EUROPEAN INFLUENCES IN THE CH’ING DYNASTY
Hitherto the references to European influence on Chinese porcelain
have been of an incidental nature. But the use of Western designs on
the porcelains of the Ch’ing dynasty, and especially in the eighteenth
century, attained such large proportions that it is necessary to
treat the wares so decorated as a class apart. A highly instructive
collection of this type of porcelain is exhibited in the British
Museum, where it has been subdivided in groups illustrating porcelain
painted in China with European armorial designs, porcelain painted in
China after pictures, engravings and other patterns of European origin,
European forms in Chinese porcelain, and, lastly, Chinese porcelain
decorated in Europe.
The un-Chinese nature of these decorations, which is apparent at the
first glance, justifies their segregation. Indeed, the foreign features
are in many cases so conspicuous that it is small wonder if in days
when little was known of Chinese ceramic history these wares were
often attributed to European manufacture. We now know so much of the
intercourse between China and Europe in the past, and of the enormous
trade carried on by the various East India companies, that no surprise
is felt at the idea of orders for table services sent out to China
with armorial and other designs for their decoration. Not that anyone
whose eye was really trained to appreciate the peculiarities of Chinese
porcelain could ever mistake the nature of these wares. The paste and
glaze are, with few exceptions, uncompromisingly Chinese, no matter
how closely the decorator with his proverbial genius for imitation may
have rendered the European design. And even here, if the Oriental touch
is not betrayed in some detail, the Chinese colours and gilding will
disclose themselves to the initiate.
It is hardly necessary here to allude to the absurd notion that any
of this group was made at the little English factory of Lowestoft. If
an error which has once had currency is ever completely dissipated,
Chaffers’s great blunder on the subject of Chinese armorial porcelain
should be forgotten by now. But it is high time that those who are
fully aware of the facts of the case should abandon the equally
stupid and wholly illogical expression, “Oriental Lowestoft,” not
for Lowestoft porcelain decorated in Chinese style, which would be
reasonable enough, but (save the mark!) for Chinese porcelain decorated
with European designs. As if, indeed, an insignificant Suffolk pottery,
which made no enamelled porcelain[459] until about 1770, had any
influence on the decoration of a Chinese ware which was distributed all
over Europe during the whole of the century.
The European style of flower painting and the European border patterns
were used by the Chinese decorators on this class of ware in the last
half of the century, but they were the patterns which originated at
Meissen and Sèvres, and which were adopted and developed at Chelsea,
Derby and Worcester. Any of these wares might have found their way to
China and served as models to the Canton decorators, but the likelihood
of Lowestoft porcelain exerting any appreciable influence in the Far
East is simply laughable.
But to return to the subject of this chapter, the actual European
shapes found in Chinese porcelain can be dismissed in a few words.
There are a few figures, such as the well known pair reputed to
represent Louis XIV. and his queen. These are of K’ang Hsi type, and
decorated with enamels on the biscuit. And there are numerous groups
or single figures of the same period in the white Fukien porcelain,
discussed on p. 111. A few vase forms, copied apparently from Italian
wares and belonging to a slightly later date, and a curious pedestal
in the British Museum, modelled in the form of a tree trunk with two
Cupids in full relief near the top, are purely Western.[460] Needless
to say, the bulk of the useful ware, being intended for European
consumption, was made after European models, which speak for themselves.
Much might be written on the painted designs of this class if space
permitted, but we must be content with citing a few typical instances,
most of which may be seen in the Franks Collection. To the K’ang Hsi
period belong some curious imitations of Dutch Delft, in which even
the potter’s marks are copied, the designs having been, oddly enough,
borrowed in the first instance from Oriental wares by the Dutch
potters. There are the so-called “Keyser cups,” tall, covered cups with
saucers, painted in blue with kneeling figures surrounding a king and
queen, who probably represent St. Louis of France and his consort; and
in the border is the inscription, L’EMPIRE DE LA VERTU EST ESTABI
JUSQ’AU BOUT DE L’UNERS. Another cup has a design of a ship and a
syren, with legend, GARDES VOUS DE LA SYRENE; and there are
small plates with the siege of Rotterdam[461] copied in blue from a
Dutch engraving.
[Illustration: PLATE 130
Vase with pear-shaped body and wide mouth; tubular handles.
Porcelain with delicate _clair de lune_ glaze recalling the
pale blue tint of some of the finer Sung celadons. About 1800
Height 7¾ inches. _British Museum_.]
But the group which probably commands the greatest interest is that
known as “Jesuit china,” decorated with subjects bearing on the
Christian religion. The earliest examples are painted in underglaze
blue, the Christian designs being accompanied by ordinary Chinese
ornaments. An early (to judge from the general style of the piece,
late Ming) example is a pear-shaped ewer, with elongated spout and
handle, in the Kunstgewerbe Museum, Berlin. On the side is the sacred
monogram IHS, surrounded by formal ornament, and it has been plausibly
suggested that the little vessel had been used for Communion purposes.
A bowl with fungus mark in the Franks Collection has a Crucifixion on
the exterior, framed in a pattern of cloud-scrolls, and inside with
truly Chinese tolerance is painted a Buddhist pearl symbol in flames
and clouds. A cup in the same series with the “jade” mark[462] has a
Crucifixion half lost among the surrounding arabesque scrolls. These
two are of the K’ang Hsi period, and were probably made with the pieces
to which Père d’Entrecolles[463] alludes, in his letter dated 1712, as
follows: “From the debris at a large emporium they brought me a little
plate which I treasure more than the finest porcelain made during the
last thousand years. In the centre of the plate is painted a crucifix
between the Virgin and St. John, and I am told that this kind
of porcelain was shipped sometimes to Japan, but that this commerce
came to an end sixteen or seventeen years ago. Apparently the Japanese
Christians took advantage of this manufacture at the time of the
persecution to obtain pictures of our mysteries, and these wares,
mingled with others in the crates, eluded the vigilance of the enemies
of our religion. This pious artifice was no doubt eventually discovered
and rendered useless by more stringent investigation, and that is why
the manufacture of this kind of ware has ceased at Ching-tê Chên.”
These early types, which are rare to-day, have a special interest
because they were decorated at Ching-tê Chên, and their general style
indicates that they were made for Oriental use.
After an interval of some years the Jesuit china reappeared in a
more sophisticated form, probably the work of Canton decorators. The
designs, various Biblical scenes, are copied in black and gold from
European engravings, and they occur on plates with rims, tea and coffee
services, and other articles of European use. The earliest may date
from the Yung Chêng period, but they are mostly Ch’ien Lung, and the
same designs are occasionally executed in enamel colours. In addition
to the Christian china there are plates and dishes decorated with rings
of Koranic inscriptions in Arabic, surrounding magic squares, and
destined for the Mussulman markets.
The Franks Collection includes, besides, numerous examples of
profane subjects[464] copied in black or in colours from European
engravings and designs. A striking instance of the patient skill of
the Chinese copyist is given by two large plates completely covered
with the designs--the Triumph of Mordecai and Achilles dipped in the
Styx--copied line for line, apparently, from Le Sueur’s engravings.
The effect of the fine lines and cross-hatching is perfectly rendered,
and one would say at first that they had been transfer-printed if
this process had ever been used by the Chinese. It is amusing, too,
to find English topical and political subjects rendered on Chinese
porcelain, mugs and punch bowls, with busts of the Duke of Cumberland,
Prince Charles Edward, and John Wilkes with appropriate inscriptions.
There are, too, satirical pictures in the style of Hogarth, and a few
popular but not overrefined subjects which gain an additional drollery
from the obviously Chinese rendering of the figures. Many large punch
bowls still survive decorated to suit their owner’s tastes, with a
full-rigged ship for the sea captain, a hunting scene for the master
of hounds, and agricultural designs for the farmer, often proudly
inscribed with the name of the destined possessor and the date of the
order. The Chinese touch is usually betrayed in these inscriptions,
which are obviously reproduced mechanically, and with no compunction
felt for a letter here and there inverted or misplaced.
These porcelains with European pictorial designs are, as a rule, more
curious than beautiful, but it cannot be denied that the next group
with European coats of arms emblazoned in the centre is often highly
decorative. This is particularly true of the earlier examples in
which the shields of arms are not disproportionately large, and are
surrounded with tasteful Chinese designs. The heraldry is carefully
copied and, as a rule, the tinctures are correct. In the older
specimens the blue is usually under the glaze, and from this, and from
the nature of the surrounding decoration in _famille verte_ or
transition colours, one may assume that the pieces in question were
decorated at Ching-tê Chên. From the middle of the Yung Chêng period
onwards a large and constantly increasing proportion of the ware was
decorated at Canton, in the enamelling establishments which were in
close touch with the European merchants, and from this time European
designs begin to encroach on the field of the decoration. Finally,
in the last decades of the century the Chinese armorial porcelain is
decorated in purely European style. An important though belated witness
to the Canton origin of this decoration is a plate in the Franks
Collection with the arms of Chadwick in the centre, a band of Derby
blue, and a trefoil border on the rim, and on the reverse in black the
legend, _Canton in China, 24th Jan^y, 1791_.
Side by side with this armorial porcelain, and apparently also
decorated at Canton, there was painted a large quantity of table
ware for Western use with half-European designs in which small pink
rose-sprays are conspicuous. These are the cheaper kinds of useful ware
which are found everywhere in Europe, and must have formed a large
percentage of the export trade in the last half of the eighteenth
century. The decoration, though usually slight and perfunctory, is
quite inoffensive and suitable to the purpose of the ware.
But to return to the armorial porcelain: apart from its heraldic and
decorative value, it is often important to the student of Chinese
ceramics, because there are specimens which can be dated very
precisely from the armorial bearings and other internal evidence.
In the British Museum series there are some twenty pieces belonging
to the K’ang Hsi period, including an early underglaze blue painted
dish with arms of Talbot, and one or two specimens of pure _famille
verte_, including the plate dated 1702, which has already been
mentioned as being of a peculiar white and glassy-looking ware. There
are examples with underglaze blue and enamel decoration in the Chinese
Imari style, and there is a very distinctive group which can be dated
armorially[465] to the late K’ang Hsi and early Yung Chêng period.
These latter pieces are usually decorated with a shield of arms in the
centre in enamel colours, with or without underglaze blue; the sides
are filled with a band of close floral scrolls or brocade diaper in red
and gold, broken by small reserves containing flowers and symbols; on
the rim are similar groups of flowers and symbols and a narrow border
of red and gold scrolls; and on the reverse are a few floral sprays in
red. The enamels are of the transition kind, _famille verte_ with
occasional touches of rose pink and opaque yellow. The porcelain is
the crisp, sonorous, well potted ware with shining oily glaze of K’ang
Hsi type, and the accessory ornament is of purely Chinese character.
A border of trefoil cusps, not unlike the strawberry leaves of the
heraldic crown, but traceable to a Chinese origin, makes its first
appearance on this group. It is a common feature of subsequent armorial
wares, like the narrow border of chain pattern which seems to have come
into use about 1730.
Dated specimens of Yung Chêng armorial, with painting in the “foreign
colours,” have been already described.[466] Other examples of this
period have the decoration in underglaze blue outlines washed with
thin transparent colours, in black pencilling and in black and gold.
The border patterns of lacework, vine scrolls, bamboos wreathed with
foliage and flowers, and fine floral scrolls, are often beautifully
executed in delicate gilding or in brown and gold.
In the Ch’ien Lung period there was an ever-increasing tendency to
displace the Chinese patterns in favour of European ornament. About
the middle of the century small bouquets and scattered floral sprays
in the well-known Meissen style of painting made their appearance, and
the gradual invasion of the border patterns by European motives is
apparent. It may be of interest to note a few of the latter as they
occur on dated specimens:
1. Light feathery scrolls, gilt or in colours: first half of Ch’ien
Lung period.
2. Rococo ornaments combined with floral patterns: first half of Ch’ien
Lung period.
3. Large shell-like ornaments and scroll edged frames of lattice work,
loosely strung together: early Ch’ien Lung period.
4. Similar motives with more elaborate framework, enclosing diapers,
and interrupted by four peacocks at regular intervals and generally
black and gold: about 1740 to 1760.
5. Black and brown hexagon diaper, edged with dragon arabesques in
gold: an early type of border, but lasting as late as 1780.
6. Composite borders with diapers, symbols, flowers, etc., and
sometimes including butterflies, half Chinese and half European: on
specimens ranging from 1765 to 1820.
This last border pattern was adopted at Coalport and in other English
factories to surround the willow pattern.[467]
In the last decades of the century, such purely European borders as the
swags of flowers used at Bow and Bristol, floral and laurel wreaths
and husk festoons; the pink scale patterns of Meissen; ribbons and
dotted lines winding through a floral band, feather scrolls, etc., of
Sèvres origin, and afterwards adopted at Worcester, Bristol, Lowestoft
and elsewhere in England; blue with gilt edges and gilt stars, as on
the Derby borders, which also derive from Sèvres; and the corn-flower
sprigs of the French hard-paste porcelains.
A conspicuous feature of the Ch’ien Lung export porcelain in general
is the use of a thin, washy pink in place of the thick carmine of the
early _famille rose_. This is a colour common to European porcelain
of the period, and it may have been suggested to the Chinese by
specimens of Western wares. We may, perhaps, note here a design
of Oriental figures (as on the Mandarin porcelain) in pink and red
surrounded by borders of pink scale diaper, broken by small panels of
ornament. It has no connection with the armorial group, but it has
apparently been bandied back and forward from East to West. Based on
a Chinese original, it was largely copied on English porcelain, such
as Worcester, Lowestoft, etc., and apparently services of the English
make found their way east and were copied again at some coast factory,
or even in Japan, for the export trade. Much of this hybrid ware is
found in Australia and on the east coast of Africa, and though the
material and the colours are obviously Oriental, the drawing of the
faces reflects a European touch. The porcelain is coarse and greyish,
and the decoration roughly executed, probably in the first decades of
the nineteenth century.
The trade in Chinese armorial porcelain seems to have gradually died
out in the nineteenth century, for reasons which are not far to seek.
As far as England was concerned, the improvements in the manufacture
both of porcelain and fine earthenware changed her position from that
of a consumer to that of a producer. In addition to which, a high
protective duty must have adversely affected the import trade, for we
read[468] in the notes of Enoch Wood, the Staffordshire potter, that
alarm was felt in 1803 in the potteries at the “proposed reduction of
£59 8s. 6d. per cent. from the duty on the importation of Oriental
porcelain, leaving it at 50 per cent.”
Not the least interesting part of the Franks Collection is the section
devoted to Chinese porcelain decorated in Europe. In the early years
of the eighteenth century a number of enamelling establishments
appeared in Holland and in other countries where glass and pottery were
decorated in the enamel colours which were then coming into play. As
the supply of home-made porcelain was as yet practically non-existent,
the enamellers had to look for this material in the Oriental market.
Chinese porcelains with slight decoration, plain white wares, or those
mainly decorated with incised and carved design under the glaze, and
white Fukien porcelain offered the most suitable surface; and these
we find treated by Dutch enamellers with the decoration then in vogue
among the Delft potters. In the British Museum there are plates with
portraits of Dutch celebrities, with designs satirising John Law’s
bubble, and even with Japanese and Chinese patterns, especially those
which the Delft potters were in the habit of copying from the “old
Imari.” Thus we find the curious phenomenon of Chinese porcelain
decorated in Europe with Oriental patterns, and, as may be imagined,
these pieces have caused much perplexity to collectors. They are,
however, to be recognised by the inferior quality of the enamels and
the stiff drawing of the copyists. In the case of the Fukien porcelain
with relief ornament, the decorators often confined themselves to
touching the raised pattern with colour.
As a rule, these added decorations are crude and unsightly, but there
were artists of great skill among the German _chambrelans_
(as these unattached enamellers were called), such men as Ignatius
Bottengruber and Preussler of Breslau,[469] who flourished about 1720
to 1730. Their designs of figures, mythical subjects, etc., enclosed by
baroque scrollwork, were skilfully executed in _camaieu_ red or
black, heightened with gilding, and their work, which is very mannered
and distinctive, is highly prized at the present day. Occasionally
we find the handiwork of the Dutch lapidary on Chinese porcelains, a
design of birds and floral scrolls being cut through a dark blue or
brown glaze into the white biscuit.
About the middle of the eighteenth century a more legitimate material
was found for the European decorator in small quantities of Chinese
porcelain sent over “in the white.” Regular supplies in this state
must have been forwarded from Ching-tê Chên to Canton for the
enamellers there, and, no doubt, the European merchants were able to
secure a small amount of this. Thus it was that Chinese porcelain is
occasionally found with decoration by artists whose touch is recognised
on Chelsea and other wares. It is not necessary to assume that such
pieces were painted in the Chelsea factory. That may have been the
case, but we know of important enamelling establishments, such as
Duesbury’s in London, where Chelsea, Bow and Worcester porcelains
obtained in the white were decorated to order. It is probable that the
painters trained in this work afterwards passed into the porcelain
factories. There are rare examples of Chinese porcelain with transfer
prints executed at Battersea or even at Worcester, and apparently one
or two pieces have had inscriptions added at Lowestoft; but, after
all, this group of decorated Oriental is a very small one, and the
specimens painted in the style of any particular English factory
except Chelsea could be counted on one’s fingers. No doubt the same
proceedings were repeated in various parts of the Continent, and there
are certainly specimens decorated in the Meissen style, and in one
piece in the Franks Collection the Meissen mark has been added.
But besides this more or less legitimate treatment of Chinese
porcelain, there is a large group of hideously disfigured wares known
by the expressive name of “clobbered china.” On these pieces Chinese
underglaze decoration has been “improved” by the addition of green,
yellow, red, and other enamels and gilding, which fill up the white
spaces between the Chinese painting and even encroach on the blue
designs themselves. This malpractice dates from the early years of the
eighteenth century, and we find even choice specimens of K’ang Hsi blue
and white among the victims. Possibly there was a reaction at this time
against the Chinese blue and white with which the Dutch traders had
flooded the country, but it is pitiful to find nowadays a fine vase or
bottle of this ware plastered with meaningless daubs of inferior colour.
Strange to say, the clobberer became an established institution, and
he was at work in London in the last century, and maybe he is not yet
extinct; and, stranger still, his wretched handiwork has been actually
taken as a model for decoration in English potteries, even to the
ridiculous travesties of Oriental marks which he often added as the
last insult to the porcelain he had defaced. As a rule, the clobbered
decoration occurs on blue and white and follows more or less the lines
of the original, though it is at once betrayed by its clumsiness and
the wretched quality of the enamels used. Occasionally the clobberer
was more ambitious, as on a bottle in the British Museum decorated
with three spirited monsters in underglaze red. Into this admirably
spaced design the clobberer has inserted graceless trees and three
ridiculous figures in classical dress standing in Jack-the-giant-killer
attitudes with brandished swords over the Chinese creatures. The effect
is laughable, but it was vandal’s work to deal in this way with choice
K’ang Hsi porcelain.