Chapter 15

[235]The pottery found in Sung tombs near Wei Hsien, in Shantung, in 1903, includes a few examples of this type of ware with sketchy brown designs. Laufer (Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty, Appendix ii.) has illustrated this important find, though he is inclined to think that it may have been made at the neighbouring potteries of Po Shan Hsien. If this is so, we must reckon with the fact, in itself not at all surprising, that other factories besides Tz´ŭ Chou were working on the same lines. See p.107.[236]It would appear that the Tz´ŭ Chou potters were capable of producing these lustrous brown passages in the black glaze intentionally, for the floral design on Fig. 1 of Plate 34 is expressed in this manner.[237]At Wei Hsien. See note on p.103.[238]There are specimens—mostly small bowls—of a very archaic appearance, with the red and green painting which are persistently claimed as of Sung period. But see p. 46 and Plate 30.[239]Catalogue of the Boston Exhibition, op. cit., 1884.[240]Cat. B.F.A., 1910, E 63. This example has the mark of Wang Ch´ih–ming. See p.221.[241]See p.221.[242]See Bushell, op. cit., p. 122.[243]Op. cit., vol. i., p. 91.[244]SeeBurlington Magazine, August, 1911, andCat. B.F.A., D 19 and 41.[245]The link is strengthened by the presence of the black painted bands which border the main designs. See alsoBurlington Magazine, loc. cit., August, 1911, "On Some Old Chinese Pottery."[246]On a few specimens, the date of which is by no means certain, a design of leaves is executed by a peculiar process, in which an actual leaf seems to have been used as a stencil, being stuck on to the ware while the slip was applied, and afterwards removed, leaving a leaf–shaped pattern in reserve. A somewhat similar use of leaf stencilling is described on p.133.[247]See p.134.[248]Bk. vii., fol. 14. Some authorities seem to have considered that the Hsü Chou factories go back to Sung times.[249]Chinese characters.[250]TheT´ao luwas written at the end of the eighteenth century.[251]Chinese characteris an alternative form ofChinese character.[252]Bk. ii., fol. 7 verso. In discussing the glazes with mixed colour, the author says: "Of these wares, the sword–grass bowls and their saucers alone are refined. The other kinds, like the garden seats, boxes, square vases, and flower jars, are all of yellow sandy earthenware. Consequently, they are coarse and thick, and not refined." The first sentence is difficult, and has given rise to much discussion. The wordti, which Bushell has (rightly, I think) rendered saucers, literally means "bottom" or "base." Hirth reads it, "Those which have bottoms like the flower pots in which sword–grass is grown are considered the most excellent"; and Julien appears to have quite misunderstood the application of the passage. The original isChinese characters. The shallow saucers in which the deep flower pots stood are often included among the bulb bowls. See Plates 37 and 40.[253]See the excellent account of the Chün wares by Mrs. Williams in the introduction to theCatalogue of a Loan Exhibition of Chinese, Corean, and Japanese Potteries held by the Japan Society of New York, 1914.[254]Shrivelled glaze is sometimes seen on the Chün types of pottery. Probably this was at first, at any rate, an accidental effect; but it is the prototype of the "dragon skin" glazes which the Japanese made at a later date. There is a good example in the Eumorfopoulos Collection of a bowl with thick grey Chün glaze, with a patch of reddish colour, and which is shrivelled in the most approved fashion, the glaze contracting into isolated drops and exposing the body between them.[255]SeeT´ao shuo, bk. ii., fol. 15 verso, quoting theLiu ch´ing jih cha. In the case of the former (t´u ssŭ wên) some confusion has been caused by a variant readingChinese characterof the wordChinese character(t´u= hare), which refers the simile to the "dodder"; but the commoner phrase, "hare's fur marking," is far more descriptive of a dappled surface. Brinkley's explanation of the second phrase,huo yen ch´ing, as referring to the blue centre of a tongue of flame, applying the simile to the passages of blue which sometimes occur in the variegated Chün glazes, seems to meet the case. The flame–like effects are mentioned in an interesting passage in theT´ang chien kung t´ao yeh t´u shuo(quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 13): "Men prize the Chün cups, tripods, and incense burners with smoke and flame glaze (yen huan sê). Although only pottery, still they combine the unexpected colours produced by the blowing tube (t´o yo)." Thet´o yoChinese charactersseems to have been "a pipe for blowing up the furnace."[256]See Hamilton Bell, "'Imperial' Sung Pottery,"Art in America, July, 1913, p. 182. The Chinese numerals are given on p.211.[257]Cat. B.F.A., 1910, B 42.[258]There is an obvious analogy in the "size 3" and "S 2," etc., incised under the Derby porcelain figures.[259]See p.50.[260]SeeChiang hsi t´ung chih, vol. xciii, fol. 11 and seq. Quoted also in theT´ao lu, and translated by Bushell,O.C.A., p. 369; and vol. ii., p. 223, of this work.[261]Wai hsin têChinese characters, lit. "recently obtained from outside." Wai evidently contrasts here withnei(the palace), which precedes the first five. Julien, however, gives it the sense "émaux nouvellement inventés."[262]SeeT´ao lu, bk. vi., fol. 7. "As to the ware made at Ching–tê Chên at the present day in imitation of the Chün wares, the body material is all of beautiful quality." This carries the imitation up to the end of the eighteenth century. There are, however, imitations made on a soft pottery body which bear the Yung Chêng mark.[263]See p. 174.[264]See p. 181. The list quoted on p. 223 of vol. ii. of the wares made at the Imperial potteries in 1730 includes "glazes of Ou: imitated from old wares of a man named Ou. There are two kinds, one with red markings, the other with blue."[265]kua yuChinese characters"applied or added glaze." The significance of the epithetkualies in the fact that the bulk of the Yi–hsing ware was unglazed.[266]See Bushell,O.C.A., p. 374.[267]See p.168.[268]SeeBurlington Magazine, November, 1909, Plate iv., opp. p. 83.[269]See Mrs. Williams, loc. cit., p. 33.[270]The modern Yü Chou. See vol. ii., p. 107.[271]Op. cit., Plate 1.[272]By Mr. A.W. Bahr.[273]The nameMais supposed to be that of a potter, but the statement is based on oral tradition only. The character used isma(horse).[274]It was deposited in the FitzWilliam Museum by Mr. W.H. Caulfield in 1896.[275]See p.110.[276]TheLi t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pien, of which the British Museum possesses a copy dated 1877.[277]TheCh´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng, fol. 10 of the subsection dealing witht´ao kung(the pottery industry), entitledT´ao kung pu hui k´ao.[278]TheCh´ing yi lu, quoted in theT´ao shuo, bk. v., fol. 16 verso: "In Min (i.e. Fukien) are made tea bowls with ornamental markings like the mottling and spots on a partridge (chê ku pan). The tea–testing parties prize them." Oddly enough, the only specimen of this type of ware which I have seen with a date–mark was dated in the reign of Hsien Tê (954–960) of the Posterior Chou dynasty; but the inscription had been cut subsequently to the firing of the ware, and carries little weight. The piece in question is a remarkably large bottle–shaped vase with a splendid purplish black glaze with "hare's fur" marking, in the Eumorfopoulos Collection.[279]SeeT´ao lu, bk. vii., fol. 8 verso.[280]Chinese characterst´u hao chan.[281]Ts´ai–hsiang, quoted in theT´ao shuo, bk. v., fol. 16 verso.[282]TheLiu ch´ing jih cha.[283]Chinese characters[284]In theLiu ch´ing jih cha.[285]See p.72.[286]In theKuei hai yü hêng chih, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 2 verso.[287]In theNing chai ts´ung hua, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 4.[288]SeeT´ao shuo, Bushell, op. cit., p. 47.[289]In theYün* hsien tsa chi, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 1 verso.[290]Quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. viii., fols. 12 and 13.[291]From theErh shih lu, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 15.[292]Op. cit., pp. 17–20.[293]Chinese Art, vol. ii., p. 17, and theCatalogue of the Morgan Collection(1907), p. xlviii.[294]Chinese characterswa ch'i yeh. TheShuo Wênwas compiled by Hsü Shên and published first in 120A. D.The wordtz'ŭChinese characteris compounded of the radicalwaChinese character(a tile, earthenware), and the phonetictz'ŭChinese character(second, inferior), and carries no inherent suggestion of porcelain. If connoting a new material, it may be a name applied specially to glazed pottery which seems to date from the Han period, or even to stoneware as opposed to soft earthenware or brick.[295]Thus the author of theT'ang shih ssŭ k'ao(quoted in theT'ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 9 verso): "The charactersChinese characterandChinese characterare not interchangeable. The latter is a hard and fine kind oft'ao. The material from which it is made is clay. The formerChinese character, on the other hand, is the name of a real stone which comes from the ancient Han–tan, which is the modern Tz'ŭ Chou. This department has potteries in which they use thetz'ŭstone for the body of the ware. Hence the nameTz'ŭ ch'i(Tz'ŭ wares), not that the ware from the potteries of this place is all porcelain. I hear that at Ching–tê Chên the common usage is to employ the characterChinese characterfor porcelain in writing and speaking. I have consulted friends whom I meet, and many use the two terms interchangeably. Truly this is altogether ridiculous. Tz'ŭ Chou is still making pottery at the present day." For the Tz'ŭ Chou pottery, see ch. viii.[296]Yeh chih, quoted in theT'ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 13 recto.[297]T'ao shuo, translated by Bushell, op. cit., p. 95.[298]Bushell,Chinese Art, vol. ii., p. 18.[299]SeeT'ao shuo(Bushell, op. cit., pp. 97 and 99). See also bk. ix., fol. 1 verso, where the passage from the Annals of the Sui Dynasty is quoted.[300]Chinese charactersSeeT'ao shuo, bk. iv., fol. 17 recto and verso.[301]The first two are apparently unidentified, but Jih–nan is Cochin China, whither, no doubt, the substance came as an article of trade.[302]Early writers refer to it aspi liu li, which is a transcription of the SanskritVaidurya, a stone supposed to be of the beryl type, but the identification is a matter of dispute. See Laufer,Jade, p. 111, footnote.[303]A seventh–century writer.[304]TheTa Yüeh–chihhave been identified with the Massagetæ, who in the fifth century were in possession of Afghanistan. See Bushell,T'ao shuo, op. cit., p. 100.[305]The substance is discussed at length in connection withpi–liu–liby Laufer (Jade, pp. 109–112), but this author seems very loath to admit the meaning glass forliu–li, though he allows that it is a common term for ceramic glaze. But the passage quoted above from theT'ao shuocan hardly be explained in any other way than in reference to a kind of glass.[306]The exact words of the text areChinese characters(Ch'ou i lü tz'ŭ wei chih yü chên wu i). "Ch'ou took green ware and made it (liu–li) not different from the real."[307]Orientalisches Archiv, Bd. ii., 1911, andChinesisches Porzellan, p. 24.[308]Op. cit., p. 20. Dr. Bushell, in his translation of theT´ao shuo, has given the more correct rendering, "Ch´ou madesome(i.e.liu–li) of green porcelain."[309]Op. cit., pp. 3 and 4.[310]Chinese charactersChin tai i pai tz´ŭ wei chih= "in recent generations with white ware they make it."[311]Chinese charactersTing chou pai tz´ŭ.For the Ting Chou ware, see ch. vii.[312]Père d'Entrecolles (in his letter dated from Ching–tê Chên in 1712) makes the statement that the district of Ching–tê Chên sent regular supplies of its ware, which he terms porcelain, to the Emperor from the second year of the reign ofTam ou te(sic). Though he gives the date as 422, it is clear that he really refers to the first Emperor, Wu Tê, of the T´ang dynasty (618–627A. D.). It is not clear how he arrived at the conclusion that the ware in question was porcelain, and as he refers to the Annals of Fou–liang as his authority, we may assume that the Chinese phrase contained the inconclusive termtz´ŭ. ort´ao. He adds that "nothing is said as to the inventor, nor to what experiments or accident the invention was due."[313]See p.101.[314]See p.142.[315]The European definition of porcelain may be stated thus: "Porcelain comprises all varieties of pottery which are made translucent by adding to the clay substances some natural or artificial fluxing material." In China the usual constituents arekaolin, which forms the clay substance, andpetuntse(china stone), which is the natural fluxing material. I should add that it is doubtful whether we are strictly justified in using the wordkaolinas a general name for porcelain earth (o t´u); but the term has been consecrated by usage, and has practically passed into our language in this sense. A slight translucency is observable near the rim on a white T´ang cup in the Eumorfopoulos Collection. The body of this piece is a soft white material, and the translucency is caused by a mingling of the glaze with the body where it is very thin, and it may be compared with the translucency of the Persian "gombroon" ware. But neither of these wares can be ranked as porcelain proper.[316]It is, however, mentioned in connection with some of the Sung wares (the Kuan, for example), but only in relation to the glaze.[317]It is true that Bushell, in his translation of theT´ao shuo(op. cit., p. 102) implies this quality in a "brown ware (tz´ŭ) bowl" sent as tribute by the P´o–hai in 841A. D.which is described as "translucent both inside and outside, of a pure brown colour, half an inch thick but as light as swan's down." The words of the textChinese charactersnei wai t´ung jung("inside and out throughout lustrous") are in themselves capable of suggesting translucence, but the remaining features—the brown glaze and the great thickness—are sufficient to preclude the idea of a translucent ware; and I imagine that the quality of lustre or translucency here applies only to the glaze. The P´o–hai appear to have been a subject state of Corea.[318]I am indebted for this literal translation of the much–quoted passage to Mr. Edwards, of the Oriental MSS. Department of the British Museum. It has been more freely rendered by M. Reinaud,Relation des voyages faits par les Arabes, etc., Paris, 1845, p. 34.[319]See F. Sarre, "Kleinfunde von Samarra und ihre Ergebnisse," inIslam, July, 1914.[320]Fragments of white porcelain with carved designs were found in some of the sites excavated by Sir Aurel Stein in Turfan, and there are fragments similar to the Samarra finds obtained from ancient sites in the Persian Gulf and now in the British Museum. But the evidence of these pieces is not conclusive, for the sites were inhabited for many centuries. That of Samarra, on the other hand, is most important, for the city was only of a mushroom growth, which began and ended in the ninth century. See also p. 134.[321]SeeCat. B.F.A., 1910, A 43.[322]SeeCat. B.F.A., 1910, F 9 and 14.[323]See passage from Hsü Ch´ing's notes, p. 39.[324]See p.141.[325]Chinese characterst´ao yü.There are variant readings to this passage as given in theChiang hsi t´ung chih(bk. xciii., fol. 5 verso), which maket´ao yüthe name of a man, the passage being read "T´ao–yü forwarded as tribute false jade vessels." As pointed out elsewhere, this expression "false jade" seems to imply a porcellanous ware. The comparison of porcelain and even fine pottery to jade is a commonplace in China, and it is not necessary to infer that any particular colour, green or otherwise, is indicated.[326]The text is simplyChinese characterschih wu= "established duty."[327]In order to bring this date into Hung Wu´s lifetime, it is necessary to reckon from the year 1364, when he was proclaimed Prince of Wu. But other records (seeT´ao lu, bk. v., fol. 4 recto) give the date as second year of Hung Wu—i.e. 1369, instead of 1398 as above. Hung Wu was proclaimed Emperor in 1368, and died in 1398.[328]Bk. cxiii., fols. 7 and 8. TheT´ao shuomakes practically the same statement in connection with both periods, and Bushell (O.C.A., p. 287) gives us to understand that the first structure was burnt down and that erected in the Chêng Tê period was a rebuilding. TheT´ao lustates that a special Imperial factory was erected on the Jewel Hill in the Hung Wu period, and that there were other kilns scattered over the town working for the palace, and that the nameYü ch´i ch´angwas given to all of them in the Chêng Tê period.[329]Dated 1712 and 1722 from Ching–tê Chên, and preserved among theLettres édifiantes et curieuses. They have been frequently published in part or in full, e.g. translated in W. Burton'sPorcelain, and printed in French as an appendix to Bushell'sTranslation of the T´ao shuo.[330]By Walter J. Clennell, H.M. Consul at Kiu–kiang, printed for H.M. Stationery Office.[331]The long river front, "crowded for three miles by junks," was a feature of the place, which was sometimes known as the "thirteenlimart." Aliis about 630 English yards.[332]See p.159.[333]An incidental reference to white porcelain bowls at Hsin–p´ing (the old name for the district town of Ching–tê Chên) in 1101A. D.occurs in theCh´ang nan chih(quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 15). It is a verse on the subject of tea drinking: "The white porcelain is quickly passed from hand to hand all night; the fragrant vapour fills the peaceful pavilion."[334]Chinese charactersmao k´ou chê, lit. "hair mouth things." Bushell renders "with unglazed mouth." SeeKo ku yao lun, bk. vii., fol. 24 verso, under the heading of "Old Jao wares."[335]See p.160.[336]Chou Hui, author of theChing po tsa chih, a miscellany published in 1193, quoted inT´ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 6 r. and v.[337]Cf. descriptions of Chün Chou ware, chap. ix.[338]See p.92.[339]Bk. ii., fol. 8 verso. "The body was thin and glossy (jun), the colour white, the ornament blue (or green) (Chinese charactershua ch´ing), and compared with Ting ware it was little inferior."[340]See p.164.[341]The Memoirs of Chiang Ch´i, entitledT´ao chi lüo, which were incorporated in the Annals of Fou–liang in 1322, and again in the geographical annals of the province of Kiangsi (Chiang hsi t´ung chih, bk. xciii., fol. 5 verso).[342]Op. cit., pp. 178–183.[343]See p.163.[344]huang hei, lit. yellow black or, perhaps, yellow and black.[345]Ch´ing pai, a term also applied to greenish white jade; probably a pale celadon tint.[346]i.e. cases in which the porcelain was fired.

[236]It would appear that the Tz´ŭ Chou potters were capable of producing these lustrous brown passages in the black glaze intentionally, for the floral design on Fig. 1 of Plate 34 is expressed in this manner.

[237]At Wei Hsien. See note on p.103.

[238]There are specimens—mostly small bowls—of a very archaic appearance, with the red and green painting which are persistently claimed as of Sung period. But see p. 46 and Plate 30.

[239]Catalogue of the Boston Exhibition, op. cit., 1884.

[240]Cat. B.F.A., 1910, E 63. This example has the mark of Wang Ch´ih–ming. See p.221.

[241]See p.221.

[242]See Bushell, op. cit., p. 122.

[243]Op. cit., vol. i., p. 91.

[244]SeeBurlington Magazine, August, 1911, andCat. B.F.A., D 19 and 41.

[245]The link is strengthened by the presence of the black painted bands which border the main designs. See alsoBurlington Magazine, loc. cit., August, 1911, "On Some Old Chinese Pottery."

[246]On a few specimens, the date of which is by no means certain, a design of leaves is executed by a peculiar process, in which an actual leaf seems to have been used as a stencil, being stuck on to the ware while the slip was applied, and afterwards removed, leaving a leaf–shaped pattern in reserve. A somewhat similar use of leaf stencilling is described on p.133.

[247]See p.134.

[248]Bk. vii., fol. 14. Some authorities seem to have considered that the Hsü Chou factories go back to Sung times.

[249]Chinese characters.

[250]TheT´ao luwas written at the end of the eighteenth century.

[251]Chinese characteris an alternative form ofChinese character.

[252]Bk. ii., fol. 7 verso. In discussing the glazes with mixed colour, the author says: "Of these wares, the sword–grass bowls and their saucers alone are refined. The other kinds, like the garden seats, boxes, square vases, and flower jars, are all of yellow sandy earthenware. Consequently, they are coarse and thick, and not refined." The first sentence is difficult, and has given rise to much discussion. The wordti, which Bushell has (rightly, I think) rendered saucers, literally means "bottom" or "base." Hirth reads it, "Those which have bottoms like the flower pots in which sword–grass is grown are considered the most excellent"; and Julien appears to have quite misunderstood the application of the passage. The original isChinese characters. The shallow saucers in which the deep flower pots stood are often included among the bulb bowls. See Plates 37 and 40.

[253]See the excellent account of the Chün wares by Mrs. Williams in the introduction to theCatalogue of a Loan Exhibition of Chinese, Corean, and Japanese Potteries held by the Japan Society of New York, 1914.

[254]Shrivelled glaze is sometimes seen on the Chün types of pottery. Probably this was at first, at any rate, an accidental effect; but it is the prototype of the "dragon skin" glazes which the Japanese made at a later date. There is a good example in the Eumorfopoulos Collection of a bowl with thick grey Chün glaze, with a patch of reddish colour, and which is shrivelled in the most approved fashion, the glaze contracting into isolated drops and exposing the body between them.

[255]SeeT´ao shuo, bk. ii., fol. 15 verso, quoting theLiu ch´ing jih cha. In the case of the former (t´u ssŭ wên) some confusion has been caused by a variant readingChinese characterof the wordChinese character(t´u= hare), which refers the simile to the "dodder"; but the commoner phrase, "hare's fur marking," is far more descriptive of a dappled surface. Brinkley's explanation of the second phrase,huo yen ch´ing, as referring to the blue centre of a tongue of flame, applying the simile to the passages of blue which sometimes occur in the variegated Chün glazes, seems to meet the case. The flame–like effects are mentioned in an interesting passage in theT´ang chien kung t´ao yeh t´u shuo(quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 13): "Men prize the Chün cups, tripods, and incense burners with smoke and flame glaze (yen huan sê). Although only pottery, still they combine the unexpected colours produced by the blowing tube (t´o yo)." Thet´o yoChinese charactersseems to have been "a pipe for blowing up the furnace."

[256]See Hamilton Bell, "'Imperial' Sung Pottery,"Art in America, July, 1913, p. 182. The Chinese numerals are given on p.211.

[257]Cat. B.F.A., 1910, B 42.

[258]There is an obvious analogy in the "size 3" and "S 2," etc., incised under the Derby porcelain figures.

[259]See p.50.

[260]SeeChiang hsi t´ung chih, vol. xciii, fol. 11 and seq. Quoted also in theT´ao lu, and translated by Bushell,O.C.A., p. 369; and vol. ii., p. 223, of this work.

[261]Wai hsin têChinese characters, lit. "recently obtained from outside." Wai evidently contrasts here withnei(the palace), which precedes the first five. Julien, however, gives it the sense "émaux nouvellement inventés."

[262]SeeT´ao lu, bk. vi., fol. 7. "As to the ware made at Ching–tê Chên at the present day in imitation of the Chün wares, the body material is all of beautiful quality." This carries the imitation up to the end of the eighteenth century. There are, however, imitations made on a soft pottery body which bear the Yung Chêng mark.

[263]See p. 174.

[264]See p. 181. The list quoted on p. 223 of vol. ii. of the wares made at the Imperial potteries in 1730 includes "glazes of Ou: imitated from old wares of a man named Ou. There are two kinds, one with red markings, the other with blue."

[265]kua yuChinese characters"applied or added glaze." The significance of the epithetkualies in the fact that the bulk of the Yi–hsing ware was unglazed.

[266]See Bushell,O.C.A., p. 374.

[267]See p.168.

[268]SeeBurlington Magazine, November, 1909, Plate iv., opp. p. 83.

[269]See Mrs. Williams, loc. cit., p. 33.

[270]The modern Yü Chou. See vol. ii., p. 107.

[271]Op. cit., Plate 1.

[272]By Mr. A.W. Bahr.

[273]The nameMais supposed to be that of a potter, but the statement is based on oral tradition only. The character used isma(horse).

[274]It was deposited in the FitzWilliam Museum by Mr. W.H. Caulfield in 1896.

[275]See p.110.

[276]TheLi t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pien, of which the British Museum possesses a copy dated 1877.

[277]TheCh´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng, fol. 10 of the subsection dealing witht´ao kung(the pottery industry), entitledT´ao kung pu hui k´ao.

[278]TheCh´ing yi lu, quoted in theT´ao shuo, bk. v., fol. 16 verso: "In Min (i.e. Fukien) are made tea bowls with ornamental markings like the mottling and spots on a partridge (chê ku pan). The tea–testing parties prize them." Oddly enough, the only specimen of this type of ware which I have seen with a date–mark was dated in the reign of Hsien Tê (954–960) of the Posterior Chou dynasty; but the inscription had been cut subsequently to the firing of the ware, and carries little weight. The piece in question is a remarkably large bottle–shaped vase with a splendid purplish black glaze with "hare's fur" marking, in the Eumorfopoulos Collection.

[279]SeeT´ao lu, bk. vii., fol. 8 verso.

[280]Chinese characterst´u hao chan.

[281]Ts´ai–hsiang, quoted in theT´ao shuo, bk. v., fol. 16 verso.

[282]TheLiu ch´ing jih cha.

[283]Chinese characters

[284]In theLiu ch´ing jih cha.

[285]See p.72.

[286]In theKuei hai yü hêng chih, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 2 verso.

[287]In theNing chai ts´ung hua, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 4.

[288]SeeT´ao shuo, Bushell, op. cit., p. 47.

[289]In theYün* hsien tsa chi, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 1 verso.

[290]Quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. viii., fols. 12 and 13.

[291]From theErh shih lu, quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 15.

[292]Op. cit., pp. 17–20.

[293]Chinese Art, vol. ii., p. 17, and theCatalogue of the Morgan Collection(1907), p. xlviii.

[294]Chinese characterswa ch'i yeh. TheShuo Wênwas compiled by Hsü Shên and published first in 120A. D.The wordtz'ŭChinese characteris compounded of the radicalwaChinese character(a tile, earthenware), and the phonetictz'ŭChinese character(second, inferior), and carries no inherent suggestion of porcelain. If connoting a new material, it may be a name applied specially to glazed pottery which seems to date from the Han period, or even to stoneware as opposed to soft earthenware or brick.

[295]Thus the author of theT'ang shih ssŭ k'ao(quoted in theT'ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 9 verso): "The charactersChinese characterandChinese characterare not interchangeable. The latter is a hard and fine kind oft'ao. The material from which it is made is clay. The formerChinese character, on the other hand, is the name of a real stone which comes from the ancient Han–tan, which is the modern Tz'ŭ Chou. This department has potteries in which they use thetz'ŭstone for the body of the ware. Hence the nameTz'ŭ ch'i(Tz'ŭ wares), not that the ware from the potteries of this place is all porcelain. I hear that at Ching–tê Chên the common usage is to employ the characterChinese characterfor porcelain in writing and speaking. I have consulted friends whom I meet, and many use the two terms interchangeably. Truly this is altogether ridiculous. Tz'ŭ Chou is still making pottery at the present day." For the Tz'ŭ Chou pottery, see ch. viii.

[296]Yeh chih, quoted in theT'ao lu, bk. ix., fol. 13 recto.

[297]T'ao shuo, translated by Bushell, op. cit., p. 95.

[298]Bushell,Chinese Art, vol. ii., p. 18.

[299]SeeT'ao shuo(Bushell, op. cit., pp. 97 and 99). See also bk. ix., fol. 1 verso, where the passage from the Annals of the Sui Dynasty is quoted.

[300]Chinese charactersSeeT'ao shuo, bk. iv., fol. 17 recto and verso.

[301]The first two are apparently unidentified, but Jih–nan is Cochin China, whither, no doubt, the substance came as an article of trade.

[302]Early writers refer to it aspi liu li, which is a transcription of the SanskritVaidurya, a stone supposed to be of the beryl type, but the identification is a matter of dispute. See Laufer,Jade, p. 111, footnote.

[303]A seventh–century writer.

[304]TheTa Yüeh–chihhave been identified with the Massagetæ, who in the fifth century were in possession of Afghanistan. See Bushell,T'ao shuo, op. cit., p. 100.

[305]The substance is discussed at length in connection withpi–liu–liby Laufer (Jade, pp. 109–112), but this author seems very loath to admit the meaning glass forliu–li, though he allows that it is a common term for ceramic glaze. But the passage quoted above from theT'ao shuocan hardly be explained in any other way than in reference to a kind of glass.

[306]The exact words of the text areChinese characters(Ch'ou i lü tz'ŭ wei chih yü chên wu i). "Ch'ou took green ware and made it (liu–li) not different from the real."

[307]Orientalisches Archiv, Bd. ii., 1911, andChinesisches Porzellan, p. 24.

[308]Op. cit., p. 20. Dr. Bushell, in his translation of theT´ao shuo, has given the more correct rendering, "Ch´ou madesome(i.e.liu–li) of green porcelain."

[309]Op. cit., pp. 3 and 4.

[310]Chinese charactersChin tai i pai tz´ŭ wei chih= "in recent generations with white ware they make it."

[311]Chinese charactersTing chou pai tz´ŭ.For the Ting Chou ware, see ch. vii.

[312]Père d'Entrecolles (in his letter dated from Ching–tê Chên in 1712) makes the statement that the district of Ching–tê Chên sent regular supplies of its ware, which he terms porcelain, to the Emperor from the second year of the reign ofTam ou te(sic). Though he gives the date as 422, it is clear that he really refers to the first Emperor, Wu Tê, of the T´ang dynasty (618–627A. D.). It is not clear how he arrived at the conclusion that the ware in question was porcelain, and as he refers to the Annals of Fou–liang as his authority, we may assume that the Chinese phrase contained the inconclusive termtz´ŭ. ort´ao. He adds that "nothing is said as to the inventor, nor to what experiments or accident the invention was due."

[313]See p.101.

[314]See p.142.

[315]The European definition of porcelain may be stated thus: "Porcelain comprises all varieties of pottery which are made translucent by adding to the clay substances some natural or artificial fluxing material." In China the usual constituents arekaolin, which forms the clay substance, andpetuntse(china stone), which is the natural fluxing material. I should add that it is doubtful whether we are strictly justified in using the wordkaolinas a general name for porcelain earth (o t´u); but the term has been consecrated by usage, and has practically passed into our language in this sense. A slight translucency is observable near the rim on a white T´ang cup in the Eumorfopoulos Collection. The body of this piece is a soft white material, and the translucency is caused by a mingling of the glaze with the body where it is very thin, and it may be compared with the translucency of the Persian "gombroon" ware. But neither of these wares can be ranked as porcelain proper.

[316]It is, however, mentioned in connection with some of the Sung wares (the Kuan, for example), but only in relation to the glaze.

[317]It is true that Bushell, in his translation of theT´ao shuo(op. cit., p. 102) implies this quality in a "brown ware (tz´ŭ) bowl" sent as tribute by the P´o–hai in 841A. D.which is described as "translucent both inside and outside, of a pure brown colour, half an inch thick but as light as swan's down." The words of the textChinese charactersnei wai t´ung jung("inside and out throughout lustrous") are in themselves capable of suggesting translucence, but the remaining features—the brown glaze and the great thickness—are sufficient to preclude the idea of a translucent ware; and I imagine that the quality of lustre or translucency here applies only to the glaze. The P´o–hai appear to have been a subject state of Corea.

[318]I am indebted for this literal translation of the much–quoted passage to Mr. Edwards, of the Oriental MSS. Department of the British Museum. It has been more freely rendered by M. Reinaud,Relation des voyages faits par les Arabes, etc., Paris, 1845, p. 34.

[319]See F. Sarre, "Kleinfunde von Samarra und ihre Ergebnisse," inIslam, July, 1914.

[320]Fragments of white porcelain with carved designs were found in some of the sites excavated by Sir Aurel Stein in Turfan, and there are fragments similar to the Samarra finds obtained from ancient sites in the Persian Gulf and now in the British Museum. But the evidence of these pieces is not conclusive, for the sites were inhabited for many centuries. That of Samarra, on the other hand, is most important, for the city was only of a mushroom growth, which began and ended in the ninth century. See also p. 134.

[321]SeeCat. B.F.A., 1910, A 43.

[322]SeeCat. B.F.A., 1910, F 9 and 14.

[323]See passage from Hsü Ch´ing's notes, p. 39.

[324]See p.141.

[325]Chinese characterst´ao yü.There are variant readings to this passage as given in theChiang hsi t´ung chih(bk. xciii., fol. 5 verso), which maket´ao yüthe name of a man, the passage being read "T´ao–yü forwarded as tribute false jade vessels." As pointed out elsewhere, this expression "false jade" seems to imply a porcellanous ware. The comparison of porcelain and even fine pottery to jade is a commonplace in China, and it is not necessary to infer that any particular colour, green or otherwise, is indicated.

[326]The text is simplyChinese characterschih wu= "established duty."

[327]In order to bring this date into Hung Wu´s lifetime, it is necessary to reckon from the year 1364, when he was proclaimed Prince of Wu. But other records (seeT´ao lu, bk. v., fol. 4 recto) give the date as second year of Hung Wu—i.e. 1369, instead of 1398 as above. Hung Wu was proclaimed Emperor in 1368, and died in 1398.

[328]Bk. cxiii., fols. 7 and 8. TheT´ao shuomakes practically the same statement in connection with both periods, and Bushell (O.C.A., p. 287) gives us to understand that the first structure was burnt down and that erected in the Chêng Tê period was a rebuilding. TheT´ao lustates that a special Imperial factory was erected on the Jewel Hill in the Hung Wu period, and that there were other kilns scattered over the town working for the palace, and that the nameYü ch´i ch´angwas given to all of them in the Chêng Tê period.

[329]Dated 1712 and 1722 from Ching–tê Chên, and preserved among theLettres édifiantes et curieuses. They have been frequently published in part or in full, e.g. translated in W. Burton'sPorcelain, and printed in French as an appendix to Bushell'sTranslation of the T´ao shuo.

[330]By Walter J. Clennell, H.M. Consul at Kiu–kiang, printed for H.M. Stationery Office.

[331]The long river front, "crowded for three miles by junks," was a feature of the place, which was sometimes known as the "thirteenlimart." Aliis about 630 English yards.

[332]See p.159.

[333]An incidental reference to white porcelain bowls at Hsin–p´ing (the old name for the district town of Ching–tê Chên) in 1101A. D.occurs in theCh´ang nan chih(quoted in theT´ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 15). It is a verse on the subject of tea drinking: "The white porcelain is quickly passed from hand to hand all night; the fragrant vapour fills the peaceful pavilion."

[334]Chinese charactersmao k´ou chê, lit. "hair mouth things." Bushell renders "with unglazed mouth." SeeKo ku yao lun, bk. vii., fol. 24 verso, under the heading of "Old Jao wares."

[335]See p.160.

[336]Chou Hui, author of theChing po tsa chih, a miscellany published in 1193, quoted inT´ao lu, bk. viii., fol. 6 r. and v.

[337]Cf. descriptions of Chün Chou ware, chap. ix.

[338]See p.92.

[339]Bk. ii., fol. 8 verso. "The body was thin and glossy (jun), the colour white, the ornament blue (or green) (Chinese charactershua ch´ing), and compared with Ting ware it was little inferior."

[340]See p.164.

[341]The Memoirs of Chiang Ch´i, entitledT´ao chi lüo, which were incorporated in the Annals of Fou–liang in 1322, and again in the geographical annals of the province of Kiangsi (Chiang hsi t´ung chih, bk. xciii., fol. 5 verso).

[342]Op. cit., pp. 178–183.

[343]See p.163.

[344]huang hei, lit. yellow black or, perhaps, yellow and black.

[345]Ch´ing pai, a term also applied to greenish white jade; probably a pale celadon tint.

[346]i.e. cases in which the porcelain was fired.

Back to Index Next