, a connoisseur in pictures and antiquities, succeeded in making it with green ware (lü tz'ŭ), and that his imitations were not distinguishable from the original substance.
To understand the full import of this passage it is necessary to explain the nature of liu–li, and this is fortunately made quite clear by the author of the T'ao shuo in a commentary so interesting that I give it in full:
"I find that liu–li comes from the countries of Huang–chih, Ssŭ–t'iao and Jih–nan.[301] That produced in Ta–ch'in (the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire) is in ten colours—pink, white, black, yellow, blue, green, deep purple, deep blue (or green), red, and brown. Liu–li was originally a natural substance.[302] Yen Shih–ku,[303] commenting in the Annals of the Han Dynasty, says, 'At the present time they commonly use molten stones, adding a number of chemicals and then pouring the substance (into moulds) and forming it; but it is unsubstantial, brittle, and not a successful casting.' In the Northern Wei dynasty, in the reign of T'ai Wu (424–451 A. D.), a man of the Ta Yüeh–chih[304] who came to trade at the capital, said he could make liu–li by melting stones. Eventually he collected the ore and made it (liu–li), and the finished article surpassed the original in its brilliance and colour. The method has been handed down to the present day, and it was probably only an accidental intermission which occurred in the Sui dynasty. But the Chinese castings are brittle in substance, and when hot wine is poured into them they fly to pieces in the hand. What a pity the Yüeh–chih method has been handed down instead of Ch'ou's!"
The allusions to melting stones, casting, etc., in this passage leave no doubt that the liu–li, as made in China, was a kind of glass, imitating a natural stone.[305] It is, in fact, usually translated in the dictionaries as "opaque glass," and in connection with pottery it has the sense of glaze—e.g. liu li wa "glazed pottery."
We can now return to Ho Ch'ou, who "took green ware and made liu–li."[306] It has been thought that what he made must have been a kind of porcelain, but there is no indication of any such achievement, for though it is possible to make an artificial porcelain with glass as a constituent, the converse is not true: you cannot make glass out of either pottery or porcelain. The most probable explanation of the passage seems to be that Ho Ch´ou (who was apparently not a potter) experimented at some pottery with the materials used in glazing the green ware, and found that he could make a very good glass (liu–li) with the potter's green glaze, and perhaps other ingredients, a result which is in no way surprising, seeing that the softer ceramic glazes have a very close affinity to glass. But no further inferences can be drawn from this passage, and it is not even clear that Ho Ch´ou made a ceramic ware at all. All we are told is that he made liu–li. I have rather laboured this negative point, because Professor Zimmermann has published a declaration of belief that Ho Ch´ou was the discoverer of porcelain.[307] Apart from the obvious criticism which the writer himself anticipates, that such an epoch–making discovery would hardly have escaped the notice of Ho Ch´ou's biographer, Professor Zimmermann opens his case with a fundamental error, for which he has to thank Dr. Bushell. It is true that he only names Julien as the source of his information, but his version of the story of Ho Ch´ou is taken verbatim from Bushell's Oriental Ceramic Art,[308] where the crucial passage is unfortunately rendered "but he (Ho Ch´ou) succeeded in making vessels of green porcelain which could not be distinguished from true glass." This mistranslation puts an entirely different complexion on the passage, and goes a long way to justify Professor Zimmermann's inferences that Ch´ou made a glassy ware of the nature of porcelain. It is an instructive instance of the pitfalls which beset the student of Chinese subjects, especially when he has to rely on other people's translations.
Strange to say, a similar mistranslation occurs in Dr. Hirth's short but excellent treatise on Ancient Chinese Porcelain,[309] in a passage which is nevertheless of great importance to our quest. It has been the custom with Chinese compilers of reference works to incorporate the material of previous editions, adding their own commentaries and any further information which happened to have reached them, and to this we are indebted for the preservation of many passages from ancient writers which would otherwise be extremely difficult of access. Thus Hirth found embalmed in the Sung Pharmacopœia two early references to the material pai o
which he shows to be without doubt the kaolinic earth used in the manufacture of porcelain, and which, like many other strange materials, entered into Chinese medicinal prescriptions. The first mention of this substance is taken from the writings of T´ao Yin–chü, who died in 536 A. D., to the effect that the pai o, besides being used in medicines, was employed at that time for painting pictures; and Hirth argues that so celebrated a writer on scientific subjects as T´ao Yin–chü could not have failed to note it if the pai o had been in general use for ceramic purposes as well. This is followed by a quotation from the T´ang Pharmacopœia (compiled about 650 A. D.): "It (pai o) is now used for painter's work, and rarely enters into medicinal prescriptions; during recent generations it has been prepared from white ware[310] (tz´ŭ)." By rendering the last sentence "during recent generations it has been used to make white porcelain," Hirth invested the passage with a greater interest than it actually possesses. But even when stripped of this fictitious importance, it constitutes the first literary evidence we have of the use of kaolin by Chinese potters. This is followed by another quotation from the T´ang Pharmacopœia recommending for medicinal purposes a powder prepared from the white ware of Ting Chou.[311]
Whether we are to understand that the Chinese pharmacist ground up broken pieces of Ting ware or merely made use of the refined and purified clay obtained at the potteries, matters little. Neither proceeding would be without parallel in Europe in far later times than the T´ang period. But the specific reference to white Ting ware at this early date is most interesting in view of the fact that Ting Chou was celebrated in the Sung dynasty for a white ware which is undoubtedly a kind of porcelain.
The presence of a kaolin–like material in a dark–coloured ware, probably of the third century, which was disclosed by the analysis made by Mr. Nicholls in Chicago, has already been recorded (p. 15). We have no means of ascertaining what length of time elapsed before a white material of this nature was evolved, but it was clearly in existence in the beginning of the sixth century. Possibly it was not porcelain according to the strict European definition, but there is every reason to suppose that it was a hard white ware, such as the Chinese would not hesitate to include in their porcelain category. Such a ware appears on some of the funeral vases which may safely be referred to the early T´ang period (see p. 26), and in default of other evidence I think we can say that porcelain in the Chinese sense already existed at the end of the Sui dynasty.[312]