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
Among the “blue and white” wares of all periods, the Hsüan Tê
porcelain is unanimously voted the first place by Chinese writers, and
its excellence is ascribed principally to the superior quality of an
imported mineral variously described as _su-ni-p’o_, _su-p’o-ni_ and
_su-ma-ni_. These outlandish names are, no doubt, attempts to render
in Chinese the foreign name of the material, which was itself probably
the name of the place or people whence it was exported. There is little
doubt that this mysterious substance was the same species as the
Mohammedan blue (_hui hui ch’ing_) of the following century. Indeed,
this latter name is applied to it in Hsiang’s Album. The Mohammedan
blue was obtained from Arab traders, and its use for painting on
pottery had been familiar in the Near East, in Persia and Syria for
instance, at least as early as the twelfth century.[35] The _su-ni-p’o_
blue was no doubt imported in the form of mineral cobalt, and though
there was no lack of this mineral in the neighbourhood of Ching-tê
Chên, the foreign material was of superior quality. It was, however,
not only expensive but unsuited for use in a pure state. If applied by
itself, it had a tendency to run in the firing, and it was necessary
to blend it with proportions of the native mineral varying from one
in ten for the finest quality to four in six for the medium quality.
The native mineral used by itself tended to be heavy and dull in tone,
owing to its inability to stand the intense heat of the kiln, and was
only employed alone on the coarser wares. The supply of Mohammedan
blue was uncertain and spasmodic. It ceased to arrive at the end of
the Hsüan Tê period, and it was not renewed till the next century (see
p. 29). Its nature, too, seems to have varied, for we are expressly
told that the Hsüan Tê blue was pale in tone while the Mohammedan
blue of the sixteenth century was dark. Possibly, however, this was
not so much due to the nature of the material as to the method of its
application, for Chinese writers are by no means unanimous about the
paleness of the Hsüan Tê blue. The _Ch’ing pi ts’ang_, for instance,
states that “they used _su-p’o-ni_ blue and painted designs of dragons,
phœnixes, flowers, birds, insects, fish and similar forms, deep and
thickly heaped and piled and very lovely.”
Authentic specimens of Hsüan Tê blue and white are virtually unknown,
but the mark of the period is one of the commonest on Chinese porcelain
of relatively modern date. In most cases this spurious dating means
nothing more than that the period named was one of high repute; but
there is a type of blue and white, usually bearing the period mark of
Hsüan Tê, which is so mannered and characteristic that one feels the
certainty that this really represents one kind at least of the Hsüan
porcelain. It is usually decorated in close floral scrolls, and the
blue is light dappled with darker shades, which are often literally
“heaped and piled” (_tui t’o_) over the paler substratum.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account