Edward Dillon - Porcelain

We may expect, then, to find the influence of these more precocious arts on the early fictile ware of China, and indeed we see the quaint decoration and the not too beautiful outlines of the early hieratic bronzes repeated on the rare specimens that survive from the dynasty that after a period of unrest followed that of Tang. This was the Sung dynasty, which lasted till the time of the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century. 27 27 For a discussion, and for many illustrations of the art of these early dynasties which survives chiefly in objects of jade or bronze, see Paléologue, Art Chinois , Paris, 1887.

It is difficult for a European to appreciate the charm, or rather superlative excellence, that is found by a Chinaman in a fine specimen of jade. It is, however, a substance that is closely linked with his philosophy, his religion, and above all with his all-important ceremonial. No wonder, then, if from an early time he strove, with the pastes and glazes at his command, to imitate such a material. And numberless references in contemporary writers, as well as the evidence of many of the oldest pieces of porcelain surviving, show that this was the case. We may safely say that in these early specimens the thick glaze, of tints varying from a true celadon to a more pronounced blue or green, was admired in proportion to its resemblance to jade. As for the porcelain itself, all that was looked for in the paste was that it should be hard, and that the vessel when struck should give out a bell-like sound—‘a plaintive note like a cup of jade,’ as one early Chinese writer says of a porcelain cup in his collection.

The Chinese in these times possessed also elaborately carved vessels of rock crystal and of various kinds of chalcedony, and these also it was attempted to imitate with the early glazes. Glass, too, as a material for small objects, was probably known; it seems, however, to have been somewhat of a rarity. It is mentioned by writers of the Tang period in connection with these early wares, and indeed it is possible that there may be some confusion in the literature of the time (or rather perhaps in our interpretation of the language used) between the two materials—the thickly glazed porcelain and the more or less opaque glass.

After these preliminary remarks we shall be in a better position to interpret the somewhat involved and contradictory allusions to our subject found in Chinese books.

We now come to the important question of the classification of Chinese porcelain. A difficulty here arises from the rival claims of two systems. The older and perhaps safer division depends solely on the nature of the ware, its colour, decoration, etc.; but in opposition to this the claim of the more logical, historical classification has, with our increasing knowledge, become of late years more pressing. The result has been an attempt to combine the two systems. Such an attempt must necessarily lead to many compromises, and yet something of the sort is perhaps the only available plan. We may compare the development of the ceramic art in China to what has taken place in the evolution of the animal kingdom: while new and more elaborated forms are evolved, the older ones, or many of them, survive in but slightly modified forms. If this tendency be borne well in mind there will be less danger of confusion between the really old types and the modern representations or even copies which are called, in China, by the same names.

The three classes into which Chinese porcelain is divided—and there is a general agreement among collectors on this head—rest on such an attempt to combine a historical with a technical classification:—

1. Porcelain with single-coloured glazes, including plain white ware. The colour of the glaze is derived from two metals only, iron and copper. Any further decoration depends upon the moulding of the surface or upon patterns incised in the paste. All the wares made up to the end of the Sung period (1279 A.D.) may probably be included in this class.

2. Porcelain decorated with colour under the glaze. This division is nearly equivalent to our ‘blue and white’ ware, but in addition to cobalt, copper is at times introduced to give a red colour. This system of decoration was probably introduced during the course of the fourteenth century, and it is associated with the Ming dynasty.

3. Porcelain decorated with enamels over the glaze, necessitating a second firing in a muffle-stove. The use of these fusible enamel colours came in probably during the sixteenth century, but the art was not fully developed till much later.

The glazes of the first and second classes as a rule contained no lead, and to melt them the full heat of the oven, the grand feu , was required.

There is, however, a class of porcelain which does not fall well into any of the above divisions, but which is historically of great importance. The blue, purple, and yellow glazes of this ware were painted on the biscuit after a preliminary baking of the paste, and then fired, not in the hottest part of the furnace, but in what we may call the demi grand feu . The glaze of this ware contains lead, and this fact and the method of the decoration may be held to give it a position bridging over the interval between our first two classes and the third—that of enamelled porcelain. This ware, painted on the biscuit , dates, however, from an earlier time than the latter class, and must not be confused with it.

As I have pointed out, these types did not entirely replace one another, for the earlier forms continued to be made by the side of the later.

One of our principal difficulties in discussing the early wares of China is to reconcile and co-ordinate the various types described in old Chinese books with the few specimens surviving at the present day. Of these scanty examples we can point to scarcely any in public collections; the rare pieces that have been brought from China are in the hands of private collectors in England, France, and America. In the Chinese authorities we find as early as the tenth century references to porcelain which was ‘blue as the sky, brilliant as a mirror, thin as paper, and as sonorous as a piece of jade’; an emperor who reigned just before the accession of the Sung dynasty (960 A.D.) demanded that the porcelain made for him should be ‘of the azure tint of the sky after rain, as it appears in the interval between the clouds.’ Compare with these descriptions the thick paste, barely translucent, the heavy irregular glaze, greyish white to celadon or pale blue, of the few specimens of undoubted antiquity that have survived to our day. How can we reconcile the tradition with the material evidence? Two explanations have been given of the discrepancy. According to one theory, all the more delicate and fragile pieces have disappeared ‘under the hands of time’ (or shall we say more definitely under those of endless generations of housemaids?), only the heavy, solid specimens surviving. The other theory is simpler: it is that the writers of the books are apt to fall into exaggeration when speaking of any matter that has the sanction of age—that, not to mince matters, they are as a class great liars; and this is a point of view that commends itself to those who have any acquaintance with Chinese literature. 28 28 The wild statements as to the transparency, above all, of the Sung and even the Tang porcelain may, however, appear to receive some confirmation from the reports of the old Arab travellers. But how much credence we can give to these authorities may be gleaned from a description of the fayence of Egypt, by a Persian traveller of the eleventh century. ‘This ware of Misr,’ he says, ‘is so fine and diaphanous that the hand may be seen through it when it is applied to the side of the vessel.’ He is speaking not of porcelain, but of a silicious glazed earthenware!