YUNG CHÊNG [chch 2] PERIOD (1723–1735)
The Emperor, K’ang Hsi, was succeeded by his son, who reigned from
1723–1735 under the title Yung Chêng. The interest which the new ruler
had taken as a prince in ceramic manufactures is proved by a passage
in the first letter (written in 1712) of Père d’Entrecolles in which
he instances among remarkable examples of the potter’s skill a “great
porcelain lamp made in one piece, through which a torch gave light to
a whole room. This work was ordered seven or eight years ago by the
Crown Prince.” We are further told that the same prince had ordered the
manufacture of various musical instruments in porcelain. These could
not all be made, but the most successful were flutes and flageolets,
and a set of chimes made of nine small, round and slightly concave
plaques, which hung in a frame, and were played with drum-sticks.
Apparently the Emperor continued to take an intimate interest in the
industry after he had ascended the throne, for he commanded his brother
the prince of Yi to announce personally to T’ang Ying his appointment
at Ching-tê Chên in 1728.
At the beginning of the reign the direction of the Imperial factory was
in the hands of Nien Hsi-yao,[369] who, in his capacity of inspector
of customs at Huai-an Fu,[370] dispensed the funds for the Imperial
porcelain. A brief note in the _T’ao lu_,[371] under the heading
“Nien ware of the Yung Chêng period,” sums up in the usual compressed
style of Chinese ceramic writers the character of the porcelain made
at this time. The duty of Nien, inspector of customs at Huai-an Fu,
we read, was to select the materials, and to see that the porcelain
was furnished to the Imperial orders. The ware was extremely refined
and elegant. The coloured porcelains were sent twice monthly to
Nien at the Customs, and forwarded by him to the Emperor. Among the
vases (_cho ch’i_) many were of egg colour, and of rounded form,
lustrous and pure white like silver. They combined blue and coloured
decoration, and some had painted, engraved, etched, or pierced ornament
all ingeniously fashioned. Imitation of the antique and invention of
novelties, these were truly the established principles of Nien.
The interesting list of wares made at the Imperial factory which is
given in detail on pp. 223–226 supplies a full commentary on this
meagre notice, illustrating the types which are merely hinted in
the _T’ao lu_ and specifying the particular kinds of antiques
which were reproduced and many of the new processes invented in this
reign. With regard to the last, however, it appears that the chief
credit was due to Nien’s gifted assistant, T’ang Ying. Most of the
actual processes, such as carving, engraving, piercing _à jour_,
embossing in high and low relief, blowing on of the glazes, painting
in enamels, in gold and in silver,[372] have already been described in
previous chapters. Indeed we may assume that all the science of the
K’ang Hsi potters was inherited by their successors in the Yung Chêng
period, and we need only concern ourselves with the novelties and the
specialities of the period.
A few words should be said first about the ware itself. Necessary
variations in the appearance of the Ching-tê Chên porcelain, which
were due to purely natural causes such as the use of clays of varying
qualities or those from different localities, have been noted from time
to time. These differences are generally quite obvious and they explain
themselves. But apart from these there are numerous instances in which
the potters have deliberately departed from the normal recipes in order
to obtain some special effect. Thus we saw that the _ch’ing-tien_
stone was introduced into the body in imitations of the opaque and
rather earthy-looking white Ting Chou ware; _hua shih_ (steatite)
was used for another type of opaque porcelain which offered a
vellum-like surface to the blue painter; and coarse, impure clays were
found of great service in the imitation of the dark-coloured body of
the antique wares.
Many other modifications appear in the porcelain of the first half of
the eighteenth century. There is, for instance, a very dead white ware,
soft looking, but translucent, which occurs on some of the choicer
examples of armorial porcelain.[373] There are several specimens of
this in the British Museum, one of which bears the early date, 1702,
while others belong to the Yung Chêng period. Again there is the highly
vitreous ware evolved by T’ang Ying to imitate the opaque glass of
_Ku-yüeh-hsüan_; but that will be discussed later.[374] These
special bodies were mainly employed for articles of small size and
ornamental design, and they can be studied in all their varieties in
a representative collection of snuff bottles. The Chinese potters
lavished all their skill on these dainty little objects. Not only
do they include every kind of ware, crackled or plain, translucent
or opaque, but they illustrate in miniature every variety of
decoration--monochrome, painted, carved, moulded, incised, pierced and
embossed. Probably the choicest snuff bottles were made in the Yung
Chêng and Ch’ien Lung periods; but the Chinese have never ceased to
delight in them, and many beautiful examples were manufactured in the
nineteenth century, particularly in the Tao Kuang period.
The ordinary Yung Chêng porcelain differs but little from that of the
previous reign, though it tends to assume a whiter appearance, and
the green tinge of the glaze is less marked. Moreover, a change is
noticeable in the finish of the base rim of vases and bowls. Bevelling
of the edge is less common, and gives place to a rounded or angular
finish, the foot rim being often almost [symbol: V]-shaped; while the
slight tinge of brown around the raw edge, which is usual on K’ang Hsi
wares, is often entirely absent. The actual potting of the porcelain
displays a wonderful degree of manipulative skill, and the forms,
though highly finished, are not lacking in vigour. They are, in fact,
a happy mean between the strong, free lines of the K’ang Hsi and the
meticulous finish of the later Ch’ien Lung porcelains. The verdict of
the _T’ao lu_, “extremely refined and elegant,” is fully justified
by the porcelain itself no less than by its decoration.
Not the least deserving of this praise, though mainly made for export,
is the important group discussed on page 209, viz. the saucer dishes,
plates, tea and coffee wares, etc., of delicate white porcelain,
painted, apparently at Canton, in the _famille rose_ enamels. It
is an “eggshell” porcelain, white, thin, and beautifully finished,
and the dainty little conical or bell-shaped tea cups, though without
handles, are the perfection of table ware. This kind of “eggshell” is
easily distinguished from the Ming type, which is greener in tone and
has the appearance of melting snow by transmitted light.
The Yung Chêng period is not conspicuous for blue and white porcelain.
The perfection of the _famille rose_ colours and the growing
demand for enamelled wares seem to have withdrawn the attention of the
potters from their old speciality. Marked examples of Yung Chêng blue
and white are so uncommon that it is difficult to estimate the merits
of the ware from them. A saucer dish in the British Museum shows the
familiar pattern of a prunus spray reserved in white in a marbled blue
ground; but though the ware itself preserves much of the K’ang Hsi
character, the blue is dull and grey, and wanting in the vivacity and
depth of the old models. One would say that little care had been spent
on the refining of the blue, and without the old perfection of material
the K’ang Hsi style, with its broad washes of colour, was doomed to
failure. Considerations of this sort may have led the painters to
abandon the washes in favour of pencilling in fine lines, a method
apparent on the armorial porcelain which can be dated to this period.
Such a treatment of the blue was admirably suited to small objects.
Indeed it was the usual style of decoration on the steatitic porcelain,
of which many excellent examples belonging to this time are to be found
among the snuff bottles, vermilion boxes, and the small, artistic
furniture of the writing table. On large specimens the effect is thin
and weak.
On the other hand the Yung Chêng potters, who excelled in reproducing
the antique, were most successful in their imitation of the old
Ming blue and whites. The Imperial list[375] includes such items as
“reproductions of the pale blue painted designs of Ch’êng Hua,” and
of the dark blue of Chia Ching. An interesting example of a Ming
reproduction is a bowl in the British Museum, which is painted on the
exterior with the old design of ladies walking in a garden by candle
light.[376] In spite of its Yung Chêng mark this piece is obviously a
copy of a Ming model. The porcelain is white and thick, and the glaze,
which is of greenish tint, has a peculiar soft-looking surface, while
the blue design inside is of characteristic Ming colour, though that of
the exterior is scarcely so successful.
Another type much copied at this period as well as in the succeeding
reign is that in which the blue is mottled and blotched with darker
spots, a type discussed among the early Ming wares.[377] And similarly
such specimens as Fig. 2 of Plate 116, which bears a Hsüan Tê mark,
doubtless belong to this period of imitative manufacture. It is of
thick, solid build with smooth, soft-looking glaze, whose bubbled
texture gives the blue a hazy appearance.
Painting in underglaze red alone, or in combination with underglaze
blue, was freely practised in the reign of Yung Chêng, and probably
most of the fine examples of this type in our collections belong to
this and the succeeding reign (Fig. 1, Plate 117). There is a good
example with the Yung Chêng mark in the British Museum, a vase of
“pilgrim-bottle” form with central design of the three emblematic
fruits--peach, pomegranate, and finger citron, symbols of the Three
Abundances of Years, Sons and Happiness. The fruits are in a soft
underglaze red, verging on the peach-bloom tint, and the foliage,
together with the borders and accessory designs, are pencilled in dark
blue.
The Imperial list alludes to this decoration under the heading of “red
in the glaze” (_yu li hung_), including (1) red used alone for
painted designs, and (2) red foliage combined with blue flowers.[378]
Examples of both these styles are frequent in large and small objects,
and especially in the decoration of snuff bottles, which often bear the
Yung Chêng mark. They are, however, by no means confined to the Yung
Chêng period, but have continued in uninterrupted use to the present
day.
[Illustration: PLATE 115
Vase of baluster form with ornament in white slip and underglaze
red and blue in a celadon green ground: rockery and birds on a
flowering prunus tree. Yung Chêng period
(1723–1735)
Height 15½ inches. _Alexander Collection._]
Other references in the list[379] to underglaze red painting include
designs of three fishes,[380] three fruits, three funguses, and five
bats (for the five blessings) in the Hsüan Tê style, red in a white
ground; and the same red designs in a celadon green ground, the
latter combination being a novelty of the previous reign. Plate 115
is a choice example of the underglaze colours in a celadon ground;
and similar designs in a pale lavender blue ground, besides other
combinations of the same colours, coloured slips, and high-fired glazes
which form the polychrome decoration of the _grand feu_ have been
already discussed on p. 146. They belong to the Yung Chêng and Ch’ien
Lung periods no less than to the K’ang Hsi.
Of the other kinds of polychrome, the porcelain with glazes of the
_demi-grand feu_, and enamels of the muffle kiln in the three
colours, green, yellow, and aubergine, was still made. It is hardly
likely that the manufacture[381] which Père d’Entrecolles describes
in 1722 ceased immediately, and we know that the finer types with
engraved designs and transparent glazes in the three colours were made
to perfection at the Imperial factory. Fig. 1 of Plate 116 illustrates
a bowl of this kind with the Yung Chêng mark and, to judge from its
exquisite quality, an Imperial piece. The ornament is in green, in a
full yellow ground. This type of decoration is a legacy from the Ming
dynasty, and doubtless many of the saucer dishes, bowls, etc., with
Chêng Tê marks, but with all the trimness and neatness of the Yung
Chêng wares, belong to the latter period. One variety is actually
specified in the Imperial list[382] viz. “reproductions of porcelain
with incised green decoration in a monochrome yellow ground.”
As for the on-glaze enamels of the muffle kiln the old _famille verte_
colour scheme was to a great and increasing extent supplanted by the
_famille rose_. It survived, however, in certain modified forms--in the
delicately painted wares, for example, usually of eggshell thinness and
decorated in thin, clear, transparent enamels, such as were described
in connection with the late K’ang Hsi “birthday plates ” (see Plate
113). And again the same colours were employed in a special type of
decoration which seems to have originated in the Yung Chêng period,
though it was freely used in later reigns. In this the design was
carefully traced in pale blue outlines under the glaze, and filled in
with light uniform washes of transparent enamels on the glaze. The
effect is delicate and refined, though somewhat weak in comparison with
the full, iridescent colours and broad washes of the older _famille
verte_.
Possibly this style of decoration was intended to reproduce the
traditional refinement of the Ch’êng Hua cups. The Imperial list[383]
includes “reproductions of Ch’êng Hua polychrome (_wu ts’ai_),”
and four exquisite eggshell wine cups in the Hippisley Collection
which bear the Ch’êng Hua mark, are painted in this fashion.[384]
Similarly in the Bushell collection there are some beautiful
reproductions of the Ch’êng Hua “stem-cups,” with grape vine patterns,
etc., which are no doubt of the same origin. Larger work in the same
style is illustrated by a fine vase in the Victoria and Albert Museum
with a phœnix design which suggests an Imperial destination (Plate
117).
[Illustration: Plate 116.--Yung Chêng Porcelain.
Fig. 1.--Imperial Rice Bowl with design of playing children
(_wa wa_), engraved outlines filled in with green in a
yellow ground, transparent glazes on the biscuit. Yung Chêng
mark. Diameter 6 inches. _British Museum._
Fig. 2.--Blue and white Vase with fungus (_ling chih_)
designs in Hsüan Tê style. Height 7½ inches. _Cologne
Museum._]
[Illustration: Plate 117.--Yung Chêng Porcelain.
Fig. 1.--Vase with prunus design in underglaze red and blue.
Height 15 inches. _C. H. Read Collection._
Fig. 2.--Imperial Vase with phœnix and peony design in pale
_famille verte_ enamels over underglaze blue outlines.
Height 25⅝ inches. _V. & A. Museum._]
[Illustration: Plate 118.--Early Eighteenth Century Enamels.
Fig.1--Plate painted at Canton in _famille rose_ enamels
(_yang ts’ai_, “foreign colouring”). Yung Chêng period.
Diameter 21½ inches. _S. E. Kennedy Collection._
Fig. 2.--Arrow Stand, painted in late _famille verte_
enamels. About 1720. Height 19¼ inches. _V. & A. Museum._]
[Illustration: Plate 119.--Yung Chêng Porcelain, painted at
Canton with _famille rose_ enamels. _British Museum._
Fig. 1.--“Seven border” Plate. Diameter 8¼ inches.
Fig. 2.--Eggshell Cup and Saucer with painter’s marks (see p.
212). Diameter of saucer, 4½ inches.
Fig. 3.--Eggshell Plate with vine border. Diameter 8¼ inches.
Fig. 4.--Armorial Plate with arms of Leake Okeover. Transition
enamels, about 1723. Diameter 8⅞ inches.]
Thirdly, there are the reproductions of the enamelled porcelain of
the Chêng Tê and Wan Li periods[385] (q.v.), characterised, no doubt,
by the combination of underglaze blue and overglaze enamels. We have
already seen[386] from the note on Nien yao in the _T’ao lu_ that
this combination was conspicuous at this period, and it is probable
that much of the “five colour” porcelain in late Ming style should
be dated no further back than the Yung Chêng revival. Other types
of Ming coloured wares reproduced at this time were “porcelain with
ornament in Hsüan Tê style in a yellow ground,”[387] which seems to
mean underglaze blue designs with the ground filled in with yellow
enamel--a not unfamiliar type--and porcelain with designs painted in
iron red (_ts’ai hung_) “reproduced from old pieces.”[388] But the most
prominent feature of the enamelled porcelains of this time is the rapid
development of the _famille rose_ colours. We have already noted the
first signs of their coming in the thick rose pink and opaque white,
which made their appearance in the latter years of K’ang Hsi. The group
derives its name from its most conspicuous members, a series of rose
pinks graduating from pale rose to deep crimson, all derived from gold,
the use of which as a colouring agent for vitreous enamel was only at
this period mastered by the Chinese potters. It includes besides a
number of other colours distinguished from those of the _famille verte_
palette by their relative opacity. They display, moreover, a far wider
range of tints, owing to scientific blending of the various enamels
and to the judicious use of the opaque white to modify the
positive colours. Most of the opaque colours have considerable body,
and stand out on the porcelain like a rich incrustation, and they
are laid on not in broad washes, but with careful brush strokes and
miniature-like touches.
The _famille rose_ colours are known to the Chinese as _juan ts’ai_
(“soft colours,” as opposed to the _ying ts’ai_, or hard colours of the
_famille verte_), _fên ts’ai_ (pale colours), or _yang ts’ai_ (foreign
colours). Their foreign origin is generally admitted, and T’ang Ying
in the seventeenth of his descriptions of the processes of manufacture
alludes to them under the heading, “Decorating the round ware and
vases with foreign colouring.”[389] Painting the white porcelain in
polychrome (_wu ts’ai_) after the manner of the Europeans (_hsi yang_),
he tells us, is called foreign colouring, and he adds that the colours
employed are the same as those used for enamels on metal (_fo lang_).
Taking this statement with the note on “foreign coloured wares” in the
Imperial list,[390] where reference is made to painting on enamels (_fa
lang_) “landscapes and figure scenes, flowering plants and birds,”
it is evident that _fa lang_ is used here not in the usual sense of
cloisonné enamel, but for the painted enamels on copper which we
distinguish as Canton enamels. These, we are told elsewhere,[391] were
first made in the kingdom of Ku-li, which is washed by the Western sea.
Ku-li is identified as Calicut, but it does not necessarily follow that
the Chinese associated the origin of the painted enamels with India.
The expression was probably used quite vaguely in reference to European
goods which came by way of India, and does not really conflict with the
other phrase, _hsi yang_ (Western foreigners), which is always rendered
“Europeans.”
There is quite a number of references to the foreign or European
colours in the Imperial list,[392] e.g. “porcelain in yellow after the
European style,” which Bushell considers to be the lemon yellow which
originated in this reign; “porcelain in purple brown (_tzŭ_) after
the European style”; “European red-coloured wares,” i.e. rose pink;
“European green-coloured wares,” which Bushell explains as pale bluish
green or _eau de nil_ enamel; and “European black (_wu chin_) wares.”
In fact the words, “foreign or European,” seem to be practically
synonymous with “opaque enamel.”[393]
The most complete display of the foreign colouring is given by a
special group of porcelain which is painted in a characteristic
and mannered style. It is best known as “eggshell” or “ruby-back”
porcelain, from the fact that it is usually very thin and translucent
and beautifully potted, and that the exterior of the dishes and plates
is often coated with a gold pink enamel varying from pale ruby pink to
deep crimson. It usually consists of saucer-shaped dishes, plates, and
tea and coffee wares, obviously intended for European use. Occasionally
there are vases and lanterns of exquisite lightness and translucency,
but the vase forms usually required a more substantial construction,
and such specimens as Plate 120, are strongly built, though decorated
in the same style as the eggshell wares.
The decoration of these porcelains is scarcely less distinctive than
their colouring. The central design usually consists of one of the
following: a Chinese interior with figures of ladies and children,
groups of vases and furniture, baskets of flowers and dishes of
fruit, a pheasant on a rock, two quails and growing flowers, a cock
and peonies, etc.; and these designs are enclosed by rich borders,
sometimes totalling as many as seven in number, composed of hexagon
and square, lozenge, trellis or matting diapers, in varying colours,
and broken by small irregular panels of flowers or archaic dragons.
There are, of course, many other kinds of decoration on these wares.
Sometimes the whole design is executed in opaque blue enamel, sometimes
it is black and gold. On some the borders are simpler, merely
delicately gilt patterns; on others they are ruby pink, plain or
broken by enamelled sprays. On the vase forms the ruby either covers
the entire ground or is broken, as in Plate 121, Fig. 3, by fan-shaped
or picture-shaped panels with polychrome designs. The painting is, as
a rule, very finely and carefully executed, but almost always in a
distinctive style which is closely paralleled by the Canton enamels.
Indeed, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that much of this
ware was actually decorated in the enamelling establishments at Canton,
the porcelain itself being sent in the white from Ching-tê Chên. The
same designs are found on both the porcelain and the enamels, and there
is one instance at least of an artist whose paintings were used on
both materials, as is testified by his signature. This is the painter
whose art-name is _Pai shih shan jên_ (hermit of the white rock), or
in a shortened form, Pai-shih (see vol. i., p. 223). He was evidently
a Cantonese, for one of his designs on a saucer in the British Museum
is inscribed _Ling nan hui chê_ (a Canton picture), the subject being a
vase of flowers and a basket of fruit. His signature is also attached
to a dish with cock and peonies in the Victoria and Albert Museum,[394]
and to a similar design figured by Jacquemart,[395] which also bears
the date corresponding to 1724. It occurs, besides, fairly frequently
on Canton enamels, though in this case usually attached to landscape
designs. In all these instances, however, it is placed in the field of
the design appended, as a rule, to a stanza of verse or a descriptive
sentence. This is a usual position for the signature of a painter on
silk or paper, and we can hardly be wrong in inferring that Pai-shih
was the artist whose designs were copied on the wares, perhaps one who
was specially employed to design for the enamellers, rather than an
actual pot-painter or enameller. The proper place for the signature
of the latter is underneath the ware, on the base; and here we find
on a cup and saucer in the British Museum the name apparently of the
real decorator whose painting is not to be distinguished from that
on the piece with the Pai-shih signature, just mentioned as in the
same collection. Under the saucer (Plate 119, Fig. 2) is the seal _Yü
fêng yang lin_, i.e. Yang Lin of Yü-fêng, an old name for the town of
K’un-shan; and under the cup is the seal _Yu chai_ (quiet pavilion),
which is no doubt the studio name of Yang-lin.[396] K’un-shan Hsien is
situated between Su-chou and Shanghai, in the province of Kiangsu, and
we are to understand that Yang-lin was either a native of K’un-shan
or that he resided there--more probably the former, for his work is
typical of the Canton enamellers. It is, however, probable enough that
there were decorating establishments working for the European markets
in the neighbourhood of Shanghai as well as at Canton, just as there
are still decorating kilns not only at Ching-tê Chên but “at the other
towns on the river.”[397]
It is highly probable that the brushwork of the Canton enamellers, like
the enamels themselves, was copied at Ching-tê Chên, and even that
some of the enamellers migrated thither. A tankard among the armorial
porcelain in the British Museum, bearing the arms of Yorke and Cocks,
combines a few touches of underglaze blue with passages of _famille
rose_ decoration in the Canton style. The blue can only have been
applied at the place of manufacture, and as no porcelain of this kind
was actually made at Canton, it is evident that the piece was made and
decorated elsewhere (which can only mean at Ching-tê Chên), unless we
assume the improbable alternative that the tankard travelled from the
factory, bare save for a faintly outlined shield with a saltire in
blue, to be finished off at Canton.
Needless to say there is much _famille rose_ porcelain in which
the Cantonese style is not apparent, and this we assume without
hesitation to have been decorated at Ching-tê Chên.
It only remains to say a few words on the dating of the _famille rose_
wares and for this we must return to the ruby-back porcelains. Dated
pieces are rare, but the British Museum is fortunate in possessing a
few documentary specimens. The most interesting of these is a bowl with
pale ruby enamel covering the exterior, and a dainty spray of flowers
in _famille rose_ enamels inside. It is marked in blue under the glaze
with the cyclical date “made in the _hsin chou_ year recurring” (see
p. 213). The only year to which this can be referred is 1721, when
the _hsin chou_ year came round for the second time in the long reign
of K’ang Hsi.[398] It is of course possible that this bowl was not
enamelled in the year of its manufacture, but there are two other
pieces in the same case, an octagonal plate with ruby border and a
dish, both with the mark of the Dresden collection, and therefore
not later than the early years of Yung Chêng. A fourth document is a
ruby-back saucer dish delicately painted with a lady and boys, vases
and furniture in typical style, which has the mark of the Yung Chêng
period.
Unfortunately it is no longer possible to regard the year 1724, to
which the signature Pai-shih is attached on the plate mentioned above,
as conclusive evidence of the date of decoration.[399] It is certainly
the date of the design, and it is probable enough that the porcelain
was painted within a few years of the original picture, but beyond
that no further inferences can be drawn.[400] The Yorke-Cocks tankard,
however, to which we have also alluded, must for heraldic reasons have
been painted between the years 1720 and 1733; and there is an eggshell
cup and saucer in the British Museum painted in rose pink and other
enamels of this type, with the arms of the Dutch East India Company and
the date 1728.
From this cumulative evidence it is clear that the manufacture of
eggshell dishes and services with _famille rose_ enamels in the
Canton style and with “ruby backs” was in full swing in the Yung Chêng
period, and the general tendency to label them all Ch’ien Lung errs on
the side of excessive caution.
Passing from this particular group, which was affected by special
influences, the general character of the Yung Chêng enamelled
decoration is one of great refinement in design and execution. The
over-elaboration and the overcrowding which are observable on the later
Ch’ien Lung _famille rose_ are absent at this period. The tendency
was on the contrary towards elegant and restrained effects, such as a
flowering spray thrown artistically across the field, birds on a bough
and other graceful designs which left plenty of scope for the fine
quality of the white background. It is this nicely balanced decoration
coupled with the delicacy of the painting and the beautiful finish of
the porcelain itself, which gives the Yung Chêng enamelled wares their
singular distinction and charm.
There are still a few special types of painted wares to be noticed
before passing to the monochromes. One of these is named in the
Imperial list,[401] under the heading “Porcelain painted in ink
(_ts’ai shui mo_),” a figurative expression, for Indian ink could
not stand the heat even of the enamelling kiln, and could never have
served as a true ceramic pigment. The material used was a dry black or
brown black pigment derived from manganese, and closely allied to the
pigment which had long served in a subordinate position for tracing
outlines. Evidently this material was now greatly improved, and could
be used for complete designs which resembled drawings in Indian ink or
in sepia. It is certain, however, that the Chinese, whose methods were
necessarily empirical, had first experimented with actual ink, for Père
d’Entrecolles wrote in 1722[402]--“an attempt made to paint in black
some vases with the finest Chinese ink met with no success. When the
porcelain had been fired, it turned out white. The particles of this
black had not sufficient body, and were dissipated by the action of the
fire; or rather they had not the strength to penetrate the layer of
glaze or to produce a colour differing from the plain glaze.” Between
that date and about 1730 when the Imperial list was drawn up, the
secret of the proper pigment seems to have been mastered, and we find
the black designs effectively used on Yung Chêng eggshell and other
wares, alone or brightened by a little gilding. Among other uses it was
found to be admirably suited for copying the effect of European prints
and line engravings, a _tour de force_ in which the proverbial
patience and imitative skill of the Chinese are well exemplified.
Another effect sometimes mistaken for black painting is produced by
silvered designs which become rapidly discoloured; but it is generally
possible to see a slight metallic sheen even on the blackened silver if
the porcelain is held obliquely to the light.
Another refined and unobtrusive decoration was effected by pencilling
in pale iron red supplemented with gilding. There is a large series of
this red and gold porcelain in the Dresden collection, and it seems
to belong to the late K’ang Hsi or the Yung Chêng period. Another
telling combination, including black, red and gold, dates from this
time. The black and gold variety is well illustrated by an interesting
plate in the British Museum which represents European figures in early
eighteenth-century costume in a Chinese interior (Plate 131, Fig. 1).
The Imperial list[403] alludes to the use of silver and gold both to
cover the entire surface like a monochrome (_mo yin_ and _mo chin_),
and in painted designs (_miao yin_ and _miao chin_).[404] Three of
these decorations are said to have been in Japanese style, but the
precise significance of this is not clear. Gilding was freely used in
combination with red and blue, and especially over the blue, on Arita
porcelain, but the application of it does not seem to differ from the
ordinary Chinese gilding. The one feature common to the Chinese and
Japanese gilding is its lightness and restraint as compared with the
heavy gilding of European porcelains.
Plate 125 illustrates a peculiar ware which belongs in part to the
reign of Yung Chêng and in part to that of Ch’ien Lung. It attempts to
reproduce the soft colouring on the enamelled glass made by Hu,[405]
whose studio-name was Ku-yüeh-hsüan (“ancient moon pavilion”). A small
brush holder[406] of this glass is shown on Fig. 125, an opaque white
material, not unlike our old Bristol glass, delicately painted in
_famille rose_ colours with groups of the Seven Worthies of the Bamboo
Grove. It is said that[407] the Emperor admired the soft colouring on
this ware, and expressed a wish to see the same effect produced in
porcelain. T’ang Ying thereupon set out to solve the problem by making
a highly vitreous body with glassy glaze on which the enamels assumed
the soft tints of the original model. This type of porcelain, known as
_fang ku yüeh hsüan_ (“imitation of Ku-yüeh-hsüan”), is greatly prized.
Mr. A. E. Hippisley has described a small group in the catalogue of his
collection from which I have been permitted to illustrate an example
(Plate 125). Mr. Hippisley states that the earlier specimens of the
glass are marked with the four characters _ta ch’ing nien chih_ (made
in the great Ch’ing period), the reign name Yung Chêng being omitted;
the later pieces, of which the brush pot in our illustration is one,
have the Ch’ien Lung mark in four characters. Bushell[408] has figured
a yellow glazed snuff bottle with the actual mark _Ku yüeh hsüan chih_
(see vol. i. p. 219).
The reigns of Yung Chêng and Ch’ien Lung were prolific in monochromes.
Never since the Sung dynasty had these wares been produced in such
quantity, and the tale of the glazes was swollen to an unprecedented
extent by the accumulated traditions of the past centuries, and by the
inventive genius of T’ang Ying. It is scarcely practicable to attempt
to distinguish very closely between the Yung Chêng monochromes and
those of the early years of Ch’ien Lung. The activities of T’ang-ying
extended from 1728–1749, and we are expressly told that many of the
types enumerated in the Imperial list were his inventions, besides
which there was nothing made by the potters of the past which he could
not reproduce. To enumerate all the colours now used would be merely
to repeat what has been said under the heading of monochrome porcelain
in the previous chapters. Moreover, the Imperial list given on page
223 serves to draw attention to the principal types, and it is only
necessary here to supplement it with a few comments.
A special feature of the time was the reproduction of the glazes made
in the classical periods of the Sung and Ming dynasties, and in many
cases these copies were based on originals lent to the factory from the
Imperial collections. Thus the Ju, Kuan, Ko, Lung-chüan, Tung-ch’ing,
Chün and Ting wares, all the specialities of the Sung dynasty, are
included in the list, and though one type of Kuan glaze is specifically
stated to have been laid on a white porcelain body, many of the others,
we read, were provided with special bodies imitating the copper-and
iron-coloured wares of antiquity. But experience shows that in the
majority of cases the potters were content to simulate the “brown
mouth and iron foot” of the dark-bodied Sung wares by dressing the
mouth and the exposed part of the base with ferruginous clay. This is
observable on the lavender crackles which imitate the Kuan, and the
stone grey crackles of the Ko type, by which the Sung originals were
until recent years represented in most Western collections.
In other cases coarse clays of impure colour, and even earthenware
bodies were used in the reproductions. The admirable imitations of the
mottled and _flambé_ Chün glazes which were apparently a special
triumph of T’ang-ying appear both on a white porcelain which had to be
carefully concealed by the coloured glazes, and on a soft earthenware
body. Both these kinds are found with the Yung Chêng mark stamped in
the paste, and so correct are the glaze effects that even collectors of
considerable experience have been deceived by specimens from which the
mark in question has been ground away.
In addition to the copies of the high-fired Chün glazes, there was the
“Chün glaze of the muffle kiln” (_lu chün yu_) which is described as
something between the glaze applied to the Yi-hsing stoneware and the
Kuangtung glazes. The items immediately following this information in
the Imperial list[409] make it clear that the writer refers to the
glazes of Ou on the Yi-hsing pottery, and to the blue mottled glazes
of the Canton stoneware. The enamel which most closely answers to
the description of this Chün glaze of the muffle kiln[410] is that
illustrated in Fig. 4 of Plate 128, a vase with dark-coloured foot rim,
and an opaque greenish blue enamel flecked with dark ruby pink. This
enamel varies considerably in appearance according to the preponderance
of the red or the blue in the combination; but it is an enamel of the
muffle kiln and its markings recall the dappled Chün glazes. I have,
moreover, seen this glaze actually applied to a teapot of Yi-hsing red
stoneware. This glaze seems to belong to a type, which was largely
developed in the Ch’ien Lung period, of glazes resembling if not
actually imitating the mottled surface of certain birds’ eggs, e.g.
the robin, the lark, the sparrow, etc. In these instances one colour
seems to have been powdered or blown on to another, the commonest kind
having a powdering of ruby pink on pale blue or green. This glaze
differs from the Chün glaze, described above, only in the size of
the pink specks. It was probably in experimenting for the effect of
the _flambé_ Chün glazes that T’ang Ying acquired the mastery of the
furnace transmutations (_yao pien_) which made it possible for him and
his successors to produce at will the variegated glazes. These had
been described by Père d’Entrecolles a few years earlier as accidental
effects in his time, but the French father already foresaw the day when
they would be brought under control.
Of the celebrated Ting Chou wares only the fine ivory white Ting
(_fên ting_) was copied at the Imperial factory; but this does
not preclude the reproduction of the other kind, the creamy crackled
_t’u-ting_, in the other potteries. There are, at any rate, many
lovely porcelains in both styles which appear to belong to the Yung
Chêng and early Ch’ien Lung periods. Coloured glazes with crackle and
crackled grey-white of the Ko type were made in great quantity, and
most of the choicer crackles in our collections, especially those of
antique appearance but on a white and neatly finished porcelain body,
date from this time.
The reproductions of Ming monochromes include the underglaze red and
the purplish blue as in the previous reign, and the eggshell and pure
white of the Yung Lo and Hsüan Tê periods. The purplish blue or _chi
ch’ing_ of this time is illustrated by a large dish in the British
Museum which is further enriched with gilding. It is covered with a
splendid deep blue of slightly reddish tinge, varying depth and rather
stippled appearance, and it was found in Turkey, where this colour has
been much prized. Turquoise green, aubergine purple and yellow of the
_demi-grand feu_, and the lustrous brown (_tzŭ chin_) in two
shades, brown and yellow, are all mentioned in the Imperial list as
used with or without engraved and carved designs under the glaze.
As for the K’ang Hsi porcelains it may be assumed that practically
all their glaze colours were now reproduced. A few only are specified
in the list, eel yellow, snake-skin green, spotted yellow, _soufflé_
red, _soufflé_ blue (powder blue) and mirror black (_wu chin_). The
term _soufflé_ red may refer to the underglaze red from copper or the
overglaze iron red. The latter is further subdivided into _mo hung_
or _ta hung_, the deep red of Ming origin, and the _tsao’rh hung_ or
jujube red, a softer and more vitreous[411] variety of the same colour
which Dr. Bushell considered to have originated in the Yung Chêng
period. On the _soufflé_ red under the glaze we may quote Bushell’s
remarks[412]: “Two of the colours especially characteristic of the
Nien yao or 'Nien porcelain’ of this epoch are the _clair de lune_
or _yüeh pai_, and the bright _soufflé_ copper red.” The latter is
further described on a vase in the Walters collection “exhibiting the
characteristic monochrome glaze of bright ruby red tint, and stippled
surface. The _soufflé_ glaze is applied over the whole surface with the
exception of a panel of irregular outline reserved on one side, where
it is shaded off so that the red fades gradually into a nearly white
ground.” This panel was afterwards filled in with a design in overglaze
enamels. A tazza in the British Museum has this same red covering
three-quarters of the exterior, and fading into the white ground. This
red also occurs in its beautiful translucent ruby tints on a pair of
small wine cups in the same collection, and on a set of larger cups
belonging to Mr. Eumorfopoulos. One would say it was the “liquid dawn”
tint of the celebrated wine cups of the late Ming potter, Hao Shih-chiu.
The _clair de lune_ or moon white (_yüeh pai_), an exquisite glaze
of palest blue, is illustrated on Plate 130. It is often faintly
tinged with lavender which bears out its description in the Imperial
list[413]: “This colour somewhat resembles the Ta Kuan glaze, but the
body of the ware is white. The glaze is without crackle, and there are
two shades--pale and dark.” The Kuan glaze, it should be explained, was
characterised by a reddish tinge.
In addition to the foreign colours which were capable of being used as
monochromes as well as in painted designs, there are a few other new
glazes named in the Imperial list. The _fa ch’ing_ (cloisonné blue)
which “resulted from recent experiments to match” the deep blue of the
enamellers on copper, is identified by Bushell with the dark sapphire
blue known as _pao shih lan_ (precious stone blue). It was, we are
told, darker and bluer than the purplish _chi ch’ing_, and it had not
the orange peel and palm eye markings of the latter. It has, however,
a faint crackle, and is apparently a glaze of the _demi-grand feu_.
We learn elsewhere that this cloisonné blue was one of T’ang-ying’s
inventions.
Among the yellows are “porcelain with yellow after the European style”
which is identified by Bushell with the opaque lemon yellow enamel
introduced at this time, and there are two kinds of _mi sê_ (millet
colour) glazes,[414] pale and dark, which we are told “differed from
the Sung _mi sê_.” Bushell’s explanation of the term _mi sê_ given in
Monkhouse’s _Chinese Porcelain_,[415] traverses his rendering of the
terms as rice colour in other books: “The Chinese term used here is _mi
sê_, which Julien first translated _couleur du riz_, and thereby misled
us all. It really refers to the colour (_sê_) of the yellow millet
(_huang mi_), not of rice (_pai mi_). _Mi sê_ in Chinese silks is a
full primrose yellow; in Chinese ceramic glazes it often deepens from
that tint to a dull mustard colour when the materials are less pure.
It has often been wondered why the old “mustard crackle” of collectors
is apparently never alluded to in “L’Histoire des Porcelaines de
King-tê-chin.” It is necessary to substitute yellow for “rice coloured”
in the text generally, remembering always that a paler tone is
indicated than that of the Imperial yellow, which Mr. Monkhouse justly
likens to the yolk of an egg.”
In Giles’s Dictionary _mi sê_ is rendered “straw colour, the colour of
yellow millet,” and all my inquiries among Chinese collectors as to
the tint of the _mi sê_ glaze have led to the same conclusion. One of
the Chinese experts indicated a bowl with pale straw yellow glaze of
the K’ang Hsi period as an example of _mi sê_, and this I take to be
the _mi sê_ which “differed from the Sung colour,” being, in fact, an
ordinary yellow glaze, following the type made in the Ming dynasty, and
entirely different in technique from the Sung glazes.
[Illustration: PLATE 120
Covered Jar or _potiche_ painted in _famille rose_ or
“foreign colours” (_yang ts’ai_) with baskets of flowers:
deep borders of ruby red enamel broken by small panels and floral
designs. On the cover is a lion coloured with enamels on the
biscuit. From a set of five vases and beakers in the collection
of Lady Wantage. Late Yung Chêng period (1723–1735)
Height 34 inches.]
The precise nature of the Sung _mi sê_ which is included among the Ko
yao, Chün yao and Hsiang-hu wares reproduced by the Yung Chêng potters
according to the Imperial list is a little doubtful. Possibly one type
was illustrated by the “shallow bowl with spout: grey stoneware with
opaque glaze of pale sulphur yellow,” which Mr. Alexander exhibited at
the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910.[416] Another is indicated in the
Pierpont Morgan collection[417] in a “shallow bowl with greenish
yellow crackled glaze,” apparently of the type found occasionally in
Borneo, where such wares are still treasured by the Dyaks. The vase in
the Victoria and Albert Museum which is figured by Monkhouse (op. cit.,
Fig. 22) as a specimen of old _mi sê_, appears for reasons already
given[418] to be a Yung Chêng reproduction of this type. The “mustard
yellow” which Bushell included under the description _mi sê_ is an
opaque crackled enamel which can hardly have originated before the Yung
Chêng period, and it is possible that it resulted from an attempt to
reproduce the old Sung _mi sê_ crackle.
The following list of the decorations used at the Imperial factory was
compiled by Hsieh Min, the governor of the province of Kiangsi from
1729 to 1734.[419] It was translated by Bushell in his _Oriental
Ceramic Art_; but reference has been made to it so often in these
pages, and its importance is so obvious, that no apology is necessary
for giving it in full. The following version is taken from the
_Chiang hsi t’ung chih_, bk. 93, fols. 11 to 13, and in most cases
Bushell’s rendering has been followed:--
1. Glazes of the Ta Kuan period (i.e. Sung Kuan yao) on an
“iron” body, including moon white (_yüeh pai_), pale blue
or green (_fên ch’ing_) and deep green (_ta lü_).**
2. Ko glaze on an “iron” body, including millet colour (_mi
sê_) and _fên ch’ing_.**
3. Ju glaze without crackle on a “copper” body: the glaze
colours copied from a cat’s food basin of the Sung dynasty, and
a dish for washing brushes moulded with a human face.
4. Ju glaze with fish-roe crackle on a “copper” body.**
5. White Ting glaze. Only the _fên Ting_ was copied, and
not the _t’u Ting_.
6. Chün glazes. Nine varieties are given, of which five were
copied from old palace pieces and four from newly acquired
specimens; see p. 000.
7. Reproductions of the _chi hung_ red of the Hsüan Té
period: including fresh red (_hsien hung_) and ruby red
(_pao shih hung_).
8. Reproductions of the deep violet blue (_chi ch’ing_) of
the Hsüan Tê period. This glaze is deep and reddish (_nêng
hung_), and has orange peel markings and palm eyes.
9. Reproductions of the glazes of the Imperial factory:
including eel yellow (_shan yü huang_), snake-skin green
(_shê p’i lü_), and spotted yellow (_huang pan tien_).
10. Lung-ch’üan glazes: including pale and dark shades.
11. Tung-ch’ing glazes: including pale and dark, shades.
12. Reproductions of the Sung millet-coloured (_mi sê_)
glaze: copied in form and colour from the fragmentary wares dug
up at Hsiang Hu (q.v.).
13. Sung pale green (_fên ch’ing_) glaze: copied from wares
found at the same time as the last.
14. Reproduction of “oil green” (_yu lü_) glaze: “copied
from an old transmutation (_yao pien_) ware like green
jade (_pi yü_), with brilliant colour broken by variegated
passages and of antique elegance.”
15. The Chün glaze of the muffle stove (_lu chün_). “The
colour is between that of the Kuangtung wares and the Yi-hsing
applied glaze[420]; and in the ornamental markings (_hua
wên_) and the transmutation tints of the flowing glaze it
surpasses them.”
16. Ou’s glazes, with red and blue markings.
17. Blue mottled (_ch’ing tien_) glazes: copied from old
Kuang yao.
18. Moon white (_yüeh pai_) glazes. “The colour somewhat
resembles the Ta Kuan glaze, but the body of the ware is white.
The glaze is without crackle, and there are two shades--pale and
dark.”
19. Reproductions of the ruby red (_pao shao_) of Hsüan Té:
in decoration consisting of (1) three fishes, (2) three fruits,
(3) three funguses, or (4) the five Happinesses (symbolised by
five bats).
20. Reproductions of the Lung-ch’üan glaze with ruby red
decoration of the types just enumerated. “This is a new style of
the reigning dynasty.”
21. Turquoise (_fei ts’ui_) glazes. Copying three sorts,
(1) pure turquoise, (2) blue flecked, and (3) gold flecked
(_chin tien_).[421]
22. _Soufflé_ red (_ch’ui hung_) glaze.
23. _Soufflé_ blue (_ch’ui ch’ing_) glaze.
24. Reproductions of Yung Lo porcelain: eggshell (_t’o
t’ai_), pure white with engraved (_chui_) or embossed
(_kung_) designs.
25. Copies of Wan Li and Chêng Tê enamelled (_wu ts’ai_)
porcelain.
26. Copies of Ch’èng Hua enamelled (_wu ts’ai_) porcelain.
27. Porcelain with ornament in Hsüan Tê style in a yellow ground.
28. Cloisonné blue (_fa ch’ing_) glaze.[422] “This glaze
is the result of recent attempts to match this colour (i.e. the
deep blue of the cloisonné enamels). As compared with the deep
and reddish _chi ch’ing_, it is darker and more vividly
blue (_ts’ui_), and it has no orange peel or palm eye
markings.”
29. Reproductions of European wares with lifelike designs carved
and engraved. “Sets of the five sacrificial utensils, dishes,
plates, vases, and boxes and the like are also decorated with
coloured pictures in European style.”
[Illustration: Plate 121.--Two Beakers and a Jar from sets of
five, _famille rose_ enamels. Late Yung Chêng Porcelain.
Fig. 1.--Beaker with “harlequin” ground. Height 15¾ inches. _S.
E. Kennedy Collection._
Fig. 2.--Jar with dark blue glaze gilt and leaf-shaped reserves.
Height 21½ inches. _Burdett-Coutts Collection._
Fig. 3.--Beaker with fan and picture-scroll panels, etc.,
in a deep ruby pink ground. Height 14½ inches. _Wantage
Collection._]
30. Reproductions of wares with incised green decoration in a
yellow glaze (_chiao huang_).
31. Reproductions of yellow-glazed wares: including plain and
with incised ornament.
32. Reproductions of purple brown (_tzŭ_) glazed wares:
including plain and with incised ornament.
33. Porcelain with engraved ornament: including all kinds of
glazes.
34. Porcelain with embossed (_tui_) ornament: including all
kinds of glazes.
35. Painted red (_mo[423] hung_): copying old specimens.
36. Red decoration (_ts’ai hung_): copying old specimens.
37. Porcelain in yellow after the European style.[424]
38. Porcelain in purple brown (_tzŭ_) after the European
style.
39. Silvered (_mo yin_) porcelain.
40. Porcelain painted in ink (_shui mo_): see p. 214.
41. Reproductions of the pure white (_t’ien pai_)[425]
porcelain of the Hsüan Tê period: including a variety of wares
thick and thin, large and small.
42. Reproductions of Chia Ching wares with blue designs.
43. Reproductions of Ch’êng Hua pale painted (_tan miao_)
blue designs.
44. Millet colour (_mi sê_) glazes. “Differing from the
Sung millet colour.” In two shades, dark and light.
45. Porcelain with red in the glaze (_yu li hung_):
including (1) painted designs exclusively in red, (2) the
combination of blue foliage and red flowers.[426]
46. Reproductions of lustrous brown (_tzŭ chin_) glaze:
including two varieties, brown and yellow.
47. Porcelains with yellow glaze (_chiao huang_) decorated
in enamels (_wu ts’ai_). “This is the result of recent
experiments.”
48. Reproductions of green-glazed porcelain: including that with
plain ground and with engraved ornament.
49. Wares with foreign colours (_yang ts’ai_). “In
the new copies of the Western style of painting in enamels
(_fa-lang_) the landscapes and figure scenes, the flowering
plants and birds are without exception of supernatural beauty
and finish.”[427]
50. Porcelain with embossed ornament (_kung hua_):
including all kinds of glazes.
51. Porcelain with European (_hsi yang_) red colour.
52. Reproductions of _wu chin_ (mirror black) glazes:
including those with black ground and white designs and those
with black ground and gilding.
53. Porcelain with European green colour.
54. European _wu chin_ (mirror black) wares.
55. Gilt (_mo chin_) porcelain: copying the Japanese.
56. Gilt (_miao chin_)[428] porcelain: copying the Japanese.
57. Silvered (_miao yin_) porcelain: copying the Japanese.
58. Large jars (_ta kang_) with Imperial factory (_ch’ang
kuan_) glazes. “Dimensions: diameter, at the mouth, 3 ft.
4 or 5 in. to 4 ft.; height, 1 ft. 7 or 8 in. to 2 ft. Glaze
colours, (1) eel yellow, (2) cucumber (_kua p’i_) green,
and (3) yellow and green mottled (_huang lü tien_).”
This last item, which is not included in Bushell’s list, appears to
be almost a repetition of No. 9, with slightly different phrasing.
_Huang lü tien_, which is used instead of the difficult phrase
_huang pan tien_, may perhaps be taken as a gloss on the latter,
indicating that the spots in the mottled yellow were green. In this
case it would appear that the “spotted yellow” was a sort of tiger skin
glaze, consisting of dabs of green and yellow (and perhaps aubergine as
well). Bushell interpreted it in this sense.