Historical Observations and Conclusions 107 



symbols are formed by means of different phonetic elements, the greater 

 likelihood is that also the two words, although now phonetically identi- 

 cal, are traceable to different origins. The history of the word ts'e $& 

 can be established without great difficulty. The earliest form in 

 which it was written is ts'e shi ^ 35 (that is, "attractive stone"); in 

 this manner we find it, for instance, in the Annals of the Former Han 

 Dynasty. 1 The character 6&, consequently, is a secondary formation 

 based on a contraction of the words ts'e and shi, the latter assuming 

 the position of classifier, the former that of phonetic element, the 

 original significance of which was bound gradually to disappear. The 

 word for "porcelain," however, is written with the phonetic element 

 ts'e ^C, which, as an independent word, has the meaning "second, next 

 in order, inferior," etc. It is clear that in composition with the classifier 

 'clay' (wa 1L) it has no word-meaning whatever, but has merely the 

 function of a phonetic element. Thus far we are entirely ignorant of 

 how this new word may have arisen in the first centuries of our era. In 

 the Sung period the phonetic part seems to have been altered, for the 

 dictionary Tsi yiin $k M, published by Ting Tu T ^ in the middle of 

 the eleventh century, records the two forms 3| and $£ as popular or 

 common at that time. This manner of writing may have come about 

 under the immediate influence of the porcelain of Ts'e-chou, which then 

 sprang into existence. 



The preceding remarks on the term ts'e are not intended to encroach 

 on the domain of the sinologue. No one feels more keenly than myself 

 that a critical and detailed study of this term (not based on the modern 

 cyclopaedias, but on the actual source-works) is required, and should 

 be taken up some day by a competent sinologue who has a taste for 

 researches of this kind. 



The previous discussions on the origin of porcelain were chiefly 

 based on haggling about terms, which at times assumed an almost 

 Talmudic character. Students entered into the arena with a dogmatic 

 definition fixed in their minds, of what porcelain is or should be, and, 

 according to their personal standpoint, rejected or accepted this or 

 that period at which porcelain should have come into existence. Thus 

 we face the amazing spectacle that from 1856, the date of the appear- 

 ance of Julien's celebrated book on Chinese porcelain, down to the pres- 

 ent time, almost any period of Chinese civilization has been claimed as 

 the one responsible for its "invention." From its exalted position in 



1 Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 30, p. 32 b. By the way, it may be remarked that in 

 a.d. 906 the name of the city Ts'e-chou was changed in writing into -J^^H , while 

 in 916 the old character $fc was restored (T'ai p'ing huan yii ki, Ch. 56, p. 10 b). 



