Plate 41.—Chün Chou Ware.Fig. 1.—Dish with peach spray in relief. Variegated lavender grey glaze with purplish brown spots and amethyst patches, frosted in places with dull green. Sung dynasty. Diameter 81/2inches.Freer Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase and Stand, smooth lavender grey glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty. Height 73/4inches.Alexander Collection.
Plate 41.—Chün Chou Ware.Fig. 1.—Dish with peach spray in relief. Variegated lavender grey glaze with purplish brown spots and amethyst patches, frosted in places with dull green. Sung dynasty. Diameter 81/2inches.Freer Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase and Stand, smooth lavender grey glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty. Height 73/4inches.Alexander Collection.
Plate 41.—Chün Chou Ware.
Fig. 1.—Dish with peach spray in relief. Variegated lavender grey glaze with purplish brown spots and amethyst patches, frosted in places with dull green. Sung dynasty. Diameter 81/2inches.Freer Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase and Stand, smooth lavender grey glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty. Height 73/4inches.Alexander Collection.
Decoration of any kind is unusual on these wares except on the large tripod incense burners, which often have slight applied reliefs in the form of animals, dragons, or peony sprays. Mr. Freer's dish (Plate 41, Fig. 1) with the raised floral spray is quite exceptional.
Whatever the verdict may be on the technical qualities of these rugged pieces as compared with more finely finished porcelain, there can be no doubt of the artistic merit of the subtle glaze colours, and I have seen people whose undoubted taste in other forms of art had not previously been directed to things ceramic, display a sudden and unexpected enthusiasm over the rough Yüan bowls. The peculiar shape of these bowls—which, without their foot take the form of a half coco–nut—has raised the question whether it can be in any way connected with the Polynesian khava bowls. The latter are actually made of coco–nut, and, curiously enough, their interior after much use acquires a vivid patina, whose colour recalls some of the Yüan tz´ŭ glazes. The resemblance, however, remarkable as it is, can only be accidental, for it is practically certain that the tints of these ceramic glazes were quite unforeseen. Long use has usually given the surface of the Yüan tz´ŭ a smooth, worn feeling, but in its first freshness the glaze had a very high and brilliant lustre. This is shown by a few pieces which have lately been sent from China, where they were excavated evidently on the site of the old factory, and still remain in theirseggars or fireclay cases to which they became attached by some accident in the kiln. These and other spoilt pieces or wasters would be of immense interest if only the circumstance of their finding had been faithfully recorded. Unfortunately, however, they passed through many hands before reaching Europe, and we have only hearsay to support the statement that they were found in the neighbourhood of Honan Fu. The locality is a likely enough spot and not remote from Chün Chou, but we must consider that the real origin of the Yüan tz´ŭ has yet to be settled, and we must still remain in doubt whether the ware is a coarse variety of Sung Chün Chou ware, a continuation of that manufacture in the Yüan dynasty, or the production of a different factory. Judging from the character of the glazes, I am inclined to accept the first two alternatives, which are not mutually exclusive, for while many of the specimens have the appearance of Sung wares, there is every reason to suppose that the manufacture continued through the Yüan period. The formula, "Sung or Yüan ware of Chün type," adopted in the catalogue of the exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910, is a discreet compromise which may well be retained till further evidence from China is forthcoming.
The evidence of Sir Aurel Stein's excavations in the regions of Turfan, imperfect as it is, points to the existence of this kind of ware at least as early as the Sung dynasty. Fragments with the typical glaze of the so–called Yüan–tz´ŭ were found, for instance, on a site which was thought to have been closed in the Sung dynasty, and again at Vash–shahri, which was "believed to have been occupied down to the eleventh or twelfth century." Making ample allowance for error in calculating the dates of these buried cities, we may still fairly consider that some of these finds come within the limits of the Sung dynasty.
ChienChinese characteryao
This ware, which has already been mentioned in several passages, originated at Chien–an, but the factory was subsequently removed to the neighbouring Chien–yang. Both places are in the Chien–ning Fu, in the province of Fukien, and the term Chien yao derives from the characterchien, which occurs in all these place names. The beginning of the manufacture is unknown, but it certainly dates back to the early Sung period, being mentionedin a tenth–century work,[278]and the potteries were still flourishing at the commencement of the Yüan dynasty.[279]A characteristic specimen figured in Plate 42 is a tea bowl with soft, dark brown earthenware body and thick, lustrous, purplish black glaze, mottled and streaked with golden brown. The brown forms a solid band at the mouth and tails off into streaks and drops on the sides, finally disappearing in a thick mass of black. The spots and streaks of brown suggested to Chinese writers the markings on a partridge's breast or on hare's fur, and the bowls are usually known as "hare's fur cups"[280]or "partridge cups." The dark colour of the glaze made them specially suitable for the tea–testing competitions which were in fashion in the Sung period, the object of the contest being to see whose tea would stand the largest number of waterings, and it was found that the least trace of the tea was visible against the black glaze of the Chien bowls. The testimony of an eleventh–century writer[281]on this point is of interest. "The tea," he says, "is light in colour and suits the black cups. Those made at Chien–an are purplish black (kan hei) with markings like hare's fur. Their material, being somewhat thick, takes long to heat, and when hot does not quickly cool, which makes them specially serviceable. No cups from any other place can equal them. Green (ch´ing) and white cups are not used in the tea–testing parties."
Plate 42.—TwoTemmokuBowls, dark–bodied Chien yao of the Sung dynasty.Fig. 1.—Tea Bowl (p´ieh), purplish black glaze flecked with silvery drops. Diameter 71/2inches.Freer Collection.Fig. 2.—Tea Bowl with purplish black glaze shot with golden brown. Height 33/4inches.British Museum.
Plate 42.—TwoTemmokuBowls, dark–bodied Chien yao of the Sung dynasty.Fig. 1.—Tea Bowl (p´ieh), purplish black glaze flecked with silvery drops. Diameter 71/2inches.Freer Collection.Fig. 2.—Tea Bowl with purplish black glaze shot with golden brown. Height 33/4inches.British Museum.
Plate 42.—TwoTemmokuBowls, dark–bodied Chien yao of the Sung dynasty.
Fig. 1.—Tea Bowl (p´ieh), purplish black glaze flecked with silvery drops. Diameter 71/2inches.Freer Collection.Fig. 2.—Tea Bowl with purplish black glaze shot with golden brown. Height 33/4inches.British Museum.
The Chinese tea contests were adopted by the Japanese, who elaborated them into the curious ceremony known asCha no yu, which later assumed a semi–political aspect. The JapaneseCha jin(initiates of the tea ceremony) have always prized the Chien yao bowls, to which they gave the nametemmoku, and Brinkley speaks of a great variety of Chien yao glazes which he saw in Japan. Of some he says that "on a ground of mirror black are seen shifting tints of purple and blue; reflections of deep green, like the glossycolour of the raven's wing; lines of soft silver, regular as hair." The tea–testing contests seem to have lost popularity in China at an early date, and late Ming writers took little interest in the partridge cups, which one[282]at least of them voted "very inferior." In Japan, on the other hand, the vogue of the tea ceremonies has continued unabated to modern times, and no doubt the Chien bowls were eagerly acquired by the Japanese æsthetes. Hence their rarity in China to–day. Moreover, the Japanese potters of Seto and elsewhere have copied them with astonishing cleverness, so that the best Seto imitations are exceedingly difficult to distinguish from the originals. The ordinary run of the Japanese copies, however, are recognised by a body of lighter tint and finer, more porcellanous texture, besides their general imitative character and the Japanese touch which is learnt by observation but is not easy to define in words.
Though we hear nothing further of this Chien yao after the Yüan dynasty it is practically certain that the manufacture of pottery of some sort continued in the district. A small pot of buff stoneware with a translucent brown glaze (much thinner than that of the hare's fur bowls and without the purple tint or the golden brown markings) was found in a tomb near, Chien–ning Fu with an engraved slab dated 1560. The find was made by the Rev. H.S. Phillips, who presented the pot, with a rubbing of the inscription, to the British Museum.
In addition to the characteristictemmokuwe have now quite a large family of bowls, dishes, jars, and vases with thick purplish black glazes more or less diversified by golden brown and tea–dust green, which are at present grouped with the Chien yao pending some more precise information as to their origin. They are, however, distinguished by a coarse porcellanous body of greyish white or buff colour, and I understand that many of the bowls have come from excavations in Honan; and there are features in the ornament and in the ware itself which suggest that they date back as far as the T´ang period. Fig. 3 of Plate 43, for instance, with its large brown mottling on a black glaze, is analogous in form and material to the white–glazed T´ang wares and in the mottling of the glaze to the typical T´ang polychrome. The bowls, which are usually small and shallow with straight sides, wide mouth, and very narrow foot, or with rounded sides slightly contracting at themouth, have neither the weight of material nor smooth solidity of glaze which characterise the true Chien yao. On the other hand, they are more varied in the play of black and brown, and in some cases they have designs and patterns which are clearly intentional. The two extremes of colour are a monochrome black, usually of purplish tint but sometimes brownish, and a lustrous brown often decidedly reddish in tone. Between these come the black glazes which are more or less variegated with brown in the form of mottling, streaks, tears, irregular patches, and definite patterns. The glaze in these bowls usually extends to the foot rim, and sometimes reappears in a patch under the base. The ornament in some cases takes the form of rosettes or plum blossom designs in T´ang style incised through the glaze covering; in others, as in Fig. 1 of Plate 43, we find a leaf design (evidently stencilled from a real leaf) expressed in brown or dull tea green; and occasionally there are more ambitious designs, such as a hare or bird or foliage, incised. On a red brown bowl in the Museum für Ostasiatische Kunst at Cologne there are traces of a floral pattern in a lustrous medium which resembles faded gilding.
Plate 43.—Three Examples of "Honantemmoku," probably T´ang dynasty.Fig. 1.—Bowl with purplish black glaze, stencilled leaf in golden brown. Diameter 6 inches.Havemeyer Collection.Fig. 2.—Ewer with black glaze. Height 43/4inches.Alexander Collection.Fig. 3.—Covered Bowl, black mottled with lustrous brown. Height 7 inches.Cologne Museum.
Plate 43.—Three Examples of "Honantemmoku," probably T´ang dynasty.Fig. 1.—Bowl with purplish black glaze, stencilled leaf in golden brown. Diameter 6 inches.Havemeyer Collection.Fig. 2.—Ewer with black glaze. Height 43/4inches.Alexander Collection.Fig. 3.—Covered Bowl, black mottled with lustrous brown. Height 7 inches.Cologne Museum.
Plate 43.—Three Examples of "Honantemmoku," probably T´ang dynasty.
Fig. 1.—Bowl with purplish black glaze, stencilled leaf in golden brown. Diameter 6 inches.Havemeyer Collection.
Fig. 2.—Ewer with black glaze. Height 43/4inches.Alexander Collection.
Fig. 3.—Covered Bowl, black mottled with lustrous brown. Height 7 inches.Cologne Museum.
We have already noted how the purplish black glaze of the Tz´ŭ Chou ware breaks into lustrous brown; the black Ting ware and the debateable red Ting have been discussed; and if we add this family which may perhaps be provisionally described as Honantemmoku, it would appear that glazes analogous to those of the Chien yao "hare's fur" bowls were widely used in Northern China at an early date.
A word of explanation may appropriately be added here of the expressionwu–ni yao,[283]which occurs in several passages in Chinese books on pottery. It means "black clay ware," and as a general term would naturally include the "hare's fur bowls." Indeed, one passage[284]actually speaks of thewu–ni yaoof Chien–an, and theT´ao lu, which gives the ware a paragraph to itself, states that it was made at Chien–an, in Chien–ning Fu, beginning in the Sung dynasty, and that its clay was black. It further adds that the glaze is "dry and parched" and that it was sometimes green (ch´ing). It is clear from the above quotations thatwu–ni yaowas a general expression for the dark–bodied Chien ware; and there the matter would have ended had not early works, such as theCho kêng luandKo ku yao lun, mentioned it in the categoryof Kuan and Ko wares, the former naming it with the Hsün and Yu–hang wares, which were inferior to the Kuan, and the latter adding to the passage dealing with Kuan wares the following note: "There are black wares which are calledwu–ni yao, all of which were imitated at Lung–ch´üan. They have no crackle." ThePo wu yao lan, however, explains that these wares "were admittedby confusioninto the category of Kuan and Ko wares," and that the "error has been handed down to this day." Probably it was the green variety which caused the confusion, as there seems no reason why the black glazes should have been associated with the Kuan class, though the dark red clay of the Phœnix Hill from which the Hang Chou Kuan ware was made may have had some resemblance to the dark red brown body of the Chien yao. As for the Lung–ch´üan imitations, we can only imagine that the statement refers to the later Ko wares, which are said to have been made with material brought from Hang Chou,[285]and that their glaze, too, was of the green variety, as would be expected in the Lung–ch´üan district, the home of the green celadons. At the same time it will be remembered thatwu–ni yaomeans simply "black clay ware," and might have been fairly applied to any dark–bodied ware wheresoever made.
As already mentioned, many fragments of pottery were included in the important finds made by Sir Aurel Stein in his excavations in Turfan. Unfortunately, many of the sites have little evidential value, because they have clearly been revisited at comparatively late periods; but there are a few localities which ceased to be inhabited as early as the Sung dynasty, and which furnished fragments of glazed pottery and porcellanous wares. I only mention those sites which, as far as these finds are concerned, were not vitiated by the occurrence of obviously recent wares. On one site named Ushaktal, supposed to have been abandoned in the Sung dynasty, if not before, were fragments of greenish brown celadon with combed ornament on the body, such as was certainly made in Corea and probably in China as well. The same site produced opalescent glazes of the Chün and Yüan type. The site of Vash–shahri, which was "occupied probably down to the eleventh or twelfth century," produced a number of interesting fragments (1) with buff and grey stoneware bodies and glazes of the opalescent Chün and Yüan kinds, (2) the same body with emerald green crackledglaze, (3) celadon glazes over carved ornament, (4) speckled olive brown glaze resembling the later "tea dust," (5) opaque dark brown glaze, (6) speckled dark purplish brown glazes, (7) thick greenish glaze evenly dappled with pale bluish grey spots.
Early wares found on the mixed sites, such as Kan Chou and Hsi Yung ch´êng, which were occupied down to Sung times but evidently visited later, include carved white porcelain and creamy white ware of thet´u Tingclass, and several kinds ofTz´ŭ Chouwares, thegraffiato, as well as the black painted. But evidence from excavations of this kind is always open to the objection that the ruins may have been visited later, and the broken pottery dropped by subsequent explorers. This objection, however, cannot reasonably be offered to more than a small proportion of the objects found, and these finds, though not in themselves conclusive, may be regarded, at any rate, as valuable corroboration of existing theories.
MIRABILIA
MANY strange things are recorded by the early Chinese writers in connection with pottery and porcelain, and the tales are solemnly repeated from book to book, though occasionally a less credulous author adds some such comment as "This may be true, or, on the other hand, it may not." It is difficult, however, entirely to discredit the serious and circumstantial account given by a provincial governor of a curious custom which prevailed in his district. Fan Ching–ta, who was appointed administrator in Kuang–si in 1172, tells[286]us that "the men of Nan (–ning Fu) practise nose–drinking. They have pottery vessels such as cups and bowls from the side of which stands up a small tube like the neck of a bottle. They apply the nose to this tube and draw up wine or hot fluids, and in the summer months they drink water. The vessels are called nose–drinking cups. They say that water taken through the nose and swallowed is indescribably delicious. The people of Yung Chou have already recorded the facts as I have done. They grow a special kind of gourd for the purpose." Another extract from the same writer's works alludes to "drums with contracted waist" made of pottery in the villages of Lin–kuei and Chih–t´ien. The village people made a speciality of the manufacture of this pottery (yao), and baked it to the correct musical tone. On the glaze, we are told, they painted red flower patterns by way of ornament. The allusion to painting in red on the glaze at this early period is interesting, but it is quite likely that the designs were only in some unfired pigment.
Some of the stories may be regarded merely as figurative descriptions of the superhuman skill of the artist in rendering "life–movement." Thus we are told[287]of "four old porcelain (tz´ŭ) bowls painted with coloured butterflies. When water was poured in,the butterflies floated on the surface of the water, fluttering about as if alive." It was an unnatural proceeding for butterflies in any case, and we can quite understand why "those who saw this, all maintained secrecy and did not divulge it."
A somewhat similar poetic licence is taken by the same author in another passage with reference to certain cups and bowls, apparently of the Sung dynasty, which were found in the K´ang Hsi period on the site of an old temple. "The bowls had a minute wave pattern which moved and undulated as in a picture by Wu Tao–tzŭ. As for the cups, when a little water was poured into them four fishes arose out of the sides and swam and dived."
But most curious of all were the Chinese views on the subject of "furnace transmutations" (yao pien) and the fables which sprang from them. At the present day the strange behaviour of metallic oxides, notably copper, under certain firing conditions, is well known and turned to good account. But in early times, when the unexpected happened, and a glaze which contained an infinitesimal quantity of copper oxide was accidentally subjected to an oxidising or reducing atmosphere in the kiln (by the admission of air or smoke at the critical moment), instead of coming out a uniform colour, was streaked and mottled all over with red, green and blue, or locally splashed with crimson or mixed colour, the potters saw in the phenomenon something supernatural. It was a terrifying portent, and on one occasion, we are told, they broke the wares immediately, and on another they even destroyed the kilns and fled to another place.
However, the irregular formation of the Chinese kilns greatly favoured these accidental effects, and in time they became comparatively common, so that these true "furnace transmutations" were taken for granted; and though they were not clearly understood before the end of the K´ang Hsi period, fairly rational explanations of them were offered by some of the late Ming writers. Thus the curious splashes of contrasting colour which appeared on the Kuan, Ko and Chün wares were attributed to the "fire's magical transmutation."
In these cases only a partial transmutation had taken place, affecting the glaze alone. But the idea of transmutation in the fire was carried farther in the Chinese imagination, and stories grew of cases in which "the vessel throughout was changed and became wonderful." Su Tung–p´o has, for instance, left a poem ona vase organ, in the preface of which it is related[288]that in the year 1100A. D., "while they were drinking at a farewell banquet to Liu Chi–chung, they heard the sounds of an organ and flute," and that on investigation "it was discovered that the sounds came out of a pair of vases, and that they stopped when the meal was over." Another story of the Sung dynasty tells of a wonderful basin in which the moisture remaining after it had been emptied displayed, when frozen, a fresh pattern every day. At first it was a spray of peach blossom, then a branch of peony with two flowers, then a winter landscape, "with water and villages of bamboo houses, wild geese flying, and herons standing upon one leg."
The story of the "self–warming cups" told by an early Sung writer[289]evidently belongs to the realm of pure fiction: "In the treasury of T´ien Pao (742A. D.) there were green (ch´ing) ware (tz´ŭ) wine cups with markings like tangled silk. They were thin as paper. When wine was poured into them it gradually grew warm. Then it had the appearance of steaming, and next of boiling. Hence the name 'self–warming cups.'"
Scarcely less marvellous is the incident recorded in theYü chang ta shih chi, written about 1454.[290]"At the time when the temple of the god (of pottery) was in existence, an Imperial order was given to Ching–tê Chên to make a wind–screen; but it was not successful, and was changed in the kiln into a bed six feet long and one foot high. At the second attempt it was again changed and became a boat three feet long. Inside the boat were the various fittings all complete. The officials of the prefecture and district all saw it. But it was pounded to pieces with a pestle, for they did not dare to let it go to court." Another story[291]tells how Chia and I (John Doe and Richard Roe) when hunting were led in pursuit of a wounded hare into an ancient tomb in the mountains, where they found a large jar containing two white porcelain vases and an ink slab. Chia broke one of the vases, but I stopped any further vandalism and carried the other specimens home. He used the vase for flowers, but for several days he noticed "an, emanation from within issuing from theYin yün(generative powerof nature) like a vapour of cloud." Being puzzled, he tried plucking the stalks of the flowers, and "found that they contained no moisture, and yet the plants did not wither. Moreover, the buds kept strong, as if they had rooted in the clay of the vase. So he began to be astonished at the vase, regarding it as a kind ofyao pien. One day, during a great storm of wind and rain, suddenly there was a flash and a peal of thunder, and the vase was shaken to pieces. I was very much alarmed and distressed."
TheYang hsien ming hu hsispeaks of instances in which the Yi–hsing teapots were affected in a peculiar way, the ware changing from drab to rosy red when filled with tea; and we have already seen that Hsiang Yüan–p'ien illustrates in his Album examples of this, which he solemnly assures us he would not have believed had he not seen it happen before his eyes. In all these cases the ware was supposed to have been completely changed in the kiln and to have acquired supernatural properties. "The magic of the god had entered into the ware in the firing and had not left it."
PORCELAIN AND ITS BEGINNINGS
THE reader will have noticed that the word porcelain, which was avoided in the discussion of the earlier periods, has insensibly crept into the chapters which deal with the Sung wares. It was no longer right or proper that it should be excluded, and it is high time that our attitude on the interesting question of its origin was defined. Unfortunately, that attitude is still—and must necessarily remain—one of doubt and uncertainty, but we can at least clear away some of the existing misapprehensions on the subject.
The myth which carried back the manufacture of porcelain some eighteen centuries before our era has been definitely discredited, and the snuff bottles supposed to have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs which gave rise to the idea are now known to be of quite modern make. The more modest computation which placed the invention in the Han dynasty (206B. C.to 220A. D.) might have been almost as lightly dismissed had not Dr. Bushell, after disposing of the theory in hisOriental Ceramic Art[292]in 1899, seen fit to reverse his decision in later publications.[293]
The reasons given for this later attitude are on the surface so convincing that it is necessary to consider them in detail and to examine the authorities on which they are based. Bushell's statement runs as follows: "It is generally agreed that porcelain was first made in China, but authorities differ widely in fixing a date for its invention. The Chinese attribute its invention to the Han dynasty, when a new charactertz'ŭwas coined to designate, presumably, a new substance. The official memoir on 'Porcelain Administration' in the topography of Fou–liang, the first edition of which was published in 1270, says that according to local traditionthe ceramic works at Hsin–p'ing (an old name of Fou–liang) were founded in the time of the Han dynasty, and had been in constant operation ever since. This is confirmed by T'ang Ying, the celebrated superintendent of the Imperial potteries, appointed in 1728, who states in his autobiography that the result of his researches shows that porcelain was first made during the Han dynasty at Ch'ang–nan (Ching–tê Chên), in the district of Fou–liang."
From this and the passages immediately following it is clear that Bushell at that time leant strongly to the Han theory, which he had previously discarded, for three reasons, which we shall now examine. The first rests on the charactertz'ŭ. Whether the charactertz'ŭwas coined to designate a new substance in the Han dynasty is by no means certain. It undoubtedly appears in the Han dictionary, theShuo Wên, but with the meagre definition "pottery ware,"[294]and without any further indication of its nature. The second is based on a passage in the Annals of Fou–liang, which on examination proves to contain only the general wordt'ao(ware) and not the charactertz'ŭat all. The actual passage runs: "The manufacture of pottery (t'ao) at Hsin–p'ing began in the Han dynasty. Speaking generally, this pottery was strong, heavy, and coarse, being fashioned of rich clay with moisture added, after methods handed down from the ancients." The third invokes the authority of T'ang Ying, but on reference to the autobiography of this distinguished ceramist in theChiang hsi t'ung chih, we again find reference only tot'aoand not totz'ŭ, viz. "It (t'ao) is not the growth of one day. Research shows that it began in the Han dynasty and was transmitted through succeeding generations. Its place (of manufacture) changed (from time to time), but it flourished at Ch'ang–nan." One obvious place for T'ang's research would be the Annals of Fou–liang, and I shrewdly suspect that his conclusions were based on the very passage quoted above, of which his words give a clear echo. But in any case, neither passage has any bearing on the origin of porcelain unless we assume thatt'aois the same astz'ŭ, and that both words definitely meanporcelain,an assumption which is not only quite unwarranted but in any case begs the whole question.
The Chinese words used at the present day for porcelain aretz'ŭ,t'ao, andyao, all of considerable antiquity, though their forms have undergone various changes and their meaning has been modified from time to time to keep pace with the evolution of the ware. The wordtz'ŭChinese character, as we have seen, was defined in the Han dictionary as merely "pottery ware." Its modern definition is a hard, fine–grained variety oft'ao, and if we add to this the quality of resonance—i.e. of emitting a musical note when struck—we have all the requirements of porcelain according to the Chinese definition. The synonymChinese character, containing the radicalChinese charactershih(a stone), which is also pronouncedtz'ŭ, has come in the last two centuries to be used interchangeably with the older wordChinese character, in spite of the protests of eighteenth–century purists.[295]
The wordt'aoChinese characteris a term even more comprehensive than our word "china." In the Han dictionary it appeared in the formChinese charactert'aooryao(previously pronouncedfou), composed ofChinese characterfou(earthenware) and the radicalChinese characterpao(to wrap), and its meaning waskiln, and by extension theproducts of the kiln. At that time the word in its modern form was only used as a proper name.
The third characteryao(the Japaneseyaki) is precisely synonymous witht'ao, meaning first akilnand thenwaresof any kind. In its formChinese characterit occurs in the Han dictionary; another form isChinese character, which, according to a Sung writer,[296]dates from the T'ang period, and a third formChinese characteris current in modern dictionaries.
In short, the Chinese terms are all of a general and comprehensive kind, capable of embracing pottery, stoneware, and porcelain impartially, and there is no single Chinese word which corresponds to our precise term "porcelain." Under these circumstancesit is clear that no theory on the origin of porcelain can be based merely on the occurrence of any of these words in early Chinese texts. Still less can any such theory be constructed from the very promiscuous use of the word "porcelain" in European translations, and it is a thousand pities that both Julien and Bushell were not more discriminating in this matter, or that they did not always (as Julien sometimes and Professor Hirth usually did) give the Chinese character in parentheses when any reasonable doubt could exist. Had this been done we should have been spared misleading references to "two porcelain cups of the Han dynasty,"[297]and such loose writing[298]as "In the Wei dynasty (221–264A. D.) which succeeded the Han we read of a glazed celadon ware made at Lo Yang for the use of the palace, and in the Chin dynasty (265–419) we have the first mention of blue porcelain produced at Wên–chou, in the province of Chehkiang, the progenitor of the sky–blue glazes tinted with cobalt, which afterwards became so famous." The "glazed celadon," needless to say, is purely conjectural, pottery (t'ao) vessels being all that is specified in the passage on which the statement is obviously based; and the "blue porcelain" is evidently no other than thep'iao tz'ŭ(mentioned by the poet P'an Yo and discussed on p. 16), which is better rendered "green ware."[299]
The same kind of criticism applies to all the other references in early writers until we reach the Sui dynasty (581–617A. D.). In the annals of this period there is a much discussed passage in which it is stated that the art of making a substance known asliu–li[300]had been lost in China, and that the workmen did not dare to experiment, but that one Ho Ch'ouChinese characters, a connoisseur in pictures and antiquities, succeeded in making it with green ware (lü tz'ŭ), and that his imitations were not distinguishable from the original substance.
To understand the full import of this passage it is necessary to explain the nature ofliu–li, and this is fortunately made quite clear by the author of theT'ao shuoin a commentary so interesting that I give it in full:
"I find thatliu–licomes from the countries of Huang–chih,Ssŭ–t'iao and Jih–nan.[301]That produced in Ta–ch'in (the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire) is in ten colours—pink, white, black, yellow, blue, green, deep purple, deep blue (or green), red, and brown.Liu–liwas originally a natural substance.[302]Yen Shih–ku,[303]commenting in the Annals of the Han Dynasty, says, 'At the present time they commonly use molten stones, adding a number of chemicals and then pouring the substance (into moulds) and forming it; but it is unsubstantial, brittle, and not a successful casting.' In the Northern Wei dynasty, in the reign of T'ai Wu (424–451A. D.), a man of the Ta Yüeh–chih[304]who came to trade at the capital, said he could makeliu–liby melting stones. Eventually he collected the ore and made it (liu–li), and the finished article surpassed the original in its brilliance and colour. The method has been handed down to the present day, and it was probably only an accidental intermission which occurred in the Sui dynasty. But the Chinese castings are brittle in substance, and when hot wine is poured into them they fly to pieces in the hand. What a pity the Yüeh–chih method has been handed down instead of Ch'ou's!"
The allusions to melting stones, casting, etc., in this passage leave no doubt that theliu–li, as made in China, was a kind of glass, imitating a natural stone.[305]It is, in fact, usually translated in the dictionaries as "opaque glass," and in connection with pottery it has the sense of glaze—e.g.liu li wa"glazed pottery."
We can now return to Ho Ch'ou, who "took green ware and madeliu–li."[306]It has been thought that what he made must have been a kind of porcelain, but there is no indication of anysuch achievement, for though it is possible to make an artificial porcelain with glass as a constituent, the converse is not true: you cannot make glass out of either pottery or porcelain. The most probable explanation of the passage seems to be that Ho Ch´ou (who was apparently not a potter) experimented at some pottery with the materials used in glazing the green ware, and found that he could make a very good glass (liu–li) with the potter's green glaze, and perhaps other ingredients, a result which is in no way surprising, seeing that the softer ceramic glazes have a very close affinity to glass. But no further inferences can be drawn from this passage, and it is not even clear that Ho Ch´ou made a ceramic ware at all. All we are told is that he madeliu–li. I have rather laboured this negative point, because Professor Zimmermann has published a declaration of belief that Ho Ch´ou was the discoverer of porcelain.[307]Apart from the obvious criticism which the writer himself anticipates, that such an epoch–making discovery would hardly have escaped the notice of Ho Ch´ou's biographer, Professor Zimmermann opens his case with a fundamental error, for which he has to thank Dr. Bushell. It is true that he only names Julien as the source of his information, but his version of the story of Ho Ch´ou is taken verbatim from Bushell'sOriental Ceramic Art,[308]where the crucial passage is unfortunately rendered "but he (Ho Ch´ou) succeeded in making vessels of green porcelain which could not be distinguished from true glass." This mistranslation puts an entirely different complexion on the passage, and goes a long way to justify Professor Zimmermann's inferences that Ch´ou made a glassy ware of the nature of porcelain. It is an instructive instance of the pitfalls which beset the student of Chinese subjects, especially when he has to rely on other people's translations.
Strange to say, a similar mistranslation occurs in Dr. Hirth's short but excellent treatise onAncient Chinese Porcelain,[309]in a passage which is nevertheless of great importance to our quest. It has been the custom with Chinese compilers of reference works to incorporate the material of previous editions, adding their own commentaries and any further information which happened tohave reached them, and to this we are indebted for the preservation of many passages from ancient writers which would otherwise be extremely difficult of access. Thus Hirth found embalmed in the Sung Pharmacopœia two early references to the materialpai oChinese characterswhich he shows to be without doubt the kaolinic earth used in the manufacture of porcelain, and which, like many other strange materials, entered into Chinese medicinal prescriptions. The first mention of this substance is taken from the writings of T´ao Yin–chü, who died in 536A. D., to the effect that thepai o, besides being used in medicines, was employed at that time for painting pictures; and Hirth argues that so celebrated a writer on scientific subjects as T´ao Yin–chü could not have failed to note it if thepai ohad been in general use for ceramic purposes as well. This is followed by a quotation from the T´ang Pharmacopœia (compiled about 650A. D.): "It (pai o) is now used for painter's work, and rarely enters into medicinal prescriptions; during recent generations it has been prepared from white ware[310](tz´ŭ)." By rendering the last sentence "during recent generations it has been used to make white porcelain," Hirth invested the passage with a greater interest than it actually possesses. But even when stripped of this fictitious importance, it constitutes the first literary evidence we have of the use of kaolin by Chinese potters. This is followed by another quotation from the T´ang Pharmacopœia recommending for medicinal purposes a powder prepared from the white ware of Ting Chou.[311]
Whether we are to understand that the Chinese pharmacist ground up broken pieces of Ting ware or merely made use of the refined and purified clay obtained at the potteries, matters little. Neither proceeding would be without parallel in Europe in far later times than the T´ang period. But the specific reference to white Ting ware at this early date is most interesting in view of the fact that Ting Chou was celebrated in the Sung dynasty for a white ware which is undoubtedly a kind of porcelain.
The presence of a kaolin–like material in a dark–coloured ware, probably of the third century, which was disclosed by the analysis made by Mr. Nicholls in Chicago, has already been recorded (p. 15). We have no means of ascertaining what length of timeelapsed before a white material of this nature was evolved, but it was clearly in existence in the beginning of the sixth century. Possibly it was not porcelain according to the strict European definition, but there is every reason to suppose that it was a hard white ware, such as the Chinese would not hesitate to include in their porcelain category. Such a ware appears on some of the funeral vases which may safely be referred to the early T´ang period (see p. 26), and in default of other evidence I think we can say that porcelain in the Chinese sense already existed at the end of the Sui dynasty.[312]
Though this period happens to coincide with the lifetime of Ho Ch´ou, neither his name nor any other has been associated with the event by the Chinese, and it is highly probable that porcelain only came into being by a process of evolution from pottery and stoneware, the critical moment arriving with the discovery of deposits of kaolinic earth. As a mere speculation, I would suggest that the deposits were those at Han tan, the modern Tz´ŭ Chou, which supplied material for the Ting Chou potters.[313]It is, at any rate, significant that the new name, which we are led to suppose was derived from thetz´ŭstone,[314]was given to that place in the Sui dynasty.
Numerous literary references from this time onwards have already been quoted which are highly suggestive of porcelain. The "false jade vessels" of T´ao Yü in the early years of the seventh century; the eighth–century tea bowls of Yu Chou and Hsing Chou which were compared respectively to jade and ice, to silver and snow, the former being green and the latter white. The twelve cups used for musical chimes by Kuo Tao–yüan; the white bowls immortalised by the poet Tu "of ware (tz´ŭ) baked at Ta–yi, light but strong, which gives out a note like jade when struck."
The quality of translucency which in Europe[315]is regarded as distinctive of porcelain is never emphasised in Chinese descriptions. I can find no mention of it in any of the earlier writings,[316]and the first unmistakable literary evidence of its existence[317]comes from a foreign source. The Arab traveller, Soleyman, who describes his experiences in China in the ninth century, states that "they had a fine clay (ghādar) from which bowls were made, and in the transparency of the vessels the light of the water was visible; and they were (made of) fine clay."[318]This statement practically proves the existence of translucent porcelain in the T´ang dynasty, and we confidently await the arrival of specimens from Chinese excavations. Some of the export porcelains of the time have been actually unearthed at Samarra on the Euphrates by Professor Sarre,[319]of the Kaiser Friederik Museum, Berlin, and they include (1) bowls of gummy white porcelain with unglazed gritty base; (2) greenish white ware; (3) yellowish white with small crackle; and (4) a pure white porcelain with relief designs, such as birdsand fishes, under the glaze. Other pottery found on that site included mottled ware of typical T´ang type, and a creamy white of the Tz´ŭ Chou type with brown spots.[320]
From considerations of form and the general character of the ware, I am inclined to regard three specimens in Plates 44 and 45 as belonging to the T´ang period. Fig. 1 of Plate 44 has a thin ivory white glaze running in gummy drops and clouded with pinkish buff staining outside and with a reddish discoloration within. Fig. 2 of the same Plate is remarkable in many ways. It is so thin as to seem to consist of little else but glaze, and is consequently almost as translucent as glass. The colour of the glaze is pearly white powdered with tiny specks, and the crackle is clearly marked. The base is flat and discloses a dry white body of fine grain. But its most conspicuous feature is the arresting beauty of its outline, which recalls some choice specimen of Græco–Roman glass, and displays a classic feeling frequently observed in T´ang pottery and in the Corean wares which owe so much to T´ang models.
Fig. 2, Plate 45, shows the celebrated phœnix ewer belonging to Mr. Eumorfopoulos which has proved so difficult to classify.[321]It is a white porcellanous ware translucent in the thinner parts, and the glaze is of light greenish grey with a tendency to blue in places. The form and ornament show strong analogies with specimens of T´ang pottery. The neck, for instance, may be compared with Fig. 2 of Plate 14; the phœnix head and the foliate mouth with Fig. 1 of Plate 9, and the carved ornament on the body with Fig. 3 of Plate 14.
Among the Sung wares many of the white Ting specimens are found to be translucent in their thinner parts, and these may be fairly regarded as porcelain proper. A considerable number of other white porcelains have come over of late under the description of Sung wares, and many of them are certainly early enough in form and style to belong to that period. They are true hard porcelain, translucent, and of a creamy white colour. Being for themost part without decoration, they can only be judged by their forms, and in view of the conservative habits of the Chinese, it would be rash to assert too emphatically their Sung origin. Yüan and even early Ming dates are suggested by the more cautious critics; but the possibility of a Sung origin having been established, I am inclined to give the evidence of form its full weight.
There are, besides these, other well–defined types of translucent porcelain which may confidently be attributed to a period as early as the Sung, but here the possibility—nay, probability—of a Corean origin has to be considered. It is certain that many of them have been found in Corean tombs; the provenance of the rest is doubtful. One type is a delicious smooth white porcelain with glaze of faintly bluish tinge, highly translucent, and worked very thin at the edges. The base of the vessels (usually small shallow bowls or saucers) is unglazed, and shows a soft–looking sugary body of close texture, rather earthy than glassy, and slightly browned by the fire. They have, in fact, almost the appearance of a "soft–paste" porcelain like that of Chelsea. These are so different from any known Chinese type that I strongly incline to a Corean origin for them. Another type is of hard but translucent ware with glaze of distinctly bluish tinge. A bowl in the British Museum is a good example of this. Of the usual conical form, it has a plain outside, and the inside is decorated with an incised design of not very clear meaning, but apparently a close foliage ground with highly formalised figures of boys. If this interpretation is correct, it is a conventional rendering of the well–known pattern of boys in foliage, Chinese in origin, but frequently used by the Corean potters. The design ends in Corean fashion, about an inch below the rim, leaving a plain band above it. The glaze is a faint bluish colour all over, and is powdered with specks, a fault in the firing; the base is almost entirely unglazed, and the biscuit, where exposed, has turned reddish brown. The style of this piece is strongly Corean. The same peculiarities in the base are shared by another type of small bowl, usually decorated inside with a sketchy design in combed lines. Some of these are creamy white; others are bluish white with a decided blue tinge in the well of the bowl where the glaze has formed thickly.[322]Another group, which is also said to be represented among the Corean tomb wares, is practically indistinguishable from the creamy white Ting Chou porcelain.