CHAPTER V THE PORCELAIN OF CHINA Introductory--Classification--The Sung Dynasty (960-1279)--The Mongol or Yuan Dynasty (1280-1368).

In any work on porcelain it is something more than the premier place that must be given to the ware of China. We are dealing with an art Chinese in origin, and during a succession of many centuries Chinese in its development. It was only at a comparatively late time that the knowledge of this art spread over the whole civilised world. We in England have, as it were, acknowledged the pre-eminence of that country by adopting the word ‘china’ as an equivalent, more or less, to porcelain.[24]

It was under Imperial patronage that the art was developed in China, and the excellence of the porcelain of that country has in a measure varied with the taste and intelligence with which that patronage was exercised in different reigns. The native scholar and connoisseur has for ages been a collector of choice pieces, and his influence has always been exercised in a conservative direction. There is, indeed, in the whole world no such consistent laudator temporis acti, and it is this conservative spirit, resulting in a constant ‘returning upon oneself,’ that it is essential to bear in mind if we are to understand the involved relation of the old and the new in the history of the arts of China.

But the Chinese potter was not working only for the court or for the learned connoisseur, or again for the supply of the towns and villages. From the earliest times, or at least for the last thousand years, there has been a demand for his ware, small at first but slowly spreading, from the outer barbarian. Porcelain, or something akin to it, has been exported from China, by one path or another, from the time of the first Arab settlements at Canton and Kinsay in the eighth or ninth century; and thus a countervailing influence, acting in the direction of variety and change, at least as far as the decoration of the ware is concerned, has always been present. To give but two instances of this influence—we shall return to the subject later on: in the intimate connection of the Chinese court with Western Asia, and especially with Persia, in the thirteenth century, we may probably find the occasion of the first introduction into China of the blue decoration under the glaze; and with more certainty—the fact is indeed acknowledged by the Chinese—we may attribute the second great revolution in the decoration of porcelain, the use of enamel colours over the glaze, to European or Arab influence.

On the other hand, the decline that set in at the end of the eighteenth century was not a little hastened by the increased demand for ware decorated to suit the depraved taste of the ‘Western barbarian.’

For in spite of his rigidity and his conservative spirit, the Chinese potter has always understood how to adapt his wares to the changing taste of his customers. Indeed the variation in the decoration, the subtle nuances in colour and design, that enable us to distinguish between the Chinese porcelain exported to India, to Persia, and to the nations of the Christian west, might be made the basis of a most interesting study.

When we come to consider the various factories of porcelain that sprang up in Europe in the course of the eighteenth century, we shall find that what strikes the inquirer above all (in comparison with the kindred arts of the time) is the little we can observe in the way of development either in the technique or decoration of the wares. The art springs up full-blown; what history there is is concerned rather with an artistic decline. It is only in China that we can hope to trace the steps by which this special branch of the potter’s art attained to the perfection that we find in the products of the eighteenth century, and this alone is a reason for dwelling, even in a treatment of the subject so general and brief as this must needs be, on what may seem to some mere antiquarian detail.

But there is another and perhaps even a more important reason for our trying to form some idea of what the earliest wares of the Chinese were like: unless we make some such endeavour we shall find it impossible to understand the later history of porcelain in that country. One point must be specially borne in mind when we are attempting to follow the order in which fresh styles and designs were introduced in China. When a new method of decoration had been adopted and had come into general use—the introduction of underglaze blue in early Ming times, and that of coloured enamels at a later period, are cases in point—this did not involve the abandonment of the older styles. There was a constant effort to maintain the old methods, and in the most flourishing times of the emperors Kang-he and Kien-lung, the series of great men who had charge of the imperial works at King-te-chen, some of them practical potters themselves, were constantly occupied with the problems of reproducing the glazes, if not the pastes, of the earliest wares. During the reign of Yung-chÊng (1723-1735), perhaps the culminating period in the history of Chinese porcelain, when Nien Hsi-yao was superintendent, a list was drawn up of fifty-seven varieties of porcelain made at King-te-chen. In this list the titles of all the old wares of the Sung dynasty are to be found, and to them the place of honour is evidently awarded (Bushell, chap. xii.). The names of some of these old wares, the Ko yao and the Kuan yao, for instance, are applied to porcelain in common use at the present day, an attribution based on the greater or less resemblance of this modern ware to the Sung porcelain, at least in the matter of the glazes.

It is only quite of late years that we in Europe have been able to make any clear distinction, not only between the different classes of Chinese porcelain, but between what is Chinese and what is not. A few years ago the most characteristic porcelain of Japan was classed as Chinese, while on the other hand Corea and even local English factories were credited with porcelain made and decorated in one or other of the former countries.

It is nearly two hundred years since the famous letters of the Jesuit missionary, the PÈre D’Entrecolles, were written, and these letters still remain our best source of information for the processes of manufacture at King-te-chen. There was little further information on the subject from the Chinese side[25] until, in 1856, Stanislas Julien translated part of a Chinese work treating chiefly of the same porcelain factory—this is the King-te-chen Tao Lu, a book which contains in addition some information about the history of the different wares. This translation was for many years the only native source of information available to students of Chinese porcelain, and many were the misconceptions and blunders in which these students were landed. The book was indeed accompanied by a preface and valuable notes by M. SalvÉtat, the porcelain expert of SÈvres, but Julien himself, though an eminent Chinese scholar, had no practical acquaintance either with the matter in hand or indeed with the country generally.

The beginning of a sounder knowledge of the subject was made when that collector of genius, the late Sir A. Wollaston Franks, published a catalogue of the private collection of Japanese and Chinese porcelain which he afterwards presented to the nation. His marvellous intuition and his vast experience enabled him to seize upon points of resemblance and difference which threw light upon the origin of the various wares, and to expose at the same time the inconsistencies of the arrangements then in vogue. He it was who first pointed out the general worthlessness, as a guide to the date or even the country of any piece of porcelain, of the name of dynasty and emperor which it might bear. His successor, Mr. C. H. Read, has well carried on the tradition. At the present moment the British Museum is one of the few places where an attempt has been made at a systematic arrangement of a representative collection of Chinese and Japanese porcelain.[26]

In the meantime in China itself, both in connection with the embassies at Pekin and among some of the merchants at Shanghai and other treaty ports, much information was being collected, and it was above all the merit of Franks to keep himself in communication with and to encourage all such research. Dr. Hirth, long in the service of the Chinese at Shanghai and elsewhere, has published a series of learned studies treating of the relation of the Chinese to the Roman empire, of the Arab traders during the Middle Ages, and of the early history of Chinese porcelain generally. But it is to a former member of our embassy at Pekin, to Dr. Bushell, that we are above all indebted for the throwing open of Chinese sources of information upon the history of porcelain. A worthy successor of the PÈre D’Entrecolles in his intimate acquaintance with the country and its language, Dr. Bushell is well abreast of the chemical and technical knowledge of the day, and his position as physician to our embassy at Pekin has given him access to information from the best Chinese sources, as well as to the treasures of many of the native collections of the capital.

Dr. Bushell has written the text to a sumptuously illustrated work, nominally a catalogue of the collection of porcelain formed by the late Mr. Walters of Philadelphia, and into this text he has woven all the vast wealth of material that he had accumulated during many years of study both at Pekin and in Europe. This work has thus superseded all other sources of information on the history and manufacture of Chinese porcelain. He has, in fact, ransacked all that has been written in China on these subjects, and his translations have this advantage over the works of Julien, that they are made by one who knows thoroughly the subject that the Chinese author is dealing with.

We must not forget the researches on the chemical and technical side of the subject by what we may call the school of SÈvres. To these workers we have made frequent reference in previous chapters. It is to the experiments and analyses of men such as Brongniart, SalvÉtat, Ebelmen, and Vogt, that we are indebted for our knowledge of the chemical constitution of the paste, the glaze, and the enamels of Chinese porcelain, as well as for a rational exposition of the methods of its manufacture. To sum up, our sources of information of late years are, in the main, English, as far as the history and what I may call the sinology of our subject are concerned; but for the chemistry and technology we must turn to French works. As far as I know, little of value has been published in Germany on the subject of Oriental porcelain. The discussion between Karabacek, Meyer, and Hirth (whose later papers have been published in German) on the early history of celadon and on the Arab traders of the Middle Ages, is perhaps the most notable exception.

We are in the dark even now as to the date and place of origin of more than one class of Oriental porcelain. On the question of the relation of the ceramic wares of China to the contemporary sister arts, there are many points to be cleared up,—I mean especially the question how far the early wares were influenced by the art of the bronze-caster and the carver of jade, and again to what extent the decoration of porcelain in later times was dependent upon the example of the contemporary schools of painting. When we know about the pictorial art of the Chinese even the little that we do already of that of their Japanese neighbours, we shall, to give but one instance, be able to trace the source of the beautiful landscapes and flower designs that we find on the vases and plates of the famille verte and famille rose.

There is one source of information which remains as yet almost completely untapped. The Japanese have been for many centuries keen collectors of Chinese porcelain, as of other Chinese objects of art. They have their own views on its history, and some of the finest specimens of the older wares remain still in Japan, in spite of the many pieces that have of late years been carried away to Europe and America. As we shall see, they have in their own pottery and porcelain handed on to quite recent days many traditions of Ming and earlier times that have been lost in China. If some Japanese connoisseur or antiquary, strong in Chinese lore, could give us a history of porcelain from his own point of view, I think that European investigators would have cause to be grateful.

Much could be gleaned, as I have already said, by studying the relation of the potters art to that of the jade-carver and the caster of bronze, and this brings us to an important point that perhaps has not been fully appreciated by us in the West. I refer to the comparatively late date of the beginning of porcelain in China compared, for example, to the arts just mentioned. We can hardly carry back the history of true porcelain beyond the great Tang dynasty (618-907 A.D.), and even in China there is no existing specimen that can safely be attributed to so early a date. But this same Tang dynasty was the very heyday in that country, not only of military power but also of artistic culture. It would be impossible to enter into this important subject here; it is one that has been strangely ignored by us in Europe. Suffice to say that the great figure-painters of this period were looked back to with veneration in later times, both in China and in Japan, and that the two schools of landscape, the colour school of the North and the black and white ‘literary’ school of the South—schools whose traditions have survived to the present day—were both founded by Tang artists. At that time art critics were known (and even honoured); they already wrote books on the early history of painting, and they have left us descriptions of famous collections.

We may expect, then, to find the influence of these more precocious arts on the early fictile ware of China, and indeed we see the quaint decoration and the not too beautiful outlines of the early hieratic bronzes repeated on the rare specimens that survive from the dynasty that after a period of unrest followed that of Tang. This was the Sung dynasty, which lasted till the time of the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century.[27]

It is difficult for a European to appreciate the charm, or rather superlative excellence, that is found by a Chinaman in a fine specimen of jade. It is, however, a substance that is closely linked with his philosophy, his religion, and above all with his all-important ceremonial. No wonder, then, if from an early time he strove, with the pastes and glazes at his command, to imitate such a material. And numberless references in contemporary writers, as well as the evidence of many of the oldest pieces of porcelain surviving, show that this was the case. We may safely say that in these early specimens the thick glaze, of tints varying from a true celadon to a more pronounced blue or green, was admired in proportion to its resemblance to jade. As for the porcelain itself, all that was looked for in the paste was that it should be hard, and that the vessel when struck should give out a bell-like sound—‘a plaintive note like a cup of jade,’ as one early Chinese writer says of a porcelain cup in his collection.

The Chinese in these times possessed also elaborately carved vessels of rock crystal and of various kinds of chalcedony, and these also it was attempted to imitate with the early glazes. Glass, too, as a material for small objects, was probably known; it seems, however, to have been somewhat of a rarity. It is mentioned by writers of the Tang period in connection with these early wares, and indeed it is possible that there may be some confusion in the literature of the time (or rather perhaps in our interpretation of the language used) between the two materials—the thickly glazed porcelain and the more or less opaque glass.

After these preliminary remarks we shall be in a better position to interpret the somewhat involved and contradictory allusions to our subject found in Chinese books.

We now come to the important question of the classification of Chinese porcelain. A difficulty here arises from the rival claims of two systems. The older and perhaps safer division depends solely on the nature of the ware, its colour, decoration, etc.; but in opposition to this the claim of the more logical, historical classification has, with our increasing knowledge, become of late years more pressing. The result has been an attempt to combine the two systems. Such an attempt must necessarily lead to many compromises, and yet something of the sort is perhaps the only available plan. We may compare the development of the ceramic art in China to what has taken place in the evolution of the animal kingdom: while new and more elaborated forms are evolved, the older ones, or many of them, survive in but slightly modified forms. If this tendency be borne well in mind there will be less danger of confusion between the really old types and the modern representations or even copies which are called, in China, by the same names.

The three classes into which Chinese porcelain is divided—and there is a general agreement among collectors on this head—rest on such an attempt to combine a historical with a technical classification:—

1. Porcelain with single-coloured glazes, including plain white ware. The colour of the glaze is derived from two metals only, iron and copper. Any further decoration depends upon the moulding of the surface or upon patterns incised in the paste. All the wares made up to the end of the Sung period (1279 A.D.) may probably be included in this class.

2. Porcelain decorated with colour under the glaze. This division is nearly equivalent to our ‘blue and white’ ware, but in addition to cobalt, copper is at times introduced to give a red colour. This system of decoration was probably introduced during the course of the fourteenth century, and it is associated with the Ming dynasty.

3. Porcelain decorated with enamels over the glaze, necessitating a second firing in a muffle-stove. The use of these fusible enamel colours came in probably during the sixteenth century, but the art was not fully developed till much later.

The glazes of the first and second classes as a rule contained no lead, and to melt them the full heat of the oven, the grand feu, was required.

There is, however, a class of porcelain which does not fall well into any of the above divisions, but which is historically of great importance. The blue, purple, and yellow glazes of this ware were painted on the biscuit after a preliminary baking of the paste, and then fired, not in the hottest part of the furnace, but in what we may call the demi grand feu. The glaze of this ware contains lead, and this fact and the method of the decoration may be held to give it a position bridging over the interval between our first two classes and the third—that of enamelled porcelain. This ware, painted on the biscuit, dates, however, from an earlier time than the latter class, and must not be confused with it.

As I have pointed out, these types did not entirely replace one another, for the earlier forms continued to be made by the side of the later.

One of our principal difficulties in discussing the early wares of China is to reconcile and co-ordinate the various types described in old Chinese books with the few specimens surviving at the present day. Of these scanty examples we can point to scarcely any in public collections; the rare pieces that have been brought from China are in the hands of private collectors in England, France, and America. In the Chinese authorities we find as early as the tenth century references to porcelain which was ‘blue as the sky, brilliant as a mirror, thin as paper, and as sonorous as a piece of jade’; an emperor who reigned just before the accession of the Sung dynasty (960 A.D.) demanded that the porcelain made for him should be ‘of the azure tint of the sky after rain, as it appears in the interval between the clouds.’ Compare with these descriptions the thick paste, barely translucent, the heavy irregular glaze, greyish white to celadon or pale blue, of the few specimens of undoubted antiquity that have survived to our day. How can we reconcile the tradition with the material evidence? Two explanations have been given of the discrepancy. According to one theory, all the more delicate and fragile pieces have disappeared ‘under the hands of time’ (or shall we say more definitely under those of endless generations of housemaids?), only the heavy, solid specimens surviving. The other theory is simpler: it is that the writers of the books are apt to fall into exaggeration when speaking of any matter that has the sanction of age—that, not to mince matters, they are as a class great liars; and this is a point of view that commends itself to those who have any acquaintance with Chinese literature.[28]

We have now, however, one source of information for these early wares upon which, although it is in a measure a literary source, we can place greater reliance. This is nothing less than an illustrated list, a catalogue raisonnÉ, of famous specimens of porcelain, drawn up by a distinguished Chinese art connoisseur and collector as long ago as the end of the sixteenth century. In this manuscript there were more than eighty coloured reproductions of pieces, both from the author’s own collection and from those of his friends. The work came from the library of a Chinese prince of high rank, and it was purchased in Pekin by Dr. Bushell some twenty years ago. Since then this valuable document has perished in a fire at a London warehouse, where it had been deposited, but not before the illustrations had been copied by a Chinese artist and its owner had made a careful translation and analysis of its contents.[29] The writer, Hsiang-yuan-pien, better known as Tzu-ching, after giving a brief sketch of the early history of ceramics in his country, exclaims apologetically: ‘I have acquired a morbid taste for pot-sherds. I delight in buying choice specimens of Sung, Yuan, and Ming ware, and exhibiting them in equal rank with the bells, urns, and sacrificial wine-vessels of bronze dating from the three ancient dynasties, from the Chin and the Han’ (2250 B.C. to 220 A.D.)—that is to say, in placing them in the same rank as antiquities that are acknowledged to be worthy of the attention of the scholar. Porcelain at that time, we see, had hardly established its claim to so dignified a position; hence the apologetic tone. After telling us how with the advice of a few intimate friends he had selected choice specimens, which he then copied in colour and carefully described, Tzu-ching concludes with these words: ‘Say not that my hair is scant and sparse, and yet I make what is only fit for a child’s toy.’ This appeal is evidently addressed to the Lord Macaulays of his day.[30]

The first point to notice in this catalogue is that more than half of the objects described are attributed to the Sung period (960-1279 A.D.), that is to say, they were at least three hundred years old at the time when Tzu-ching wrote. The Sung dynasty, we must bear in mind, was above all remembered as a period of great wealth and material prosperity. Less warlike than the Tang which preceded it, the arts were cultivated at the court of the pleasure-loving emperors who had their capital during the earlier time at Kai-feng Fu (in the north of Honan, near to the great bend of the Hoang-ho). When driven south by the advance of the more warlike Mongols they retired to Hangchow, the Kinsay of which Marco Polo has such wonderful tales to relate. In these early days there was no great centre for the manufacture of porcelain; it was made in many widely separated districts, so that the classification of these early wares is, in a measure, a geographical one. At King-te-chen, at least in the later Sung period, they were already making porcelain, but for court use only, it would appear, for at that time the factory was a strict imperial preserve, and its wares did not come into the market.

As to the still older wares, those of Ch’ai and of Ju, which generally hold the place of honour in Chinese lists, it was of the first that the emperor spoke when he commanded that pieces intended for his own use should be clear as the sky after rain; but no specimen of this porcelain was extant even in Ming times. Its place, it would seem, was taken by the Ju Yao (the word yao is about equivalent to our term ‘ware’), which, like the Ch’ai, came from the province of Honan. This ware also is now practically extinct; Tzu-ching, however, claims to have possessed some specimens, and of these he gives more than one illustration. The glaze was thick and like melted lard (a comparison often made by the Chinese), and varied in colour from a clair-de-lune to a brighter tint of blue. The name Ju, we may add, is often applied to more modern glazes which resemble the old ones in colour and thickness.

The name Kuan yao, which means ‘official’ or ‘imperial’ porcelain, has been the cause of much confusion; the term has been applied to any ware made for imperial use. That of the Sung dynasty was made in the immediate neighbourhood of the imperial court, first at Kai-feng Fu and later at Hangchow. In its more strict use the term Kuan yao is applied to pieces generally of archaic form, to censers ornamented with grotesque heads of monstrous animals, and to wares of other shapes copied from old ritual bronzes. The glaze varies in colour from emerald green to greyish green and clair-de-lune, it is generally crackled, the cracks forming large ‘crab-claw’ divisions. Other kinds are described as white and very thin, but of these, perhaps for one of the reasons given above, no examples have survived to our day.

Lung-chuan yao and Ko yao. It will be convenient to class together these two most important types of Chinese porcelain. At the present day these names are applied in China to some comparatively common varieties of porcelain, not necessarily of any great age. But more strictly Lung-chuan yao is the term used by the Chinese for the heavy celadon pieces, whether dating from Sung or from Ming times, which were the first kinds of porcelain to become a regular article of export; while the word Ko yao is used as a general name for many kinds of crackle ware, which may vary in colour from white to a full celadon. In a more restricted sense it includes only the early pieces with a greyish white glaze and well-marked crackles.

Lung-chuan ware was made during Sung times at a town of that name in the province of Chekiang, situated about halfway between the Poyang lake and the coast. In Ming times the kilns were removed to the adjacent provincial capital, Chu-chou Fu, nearer to the coast. This was probably the ware that Marco Polo saw when passing through the town of Tingui. It was largely exported from the ports of Zaitun and Kinsay. It will, however, be better to defer the discussion of this thorny question to a later chapter, when we shall have something to say about the way in which the knowledge of Chinese porcelain was spread through the Mohammedan and Christian west. It will be enough for the present to mention that the Lung-chuan ware was the original type and always remained one of the principal sources of the Martabani celadon so prized in early Saracen times.

As this is the first time that we come across celadon ware,[31] we may mention that we use the term in the older and narrower sense for a greyish sea-green colour tending at times to blue. The name is, however, sometimes made to cover nearly the whole range of monochrome glazes. It is the Ching-tsu[32] of the Chinese and the Sei-ji of the Japanese.

The true Lung-chuan celadon of Sung times was, however, of a more pronounced grass-green colour. But we are concerned rather with the later celadon made at Chu-chou Fu during the Ming period. For it is to this time that we must refer most of the heavy dishes and bowls, often fluted or moulded in low relief with a floral design of peony or lotus flowers, or again with plaited patterns surrounding a fish or dragon

PLATE III.
1—CHINESE, CELADON WARE
2—CHINESE, CELADON WARE