Edward Dillon - Porcelain

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 25 During the eighteenth century, however, the French missionaries remained in friendly relation with the Chinese court, especially with the Emperor Kien-lung, a man of culture and a poet. The Père Amiot sent home not only letters with valuable information, but from time to time presents of porcelain from the emperor. He was in correspondence with the minister Bertin, who was himself a keen collector of porcelain. See the notes in the Catalogue of Bertin’s sale, Paris, 1815. 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 26 Thanks to the industry of the present curator, Herr Zimmermann, the same may now be said of the great collection at Dresden.

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.

We are in the dark even now as to the date and place of origin of more than one class of Oriental porcelain. On the question of the relation of the ceramic wares of China to the contemporary sister arts, there are many points to be cleared up,—I mean especially the question how far the early wares were influenced by the art of the bronze-caster and the carver of jade, and again to what extent the decoration of porcelain in later times was dependent upon the example of the contemporary schools of painting. When we know about the pictorial art of the Chinese even the little that we do already of that of their Japanese neighbours, we shall, to give but one instance, be able to trace the source of the beautiful landscapes and flower designs that we find on the vases and plates of the famille verte and famille rose .

There is one source of information which remains as yet almost completely untapped. The Japanese have been for many centuries keen collectors of Chinese porcelain, as of other Chinese objects of art. They have their own views on its history, and some of the finest specimens of the older wares remain still in Japan, in spite of the many pieces that have of late years been carried away to Europe and America. As we shall see, they have in their own pottery and porcelain handed on to quite recent days many traditions of Ming and earlier times that have been lost in China. If some Japanese connoisseur or antiquary, strong in Chinese lore, could give us a history of porcelain from his own point of view, I think that European investigators would have cause to be grateful.

Much could be gleaned, as I have already said, by studying the relation of the potters art to that of the jade-carver and the caster of bronze, and this brings us to an important point that perhaps has not been fully appreciated by us in the West. I refer to the comparatively late date of the beginning of porcelain in China compared, for example, to the arts just mentioned. We can hardly carry back the history of true porcelain beyond the great Tang dynasty (618-907 A.D.), and even in China there is no existing specimen that can safely be attributed to so early a date. But this same Tang dynasty was the very heyday in that country, not only of military power but also of artistic culture. It would be impossible to enter into this important subject here; it is one that has been strangely ignored by us in Europe. Suffice to say that the great figure-painters of this period were looked back to with veneration in later times, both in China and in Japan, and that the two schools of landscape, the colour school of the North and the black and white ‘literary’ school of the South—schools whose traditions have survived to the present day—were both founded by Tang artists. At that time art critics were known (and even honoured); they already wrote books on the early history of painting, and they have left us descriptions of famous collections.