The reasons given for this later attitude are on the surface so convincing that it is necessary to consider them in detail and to examine the authorities on which they are based. Bushell's statement runs as follows: "It is generally agreed that porcelain was first made in China, but authorities differ widely in fixing a date for its invention. The Chinese attribute its invention to the Han dynasty, when a new character tz'ŭ was coined to designate, presumably, a new substance. The official memoir on 'Porcelain Administration' in the topography of Fou–liang, the first edition of which was published in 1270, says that according to local tradition the ceramic works at Hsin–p'ing (an old name of Fou–liang) were founded in the time of the Han dynasty, and had been in constant operation ever since. This is confirmed by T'ang Ying, the celebrated superintendent of the Imperial potteries, appointed in 1728, who states in his autobiography that the result of his researches shows that porcelain was first made during the Han dynasty at Ch'ang–nan (Ching–tê Chên), in the district of Fou–liang."
From this and the passages immediately following it is clear that Bushell at that time leant strongly to the Han theory, which he had previously discarded, for three reasons, which we shall now examine. The first rests on the character tz'ŭ. Whether the character tz'ŭ was coined to designate a new substance in the Han dynasty is by no means certain. It undoubtedly appears in the Han dictionary, the Shuo Wên, but with the meagre definition "pottery ware,"[294] and without any further indication of its nature. The second is based on a passage in the Annals of Fou–liang, which on examination proves to contain only the general word t'ao (ware) and not the character tz'ŭ at all. The actual passage runs: "The manufacture of pottery (t'ao) at Hsin–p'ing began in the Han dynasty. Speaking generally, this pottery was strong, heavy, and coarse, being fashioned of rich clay with moisture added, after methods handed down from the ancients." The third invokes the authority of T'ang Ying, but on reference to the autobiography of this distinguished ceramist in the Chiang hsi t'ung chih, we again find reference only to t'ao and not to tz'ŭ, viz. "It (t'ao) is not the growth of one day. Research shows that it began in the Han dynasty and was transmitted through succeeding generations. Its place (of manufacture) changed (from time to time), but it flourished at Ch'ang–nan." One obvious place for T'ang's research would be the Annals of Fou–liang, and I shrewdly suspect that his conclusions were based on the very passage quoted above, of which his words give a clear echo. But in any case, neither passage has any bearing on the origin of porcelain unless we assume that t'ao is the same as tz'ŭ, and that both words definitely mean porcelain, an assumption which is not only quite unwarranted but in any case begs the whole question.
The Chinese words used at the present day for porcelain are tz'ŭ, t'ao, and yao, all of considerable antiquity, though their forms have undergone various changes and their meaning has been modified from time to time to keep pace with the evolution of the ware. The word tz'ŭ
, as we have seen, was defined in the Han dictionary as merely "pottery ware." Its modern definition is a hard, fine–grained variety of t'ao, and if we add to this the quality of resonance—i.e. of emitting a musical note when struck—we have all the requirements of porcelain according to the Chinese definition. The synonym
, containing the radical
shih (a stone), which is also pronounced tz'ŭ, has come in the last two centuries to be used interchangeably with the older word
