Jennie J. Young

Confusion in Use of Terms.—Porcelain as an Instance.—Derivation of Ceramic.—Pottery.—Faience.—Majolica.—Mezza-Majolica.—Composition of Porcelain.—Origin of Word.—Where first made.—When introduced into Europe.—Hard and Soft Paste.—Soft Porcelain of Venice, Florence, England, France.—Hard Porcelain invented at Meissen by BÖttcher.—Vienna.—Discovery of Kaolin in France.—Biscuit.

IT will be necessary as we proceed to make use of certain terms, the meaning of which should be defined with as much exactness as possible. It may be premised that considerable confusion exists in the nomenclature of the art. This has arisen partly from the want of precision in the language employed by writers, and partly from diversity of usage. As an illustration, the word “porcelain” may be adduced. The material to which the Egyptians applied a glaze, and which was very largely used in making ornaments and small images, has been called, and is constantly spoken of, as Egyptian porcelain (Fig. 20). In reality the substance is not porcelain, having neither the transparency nor the hardness of that ware, but a compound between porcelain and earthen-ware. The word was also used by the Italians in the sixteenth century, to designate their finer qualities of majolica. An equally incongruous application of it is made in the case of Lambeth faience, which is described by the manufacturers as a “kind of porcelain.” Such words as faience, hard and{49} soft porcelain, majolica, stone-ware, etc., are in continual use by writers upon ceramic art, and a few of the more important will now be defined.

Allusion has already been made to the derivation of the word “ceramic.” Viewing the subject more prosaically, the name ?e?a?? was applied by the Greeks to pottery in general, and also to a large jar; and several derivatives were used for the designation of different vessels. The potter himself was called ?e?ae??, and the pot-market ?e?ae????. Although the matter has been differently viewed, it appears probable that the root of all the above words is ?e?a?, a horn. The horn was used at a very early period as a drinking-cup, and a more decided air of probability is thus given to the above assumption, since Bacchus was the reputed parent of [Greek: keramos ?e?a??], or Ceramus. However philologists may ultimately settle this matter, the word “ceramic” is now employed to designate the potter’s art and its productions.

The word “pottery” is variously used. Its root is the Latin potum, a drinking-vessel. It is applied, according to general English usage, to all wares distinguished by their opacity from translucent porcelain. The French word poterie, on the other hand, is applied to all vessels, including those made of porcelain. The latter fact has led to a slight confusion in the use of the English word. One writer makes the assertion in one place, that the words “earthen-ware” and “pottery” have limited and distinctive meanings, the former applying only to vessels of the coarser qualities, the latter to the finest products of the fictile art, “including even porcelain.” In another place, he draws a distinction between pottery and porcelain, and in the latter course he is followed by the present writer.

Faience, fayence, or fayance, is a French word applied to every kind of glazed earthen-ware. According to the earlier French usage, the term included porcelain, but more lately it has been applied only to pottery.

The word “majolica,” as now employed, has almost the same meaning as faience. A more limited signification is attached to it by some. The writer of the article on pottery in “Appleton’s CyclopÆdia” says it is used “to signify all faience of Italian manufacture. Lately the word has been used as almost, if not quite, synonymous with faience.” A more recent writer has said, “In its now common acceptation, the word is applied to all kinds of decorated pottery made{50} in Italy, or made in colors and styles imitating the old Italian work. But when you read a book on pottery written during the present century by an expert, you will do well to remember that the word in that book means exclusively Italian decorated pottery of the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, in the old Italian styles. It does not include Italian vases made in imitation of German, French, Dutch, or English wares.”

The changing meaning of this word is a good illustration of the careless use of the terms employed in treating of ceramic art. Originally, majolica, or maiolica, had a meaning different from any of those given above. The name is derived from Majorca, the largest of the Balearic Islands, between which and Italy intercourse is known to have taken place in the twelfth century; and two hundred years later, the commercial transactions of Majorca were of a very extensive kind. The evidence in favor of the above derivation of the word is conclusive. Scaliger says distinctly that the Italian pottery derived its name of majolica from Majorca, where the pottery was most excellent. Ferrari believes that “the use of majolica, as well as the name, came from Majorca, which the ancient writers called Majolica.” The “Dictionary della Crusca” adds weight to these authorities. Such being the case, it seems probable that the Italians derived part of their knowledge of making majolica from the place which gives it its name. Even admitting that the Saracens who settled in Sicily, and the Moors expelled from Spain who settled in Italy, initiated the Italians in the art, nothing is thereby detracted from the importance of Majorca. The fact is left unaffected that the intercourse with the Balearic group enabled the Italians to find a name for the ware they admired so much. On trying to imitate it, the ware called “mezza-majolica” was produced. The red clay was first thinly coated with white earth, upon which the colors were laid. After a partial firing, lead glaze was applied, and lustre pigments gave the ware the iridescence characteristic of real majolica. It was after this that tin enamel was used in place of a white slip; and the lustre pigments being applied as before, fine majolica was produced. It will thus be seen that the words “mezza-majolica” and “majolica” were originally applied only to wares showing the reflet mÉtallique, or lustre. This limited use of the word was observed down to the middle of the sixteenth century. Piccolpasso,{51} writing in 1548, in no case applies the name to the painted and glazed wares of his own production. All the glazed earthen-ware of Italy was thereafter called majolica; and the application of the word has been growing wider ever since. Mr. Fortnum says, “We think, with M. Jacquemart, M. Darcel, Mr. J. C. Robinson, and others, that the word ‘maiolica’ should be again restricted to lustred wares.” Any such attempt must necessarily end in failure. The popular employment of a word is not to be controlled by its scientific application. The tendency is in the opposite direction—toward the establishment of a universal usage by which faience and majolica will become convertible terms.

The different kinds of ware, such as Lucca della Robbia, Palissy, Doulton, and Limoges, will be found described under the countries to which they belong.

Porcelain is composed of two ingredients, one of which—kaolin—is infusible, and the other—petuntse—vitrifies, and envelops the kaolin. It is translucid, and therein differs from pottery, which is opaque. As to the origin of the word, we have already seen that it was, in its Italian form, applied to majolica in the sixteenth century; and the word “pourcelaine” occurs two centuries earlier. It was used to designate Oriental china in the fifteenth century. Mr. J. F. Davis, in his work on the Chinese (1840), quotes Marsden to the effect that the word “porcelain,” or porcellana, was applied by Europeans to the ware of China, from the resemblance of its fine polished surface to that of the univalve-shell so named; while the shell itself derived its appellation from the curved or gibbous shape of its upper surface, which was thought to resemble the raised back of a porcella, or little hog. When porcelain was first invented in China is not exactly known. The combination was discovered in the province of Honan about eighteen hundred years ago; but the date cannot be more specifically fixed. From China it was introduced into Persia, Egypt, and Barbary, at a very early period, and was thence imported into Europe, where, however, it was not generally known until 1518. The first specimens of Oriental porcelain known to have reached England were given by Philip of Austria to Sir Thomas Trenchard, of Wolverton, in 1506.

To continue its history in Europe, it is necessary to observe that there are two kinds of porcelain—the natural, or pate dure, and the{52} artificial, or pate tendre. The latter cannot stand so high a temperature as the former, and can be scratched with a knife, which the hard porcelain resists. The soft-paste was the first to be discovered in Europe. Chemists, struck with the beauty of the Chinese porcelain, and impelled by a desire to imitate, began to experiment in the sixteenth century; and the first success, of which substantial evidences now exist, was gained at Florence in 1580. It is said that a Venetian potter made porcelain sixty or seventy years earlier; but no specimen known to be his is now in existence. After that of Florence, the next discovery was made by Dr. Dwight, of Fulham, England, in 1671; and in 1695 the secret was penetrated by M. Chicanneau, at St. Cloud, France. By that time the Florentine porcelain and process had been forgotten, and the English and French ceramists pursued perfectly independent investigations.

The problem of making a hard-paste porcelain resembling that of the Orient still remained unsolved. No chemistry could avail the experimenters so long as the materials were wanting. To the accidental discovery of a bed of kaolin, Europe owed its first hard porcelain. This important event took place about the year 1709, and the circumstances leading to it are full of interest.

John Frederic BÖttger, or BÖttcher, was a chemist’s assistant in Berlin, and having fallen under suspicion as an alchemist, he took refuge in Saxony, which was then under the electorate of Augustus II. The elector, having questioned him as to his researches in the forbidden science, placed him in the laboratory of a chemist who was in search of the philosopher’s stone. While working to that end, BÖttcher surprised himself by producing something akin to Chinese porcelain. The course of his experiments was turned at once from the channel in which it had run. The king gave him every facility for continuing his experiments and working out his secret. He was first established at Meissen, then at KÖnigstein, and last at Dresden. The first results were comparatively rude; then came a reddish stone-ware, and afterward a dull white porcelain. How long his experiments might have been continued, or what might have been their ultimate result, cannot be estimated, had not an accidental discovery brought the object at which he was aiming suddenly within his reach. John Schnorr, a wealthy iron-founder, riding one day in the vicinity{53} of Aue, near Schneeberg, Saxony, noticed that his horse lifted his feet with difficulty. On examination he found that the clay was very white and peculiarly adhesive. Schnorr, although rich, would gladly be richer, and avarice made him ingenious. Why not use this white earth in the making of hair-powder? was the question which occurred to him. The commodity was dear, and clay was a cheap substitute. He took a quantity with him, made the new hair-powder, and was successful in his venture. In due course, the new powder reached BÖttcher, and he, in turn, found an original use for the white earth. Inquiring into the nature of the powder, he found it was earthy, and at once tried it in his laboratory. The powder was kaolin, and hard porcelain was discovered. A manufactory was established at Meissen, of which BÖttcher was director until his death, in 1719.

In 1720, the manufacture was begun at Vienna, whither the secret was carried by an escaped foreman from BÖttcher’s works at Meissen.

It is very curious to note that the first manufacture of hard porcelain in France was due to a chance discovery almost identical with that made in Germany. Kaolin had been found at AlenÇon, but the porcelain made from it was not pure in color. In 1765, the wife of a surgeon found near St. Yrieix a peculiarly soft earth of great whiteness. Being poor, Madame Darnet was also economical. Unlike Schnorr, her thoughts turned in the direction rather of keeping down household expenses than of adding to her income. The earth had a soft, oily touch, and the good lady thought that it might answer all the purposes of soap. Her husband sent a sample to a chemist, and it was soon afterward decided to be kaolin. The manufacture of hard porcelain was begun at SÈvres in 1769, the quarries of St. Yrieix supplying both the kaolin and petuntse. As illustrating the ingratitude of the world, it may be mentioned that the humble instrument by whose aid France reached its lofty eminence in the manufacture of porcelain was, for about sixty years, left unrewarded. In 1825, Madame Darnet, spending her old age in poverty, received a pension from Louis XVIII.

Biscuit is the technical term applied to both pottery and porcelain before they are enamelled or glazed. In this condition, porcelain is of a dead white, and is not very well suited to receive decoration in colors which require a glaze to bring out their full beauty.{54}

CHAPTER II.
CLASSIFICATION.

IN order to avoid repetitions and explanations, and for the sake of lucidity, tabulated views of the different branches of ceramics are here presented. The first is least detailed, but gives the salient points of a systematic arrangement.

The following is more full, and is to be ascribed to M. Brongniart:

{55}

If these tables be studied carefully, it will be found that in arranging the nine orders, a gradual ascent is made from the humblest ware—baked clay left unglazed—to the finest of artificial compounds. Its only objection—and it is one very likely to confuse an inexperienced student of the art—is, that, under the head of hard-paste pottery, are classed the soft-paste porcelains of England and France. The question is, also, very likely to suggest itself, why the distinction should be drawn between the soft-pastes of England and France, and the one called natural, the other artificial. The reason is that the paste of England is naturally soft, while that of France is made soft by the chemical action of certain of its ingredients. The classification has, on the other hand, the advantage of being in general use. Terms are employed in its construction which have a peculiar but well understood significance; and even in its errors there is a modicum of truth. Thus, although the artificial porcelain of France is invariably called pate tendre, or soft porcelain, it is not improperly classed under translucent hard-pastes. The error is in the distinctive name rather than in the classification. There is, in reality, very little difference in hardness between the hard-paste and the soft-paste; and although the glaze of the latter is not so hard as the body, the appellation soft-paste has been adjudged a misnomer. The question then came to be whether it might not be better to retain the old terms, with an explanation of their technical meaning, than to supplant them with something new. The latter course has been adopted, upon the ground of obviating meaningless and misleading distinctions. Both simplicity and a clear understanding of one of the most important practical divisions of our subject point toward a revision of the old system of grouping. Pottery and porcelain differ in one essential respect, and their varieties can also be classed according to the leading features of their composition, manufacture, or appearance. These differences have been taken as the basis of the following classification, against which, at least, none of the objections to that of M. Brongniart can be brought. It has been prepared by a distinguished French artist of the present time, and is offered in the hope that it may be intelligible, although it is not claimed to be either perfectly exact or altogether complete.

All wares are divisible into two great classes, viz., transparent porcelain and opaque earthen-ware.{56}

• Porcelain may be natural or artificial
  • I. Natural porcelain is made from kaolinic clay. It may have—
    • 1. A pure felspathic glaze, such as porcelain of China, Japan, Limoges, SÈvres, Dresden, Berlin; or,
    • 2. No glaze, such as the biscuit porcelain of China or France.
  • II. Artificial porcelain may be made from alkaline clay, calcareous clay, or felspathic clay.
    • 1. Alkaline clay may have an alkaline glaze, either colorless or colored, or may be biscuit.
      • a. Alkaline glaze, colorless—Persia, China, St. Cloud, Limoges, SÈvres, Tournay.
      • b. Alkaline glaze, colored—Persia, China, Limoges, Deck.
      • c. Biscuit—Old SÈvres statuettes.
    • 2. Calcareous clay has a colorless boracic glaze, as in the case of the English china of Minton, Copeland, and Worcester.
    • 3. Felspathic clay is exemplified in the parian of Copeland, Minton, and Worcester.
• Earthen-ware is of two kinds—that showing a non-vitrified fracture, and that showing a vitrified fracture.
  • I. Earthen-ware with non-vitrified fracture may have either a transparent glaze or an opaque enamel.
    • 1. Transparent glaze may be plumbiferous or alkaline, and in either case colorless or colored.
    • • a. Plumbiferous.
        Glaze, colorless—Faience d’Oiron or Henri Deux ware, Wedgwood, Meakin, Creil, Montereau.
        Glaze, colored—Palissy, Nuremberg, Minton’s majolica.
      • b. Alkaline.
        Glaze, colorless—Persian faience, Chinese and Japanese faience; Deck, of Paris.
        Glaze, colored—Haviland or Limoges faience.
    • 2. Opaque enamel is stanniferous, and may be either colorless or colored.
      Stanniferous, colorless—Della Robbia, Rouen, Moustiers, Delft, Nevers.
      Stanniferous, colored—Colinot, Parville, Longwy.{57}
  • II. Earthen-ware with vitrified fracture may be either glazed or in biscuit. Of the former, the GrÈs of Germany, Beauvais, and Doulton may be taken as examples.

For convenience of reference, the same classification may be given in tabulated form:

Under the above arrangement, it will be observed that the distinction{58} between hard and soft porcelain and pottery is done away with. The first is divided into natural and artificial, the kaolinic paste being the only one coming under the former head, and the “soft-pastes” of both England and France coming under the latter. The subdivisions are made according to the glaze employed. The division of pottery into two classes, according to the nature of the body as revealed by fracture, is the most lucid and comprehensive. The subdivisions, as in the case of porcelain, are made according to the enamel or glaze applied to the ware. It is presumed that any one can distinguish between transparent and opaque wares, and thus tell porcelain from pottery, and similarly, tell whether the fracture of a broken specimen is vitrified or otherwise, and thus distinguish stone-ware, or grÈs, from ordinary earthen-ware.

In the matter of glazes, it requires a great deal of skill and long practice to tell one from another. All are transparent, with the exception of tin or stanniferous enamel. Felspathic glaze is that most readily recognized; but in the case of the others—the alkaline, plumbiferous, and boracic—they are very often only to be distinguished by their different effects upon the colors used in decoration.{59}

CHAPTER III.
COMPOSITION OF WARES AND GLAZES.

THE division of pottery and porcelain into two great classes, hard and soft, is based upon the difference of their composition, their hardness of surface, and their power of resisting the action of fire. The simplest test is scratching with a knife or other instrument. Hard porcelain and pottery resist the metal, while the soft is marked. The former will also stand a temperature in the kiln at which the latter would crumble or fuse.

To understand the composition of porcelain, it is necessary to bear in mind that it is a compound of kaolin and petuntse, the former of which is infusible, and the latter fusible at a high temperature. The former constitutes the body of the piece, the latter gives it its translucency. The word “kaolin” is derived from Kaoling, the name of a mountain near King-teh-chin, one of the great centres of the manufacture in China. Kaolin is simply the result of the decomposition of granitic rock, and silica and alumina are its chief ingredients. Petuntse is pure felspar. The conditions in which these materials are found in China may be briefly stated. They are either in the form of stone or sand, from which the unsuitable parts are removed by the action of water. When they are thrown into the water, the fine particles which do not sink are collected and dried. The paste, before being used, is again put into water and strained through a sieve, so that only the finest is preserved, and used in making porcelain. The{60} materials are obtained from different parts of the country, and blended according to their respective qualities, as ascertained by the most systematic investigation and experiment. The European process is similar, the kaolin being first washed clear of all argillaceous impurity, and then mixed with felspar and silicious sand. Of the further similarity between the two, MM. Ebelman and Salvetat say:

1st. The kaolin and petuntse used in making paste for Chinese porcelain are chemically identical with the materials used in Europe. The Chinese kaolin is evidently disintegrated granite. Chemically, petuntse resembles the pegmatite of Limoges; mineralogically, it is to be classed with petrosilicious felspar.

2d. The mechanical preparation of the pastes of China and Europe is based upon similar methods.

3d. The Chinese paste is the more fusible of the two.

4th. The Chinese glaze is also the more fusible, on account of the addition of lime to the petuntse, which the French use pure.

It may be added that the Dresden, SÈvres, and Limoges porcelains are baked at a higher temperature, and are harder than the Chinese.

The basis of the natural pastes of Germany and France is 46.66 parts of silex, 40 of aluminous earth, and 13.33 alkaline earth, although the proportions vary, and the following may be nearer an average: Silex, 66; alumina, 30; potash, magnesia, and lime, 4. In the glaze the proportions are different, the silica largely preponderating: Silex, 73.4; alumina, 15.7; potash, lime, and magnesia, 10.9.

The following table is given by M. A. Salvetat as the result of analyses made at different times by himself and others:

{61}

The English artificial porcelain differs from the natural paste of China and the European continent chiefly in one particular. At first the compound used was white clay, white sand, and glass, the latter being employed to impart the necessary transparency. More recently bone came largely into use, and is now one of the distinctive ingredients of English paste. The phosphoric acid of that material was found to produce, in combination with the other materials, a clear, translucent body, of less strength than natural paste, but less liable to sink. The following may be taken as the mean composition: Bone, 47; kaolin, 34; felspar, 19. The kaolin is found in Cornwall, where a very large tract is formed chiefly of decomposed granite. The purest rock having been selected, it is placed on an inclined plane, upon which water can be turned. It is washed down into a trench, and thence into a catch-pit, and again into lower pits, in which successively the impure ingredients are retained, the water laden with the finer particles running into tanks, and there depositing its fine silt. The clay is partially dried, and cut into blocks, and in that shape reaches the potters. The manner in which the kaolin is prepared bears a very close resemblance to that adopted by the Chinese, as previously described. The glaze is composed of felspar, carbonate of lime, borax, and white-lead. Sometimes the kaolin is mixed with the bone and felspar in the proportions above specified, and sometimes the bone is made, in combination with silex and pearlash, into a frit.

The artificial or soft porcelain of France, exemplified in the old china of SÈvres, was produced by a very intricate and ingenious process. A frit was made of saltpetre, sea-salt, burnt alum, soda-ash, gypsum, and sand. This mixture, having been purified by partial vitrification, was ground, and mixed with chalk and marl. The glaze was as follows: Litharge, 38; sand, 27; calcined flint, 11; and the carbonates of soda and potash, 15 and 9 parts respectively.

The composition called parian, in which the potters of England and America have executed much beautiful work, varies considerably. Analysis of one specimen resulted thus: Silica, 58.57; alumina, 21; oxide of iron, 1; lime, 0.14; magnesia, 0.5; potash, 11.40; soda, 5.08.

The clay from which common earthen-ware is made is composed to a great extent of silica and alumina, with admixtures of iron, lime, and magnesia. An average combination is 60 parts silex, 30 alumina,{62} 7 iron, and 2 lime. These proportions vary very widely, certain substances appearing in one place and not in another. In some, carbon is found; in others, quartz, sand, marl, or chalk, as the case may be. The work of classification, except in a very extended form, is thus rendered somewhat difficult. Possibly the following series of tables will serve our purpose most intelligibly.

In the following carbon does not appear, and the proportion of silica increases:

The Egyptian, compounded as above, is that which has been commonly known as Egyptian porcelain. Many of the better known wares of Europe and the East have a common characteristic in the calcareous nature of their pastes. The silica decreases and the lime increases, while carbonic acid appears as a new ingredient.

{63}

Of the potteries which hold a place between the hard and soft wares are the Palissy and Henri Deux. The composition of the former is 67.50 silica, 28.51 alumina, 1.52 lime, 2.05 oxide of iron, with a very slight admixture of alkalies. That of the latter is 59.10 silica, and 40.24 alumina.

From what has been said, it will be seen that the difference between earthen-ware, stone-ware, and porcelain is to be attributed to a few minor ingredients, to the preparation, and to the degree of heat to which they are subjected. The following table may be studied for the sake of making comparisons:

As to the glazes applied to clay or opaque ware, we have seen that they are broadly distinguished as translucent plumbiferous or alkaline, opaque stanniferous, and salt glaze. The distinction is also to be observed between glaze and enamel, although they are often confounded. Thus, according to M. Brongniart, there are three kinds of glaze—varnish, enamel, and couverte—all of which are vitrifiable. Varnish he describes as a transparent and plumbiferous material, melting at a lower temperature than that required for baking the paste; enamel, an opaque, generally stanniferous (containing tin) substance; couverte, a substance which melts at a temperature equal to that required for baking the paste. Birch, on the other hand, draws a distinction between glaze and enamel. In one place he speaks of “opaque glasses or enamels,” and again, “among the Egyptians and Assyrians, enamelling was used more frequently than glazing.” So, also, Fortnum, who, dividing pottery into soft and hard, subdivides the former into unglazed, lustrous, glazed, and enamelled. The glazed he again divides into silicious, or glass-glazed, and plumbeous, or lead-glazed, both of which are transparent. The word “glaze” is thus{64} more correctly applied to the covering, which does not alter the color of the body upon which it is laid, and “enamel” to that which obscures the body.

Glass, or silicious glaze, is formed by fusing sand with an alkali—potash or soda. When to this is added the oxide of lead, transparent plumbiferous glaze is the result; and when to both of these oxide of tin is added, we have opaque stanniferous enamel. The glass and plumbeous glazes may be colored with a variety of other oxides, without losing their transparency.

When or where glaze was first applied to clay is not known. Like many other branches of knowledge and many nations, it has its roots in the East, but whether we are indebted for it to India, Egypt, or Assyria, cannot now be decided. Upon this question Dr. Birch says:

“The desire of rendering terra-cotta less porous, and of producing vases capable of retaining liquids, gave rise to the covering it with a vitreous enamel or glaze. The invention of glass has been hitherto generally attributed to the Phoenicians; but opaque glasses or enamels, as old as the eighteenth dynasty, and enamelled objects as early as the fourth (B.C. 3000-2000), have been found in Egypt. The employment of copper to produce a brilliant blue-colored enamel was very early both in Babylonia and Assyria, but the use of tin for a white enamel, as recently discovered in the enamelled bricks and vases of Babylonia and Assyria, anticipated by many centuries the rediscovery of that process in Europe in the fifteenth century, and shows the early application of metallic oxides. This invention apparently remained for many centuries a secret among the Eastern nations only, enamelled terra-cotta and glass forming articles of commercial export from Egypt and Phoenicia to every part of the Mediterranean. Among the Egyptians and Assyrians enamelling was used more frequently than glazing, and their works are consequently a kind of faience, consisting of a loose frit or body, to which an enamel adheres after only a slight fusion. After the fall of the Roman Empire the art of enamelling terra-cotta disappeared among the Arab and Moorish races, who had retained a traditional knowledge of the process. The application of a transparent vitreous coating, or glaze, over the entire surface, like the varnish of a picture, is also referable to a high antiquity, and was universally adopted either to enhance the beauty of{65} single colors or to promote the combination of many. Innumerable fragments and remains of glazed vases, fabricated by the Greeks and Romans, not only prove the early use of glazing, but also exhibit, in the present day, many of the noblest efforts of the potter’s art.”

The use of oxides is also very ancient. The Egyptians employed that of copper for the production of their turquoise-blue, and possibly also for their green, manganese for violet, iron or silver for yellows, etc. The same processes were known in Babylon and Assyria. To the Persians and Arabians the application of metallic lustres was known at a very early period. Plumbiferous, or lead-glaze, was employed by the Babylonians, and the knowledge of its composition was in all probability imported thence among the Greeks, and by them may have been carried into Southern Italy.

The course of enamel is equally difficult of definition. Although used in Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria, it does not appear to have supplanted the lead-glaze; and for a long period all traces of it are lost, until it reappeared among the Arabs. We next meet with it as a distinctive characteristic of the potteries of Spain. It was also known to the Saracenic and Moorish potters of Sicily, and from either of these sources may have found its way into Italy.{66}

CHAPTER IV.
MANUFACTURE AND DECORATION.

Divisions of Chapter.—Japanese Method of Preparing Porcelain Clay.—Old SÈvres Soft Porcelain.—Pug-Mill.—Blunger.—Early Italian Methods.—Shaping the Clay.—Moulding among the Egyptians, Greeks, Italians, and at the Present Day.—Moulding Porcelain.—Japanese Method.—European.—Throwing.—The Potter’s Wheel in all Countries.—Baking and Firing.—Egyptian, Greek, Italian, and Japanese Kilns.—Those of Modern Europe and America.—Times of Firing.—Glazing and Painting.—Metallic-Lustre Majolica.—Japanese Methods.—Glazing Stone-ware.—Natural and Artificial Porcelain.