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 35/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—Ewer with dragon spout and handle; wave and cloud reliefs; brownish yellow glaze streaked with green. Height 115/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
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 35/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—Ewer with dragon spout and handle; wave and cloud reliefs; brownish yellow glaze streaked with green. Height 115/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
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 35/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—Ewer with dragon spout and handle; wave and cloud reliefs; brownish yellow glaze streaked with green. Height 115/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 10.—T'ang Pottery.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 1.—Dish with mirror pattern incised and coloured blue, green, etc.; inner border ofju–icloud 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 105/8inches.
Plate 10.—T'ang Pottery.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 1.—Dish with mirror pattern incised and coloured blue, green, etc.; inner border ofju–icloud 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 105/8inches.
Plate 10.—T'ang Pottery.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 1.—Dish with mirror pattern incised and coloured blue, green, etc.; inner border ofju–icloud 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 105/8inches.
Plate 11.—T´ang Wares.Fig. 1.—Cup with bands of impressed circles, brownish yellow glaze outside, green within. Height 25/8inches.Seligmann Collection.Fig. 2.—Cup of hard white ware with greenish white glaze. Height 23/8inches.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 31/4inches.Breuer Collection.
Plate 11.—T´ang Wares.Fig. 1.—Cup with bands of impressed circles, brownish yellow glaze outside, green within. Height 25/8inches.Seligmann Collection.Fig. 2.—Cup of hard white ware with greenish white glaze. Height 23/8inches.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 31/4inches.Breuer Collection.
Plate 11.—T´ang Wares.
Fig. 1.—Cup with bands of impressed circles, brownish yellow glaze outside, green within. Height 25/8inches.Seligmann Collection.Fig. 2.—Cup of hard white ware with greenish white glaze. Height 23/8inches.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 31/4inches.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 scrolldesigns 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 theBurlington 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 wareis 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 mayinfer 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 theOnjoji 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, theCh´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 thepi sêor "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]Thepi 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 theChing–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 usualch´ingware, implying a difference of some kind between thepi sêand thech´ingglaze.
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 havean 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 oldpi sêware 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 theChing–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.
TheCh´a Chingenumerates five other T´ang factories which supplied tea bowls, all of them inferior in reputation to the Yüeh Chou kilns. Ting ChouChinese charactersin the Hsi–an Fu,[74]in Shensi; Wu ChouChinese charactersin the Chin–hua Fu, in Chêkiang; Yo ChouChinese charactersin Hunan; Shou ChouChinese charactersin Kiangnan; and Hung ChouChinese characters, 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 theKo 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 theCh´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 thepi sêware 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 theKo ku yao lun[79]states that it was made at Chêng Chou, in Honan, and namedch´aiby 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]
Plate 12.—T´ang Pottery with green glaze.Fig. 1.—Bottle with impressed key–fret. Height 71/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Ewer with incised foliage scrolls. Height 41/4inches.Alexander Collection.Fig. 3.—Vase with foliage scrolls, painted in black under the glaze, incised border on the shoulder. Height 41/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 12.—T´ang Pottery with green glaze.Fig. 1.—Bottle with impressed key–fret. Height 71/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Ewer with incised foliage scrolls. Height 41/4inches.Alexander Collection.Fig. 3.—Vase with foliage scrolls, painted in black under the glaze, incised border on the shoulder. Height 41/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 12.—T´ang Pottery with green glaze.
Fig. 1.—Bottle with impressed key–fret. Height 71/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Ewer with incised foliage scrolls. Height 41/4inches.Alexander Collection.Fig. 3.—Vase with foliage scrolls, painted in black under the glaze, incised border on the shoulder. Height 41/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 13.—T´ang Pottery.Fig. 1.—Pilgrim Bottle with lily palmette and raised rosettes, green glaze. Height 71/2inches.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 81/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 13.—T´ang Pottery.Fig. 1.—Pilgrim Bottle with lily palmette and raised rosettes, green glaze. Height 71/2inches.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 81/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 13.—T´ang Pottery.
Fig. 1.—Pilgrim Bottle with lily palmette and raised rosettes, green glaze. Height 71/2inches.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 81/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
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 193/4inches.Rothenstein Collection.Fig. 2.—Sepulchral Amphora, hard white ware with greenish white glaze, serpent handles. Height 191/4inches.Schneider Collection.Fig. 3.—Ewer with large foliage and lotus border in carved relief, green glaze. Height 61/2inches.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.
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 193/4inches.Rothenstein Collection.Fig. 2.—Sepulchral Amphora, hard white ware with greenish white glaze, serpent handles. Height 191/4inches.Schneider Collection.Fig. 3.—Ewer with large foliage and lotus border in carved relief, green glaze. Height 61/2inches.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.
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 193/4inches.Rothenstein Collection.Fig. 2.—Sepulchral Amphora, hard white ware with greenish white glaze, serpent handles. Height 191/4inches.Schneider Collection.Fig. 3.—Ewer with large foliage and lotus border in carved relief, green glaze. Height 61/2inches.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, whichwe 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.
THE SUNGChinese characterDYNASTY, 960–1279A. D.
WITH the Sung dynasty firmly established in 960A. 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 ofconnoisseurs 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 theHsüan Ho po ku t´u lu, "Illustrated discussion of the antiquities in the palace of Hsüan Ho," and theKu 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 theLi Chiby 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 thenien haoof 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 venerationfor 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 wordch´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 theSung. 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 holdsla qualité maîtresse de la céramique, as an enthusiasticFrench 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 slightvariations 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.
Plate 15.—Sung Wares.Fig. 1.—Peach–shaped Water Vessel, dark–coloured biscuit, smooth greenish grey glaze. (?) Ju or Kuan ware. Length 51/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Figs. 2 and 3.—Shallow Cup with flanged handle, and covered box, opalescent grey glaze. Kuan or Chün wares. Length of cup 71/2inches. Diameter of box 61/16inches.Rothenstein Collection.
Plate 15.—Sung Wares.Fig. 1.—Peach–shaped Water Vessel, dark–coloured biscuit, smooth greenish grey glaze. (?) Ju or Kuan ware. Length 51/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Figs. 2 and 3.—Shallow Cup with flanged handle, and covered box, opalescent grey glaze. Kuan or Chün wares. Length of cup 71/2inches. Diameter of box 61/16inches.Rothenstein Collection.
Plate 15.—Sung Wares.
Fig. 1.—Peach–shaped Water Vessel, dark–coloured biscuit, smooth greenish grey glaze. (?) Ju or Kuan ware. Length 51/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Figs. 2 and 3.—Shallow Cup with flanged handle, and covered box, opalescent grey glaze. Kuan or Chün wares. Length of cup 71/2inches. Diameter of box 61/16inches.
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 presenceof 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? Theflambéglazes 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 inPorcelain of Different Dynasties.[94]The original was unfortunately destroyed byfire 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.
JU, KUAN, AND KO WARES
Ju yaoChinese characters
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 ach´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 (960–1127A. D.), implies that whatever had been their past history, the Ju Chou factories were at this period pre–eminent for the beauty of theirch´ingporcelain. It would appear from theCh´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´aiware), pale blue or green,[97]and "egg white"[98]which seems to imply a white ware with a faint greenish tinge. The author of theCh'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 fairlyinfer 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 descriptiontan ch´ingorfên 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 oldpi–sêware of Yüeh Chou and thenewJu 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´ingandfên 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 ofch´ingware 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, andthough 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 areductio 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, butFig. 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 thefên ch´ingof the Ju?
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 91/2inches.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 askinuta. seijiin Japan, where it is highly prized.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Height 41/8inches.
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 91/2inches.
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 askinuta. seijiin Japan, where it is highly prized.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Height 41/8inches.