XXXII. Handicrafts (k´ao kung). Part 8 entitledT´ao kung pu hui k´ao, and Part 248 entitledTz´ŭ ch´i pu hui k´ao.Chin shih so"Researches in Metal and Stone," by the Brothers Fêng. 1821.TheCh´ing pi ts´angChinese characters"A Storehouse of Artistic Rarities," by Chang Ying–wên, published by his son in 1595.TheChing–tê Chên t´ao luChinese characters, "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.TheChing tê yaoChinese characters, "Porcelain of Ching–tê Chên," a volume of MS. written about 1850.TheCho kêng luChinese characters, "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 theYüan 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 inLettres édifiantes et curieuses, and subsequently reprinted in Bushell's "Translation of theT´ao shuo" (q.v.), and translated in Burton's "Porcelain" (q.v.).DEGROOT, J. J. M., "Les Fêtes Annuellement Célébrées à Émoi," "Annales du Musée Guimet," Vols. XI. and XII. Paris, 1886.DEGROOT, 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.,ANDW. W. ROCKHILL, "Chau Ju–kua, his Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, entitledChu–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.,ANDBURTON, "Marks on Pottery and Porcelain," second edition. London, 1912.HSIANGYÜAN–P´IEN. See BUSHELL.JACQUEMART, A.,ANDE. LEBLANT, "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 theChing–tê Chên t´ao lu, with various notes and additions.TheKo ku yao lunChinese characters, "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.TheLi t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pienChinese characters, 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.ThePo wu yao lanChinese characters, "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.,ANDB. 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.SeeChing–tê Chên t´ao lu.T´ao shuoChinese characters, "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.SeeChin ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng.WARNER, LANGDON,ANDSHIBA–JUNROKURO, "Japanese Temples and their Treasures." Tokyo, 1910.WILLIAMS, S. WELLS, The Chinese Commercial Guide. Hongkong, 1863.YULE, SIRH., "The Book of Ser Marco Polo." London, 1903.ZIMMERMANN, E., "Chinesisches Porzellan." Leipzig, 1913.
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.,ANDHOBSON, "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 theT´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.
TheChiang hsi t´ung chihChinese characters. The topographical history of the province of Kiangsi, revised edition in 180 books, published in 1882.
TheCh´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êngChinese characters. The encyclopædia of the K´ang Hsi period, Section XXXII. Handicrafts (k´ao kung). Part 8 entitledT´ao kung pu hui k´ao, and Part 248 entitledTz´ŭ ch´i pu hui k´ao.
Chin shih so"Researches in Metal and Stone," by the Brothers Fêng. 1821.
TheCh´ing pi ts´angChinese characters"A Storehouse of Artistic Rarities," by Chang Ying–wên, published by his son in 1595.
TheChing–tê Chên t´ao luChinese characters, "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.
TheChing tê yaoChinese characters, "Porcelain of Ching–tê Chên," a volume of MS. written about 1850.
TheCho kêng luChinese characters, "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 theYüan 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 inLettres édifiantes et curieuses, and subsequently reprinted in Bushell's "Translation of theT´ao shuo" (q.v.), and translated in Burton's "Porcelain" (q.v.).
DEGROOT, J. J. M., "Les Fêtes Annuellement Célébrées à Émoi," "Annales du Musée Guimet," Vols. XI. and XII. Paris, 1886.
DEGROOT, 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.,ANDW. W. ROCKHILL, "Chau Ju–kua, his Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, entitledChu–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.,ANDBURTON, "Marks on Pottery and Porcelain," second edition. London, 1912.
HSIANGYÜAN–P´IEN. See BUSHELL.
JACQUEMART, A.,ANDE. LEBLANT, "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 theChing–tê Chên t´ao lu, with various notes and additions.
TheKo ku yao lunChinese characters, "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.
TheLi t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pienChinese characters, 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.
ThePo wu yao lanChinese characters, "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.,ANDB. 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.SeeChing–tê Chên t´ao lu.
T´ao shuoChinese characters, "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.SeeChin ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng.
WARNER, LANGDON,ANDSHIBA–JUNROKURO, "Japanese Temples and their Treasures." Tokyo, 1910.
WILLIAMS, S. WELLS, The Chinese Commercial Guide. Hongkong, 1863.
YULE, SIRH., "The Book of Ser Marco Polo." London, 1903.
ZIMMERMANN, E., "Chinesisches Porzellan." Leipzig, 1913.
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.,ANDO. 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 theNeue Rundschau, October, 1913.PERZYNSKI, F., on T´ang Forgeries,Ostasiatischer Zeitschrift, January, 1914.READ, C. H., inMan, 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.
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.,ANDO. 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 theNeue Rundschau, October, 1913.
PERZYNSKI, F., on T´ang Forgeries,Ostasiatischer Zeitschrift, January, 1914.
READ, C. H., inMan, 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.
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 (2697B. 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 (2317–2208B. C.) "highly esteemed pottery." Indeed, the Han historian Ssŭ–ma Ch´ien (163–85B. 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 theT´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 theT´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" (1122–256B. 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 3000B. C., and on Egyptian pottery of the twelfth dynasty (about 2200B. C.); while it is practically certain that it was used in the making of the Egyptian pottery of the fourth dynasty (about 3200B. 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 namedkueiandtou. 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 theT´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 theTso 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 theT´ao shuodescribes 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 centuryB. C.to the eighth centuryA. D.
The taste of the time is reflected in a sentence which occurs in theKuan–tzŭ, a work of the fifth centuryB. C.: "Ornamentation detracts from the merit of pottery."[10]The words used for ornamentation arewên ts´aiChinese characters(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 specimensof 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 characterCh´i, all unglazed and of grey earthenware. From this last piece, and from the fact that Lin–tzŭ, until it was destroyed in 221B. C., was the capital of the feudal kingdom of Ch´i, Laufer concluded that these wares belonged to a period before the Han dynasty (206B. C.to 220A. D.).
Plate 1.—Chou Pottery.Fig. 1.—Tripod Food Vessel. Height 61/8inches.Fig. 2.—Jar with deeply cut lozenge pattern. Height 63/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 1.—Chou Pottery.Fig. 1.—Tripod Food Vessel. Height 61/8inches.Fig. 2.—Jar with deeply cut lozenge pattern. Height 63/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 1.—Chou Pottery.
Fig. 1.—Tripod Food Vessel. Height 61/8inches.
Fig. 2.—Jar with deeply cut lozenge pattern. Height 63/4inches.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
THE HANChinese characterDYNASTY, 206B. C.TO 220A. 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 206B. 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 206B. C.and continued till 220A. 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 contactwith the West. The merchants brought back Syrian glass, the celebrated envoy Chang Ch´ien in the second centuryB. 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 67A. 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 thefirst 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 tosee, 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.
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 111/2inches.British Museum.Fig. 4.—"Granary urn," green glazed. Height 12 inches.Peters Collection.
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 111/2inches.British Museum.Fig. 4.—"Granary urn," green glazed. Height 12 inches.Peters Collection.
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 111/2inches.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 inSzechuan, 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 theT´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 theFine Arts Museum at Boston, has a posthumous date[22]incised on the neck corresponding to the year 133B. 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.