# China: Its History, Arts, and Literature/Volume 1/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII
CHINESE PORCELAIN IN THE WEST
IN considering when Oriental keramic productions first made their way to Europe, the student naturally led to inquire at what epoch the term "porcelain" began to be employed in its present sense. The term itself was originally applied to a species of shell that did duty for money in various countries. Its subsequent use to denote keramic manufactures was due to the resemblance between the latter and the smooth semi-translucency of the well known shell. But at what epoch was this resemblance observed and perpetuated by the dual use of the word? According to MM. Brongnard and de Laborde, as quoted by M. du Sartel, throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the name "porcelain" was applied in France exclusively to vases, table utensils, and ornaments into the manufacture of which mother-of-pearl entered. But from the beginning of the sixteenth century, it began to be used also for the purpose of designating glazed pottery imported from China, which showed the same pearly whiteness as the shell. If this account be accepted, it would follow that Chinese keramic wares did not come to Europe until the sixteenth century; that is to say, until the middle of the Ming dynasty. M. du Sartel, ​however, holds that from the thirteenth century—i.e. the close of the Sung Dynasty and beginning of the Yuan—Chinese ware reached the Mediterranean shores of Africa. In support of this opinion he quotes various facts. Thus, in an Arabian manuscript contained in the National Library, it is recorded that, in 1171, the Emir Saladin made a present of forty pieces of porcelain to Nurredin. Again, in 1298, the celebrated traveller Marco Polo, referring to the inhabitants of Carajan and other subjects of the Great Khan, notes that they used strings of white "porcelain" as money, and subsequently goes on to describe how, at the chief town of the Chinese province of Fokien, fine porcelain was manufactured, and thence exported to all parts. The conclusion obviously suggested by the former statement is that shells are referred to; by the latter, that so long ago as the days of Marco Polo, the term porcelain had become applicable in its modern sense. Further, an Arabian, Ibn Batoutah, writing under date 1310, says:—"Porcelain is not made in China except at Tsuan-chow and Canton. It is manufactured with clay found in the mountains of the locality. This clay is inflammable like charcoal. The potters add to it a stone found in the neighborhood, burn the compound for three days, then throw water on it, and the whole becomes powder, or a clay which they ferment. That which has been fermented during an entire month gives the best porcelain; that which has been fermented for only ten days gives porcelain of inferior quality. Porcelain in China sells for the same price as, or even a lower price than, pottery with us. It is exported to India and other countries, even as far as the Maghreb"—​i.e. the district comprising the whole north of Africa to the west of Egypt. All this supports the correctness of M. du Sartel's view with reference to the time when the term "porcelain" behan to be applied to the keramic productions of China, and the time when the latter began to find its way to the shores of the Mediterranean. But the story of Ibn Batoutah illustrates another interesting point also. It is quite evident that his description of manufacturing processes can have reference only to glazing material. Even on this hypothesis, his account is inaccurate, though not more so, perhaps, than the account of any ordinary traveller would be. At all events, what is known of the methods pursued by Chinese potters in preparing their choice glazing material, shows plainly that these methods alone attracted the notice of the Arabian tourist—a fact strongly corroborating the conclusions arrived at independently in a former chapter, namely, that during the Sung and Yuan epochs the preparation of glazes occupied the attention of the Chinese potter almost exclusively, the manufacture of a fine, translucid pâte not having been yet included among his tours de force.
If Chinese so-called "porcelain" was exported to India, the north of Africa, and elsewhere, in 1310, it seems more than probable that specimens would have been brought to Europe also by the Venetians, who, from the close of the thirteenth century, carried on a brisk commerce with Asia and Africa. M. du Sartel, with the object of throwing light on this question, has extracted a great deal of interesting information from catalogues of ancient collections in Europe. In an inventory of the possessions of Clarisse de Médicis, he finds it stated that her husband, Lorenzo de Médicis, ​received certain porcelain vases from the ruler of Persia in 1487. The maritime laws of Barcelona, dating from the same epoch, also show that porcelain was among the objects imported from Egypt. At a still earlier date, 1440, Jean de Village, a commercial agent of Jacques Cur, was employed by the Sultan of Babylon to carry three bowls and a plate of Chinese porcelain to Charles VII. Great interest is said to have been excited in France by these objects, and it can scarcely be doubted that little time was suffered to elapse before a fresh supply of similar pieces was procured. On the other hand, the difficulty or trafficking in such a fragile material has to be remembered: the Cape of Good Hope route had not yet been discovered, and Oriental porcelain coming to Europe must have been transported on the backs of camels across the desert. The information that one might expect to derive from catalogues of early collections is greatly obscured by the double signification attaching to the term "porcelain." When, indeed, mention is made of vases, plates, dishes, and goblets of "porcelain" with handles, covers, and so forth of silver or gilt bronze, it is scarcely possible to imagine that the material of which these pieces were manufactured could have had anything to do with shell. Nevertheless, there are obstacles to full belief in M. du Sartel's conclusion that "porcelain," or keramic productions of the Orient, constituted an important item in the collections of European virtuosi from the middle of the fourteenth century. The decorative designs on several of the specimens described in the catalogues quoted by M. du Sartel are essentially European. Some of these designs are on the metal mountings of the specimens, but some appear to be ​on the ware itself. Among the latter are figures of the Virgin Mary, of St. Paul, of St. John, of the Twelve Apostles, and so forth. These occur on specimens in the collections of the Duke of Normandy (1363), of Charles V. (1380), and of the Duke of Berry (1416). Now it is known that from the sixth century Nestorian missionaries carried on the work of propagandism in China; that from the beginning of the fourteenth century the field which they had hitherto monopolised was shared by the Minorites; and that both fell with the fall of the Yuan dynasty of Mongols (1368), not to be replaced until the rise of the Portuguese settlement at Macao, in 1517. It might, therefore, be supposed that porcelain such as that described in the three collections mentioned above, owed its decorative designs to the inspiration of Roman Catholic priests residing in China. But it is almost certain that the Chinese potters of the Yuan era had not carried the art of painting in blue sous couverte to a point such as would be indicated by the representation of saintly personages. The student is therefore constrained to think that the examples adduced by M. du Sartel were of mother-of-pearl, not of keramic ware. The reader can judge for himself:—
Inventaire du Duc de Normandie (1363).
Un tableau de pourcellaine quarré, de plusieurs pièces, et au milieu l'ymage de Nostre-Dame, garny d'argent, doré à ouvrage d’oultremer.
Inventaire de Charles V (1380).
Un tableau quarré de pourcelaine où d’un côté est l'ymage de Nostre-Dame en un esmail d’azur et plusieurs autres ​ymages à l'environ et de l'autre côté a une ymage de Saint Pol et est environné de perles tout autour et y faillent quatre pierres.
Un tableau de pourcelaine quarré où d'un côté est l'ymage Nostre-Dame et xij apostres en tour et de l'autre côté a plusieurs ymages et a l'environ xij grosses perples, y esmeraudes et y rubis d'Alexandre.
Uns petits tableaux quarrés de pourcelaine, enchassiez eu or, où est au dos un demi ymage de Nostre-Dame.
Uns petits tableaux quarrés de pourcelaine, ou est entaillié un crucifiement, Nostre-Dame et Saint Jean, sans nulle garnison.
Inventaire du Duc de Berry (1416).
Un grand tableau de bois ou il y a au milieu un ymage de Nostre-Dame de pourcelaine et plusieurs autres ymages de pourcelaine autour de la vie Nostre Seigneur et de Nostre-Dame, garny d'un des côtés à l'entour d'argent, doré, à l'euvre de Damas.
Not one of these descriptions seems applicable to a keramic specimen, whereas every one of them may easily be associated with the idea of work in mother-of-pearl. If, however, M. du Sartel's conclusions appear to have been carried too far in one direction, they can scarcely be traversed in respect of the fact that glazed pottery or stone-ware was certainly represented in these early collections. Thus in the Duke of Anjou's inventory (1360—1368) is found "une escuelle d'une pierre appelée pourcellaine," and in that of Queen Jeanne d'Evreux (1372), "un pot à eau de pierre de pourcelaine." Bowls and pots of "a stone called porcelain" can only be interpreted in one sense. It may therefore be confidently concluded that as early as the Yuan dynasty (1260—1367) Chinese keramic ware found its way to Europe and was ​highly prized there. But inasmuch as, in the case of every specimen reasonably identifiable as keramic, there is no talk of any decoration other than that applied to the metal mountings, it may also be concluded—and the conclusion is in strict accord with the researches set forth in previous chapters—that the art of decorating keramic pieces, with colours, either under or over the glaze, was still in its infancy at the middle of the fourteenth century.
It is not till the beginning of the sixteenth century that there is found in Europe a specimen of Chinese ware, as the nature of which nothing is left to conjecture. In 1505, Philip of Austria, being driven by stress of weather to Weymouth, became the guest of the sheriff, Sir Thomas Trenchard, and in return for this hospitality presented to Sir Thomas some bowls of porcelain. These bowls are still preserved by the Trenchard family. They are white porcelain decorated with blue under the glaze. The manufacture of blue-and-white ware in China had reached a point of high excellence fully eighty years before this date, so that King Philip's keramic specimens are precisely what they might have been expected to be. To about the same time, or a little later, belongs the céladon bowl of Archbishop Warham, previously alluded to, and in 1508 it is recorded that the Portuguese, having brought a number of keramic specimens from China and sold them at a handsome profit, renewed their voyage, reaching Canton in 1517. Thenceforth the supply of Chinese porcelain was doubtless more abundant, though the ware continued to be highly esteemed and to command large prices.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the ​English East India Company was formed. By the agency of this association the trade in Chinese porcelain may be said to have been inaugurated. Any specimens that had previously come westward are attributable to special and infrequent opportunities. The chief station of the East India Company was at Cambron in the Persian Gulf. Thither were brought keramic productions of Persia and China, and thence they were exported together to Europe. So little was then known about the resources of the Middle Kingdom and the great industry at Ching-tê-chên that the Chinese wares sent westward in the Company's ships were generally described as "Cambron ware." It was not until 1840 that an English factory, established at Canton, began to send porcelain direct to Europe, calling it "China ware." Exportation by the Portuguese from Macao is said to have gone on about the same period. Another source of supply was the Dutch Compagnie des Indes. From Deshima, at Nagasaki, in Japan, considerable quantities of Japanese porcelain were exported by the agents of this company, between 1698 and 1722. At the same time Chinese porcelain came to Deshima in Chinese junks, and was despatched westward together with the Japanese product. This source of Chinese supply must have been small and fitful, but to the mixture of the two porcelains and their simultaneous despatch to Europe may probably be attributed the origin of the remarkable confusion that has always existed among Western amateurs in respect of the keramic wares of China and Japan—confusion which reaches its acme in the writings of M. Jacquemart. The agents of the Compagnie des Indes seem to have been the first to conceive the idea of pro​curing pieces of Chinese ware specially manufactured to suit European taste. They had found this device successful in the case of Japanese Imari porcelain, and they gave orders to the Chinese potters—whose industry was then at the zenith of the revival inaugurated in the reign of Kang-hsi (1662—1722)—for specimens decorated with the arms of France and noble families. Shapes and models were also furnished, and it is probable that many valued examples preserved in European collections are of this hybrid nature. Chinese writers also state that much of the porcelain sold to foreign merchants was expressly made with a view to its market, and was accordingly called Yang-ki, i.e. ware of the outer seas, or ware for exportation. Western traders, of course, concerned themselves only to procure marketable pieces in ample quantity. Nothing is more unlikely than that they made any attempt to search for choice old specimens, which, as is known from Chinese writers, commanded a deterrent price in the Middle Kingdom itself, and would certainly not have been appreciated in Europe. At the time of the export of the Cambron ware the factories at Ching-tê-chên were in a state of temporary decadence. Their productions were comparatively coarse, depending rather upon profusion of decoration and bright colours than upon technical excellence. There can be little question that the majority of the so-called Cambron ware was comparatively inferior heavy porcelain decorated with blue under the glaze and with red, gold, and green enamels over it. One may indeed go so far as to say that practically all the Chinese porcelain brought to Europe up to the third quarter of the seventeenth century was blue-and-white, or of the coarse enam​elled description manufactured so profusely in the Wan-li era. After 1670, the outcome of the great Kang-hsi workshops began to come into the market, and enamelled ware of fine quality would then have been included in the exports. The history of the keramic industry in China is alone sufficient to establish these facts, but strong corroborative testimony is furnished by Western writers. Thus Gersaint, cataloguing the collection of the Viscount de Fonspertuis, in 1747, says:—"The most usual kind of porcelain has a white ground with blue flowers, landscapes, and figures or animals. Of late years, however, there has appeared a new kind, which is called 'enamelled porcelain.' Its colours are bright, but they lack harmony." The same writer gives the following interesting account of the porcelains which, at that time, constituted the staple of European collections:—"Porcelain is made of all colours in China. Yellow destined for Imperial use; grey that approaches the tint of céladon. The latter is seldom seen. It is generally covered with a number of irregular little lines crossing each other as though the vase had been broken all over. Large lines are also met with, the effect of which is more marked. Porcelains of this kind are called 'truitées' or 'craquelées' according to the smallness or largeness of the lines. Blue, red, and green porcelains are also to be procured, but it is dificult to obtain a uniform surface with these colours. They rarely succeed; and perfect specimens are consequently very costly. I have seen black porcelain also; it is very rare, and, for the rest, is only valuable on account of its scarcity, being too sombre to be decorative. There is also white porcelain painted with blue under the glaze, which ​is the commonest variety, and there is the new sort with coloured enamels which has only been seen within the past few years." That M. Gersaint's estimate of the costliness of choice specimens was not exaggerated may be ascertained by examining the accounts of sales made at that time. Thus, when (1767) the collection of M. Julienne was brought to the hammer, two large Dogs of Fo, in turquoise ware splashed with violet, sold for 4,800 livres, and a céladon bottle with flames and dragons in relief, for 1,996 livres, whereas Raphaël Sanzio's painting of the "Holy Family" fetched only 399 livres, and Guido Reni's "Infant Jesus," 1,100.
It is the fashion with Western amateurs to attribute a large proportion of the older specimens in their collections to the Ming Dynasty (1368—1661). From what has been here recorded the reader will readily see that no such estimate of age is justifiable. Fine pieces manufactured during the celebrated epochs of the Ming Emperors commanded enormous prices in China—prices quite out of proportion to their decorative merits from a Western point of view. The inferior but more brilliant productions of the Lung-ching and Wan-li reigns (1567—1619) did probably form a small part of the porcelain exported from Canton and Macao, but even this supposition admits of reasonable dispute. With exceptions so rare as to be almost unworthy of notice, it may be concluded that the oldest specimens in Western collections of the last century dated from the Kang-hsi era (1662—1722). M. du Sartel, the latest writer on Chinese keramics, appears to have shared the delusion of many brother connoisseurs in this respect, despite the generally painstaking and appreciative character of his ​criticisms. He arrives, however, at an ⟨indisputable⟩ conclusion when he writes:—"It must not ⟨be⟩ believed that at the end of the last century, the great European collections offered the brilliant aspect today presented by the cabinets of a modern collector. A new current has recently set in from these countries to ours. It has unveiled enamels that we previously ignored, enriched us with pure specimens of the true antique art, and revealed to us new forms of the ornamental genius that our fathers loved without knowing, as we know, its full extent." It is indeed of late years that the keramic riches of China have been exploited for the benefit and delight of the West. The supply is not yet exhausted, but it grows daily scarcer, owing partly to the actual paucity of choice specimens, and partly to the competition of Chinese virtuosi, who have re-developed something of their old-time mania, and will now give for certain varieties prices prohibitive to any but very wealthy collectors. Meanwhile, even Europe is parting with its treasures to enrich the cabinets of collectors in the United States, for there, above all other places, the porcelains of China are appreciated, and thither the choicest examples steadily gravitate.
It might have been predicted that the proverbial ingenuity of the Chinese would not fail them when the monetary expediency of reproducing celebrated porcelains of bygone eras became really urgent. Until some seven or eight years ago, there flowed into the market a sufficient supply of genuine old specimens to satisfy the collectors of that time and to furnish the stores of dealers in bric-à-brac. But America's requirements proved yearly more pressing, and as the means of meeting them grew necessarily less
377 ​extensive, prices rose to such a height that the temptation to supplement with modern imitations the fitful and constantly dwindling supply of early chefs-d'œuvre, could not be resisted. No one expected, indeed, that it would be resisted, but every one was tolerably confident that collectors possessing ordinary knowledge would be guaranteed against deception owing to the incapacity of the Chinese of the present era to produce anything really comparable with justly famous examples dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But no such confidence can be felt any longer. The imitators show a degree of skill that brings their work within measurable distance of the fine old standards. Even the hypothetically incomparable blue-and-white porcelains of the Kang-hsi kilns now have modern rivals so good that many an amateur has been deceived by them, and many more are destined to be deceived. The great difficulty used to lie in the quality and tone of the blue. Using the smalt of these cheap times, the potter could not produce anything better than a weak, insipid, and bodiless colour. But things have changed in that respect. Whether a different cobalt is employed, or whether some improves process has been elaborated, a fine strong blue is now obtained, showing much of the brilliancy and depth that distinguish genuine specimens of the great eras. No one deserves to be much blamed that mistakes these modern imitations for their originals, so far as the blue is concerned. But a well educated eye easily detects in the new colour elements of garishness and hardness, the absence of which constitutes one of the chief charms of the old. As to technique, too, there are always points of manifest ​inferiority in modern porcelains of this class. The glaze lacks lustre, being vitreous rather than velvety, and the surface is disfigured by blistering or pitting more or less prominent. Of course the connoisseur turns at once to the pâte, but for that the crafty Chinaman makes full preparation by grinding and polishing the lower rim of the specimen until the exposed pâte acquires artificially much of the natural smoothness and closeness of grain that constitute distinctive marks of good old ware. In this process, however, he betrays himself, for even though the colouring matter that he employs to impart a spurious appearance of age to the freshly ground rim be not apparent to uninstructed eyes, the marks of the grinding may always be found by close examination in the glaze on the bottom or even on the body near the rim. The amateur may therefore fortify his faltering convictions by looking carefully for such marks, and though his sight be keen, he will do well to use a magnifying glass. Already many brand new blue-and-white "Hawthorns" have passed into the possession of foreign residents in China, and many others have doubtless crossed the water to America. Every one of these imitations is a factor of false education, tending to create a vitiated standard of quality and a deceptive scale of value. Besides, it is in the nature of such things that their owners remain victims of delusion. Friends are not frank enough, even supposing them sufficiently skilled, to ungild a man's treasures to his face, and collectors are so infatuated that they gladly accept as genuine praise the perfunctory approval of conventionalism. Thus the Chinese find their account in carrying on the fraud, and one may expect to see "blue-and-white," ​after its kind, become daily a commoner article of furniture. Even the genuine connoisseur is startled by these new specimens. Too essentially selfish—every enthusiastic collector is incapable of altruism—to be glad that the general public is gaining access to a species, however spurious, of the porcelains he loves, he trembles before the terrible contingency that all the ancient skill may be recovered one of these days, and that his much valued gems may be vulgarised by a crowd of cheap and universally accessible rivals. Probably the fear is chimerical, yet to say so with absolute confidence is difficult, seeing that even the celebrated "soft-paste" porcelain also is represented in modern imitations. It is a singular fact that until quite recently this beautiful variety of ware was almost completely neglected by foreign collectors. Of late years, however, there has been an awakening, especially on the part of American connoisseurs, and the resulting demand has not only drawn a number of fine specimens from Chinese private collections, but has also induced modern potters to apply all their care and skill to the work of reproduction. They have not succeeded quite so well as in the case of the ordinary hard-paste, for in the modern Kai-pien-yao it will be found almost invariably that the crackle has an accidental appearance, that the pâte is rough, that the decoration is weak and scratchy, and that the glaze is discoloured rather than mellow. Still the imitations are quite good enough to deceive ordinary eyes, and it is certain that a number of new specimens have gone to America, doubtless to find ready purchasers. As for other varieties of porcelain, the process of reproduction is equally active. The so-called "apple green" ​
craquelé ware is turned out in quite considerable quan tities. Here, too, the amateur ought to find suffi cient guidance in the comparatively coarse, though carefully ground and polished, pàte of the modern porcelain, in the weak tone of the colour, and above all in the absence of the “‘ mossy” edge peculiar to the crackle of the genuine ware. Corresponding attempts to simulate are seen in the so-called “black hawthorns” of the time. The fine close-grained pate of the old kilns is not producible, and the black glaze forming the ground colour is so vitreous and garish that it has to be subjected to an all-over pro cess of grinding, the marks of which can be detected without much trouble. “Mustard crackle” offers another favourite field for imitation, but here the amateur should never fall a victim if he remembers, first, that the slightest muddiness of colour is fatal, and secondly, that a fine velvety lustre invariably appears on the glaze of Chien-lung and earlier speci mens. As to the fine reds, sang-de-beuf, “peach blow,” “bean-blossom” &c. their reproduction is still more difficult, though it must be confessed that some recently manufactured specimens of Lang-yao are declared deceptive by Chinese connoisseurs them selves. Further, it must be observed that Japan also is in the field as an imitator, and that specimens of ambitious “ liquid-drawn” glazes by Makuzu, and of céladons, “famille verte” and other varieties by Seifu have been acquired by Chinese dealers and are con- fidently offered for sale as Chinese porcelains. The Japanese potters are not necessarily parties to this fraud, nor does it follow that the Chinese themselves attempt any witting deception, for in shops in Shang hai and even Tien-tsin specimens frankly stamped with ​the ideographic names or marks of their Japanese makers are confidently paraded as genuine Chinese porcelains. Such pieces must plainly have an honest origin, nor is it easily conceivable that if the Chinese identified the marks, they would have courage to attempt so patent a deception. But these consider ations do not smooth the path for unfortunate ama teurs. They are bound to be victimised more than ever. Perhaps this warning may save them some disappointment.
Layout 2