Читать книгу: «Porcelain», страница 6

Yuan Dynasty (1280-1368)

Probably at no period during its long history has the Chinese empire been subjected to such a thorough shaking up, to such a complete upsetting and reversal of its ancient ways, as during the advance of the Mongols from the north to the south during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. When they had at length subdued the whole land, there was a moment during the rule of the liberal-minded Kublai Khan when the old barriers and prejudices seemed to have been broken down, and when the Middle Kingdom appeared to be about to enter the general comity of nations. This is what gives to Marco Polo’s account of the country, which he visited at the time, so very ‘un-Chinese’ an air. We hear of Italian friars and French goldsmiths at the court, and of projected embassies from the Pope. Still closer were the relations with the Mohammedan people of Western Asia, then ruled by members of Kublai’s family. Marco Polo, we know, formed part of the escort of Kublai’s sister, when she travelled by sea to Persia to become the bride of the Mongol khan of that country; and a predecessor of this latter ruler, Hulugu, as early as the middle of the thirteenth century, brought over, it is said, as many as a thousand Chinese artificers and settled them in Persia.

And yet when scarcely two generations later the degenerate descendants of Kublai were driven from the imperial throne and replaced by a native dynasty, what slight permanent trace do we see of all these changes reflected in the arts of the Middle Kingdom! No doubt, on looking closely, we should find that a change had taken place during these years: new materials had been brought in, new forms and new decorations applied to the metal ware and the pottery of the Chinese. It is in connection with these two arts especially (and we may add to them the designs on textile fabrics) that we find so many points of interest in the mutual influence of the civilisations of China and Persia at this time. We must remember that in the thirteenth century the craftsman of Persia, as the inheritor of both Saracenic and older traditions, was in many respects ahead of his rival artist in China.

As far as the potter’s art was concerned this was the first meeting of two contrasted schools, which between them cover pretty well the whole field of ceramics—of that part at least of the field in which the glaze is the principal element in the decoration.³⁵

The Persian ware of this time was the culminating example of an art that had been handed down from the Egyptians and the Assyrians. As a rule, among these races, the baser nature of the paste had been concealed by a more or less opaque coating either of a fine clay or ‘slip,’ or of a glaze rendered non-transparent by the addition of tin; it is on this coating that the decoration is painted, to be covered subsequently (in the first case at least, that of the slip ware) by a coating of glaze. It is to this large class, for the most part to the latter or stanniferous division, that nearly all the famous wares of the European renaissance belong, not only the Spanish and Italian majolica but the enamelled fayence of France and Holland as well. It was with the latter two wares that at a later date the porcelain of China was destined to come into competition. Each of these ceramic schools, the Eastern porcelain and the Western fayence, might in certain points claim advantages over the other, advantages both of a practical and of an æsthetic nature. For example, the glory of the Persian fayence of that day lay in its application to architecture, in the brilliant coating of tiles that covered the walls and the domes of the mosques and dwellings both inside and out. The Chinese have never succeeded in making tiles of any size with their porcelain. When used for the decoration of buildings the porcelain, or rather the earthenware, is always in the form of solid, moulded bricks.

But there is another matter with which the Chinese who visited Western Asia at that time cannot fail to have been struck—with the materials, I mean, at the command of the Persians, for the application of colour both under and over the glaze. Of the decorations over the glaze the most important were those given by their famous metallic lustres. This lustre, we now know, was the result of an ingenious process by which a film of copper, or sometimes of silver, was developed on the surface of the glaze.

The Chinese have never attempted anything of the kind, in part because such a method of adornment was foreign to their notions of what was fitting. For we must bear in mind that the influence of the literary tradition in China has always tended towards simplicity of means in their decorative arts, and has been opposed to anything like an ostentatious display of expensive materials. Any marked infringement of this sentiment, even on the part of an emperor, has always called forth a protest from the censors. Another cause which hindered the adoption of the lustre decoration by the Chinese may be found, no doubt, in the difficulties of its practical application. At that time the processes of the muffle-stove for decoration over the glaze were quite unknown to them.³⁶ But the Saracens, in Western Asia, were already in possession of another means of decorating their ware. This they found in the use of cobalt, especially as a material for painting a design on the paste before the application of the glaze. We find this colour at times on the tiles that lined their prayer-niches; these indeed date from a somewhat later time. But there is another variety of Saracenic ware of which a few specimens have survived. I refer to the vases and bowls covered with a thick alkaline glaze, and decorated, in part at least, under the glaze with a design of black lines and some rude patches of blue. These rare vases were formerly classed as Siculo-Moorish, but later research has proved most of them to be of Persian or perhaps rather of Syrian or Mesopotamian origin. They appear to be the work of thirteenth century potters, and some of them may be of even earlier date.³⁷

When we consider that there is no evidence of the use of cobalt by the Chinese for the decoration of their porcelain during Sung times, that indeed the use of colour apart from that of the glaze as a means of decoration appears to have been then unknown; but that, on the other hand, not long after the turmoil of the Mongol invasion and domination—a period during which the two countries, China and Persia, were so closely connected—we find the use of cobalt as a decoration sous couverte firmly established, we may, I think, regard it as not improbable that it was from the Persians that the Chinese learned the new method of decoration.³⁸

The influence of the Saracenic art of Western Asia is indeed now for the first time to be seen in other directions, and we shall find it cropping up here and there during the whole of the following Ming period. It was the source of many new forms which we see now for the first time in China: the graceful water-vessels, for instance, with long necks and curved spouts, copied from the Arab Ibraik. Again, we find this influence at times in the motifs of the conventional floral patterns found on Ming porcelain, though these patterns, indeed, are always mere counterchanges, as it were, upon a field of an unmistakable Chinese stamp (Pl. vi.). All these changes were doubtless regarded as anathema by the Chinese censors, who reminded the rash innovators that the great men of old were content with simple materials and forms, and that they in their wisdom rejected all such meretricious ornament. For it was seriously maintained that had they thought it desirable, these old sages could have commanded all the resources of the later potter, not only the larger field he could draw from for his designs and colours, but the improved paste of his porcelain as well.

On the other hand, the Chinese influence at this time on Persian art was small. By a careful search we may find at times a dragon or a phœnix amid unmistakable Chinese clouds on the spandrel above the arch of a Persian prayer-niche of the fourteenth century, or forming the centre of a star-shaped tile. But the great invasion of Chinese wares and Chinese schemes of decoration belongs, as far as the fictile art of the country is concerned, to a later period, that of Shah Abbas in the early years of the seventeenth century.

It is not unlikely that in China the Western influence did not make much way until the time of the early Ming emperors, and that it was due more immediately to the growing commercial intercourse with the Persian Gulf, but this intercourse was itself fostered by the events of the Mongol invasion.

There is very little to be said of the porcelain made during the time of the Mongol or Yuan dynasty, and we have few specimens that can be definitely assigned to that period. The name is still given in Pekin to a rude, somewhat heavy ware, with a thick glaze of mingled tints, among which a shade of lavender with speckles of red predominates. This is but a modification of the Chün yao of Sung times, and belongs in a general way to the class of ‘transmutation’ wares—those in which the colours depend on the partial reduction of the oxides of iron and copper in the glaze. Specimens of this ware that claim to be of Chinese origin are often found in Japan, where they are much in favour for use as flower vases, but neither in that country nor in China have the pieces we meet with much claim to any great antiquity.

There is only one specimen in the Bushell manuscript that is attributed by Tzu-ching to the Yuan period—this is a little vase of white ware decorated with dragons faintly engraved in the paste under the glaze.

This white ware, generally classed as Ting, is indeed in many of our books on porcelain considered to be especially characteristic of the Mongol dynasty, but I cannot find any definite confirmation of this. The finer pieces of plain white seem to be generally attributed by the Chinese rather to the beginning of the next dynasty. The little white plate in the Dresden Museum, said to have been ‘brought back from the East by a crusader,’ has no claim to such an early date.³⁹

CHAPTER   VI
THE PORCELAIN OF CHINA—(continued)

The Ming Dynasty (1368-1643)

IT was in the course of the three centuries during which the Ming dynasty ruled in China that the greatest advance was made in the manufacture of porcelain. When, however, we come to look a little more closely, we find that this long period may be shortened by nearly a hundred years. Before the accession of Yung-lo (1402), and after the death of Wanli (1619), the times were little favourable to the arts of peace, and even in this shorter period of two centuries there were intervals, indeed whole reigns, of which there is little to report.

The points of chief importance to remember in connection with this dynasty are—1. That not later than the beginning of the fifteenth century the employment of the oxides of copper and cobalt for decoration under the glaze was coming into general use. To this, or perhaps to an earlier date, we must assign the beginnings of the ware that we in England are wont to consider the most important of all, the great family of ‘blue and white’ porcelain. 2. That probably about the same time, or soon after, the ‘painted glazes,’ as we have called them, were introduced. In this ware the colours required for the decoration—the palette was a very restricted one—were painted directly on the biscuit, the piece having been previously fired; it was then re-fired at a moderate heat. 3. That at a later period, probably about the middle of the sixteenth century, the employment of enamel colours above the glaze was introduced, probably under European influence.

It is the blue and white that we are above all accustomed to associate with the Ming period. But this is not the Chinese point of view. If we consult the Bushell manuscript (see chap. v.) we find that Tzu-ching, towards the end of the sixteenth century, had in his collection thirty-nine pieces which he attributed to the reigning dynasty, but of these only five or six would be classed by us as ‘blue and white’; at least equal importance was given to those decorated with copper-red under the glaze, and even more specimens belong to the class of painted glazes. These latter are chiefly little objects—pen-rests, rouge-pots, and small wine-jars moulded to represent plant and animal forms, the gourd or again the persimmon being great favourites. We must not confuse these early specimens, dating mostly from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with the somewhat similar objects so much sought after by the French collectors in the eighteenth century, which belong for the most part to the contemporary famille verte; on these the decoration is given for the most part by enamels painted over the glaze. Still it is from some of these little magots that we can perhaps form the best idea of the coloured porcelain so prized by Tzu-ching, but of which we are unable to point to any specimens in our collections.

In connection with these painted glazes—for it undoubtedly belongs to this class—it may be well to say something of a very decorative ware of which the origin is probably to be placed in early Ming times. The colours are distinctly those of the demi grand feu, and in this ware we have the earliest instance of the use of these colours. This porcelain occurs most frequently in the shape of vases of baluster outline with contracted necks and small mouths, or sometimes of the more ordinary oil-jar shape, with wide mouths. We may distinguish two types of this ware. In the first the decoration is given by means of a low relief of beads and of ribs surrounding countersunk cloisons. The field between these cloisons is of a deep blue passing into a blue-black, and the cloisons themselves are filled with a wash of turquoise or straw-yellow. Chains of pearls in festoon surround the neck, and from these hang pendeloques of various Buddhist emblems. On the body of these vases the decoration often consists of lotus-plants arising from conventional waves.⁴⁰ In the second type the turquoise blue predominates, an impure pale manganese is added, and the jars are often built up of an open-work trellis of bars. Both the turquoise and aubergine purple porcelain of the Kang-he period, as well as the Japanese Kishiu ware, may possibly be traced back to a Ming porcelain of this class. There are specimens of all these wares in the British Museum and at South Kensington. In the Salting collection is a jar of the cloisonné type, the blue-black ground covered with a skin of thin glaze of a dull surface. This jar was formerly the property of a Japanese collector (Pl. ii.).⁴¹

The colours applied under the glaze are confined to cobalt blue and copper red. The latter when fine in tint was greatly prized by the Chinese, and we are informed that in the most brilliant specimens the colour was given by ‘powdered rubies from the West.’ It was, however, a treacherous colour to use, and after the period of Hsuan-te (1425-1435), which was famous for its ruby-red, it fell into comparative disuse and was displaced in a measure at a later date by a more manageable iron red. The use of the copper sub-oxide to obtain a red, sous couverte, was, however, revived in the time of Kang-he. On examples in European collections this red, when used alone or in connection with blue, is generally of a rather poor maroon colour, and it has not found much favour with us. The colour was often thus applied to the painting of fish, floating, it may be, among blue water-weeds. We see it at its best as a monochrome on some little bowls, enlivened with a floral design in gold, in the British Museum. These cups and some similar ones at Dresden undoubtedly date from Ming times; the ruby tint seen through a brilliant glaze has never been equalled in later days. With these we may compare certain little apple-green bowls similarly decorated with gold. One of these in a silver-gilt mounting of the early sixteenth century is in the Gold Room at the British Museum (Pl. v.).

PLATE V. CHINESE

‘Blue and White’ Porcelain

What we somewhat vaguely call ‘blue and white,’ that is porcelain decorated under the glaze with designs painted with cobalt blue, has always formed the most important class in the eyes of European collectors, at least of those of England and Holland. This preference has been even more marked with the people of India and Persia, and no wonder, for no combination of colour more suggestive of coolness could be imagined. It has thus come about that this class of ware, more than any other, has been made with the direct object of exportation. This blue and white porcelain of China and Japan, which has found its way into so many lands both of Europe and Asia, has for centuries had the profoundest influence upon the native wares of these countries, whether of porcelain or of fayence.

In China, by the introduction of this process of freely painting with a brush upon the surface of the paste, the potters art was for the first time brought into contact with that of the painter, and thus fell under new influences. The artists of China at that time were divided into many schools, but what we may call the literary or dilettante influence was predominant, and this influence is reflected in the subjects treated on Ming porcelain—subjects which, as usual in China, were handed on to the ceramic artists of the next dynasty. The earliest decoration in blue and white in no way followed, as far as we know, the hierated types of the old bronze ware. Such motifs we do indeed sometimes see repeated on porcelain, but only on pieces that may safely be attributed to a much later date, especially to the pseudo-archaic revival of Yung-cheng’s time (1722-35).

There is no class of Chinese porcelain to which it is more difficult to assign even an approximate date than to this blue and white ware. We may say at once that the nien-hao, or the characters giving the name of the dynasty and the emperor, so often found inscribed on the base, are in the vast majority of cases of no value for fixing the date, and this is especially true when the name of a Ming emperor is thus found. What is more, these marks, as far as we can judge (from the knowledge we now possess derived from other sources), do not, as we might have expected, even help us in giving hints of the style prevailing at the period indicated by the date. To take but one example, the reign-mark of Cheng-hua (1464-87) is the one most frequently found on the finest pieces of blue and white (in the Salting collection, for instance), but by far the greater number of the pieces so marked undoubtedly date from the beginning of the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the Chinese books all agree in telling us that this Cheng-hua period was noted for a decline in the excellence of the blue, but on the other hand was pre-eminent for its coloured decoration. It was rather the earlier Hsuan-te period (1425-35) that was renowned for the brilliancy of its blue. These statements of the Chinese authorities are confirmed by an analysis of the Ming specimens illustrated in the Bushell manuscript. The Japanese, perhaps a little more rationally, give the preference to the reigns of Hsuan-te and Yung-lo (1402-24), for the date-marks of these emperors (‘Sentoku’ and ‘Yeiraku’ in the Japanese reading) are to be read on the commonest modern blue and white in domestic use in that country.

This is a point that cannot be too strongly dwelt upon. Perhaps if a little more of the care and research that have been devoted to the reading of these nien-hao and other inscriptions on Chinese porcelain had been earlier directed to a careful examination of the glazes and enamels, and to questions of technique generally, the misconceptions that so long prevailed as to the dating and classification of Oriental porcelain would have been sooner dispelled.

But what means have we then for settling the date of a piece of Chinese blue and white ware? What criterion is there for distinguishing between specimens of early Ming, late Ming, or Manchu times?—or indeed between those of Chinese and Japanese origin? That we even now possess no very exact criterion is shown by the wide difference of opinion so often found in individual cases. If we are to form our judgment from the rare extant pieces of blue and white known to have been imported into Europe in the sixteenth century, we must regard the Ming ware as distinguished by a certain irregularity of surface, seen best by side-reflected lights; the pieces are generally moulded, and the marks of the lines of junction of the moulds are often to be traced on the surface; the paste, too, is generally very thick, and sometimes shows gaping fissures at the margin. The drawing of the design is somewhat hasty and summary, although at times distinguished by a freshness of handling and by a certain caligraphic freedom. But we must not draw too hasty an inference from the few specimens in our European collections, many of which must have been made, as we shall see later on, at a period of temporary decline; nor are we justified in regarding mere articles of commerce, as most of these specimens undoubtedly were, as representative of the higher artistic products of the time.

The blue in these early pieces is generally of a full tint but not of any remarkable quality. There are, however, to be found a few specimens, heavily moulded indeed and of irregular contour, decorated with cobalt blue of a full sapphire tint. Of this class there are one or two brilliant specimens both in the British Museum and at South Kensington. In these and in other Ming wares the surface of the glaze is often dulled, and this is not always the result of minute scratches, for sometimes a process of devitrification appears to have set in.⁴² Another class of Ming ware is distinguished by a decoration delicately painted in a pale blue tint, and it was this style that was copied by the Japanese in their Mikawaji ware of the seventeenth century.

It is to later Ming times that we must attribute the bulk of the rough heavy ware of which so much is found in India.⁴³ These are generally large plates and bowls, often discoloured from having been used for cooking purposes. The decoration is hastily executed in a dull indigo blue (derived of course from cobalt, as in other cases), and the outlines are often accentuated by black lines. Many fine specimens of this picturesque ware, from the collection of Mrs. Halsey, were shown in the exhibition of blue and white ware at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1895. It was claimed for one large vase that it came from the palace of the Moguls at Agra, and that it had been presented to Jehangir by the Chinese emperor Wan-li (1572-1619). It is often stated that this class of ware was made at some factory in the south of China, probably in the neighbourhood of Canton, the port from which doubtless most of it was exported. As yet, however, no evidence, as far as I am aware, for such a factory has been brought forward, and no definite locality indicated. The statement made by the Abbé Raynal, about a factory at Shao-king Fu, rests probably upon a misconception.

PLATE VI. CHINESE, BLUE AND WHITE WARE

There are several specimens of blue and white in England, the metal mountings of which date from the early seventeenth or even from the sixteenth century. Of these the most famous are the four pieces from Burleigh House (now belonging to Mr. Pierpont Morgan), which are believed to have been in the possession of the Cecil family from the time of Queen Elizabeth. One of these bears the date-mark of Wan-li, the contemporary of that queen. This ware is not particularly fine, the surfaces are irregular, and all the pieces are apparently moulded (Pl. xxviii.).

This subject, however, of the early presence of Chinese porcelain in other lands we shall return to in a later chapter.

So far, then, with such imperfect lights as are at our command, we have attempted to follow up the history of porcelain, and so far, say up to the middle of the sixteenth century, China is practically the only country with which we are concerned. Some fair imitations of celadon, the martabani of Oriental commerce, had probably by this time been made in Siam and perhaps elsewhere, and the Japanese were already in a sporadic way experimenting with imported and native clays. But up to the sixteenth century the Chinese had practically the monopoly of the art, and as we have seen they had at that time the command of three processes of decoration—that is by monochrome glazes, by painting with glazes of a few simple colours on the biscuit, and finally by means of cobalt blues and copper reds painted on the surface of the raw paste.

Not but that some attempts may have already been made to apply coloured decoration over the glaze—the next and final step in the history of porcelain. There are some passages in contemporary Chinese books, giving descriptions of elaborate subjects painted in many colours on porcelain of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which it would be difficult to apply to our class of painted glazes. Thus—to take a pronounced instance from an unexceptionable source—the miniature wine-cups, No. 59 of the Bushell manuscript, are attributed by Tzu-ching to the reign of Cheng-hua (1464-87), and he describes them thus—‘They are painted in enamel colours’ (so Dr. Bushell translates the original) ‘with flowers and insects; … the cockscomb, the narcissus and other flowers, the flying dragon-fly and crawling mantis are minutely painted after life in green, yellow, and crimson enamel.’ (This, by the way, is a combination of colours which it must have been difficult to apply at one firing with the pigments known at that time.) And yet in the absence of any specimen of enamelled ware (using the word enamel in its restricted sense for a decoration applied over the glaze) that can with certainty be attributed to so early a period, it will be safer to postpone the date of the introduction of this decoration, sur couverte, for another hundred years.

It will be remembered that the distinctive feature of this decoration with enamels is the use of an easily fusible silicate, containing much lead—in fact a kind of flint glass. A glass of this description is capable of being stained by the addition of small quantities of certain metallic oxides, some of which would not stand the heat requisite for the firing of the porcelain. This, in fact, is the application to porcelain of the arts of the glass-stainer and of the enameller, arts already at this time fully developed in the West. For once the Chinese authorities all agree in finding in an exotic and indeed Western art the origin of their enamelled porcelain. When, however, we attempt to interpret their statements we are landed in an even more than customary chaos—so many are the different readings for the names of foreign countries and for technical processes.

Let us then consider for a moment what the materials were that the Chinese had to draw from—whether from Arab or other sources.

Putting aside the application of stained glass to windows, for specimens of this art are not easily exported, these may be summed up as, first, the enamelled glass of the Saracens, and secondly, the cloisonnés and champlevés enamels of the Byzantines and other Western nations.

As to the first—the application of coloured and easily fusible enamels to the surface of glass, which was then exposed to a second firing—this process had been used by the Arabs for the decoration of their mosque lamps and other vessels probably as early as the twelfth century, and this was an art identical in its system with the application of the same colours to the surface of porcelain. The beauty of the effect cannot have failed to have struck the Chinese if they had had any opportunity of seeing the finer specimens. But the material was fragile, and apart from a statement by M. Scherer that glass was exported from Aleppo to China,⁴⁴ I cannot find in the accounts of the Arab trade of the time any record of such ware being imported into China.

On the other hand, we know that enamels on metal are first mentioned in the Ming annals about the middle of the fifteenth century. They take their name of Cheng-tai enamels from the emperor who reigned at that period; but the proper Chinese term for such enamels is Folang chien yao—‘the inlaid ware of Folang.’ Julien interpreted these words ‘Porcelaines à incrustations (ornées d’émaux) de France,’ and Dr. Hirth carries us to Bethlehem! But the word Folang is probably the same as the term Folin or Fulen, used as early as the sixth century for the Roman empire of the East, and it may possibly be connected with the Greek πόλις (cf. Stamboul = Εἰς τὴν πόλιν).⁴⁵ It is definitely stated by a later Chinese writer that the same colours are employed by both the enameller on metal and the decorator of porcelain.

If we examine the colours found on both the wares to which we have tentatively traced back the enamelled porcelain of the Chinese—the enamels on glass on the one hand, and those on metal on the other—taking in each case the earlier specimens as examples, we find on the mosque lamps from Cairo little except a deep blue generally used as a ground for a design which is outlined in an opaque iron red. On the famous flask from Würzburg, now in the British Museum, for which a ‘Mesopotamian’ origin of the thirteenth century is claimed, a turquoise blue relieved by gilding is the predominant note; there is also a sparing use of yellow, of an opaque white, and, what is especially interesting, of a fine pinkish red, which is possibly obtained from gold. (The way in which this colour is shaded into the opaque white reminds us of the similar use of the rouge d’or in later times in China.)

If, on the other hand, we turn to the earlier Chinese enamels on metal, the so-called Ching-tai vases, attributed to the fifteenth century, we find among the colours used an opaque iron red, a yellow, an opaque white, and finally two kinds of blue, a turquoise and a full deep blue that looks like a cobalt colour.⁴⁶