Porcelain

by Edward Dillon

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.