Since the 16th century, China's export porcelain has become a sought after object by European aristocrats and wealthy merchants, and has formed a boom in "Chinese style". After the mid-19th century, with the rise of the spirit of scientism and the outflow of local Chinese porcelain, the European and American circles, mainly in Britain and France, began to systematically study Chinese porcelain. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars focused on the definition and classification of porcelain, and proposed concepts such as "yuan blue and flower", "transition period" and "blank period" that have been used to this day. By combing the academic history of this period, this paper can better understand the establishment process of Chinese porcelain research as a discipline in the West.
In recent years, with the increasing development of maritime Silk Road archaeology and marine archaeology, China's export porcelain has become a new research hotspot. Since the Tang Dynasty, China's large-scale porcelain trade with the world has begun through the Maritime Silk Road. Whether it is a wealth of shipwreck cultural relics or related historical documents, it shows that Chinese porcelain has a wide radiation range in Southeast Asia, East Asia, West Asia, Africa and other regions. But for Europe, Chinese porcelain was not directly introduced until the 16th century.
Yuan Blue and white peony pattern fish dragon ear jar Collection of the British Museum
China's porcelain production has a long history, and in the 20s of the 20th century, Western archaeological theories were introduced into China. The study of ancient ceramics in China has gradually shifted from focusing only on the path of appreciation and collection to academic research on ancient ceramics in the archaeological sense. From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the international academic community, represented by French and British sinologists and collectors, began to conduct in-depth and systematic research on some important issues of Chinese porcelain, including origin, raw materials and production technology. In a sense, the truly scholarly paradigm of Chinese ceramics research may have originated overseas, and British scholars in their heyday played an important role in it. In this process, the basic concepts, classifications, dynasty standards and special stages of porcelain by scholars at that time largely formed the basis for our porcelain research today. Although ceramic research is a hot topic in the field of archaeological research, there is still a lack of attention to the academic history of overseas ceramics. Therefore, this paper intends to reconstruct the process of the establishment of Chinese porcelain research in the West by Western scholars from the late 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, and present the thinking and exploration of relevant core issues by scholars at that time. Because of the large amount of information involved, it is inevitable that there will be a leakage, and Shang Jiefang will be correct.
A From collection to appreciation
The large-scale export of Chinese porcelain is closely related to the expansion of European powers since the Great Discoveries. Although the earliest collection of Chinese porcelain in Europe dates back to 1171, when Nur al-Din, ruler of the Zanji dynasty, received 40 pieces of porcelain from Saladin, no actual information has been passed down and there is a lack of more detailed description. These porcelains were supposed to be trophies of Saladin's overthrow of the Fatimid dynasty, or related to the Crusades, and were not directly circulated on the European market. In the 16th century, Portugal opened up maritime trade routes between East and West, bringing Chinese porcelain directly to Europe for the first time, and was quickly sought after by the aristocracy. With the arrival of the first fine Chinese porcelain directly in Europe in the 16th century, the upper classes of various countries used it as a symbol of taste and status. Especially in the 18th century, aristocrats and wealthy merchants rushed to buy Chinese porcelain, customized porcelain from China through compradors, and even built Chinese rooms in manors to display collections, making "chinoiserie" a unique aesthetic trend of the period.
From the very beginning of their sight to Chinese porcelain, Europeans have been trying to solve the mystery of Chinese porcelain, and thus formed a history of porcelain research spanning centuries. In the 13th century, Marco Polo mentioned in his travelogue the selection and antiquated treatment of porcelain clay in Dehua kilns. Influenced by this, Europeans, without understanding the principle of antiquate, have long believed that Chinese porcelain is mixed with special substances in porcelain clay, so they tried to incorporate shells, glass or animal ashes for experimentation. In 1709, the German "alchemist" Johann Friedrich Böttger (1682-1719) and the mathematician Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus (1651-1708) were the first to uncover the secrets of Chinese porcelain, and hard porcelain, comparable to Chinese products, began to be secretly fired in the Dresden factory established in Augustus. Unfortunately, apart from documentary records, no physical remains from that time have been seen.
The West finally uncovered the secrets of Chinese porcelain firing in its entirety, beginning with two letters from the French missionary François-Xavier d'Entrecolles (1664-1741). In letters in 1712 and 1722 to Father Orry, the tour ambassador of the Jesuit Society of China and India, and another priest, he described the large and small kiln factories he visited during his mission in Jingdezhen, and combined with the details obtained from the kiln workers, he described in detail the production process, technical essentials and porcelain making recipes of Jingdezhen porcelain, including kilns, boxes, waste porcelain and kiln residue. After the letters he sent were transmitted back to Europe, they became a recipe for European countries to obtain, and there was a renewed wave of experiments in copying Chinese hard porcelain. Although countries have formed their own characteristic products in the process of imitation, their porcelain performance is far from Chinese porcelain, so Europeans' enthusiasm for Chinese porcelain has not diminished.
Yuan mackerel algae pattern rhombus mouth plate British Museum collection. Height 8.2cm, diameter 47.1cm. The fish algae pattern is a relatively common decorative pattern in the Yuan Dynasty, and the complete artifacts are currently collected in Iran, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the United States, and the Hermitage Museum in Russia, in addition to the British Museum.
Yuan Mackerel algae pattern large plate Collection of Hermitage Museum, Russia. Caliber 45 cm. At present, archaeological data have proved that in addition to the export of Yuanqinghua through the Maritime Silk Road, some porcelain was also transported abroad through the Grassland Silk Road.
With the increasing collection, Europeans have also begun to collect porcelain with pure Chinese aesthetics in addition to traditional export porcelain, which in turn stimulates their interest in the cultural connotation, historical inheritance and production technology of Chinese porcelain. During the Second Opium War (1859-1860), British and French invaders looted a large number of Chinese art from the Old Summer Palace, giving the Western world the first detailed and comprehensive appreciation of official kiln porcelain with unique Chinese cultural characteristics, and stimulating the enthusiasm of Western collectors to find Chinese art treasures. In particular, a large number of Ming and Qing imperial porcelain has greatly impacted British society and the collecting community. A Chinese porcelain enthusiast and active soldier of the British Empire, Lawrence Archer H. Lawrence-Archer) became a group of soldiers who had just arrived after the looting of the Old Summer Palace, and he comprehensively sorted out and introduced the shape, color and base of the "Daming" porcelain in the palace, which became an important witness to the change in British cognition and taste of Chinese porcelain.
From this stage, many collectors represented by the United Kingdom not only collected a large number of Chinese export porcelain, but also obtained a large number of porcelain for local Chinese consumption through various channels, especially official kiln porcelain. By the middle and late 19th century, although Britain, the United States and other countries collected a lot of precious Chinese porcelain, collectors knew little about the history, craftsmanship, cultural inheritance, etc. of porcelain and were not systematic, mostly focusing on aesthetic appreciation. "A well-cultivated critic of Chinese ceramics" – William Thompson Walters (1820-1894), a great American collector, noted in his early work, "[British collectors] collect Chinese porcelain not just out of curiosity, but more for beauty, whether it is shape, color or material." William Cosmo Monkhouse (1840-1901) regarded such collectors as "old-school" collectors because they paid neither attention to the history of China itself nor to the cultural connotations in porcelain. Their purchase of Chinese porcelain was driven by the aesthetics, luxury and even comparison psychology of the times, and although their collection is not lacking, it has not yet developed a method that can systematically display the history, development and state-of-the-art technology of porcelain. In a nutshell, "old-school collectors" are only for the sake of "the beauty of porcelain itself", governed by fanaticism rather than rationality, and are aesthetic collections divorced from specific historical contexts.
In stark contrast to this style is what Munchhouse calls the "New School collector". The characteristic of these people is that they not only pursue the aesthetic taste of artworks, but also begin to understand the historical connotation of porcelain, which makes the Western observation of Chinese porcelain rise from the original purely aesthetic level to the level of appreciation. Because they developed gradually from old-school collectors, most of the early new-school collectors had strong aesthetic tendencies, such as Sir Henry Thompson (1820-1904), Louis Huth (1822-1905), and George Salting (1835-1909). Although they began to explore the cultural connotations of porcelain, they knew less about the historical background, so there were great barriers.
This shift from aesthetic collecting to in-depth appreciation is based on important social contextual factors. First, the exploration of the cultural significance of porcelain is stimulated by real economic factors. In the late 19th century, Chinese porcelain was sold at high prices in London auction houses, making collectors eager to know the value of their collections. Thus promoting their research on the connotation of Chinese porcelain culture, time interruption, and techniques. Secondly, the 19th century was also the era of science in Europe, with various disciplines flourishing. At that time, people believed that all knowledge could be systematized and rationalized, and that the scientific vision could be applied to all inquiries. Scientism spread in intellectual and collecting circles, and it was believed that all matters should be explored rigorously, systematically and academically. These trends are reflected in the study of porcelain, where collectors not only seek porcelain and various treasures from China and around the world, but also try to conduct in-depth and holistic scientific research on these objects. Third, the long British tradition of natural history provided theoretical and framework support for the early academic study of Chinese porcelain. Since there was no systematic collection of Chinese art in museums at that time, there were also a large number of blind spots in the understanding, classification and interpretation of various artifacts. The earliest academic system of Chinese porcelain research was in fact pioneered by private collectors, and the rich collections of Sir Henry Thompson and George Salding also provided favorable conditions for the establishment of systematic porcelain research. Saldin's collection of porcelain on China, the Far East and the Islamic world, in particular, "provides an excellent opportunity to study Chinese porcelain from all angles". The systematization of research required the systematization of the collection, and from 1851 Sir Augustus Wollaston Franks (1826-1897), who served the British Museum, placed particular emphasis on the strict historical integrity of the collection and played an important role in building this integrity.
However, although these collectors began to explore the cultural connotations of porcelain, they did not have the ability to read Chinese and knew little about Chinese history and culture. Walters put it bluntly in his 1884 self-printed book Oriental Art: "We know very little about the age, history, and significance of many Oriental porcelain... To some extent, we are still exploring in the dark." He also pointed out that many of the existing Western texts are inaccurate and even misleading, so it is necessary to understand the history of ceramics from the Chinese culture itself. He also lamented that language is a big problem, arguing that only "Europeans who live in China, who are proficient in Chinese, can learn more about the subject locally." From these commentaries, we can see that British scholars and collectors have realized that making Chinese porcelain truly return to Chinese culture and history is the primary problem to be solved in the study of Chinese porcelain.
In the early days of Chinese porcelain research in Britain, a number of "sinologists" who were proficient in Chinese and had worked and lived in China became the main force in understanding first-hand Chinese documents, the most famous of which was Stephen Wootton Bushell (1844-1908), Chinese known as Bu Shili. He graduated from Guy's Hospital Medical School in London, received his MD from the University of London, and lived in China for 32 years from 1868 as a physician at the British Legation in China and as a chair of medicine at the Jingshi Tongwen Museum. While in China, he actively participated in the activities of the North China Branch of the Royal Asian Literary Society and was able to come into contact with many treasures of Chinese collectors. Acclaimed for his Chinese skills and expertise in Chinese ceramics, he has worked for the South Kensington Museum in London, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum since 1882, helping them acquire artefacts in China to enrich their collections. This not only allowed him to accumulate rich practical experience, but also profoundly influenced the composition of the British Museum's Chinese porcelain collection.
In contrast to the limited porcelain collection in museum construction, the private collections of British and American collectors played an important role in establishing the study of Chinese porcelain in the early 20th century. In his later years, he cataloged the collection of Walters, one of America's leading Chinese porcelain collectors, and eventually published it as the Oriental Ceramic Art series, which includes more than 500 ceramics. In this ten-volume magnum opus, Bu Shili focuses on the history of Chinese ceramics, discusses China's porcelain ties with Japan, Korea and other places, and even includes bricks and tiles in the discussion of ceramics research. He also conducted a comprehensive inventory of the collection of John Pierpont Morgan (1837-1912), now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and compiled a series of catalogues of Chinese porcelain. Bu Shili's writings used kiln kou (e.g., "Ding Kiln") and year names (e.g., "Xuande porcelain") to divide porcelain, forming a classification standard for porcelain research, marking a new beginning in research and collection centered on Chinese culture.
As the number of collectors and collections in various countries continued to increase, and the research materials accessible to some collectors continued to increase, they began to gain a better understanding of Chinese porcelain. Among the early private collectors, the Greek banker George Eumorfopoulos (1863-1939) largely promoted the professionalization of Chinese ceramics research in Britain. His initial interest in English porcelain, but later his investment in the construction of railways in China, the many funerary ceramics dug up during the construction of the construction sparked his passion, and he began to collect a large number of ceramics from the Han and Tang dynasties, as well as bronze, sculpture and painting. In 1910, he held an exhibition of early Chinese ceramics at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in London, and the following year published the "1910 Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue of Early Chinese Ceramics". As a result, British collectors began a group activity around the exchange of Chinese porcelain. In 1921, under the organization of Omerforpros, he collaborated with Robert Lockhart Hobson (1872-1941), Arthur Lonsdale Hetherington (1881-1960), and Stephen Wenkoworth, then director of the Department of Oriental Antiquities and Anthropology at the British Museum Winkworth) and other experienced professionals with rich collections founded the Oriental Ceramic Society in London, with Omephopros as its first president. As the second president, Hobson, together with several other scholars, comprehensively organized the porcelain collection of Omerphoopoulos and published a series of highly scholarly catalogues. It is these collectors with more professional knowledge who gradually focus their attention from the aesthetic appreciation of Chinese porcelain to the systematic collection and research of Chinese porcelain.
2. The establishment of the Chinese porcelain research system
The study of Chinese porcelain that British scholars began at the end of the 19th century was not rootless, and they mainly deepened the new exploration of Chinese porcelain research by correcting the research of French scholars. In this process, the aforementioned British scholar Bu Shili has always played an important role. To some extent, it was he who laid the foundation for the study of porcelain in the West in the 20th century.
Influenced by Yin Hongxu's letters, French scholars took the lead in translating and studying ancient Chinese ceramic documents, marking the germination of the specialization of Chinese porcelain research in the Western world. The famous French sinologist Stanislas Aignan Julien (1797-1873), after years of painstaking study of Chinese classics, translated "Tiangong Kaiwu" and "Jingdezhen Taolu" into French in 1856, attached to his book "The Making and History of Chinese Porcelain". For a long period of time, this work is the only translation of Chinese literature for Western countries to refer to the study of Chinese porcelain. Before the 18th century, although there was relatively little research on the history and development of porcelain in Chinese literature, Zhu Yan, who served as a staff member of the governor of Jiangxi, wrote about the evolution of his ceramic production technology in Tao Shuo, published in 1774, which was ignored by Ru Lian. When Bu Shili first read the Tao Theory, he admired it and quickly translated it into English, which was eventually published in the book "Illustrated Chinese Ceramics". He pointed out that the introduction of porcelain making techniques in the Tao Shuo was too brief and did not serve as a guide, and that it had to be combined with the Jingdezhen Tao Lu published in 1815 to better understand Chinese ceramic craftsmanship. It was also in the process of translating and studying Chinese ceramic literature that Bu Shili discovered and corrected some errors in the study of Julian. For example, he believes that Julian's biggest mistake in translation is the understanding of the character "qing". Julian's translation translates "qing" as blue, but does not take into account that "qing" was actually used more to describe green in early porcelain under the influence of Chinese literature. More importantly, Bu Shili pointed out that Ru Lian's interpretation of many key place names was wrong, such as porcelain in Fuliang County in Jiangxi Province rather than Huaining County in Henan.
With the attitude of 19th century scientism and the tradition of natural history research, Western scholars carried out detailed and comprehensive translation, interpretation and discussion of Chinese literature and classics, which then opened the door to scientific and systematic research on Chinese ceramics in Europe in the late 19th century. It is worth mentioning that individual scholars also initially noticed the localization of proprietary terms. For example, the French scholar Albert Jacquemart refined the concepts of "famille verte" and "famille rose" (pastel) in 1862, which are still used today.
Since the 80s of the 19th century, the research on Chinese art, especially porcelain, in Britain and France has developed very rapidly. In 1887, Maurice Paléologue (1859-1944), who had served as secretary of the French embassy in China, published the first comprehensive book on Chinese art in France, Chinese Art. In this work, he broadly classifies Chinese art into nine categories, including bronze, architecture, stone carving, bamboo and wood tooth horn carvings, jade, ceramics, glassware, enamel, and lacquerware. Later, the British scholar Bu Shili further subdivided Chinese art into twelve categories based on the Bareo Lou Gorge, namely sculpture, architecture, bronze, bamboo and wood tooth horns, lacquerware, jade, ceramics, glass, enamelware, jewelry, textiles and paintings. Specific to porcelain, monographs on the study of Chinese ceramics have been published one after another. In 1881, O. Du Sattel Du Sartel published the first Western-language monograph on Chinese ceramics, Chinese Ceramics, in Paris, which explores Chinese porcelain in terms of origin, craftsmanship and decoration. In 1894, French collector Ernest Grandidier's Chinese Porcelain was published. In this book, he focuses on the special craftsmanship, decoration, glaze, religious meaning and sacrifice of some Chinese porcelain, and also discusses in detail the mistakes of Julian. On the basis of fully drawing on the exploration of predecessors, Bu Shili made full use of his Chinese attainments and experience in Chinese antique trading, tried to clarify the history of Chinese porcelain from the height of discipline theory systematization, and tried to comprehensively classify Chinese porcelain. In his 1899 book "The Art of Oriental Ceramics", based on the Walters collection, his understanding of Chinese porcelain was greatly improved, and it became an important foundation for future research.
3. Solving key issues
Stacey Pierson profoundly points out that a common fundamental problem among British collectors in the early 20th century was a gross ignorance of Chinese ceramic literature and the resulting distrust of Chinese literature. Behind this lies the colonial notion that Chinese don't know how to appreciate their art, but foreigners can. As mentioned earlier, from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, most of the scholars who studied Chinese porcelain in Britain were officials, merchants, etc. who had worked and lived in China. Compared with other scholars, they are better able to overcome misunderstandings of Chinese culture and history caused by differences in language and discipline. These researchers with multiple identities have become a new generation of pioneers in the study of Chinese porcelain in Europe, trying to re-explore the basic issues such as the history, origin, classification and identification of Chinese porcelain under the conditions of vague definition and scattered information, and special emphasis is placed on the study through ancient Chinese documents and collections. During this period, they mainly tried to solve the three important questions of the origin, classification and dating of porcelain.
First, there is the question of the origin of porcelain. Some Western scholars are skeptical and uncertain about the time of origin of porcelain. According to ancient texts such as the Fuliang County Chronicle, the Jingdezhen ceramics industry originated in the Han Dynasty, and some scholars agree that the use of lead glaze in the Han Dynasty was a sign of porcelain production. Other Western scholars, however, prefer a combination of archaeological objects and documentary evidence, such as Mrs. Hartsson. Willoughby Hodgson) and M. Renault Reinaud and others refer to an account of Soleyman, an Arab who traveled to China in the mid-9th century. It is recorded that Chinese made a vase from a very delicate clay, which was transparent and could see the water inside. They believe that this account can only show that porcelain existed before this, but according to the general laws of technological development and the physical evidence available at that time, the origin of porcelain can only be located in the Tang Dynasty.
In this regard, Bu Shili contradicts the doubts of the aforementioned scholars and supports the theory of the origin of the Han Dynasty mentioned in traditional Chinese literature. First, he argued that the character "porcelain" first appeared in ancient books of the Han Dynasty; Second, according to the "Fuliang County Record" (1270), the pottery industry of Xinping (the old name of Fuliang) began in the Han Dynasty. Based on Bu Shili's view, Hobson further pointed out that the question of the origin of porcelain should not be based solely on early Chinese writing. It is doubtful whether the appearance of the word "porcelain" in the Han Dynasty indicates a new substance, at least in the "Shuowen Jiezi" only records "porcelain, pottery." From the watts sound", their nature is not clearly stated, and the "Fuliang County Record" and other documents only mention "pottery" and not "porcelain". These documents do not mention the origin of porcelain, and if it is concluded that porcelain originated in the Han Dynasty, pottery and porcelain may be recognized as the same substance.
Therefore, Hobson gave a broader definition, arguing that the upper limit of porcelain appeared in the Han Dynasty and the lower limit was the Tang Dynasty. The "Fuliang County Record" records that "Xinping metallurgical pottery began in the Han Dynasty", and the "Notes on the Southern Kiln" also says that "the treatment of pottery began in Ji Han", although these documents are concentrated in Jingdezhen, but it does not mean that porcelain does not appear in other parts of China. It was not until the 60s of the 20th century that some celadon ware was unearthed in tombs and sites in Henan, Hebei, Anhui, Hunan, Hubei and Jiangsu, and Chinese scholars determined that the invention of Chinese porcelain would not be later than the late Eastern Han Dynasty.
Secondly, there is the division standard of pottery and porcelain. As can be seen from the above discussion of the origin of porcelain, the key to solving the problem of the origin of porcelain lies in how to distinguish between pottery and porcelain. However, there is little discussion of this issue in ancient Chinese texts. Hobson keenly discovered that to solve the problem of the origin of Chinese ceramics, the boundary between pottery and porcelain should be examined from the aspects of material selection and production process. Bu Shili believes that Chinese dictionaries often interpret porcelain as meticulous and tight pottery, which is obviously distinguished from the carcass. He later added that it was believed that porcelain was vitrified by firing, producing a "translucent" character. But Hobson noticed that Europe often regarded "translucency" as a characteristic of porcelain, but China never emphasized this in its descriptions of porcelain making. Therefore, he believes that the definition of "porcelain is translucent pottery" is not accurate. Rather, porcelain is a translucent pottery with natural or artificial fluxes added, and porcelain can only be fired when this flux material passes through some environment. The "certain environment" mentioned here refers to the firing temperature. After achieving a breakthrough at this point, Hobson went on to explain the reason for this translucent feature, the principle of porcelain porcelainization. In particular, Hobson quite accurately pointed out that real porcelain requires extremely high temperatures (1350-1450 degrees Celsius) to fire. This is the first mention of firing temperature in Western ceramic research works, and it is basically consistent with the current generally agreed definition of porcelain in the history of ceramics, and it can be said that in the process of establishing the definition of porcelain, the debate of British scholars such as Hobson played a crucial role.
Finally, there is the problem of classification and dating of porcelain. After the definition of porcelain was clarified, significant progress was made in the classification of porcelain. Prior to this, the classification of oriental porcelain collections in Europe was mainly empirical, and many scholars had their own standards for the classification of ceramics. William Giuseppi Gulland explored porcelain earlier, but at that time the study of Chinese porcelain in the Western world was still in its infancy, and many porcelain could not be accurately identified. Therefore, he took a different approach and classified porcelain from the differences in porcelain decoration techniques, dividing them into four categories: undecorated porcelain (i.e. white porcelain), colored glazed porcelain (open, celadon, etc.), underglaze porcelain and overglaze porcelain (including export porcelain and European decorative porcelain). Obviously, this division method largely ignores the historical information of porcelain, and can neither reflect the progress of porcelain technology, nor can it deeply understand the cultural connotation behind porcelain, which is largely caused by the shallow understanding of Chinese history by Western scholars.
With the translation, interpretation and discussion of more Chinese documents, the division method based on porcelain decoration techniques was replaced by the later historical stage division standard, and further reflected the attention to porcelain making technology. Munchhouse pioneered the division of Chinese porcelain into four periods according to historical stages of development: before the Song Dynasty (before 960); Song and Yuan dynasties (960-1367), also known as the "celadon period"; Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), also known as the "Blue and White Porcelain Period"; After the end of the Ming Dynasty (1644-1901). However, this tentative classification method does not propose accurate "classification criteria".
In the process of continuous correction of misconceptions and the gradual deepening of porcelain research, more scientific porcelain classification standards have emerged. Under the influence of Alexandre Brongniart, Bushley first identified two characteristics of porcelain: one was white, translucent, dense tires; The second is a uniform, vitrified glaze, which has a shell-like fracture in the cross-section when broken, and whether a piece of ware can be regarded as porcelain depends on whether it fully meets these two standards. After defining the core of porcelain, he comprehensively considered the aspects of time, origin, style and decorative techniques, and divided the development of Chinese porcelain into five periods: the first period was the primitive period, including the Song Dynasty (960-1279) and the Yuan Dynasty (1280-1367), whose core characteristics were only color glaze and no painted decoration; The second period was the Ming Dynasty (1368-1643), which was distinguished by the beginning of the appearance of painted decorations; The third period, known as the Kangxi period, covers more than 80 years from the fall of the Ming Dynasty to the end of the Kangxi Dynasty (1644-1722), and the main feature of this period is the appearance of some special creations; The fourth period is the Yongzheng and Qianlong periods (1723-1795), when porcelain was characterized by the large number of custom-made porcelain; The last stage is from the beginning of Jiaqing to the beginning of the 20th century. He believes that according to this classification, it is possible to quickly determine which period and category a work of art belongs to from the perspectives of style, decoration method or color, which lays a solid foundation for the basic standards of Chinese porcelain dating and classification that have been used by scholars to this day. Hobson basically supported this classification, but he also pointed out that in order to more accurately classify the stages of porcelain development, it is not necessary to stop at the existing documentary evidence and the inductive summary of known collections, and more physical objects are needed to test and adjust this classification on the basis of continuous research development. To sum up, we can see that Hobson's taxonomy has a relatively distinct scientism color. Prior to this, even in ancient Chinese texts, the classification of porcelain was mainly based on the kiln mouth and the emperor's year number, and there was a lack of a deeper understanding of the changes in different periods. In other words, this "double evidence method" similar to what Wang Guowei called has begun to be valued in porcelain research, that is, relying on the records of ancient original documents on the one hand, and the extensive collection of porcelain objects on the other hand, and these achievements have had a far-reaching guiding effect on porcelain research around the world.
IV. Deepening of the blue and white porcelain research system: Yuan blue and white porcelain, transition period and blank period
After studying the origin, characteristics and division stages of porcelain, European scholars began to explore the history of Chinese porcelain development in more depth, and the discussion of many of these issues reached the international leading level, and even profoundly influenced the research of Chinese porcelain in Chinese academic circles. Before the late 19th century, European knowledge of pure Chinese porcelain was concentrated on monochrome glazed porcelain, and scholars and collectors of this period explored Song dynasty porcelain the most in terms of existing catalogues. However, as more and more blue and white porcelain gradually entered the academic field, Western scholars began new explorations on the basis of academic combing and classification in the late 19th century, and these original research was concentrated in the related fields of blue and white porcelain research.
The first is the question of the origin of blue and white porcelain. The origin of blue and white porcelain has been a major problem in the early 20th century, and scholars from all over the world, including China, do not know when underglaze blue color began to be used to decorate white porcelain in Chinese history. Some Western scholars vaguely believe that blue and white porcelain originated in the Song Dynasty, when almost all discussion of the origin of blue and white porcelain traces it back to the Song Dynasty. However, among the actual porcelain seen by scholars at that time, none of the blue and white porcelain was confirmed to be made in the Song Dynasty. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence and physical materials, the theory that blue and white porcelain originated in the Song Dynasty, although widely spread, has also been questioned. Since then, because most of the blue and white porcelain exported in Europe belongs to the Ming Dynasty, some scholars are more inclined to believe that the Ming Dynasty is the period of the true origin of blue and white porcelain. When classifying porcelain, Munchhouse proposed that there may not have been blue and white porcelain before the Ming Dynasty, and that all blue and white porcelain should be classified after the Ming Dynasty. In addition, although the term "Yuan blue and white porcelain" is now familiar to people, only a few mathematicians at that time believed that blue and white porcelain may have been produced in the Yuan Dynasty. For example, Mrs. Huzson, who wrote popular books, mentioned in 1903 that people had only heard about blue and white for the first time during the Yuan Dynasty, but did not elaborate on the basis of her assertion.
In the origin of blue and white porcelain, Hobson once again became a scholar who played a central role. Although he also initially identified the origin of blue and white porcelain as the Song Dynasty, he later believed that white porcelain was the best porcelain of the Yuan Dynasty, and it is likely that it will be decorated with "blue and white". The solution to the question of the origin of blue and white porcelain is closely related to the famous British porcelain collector Sir Percival David (1892-1964). In the 20s of the 20th century, when Sir David saw the "Zhizheng bottle", which had not yet been named, he immediately invited Hobson to conduct an appraisal. Hobson concluded that this pair of blue and white porcelain vases were Yuan blue and white porcelain, and wrote "Blue and White Porcelain Before the Ming Dynasty". But unfortunately, this research did not attract enough attention in the academic community at that time.
Hobson's work would later greatly inspire the younger generation of scholars, Dr. John Alexander Pope (1929–1982). Pop used the blue and white elephant ear vase as a reference to identify the blue and white porcelain in Tobkapu Palace in Turkey and the Adebir Mosque in Iran, and established systematic standards and methods for the dating and style analysis of blue and white porcelain in the 14th and 15th centuries, which caused a sensation in the academic circles. He not only clarified the historical status of blue and white porcelain in the Yuan Dynasty, but also showed the world for the first time the Yuan blue and white porcelain hidden in Iran. It was from this time that the Yuan blue and white were officially separated from the Ming blue flowers, and the "Zhizheng Bottle" became the standard ware of blue and white porcelain in the Yuan Dynasty, solving a big problem in the study of Chinese porcelain.
Ming Wanli Blue and white St. Augustine's heraldic plate
Secondly, the concept of "transition period" in the development of blue and white porcelain is proposed. Western scholars at the beginning of the 20th century generally believed that Ming dynasty porcelain after the Wanli era was insignificant in the history of ceramics, because the Tianqi and Chongzhen dynasties were busy resisting the northern invasion, Jingdezhen rapidly decayed, and the imperial kiln factory was closed. Therefore, they do not rate the level of ceramic art in this period very highly. Blue and white porcelain after the late Wanli period is often vaguely summarized as "export goods". However, the real historical situation is very different from their imagination. It is precisely because there was no control of the imperial court during this period that the kilns gained huge space for development, making the quality of blue and white porcelain glaze in this period extremely high. The Portuguese, Dutch, and other traders ordered large quantities of porcelain from Jingdezhen, and these orders ensured the normal operation of the private kiln. At this time, porcelain respected the taste of Western consumers in decoration, and changed from a relatively loose and free painting style to a more rigorous decorative style. Friedrich Perzynski (1877-1965) first paid attention to the artistic stylistic changes that took place on these blue and white porcelains from the mid-17th century. On the basis of careful analysis, he pioneered the term "Transitional Period", which is now commonly referred to as "transition period" or "transition period". Hobson made some revisions based on his acceptance of the concept, limiting the period to 1620-1662. However, Chinese scholars believe that using 1620 as the beginning of the transition period actually ignores the alienation of porcelain styles in the late Wanli period, and defines this period as the 73 years from the end of the kiln factory to the re-firing period, that is, 1608-1681.
Blue and white eight treasures goulian large jar Ming Jingtai Palace Museum collection
Finally, following the proposal of the "transition period", Popper's thinking about another special period is named the "blank period", that is, the orthodoxy, Jingtai, and Tianshun (1436-1464) dynasties of the Ming Dynasty. Popper argues that 15th-century porcelain can distinguish early and late porcelain changes in style and craftsmanship, but must start from the middle period. Therefore, he tried to describe the characteristics of porcelain in the middle period of Xuande and Chenghua, but there were very few objects from these three dynasties. In fact, Ming and Qing dynasty scholars, doctors, and collectors were often oblivious to the porcelain of these three dynasties, and no one commented on or appreciated it. It was through Popper's keen observation and induction that this unknown period was finally terminated, widely known as the "Interregnum Period", that is, the blank period.
The proposal of these three concepts is based on the definition and classification of porcelain, indicating that the knowledge system of Western Chinese porcelain research has been systematized and has a solid disciplinary foundation, and these studies nearly a hundred years ago have become the basic framework of today's Chinese porcelain research.
V. Summary
Today, with the revival of export porcelain research and the Maritime Silk Road, the academic tradition of Western European Chinese ceramics, which has long faded out of our vision, should also be re-incorporated into the thinking. The study of Chinese porcelain with modern academic significance began in Britain and France in the mid-to-late 19th century, and this aspect was closely related to the relationship between China and the European powers at that time, because of the country's poverty, a large number of fine porcelain flowed into Europe. On the other hand, it is also related to the spirit of scientism that permeated Europe in the 19th century. Europeans at that time believed that they were the worthy guides of the entire world civilization, and held the belief that all knowledge could be systematically explored and understood.
Overseas porcelain researchers, mainly represented by the British, underwent a major shift during the Victorian period, from art appreciation to scientific systematic analysis, in which a large number of private collectors who had worked and studied in China or other parts of Asia played an important role. They translated Chinese texts abroad and used Western natural history and archaeological analysis techniques, making important contributions to the establishment of the Chinese porcelain research system. In particular, Bu Shili and Hobson became authoritative scholars of Chinese porcelain research in the world at that time, and conducted detailed systematic research on the origin, definition, and periodization of Chinese porcelain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is still an effective analytical tool and research basis today. By the first half of the 20th century, Hobson, Pope and others successively proposed the concepts of "Yuan Qinghua", "Transition Period" and "Blank Period", indicating that Chinese porcelain research has formed a relatively complete scientific research system in the West.
Note: The author's unit is the School of Cultural Heritage and Information Management of Shanghai University, and the original title of this article is "The Construction of Chinese Porcelain Research in the West: Centered on the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries", the full text was originally published in the "Palace Museum Journal" No. 2, 2023, and the note was not included when The Paper was republished with the author's authorization.