Chinese pottery and porcelain; vol. 2. Ming and Ch'ing PorcelainHobson, R. L. (Robert Lockhart)
History
Chinese pottery and porcelain; vol. 2. Ming and Ch'ing Porcelain
Hobson, R. L. (Robert Lockhart)
Porcelain, Chinese; Pottery, Chinese
Marks were occasionally used by the Tê-hua potters, either incised or
stamped in seal form,[258] on the bottoms of cups and other vessels,
and on the backs of figures. Reign marks are rare, but apocryphal
dates of the Hsüan Tê period occasionally occur, as on a figure of Li
T’ieh-kuaì in the British Museum. Others consist of potters’ marks too
often illegible because the thick glaze has filled up the hollows of
the stamps, fanciful seal marks, frets, whorls, and occasionally the
swastika symbol. A few examples are given in vol. i., p. 222.
CHAPTER VIII
THE CH’ING [chch] DYNASTY, 1644–1910
The reigns of the Manchu chieftains T’ien Ming, T’ien Tsung, and Ts’ung
Tê (1616–1643) are included in the chronology of the Ch’ing or Pure
Dynasty, but it is more usual to reckon that period from 1644, when
the Emperor Shun Chih [chch 2] was firmly established on the throne
after the suicide of the last of the Mings. Little is known of the
ceramic history of the seventeen years during which Shun Chih occupied
the throne. The official records which deal only with the Imperial
factory are almost silent, and when they do speak it is merely to
chronicle failures. It is clear, however, that the Imperial factory
at Ching-tê Chên had again been opened; for orders were sent in 1654
for a supply of large “dragon bowls” for the palace gardens. They were
to be 2½ feet high, 3½ feet in diameter, 3 inches thick at the sides,
and 5 inches at the bottom. For four years the potters wrestled with
this difficult order without success. This time there was no “divine
T’ung” to purchase success by a holocaust of himself; and eventually
the Emperor was persuaded to withdraw the command. No better fortune
attended an order given in 1659 for oblong plaques (3 feet by 2½ feet,
and 3 inches thick) which were intended for veranda partitions.
Beyond these two negative items there is no information of the reign of
Shun Chih in the Chinese books, and the porcelain itself is scarcely
more illuminating, for authentic marked examples of this period are
virtually unknown. A figure already mentioned as bearing the date 1650
belongs rather to the pottery section, but it shows that the traditions
of the Ming glazes of the _demi-grand feu_ were still kept alive.
The blue and white and the polychrome made in the private factories at
this time have been discussed with the transition wares (pp. 89 and
90), and for the rest we can only assume that the Shun Chih porcelains
are not to be distinguished from those of the last Ming reigns on the
one hand, and those of the early years of K’ang Hsi on the other.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account