Plate 55.—Ming Pottery with dullsan ts´aiglazes.Fig. 1.—Wine Jar with pierced outer casing, horsemen and attendants, rocky background. Fifteenth century. Total height 191/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Tripod Incense Vase, dragons and peony designs and a panel of horsemen. Dated 1529A. D.Height 22 inches.Messel Collection.
Plate 55.—Ming Pottery with dullsan ts´aiglazes.Fig. 1.—Wine Jar with pierced outer casing, horsemen and attendants, rocky background. Fifteenth century. Total height 191/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Tripod Incense Vase, dragons and peony designs and a panel of horsemen. Dated 1529A. D.Height 22 inches.Messel Collection.
Plate 55.—Ming Pottery with dullsan ts´aiglazes.
Fig. 1.—Wine Jar with pierced outer casing, horsemen and attendants, rocky background. Fifteenth century. Total height 191/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 2.—Tripod Incense Vase, dragons and peony designs and a panel of horsemen. Dated 1529A. D.Height 22 inches.Messel Collection.
Plate 56.—Miscellaneous Pottery.Fig. 1—Jar with dull green glaze and formal lotus scroll in relief touched with yellow and brown glazes. About 1600. Height 12 inches.Guff Collection.Fig. 2—Beaker of bronze form, soft whitish body and dull green glaze. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 161/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—vase of light buff ware with dull black dressing, vine reliefs. Mark,Nan hsiang t´ang(see p.219). Eighteenth century. Height 111/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 56.—Miscellaneous Pottery.Fig. 1—Jar with dull green glaze and formal lotus scroll in relief touched with yellow and brown glazes. About 1600. Height 12 inches.Guff Collection.Fig. 2—Beaker of bronze form, soft whitish body and dull green glaze. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 161/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—vase of light buff ware with dull black dressing, vine reliefs. Mark,Nan hsiang t´ang(see p.219). Eighteenth century. Height 111/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Plate 56.—Miscellaneous Pottery.
Fig. 1—Jar with dull green glaze and formal lotus scroll in relief touched with yellow and brown glazes. About 1600. Height 12 inches.Guff Collection.Fig. 2—Beaker of bronze form, soft whitish body and dull green glaze. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 161/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.Fig. 3.—vase of light buff ware with dull black dressing, vine reliefs. Mark,Nan hsiang t´ang(see p.219). Eighteenth century. Height 111/2inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
At Yi–chênChinese characterin the Yang–chou Fu, in Kiangsu, there were factories which supplied wine jars, etc., to the palace at Nanking in the early years of the Ming dynasty; and in the seventh year of Chia Ching (1528) supplies of similar vessels were sent from Ning–kuo FuChinese characterin the south–west of Anhui.[438]The latter place is mentioned elsewhere[439]under its earlier name of Hsüan ChouChinese characteras producing a thin white ware made of "plastic clay" in the Yüan and Ming periods. A verse of Wang Shih–chêng (1526–1593) speaks of the "snow white porcelain of Hsüan Chou."[440]TheT´ao luenumerates factories which began in the Ming dynasty and continued to the nineteenth century, and apparently produced an inferior type of porcelain, and probably pottery as well. They were located at Huai–ch´ing FuChinese character, I–yang HsienChinese character, Têng–fêng HsienChinese character, and Shan ChouChinese characterin Honan; at Yi HsienChinese characterand Tsou HsienChinese characterin Yen–chou Fu in Shantung; in the Lung ShangChinese characterdistrict in Shensi, and at Hêng–fêngChinese characterin Kiangsi. The last–mentioned factory was established by a man named Ch´ü Chih–kao from Ch´u–chou Fu in the early Ming period. In the Chia Ching period (1522–1566) it was transferred to the I–yangChinese characterdistrict to a place called Ma–k´êng, not many miles south of Ching–tê Chên. Both the Lung–shang and Ma–k´êng wares are described as very coarse.
The value of pottery for architectural purposes was recognised in China from the earliest times. Unglazed bricks and tiles of Han and pre–Han periods are preserved by Chinese collectors, particularly when they happen, as is often the case, to have inscriptions in old seal characters, or other ornament. The familiar Chinese roof tile is a long convex object like a horizontal section of a tube, and those intended for the border are ornamented at one end with a disc, usually stamped with a dragon or other design in sunk relief. Here and there, on the apex of the roof or at the corners, are ornamental tiles carrying figures of deities, heroes, mythical creatures or birds, modelled in the round and usually with great force and skill. Besides these, architectural mouldings and antefixal ornaments in pottery are commonly used on temples and pavilions of an ornamental kind.
The use of tiles—and, no doubt, of other architectural embellishments in pottery—was encouraged by government enactments at various times. In the T´ang dynasty (618–906A. D.),[441]in the districts south and west of the Yangtze, under the inspectorship ofa man named TanChinese character, the inhabitants were ordered to use tiles on their houses in place of wood in order to lessen the risk of fire; kilns were erected to provide the tiles, and those who were too poor to carry out the alterations by themselves received State help. A somewhat similar but more important edict was issued in the twenty–seventh year of Hung Wu[442](1394), that bricks and tiles should be used in all the buildings in the capital, which was then Nanking, and that kilns should be set up every year on theChü–pao shanfor their manufacture. It was not long after this that the famous "porcelain pagoda" was erected at Nanking,[443]the lower part of which was faced with white porcelain bricks, the remaining storeys with pottery with coloured glazes.
Tile factories existed in all parts of China to supply local needs, and the few singled out for mention in theT´u Shu[444]were perhaps of more than usual importance in the Ming dynasty. They are Lin–ch´ingChinese characterin the extreme west of Shantung; Su ChouChinese characterin Kiangsu, on the east side of the lake T´ai–hu, and facing the potteries of Yi–hsing, which supplied tiles for the palaces and temples of Nanking; the neighbouring Ch´ang–chou Chên, and Yi–chên and Kua Chou in the Yang–chou Fu of the same province; Wu–Ch´ing HsienChinese character, in the district of Peking, where the potters asked for permission to make tiles for public use in 1574.
The tile works at Liu–li–chü (mentioned on p.200) date from the Yüan dynasty. They are also situated in the neighbourhood of Peking, but whether in the Wu–ch´ing Hsien or not, I have failed to discover.
When Peking became the capital of the Ch´ing emperors, no doubt the tile factories at Wu–ch´ing Hsien assumed still greater importance; and according to the catalogue of the exhibition in Paris in 1878,[445]the neighbourhood of Amoy was then celebrated for its bricks and tiles. This branch of the potter's industry is represented by a small collection of bricks, tiles, mouldings, and antefixal ornaments in the British Museum. It includes unglazed bricks from the Great Wall of China, which may date from 220B. C., a few Han bricks and tile–ends with moulded ornament; white porcelain bricks and coloured pottery tiles and mouldings from the Nanking pagoda; and tiles from the Ming tombs near Nanking, which were built in 1400A. D., and like the pagoda destroyed in the T´aip´ing rebellion in 1853. The Nanking tiles and mouldings are of hard buff pottery with translucent glazes of green and yellow colour, minutely crackled, additional colours being formed with red and creamy white slips. The tile–ends are ornamented with dragon medallions.
Seated figure of Kuan Yü, the war–god of China, a deified warrior. Reddish buff pottery with blue, yellow and turquoise glazes, and a colourless glaze on the white parts. Sixteenth century.
Seated figure of Kuan Yü, the war–god of China, a deified warrior. Reddish buff pottery with blue, yellow and turquoise glazes, and a colourless glaze on the white parts. Sixteenth century.
Height 203/8inches.Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Other architectural pottery in the same collection came from the Imperial pleasure grounds at Peking, which were wrecked in 1860. These include tiles and antefixal ornaments from the pavilions and temples in the Yüan Ming Yüan and from the Summer Palace, and a few blue–glazed tiles from the Temple of Heaven. Numerous tiles with relief figures and pottery figures from niches were picked up in the ruins of the temples and pavilions in the Imperial grounds after their capture in 1860; and many of the mouldings were found to display strong European influences, due, no doubt, to the designs of the Jesuits Attiret and Castiglione, who assisted the Emperor Ch´ien Lung in erecting some of the buildings. Some of these are in the British Museum besides antefixes in the form of yellow dragon heads from the Winter Palace at Peking and from the celebrated Temple of Kin–shan, or Golden Island, in the Yangtze; and a tile from the Huang–ssŭ, the Great Lama temple, built by K´ang Hsi in 1647. The tile in question is evidently part of a restoration, for it bears the date corresponding to 1770.
The ordinary tiles and mouldings are not likely to be extensively collected by private individuals, but many of the ridge tiles, with figures of deities, horsemen, lions,ch´i–lin, and phœnixes, have found their way into collections to which their spirited modelling has served as a passport. The glazes on these are often richly coloured, and include yellow, green, violet purple, aubergine and purplish black, and occasionally high–fired glazes withflambéor variegated colours. By accident or design, the figures are not infrequently detached from their tiles and mounted on wooden stands. The pottery figures from niches in the walls of temples and public buildings are often finely modelled and richly glazed, and, needless to say, they find a welcome in Western collections (Plate 58).
It is a common but illogical practice to assign all these figures in architectural pottery to the Ming dynasty; illogical, because somany of them have been brought from the Imperial buildings at Peking which are known to have been mostly erected in the K´ang Hsi and Ch´ien Lung period. On the other hand, nothing is more difficult to date than this type of glazed pottery, in which the ware, the colours, and the decorative traditions seem to have continued almost unchanged from the early Ming times to the present day. The tiles from the Nanking pagoda and from the eighteenth–century buildings at Peking are practically interchangeable.
Nor must we forget that the potters who made the architectural pottery often turned their hands and materials to the manufacture of vases and figures and other ceramic ornaments for domestic use, and even imposing altar sets for the temples. An important example of this work is seen in Fig. 2 of Plate 55, a large incense vase[446]of traditional form (from an altar set) with bowl–shaped body, wide mouth, two upstanding handles, and three feet with lion masks. It is ornamented with a peony scroll and two dragons in high relief, and is made of pottery with a dull turquoise green glaze. An inscription on the handles proclaims the fact that it was "dedicated by the chieftain Kuo Hsin–shê; made in the eighth year of Chia Ching," i.e. 1529. In more recent times the tile works near Peking have turned their attention to the manufacture of vases and bowls with rich soft monochrome glazes, yellow, green, turquoise and aubergine in the manner of the similarly coloured porcelains which are highly prized, and, as Bushell tells us, "the soft excipient (i.e. the pottery body) seems to impart an added softness" to the glazes. "The fact that yellow clay," he continues, "used often to be mixed with the porcelain earth in the old fabrics to enhance the brilliancy of the glaze colours, gives a certain vraisemblance to the fraudulent reproductions which I have seen sold for as many dollars as they would cost in cents to produce." It is unlikely that the issue of these by–products of the tile factories is confined to the neighbourhood of Peking. Among the miscellaneous potteries I should add that Ka–shan,[447]in Chekiang, is reputed to have been noted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for a fine porcellanous stoneware with opaque, camellia–leaf green glaze minutely crackled.
Plate 58.—Miscellaneous Pottery.Fig. 1.—Jar with lotus design in green, yellow and turquoise glazes in an aubergine ground. About 1600. Height 61/2inches.Hippisley Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase of double fish form, buff ware with turquoise, yellow and aubergine glazes. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 53/4inches.British Museum.Fig. 3.—Roof–tile with figure of Bodhidharma, deep green and creamy white glazes. Sixteenth century. Height 107/8inches.Benson Collection.Fig. 4.—Bottle with archaic dragon (ch´ih lung) on neck, variegated glaze of lavender, blue and green clouded with purple and brown. (?) Eighteenth century Yi–hsing ware. Height 10 inches.Peters Collection.
Plate 58.—Miscellaneous Pottery.Fig. 1.—Jar with lotus design in green, yellow and turquoise glazes in an aubergine ground. About 1600. Height 61/2inches.Hippisley Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase of double fish form, buff ware with turquoise, yellow and aubergine glazes. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 53/4inches.British Museum.Fig. 3.—Roof–tile with figure of Bodhidharma, deep green and creamy white glazes. Sixteenth century. Height 107/8inches.Benson Collection.Fig. 4.—Bottle with archaic dragon (ch´ih lung) on neck, variegated glaze of lavender, blue and green clouded with purple and brown. (?) Eighteenth century Yi–hsing ware. Height 10 inches.Peters Collection.
Plate 58.—Miscellaneous Pottery.
Fig. 1.—Jar with lotus design in green, yellow and turquoise glazes in an aubergine ground. About 1600. Height 61/2inches.Hippisley Collection.Fig. 2.—Vase of double fish form, buff ware with turquoise, yellow and aubergine glazes. (?) Seventeenth century. Height 53/4inches.British Museum.Fig. 3.—Roof–tile with figure of Bodhidharma, deep green and creamy white glazes. Sixteenth century. Height 107/8inches.Benson Collection.Fig. 4.—Bottle with archaic dragon (ch´ih lung) on neck, variegated glaze of lavender, blue and green clouded with purple and brown. (?) Eighteenth century Yi–hsing ware. Height 10 inches.Peters Collection.
MARKS ON CHINESE POTTERY AND PORCELAIN
THE custom of placing on works of art the name of the maker, the date of manufacture, or some sign or symbol indicating the intention with which they were made, dates back in China at least as far as the Han dynasty. Such marks occur on pottery and porcelain rarely at first, but with a frequency which increases in proportion as we draw nearer to modern times. They are incised or stamped in the soft body of the ware, or painted under the glaze (usually in blue) or over it in enamel colours or gold; and they are generally placed on the base of the ware, though there are fairly numerous instances in which the mark is written along the mouth rim or in some other more or less conspicuous position.
The earliest marks, as far as I am aware, are incised, and those on the Han, T´ang, and Sung potteries, not to mention the intermediate dynasties, should be scrutinised with the greatest care to make sure whether the incisions were made before the pottery was baked or afterwards. There should be no difficulty in determining this point, for the lines cut with a sharp instrument in the fired ware are necessarily harder and less free than those incised in the soft clay, and the edges of the incisions will present obvious differences in the two cases. Unfortunately the early date–marks which I have seen up to the present have almost all been cut after the firing. It does not necessarily follow that such inscriptions are modern additions. Indeed in many cases they are in a style which is clearly old. But their value as evidence is very small, for it is impossible to prove the exact time of their carving; and at best we can only regard them as representing the opinion of some former owner as to the date of the vessel in question. At their worst, they are deliberate frauds added by modern vendors with intent to deceive.
Incised or stamped marks have always been common on pottery, but porcelain is usually marked by painting with a brush, and for this purpose underglaze blue is the commonest medium, red andother on–glaze colours being used chiefly on the relatively modern wares decorated infamille roseenamels. Similarly the ordinary script is usual in marks, and seal characters are quite exceptional on porcelain earlier than the eighteenth century.
It is not safe to take the older date–marks on porcelain at their face value. The Chinese with their proverbial veneration for antiquity habitually placed the date–marks of the classical reigns on their porcelain whether decorated in the style of the period mentioned or not. Already in the sixteenth century the Hsüan Tê and Ch'êng Hua marks were used in this way, and in the K'ang Hsi period the names of these two classic reigns were used more frequently than that of the K'ang Hsi period itself. In fact the Hsüan Tê and Ch'êng Hua are on the whole the most familiar marks of all, though the actual wares of these two periods are among the rarest. The date–marks of the other Ming Emperors are less frequently plagiarised, except upon the deliberate imitations of the wares of the time, such as those made at the Imperial factory in the Yung Chêng period, which we may be sure were carefully marked with the appropriatenien hao. Moreover, the Japanese, who have expended much ingenuity on reproducing Ming wares, have made free with Ming date–marks, especially those of Chia Ching and Wan Li.
In the year 1677 the potters at Ching–tê Chên were forbidden by an order of the district prefect[448]to inscribe the period–name of the Emperor or any sacred writing on their porcelain, lest the names should be profaned in the breaking of the ware. It is certain that this prohibition was not effective for long; but probably the current date–mark was suppressed for a time at least, and it is quite likely that we should trace to this interval the custom of putting symbols or conventional marks inside the double ring which was usually occupied by thenien hao, a common practice in the K'ang Hsi period. In many cases, too, the rings were left empty; but it is a mistake to regard this as an infallible sign of K'ang Hsi manufacture, for it is a thing which might happen at any time through negligence, the rings being made by one person and the marks written byanother. There are, besides, well authenticated instances of the empty double ring on Wan Li porcelain,[449]and on post K'ang Hsi wares. It was, however, such a frequent occurrence on the K'ang Hsi wares that the modern imitators make a common practice of leaving the rings blank on their copies of the K'ang Hsi blue and white. It is not clear whether the prefect's prohibition applied to the names of Ming emperors, but probably it did not, as it is unlikely that the adherents of the reigning dynasty would be sensitive about the titles of the house which they had exterminated. In any case, Ming marks, especially those of the fifteenth century, are very common on the K'ang Hsi porcelain, and the K'ang Hsi mark itself is comparatively rare except on the specimens which must belong to the later years of the reign.
En revanche, the K'ang Hsi mark is freely used on quite modern wares, that period being now regarded as classical; so that we are confronted with the paradox that if a specimen of fine quality[450]is marked Ch'êng Hua, it may generally be assumed that it was made in the K'ang Hsi period, while the bulk of the pieces which bear the K'ang Hsi mark are of modern date.
The Yung Chêng and Ch'ien Lung porcelains are highly esteemed to–day, and consequently the marks of these periods are considered worthy of a place on modern imitations; but on the whole the bulk of the specimens bearing these marks will be found to belong to the period indicated, and the imitations are generally so coarse as to be unmistakable. The temptation to borrow the reign marks of the subsequent periods is so slight that we may safely accept the later marks as correct indications of date.
Marks written in enamel colours and even in gold become increasingly common on thefamille roseporcelains from the Yung Chêng period onwards, the red mark being more familiar on the modern wares than the blue; and seal characters frequently replace the ordinary script in the reign marks of the Yung Chêng and subsequent periods. Date marks in seal form before the eighteenth century are very unusual, and should be regarded with suspicion.
It will be seen from the foregoing notes that Chinese date marks must be treated with great caution. In fact it is safer to regard them merely as secondary evidence, first basing one's judgmenton the paste and glaze, the style of decoration and the quality of the colours. The one exception to this declaration of unfaith is the marks on the Imperial porcelain. These would naturally be correct and reliable, except where deliberate imitations of the older wares were undertaken; and then, no doubt, the mark of the period imitated would be used to make the illusion complete. The Imperial marks were the work of calligraphers who were selected for the purpose, and the writing is careful and in good style. In fact a well–written mark is almost as certain a sign of Imperial ware as the five–clawed dragon itself.[451]
At the private factories the marks were often carelessly, even illegibly, written, and probably little trouble was taken with this part of the decoration except on the choicer specimens. On a large proportion of the private wares the mark was omitted altogether.
The marks on Chinese pottery and porcelain may be conveniently grouped under the following headings:—
(1) Date marks.(2) Hall marks.(3) Potters' names and factory marks.(4) Marks of dedication, felicitation, commendation, etc.
(1) Date marks.
(2) Hall marks.
(3) Potters' names and factory marks.
(4) Marks of dedication, felicitation, commendation, etc.
(1)Date marks.
The date marks conform to the two Chinese systems of chronology, (a) the cyclical and (b) the reign names of the Emperors.
(a) The system by which the years are divided into cycles of sixty, each year of the cycle having a name, carries back Chinese chronology to the year 2637B. C., from which the first cycle is dated. We are at present in the 76th cycle.
The year names are composed of two characters, the first being one of the Ten Stems, and the second one of the Twelve Branches; and as the stems and the branches are taken in strict rotation, it is clear that the combinations will not be exhausted until sixty have been formed, that number being the least common multiple of ten and twelve.
The Ten StemsShih kanare as follows:—
The Twelve Branchesshih êrh chih, which correspond to the twelve animals of the zodiac, and through them to the twelve divisions of the day are as follows:—
The table of cycles subsequent to the Christian era,[452]i.e. cycles 45–76, dating from 4–1928A. D., will be useful in calculating the year of the cyclical dates with the help of the accompanying table of numerals:—
(a) is the normal form; (b) is commonly used for accounts; (c) is used on drafts, pawntickets, etc.
It will be seen that cyclical dates without any indication of the particular cycle intended are merely tantalising. On the other hand when the reign is specified as well, the combination gives the most precise form of date. But unfortunately there are many cases in which the reign name is absent, and we can only judge the cycle by the style of the ware, a calculation which is always open to dispute. It is not often that the cycle is so clearly indicated by an indirect method as in the oft–quoted markyu hsin ch´ou nien chih= made in thehsin ch´ouyear recurring (yu).This can only be 1721, when thehsin ch´ouyear actually recurred in the (sixty–first year of) reign of K´ang Hsi.[453]
(b) The more usual form of date mark is that which gives the reign name of an Emperor. On ascending the throne the Emperor discarded his family name and assumed a title by which his reign was thenceforth known. This is the name which appears in the date marks, and it is known as thenien(period)hao(name). After his death the Emperor received another title, themiao hao, or name under which he was canonised; but though reference might be made to him in history under hismiao hao, it is obvious that the posthumous name cannot occur on contemporary date marks.
In reckoning the date of an Emperor's reign it was not usual to include officially the year in which his predecessor had died, but to date the reign from the first day of the year following. Thus, though K´ang Hsi became Emperor in 1661, his reign is dated officially from 1662.
The Imperial date mark is usually written in six characters beginning with the name of the dynasty and ending with the wordsnien chih(made in the period): thenien haocoming in the middle:—
123456e.g.Tamingch´ênghuanienchih= made (chih)
4
in the Ch´êng Hua period (nien) of the great Ming (dynasty).
Occasionally the wordnienis replaced byyü(Imperial),yü chihmeaning made by Imperial command; and in place ofchihwe sometimes find the wordtsaoor more rarelytsoChinese characterboth of which have the same meaning "made."
The six characters may be written in two lines of three, or in three lines of two, or again in one long line read from right to left; and for reasons of space, and sometimes for no apparent reason, the first two characters are omitted, e.g.Chinese character. The omission of thenien haois rare except on a few Japanese copies of Chinese porcelain, e.g.Chinese characterta ming nien chih= made in the great Ming dynasty.
As already mentioned, the seal forms of the mark were frequently employed from the eighteenth century onwards (see p.209). An archaic form of seal character occurs in the Yung Lo mark which is given below.
The use of thenien haoon the Imperial wares made at Ching–tê Chên was made obligatory by a command issued in the Ching–tê period (1004–1007), when the name of the town was altered to Ching–tê Chên.
Ming Dynasty
Chinese charactersHUNGWU, 1368–1398.
Chinese charactersSame in seal characters.
Chinese charactersYUNGLO, 1403–1424.
Chinese charactersSame in archaic characters.
Chinese charactersHSÜANTÊ, 1426–1435.
Chinese charactersSame in seal characters.
Chinese charactersCH´ÊNGHUA, 1465–1487.
Chinese charactersSame in seal characters (the first two omitted).
Chinese charactersHUNGCHIH, 1488–1505.
Chinese charactersCHÊNGTÊ, 1506–1521.
Chinese charactersCHIACHING, 1522–1566.
Chinese charactersLUNGCH´ING, 1567–1572.
Chinese charactersWANLI, 1573–1619.
Chinese charactersT´IENCH´I, 1621–1627.
Chinese charactersCH´UNGCHÊNG, 1628–1643.
Ch´ing Dynasty.
Chinese characterSHUNCHIH, 1644–1661.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterK´ANGHSI, 1662–1722.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterYUNGCHÊNG, 1723–1735.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterCH´IENLUNG, 1736–1795.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterCHIACH´ING, 1796–1820.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterTAOKUANG, 1821–1850.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterHSIENFÊNG, 1851–1861.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterT´UNGCHIH, 1862–1874.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
Chinese characterKUANGHSÜ, 1875–1909.
Chinese characterSame in seal characters.
(2)Hall marks.
The "hall mark," which is of frequent occurrence on both porcelain and pottery, is so called because it includes the wordt´angChinese character(hall) or some equivalent such aschaiChinese character(a study),t´ingChinese character(a pavilion),hsienorhsüanChinese character(a porch, balcony or pavilion),kuanChinese character(a residence or hostelry),fangChinese character(a room or house),chüChinese character(a dwelling). The wordt´angas explained in Giles's Dictionary is "a hall: especially a hall of justice or court; the ancestral hall; an official title."T´ang mingis "the family hall name—a fancy name usually consisting of two characters followed byt´ang(e.g.wu tê t´ang chin= Chin of the military valour hall), and referring to some event in family history. It is generally inscribed in one of the principal rooms of the house, and is used in deeds, on graves, boundary stones, etc."
The hall mark, then, may contain the studio name of the maker or of the recipient of the ware, or it may have reference literally to the building for which the ware was intended. The last interpretation can be generally applied to the marks referring to halls or pavilions in the precincts of the Imperial palace. Again, the hall may be the shop of a dealer who ordered the goods. But in the absence of prepositions, it is not always—not often, I should perhaps say—possible to determine which of these alternatives is implied in any particular hallmark; e.g.Lin yü t´ang chihmay mean "made in the Abundant–Jade Hall," or "for" the same, or by a man whose studio name wasLin–yü t´ang.
As to the antiquity of hall marks, it was not considered anachronistic to cut one on a Han granary urn which is now in the British Museum; but unfortunately as the cutting was done after the ware was baked it is now impossible to say at what period it was executed. A Sung example is quoted in theNi ku lu(written in the middle of the sixteenth century) as inscribed on a Ting Chou vase in the handwriting of the Mi family, viz.,jên ho kuan(Hotel of Benevolence and Harmony). A similar mark similarly placed isjên ts´un t´ang(Hall of Benevolence), on a Tz´ŭ Chou jar in the Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Hall marks on Ming porcelain are rare. There is, however, one which occurs fairly often on late Ming porcelains of various kinds, including pieces decorated in blue and blue and white, underglaze red, blue and enamel colours, pierced designs and slip. This isyü t´ang chia ch´i, "beautiful vessel for the Jade Hall."
It is improbable that theyü t´angwas a factory name, as the specimens so marked have little homogeneity. Giles's Dictionary tells us thatyü t´angis a name for the Han Lin College at Peking, which was so called in memory of Chou Chih–lin of the Sung dynasty, upon whom the Emperor bestowed these two characters in admiration of his qualities. From this we might infer that the wares so marked were made for the Han Lin; but why, one asks, in that case should the examples in our collections be so many and so evidently of the same period? On the whole I prefer to regard the mark as of general (and complimentary) significance, i.e. "beautiful vessel for the home of pure worth," like another mark much affected on late Ming porcelainfu kuei chia ch´i("fine vessel for the rich and honourable!").
Hall marks are very frequent on the porcelains of the Ch´ing dynasty, and enough are given below to illustrate their various forms. Many of them are no doubt hall names of makers and decorators, and as such belong to the category of artists' signatures.
Special interest attaches to those hall marks which have been identified as referring to pavilions in the precincts of the Imperial palace. We are told by Bushell[454]that the "fashion of inscribing upon porcelain made for the Imperial palace the name of the particular pavilion for which it was intended seems to have begun in the reign of Yung Chêng," and observation shows that these hall marks onlybecome frequent on the later porcelains. In fact most of the examples with which I am acquainted are nearer in style to the Tao Kuang than to the Yung Chêng wares, and the majority of the hall marks written in red on the glaze will be found to be of early nineteenth century date.
Chinese characterYü t´ang chia ch´i= fine vessel for the jade hall (late Ming).
Chinese characterYü hai t´ang chih= made for the Yü–hai (jade sea) hall (about 1700).
Chinese characterTs´ai hua t´ang chih= made for the hall of bright painting (nineteenth century).
Chinese characterTs´ai jun t´ang chih= made for the hall of bright colours (nineteenth century).
Chinese characterNan hsiang t´ang= south aspect hall (on eighteenth century pottery).
Chinese characterChih lan chai chih= made for the epidendrum hall (seventeenth century).
Chinese characterKu yüeh hsüan chih= made by Ku–yüeh–hsüan. (See Vol. ii., p. 215.)
Chinese characterYu ch´ai= quiet pavilion—a studio name of a painter.
Chinese characterWan shih chü= myriad rocks retreat; studio name of a painter.
Chinese characterChu shih chü= red rocks retreat; studio name of a painter.
Chinese characterCh´êng tê t´ang chih= ordered for the Ch´êng–tê (complete virtue) hall.
Chinese characterChing wei t´ang chih= made for the Ching–wei (reverent awe) hall.
Chinese characterHsü hua t´ang chihtsêng = made for the Hsü–hua hall, for presentation.
Chinese characterTan ning chai chih= made for the Tan–ning (peace and tranquillity) pavilion.
Chinese characterSsŭ pu chai chih= made for the Ssŭ–pu pavilion (i.e. pavilion for meditation for the correction of faults).
Chinese characterShên tê t´ang chih= made for the Shên–tê (cultivation of virtue) hall. (See Vol. ii., p. 264.)
Chinese characterShên tê t´ang po ku chih= antique made for the Shên–tê hall.
(3)Potters' names, etc.
Marks which include potters' names (apart from the uncertain hall marks) are rare on Chinese porcelain though frequent enough on pottery. But it will be remembered that at Ching–tê Chên at any rate the porcelain passed through so many hands that the individuality of the work was lost, and consequently a personal mark would be, as a rule, misleading. The question of signatures in the field of the decoration has been discussed[455]with the conclusion that they belong rather to the artists who painted the original copied by the pot–painters than to the pot–painter himself.
Perhaps we should include here a fairly common type of mark, usually in the form of a small seal of a conventional and quite illegible character, which goes by the name of "shop marks." But it is not clear whether they refer to the maker or the firm who ordered the porcelain.
Chinese characterMa chên shih tsao= made by ma ch´ên–shih (on a T´ang vase).
Chinese characterChang chia tsao= made by the Chang family (on Tz´ŭ Chou ware). (See Vol. i., p.105.)
Chinese characterWang shih ch´ih ming= Mr. Wang Ch´ih–ming (on Tz´ŭ–Chou ware).