LIST OF PLATES

STATUE OF LOHAN OR BUDDHIST APOSTLE, T´ANG DYNASTY (618–906 A.D.).
British Museum (Colour) Frontispiece
PLATEFACING PAGE
1. CHOU POTTERY[4]
Fig. 1.—Tripod Food Vessel. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Jar with deeply cut lozenge pattern. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
2. HAN POTTERY[8]
Fig. 1.—Vase, green glazed. Boston Museum.
Fig. 2.—Vase with black surface and incised designs. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Vase with designs in red, white and black pigments. British Museum.
Fig. 4.—"Granary Urn," green glazed. Peters Collection.
3. HAN POTTERY[12]
Fig. 1.—"Hill Jar" with brown glaze. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Box, green glazed. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—"Lotus Censer," green glazed. Rothenstein Collection.
4. MODEL OF A "FOWLING TOWER"[12]
Han pottery with iridescent green glaze. Freer Collection.
5. T´ANG SEPULCHRAL FIGURES[26]
Fig. 1.—A Lokapala or Guardian of one of the Quarters, unglazed. Benson Collection.
Fig. 2.—A Horse, with coloured glazes. Benson Collection.
Fig. 3.—An Actor, unglazed. Benson Collection.
6. T´ANG SEPULCHRAL FIGURES, UNGLAZED[26]
Figs. 1, 2 and 4.—Female Musicians. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Attendant with dish of food. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
7. T´ANG SEPULCHRAL POTTERY[26]
Fig. 1.—Figure of a Lady in elaborate costume, unglazed. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase, white pottery with traces of blue mottling. Breuer Collection.
Fig. 3.—Sphinx–like Monster, green and yellow glazes. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
8. THREE EXAMPLES OF T´ANG WARE WITH COLOURED GLAZES:
IN THE Eumorfopoulos Collection (Colour)[30]
Fig. 1.—Tripod Incense Vase with ribbed sides; white pottery with deep blue glaze,
outside encrusted with iridescence.
Fig. 2.—Amphora of light coloured pottery with splashed glaze.
Fig. 3.—Ewer of hard white porcellanous ware with deep purple glaze.
9. T´ANG POTTERY[32]
Fig. 1.—Ewer of Sassanian form with splashed glazes; panels of relief ornament.
Alexander Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase with mottled glaze, green and orange. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Ewer with dragon spout and handle; wave and cloud reliefs; brownish yellow glaze
streaked with green. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
10. T´ANG POTTERY[32]
Fig. 1.—Dish with mirror pattern incised and coloured blue, green, etc.; inner border of ju–i
cloud scrolls on a mottled yellow ground, outer border of mottled green; pale green glaze
underneath and three tusk–shaped feet. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Ewer with serpent handle and trilobed mouth; applied rosette
ornaments and mottled glaze, green, yellow and white. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
11. T´ANG WARES[32]
Fig. 1.—Cup with bands of impressed circles, brownish yellow glaze outside, green within.
Seligmann Collection.
Fig. 2.—Cup of hard white ware with greenish white glaze. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Melon–shaped Vase, greyish stoneware with white slip and smooth ivory glaze.
Breuer Collection.
Fig. 4.—Cup of porcellanous stoneware, white slip and crackled creamy white glaze,
spur marks inside. Breuer Collection.
12. T´ANG POTTERY WITH GREEN GLAZE[40]
Fig. 1.—Bottle with impressed key–fret. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Ewer with incised foliage scrolls. Alexander Collection.
Fig. 3.—Vase with foliage scrolls, painted in black under the glaze, incised border on the shoulder.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
13. T´ANG POTTERY[40]
Fig. 1.—Pilgrim Bottle with lily palmette and raised rosettes, green glaze. KOECHLIN COLLECTION.
Fig. 2.—Pilgrim Bottle (neck wanting), Hellenistic figures of piping boy and dancing girl in relief
among floral scrolls, brownish green glaze. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
14. T´ANG WARES[40]
Fig. 1.—Incense Vase, lotus–shaped, with lion on the cover, hexagonal stand with moulded ornament;
green, yellow and brown glazes. Rothenstein Collection.
Fig. 2.—Sepulchral Amphora, hard white ware with greenish white glaze,
serpent handles. Schneider Collection.
Fig. 3.—Ewer with large foliage and lotus border in carved relief, green glaze. Koechlin Collection.
Fig. 4.—Sepulchral Vase, grey stoneware with opaque greenish grey glaze. Incised scrolls on the body,
applied reliefs of dragons, figures, etc., on neck and shoulder. (?) T´ang. Benson Collection.
15. SUNG WARES[48]
Fig. 1.—Peach–shaped Water Vessel, dark–coloured biscuit, smooth greenish grey glaze. (?)
Ju or Kuan ware. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Figs. 2 and 3.—Shallow Cup with flanged handle, and covered box, opalescent grey glaze.
Kuan or Chün wares. Rothenstein Collection.
16. SUNG WARES (Colour)[58]
Fig. 1.—Bowl with six–lobed sides; thin porcellanous ware, burnt brown at the foot–rim,
with bluish green celadon glaze irregularly crackled. Alexander Collection.
Fig. 2.—Tripod Incense Burner. White porcelain burnt pale red under the feet. (?)
Lung–ch´üan celadon ware. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
17. TWO EXAMPLES OF SUNG WARES OF THE CHÜN OR KUAN FACTORIES (Colour)[64]
Fig. 1.—Bowl with lavender glaze, lightly crackled. O. Raphael Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase with smooth lavender grey glaze suffused with purple. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
18. SUNG DYNASTY[66]
Fig. 1.—Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green celadon glaze.
Northern Chinese. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey stoneware, burnt reddish brown,
milky grey glaze, closely crackled. Freer Collection.
19. VASE OF CLOSE–GRAINED, DARK, REDDISH BROWN STONEWARE, WITH THICK, SMOOTH GLAZE,
BOLDLY CRACKLED. Ko ware of the Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection (Colour)[70]
20. DEEP BOWL OF REDDISH BROWN STONEWARE, WITH THICK, BOLDLY CRACKLED GLAZE.
Ko ware of the Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection (Colour)[74]
21. THREE EXAMPLES OF LUNG–CH´ÜAN CELADON PORCELAIN[80]
Fig. 1.—Plate of spotted celadon. (?) Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Octagonal Vase with crackled glaze and biscuit panels moulded with figures
of the Eight Immortals in clouds. (?) Fourteenth century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Dish with engraved lotus scrolls and two fishes in biscuit. Sung dynasty.
Gotha Museum.
22. VASE OF LUNG–CH´ÜAN PORCELAIN[88]
With grey green celadon glaze of faint bluish tone, peony scroll in low relief.
Probably Sung dynasty. Peters Collection.
23. IVORY–WHITE TING WARE, WITH CARVED ORNAMENT. Sung dynasty[96]
Fig. 1.—Bowl with lotus design. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Dish with ducks and water plants. Alexander Collection.
24. SUNG AND YÜAN PORCELAIN[96]
Fig. 1.—Ewer, translucent porcelain, with smooth ivory white glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty.
Alexander Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase of ivory white Ting ware with carved lotus design. Sung dynasty.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
25. TING WARE WITH MOULDED DESIGNS. Sung dynasty[96]
Fig. 1.—Plate with boys in peony scrolls, ivory white glaze. Peters Collection.
Fig. 2.—Bowl with flying phœnixes in lily scrolls, crackled creamy glaze; t´u ting ware.
Koechlin Collection.
26. T´U–TING WARE, SUNG DYNASTY, WITH CREAMY CRACKLED GLAZE[96]
Fig. 1.—Brush washer in form of a boy in a boat. Rothenstein Collection.
Fig. 2.—Figure of an elephant. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
27. VASE OF BRONZE FORM, WITH ROW OF STUDS AND MOULDED BELT OF
k´uei DRAGON AND KEY–FRET PATTERNS[96]
"Ostrich egg" glaze. (?) Kiangnan ware, of Ting type; Sung dynasty. Peters Collection.
28. VASE OF BRONZE FORM, WITH BANDS OF RAISED KEY PATTERN[96]
Thick creamy glaze, closely crackled and shading off into brown with faint tinges of purple. (?)
Kiangnan Ting ware. Fourteenth century. Koechlin Collection.
29. VASE OF PORCELLANOUS STONEWARE[104]
With creamy white glaze and designs painted in black. Tz´ŭ Chou ware, Sung dynasty
(960–1279 A.D.). In the Louvre.
30. FOUR JARS OF PAINTED TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE[104]
Fig. 1.—Dated 11th year of Chêng T´ing (1446 A.D.) Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Painted in red and green enamels. (?) Sung dynasty. Alexander Collection.
Fig. 3.—Lower half black, the upper painted on white ground. Sung dynasty. Benson Collection.
Fig. 4.—With phœnix design, etched details. Sung dynasty. Rothenstein Collection.
31. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE[104]
Fig. 1.—Tripod Incense Vase in Persian style with lotus design in pale aubergine, in
a turquoise ground. Sixteenth century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Pillow with creamy white glaze and design of a tethered bear in black. Sung dynasty.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
32. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE[104]
Fig. 1.—Figure of a Lohan with a deer, creamy white glaze coloured with black slip and
painted withgreen and red enamels. Said to be Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase with graffiato peony scrolls under a green glaze. Sung dynasty.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
33. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE[104]
Fig. 1.—Vase with panel of figures representing music, painted in black under a blue glaze.
Yüan dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase with incised designs in a dark brown glaze, a sage looking at a skeleton.
Yüan dynasty. Peters Collection.
Fig. 3.—Vase with painting in black and band of marbled slips. Sung dynasty.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
34. TZ´Ŭ CHOU WARE[104]
Fig. 1.—Bottle of white porcellanous ware with black glaze and floral design in lustrous brown.
Sung dynasty or earlier. (?) Tz´ŭ Chou ware. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Bottle with bands of key pattern and lily scrolls cut away from a black glaze.
Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Bottle with graffiato design in white slip on a mouse–coloured ground,
yellowish glaze. Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
35. FLOWER POT OF CHÜN CHOU WARE OF THE SUNG DYNASTY (Colour)[112]
Grey porcellanous body: olive brown glaze under the base and the numeral shih (ten) incised.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
36. CHÜN WARE (Colour)[116]
Fig. 1.—Flower pot of six–foil form. Chün Chou ware of the Sung dynasty.
The base is glazed with olive brown and incised with the numeral san (three).
Alexander Collection.
Fig. 2.—Bowl of Chün type, with close–grained porcellanous body of yellowish colour.
Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
37. CHÜN CHOU WARE WITH PORCELLANOUS BODY (tz´ŭ t´ai). Sung dynasty[118]
Fig. 1.—Flower Pot, with lavender grey glaze. Numeral mark ssŭ (four).
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Bulb Bowl, of quatrefoil form, pale olive glaze clouded with opaque grey.
Numeral mark i (one). Freer Collection.
38. CHÜN WARE (Colour)[122]
Fig. 1.—Bowl of eight–foil shape, with lobed sides, of Chün type. Sung dynasty.
Alexander Collection.
Fig. 2.—Pomegranate shaped Water Pot of "Soft Chün" ware. Probably Sung dynasty.
Alexander Collection.
39. TWO EXAMPLES OF "SOFT CHÜN" WARE (Colour)[126]
Fig. 1.—Vase of buff ware, burnt red at the foot rim, with thick, almost crystalline glaze.
Found in a tomb near Nanking and given in 1896 to the FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge.
Probably Sung dynasty.
Fig. 2.—Vase of yellowish ware with thick opalescent glaze. Yüan dynasty.
Alexander Collection.
40. CHÜN CHOU WARE[128]
Fig. 1.—Bulb Bowl, porcellanous ware with lavender grey glaze passing into mottled
red outside. Numeral mark i (one). Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase of dense reddish ware, opalescent glaze of pale misty lavender with
passages of olive and three symmetrical splashes of purple with green centres.
Sung or Yüan dynasty. Peters Collection.
41. CHÜN CHOU WARE[128]
Fig. 1.—Dish with peach spray in relief. Variegated lavender grey glaze with purplish
brown spots and amethyst patches, frosted in places with dull green. Sung dynasty.
Freer Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase and Stand, smooth lavender grey glaze. Sung or Yüan dynasty.
Alexander Collection.
42. TWO Temmoku BOWLS, DARK–BODIED CHIEN YAO OF THE SUNG DYNASTY[130]
Fig. 1.—Tea Bowl (p´ieh), purplish black glaze flecked with silvery drops.
Freer Collection.
Fig. 2.—Tea Bowl with purplish black glaze shot with golden brown. British Museum.
43. THREE EXAMPLES OF "HONAN temmoku," PROBABLY T´ANG DYNASTY[132]
Fig. 1.—Bowl with purplish black glaze, stencilled leaf in golden brown.
Havemeyer Collection.
Fig. 2.—Ewer with black glaze. Alexander Collection.
Fig. 3.—Covered Bowl, black mottled with lustrous brown. Cologne Museum.
44. EARLY TRANSLUCENT PORCELAIN, PROBABLY T´ANG DYNASTY[150]
Fig. 1.—Cinquefoil Cup with ivory glaze clouded with pinkish buff stains. Breuer Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase of white, soft–looking ware, very thin and translucent, with pearly white,
crackled glaze powdered with brown specks. Peters Collection.
45. T´ANG AND SUNG WARES[150]
Fig. 1.—Square Vase with engraved lotus scrolls and formal borders. T´u–ting ware,
Sung dynasty. Peters Collection.
Fig. 2.—Ewer with phœnix head, slightly translucent porcelain with light greenish
grey glaze with tinges of blue in the thicker parts; carved designs. Probably T´ang
dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
46. TING WARE AND YÜAN PORCELAIN[162]
Fig. 1.—Bottle with carved reliefs of archaic dragons and ling chin funguses.
Fên ting ware, said to be Sung dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Bowl with moulded floral designs in low relief, unglazed rim.
Translucent porcelain, probably Yüan dynasty. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
47. VASE OF BUFF STONEWARE (Colour)[170]
With scroll of rosette–like flowers in relief: thick flocculent glaze of mottled blue with
passages of dull green and a substratum of brown. Kuantung ware, seventeenth century.
Benson Collection.
48. KUANGTUNG WARE[172]
Fig. 1.—Dish in form of a lotus leaf, mottled blue and brown glaze. About 1600.
British Museum.
Fig. 2.—Vase with lotus scroll in relief, opaque, closely crackled glaze of pale lavender
grey warmin into purple. (?) Fourteenth century. Peters Collection.
Fig. 3.—Figure of Pu–tai Ho–shang, red biscuit, the draperies glazed celadon green.
Eighteenth century. British Museum.
49. COVERED JAR OF BUFF STONEWARE[172]
With cloudy green glaze and touches of dark blue, yellow, brown and white; archaic dragons,
bats and storks in low relief; border of sea waves. Probably Kuangtung ware,
seventeenth century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
50. YI–HSING STONEWARE, SOMETIMES CALLED Buccaro[176]
Figs. 1 to 4.—Teapots in the Dresden Collection, late seventeenth century.
(1) Buff with dark patches.
(2) Red ware with pierced outer casing.
(3) Black with gilt vine sprays.
(4) Red ware moulded with lion design.
Fig. 5.—Peach–shaped Water Vessel, red ware. Dresden Collection.
Fig. 6.—Red Teapot, moulded design of trees, etc. Inscription containing the name of
Ch´ien Lung.Hippisley Collection.
51. TWO VASES WITH GLAZE IMITATING THAT OF THE CHÜN CHOU WARE (Colour)[180]
Fig. 1.—Vase of Fat–shan (Kuangtung) Chün ware. Late Ming. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Bottle–shaped Vase, the base suggesting a lotus flower and the mouth a lotus seed–pod,
with a ring of movable seeds on the rim. Thick and almost crystalline glaze of lavender blue
colour with a patch of crimson. Yi–hsing Chün ware of the seventeenth century.
Eumorfopoulos Collection.
52. WINE JAR WITH COVER AND STAND (Colour)[186]
Fine stoneware with ornament in relief glazed green and yellow in a deep violet blue ground.
Four–clawed dragons ascending and descending among cloud scrolls in pursuit of flaming
pearls; band of sea waves below and formal borders including a ju–i pattern on
the shoulder. Cover with foliate edges and jewel pattern, surmounted by a seated figure of
Shou Lao, God of Longevity. About 1500 A.D. Grandidier Collection, Louvre.
53. VASE WITH CHRYSANTHEMUM HANDLES (Colour)[192]
Buff stoneware with chrysanthemum design outlined in low relief and coloured with turquoise,
green and pale yellow glazes in dark purple ground. About 1500 A.D. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
54. VASE WITH LOTUS HANDLES (Colour)[196]
Buff stoneware with lotus design modelled in low relief and coloured with aubergine,
green and pale yellow glazes in a deep turquoise ground. About 1500 A.D.
Grandidier Collection, Louvre.
55. MING POTTERY WITH DULL san ts´ai GLAZES[200]
Fig. 1.—Wine Jar with pierced outer casing, horsemen and attendants, rocky background.
Fifteenth century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 2.—Tripod Incense Vase, dragons and peony designs and a panel of horsemen.
Dated 1529 A.D. Messel Collection.
56. MISCELLANEOUS POTTERY[200]
Fig. 1.—Jar with dull green glaze and formal lotus scroll in relief touched with yellow
and brown glazes. About 1600. Goff Collection.
Fig. 2.—Beaker of bronze form, soft whitish body and dull green glaze. (?) Seventeenth
century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
Fig. 3.—Vase of light buff ware with dull black dressing, vine reliefs. Mark, Nan hsiang t´ang.
Eighteenth century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
57. SEATED FIGURE OF KUAN YÜ, THE WAR–GOD OF CHINA, A DEIFIED WARRIOR (Colour)[204]
Reddish buff pottery with blue, yellow and turquoise glazes, and a colourless glaze on the
white parts. Sixteenth century. Eumorfopoulos Collection.
58. MISCELLANEOUS POTTERY[206]
Fig. 1.—Jar with lotus design in green, yellow and turquoise glazes in an aubergine ground.
About 1600. Hippisley Collection.
Fig. 2.—Vase of double fish form, buff ware with turquoise, yellow and aubergine glazes. (?)
Seventeenth century. British Museum.
Fig. 3.—Roof–tile with figure of Bodhidharma, deep green and creamy white glazes.
Sixteenth century. Benson Collection.
Fig. 4.—Bottle with archaic dragon (ch´ih lung) on neck, variegated glaze of lavender,
blue and green clouded with purple and brown. (?) Eighteenth century. Yi–hsing ware.
Peters Collection.

INTRODUCTION

WHEN we consider the great extent of the Chinese Empire and its teeming population—both of them larger than those of Europe—and the fact that a race with a natural gift for the potter's craft and a deep appreciation of its productions has lived and laboured there for twenty centuries (to look no farther back than the Han dynasty), it seems almost presumptuous to attempt a history of so vast and varied an industry within the compass of two volumes. Anything approaching finality in such a subject is out of the question, and, indeed, imagination staggers at the thought of a complete record of every pottery started in China in the past and present.

As far as pottery is concerned, we must be content with the identification of a few prominent types and with very broad classifications, whether they be chronological or topographical. Indeed, the potteries named in the Chinese records are only a few of those which must have existed; and though we may occasionally rejoice to find in our collections a series like the red stonewares of Yi–hsing, which can be definitely located, a very large proportion of our pottery must be labelled uncertain or unknown. How many experts here or on the Continent could identify the pottery made in South Germany or Hungary a hundred years ago? What chance, then, is there of recognising any but the most celebrated wares of China?

In dealing with porcelain as distinct from pottery, we have a simpler proposition. The bulk of what we see in Europe is not older than the Ming dynasty and was made at one of two large centres, viz. Ching–tê Chên in Kiangsi, and Tê–hua in Fukien. Topographical arrangement, then, is an easy matter, and there is a considerable amount of information available to guide us in chronological considerations.

The antiquity of Chinese porcelain, its variety and beauty, and the wonderful skill of the Chinese craftsmen, accumulated from the traditions of centuries, have made the study of the potter's art in China peculiarly absorbing and attractive. There is scope for every taste in its inexhaustible variety. Compared with it in age, European porcelain is but a thing of yesterday, a mere two centuries old, and based from the first on Chinese models. Even the so–called European style of decoration which developed at Meissen and Sèvres, though quite Western in general effect, will be found on analysis to be composed of Chinese elements. It would be useless to compare the artistic merits of the Eastern and Western wares.

It is so much a matter of personal taste. For my own part, I consider that the decorative genius of the Chinese and their natural colour sense, added to their long training, have placed them so far above their European followers that comparison is irrelevant. Even the commoner sorts of old Chinese porcelain, made for the export trade, have undeniable decorative qualities, while the specimens in pure Chinese taste, and particularly the Court wares, are unsurpassed in quality and finish.

The merits and beauty of porcelain have always been recognised by the Chinese, who ranked it from the earliest days among their precious materials. Chinese poets make frequent reference to its dainty qualities, its jade–like appearance, its musical ring, its lightness and refinement. The green cups of Yüeh Chou ware in the T´ang dynasty were likened to moulded lotus leaves; and the white Ta–yi bowls surpassed hoar–frost and snow. Many stanzas were inspired by the porcelain bowls used at the tea and wine symposia, where cultivated guests capped each other's verses. In a pavilion at Yün–mên, in the vicinity of Ching–tê Chên, is a tablet inscribed, "The white porcelain is quietly passed all through the night, the fragrant vapour (of the tea) fills the peaceful pavilion," an echo of a symposium held there by some distinguished persons in the year 1101 A. D., and no doubt alluding to wares of local make. Elsewhere[1] we read of a drinking–bout in which the wine bowls of white Ting Chou porcelain inspired a verse–capping competition. "Ting Chou porcelain bowls in colour white throughout the Empire," wrote one. Another followed, "Compared with them, glass is a light and fickle mistress, amber a dull and stupid female slave." The third proceeded: "The vessel's body is firm and crisp; the texture of its skin is yet more sleek and pleasing."

The author of the P´ing hua p´u, a late Ming work on flower vases, exhorts us: "Prize the porcelain and disdain gold and silver. Esteem pure elegance."

In their admiration of antiques the Chinese yield to none, and nowhere have private collections been more jealously guarded and more difficult of access. Even in the sixteenth century relatively large sums were paid for Sung porcelains, and £30 was not too much for a "chicken wine cup" barely a hundred years old. The ownership of a choice antique—say, of the Sung dynasty—made the possessor a man of mark; perhaps even a marked man if the local ruler chanced to be of a grasping nature.

A story is told on p. 75 of this volume of a Ko ware incense burner (afterwards sold for 200 ounces of gold), which brought a man to imprisonment and torture in the early Ming period; and, if the newspaper account was correct, there was an incident in the recent revolution which should touch the collector's heart. A prominent general, who, like so many Chinese grandees, was an ardent collector, was expecting a choice piece of porcelain from Shanghai. In due course the box arrived and was taken to the general's sanctum. He proceeded to open it, no doubt with all the eagerness and suppressed excitement which collectors feel in such tense moments, only to be blown to pieces by a bomb! His enemies had known too well the weak point in his defence.

Collecting is a less dangerous sport in England; but if it were not so, the ardent collector would be in no way deterred. Warnings are wasted on him, and he would follow his quarry, even though the path were strewn with fragments of his indiscreet fellows. Still less is he discouraged by difficulties of another kind, as illustrated 'by the story[2] of T´ang's white Sung tripod, which was so closely imitated that its owner, one of the most celebrated collectors of the sixteenth century, could not distinguish the copy from the original. An eighteenth century Chinese writer points the moral of the story: "When connoisseurs point with admiration to a vessel, calling it Ting ware, or, again, Kuan ware, how can we know that it is not a 'false tripod' which deceives them?" The force of this question will be appreciated by collectors of Sung wares, especially of the white Ting porcelains and the green celadons; for there is nothing more difficult to classify correctly than these long–lived types. There are, however, authentic Sung examples within reach, and we can train our eyes with these, so that nothing but the very best imitations will deceive us; and, after all, if we succeed in obtaining a really first–rate Ming copy of a Sung type we shall be fortunate, for if we ever discover the truth—which is an unlikely contingency—we may console ourselves with thoughts of the enthusiast who eventually bought T´ang's false tripod for £300 and "went home perfectly happy."

In spite of all that has been written in the past on Oriental ceramics, the study is still young, and it will be long before the last word is said on the subject. Still our knowledge is constantly increasing, and remarkable strides have been made in recent years. The first serious work on Chinese porcelain was Julien's translation of the Ching–tê Chên t´ao lu, published in 1856. The work of a scholar who was not an expert, it was inevitably marred by misunderstanding of the material, and subsequent writers who followed blindly were led into innumerable confusions. The Franks Catalogue, issued in 1876, was one of the first attempts to classify Oriental wares on some intelligible system; but it was felt that not enough was known at that time to justify a chronological classification of the collection, and the somewhat unscientific method of grouping by colours and processes of decoration was adopted as a convenient expedient. At the end of last century Dr. S.W. Bushell revolutionised the study of Chinese porcelain by his Oriental Ceramic Art, a book, unfortunately, difficult to obtain, and by editing Cosmo Monkhouse's excellent History and Description of Chinese Porcelain. These were followed by the South Kensington Museum Handbook and by the translation and reproduction of the sixteenth century Album of Hsiang Yüan–p´ien, and later by the more important translation of the T´ao shuo.

It would be impossible to over–estimate the importance of Bushell's pioneer work; and I hasten to make the fullest acknowledgment of the free use I have made of his writings, the more so because I have not hesitated to criticise freely his translations where necessary. The Chinese language is notoriously obscure and ambiguous, and differences of opinion on difficult passages are inevitable. In fact, I would say that it is unwise to build up theories on any translation whatsoever without verifying the critical passages in the original. For this reason I found it necessary to work laboriously through the available Chinese ceramic literature, a task which would have been quite impossible with my brief acquaintance with the language had it not been for the invaluable aid of Dr. Lionel Giles, who helped me over the difficult ground. I have, moreover, taken the precaution of giving the Chinese text in all critical passages, so that the reader may satisfy himself as to their true meaning.

While Dr. Bushell's contributions have greatly simplified the study of the later Chinese porcelains, little or no account was taken in the older books of the pottery and early wares. The materials necessary for the study of these were wanting in Europe. Stray examples of the coarser types and export wares had found their way into our collections, but not in sufficient numbers or importance to arouse any general interest, and the condition of the Western market for the early types was not such as to tempt the native collector to part with his rare and valued specimens. In the last few years the position has completely changed. The opening up of China and the increased opportunities which Europeans enjoy, not only for studying the monuments of ancient Chinese art, but for acquiring examples of the early masterpieces in painting, sculpture, bronze, jade, and ceramic wares, have given the Western student a truer insight into the greatness of the earlier phases of Chinese art, and have awakened a new and widespread enthusiasm for them. An immense quantity of objects, interesting both artistically and archæologically, has been discovered in the tombs which railway construction has incidentally opened; and although this rich material has been gathered haphazard and under the least favourable conditions for accurate classification, a great deal has been learnt, and it is not too much to say that the study of early Chinese art has been completely revolutionised. Numerous collections have been formed, and the resulting competition has created a market into which even the treasured specimens of the Chinese collectors are being lured. Political circumstances have been another factor of the situation, and the Western collector has profited by the unhappy conditions which have prevailed in China since the revolution in 1912.

The result of all this, ceramically speaking, is that we are now familiar with the pottery of the Han dynasty; the ceramic art of the T´ang period has been unfolded in wholly unexpected splendour; the Sung problems no longer consist in reconciling ambiguous Chinese phrases, but in the classification of actual specimens; the Ming porcelain is seen in clearer perspective, and our already considerable information on the wares of the last dynasty has been revised and supplemented by further studies. So much progress, in fact, has been made, that it was high time to take stock of the present position, and to set out the material which has been collected, not, of course, with any thoughts of finality, but to serve as a basis for a further forward move. That is the purpose of the present volumes, in which I have attempted merely to lay before the reader the existing material for studying Chinese ceramics as I have found it, adding my own conclusions and comments, which he may or may not accept.

The most striking additions to our knowledge in recent years, have without doubt been those which concern the T´ang pottery. What was previously a blank is now filled with a rich series covering the whole gamut of ceramic wares, from a soft plaster–like material through faïence and stoneware up to true porcelain. The T´ang potters had little to learn in technical matters. They used the soft lead glazes, coloured green, blue, amber, and purplish brown by the same metallic oxides as formed the basis of the cognate glazes on Ming pottery. They used high–fired feldspathic glazes, white, brownish green, chocolate brown, purplish black, and tea–dust green, sometimes with frothy splashes of grey or bluish grey, as on the Sung wares. Sometimes these glazes were superposed as on the Japanese tea jars, which avowedly owed their technique to Chinese models. It is evident that streaked and mottled effects appealed specially to the taste of the time, and marbling both of the glaze and of the body was practised. Carving designs in low relief, or incising them with a pointed instrument and filling in the spaces with coloured glazes, stamping small patterns on the body, and applying reliefs which had been previously pressed out in moulds, were methods employed for surface decoration. Painted designs in unfired pigments appear on some of the tomb wares, and it is now practically certain that painting in black under a green glaze was used by the T´ang potters. Moreover, the existence of porcelain proper in the T´ang period is definitely established.

One of the most remarkable features of T´ang pottery is the strong Hellenistic flavour apparent in the shapes of the vessels and in certain details of the ornament, particularly in the former. Other foreign influences observable in T´ang art are Persian, Sassanian, Scytho–Siberian, and Indian, and one would say that Chinese art at this period was in a peculiarly receptive state. As compared with the conventional style of later ages which we have come to regard as characteristically Chinese, the T´ang art is quite distinctive, and almost foreign in many of its aspects.

The revelation of T´ang ceramics has provided many surprises, and doubtless there are more in store for us. There are certainly many gaps to fill and many apparent anomalies to explain. We are still in the dark with regard to the potter's art of the four hundred years which separate the Han and T´ang dynasties. The Buddhist sculptures of this time reveal a high level of artistic development, and we may assume that the minor arts, and pottery among them, were not neglected. When some light is shed from excavation or otherwise upon this obscure interval, no doubt we shall see that we have fixed our boundaries too rigidly, and that the Han types must be carried forward and the T´ang types carried back to bridge the gap. Meanwhile, we can only make the best of the facts which have been revealed at present, keeping our classification as elastic as possible. Probably the soft lead glazes belong to the earlier part of the T´ang period and extend back to the Sui and Wei, linking up with the green glaze of the Han pottery, while the high–fired glazes tended to supersede these in the latter part of the dynasty.

The high–fired feldspathic glazes seem to have held the field entirely in the Sung dynasty, and the lead glazes, as far as our observation goes, do not reappear until the Ming dynasty.

The Sung is the age of high–fired glazes, splendid in their lavish richness and in the subtle and often unforeseen tints which emerge from their opalescent depths. It is also an age of bold, free potting, robust and virile forms, an age of pottery in its purest manifestation. Painted ornament was used at certain factories in black and coloured clays, and, it would seem, even in red and green enamels; but painted ornament was less esteemed than the true ceramic decoration obtained by carving, incising, and moulding—processes which the potters worked with the clay alone.

If we could rest content with a comprehensive classification of the Sung wares, as we have had perforce to do in the case of the T´ang, one of the chief difficulties in this part of our task would be avoided. But the Chinese have given us a number of important headings, under which it has become obligatory to try and group our specimens. Some of these types have been clearly identified, but there are others which still remain vague and ill–defined; and there are many specimens, especially among the coarser kinds of ware, which cannot be referred to any of the main groups. But the true collector will not find the difficulties connected with the Sung wares in any way discouraging. He will revel in them, taking pleasure in the fact that he has new ground to break, many riddles to solve, and a subject to master which is worthy of his steel.

Apparently a coarse form of painting in blue was employed at one factory at least in the Sung period,[3] and we may now consider it practically certain that the first essays in painting both under and over the glaze go back several centuries earlier than was previously supposed. Blue and white and polychrome porcelain chiefly occupied the energies of the Imperial potters at Ching–tê Chên in the Ming dynasty, and the classic periods for these types fall in the fifteenth century. The vogue of the Sung glazes scarcely survived the brief intermediate dynasty of the Yüan, and we are told by a Chinese writer[4] that "on the advent of the Ming dynasty the pi sê[5] began to disappear." Pictorial ornament and painted brocade patterns were in favour on the Ming wares; and it will be observed that as compared with those of the later porcelains the Ming designs are painted with more freedom and individuality. In the Ch´ing dynasty the appetite of the Ching–tê Chên potters was omnivorous and their skill was supreme. They are not only noted for certain specialities, such as the K´ang Hsi blue and white and famille verte, the sang de bœuf and peach–bloom reds, and for the development of the famille rose palette, but for the revival of all the celebrated types of the classic periods of the Sung and Ming; and when they had exhausted the possibilities of these they turned to other materials and copied with magical exactitude the ornaments in metal, carved stone, lacquer, wood, shell, glass—in a word, every artistic substance, whether natural or artificial.

The mastery of such a large and complex subject as Oriental ceramics requires not a little study of history and technique, in books and in collections. The theory and practice should be taken simultaneously, for neither can be of much use without the other. The possession of a few specimens which can be freely handled and closely studied is an immense advantage. They need not be costly pieces. In fact, broken fragments will give as much of the all–important information on paste and glaze as complete specimens. Those who have not the good fortune to possess the latter, will find ample opportunity for study in the public museums with which most of the large cities of the world are provided. The traveller will be directed to these by his "Baedeker," and I shall only mention a few of the most important museums with which I have personal acquaintance, and to which I gratefully express my thanks for invaluable assistance.

London.—The Victoria and Albert Museum possesses the famous Salting Collection, in which the Ch´ing dynasty porcelains are seen at their best: besides the collection formed by the Museum itself and many smaller bequests, gifts, and loans, in which all periods are represented. The Franks Collection in the British Museum is one of the best collections for the student because of its catholic and representative nature.

Birmingham and Edinburgh have important collections in their art galleries, and most of the large towns have some Chinese wares in their museums.

Paris.—The Grandidier Collection in the Louvre is one of the largest in the world. The Cernuschi Museum contains many interesting examples, especially of the early celadons, and the Musée Guimet and the Sèvres Museum have important collections.

Berlin.—The Kunstgewerbe Museum has a small collection containing some important specimens. The Hohenzollern Museum and the Palace of Charlottenburg have historic collections formed chiefly at the end of the seventeenth century.

Dresden.—The famous and historic collection, formed principally by Augustus the Strong, is exhibited in the Johanneum, and is especially important for the study of the K´ang Hsi porcelains. The Stübel Collection in the Kunstgewerbe Museum, too, is of interest.

Gotha.—The Herzögliches Museum contains an important series of the Sung and Yüan wares formed by Professor Hirth.

Cologne.—An important and peculiarly well–arranged museum of Far–Eastern art, formed by the late Dr. Adolf Fischer and his wife, is attached to the Kunstgewerbe Museum.

New York.—The Metropolitan Museum is particularly rich in Ming and Ch´ing porcelains. It is fortunate in having the splendid Pierpont Morgan Collection and the Avery Collection, and when the Altmann Collection is duly installed in its galleries it will be unrivalled in the wares of the last dynasty. The Natural History Museum has a good series of Han pottery.

Chicago.—The Field Museum of Natural History has probably the largest collection of Han pottery and T´ang figurines in the world. It has also an interesting series of later Chinese pottery, including specimens from certain modern factories which are important for comparative study. These collections were formed by Dr. Laufer in China. There is also a small collection of the later porcelains in the Art Institute.

Boston.—The Museum of Fine Arts has a considerable collection of Chinese porcelain, in which the earlier periods are specially well represented. The American collections, both public and private, are especially strong in monochrome porcelains, and in this department they are much in advance of the European.

To acknowledge individually all the kind attentions I have received from those in charge of the various museums would make a long story. They will perhaps forgive me if I thank them collectively. The private collectors to whom I must express my gratitude are scarcely less numerous. They have given me every facility for the study of their collections, and in many cases, as will be seen in tile list of plates, they have freely assisted with the illustrations. I am specially indebted to Mr. Eumorfopoulos, Mr. Alexander, Mr. R. H. Benson, Mr. S. T. Peters, and Mr. C. L. Freer, who have done so much for the study of the early wares in England and America. Without the unstinted help of these enthusiastic collectors it would have been impossible to produce the first volume of this book. What I owe to Mr. Eumorfopoulos can be partly guessed from the list of plates. His collection is an education in itself, and he has allowed me to draw freely on it and on his own wide experience. Of the many other collectors who have similarly assisted in various parts of the work, I have to thank Sir Hercules Read, Mr. S. E. Kennedy, Dr. A. E. Cumberbatch, Mr. C. L. Rothenstein, Dr. Breuer, Dr. C. Seligmann, M. R. Koechlin, Mr. O. Raphael, Mr. A. E. Hippisley, Hon. Evan Charteris, Lady Wantage, Mr. Burdett–Coutts, the late Dr. A. Fischer, Mr. L. C. Messel, Mr. W. Burton, Col. Goff, Mrs. Halsey, Mrs. Havemeyer, Rev. G. A. Schneider, and Mrs. Coltart. A portion of the proofs has been read by Mr. W. Burton. Mr. L. C. Hopkins has given me frequent help with Chinese texts, and especially in the reading of seal characters; and my colleague, Dr. Lionel Giles, in addition to invaluable assistance with the translations, has consented to look through the proofs of these volumes with a special view to errors in the Chinese characters. Finally, I have to thank my chief, Sir Hercules Read, not only for all possible facilities in the British Museum, but for his sympathetic guidance in the study of a subject of which he has long been a master.

R. L. HOBSON.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDERSON, W., Catalogue of the Japanese and Chinese Paintings in the British Museum. 1886.

BINYON, L., "Painting in the Far East."

BRETSCHNEIDER, E., "Mediæval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources," Truebner's Oriental Series. 1878.

BRINKLEY, CAPT. F., "China, its History, Arts and Literature," vol. ix. London, 1904.

BURTON, W., "Porcelain: A Sketch of its Nature, Art and Manufacture." London, 1906.

BURTON, W., AND HOBSON, "Marks on Pottery and Porcelain." London, 1912.

BUSHELL, S. W., "Chinese Porcelain, Sixteenth–Century coloured illustrations with Chinese MS. text," by Hsiang Yüan–p´ien, translated by S.W. Bushell. Oxford, 1908. Sub–title "Porcelain of Different Dynasties."

BUSHELL, S. W., "Chinese Porcelain before the Present Dynasty," being a translation of the last, with notes. Peking, 1886.

BUSHELL, S. W., "Description of Chinese Pottery and Porcelain," being a translation of the T´ao shuo. Oxford, 1910.

BUSHELL, S. W., "Oriental Ceramic Art, Collection of W.T. Walters." New York, 1899.

BUSHELL, S. W., Catalogue of the Pierpont Morgan Collection. New York.

BUSHELL, S. W., "Chinese Art," 2 vols., "Victoria and Albert Museum Handbook." 1906.

CHAVANNES, EDOUARD, "La Sculpture sur pierre en Chine au temps des deux dynasties Han." Paris, 1893.

CHAVANNES, EDOUARD, "Mission Archéologique dans la Chine Septentrionale." Paris, 1909.

The Chiang hsi t´ung chih . The topographical history of the province of Kiangsi, revised edition in 180 books, published in 1882.

The Ch´in ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng . The encyclopædia of the K´ang Hsi period, Section XXXII. Handicrafts (k´ao kung). Part 8 entitled T´ao kung pu hui k´ao, and Part 248 entitled Tz´ŭ ch´i pu hui k´ao.

Chin shih so "Researches in Metal and Stone," by the Brothers Fêng. 1821.

The Ch´ing pi ts´ang "A Storehouse of Artistic Rarities," by Chang Ying–wên, published by his son in 1595.

The Ching–tê Chên t´ao lu , "The Ceramic Records of Ching–tê Chên," in ten parts, by Lan P´u, published in 1815. Books VIII. and IX. are a corpus of references to pottery and porcelain from Chinese literature.

The Ching tê yao , "Porcelain of Ching–tê Chên," a volume of MS. written about 1850.

The Cho kêng lu , "Notes jotted down in the intervals of ploughing," a miscellany on works of art in thirty books, by T´ao Tsung–i, published in 1368. The section on pottery is practically a transcript of a note in the Yüan chai pi hêng, by Yeh Chih, a thirteenth–century writer.

D'ENTRECOLLES, PÈRE, "Two Letters written from Ching–tê Chên in 1712 and 1722," published in Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, and subsequently reprinted in Bushell's "Translation of the T´ao shuo" (q.v.), and translated in Burton's "Porcelain" (q.v.).

DE GROOT, J. J. M., "Les Fêtes Annuellement Célébrées à Émoi," "Annales du Musée Guimet," Vols. XI. and XII. Paris, 1886.

DE GROOT, J. J. M., "The Religious System of China." Leyden, 1894.

DILLON, E., "Porcelain" (The Connoisseur's Library).

DUKES, E. J., "Everyday Life in China, or Scenes in Fuhkien." London, 1885.

FOUCHER, A., "Étude sur l'iconographie bouddhique de l'Inde." Paris, 1900.

FRANKS, A. W., Catalogue of a Collection of Oriental Porcelain and Pottery. London, 1879.

GILES, H. A., A Glossary of Reference on Subjects connected with the Far East. Shanghai, 1900.

GRANDIDIER, E., "La Céramique Chinoise." Paris, 1894.

GRÜNWEDEL, A., "Mythologie des Buddhismus in Tibet und der Mongolei." Leipzig, 1900.

GULLAND, W. G., "Chinese Porcelain." London, 1902.

HIRTH, F., "China and the Roman Orient." Leipzig, 1885.

HIRTH, F., "Ancient Porcelain," a Study in Chinese Mediæval Industry and Trade. Leipzig, 1888.

HIRTH, F., AND W. W. ROCKHILL, "Chau Ju–kua, his Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, entitled Chu–fan–chi." St. Petersburg, 1912.

HOBSON, R. L., "Porcelain, Oriental, Continental and British," second edition. London, 1912.

HOBSON, R. L., "The New Chaffers." London, 1913.

HOBSON, R. L., AND BURTON, "Marks on Pottery and Porcelain," second edition. London, 1912.

HSIANG YÜAN–P´IEN. See BUSHELL.

JACQUEMART, A., AND E. LE BLANT, "Histoire de la Porcelaine." Paris, 1862.

JULIEN, STANISLAS, "Histoire et Fabrication de la Porcelaine Chinoise." Paris, 1856. Being a translation of the greater part of the Ching–tê Chên t´ao lu, with various notes and additions.

The Ko ku yao lun , "Essential Discussion of the Criteria of Antiquities," by Tsao Ch´ao, published in 1387 in thirteen books; revised and enlarged edition in 1459.

LAUFER, BERTHOLD, "Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty," Leyden, 1909.

LAUFER, BERTHOLD, "Jade, a Study in Chinese Archæology and Religion," Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series, Vol. X. Chicago, 1912.

The Li t´a k´an k´ao ku ou pien , by Chang Chin–chien. 1877.

MAYERS, W. F., "The Chinese Reader's Manual." Shanghai, 1874.

MEYER, A. B., "Alterthümer aus dem Ostindischen Archipel."

MONKHOUSE, COSMO, "A History and Description of Chinese Porcelain, with notes by S.W. Bushell." London, 1901.

PLAYFAIR, G. M. H., "The Cities and Towns of China." Hong–Kong, 1910.

The Po wu yao lan , "A General Survey of Art Objects," by Ku Ying–t´ai, published in the T´ien Ch´i period (1621–27).

RICHARD, L., "Comprehensive Geography of the Chinese Empire." Shanghai, 1908.

SARRE, F., AND B. SHULZ, "Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst." Berlin, 1901–10.

STEIN, M. A., "Ruins of Desert Cathay." London, 1912.

STEIN, M. A., "Sand–buried Ruins of Khotan." London, 1903.

Shin sho sei, etc., "Japan, Antiquarian Gallery." 1891.

T´ao lu. See Ching–tê Chên t´ao lu.

T´ao shuo , "A Discussion of Pottery," by Chu Yen, in six parts, published in 1774. See BUSHELL.

Toyei Shuko, An Illustrated Catalogue of the Ancient Imperial Treasury called Shoso–in, compiled by the Imperial Household. Tokyo, 1909.

T´u Shu. See Chin ting ku chin t´u shu chi ch´êng.

WARNER, LANGDON, AND SHIBA–JUNROKURO, "Japanese Temples and their Treasures." Tokyo, 1910.

WILLIAMS, S. WELLS, The Chinese Commercial Guide. Hongkong, 1863.

YULE, SIR H., "The Book of Ser Marco Polo." London, 1903.

ZIMMERMANN, E., "Chinesisches Porzellan." Leipzig, 1913.