With regard to the porcelains made in the early years of K’ang Hsi there is very little information, and their special excellence has been assumed mainly on the supposition that the Viceroy Lang T’ing-tso exercised a beneficent influence on the wares of this period. He is reputed to have been sponsor of the Lang yao, which in the ordinary acceptation of the term[260] includes the beautiful _sang de bœuf_ red, an apple green crackle, and perhaps a cognate crackled green glaze on which are painted designs in _famille verte_ enamels. The explanation of the term _lang yao_ is far from clear, and, as already hinted, the connection of the viceroy Lang T’ing-tso with this or any other of the K’ang Hsi porcelains is by no means established. Bushell[261] accepted the derivation of Lang yao from the first part of the viceroy’s name as representing the best of several Chinese theories, and on the supposition that “the ceramic production of this time has retained the name of the viceroy, in the same way as the names of Ts’ang Ying-hsüan, Nien Hsi-yao, and T’ang Ying, who were in turn superintendents of the Imperial potteries, were afterwards given to the _Ts’ang yao_, _Nien yao_, and _T’ang yao_.” There are many objections to this reasoning. In the first place, Lang T’ing-tso was viceroy of the two provinces of Kiangsi and Kiangnan for three or four years only (1665–1668) during the reign of K’ang Hsi, and it was only in his capacity as viceroy of Kiangsi that he would have been concerned with Ching-tê Chên, even supposing that the man who had charge of two large provinces could find time to devote himself to the details of ceramic manufactures. Secondly, it is nowhere recorded that Lang T’ing-tso was concerned in any way with the direction of the potteries, so that there is in this respect no parallel between him and the directors Ts’ang, Nien, and T’ang. Thirdly, the history of Ch’ing-tê Chên as given in the _T’ao lu_, and the history of Chinese porcelain as given in the _T’ao shuo_, make no mention whatever of _lang yao_ or of Lang T’ing-tso, while the former takes special notice of the wares of Ts’ang, Nien, and T’ang, and the latter discusses T’ang’s work at some length. Had so important a person as the viceroy of two provinces been connected with the invention or perfection of such celebrated wares as the _lang yao_, the occurrence would hardly have escaped the notice of the Chinese chronicler.