Another specimen of reputed Ju ware is an exquisite peach–shaped brush–washer or cup in the Eumorfopoulos Collection (Plate 15, Fig. 1). It has a dark–coloured body and a beautiful smooth glaze of pale greenish grey tint, and whatever its origin, it is certainly a refined and beautiful example of the potter's art.
This ware is only second in importance to the Ju yao, and its exact nature is scarcely less speculative. The name, which means "official" or "Imperial" ware, seems to have been first applied to the porcelains made for Imperial use at the Northern Sung capital, the modern K´ai–fêng Fu, in Honan. The factory was established at the command of the Emperor Hui Tsung in the Chêng Ho period (1111–1117), according to the earliest[113]or in the preceding Ta Kuan period (1107–1110), according to a later[114]account. Its career, however, was interrupted by the flight of the Sung Court south of the Yangtze in 1127, though it is probable that a number of the potters followed the Court. At any rate, the traditions of the original factory were continued at the new capital, Hang Chou, by an official named Shao Ch´êng–shang, who set up kilns in the Imperial precincts, in the department calledHsiu net ssŭ. Another writer locates this factory under the Phœnix Hill. Shortly afterwards a new pottery was started "below the suburban altar" at Hang Chou, which copied the forms of the older Kuan ware, but without equalling its quality. We have then no fewer than three different makes all included in the name of Kuan yao, all following one tradition but differing, as we shall see, in material and quality.
The first is the K´ai–fêng Fu variety. The earlier writers intheCho kêng luandKo ku yao lunmake no attempt to differentiate[115]this porcelain from the later Kuan yao, but we find in a sixteenth–century collection of miscellanies, theLiu ch´ing jih cha, the following scrap of information: that "specimens (of the K´ai–fêng ware) with streaky colour, white on the upper part and thin as paper, were inferior to Ju ware"; and the more modernT´ao luinforms us that the K´ai–fêng Kuan ware was made of fine unctuous material with thin body, the colour of the glaze beingch´ing(blue or green) with a tinge of pale red (fên hung) and of varying depth of tone. It is further stated that in the Ta Kuan period moon white orclair de lune(yüeh pai), pale green or blue (fên ch´ing) and deep green (ta lü) glazes were esteemed, whereas in the Chêng Ho period only thech´ingcolour in varying depth of tone was used. Moreover, the glaze had "crab's claw crackle," and the vessels had a "red–brown mouth and iron foot." The latter phrase (explained below) is not consistent with the account in theLiu ch´ing jih cha, "white on the upper part," which certainly implies a light–coloured clay, but I confess that I have little confidence in the subtle distinctions of theT´ao luin this passage. They are mere assertions, without any reasons given, and it is not difficult to find a source from which they may in part, at least, have been derived, and which in itself guarantees no such differentiation.[116]It is likely enough that the K´ai–fêng ware differed in body from the red ware of Hang Chou, but it is not likely to have differed very greatly in other respects, seeing that the southern variety continued the traditions of the northern, and that the earliest authorities do not trouble to distinguish the two wares at all.
Another critic,[117]discussing Kuan ware as a whole, makes its characteristics practically the same as those of the Ko ware, to which we shall come next, and states that "in regard to colour, in both cases the pale ch´ing (fên ch´ing) specimens are the best,the 'pale white' (tan pai[118]) are second, while those with ash–coloured (hui sê) glaze are very inferior." From the same writer we gather that artificial staining of the crackle was employed on both Kuan and Ko wares, for he speaks of "ice–crackle with lines red as eel's blood" and "plum–blossom[119]crackle with ink–coloured lines," besides an inferior type of crackle with fine lines which did not suggest any particular pattern.
The Hang Chou Kuan ware, variously described asKuan yao,Hsiu nei ssŭ yao,Nei yao, andShao yaofrom the locality of the factory and the name of its manager, is described in both theCho kêng luand theKo ku yao lun. In the former it was said to be ach´ingware, "finely levigated clay[120]is the rule, and it is of very exquisite make; the coloured glaze is translucent[121]; it is the delight of the age."[122]The latter,[123]which makes no mention of an earlier Kuan ware, gives the following description of theNei yao: "The material is fine and unctuous, the colourch´ingwith a flush of pale red (tai fên hung) and of varying intensity. Specimens with crab's–claw crackle, brown mouth, and iron foot, and of good colour rank with Ju yao. There are, besides, specimens with a black body which are calledwu ni yao. All the imitations which are made at Lung–ch´üan are without crackle."
Further information is given in thePo wu yao lan, viz. that the clay used at the factory below the Phœnix Hill at Hang Chou for making Kuan yao was of reddish brown (tzŭ) colour, and that this explains the phenomenon of the "brown mouth and iron foot"[124]; for "the brown mouth is due to the fact that the vessel's mouthpoints upwards and the glaze flows downwards and is thinner at the mouth than on the rest of the body, so that the brown colour (of the clay) is disclosed at the mouth." The iron foot is, of course, the raw edge of the clay which appears at the foot rim. As this peculiarity is not noted in theCho kêng lu, we are at liberty to infer that it was not a constant feature of the Kuan wares, and that some of them, as already hinted in the quotation from theLiu ch´ing jih cha, had a whitish body.
Of the third Kuan yao made "below the suburban altar" at a slightly later date, we know nothing except that it followed the style of the older wares, but with inferior results.
Though we do not pretend to attach much weight to the illustrations in Hsiang's Album, the descriptions in the accompanying text cannot be ignored. They include ten specimens of Kuan yao,[125]five of which are explained asfên ch´ing(pale blue or green). Of the rest one is "palech´ingclear and lustrous like a sapphire blue jewel,"[126]evidently with a decidedly blue tinge; another is "kingfisher, blue as the clear blue sky,"[127]recalling the Ch´ai "blue of the sky after rain "; another is "sky blue" (t´ien ch´ing); another "onion green" (ch´ing ts´ung), the colour of onion sprouts; and another is "egg green" (luan ch´ing), which recalls and perhaps explains theluan pai(egg white) of the Ju yao.
Two examples of Sung wares of the Chün or Kuan factories.
Fig. 1.—Bowl with lavender glaze, lightly crackled.O. Raphael Collection.Height 41/2inches.Fig. 2.—Vase with smooth lavender grey glaze suffused with purple.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Height 33/4inches.
Fig. 1.—Bowl with lavender glaze, lightly crackled.O. Raphael Collection.Height 41/2inches.
Fig. 2.—Vase with smooth lavender grey glaze suffused with purple.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Height 33/4inches.
Among the various Sung and Yüan wares with more or less opalescent glazes which have reached Europe in recent years, it is possible to differentiate a considerable group whose characteristics seem to point to the Kuan yao. Their body is usually of fine grain, whitish colour and porcellanous texture, but assuming a rusty brownish tint in the exposed parts. It is, in fact, very much finer than the Yüan wares, usually so called, and all but the choicest wares of Chün type (see ch. ix.). The glaze, too, though generally opalescent, shows marked differences from that of the Chün and Yüan pieces. It is smooth and even instead of being lumpy andirregular, and it ends close up to the foot rim in a comparatively regular line instead of ending short of the base in a thick roll or in heavy drops. And the base instead of being quite bare or covered with a brown glaze, has a patch of the surface glaze underneath. The colours of this glaze show wide variations from a deep brownish green, which suggest theta lü, to pale dove grey (fên ch´ing) and pale lavender blue tints, which approximate to the Chineset´ien ch´ingor sky blue, though perhaps not so closely as does the so–called "old turquoise." Some of these glazes, especially the pale lavender and dove greys, are broken by passages of red or crimson, which in turn shade off into green and brown tints. Although the expressiontai fên hungin theKo ku yao lun[128]has already been rendered in its most natural sense, "with a tinge of red," we should perhaps mention a possible alternative which might make it refer to these very passages of red colour; and the fact that they sometimes assume fantastic shapes will explain why the Chinese saw in them "butterflies, birds, fish, unicorns, and leopards."[129]On the other hand, it is clear that these passages of red are not always accidental, for they sometimes take symmetrical forms, and it is quite possible that even the bird and fish forms may have been roughly designed in the colouring medium.
Plate 17 will serve to illustrate this group of possible Kuan wares. Another example is a dish in the British Museum which has a whitish porcellanous body and a slightly crackled pale lavender grey glaze of singular beauty. Other specimens in the same collection include a small tea bowl with misty grey glaze of thefên ch´ingtype, smooth and uncrackled, and a body which appears deep reddish brown at the foot; and a small bottle–shaped vase, with lobed body of melon shape, which, though of doubtful antiquity, answers closely to the Chinese descriptions. It has a dark–coloured but well levigated body, deep brown at the foot, and showing a brown tinge where the glaze has run thin at the lip, and the colouris a pale bluish grey with rosy tinges where the body colour is able to penetrate the semi–translucent glaze. Another doubtful specimen, with very similar characteristics, was figured by me in theBurlington Magazinesome years ago.[130]
Since the genuine Sung specimens were sent to the Imperial factories to be closely copied (about 1730), it might be supposed that the relatively modern imitations would supply some clue to the original types. There are one or two examples of eighteenth–century copies of Kuan ware in the British Museum on which the glaze is definitely lavender blue in tint, with a crackle which in one case is wide and emphasised by blackened lines, and in the other of a finer mesh.[131]The natural tendency, however, of modern imitative wares is to exaggerate some characteristic which this or that potter might imagine to be specially important, and as it is impossible to say in many cases exactly when the piece in question was made, we cannot be sure how far the potters in each case may have strayed from the original type.[132]No doubt in time these imitations would become a mere convention. It should be said in passing that the modern copies have a white porcelain body, and to obtain the appearance of "brown mouth and iron foot" the potters had recourse to the expedient of colouring the parts concerned with brown ferruginous clay.
TheCho kêng lu[133]refers to three minor wares which were regarded as inferior to Kuan ware, and later writers have assumed that they belonged to the same category. These are the Hsü wares, Yü–hang wares, andwu–niwares. The first[134]is so little known that its identity has been lost in variant readings, such as HsünChinese characterin later writers, which is very near in appearance totungChinese character, a common form used for the Tung ware (see p. 82); and we can safely leave it until some clearer information is forthcoming. The second, accordingto theT´ao lu,[135]was a Sung ware made at Yü–hang Hsien, in the prefecture of Hang Chou. "Its colour was like Kuan porcelain without its crackle, its lustre (jung), and its unctuous richness (jun)." Thewu–niware is dark–bodied earthenware, which is discussed on p. 133.
Plate 18.—Sung dynasty.Fig. 1.—Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green celadon glaze. Northern Chinese. Diameter 73/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey stoneware, burnt reddish brown, milky grey glaze, closely crackled. Height 7 inches.Freer Collection.
Plate 18.—Sung dynasty.Fig. 1.—Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green celadon glaze. Northern Chinese. Diameter 73/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey stoneware, burnt reddish brown, milky grey glaze, closely crackled. Height 7 inches.Freer Collection.
Plate 18.—Sung dynasty.
Fig. 1.—Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green celadon glaze. Northern Chinese. Diameter 73/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey stoneware, burnt reddish brown, milky grey glaze, closely crackled. Height 7 inches.Freer Collection.
Ko yao(the elder brother's ware), orKo ko yao, as it is sometimes called with the first character repeated, is unanimously ranked by Chinese writers with the Ju and Kuan wares. According to the traditional accounts, it was first made by the elder of the two brothers ChangChinese character, who were potters of Lung–ch´üan Hsien in the Ch´u–chou Fu, province of Chekiang, each having a separate factory in the Liu–t´ien district. Most of the Chinese authorities are content to give the date of these brothers as some time in the Sung dynasty, but one account[136]narrows the period down to the Southern Sung (1127–1279A. D.). Professor Hirth takes the rationalistic view that the story of the brothers is a myth embodying the fact that there were two distinct types of ware made in the Lung–ch´üan district. Be this as it may, the Ko yao is of considerable interest to us as forming a link between the obscure Ju and Kuan wares and the well–known Lung–ch´üan celadon, approaching the latter in its grass green and sea green varieties and the former in its most highly prized specimens of bluish green or grey tones.
Of its close resemblance to the Kuan ware there can be no doubt, for two highly reputable Chinese writers[137]describe the two wares simultaneously and under one heading, enumerating their various colours in order of merit asfên ch´ing,tan pai, andhui sê(see p. 60), besides mentioning the several kinds of crackle which appeared in the glaze. The only distinctions which the author of theCh´ing pi ts´angdraws between the two wares are that (1) the Kuan yao crackle is of the "crab's claw"[138]type, while that of the Ko is like fish–roe,[139]and (2) the Ko glaze is somewhat less beautiful thanthe Kuan. With regard to the crackle, other writers assert that short cracks are characteristic of the Ko yao, and one author uses the picturesque phrase, "crackle of a hundred dangers."[140]
Accidental splashes of contrasting colour, which sometimes assumed fantastic forms, were common to the Ko and Kuan wares, as mentioned on p. 65, and the author of thePo wu yao lanexplains these as "originating in the colour of the glaze and forming on its outer surface," and as "due to the fire's magic transmutation."
Another account of the ware given in theKo ku yao lundepicts it as of deep or palech´ingcolour, with brown mouth and iron foot, and adds that when the colour was good it was classed with Tung[141]ware. The same passage further informs us that a great quantity of the ware "recently made at the end of the Yüan dynasty" was coarse and dry in body and inferior in colour, a statement to which we shall return presently.
Vase of close–grained, dark reddish brown stoneware with thick, smooth glaze, boldly crackled. Ko ware of the Sung dynasty.
Height 105/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Other descriptive references to Ko yao include a verse on a Ko ink palette belonging to Ku Liu,[142]which was "green (lü) as the waves in spring"; the eighteenth–century list of Imperial wares[143]which mention "Ko glazes on an iron body," of two kinds, viz. millet–coloured and pale green[144](or blue), both stated to have been copied from ancient specimens sent down from the palace; and a single specimen in Hsiang's Album, which is given asfên ch´ing.
In these various descriptions it is possible to recognise a celadon green ware, green as the waves of spring, while the familiar stone grey and buff crackled wares, which range from greyish white to pale grey green and greenish yellow, seem to be indicated in the expressionsmi sê,fên ch´ing,tan pai, andhui sê. The modern versions of the latter class, which are fairly common, are usually known even to–day asKo yao, the expression in potter's language being practically synonymous with "crackled wares."[145]Other ancient factories where similar wares were made are Hsiang–hu and Chi Chou.[146]
As for the finer Ko wares, which appear to have been indistinguishable from the Kuan, we may look for them in the group described on p. 65, and in such beautiful pieces as that illustrated on Plate 19, a vase of fine oval form with delicate grey glaze of faint bluish tone boldly crackled. The solid quality of the glaze of this last specimen and the texture of the surface, which is smooth but lustrous, suggest some natural substance such as the shell of an egg or a smooth polished stone rather than an artificial material. The colour perhaps more truly answers the description "egg white" (luan pai) than any other Sung glaze which I have seen. Plate 20 illustrates another choice example but with a yellower tone of glaze; and a large square vase in the Freer Collection[147]with thick, mistygrey glaze showing a faint tinge of red, which recall thesê ch´ing tai fên hungof the Kuan ware, was shown in the New York exhibition of 1914. All these three specimens have a dark reddish brown body of fine close grain, and their glaze is very thick and unctuous with a tendency to contract into thick wax–like drops under the base.
From certain passages in the Chinese works it appears that a revival of the Ko yao took place in the Yüan dynasty, if indeed the manufacture had not been continuous. TheKo ku yao lun, for instance, under the heading of Ko yao, states that the "ware recently made at the end of the Yüan dynasty was coarse and dry in body and inferior in colour." In thePo wu yao lan[148]we read that "certain Ko wares made in private factories took their clay from the Phœnix Hill" (at Hang Chou, where the Kuan potteries were located), and theT´ao lu[149]definitely states that clay was brought from Hang Chou for this later Ko ware. Add to these the remark in theKo ku yao lunon the subject of Kuan ware[150]—"all the imitations which are made at Lung–ch´üan are without crackle"—and it is clear that the Lung–ch´üan potters in the fourteenth century were busy copying both the Kuan and Ko wares, and that to obtain a closer resemblance to the former they actually sent to Hang Chou for the red clay which would produce the "brown mouth and iron foot." The alleged absence of crackle would indicate a departure from the original Ko methods, but we are at liberty to doubt the universal application of such sweeping statements, and I ventured to suggest[151]that a remarkable bowl in the British Museum was a Yüan example of Ko ware, because, in spite of its Ko crackle, it corresponds so closely to the other points in the descriptions of this make. In any case, there is little doubt that it belongs to an early period of manufacture.
Deep Bowl of reddish brown stoneware with thick, boldly crackled glaze. Ko ware of the Sung dynasty.
Height (without stand) 4 inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Wide rimmed bowl sitting on decorated stand
The following extract from a work entitledPi chuang so yü,[152]which would be still more interesting if we knew its date, serves to illustrate some of the difficulties the Chinese collector had to face in the past: "Ancient examples of Ko yao of the Sung period have survived, though for a long time past genuine and counterfeit have been confused together. Among men there are very many who seek for the genuine Sung, but refined and beautiful specimens are exceedingly few.... Ts´ao Chiung, a man of high birth, secured an incense burner, in height about two inches and in width proportionate. The cover was beautiful jade carved with a pattern of sea waves ofTung ch´ing[153]colour, with a handle in form of a crane, a genuine piece, and exceedingly beautiful. It came to the ears of the eunuch Mai, governor of the district, and he put Chiung in prison and subjected him to the inquisition. His son had no choice but to offer the vessel as a gift. Later the powerful hand of the superintendent of the Board of Rites seized it. In the Chêng Tê period (1522–66) it was stolen, and, coming to the district below Wu, it became the property of Chang Hsin–fu of Tien–shan, Shanghai, who sold it for 200 ounces of gold. After that it came again into the hands of a connoisseur, and the Imperial authorities in the end did not succeed in recovering it. This was a genuine antique Ko vessel."
LUNG–CH´ÜAN YAOChinese characters
IN discussing the celebrated Lung–ch´üan celadons, we are able to build our structure on a more solid basis. For one group of them, at any rate, is so familiar that we should be tempted to abandon the difficult Chinese descriptions and construct an essay on the ware from actually existing specimens, were it not that in so doing we should miss our chief opportunity of applying a living test to the Chinese phrases.
The district of Lung–ch´üan in the prefecture of Ch´u–chou, province of Chekiang, was noted for its potteries as early[154]as the beginning of the Sung dynasty, but its greatest celebrity was attained by the market town of Liu–t´ien, where the Chang brothers are reputed to have worked.[155]The story that the elder Chang moved to Liu–t´ien while the younger brother remained at Lung–ch´üan is, I believe, based on a misreading of a Chinese passage,[156]the true meaning of which seems to be that while the elder brother made new departures which earned for his ware the distinctive name of Ko yao, the younger continued the Lung–ch´üan traditions, and consequently his ware was known as Lung–ch´üan yao. It appears that one vital difference between the two wares was crackle, which was used by the elder and not by the younger brother.
The productions of the Lung–ch´üan district are variously named in theKo ku yao lun, "Ch´uware" (from Ch´u–chou Fu, the name of the prefecture), "ch´ingware," and "oldch´ingware,"and the various Chinese accounts agree in distinguishing two broad classes, the one having a thin body of fine material, and the other a thick body of coarser and heavier make.
The first of these two classes includes the Chang yao, or ware of the younger Chang, of which theCh´ing pi ts´anggives the following description: "There is one kind in the manufacture of which white clay is used, and the surface of the ware is covered withts´ui[157]glaze through which the white shows in faint patches. This is what was made by the Chang family in the Sung dynasty, and is called Chang yao. Compared with the Lung–ch´üan ware in style and make, it gives the impression of greater delicacy and refinement." Another writer[158]describes it as "single–coloured and pure, like beautiful jade, and ranking with the Kuan yao; whereas the Ko yao was pale in colour."
The eleven examples figured and described in Hsiang's Album are all apparently of this class, and their colour is variously described as "green, of jade–green tint (ts´ui pi), like a wet, mossy bank or slender willow twigs," "green like the green of onion (sprouts)" (ts´ui jo ch´ing ts´ung), "green like parrot's feathers," "green like the dull green (lü) of a melon," and "soft jade–green like onion sprouts in autumn." Hsiang's similes leave no doubt as to the prevailing tint of the ware, which clearly aimed at rivalling the tint of the prized green jade. As might be expected, few if any of Chang's celadons are to be found in our collections. Relatively few in numbers, assuming them to have been the work of one lifetime, and slender in structure, it is improbable that many of them can have survived the chances of eight or nine hundred years, and even supposing that any of them have reached Europe, their identity now could only be a matter of conjecture.
The second class is best known to us in those thick, massive porcelains with greyish white body and smooth grey green glaze which have been named in Persian countriesmartabaniand in Europeceladon. The former name is no doubt derived from the port of Martaban, on the coast of Pegu, a meeting place of Eastern and Western traders, from which the Chinese goods were shipped or transhipped for Europe and the nearer East. The latter namehas a more capricious origin, deriving from the shepherd Céladon, a stage personality whose familiar grey green clothing suggested a name for the grey green porcelain. He appeared in one of the plays founded on the early seventeenth–century romance,L'Astrée, written by Honoré d'Urfé.
Large dishes and plates, bowls, vases, bulb bowls and jars of this green ware have found their way to all parts of Europe in considerable numbers, and they evidently formed a staple of far Eastern trade in the Middle Ages. The subject of their distribution will be treated presently. First, we must complete their description.
The ware, as a general rule, has a greyish white mass varying from porcelain to stoneware, and with the peculiar quality of assuming a reddish brown tint wherever the glaze is absent and the "biscuit" was exposed to the fire of the kiln. It has, in fact, the "iron foot" though not the "brown mouth," for the body is of a whitish colour under the glaze, and consequently the mouth of the vessel varies from green to greenish white, according to the thickness of the glaze. The decoration is either carved, etched with fine point, or raised in relief by pressing in an intaglio mould or by the application of small ornaments separately formed in moulds. All these processes are applied to the body before the glaze is added, and the glaze, though covering them over, is transparent enough to allow the details to appear fairly distinctly. In the case of the applied reliefs, however, the glaze is often locally omitted, and the ornaments stand out in biscuit, which has assumed the usual reddish brown tint. This is well illustrated on Plate 21, in which two brown fishes are represented swimming round a sea green dish. A dish in the British Museum shows three fishes swimming beneath the green surface of the glaze. This fish design was frequent enough to have earned special notice in Chinese books, which are excessively niggard in their enumeration of designs. TheKo ku yao lun,[159]for instance, says "there is one kind of dish on the bottom of which is a pair of fishes, and on the outside are copper rings attached to lift it."
Elaborate designs of flowers, flying phœnixes in peony scrolls, dragons in clouds or waves, formed in relief by pressure in moulds, were certainly used on Sung celadons just as they were in the white Ting wares, but they seem to have been still more common on the Ming wares. But the best and most characteristic Sungdecoration was a beautiful freehand carving executed with admirable spirit and taste, in those bold, half naturalistic, half idealised sketches which distinguish the art of the time. Complex ornament, such as landscape and figure subjects, is occasionally found on old celadons; and there is one kind of bowl of rounded form with rather high narrow foot which is decorated inside with groups of figures carved or impressed in intaglio, the subjects being the eight Taoist Immortals, or historical personages such as Confucius, the chess–playing General, etc., usually labelled with their names in Chinese characters. The glaze on these bowls varies widely in colour and texture, being sometimes smooth celadon green, sometimes yellowish or brownish green or again a pale apple green with crackled surface; and it is possible that they come from some district other than Lung–ch´üan.[160]
The Lung–ch´üan celadon glaze is singularly beautiful with its soft, smooth translucent texture and restful tints, which vary from olive green through grass green and sea green to pale greenish grey, occasionally showing a decidedly bluish tone. The ware has enjoyed immense popularity in almost every part of the world for untold years, and nowhere more than in Japan, where choice specimens have always been highly valued, and it is not a little surprising to find that in this country alone its merits are underestimated. The Chinese themselves have been always loud in their praises of the finer varieties, though they have not always spoken in complimentary terms of the thick and massive types which were so suitable for the export trade. Of these theCh´ing pi ts´angobserves that they readily withstand usage and handling, and do not easily break; but the workmanship is somewhat clumsy, and the designs are lacking in antique elegance. With the finer examples within reach, these strictures were perhaps only natural; but there has never been any doubt of the Chinese appreciation of the celadon glaze, for while they have never ceased to reproduce it in other factories, it is always the old Lung–ch´üan ware which serves as their standard and model.
The modern celadon glaze is made by mixing ferruginous clay with the ordinary feldspathic glaze and adding a pinch of cobalt (the mineral from which the blue colour is obtained) to give it the requisite tone[161]; and it is certain that the colour of the oldceladons is due to the presence of oxide of iron, whether assisted or not by oxide of cobalt. Possibly the earliest celadons were the accidental result of the iron in a strongly ferruginous clay escaping in the heat of the kiln and imparting a green tinge to an otherwise colourless glaze. The conditions in the Lung–ch´üan district would have specially favoured such an accident, for the local clays were of the ferruginous kind, as is shown by their peculiarity, which we have already noted, of turning red or reddish brown when exposed without protection to the heat of the kiln. The presence of iron in greater or less quantity is a common feature of potter's clays all the world over, and it is usual in modern potteries to pass the clay over strong magnets in order to remove this disturbing element when a pure white ware is in view. This fact alone will explain the prevalence of green tints of the celadon type among the earlier Chinese wares, and observation of these results would naturally lead to the discovery that a certain quantity of particular clay mixed with the ordinary glaze would produce a beautiful green colour, resembling jade. The reddish brown spots occasionally observed in old celadon glazes are no doubt due to flaws in the glaze–covering, which allowed a partial exposure of the body, or to a local excess of iron oxide in the material. Like a great many other accidental effects, these were turned to account by the Chinese, and in some examples we find patches of brown which evince a deliberate intention (Plate 21). These effects are highly prized by the Japanese, who call the wareTobi seijior "spotted celadon."
The manufacture of celadon must have been very extensive in the Lung–ch´üan district. Besides the principal factories at Liu–t´ien Shih, there were minor works at Chin–ts´un already mentioned, and according to theT´ao lu[162]at Li–shui Hsien[163]in the Ch´u–chou Fu, the latter already operative in the Sung dynasty. Its wares were included in the comprehensive termCh´u yao, and "the material was coarse and thick, the colour similar to that of Lung–ch´üan ware, both dark and light, but the workmanship was coarser."
At the beginning of the Ming dynasty, we are told[164]that the Lung–ch´üan factories were removed to Ch´u–chou, and that the ware made on the new site was green (ch´ing), with a white body which, like the older ware, assumed a red colour in the exposed parts, but that the ware was not so good as the old. Local tradition asserts that the celadon industry in the district came to an end with the Ming dynasty.[165]
Plate 21.—Three examples of Lung–ch´üan Celadon Porcelain.Fig. 1.—Plate of spotted celadon. (?) Sung dynasty. Diameter 61/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Octagonal Vase with crackled glaze and biscuit panels moulded with figures of the Eight Immortals in clouds. (?) Fourteenth century. Height 91/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—Dish with engraved lotus scrolls and two fishes in biscuit. Sung dynasty. Diameter 11 inches.Gotha Museum.
Plate 21.—Three examples of Lung–ch´üan Celadon Porcelain.Fig. 1.—Plate of spotted celadon. (?) Sung dynasty. Diameter 61/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Octagonal Vase with crackled glaze and biscuit panels moulded with figures of the Eight Immortals in clouds. (?) Fourteenth century. Height 91/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—Dish with engraved lotus scrolls and two fishes in biscuit. Sung dynasty. Diameter 11 inches.Gotha Museum.
Plate 21.—Three examples of Lung–ch´üan Celadon Porcelain.
Fig. 1.—Plate of spotted celadon. (?) Sung dynasty. Diameter 61/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Octagonal Vase with crackled glaze and biscuit panels moulded with figures of the Eight Immortals in clouds. (?) Fourteenth century. Height 91/4inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Dish with engraved lotus scrolls and two fishes in biscuit. Sung dynasty. Diameter 11 inches.Gotha Museum.
Connoisseurs are much exercised over the differences between Sung and Ming celadons. TheT´ao lutells us nothing beyond the bare statement that the Ming ware was not so good, and the two general rules which have been laid down[166]for our guidance—viz. (1) that the colour of the Sung wares is deeper and more grass green, that of the Ming more grey green, and (2) that the bottoms of the Ming vessels are distinguished by an unglazed ring of reddish brown colour—can only be accepted with reserve. Of the two the colour test is probably the more reliable, but I have found too many exceptions in which the grey green occurs on pieces of obviously Sung origin to feel any great confidence in its guidance. The ring test breaks down in practice, and is illogical in its conception, implying, as it does, that the use of a circular support in the kiln was limited to one particular place and period. On the contrary, we know that this method of support was usual in the Siamese factories at Sawankalok,[167]and apparently before the Ming period, and as the Siamese potteries were started by Chinese, probably sent from Western China, it is only fair to suppose that this method of manufacture was in general use at an early date. The safest criterion of Sung workmanship is the style of the ware, and especially the boldness and freedom of the carved designs. In the Ming period the Sung patterns already exhibit an inevitable staleness and conventionality with a tendency to overcrowding of detail. In some cases, too, the designs are of a later order, and closely analogous to those of the blue and white Ming porcelains.
In addition to the Lung–ch´üan and Ch´u–chou celadons, which are readily recognised by their peculiar glaze and their reddish brown foot rims, there are many other kinds which are not easy to classify. Some of these have a dry, buff stoneware body and brownish green glaze, while others have a glaze of decided greyor blue grey tone. In conjecturing the origin of these we must take into consideration the private factories which existed under the Northern Sung at Ch´ên–liu[168]and other localities in the neighbourhood of the eastern capital (tung ching), now named K´ai–fêng Fu, in Honan. TheKo ku yao lun[169]describes the ware of these parts under the headingTung yao[170]: "It is pale green (ch´ing) in colour, with fine crackle, and in many cases has a brown mouth and iron foot. Compared with Kuan ware it lacks the red tinge, and its material is coarse, wanting in fineness and lustre, and far from equalling that of the Kuan ware. At the present day (i.e. 1887) it is rarely seen." Other writers repeat this passage with little alteration, though the author of theT´ao luadds that the clay was of black colour and the glaze of varying depth. Hsiang's Album includes one specimen of thetung ch´ing tz´ŭ, describing the colour ast´ieh ts´ui, which probably means the blue green shade of distant hills.[171]Tung ch´ingglaze is included in the list of those imitated in the Imperial factories about 1780, two kinds, pale and deep, being specified; and theT´ao lu[172]informs us that theTung ch´ingwas copied to a considerable extent at Ching–tê Chên in the early nineteenth century, and that the modern glaze was exactly like the old. That this modern glaze was only a variety of celadon is shown by the recipe given in the same work,[173]viz. "to add to the ordinary glaze some of the mixture containing ferruginous earth," which differs from that given for the modern Lung–ch´üan glaze only in the absence of the pinch of cobalt (see vol ii., p. 189).
A verse from a poem by Chang–lei (1046–1106) indicates the green colour of the ware: "Green jade (pi yü) when carvedmakes a vessel; know it to be the porcelain (tz´ŭ) of the Tung kilnsChinese characters."[174]
In the classification of old celadons due account must be taken of the imitations made from the earliest times at Ching–tê Chên. Many of these would be distinguishable by their white porcelain body, the ordinary porcelain clay of the district not having the peculiar qualities of the Lung–ch´üan and Ch´u–chou Fu material. In fact, we know that it has been a common practice in recent times among the Ching–tê Chên potters to dress the exposed parts of their ware with brown ferruginous earth when they wished to reproduce the "brown mouth or iron foot" of the archaic wares. Another method which was found effective by imitators of the antique was to use a coarse yellowish clay for the body of the ware. This, however, should be generally recognisable. But the skill of the Chinese copyist is proverbial, and a good instance of his cunning is given in the now celebrated letters of Père d'Entrecolles, a Jesuit missionary stationed at Ching–tê Chên in the K´ang Hsi period. The passage[175]is interesting enough to be quoted in full:
"The mandarin ofKim tê Chim, who honours me with his friendship, makes for his patrons at the Court presents of old porcelain which he has himself a genius for fabricating. I mean that he has discovered the art of imitating antique porcelain, or at least that of comparative antiquity; and he employs a number of workmen for this purpose. The material of these falseKou tom, viz. counterfeit antiques, is a yellowish clay, obtained in a place quite nearKim tê Chim, calledMa ngan chan. They are constructed very thick. The mandarin has given me a plate of this make, which weighs as much as ten ordinary plates. There is nothing peculiar in the manufacture of these kinds of porcelain beyond that they are covered with a glaze made of yellow stone, mingled with the ordinary glaze, the latter predominating in the mixture, which gives the porcelain a sea green colour. When it is fired it is placed in a very rich broth made of chicken and other meats; in this it is baked a second time, and after that it is put in the foulest drain that can be found and left for a month or more. On issuing from this drain it passes for three or four hundred years old, or at anyrate for a representative of the preceding Ming dynasty, when porcelain of this colour and thickness was appreciated at Court. These counterfeit antiques resemble the genuine pieces also in their want of timbre when struck, and if one holds them to the ear they produce no reverberation."
The worthy father's acquaintance with the antiques was probably limited, or he would not have instanced the last quality as evidence of good imitation. On the contrary, the lack of timbre would be regarded by Chinese connoisseurs as indication of a spurious ware, the note of the old porcelains being one of the criteria of their excellence. But the passage is otherwise most instructive.
It should be remembered, too, that at the time of which d'Entrecolles speaks, an extensive use was being made at Ching–tê Chên of a beautiful celadon glaze on a fine white porcelain body. These celadons of the period will be discussed in their proper place, as they make no pretence of antiquity and are easily distinguished by their pure white body and pale soft green glaze. Indeed, they often have the ordinary white glaze under the base and a period mark in blue.
Another factory which made free use of the celadon glaze was that of Yang Chiang, province of Kuangtung. As a rule, the ware is recognisable by its reddish brown stoneware body, but in cases where the biscuit is lighter in colour and more porcellanous in texture, confusion may easily arise.
Nor must we forget the extensive manufacture of celadons outside China itself. The Corean wares have already been mentioned. As a rule, their soft velvety glaze is recognised by its peculiar bluish grey tone, difficult to describe but easy to remember when once seen. The colour, however, varies to distinctly greener and browner shades, which are liable to be confused with Chinese celadons of the Lung–ch´üan and northern types. Fortunately, most, though not all, of the Corean decorations are very characteristic, particularly the delicate inlaid designs[176]in white and black clays; and the finish of the ware underneath is usually distinctive, a very low foot rim, the base slightly convex, and the disfiguring presence of the sand, which in three little piles supported the ware in the kiln.
There are, however, quite a number of ambiguous celadons with a brownish green glaze, usually bowls, of which some are decorated inside with beautiful carved and moulded designs of bold foliage (Plate 18, Fig. 1) and even with the design of boys among flowering branches and the slight combed patterns which are found on the Corean white wares. Were it not for the apparently Chinese provenance of so many of these bowls, and the absence of the Corean characteristics in their bases, one would be tempted to class them as Corean on the strength of their general appearance. Probably we have in this group both the Chinese prototypes and the close imitations made by the Corean potters who followed these models just as they followed the white ware of Ting Chou. One of the combed bowls formerly treasured as a tea bowl in Japan is now in the Kunstgewerbe Museum, Berlin, but unfortunately the Japanese nameshuko–yaki, by which Dr. Kümmel informs me it was known in Japan, sheds no light on the question of its origin.
The Sawankalok wares of Siam, too, have already had a passing mention. These are easily distinguished by their coarse grey body, reddish at the base, and thin, watery green glaze, very transparent and showing a bluish efflorescence where it has run thick. Once seen, they are hardly likely to be confused with any Chinese celadon, except a few of the coarser Ming and later types, in which the glaze happens to be very pale and thin. The Siamese wares, moreover, usually have a small raw irregular ring under the base, made by the end of a tubular kiln support, and differing from the broad regular ring on the Lung–ch´üan dishes described above.
But the most puzzling of the external celadons are those made at various times and places in Japan. They are, as a rule, close and careful copies of Chinese types, with which they are readily confounded by persons not familiar with Japanese peculiarities. In many cases, too, they will puzzle the most expert. It is well–nigh impossible to put into words any distinctive criteria of these wares. The biscuit is usually white and porcellanous, and though it sometimes assumes a natural tinge of red at the base, the colour is not so deep and decided as on the Lung–ch´üan wares. The chief distinction is an inevitable Japanese flavour in the form and decoration of the ware, but this, again, is an intangible feature which can only be realised by the practised eye. Finally, it should be said that remarkably close copies of the celadon green glaze (and of thetypical ornament as well) were made in Egypt and Persia in the late Middle Ages. At a short distance they might often be taken for Chinese, but on inspection the body will be found to have that soft, sandy texture which is an unmistakable characteristic of the near–Eastern pottery.
It is impossible to leave the subject of celadon without a few words on the distribution of the ware in the Middle Ages, though I have no intention of embarking on the lengthy discussion which the interesting nature of the subject invites, nor of reopening the much–debatedCeladonfragewhich elicited many interesting contributions[177]from Professors Karabacek, A.B. Meyer, and Hirth, and Dr. Bushell. Probably no single article of commerce can tell so much of the mediæval trade between China and the West as the old celadon porcelains whose fragments are constantly unearthed on the sites of the old–world trading stations. The caravan routes through Turkestan and the seaborne trade through the Eastern Archipelago and the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and east coast of Africa can be followed by porcelains deposited at the various trading centres and ports of call. Much, too, has been learnt from the writings of Chinese, Arab, and European travellers and geographers. Professor Hirth, as early as 1888, worked out the principal routes of Chinese seaborne trade from the "Records of Chinese Foreign Trade and Shipping,"[178]compiled by Chao Ju–kua about 1220A. D., starting from the Tingui[179]of Marco Polo, which he identifies with Lung–ch´üan itself, and finishing in Egypt and Zanzibar. The porcelain was carried by land and river to the great port of Ch´üan–chou Fu, and thence in junks to Bruni in Borneo, Cochin China, and Cambodia, Java, Lambri, and Palembang, in Sumatra, where the traders of the East and West met and exchanged goods. Thence the trade proceeded to Quilom in Malabar, Guzerate, Cambray, and Malwa, and as far as Zanzibar. Numerous other localities might be mentioned,and much has been written[180]of the veneration in which old Chinese wares have always been held in the Philippines and Borneo, and of the magic powers attributed to the old dragon jars by the natives of these countries.
The green celadon was highly valued in India and Persia, where it was reputed to have the power of disclosing the presence of poison. An early reference to the Chinese porcelain occurs in the writings of the Persian geographer Yacut,[181]who mentions "four boxes full of Chinese porcelain and rock crystal" among the effects of a native of Dour–er–Raçibi in Khouzistan, who died in 913 a.d. The trade with Egypt is indicated in the much–quoted incident of the gift of forty pieces of Chinese porcelain sent from Egypt by Saladin to Nur–ed–din in Damascus in 1171, and by the later gift of porcelain vases sent in 1487 by the Sultan of Egypt to Lorenzo de' Medici. A large proportion of the celadons in our collections has been brought and still comes from India, Persia, and Egypt.[182]The Sultan's treasure at Constantinople[183]teems with celadons collected in mediæval times. Fragments of celadon are unearthed on almost every important mediæval site which is excavated in the East. The British Museum has small collections of such fragments from Bijapur in India, the island of Kais in the Persian Gulf, Rhages in Persia, Ephesus, Rhodes, Cairo, and Mombasa, to mention a few sites only. Fragments of celadon were found, in company with Chinese coins ranging in date from 990–1111A. D., by Sir John Kirk and Lieut. C. Smith, near Kilwa in Zanzibar, and the former, while British representative in Zanzibar, was able to form a considerable collection of complete specimens which were treasured by the natives with almost religious care. A story told by Sir John Kirk illustrates the attitude of the native mind towards these treasured wares. A celadon dish with particularly fine carving was the subject of a family dispute, and to satisfy the rival claimsa local Solomon decided that it should be divided between the disputants. One large fragment of it is now in Sir John Kirk's collection, which includes many interesting dishes, crackled and plain, and ranging in colour from dark olive green to the pale watery tint of the Sawankalok[184]wares. Other specimens of interest are the large, wide–mouthed, bowl–shaped vases with sides deeply ribbed or carved in high relief with bold floral designs. They have the peculiar feature of being constructed at first without a bottom, which was separately made in the form of a saucer and dropped in, the glaze holding it firmly in position. Similar vases[185]have been found in India and elsewhere. One of the first pieces of celadon to arrive in this country was the celebrated Warham bowl, which was bequeathed to New College, Oxford, in 1530 by Archbishop Warham. It is of dull grey green celadon, the outside faintly engraved with four lotus petals, each containing a trefoil, and in the bottom inside is the characterch´ingChinese character(pure) surrounded by rays. It has a fine silver–gilt mount of English make.[186]It would be possible to multiply references to the traffic in celadon wares which was carried on briskly between China and the West in the Middle Ages, but enough has been said to give some idea of the extent and nature of the trade, which was mainly in the coarsest types of ware. Apart from the unlikelihood that very fine or precious porcelains would be embarked on such long and hazardous journeys, there was actually a law in force in China as early as the eighth century[187]which forbade, under penalty of imprisonment, the exportation of "precious and rare articles," anticipating by a thousand years the restrictive legislation of the Italian Government.