JU, KUAN, AND KO WARES
_Ju yao_ [Chinese]
THOUGH no authenticated example of Ju ware is known in Europe, it is
impossible to ignore a factory whose productions were unanimously
acclaimed by Chinese writers as the cream of the Sung wares. Its place
of origin, Ju Chou, in the province of Honan, lies in the very district
which was celebrated in a previous reign for the Ch´ai pottery, and it is
probable that the Ju factories continued the traditions of this mysterious
ware. Nothing, however, is known of them until they received the Imperial
command to supply a _ch´ing_ (blue or green) porcelain to take the place
of the white Ting Chou porcelain which had fallen into temporary disfavour
on account of certain blemishes. This event, which took place towards the
end of the Northern Sung period (960-1127 A.D.), implies that whatever
had been their past history, the Ju Chou factories were at this period
pre-eminent for the beauty of their _ch´ing_ porcelain. It would appear
from the _Ch´ing po tsa chih_,[95] which was written in 1193, that the Ju
Chou potters were set to work in the "forbidden precincts of the Palace,"
and that selected pieces only were offered for Imperial use, the rejected
specimens being offered for sale. Even at the end of the twelfth century
we are assured that it was very difficult to obtain examples of the ware.
From the various accounts on which we have to depend for our conception
of the ware, it is clear that the body was of a dark colour.[96] The
glaze was thick and of a colour variously described as "approaching the
blue of the sky after rain" (i.e. like the Ch´ai ware), pale blue or
green,[97] and "egg white"[98] which seems to imply a white ware with a
faint greenish tinge. The author of the _Ch'ing pi tsang_,[99] a work of
considerable repute published in 1595, gives a first-hand description of
the ware: "Ju yao I have seen. Its colour is 'egg white' and its glaze
is lustrous and thick like massed lard. In the glaze appear faint 'palm
eye' markings like crabs' claws.[100] Specimens with sesamum designs (lit.
flowers), finely and minutely engraved on the bottom, are genuine. As
compared with Kuan yao in material and make, it is more rich and unctuous
(_tzŭ jun_)." Two mysterious peculiarities have been attributed to the Ju
ware, viz. that powdered cornaline was mixed with the glaze, and that a
row of nail heads was sometimes found under the base. The first has been
taken as merely an imaginative explanation of the lustre of the glaze,
but it is certain that some kind of pulverised quartz-like stone was used
in the composition of later glazes, such as the "ruby red" (see vol.
ii., p. 123). The second, which has been seriously interpreted to mean
that actual metal nails were found protruding from the glaze (a physical
impossibility, as the metal would inevitably have melted in the kiln), is
probably due to a misunderstanding of a difficult Chinese phrase, _chêng
ting_,[101] which may mean "engraved with a point" or "cut nails." The
former seems to satisfy the requirements of the case, though it would be
possible to render the sentence, "having sesamum flowers on the bottom and
fine small nails," referring to the little projections often found on the
bottom of dishes which have been supported in the kiln on pointed rests or
"spurs."
In the list of porcelains made at the Imperial potteries about the year
1730[102] we read of imitations of Ju ware from specimens sent down from
the Imperial collections. These imitations had in one case an uncrackled
glaze on a copper-coloured body, and in the other a glaze with crackle
like fish roe; and we may fairly infer that the originals had the same
peculiarities. A reputed specimen[103] of modern Ju glaze[104] has a pale
greyish green tint, with just a suspicion of blue, and would answer fairly
well to the description _tan ch´ing_ or _fên ch´ing_.
But probably our safest clue to the appearance of Ju ware is to be found
in the important passage already mentioned,[105] in which a Sung writer
describes the Corean wares as in general appearance like the old _pi-sê_
ware of Yüeh Chou and the _new_ Ju Chou ware. The typical Corean wares of
this time are not uncommon, and their glaze--a soft grey green or greenish
grey, with a more or less obvious tinge of blue--would satisfy the Chinese
phrases, _tan ch´ing_ and _fên ch´ing_, and in the bluer specimens might,
by a stretch of poetic phrase, even be likened to the sky after rain.
The "egg white," however, must have been a somewhat paler tint if the
expression can be taken in any literal sense.
From the foregoing considerations we may conclude that the Ju porcelain
was a beautiful ware of celadon type, varying in tint from a very pale
green to a bluish green.
Though it is nowhere definitely stated how long the Ju Chou factories
retained their supremacy, it is tolerably clear from Hsü Ching's reference
in 1125, or very soon after, to the "modern porcelain of Ju Chou," that
they came into prominence towards the end of the Northern Sung period,
perhaps in the last half of the eleventh century; and as we have no
further information about them, we may perhaps infer that they sank into
obscurity when the Sung emperors were driven from the North of China by
the invading Tartars in 1127. In any case, the Ju ware seems to have
become as extinct as the Ch´ai by the end of the Ming dynasty. Hsiang
Yüan-p´ien, late in the sixteenth century, states that "Ju yao vessels are
disappearing. The very few which exist are almost all dishes, cups, and
the like, and many of these are damaged and imperfect."[106] A few years
later another writer[107] declares that the Ch´ai and Ju porcelains had
ceased to exist.
It is not to be supposed that Ju Chou had the monopoly of the particular
kind of _ch´ing_ ware in which its factories excelled. A number of other
and not distant potteries were engaged in a similar manufacture, though
with less conspicuous success. We read,[108] for instance, that "it was
made in the districts of T´ang, Têng, and Yao on the north of the (Yellow)
River, though the productions of Ju Chou were the best."
It has been already remarked that we possess no authenticated example
of Ju porcelain. Doubtless there are many pieces which are tentatively
assigned to Ju Chou by hopeful owners. But it must be confessed that the
few which have hitherto been published as such are singularly unfortunate
choices. Dr. B. Laufer, for instance, in his excellent work on jade,[109]
incidentally figures two vases for divining rods of a well-known form, of
which he hazards the remark "that both have presumably been made in the
kilns of Ju-chou."
Dr. Laufer does not claim to have made a particular study of Chinese
ceramics apart from the Han pottery, but if these pieces are Ju yao,
then Ju yao, so far from having been extinct for some centuries, is a
comparatively common ware. Another instance is the "funeral vase," now in
the Victoria and Albert Museum, published[110] by its former owner, Dr.
Bushell, as a specimen of Ju ware, mainly, I suppose, on the strength of
the description, "Kuan Yin vase of Ju Yao," engraved on the stand by the
Chinese collector[111] through whose hands it had previously passed. This
form of certificate is always open to doubt, and had it really been a
specimen of undoubted Ju yao, it is most improbable that the Chinese would
have allowed it at that time to pass into foreign hands.
But a glance at the piece itself is sufficient to dispel all illusions
on that point. So far from excelling other Sung wares, this piece is
decidedly inferior in every detail to the most ordinary Sung specimens.
It has a coarse, sandy, greyish buff body and impure greyish green
tinge, such as appears on some of the early funeral wares which make
no pretence to finished workmanship. The ornament consists of applied
reliefs perfunctorily moulded, and though its archæological interest is
considerable, and, like almost all Chinese wares, it possesses a certain
charm, any attempt to place it on a high artistic plane can only end in a
_reductio ad absurdum_.
Many other examples of this ware have since arrived in Europe, and they
all belong to the same type. Some, however, appear to be later than the
others, having reliefs of white porcelain instead of the usual pottery.
They are always described as "funeral vases" by the Chinese, and it is
exceedingly probable that the description is correct. The subjects of
the reliefs are always of a hieratic kind, including such figures as the
dragon of the East, the tiger of the West, the tortoise of the North, and
the red bird of the South, the sun disc, and a ring of indistinguishable
figures, perhaps Buddhist deities. There is no reason why such a type of
sepulchral vase may not have been in use for many centuries, and if the
porcelain reliefs in one specimen suggest a date no earlier than the Ming
dynasty, the glaze in another has strong analogies to some of the rougher
T´ang wares. The majority of these vases are of coarse, rough make; others
are superior in finish and of comparatively attractive form. A good
example, belonging to Mr. R.H. Benson, is shown on Plate 14. It is of
dense grey stoneware, with opaque greenish grey glaze, with a balustrade
supported by four figures on the shoulder, and a dragon and a figure on
a tiger (perhaps representing the mythical Fêng Kan), besides some small
figures with indistinct attributes on the neck. The height is 20 inches.
It is, of course, possible that some of these represent the coarser
makes of the T´ang, Têng, and Yao districts (see p. 55), and that the
attribution of the Bushell vase by Liu Yen-t´ing may refer to a lower
quality of Ju yao which included these wares, or may be even the wares
made at Ju Chou before or after its period of Imperial patronage.[112]
My own conception of the Ju yao is most nearly realised by the lovely but
sadly damaged bowl in the Alexander Collection lately in the Loan Court
at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Its peculiar form is difficult to
reproduce by photographic means, but Fig. 1 of Plate 16 gives a fair idea
of it. The colour is precisely that of the most beautiful bluish green
Corean bowls, but the usual Corean finish and the sand marks on the base
are absent, and the glaze is broken by a large, irregular crackle. Surely
this cannot be far removed from the "secret colour" of the Yüeh ware and
the _fên ch´ing_ of the Ju?
[Illustration: PLATE 16.
Sung Wares
Fig. 1.--Bowl with six-lobed sides; thin porcellanous ware, burnt brown
at the foot-rim, with bluish green celadon glaze irregularly crackled.
_Alexander Collection._ Diameter 9½ inches.
Fig. 2.--Tripod Incense Burner. White porcelain, burnt pale red under
the feet. P Lung-ch´üan celadon ware. This kind of celadon is known as
_kinuta. seiji_ in Japan, where it is highly prized. _Eumorfopoulos
Collection._ Height 4⅛ inches.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
]
Another specimen of reputed Ju ware is an exquisite peach-shaped
brush-washer or cup in the Eumorfopoulos Collection (Plate 15, Fig.
1). It has a dark-coloured body and a beautiful smooth glaze of pale
greenish grey tint, and whatever its origin, it is certainly a refined and
beautiful example of the potter's art.
_Kuan yao_ [Chinese]
This ware is only second in importance to the Ju yao, and its exact
nature is scarcely less speculative. The name, which means "official" or
"Imperial" ware, seems to have been first applied to the porcelains made
for Imperial use at the Northern Sung capital, the modern K´ai-fêng Fu,
in Honan. The factory was established at the command of the Emperor Hui
Tsung in the Chêng Ho period (1111-1117), according to the earliest[113]
or in the preceding Ta Kuan period (1107-1110), according to a later[114]
account. Its career, however, was interrupted by the flight of the Sung
Court south of the Yangtze in 1127, though it is probable that a number
of the potters followed the Court. At any rate, the traditions of the
original factory were continued at the new capital, Hang Chou, by an
official named Shao Ch´êng-shang, who set up kilns in the Imperial
precincts, in the department called _Hsiu net ssŭ_. Another writer locates
this factory under the Phœnix Hill. Shortly afterwards a new pottery was
started "below the suburban altar" at Hang Chou, which copied the forms of
the older Kuan ware, but without equalling its quality. We have then no
fewer than three different makes all included in the name of Kuan yao, all
following one tradition but differing, as we shall see, in material and
quality.
The first is the K´ai-fêng Fu variety. The earlier writers in the _Cho
kêng lu_ and _Ko ku yao lun_ make no attempt to differentiate[115] this
porcelain from the later Kuan yao, but we find in a sixteenth-century
collection of miscellanies, the _Liu ch´ing jih cha_, the following scrap
of information: that "specimens (of the K´ai-fêng ware) with streaky
colour, white on the upper part and thin as paper, were inferior to Ju
ware"; and the more modern _T´ao lu_ informs us that the K´ai-fêng Kuan
ware was made of fine unctuous material with thin body, the colour of
the glaze being _ch´ing_ (blue or green) with a tinge of pale red (_fên
hung_) and of varying depth of tone. It is further stated that in the Ta
Kuan period moon white or _clair de lune_ (_yüeh pai_), pale green or blue
(_fên ch´ing_) and deep green (_ta lü_) glazes were esteemed, whereas in
the Chêng Ho period only the _ch´ing_ colour in varying depth of tone was
used. Moreover, the glaze had "crab's claw crackle," and the vessels had
a "red-brown mouth and iron foot." The latter phrase (explained below)
is not consistent with the account in the _Liu ch´ing jih cha_, "white
on the upper part," which certainly implies a light-coloured clay, but I
confess that I have little confidence in the subtle distinctions of the
_T´ao lu_ in this passage. They are mere assertions, without any reasons
given, and it is not difficult to find a source from which they may in
part, at least, have been derived, and which in itself guarantees no
such differentiation.[116] It is likely enough that the K´ai-fêng ware
differed in body from the red ware of Hang Chou, but it is not likely to
have differed very greatly in other respects, seeing that the southern
variety continued the traditions of the northern, and that the earliest
authorities do not trouble to distinguish the two wares at all.
Another critic,[117] discussing Kuan ware as a whole, makes its
characteristics practically the same as those of the Ko ware, to which we
shall come next, and states that "in regard to colour, in both cases the
pale ch´ing (_fên ch´ing_) specimens are the best, the 'pale white' (_tan
pai_[118]) are second, while those with ash-coloured (_hui sê_) glaze are
very inferior." From the same writer we gather that artificial staining
of the crackle was employed on both Kuan and Ko wares, for he speaks of
"ice-crackle with lines red as eel's blood" and "plum-blossom[119] crackle
with ink-coloured lines," besides an inferior type of crackle with fine
lines which did not suggest any particular pattern.
The Hang Chou Kuan ware, variously described as _Kuan yao_, _Hsiu nei ssŭ
yao_, _Nei yao_, and _Shao yao_ from the locality of the factory and the
name of its manager, is described in both the _Cho kêng lu_ and the _Ko
ku yao lun_. In the former it was said to be a _ch´ing_ ware, "finely
levigated clay[120] is the rule, and it is of very exquisite make; the
coloured glaze is translucent[121]; it is the delight of the age."[122]
The latter,[123] which makes no mention of an earlier Kuan ware, gives
the following description of the _Nei yao_: "The material is fine and
unctuous, the colour _ch´ing_ with a flush of pale red (_tai fên hung_)
and of varying intensity. Specimens with crab's-claw crackle, brown
mouth, and iron foot, and of good colour rank with Ju yao. There are,
besides, specimens with a black body which are called _wu ni yao_. All the
imitations which are made at Lung-ch´üan are without crackle."
Further information is given in the _Po wu yao lan_, viz. that the clay
used at the factory below the Phœnix Hill at Hang Chou for making Kuan yao
was of reddish brown (_tzŭ_) colour, and that this explains the phenomenon
of the "brown mouth and iron foot"[124]; for "the brown mouth is due to
the fact that the vessel's mouth points upwards and the glaze flows
downwards and is thinner at the mouth than on the rest of the body, so
that the brown colour (of the clay) is disclosed at the mouth." The iron
foot is, of course, the raw edge of the clay which appears at the foot
rim. As this peculiarity is not noted in the _Cho kêng lu_, we are at
liberty to infer that it was not a constant feature of the Kuan wares, and
that some of them, as already hinted in the quotation from the _Liu ch´ing
jih cha_, had a whitish body.
Of the third Kuan yao made "below the suburban altar" at a slightly later
date, we know nothing except that it followed the style of the older
wares, but with inferior results.
Though we do not pretend to attach much weight to the illustrations in
Hsiang's Album, the descriptions in the accompanying text cannot be
ignored. They include ten specimens of Kuan yao,[125] five of which are
explained as _fên ch´ing_ (pale blue or green). Of the rest one is "pale
_ch´ing_ clear and lustrous like a sapphire blue jewel,"[126] evidently
with a decidedly blue tinge; another is "kingfisher, blue as the clear
blue sky,"[127] recalling the Ch´ai "blue of the sky after rain "; another
is "sky blue" (_t´ien ch´ing_); another "onion green" (_ch´ing ts´ung_),
the colour of onion sprouts; and another is "egg green" (_luan ch´ing_),
which recalls and perhaps explains the _luan pai_ (egg white) of the Ju
yao.
[Illustration: PLATE 17
Two examples of Sung wares of the Chün or Kuan factories.
Fig. 1.--Bowl with lavender glaze, lightly crackled. _O. Raphael
Collection._ Height 4½ inches.
Fig. 2.--Vase with smooth lavender grey glaze suffused with purple.
_Eumorfopoulos Collection._ Height 3¾ inches.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
]
Among the various Sung and Yüan wares with more or less opalescent glazes
which have reached Europe in recent years, it is possible to differentiate
a considerable group whose characteristics seem to point to the Kuan yao.
Their body is usually of fine grain, whitish colour and porcellanous
texture, but assuming a rusty brownish tint in the exposed parts. It is,
in fact, very much finer than the Yüan wares, usually so called, and
all but the choicest wares of Chün type (see ch. ix.). The glaze, too,
though generally opalescent, shows marked differences from that of the
Chün and Yüan pieces. It is smooth and even instead of being lumpy and
irregular, and it ends close up to the foot rim in a comparatively
regular line instead of ending short of the base in a thick roll or in
heavy drops. And the base instead of being quite bare or covered with a
brown glaze, has a patch of the surface glaze underneath. The colours of
this glaze show wide variations from a deep brownish green, which suggest
the _ta lü_, to pale dove grey (_fên ch´ing_) and pale lavender blue
tints, which approximate to the Chinese _t´ien ch´ing_ or sky blue, though
perhaps not so closely as does the so-called "old turquoise." Some of
these glazes, especially the pale lavender and dove greys, are broken by
passages of red or crimson, which in turn shade off into green and brown
tints. Although the expression _tai fên hung_ in the _Ko ku yao lun_[128]
has already been rendered in its most natural sense, "with a tinge of
red," we should perhaps mention a possible alternative which might make
it refer to these very passages of red colour; and the fact that they
sometimes assume fantastic shapes will explain why the Chinese saw in them
"butterflies, birds, fish, unicorns, and leopards."[129] On the other
hand, it is clear that these passages of red are not always accidental,
for they sometimes take symmetrical forms, and it is quite possible
that even the bird and fish forms may have been roughly designed in the
colouring medium.
Plate 17 will serve to illustrate this group of possible Kuan wares.
Another example is a dish in the British Museum which has a whitish
porcellanous body and a slightly crackled pale lavender grey glaze of
singular beauty. Other specimens in the same collection include a small
tea bowl with misty grey glaze of the _fên ch´ing_ type, smooth and
uncrackled, and a body which appears deep reddish brown at the foot; and a
small bottle-shaped vase, with lobed body of melon shape, which, though of
doubtful antiquity, answers closely to the Chinese descriptions. It has a
dark-coloured but well levigated body, deep brown at the foot, and showing
a brown tinge where the glaze has run thin at the lip, and the colour
is a pale bluish grey with rosy tinges where the body colour is able to
penetrate the semi-translucent glaze. Another doubtful specimen, with very
similar characteristics, was figured by me in the _Burlington Magazine_
some years ago.[130]
Since the genuine Sung specimens were sent to the Imperial factories to
be closely copied (about 1730), it might be supposed that the relatively
modern imitations would supply some clue to the original types. There
are one or two examples of eighteenth-century copies of Kuan ware in the
British Museum on which the glaze is definitely lavender blue in tint,
with a crackle which in one case is wide and emphasised by blackened
lines, and in the other of a finer mesh.[131] The natural tendency,
however, of modern imitative wares is to exaggerate some characteristic
which this or that potter might imagine to be specially important, and as
it is impossible to say in many cases exactly when the piece in question
was made, we cannot be sure how far the potters in each case may have
strayed from the original type.[132] No doubt in time these imitations
would become a mere convention. It should be said in passing that the
modern copies have a white porcelain body, and to obtain the appearance of
"brown mouth and iron foot" the potters had recourse to the expedient of
colouring the parts concerned with brown ferruginous clay.
The _Cho kêng lu_[133] refers to three minor wares which were regarded
as inferior to Kuan ware, and later writers have assumed that they
belonged to the same category. These are the Hsü wares, Yü-hang wares, and
_wu-ni_ wares. The first[134] is so little known that its identity has
been lost in variant readings, such as Hsün [Chinese] in later writers,
which is very near in appearance to _tung_ [Chinese], a common form used
for the Tung ware (see p. 82); and we can safely leave it until some
clearer information is forthcoming. The second, according to the _T´ao
lu_,[135] was a Sung ware made at Yü-hang Hsien, in the prefecture of
Hang Chou. "Its colour was like Kuan porcelain without its crackle, its
lustre (_jung_), and its unctuous richness (_jun_)." The _wu-ni_ ware is
dark-bodied earthenware, which is discussed on p. 133.
[Illustration:
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Plate 18.--Sung dynasty.
Fig. 1.--Bowl with engraved peony design under a brownish green celadon
glaze. Northern Chinese. Diameter 7¾ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
Fig. 2.--Vase moulded in form of a lotus flower, dark grey stoneware,
burnt reddish brown, milky grey glaze, closely crackled. Height 7 inches.
_Freer Collection._]
_Ko yao_ [Chinese]
_Ko yao_ (the elder brother's ware), or _Ko ko yao_, as it is sometimes
called with the first character repeated, is unanimously ranked by Chinese
writers with the Ju and Kuan wares. According to the traditional accounts,
it was first made by the elder of the two brothers Chang [Chinese],
who were potters of Lung-ch´üan Hsien in the Ch´u-chou Fu, province of
Chekiang, each having a separate factory in the Liu-t´ien district. Most
of the Chinese authorities are content to give the date of these brothers
as some time in the Sung dynasty, but one account[136] narrows the period
down to the Southern Sung (1127-1279 A.D.). Professor Hirth takes the
rationalistic view that the story of the brothers is a myth embodying the
fact that there were two distinct types of ware made in the Lung-ch´üan
district. Be this as it may, the Ko yao is of considerable interest to us
as forming a link between the obscure Ju and Kuan wares and the well-known
Lung-ch´üan celadon, approaching the latter in its grass green and sea
green varieties and the former in its most highly prized specimens of
bluish green or grey tones.
Of its close resemblance to the Kuan ware there can be no doubt, for
two highly reputable Chinese writers[137] describe the two wares
simultaneously and under one heading, enumerating their various colours
in order of merit as _fên ch´ing_, _tan pai_, and _hui sê_ (see p. 60),
besides mentioning the several kinds of crackle which appeared in the
glaze. The only distinctions which the author of the _Ch´ing pi ts´ang_
draws between the two wares are that (1) the Kuan yao crackle is of the
"crab's claw"[138] type, while that of the Ko is like fish-roe,[139] and
(2) the Ko glaze is somewhat less beautiful than the Kuan. With regard
to the crackle, other writers assert that short cracks are characteristic
of the Ko yao, and one author uses the picturesque phrase, "crackle of a
hundred dangers."[140]
Accidental splashes of contrasting colour, which sometimes assumed
fantastic forms, were common to the Ko and Kuan wares, as mentioned on p.
65, and the author of the _Po wu yao lan_ explains these as "originating
in the colour of the glaze and forming on its outer surface," and as "due
to the fire's magic transmutation."
Another account of the ware given in the _Ko ku yao lun_ depicts it as of
deep or pale _ch´ing_ colour, with brown mouth and iron foot, and adds
that when the colour was good it was classed with Tung[141] ware. The same
passage further informs us that a great quantity of the ware "recently
made at the end of the Yüan dynasty" was coarse and dry in body and
inferior in colour, a statement to which we shall return presently.
[Illustration: PLATE 19.
Vase of close-grained, dark reddish brown stoneware with thick, smooth
glaze, boldly crackled. Ko ware of the Sung dynasty.
Height 10⅝ inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]
Other descriptive references to Ko yao include a verse on a Ko ink
palette belonging to Ku Liu,[142] which was "green (_lü_) as the waves in
spring"; the eighteenth-century list of Imperial wares[143] which mention
"Ko glazes on an iron body," of two kinds, viz. millet-coloured and
pale green[144] (or blue), both stated to have been copied from ancient
specimens sent down from the palace; and a single specimen in Hsiang's
Album, which is given as _fên ch´ing_.
In these various descriptions it is possible to recognise a celadon green
ware, green as the waves of spring, while the familiar stone grey and
buff crackled wares, which range from greyish white to pale grey green
and greenish yellow, seem to be indicated in the expressions _mi sê_,
_fên ch´ing_, _tan pai_, and _hui sê_. The modern versions of the latter
class, which are fairly common, are usually known even to-day as _Ko yao_,
the expression in potter's language being practically synonymous with
"crackled wares."[145] Other ancient factories where similar wares were
made are Hsiang-hu and Chi Chou.[146]
As for the finer Ko wares, which appear to have been indistinguishable
from the Kuan, we may look for them in the group described on p. 65,
and in such beautiful pieces as that illustrated on Plate 19, a vase
of fine oval form with delicate grey glaze of faint bluish tone boldly
crackled. The solid quality of the glaze of this last specimen and the
texture of the surface, which is smooth but lustrous, suggest some natural
substance such as the shell of an egg or a smooth polished stone rather
than an artificial material. The colour perhaps more truly answers the
description "egg white" (_luan pai_) than any other Sung glaze which I
have seen. Plate 20 illustrates another choice example but with a yellower
tone of glaze; and a large square vase in the Freer Collection[147] with
thick, misty grey glaze showing a faint tinge of red, which recall the
_sê ch´ing tai fên hung_ of the Kuan ware, was shown in the New York
exhibition of 1914. All these three specimens have a dark reddish brown
body of fine close grain, and their glaze is very thick and unctuous with
a tendency to contract into thick wax-like drops under the base.
From certain passages in the Chinese works it appears that a revival of
the Ko yao took place in the Yüan dynasty, if indeed the manufacture
had not been continuous. The _Ko ku yao lun_, for instance, under the
heading of Ko yao, states that the "ware recently made at the end of
the Yüan dynasty was coarse and dry in body and inferior in colour." In
the _Po wu yao lan_[148] we read that "certain Ko wares made in private
factories took their clay from the Phœnix Hill" (at Hang Chou, where the
Kuan potteries were located), and the _T´ao lu_[149] definitely states
that clay was brought from Hang Chou for this later Ko ware. Add to these
the remark in the _Ko ku yao lun_ on the subject of Kuan ware[150]--"all
the imitations which are made at Lung-ch´üan are without crackle"--and
it is clear that the Lung-ch´üan potters in the fourteenth century were
busy copying both the Kuan and Ko wares, and that to obtain a closer
resemblance to the former they actually sent to Hang Chou for the red clay
which would produce the "brown mouth and iron foot." The alleged absence
of crackle would indicate a departure from the original Ko methods, but
we are at liberty to doubt the universal application of such sweeping
statements, and I ventured to suggest[151] that a remarkable bowl in the
British Museum was a Yüan example of Ko ware, because, in spite of its Ko
crackle, it corresponds so closely to the other points in the descriptions
of this make. In any case, there is little doubt that it belongs to an
early period of manufacture.
[Illustration: PLATE 20.
Deep Bowl of reddish brown stoneware with thick, boldly crackled glaze. Ko
ware of the Sung dynasty.
Height (without stand) 4 inches. _Eumorfopoulos Collection._
]
The following extract from a work entitled _Pi chuang so yü_,[152] which
would be still more interesting if we knew its date, serves to illustrate
some of the difficulties the Chinese collector had to face in the past:
"Ancient examples of Ko yao of the Sung period have survived, though for
a long time past genuine and counterfeit have been confused together.
Among men there are very many who seek for the genuine Sung, but refined
and beautiful specimens are exceedingly few.... Ts´ao Chiung, a man of
high birth, secured an incense burner, in height about two inches and in
width proportionate. The cover was beautiful jade carved with a pattern
of sea waves of _Tung ch´ing_[153] colour, with a handle in form of a
crane, a genuine piece, and exceedingly beautiful. It came to the ears
of the eunuch Mai, governor of the district, and he put Chiung in prison
and subjected him to the inquisition. His son had no choice but to offer
the vessel as a gift. Later the powerful hand of the superintendent of
the Board of Rites seized it. In the Chêng Tê period (1522-66) it was
stolen, and, coming to the district below Wu, it became the property of
Chang Hsin-fu of Tien-shan, Shanghai, who sold it for 200 ounces of gold.
After that it came again into the hands of a connoisseur, and the Imperial
authorities in the end did not succeed in recovering it. This was a
genuine antique Ko vessel."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 95: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 9 verso. We gather
from this passage that Ju Chou potters were summoned to the Imperial
precincts at K´ai-fêng Fu; for Ju Chou itself is some distance from the
capital.]
[Footnote 96: The _Liu ch´ing jih cha_--a Ming work quoted in the _T´ao
shuo_--describes it as "in colour like Ko ware, but with a faint yellowish
tinge"; and the more modern _T´ao lu_ (bk. vi., fol. 2) speaks of it as
having "clay fine and lustrous like copper."]
[Footnote 97: [Chinese] _tan ch'ing_, according to the _Ko ku yao lun_.]
[Footnote 98: [Chinese] _luan pai_; according to the _Po wu yao lan_. Of
three specimens figured in Hsiang's Album (op. cit., pp. 19, 22 and 34),
two are described as _yü lan_ (i.e. sky blue), and _fên ch'ing_ (pale blue
or green), and the third is undescribed.]
[Footnote 99: Pt. i., fols. 8 and 9.]
[Footnote 100: It is not clear what these markings were, whether spots in
the glaze or a kind of crackle. The simile of "crabs' claws" is applied to
crackle in other passages.]
[Footnote 101: [Chinese]]
[Footnote 102: This interesting list, given in the _Chiang hsi t'ung
chih_, bk. xciii., fol. ii., is summarised in vol. ii., ch. xii. It is
also quoted in the _T'ao lu_, and translated by Bushell, _O.C.A._, p. 369.]
[Footnote 103: See Bushell, _O.C.A._, plate 77.]
[Footnote 104: In a passage referring to modern imitations, the _T´ao lu_
(bk. vii., fol. 10) states that "at Ching-tê Chên, the makers of the large
vases known as _kuan ku_ (imperial antiques) for the most part imitate
the colour of Ju yao glaze. Beautiful specimens of these (imitations) are
commonly called 'blue of the sky after rain.'"]
[Footnote 105: P. 39. Account of a mission to Corea in 1125 by Hsü Ching.]
[Footnote 106: Hsiang's Album, op. cit., Fig. 19.]
[Footnote 107: Son of the author of the _Ch´ing pi tsang_. His father (see
p. 53) declared that he had seen Ju porcelain.]
[Footnote 108: In the _Cho kêng lu_, published in 1368, but of special
interest because it repeats the statements of a Sung writer, Yeh-chih,
author of the _Yüan chai pi hêng_.]
[Footnote 109: Op. cit., plate 20.]
[Footnote 110: Cosmo Monkhouse, _Chinese Porcelain_, plate 1, and Bushell,
_Chinese Art_, vol. ii., pg. 7.]
[Footnote 111: Liu Yen-t´ing.]
[Footnote 112: It would seem as if the manufacture had never entirely
ceased at Ju Chou, for we read in Richard's Geography, p. 61, "The
environs (of Ju Chou) were formerly very industrial, but have lost their
activity. The manufacture of common pottery is still carried on and gives
it some importance."]
[Footnote 113: The _Cho kêng lu_, published in 1368, but based on a
thirteenth-century Sung work (see p. 55).]
[Footnote 114: The _T´ao lu_ (bk. vi., fol. 2 verso). It is obvious that
the term Kuan yao (Imperial ware) is liable to cause confusion, as it
might be--and indeed was--equally applied to any ware made at any time at
the Imperial factory. In recognition of this fact the Sung Kuan yao was
sometimes named in later writers _Ta Kuan_ [Chinese] ware, after the Ta
Kuan period.]
[Footnote 115: A passage quoted in _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 13, from an
eighteenth-century work, the _Wên fang ssŭ k´ao_, forms a commentary on
this attitude. "The old capital Kuan factory," It says, "had only a brief
existence, so that we must consider the _Hsiu nei ssŭ_ make to be first
and the 'recent wares' to be second."]
[Footnote 116: The list of wares made at the Imperial factories at
Ching-tê Chên about 1730, and published in the _Chiang hsi t´ung chih_
(vol. xciii., fol. 11), refers to the imitation of Kuan wares as follows:
"Ta Kuan glazes on an iron-coloured body. These are three kinds--yüeh
pai, fên ch´ing, ta lü--all imitating the colour and lustre of Sung ware
sent to (or from) the palace (_nei fa sung ch´i_)." There is no reason to
suppose that _Ta Kuan_ here is more than a mere synonym for _Kuan_ (ware).]
[Footnote 117: Chang Ying-wên in the _Ch´ing pi tsang_, published in 1595.]
[Footnote 118: [Chinese] a phrase which is not very lucid. In fact, I
suspect a confusion with another _tan_ [Chinese], which means "egg," and
would give the sense "egg white," like the _luan pai_ of the Ju yao.]
[Footnote 119: On the subject of crackle, see vol. ii., p. 197. The idea
of a crackle assuming the form of round four- or five-petalled flowers
like plum blossoms was carried out by the Ch´ien Lung potters on some of
the medallion bowls (see vol. ii., p. 244), with a ground of bluish green
enamel on which a network of lines and plum blossoms was traced in black.]
[Footnote 120: [Chinese] _Ch´êng ni_, lit. "pure, limpid, or clear clay,"
an expression which is explained in the _T´ao shuo_ (bk. i., fol. 4 verso)
as "refined earth," the word _ch´êng_ (or _ling_) being equivalent to
[Chinese] _t´ao_, which means to wash.]
[Footnote 121: [Chinese] _jung ch´ê_, lit. "brilliant penetrate, or
brilliant right through."]
[Footnote 122: The age is here probably the Sung period, for we must
bear in mind that the author of the _Cho kêng_ lu is practically quoting
verbatim from the Sung writer Yeh-chih.]
[Footnote 123: _Ko ku yao lun_, bk. vii., fol. 22.]
[Footnote 124: It may also explain the ruddy tinge of the green glaze,
which, being transparent, would allow the reddish brown body colour to
show through in the thinner parts.]
[Footnote 125: An early sixteenth-century work, the _Tu kung t´an tsuan_
(quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 8 verso) tells of a Chinese
sybarite Li Fêng-ming, who held a "lotus flower banquet. There were
crystal tables twelve in number, and on them a series of vessels, all of
Kuan porcelain, a display of elegance rarely seen at any time."]
[Footnote 126: _Ya ku ch´ing pao shih._ _Ya ku_ is explained by
Bretschneider (_Mediæeval Researches_, vol. i., p. 174) as equivalent to
the Arabic _yakut_, and meaning a corundum, of which the Chinese recognise
various tints, including deep blue, pale blue, muddy blue, besides yellow
and white.]
[Footnote 127: _Ch´ing ts´ui jo yü lan t´ien._]
[Footnote 128: _Sê ch´ing tai fên hung._ A more literal rendering of this
phrase is "the colour of the glaze is _ch´ing_, with a tinge of red,"
which would refer to the reddish tone of a pale lavender glaze. On the
other hand, the word _tai_ is apparently used to describe the contrasting
colours in parti-coloured jade and agate, e.g. _huang sê tai t´u pan_
in Laufer (_Jade_, p. 140) to describe "yellow jade with earthy spots,"
and again (op. cit., p. 142), _ch´ing yü tai hei sê_, "green jade with
passages of black colour."]
[Footnote 129: _Po wu yao lan_ (quoted in the _T´ao shuo_, vol. iii., fol.
13 verso). These accidental effects are mentioned on both the Kuan and Ko
wares, and are said to be either of a yellowish or a brownish red tint.]
[Footnote 130: "Wares of the Sung and Yüan Dynasties," _Burlington
Magazine_, May, 1909, Plate i., fig. 4.]
[Footnote 131: See _Burlington Magazine_, May, 1909, Plate i., fig. 28;
Plate ii., fig. 6.]
[Footnote 132: Speaking of the imitations of Kuan yao early in the
nineteenth century, the _T´ao lu_ (bk. ii., fol. 10) remarks: "Originally
there were special departments for imitating Kuan yao. Now, only the
imitators of the crackled wares make it. As for the imitations made at the
(Imperial) factory, they are more beautiful," sc. than those made in the
private factories.]
[Footnote 133: Bk. xxix., fol. 11.]
[Footnote 134: The word _Hsü_ [Chinese] has the meaning "continuation,"
and if it be not a place-name at present unidentified, it might
conceivably be "the continuation or later Kuan ware."]
[Footnote 135: Bk. vii., fol. 6 verso.]
[Footnote 136: The _Ch´i hsiu lei k´ao_, quoted by Hirth, _Ancient Chinese
Porcelain_, p. 37.]
[Footnote 137: The authors of the _Po wu yao lan_ and the _Ch´ing pi
ts´ang_.]
[Footnote 138: [Chinese] _hsieh chao wên_, a debatable phrase, which seems
best explained as a large irregular crackle resembling the tangle of claws
seen on the top of a basket of crabs.]
[Footnote 139: [Chinese] _Yü tzŭ_. A crackle of finer mesh, which French
writers describe as _truité_, or resembling the scales of a trout.]
[Footnote 140: [Chinese] _pai chi sui_, used by the author of the _P´ai
shih lei p´ien_; see other references in the _T´ao shuo_ and the _T´ao
lu_.]
[Footnote 141: See p. 82.]
[Footnote 142: Quoted in the _T´ao shuo_ (bk. v., fol. 9 verso).]
[Footnote 143: See vol. ii., p. 223.]
[Footnote 144: [Chinese] [Chinese] _mi sê fên ch´ing_. _Mi sê_ is rendered
in Giles's Dictionary, "Straw colour, the colour of yellow millet," and
all Chinese authorities whom I have questioned agree that it is a yellow
colour. Bushell in much of his published work rendered it "rice coloured,"
following Julien's _couleur du riz_, and others, including myself, have
been misled by this rendering. Bushell, however, in a note in Monkhouse's
_Chinese Porcelain_, p. 67, which is quoted at length in vol. ii., p. 220,
pronounces in favour of the rendering yellow. The difficulty of finding
a true yellow among the Sung wares to support the comparison with yellow
millet has further complicated the question. The vase in the Victoria
and Albert Museum, which is figured in Monkhouse (fig. 22) as a specimen
of old _mi sê_, is probably a Yung Chêng reproduction of the Sung type.
It has a stone-coloured crackle glaze, overlaid with a brownish yellow
enamel, a technique which is foreign to the Sung wares. Possibly one type
of Sung _mi sê_ was illustrated by the "shallow bowl with spout, of grey
stoneware with opaque glaze of pale sulphur yellow," which Mr. Alexander
exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1910 (Cat. K. 18). Another
kind is described by Bushell in the catalogue of the Morgan collection
(p. 38) as follows: "Shallow bowl (_wan_). Greenish yellow crackled
glaze of the Sung dynasty, leaving a bare ring at the bottom within. A
specimen of ancient _mi sê_ or millet-coloured crackle from the Kiang-hsi
potteries. Formerly the possession of His Excellency Chang Yinhuan. D. 6
inches." Specimens of this type, with greenish and brownish yellow crackle
glaze, have been found in Borneo, where they have been reputed to be of
enormous age; there are several examples in the British Museum. The Hirth
collection in the Gotha Museum includes four high-footed bowls of brownish
yellow colour which seem to belong to this class.]
[Footnote 145: As explained in the _T´ao lu_ (bk. ii., fol. 10 verso): "At
Ching-tê Chên there is no special factory devoted to the imitation of Ko
yao, but the manufacturers of crackled wares make it in addition to their
own special line, and that is why they have the general name of Ko yao
houses (_Ko yao hu_). Formerly, the manufacturers were acquainted with
the origin of the word, but nowadays those who imitate Ko yao only copy a
fixed model without knowing why it is called Ko yao."]
[Footnote 146: The Hsiang-hu wares were imitated at Ching-tê Chên in
the Imperial factory about 1730. T´ang Ying himself gives the following
note on them in the _T´ao Ch´êng shih yü kao_, written about this time:
"Twenty _li_ south-west of Ching-tê Chên is a waste place called Hsiang-hu
[Chinese], where there were formerly the foundations of Sung kilns. It
used to be easy to find porcelain (_tz´ŭ_) fragments of old vessels and
waste pieces. The material was very thin, and the ware was evidently
millet-coloured (_mi sê_) and pale green (_fên ch´ing_)." The memoir of
Chiang (1322) states that "the ware was beautiful and lustrous, but not
greatly prized at that time." See _T´ao lu_, bk. viii., fol. 12, and bk.
v., fol. 2. For Chi Chou ware, see p. 98.]
[Footnote 147: See _Chinese_, _Corean_, and _Japanese Potteries_, New
York, Japan Society, 1914 No. 307.]
[Footnote 148: Bk. ii., fol. 4.]
[Footnote 149: Bk. vi., fol. 5 verso.]
[Footnote 150: See above, p. 61.]
[Footnote 151: See _Burlington Magazine_, May, 1909, "Wares of the Sung
and Yüan Dynasties," Plate iii., fig. 11.]
[Footnote 152: Quoted in the _T´ao lu_, bk. ix., fol. 9.]
[Footnote 153: Celadon green; see p. 82.]