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
As to the history of the factories, it is expressly stated in the
_T’ao lu_ that they were started in the Ming dynasty. No account
need be taken of the few legendary specimens to which tradition assigns
an earlier origin than this, such as the so-called flute of Yoshitsune,
a twelfth-century hero of Japan, and the incense burner in St. Mark’s,
Venice, which is reputed to have been brought from China by Marco Polo.
The latter is of the same model as Fig. 3 of Plate 87, perhaps from the
same mould, and I have seen at least half a dozen others in London. A
third piece which was long regarded as a document is the jewelled white
plate in the Dresden collection, supposed to have been brought back
from Syria by a Crusader in the twelfth century. The story is no doubt
apocryphal, but in any case it has no real bearing on the question,
for the plate is not Fukien ware but a specimen of white Ching-tê Chên
porcelain with a “shop mark” in underglaze blue. It has been set with
jewels in India or Persia, like a sixteenth-century bowl in the British
Museum, but the “Crusader plate” is probably a century later.
Brinkley[254] asserts, without giving any authority, that the Tê-hua
industry was virtually discontinued at the end of the eighteenth
century, and revived in recent years. The latter part of the
statement is unquestionably true, for we have the eye-witness of a
missionary[255] who visited the place about 1880 and describes the
manufactory as the most extensive of its kind in Fukien--“pottery,
pottery everywhere, in the fields, in the streets, in the shops. In
the open air children are painting the cups. Each artist paints with
his own colour and his own few strokes, whether a leaf, a tree, a
man’s dress or beard, and passes it over to his neighbour, who in
turn applies his brush to paint what is his share in the decoration.”
Unfortunately there is no reason to suppose that the writer made his
observations with an expert eye which would make a distinction between
pottery and porcelain, but in any case it is certain that he found a
vast ceramic industry in full blast at Tê-hua.
With reference to the modern ware Brinkley says[256]: “A considerable
number of specimens are now produced and palmed off upon unwary
collectors. But the amateur can easily avoid such deceptions if he
remembers that in genuine pieces of ivory white the ware is always
translucid when held up to the light, a property which, if not entirely
absent, is only possessed in a comparatively slight degree by the
modern product. The general quality of the glaze and the technique
of a piece should be sufficient guides, but if any doubt remains an
examination of the base of the specimens will probably dispel it. In
the old ware the bottom of a vase or bowl, though carefully finished,
is left uncovered, whereas the modern potter is fond of hiding his
inferior pâte by roughly overspreading it with a coat of glaze.”
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