108 Beginnings of Porcelain 



the Han dynasties proclaimed by Julien, it was relegated to the begin- 

 ning of the Sung dynasty (a.d. 960) by E. Grandidier; 1 and all this 

 glory ended in its final degradation into as late a period as that of the 

 Ming. Mr. E. A. Barber, Director of the Pennsylvania Museum in 

 Philadelphia, one of the most serious students of pottery in this coun- 

 try, gives vent to this growing pessimism in the following observation : 

 "The consensus of opinion among conservative students at the present 

 day, after divesting the subject of all sentimental considerations, is that 

 true porcelain first appeared during the Ming dynasty, which would 

 not carry it back of the fourteenth century. No examples of actual 

 porcelain, that can with certainty be referred to an earlier date, are 

 known to collectors; and it is reasonable to suppose that had such ware 

 been produced before that period, some few pieces at least would have 

 survived. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether any actual examples 

 antedating the fifteenth century can be found." 2 Mr. Barber, however, 

 frankly admits that the Chinese themselves have classed all wares which 

 possess great hardness and resonancy (which latter is an indication of 

 vitrification) with porcelain, and that it is true that a porcelanous glaze 

 was used to some extent before the general introduction of semi-trans- 

 parent bodies. This concession points out that the subject may be 

 viewed from different angles. There is, indeed, a twofold point of view 

 possible and permissible, a European-American and a Chinese one. 

 Hobson, 3 who possesses a large share of critical ability combined with 

 true common sense and sane judgment, has clearly noticed this diver- 

 sity. "The quality of translucency which in Europe is regarded as 

 distinctive of porcelain is never emphasized in Chinese descriptions," 

 he observes, and goes on to determine the difference between the 

 Chinese and European definitions of the substance. Now, if this be 

 true, every student capable of objective thinking must admit that it 

 is a logically perverse procedure to read "our" definitions of porcelain 

 into what is called by the Chinese ts'e, but that for the correct appre- 

 ciation of this term the Chinese viewpoint exclusively must be made 

 the basis of our investigation. In other words, the point simply is, 

 that we must endeavor to understand what notion in the minds or in 

 the fancy of the Chinese is conveyed by their term ts'e. If a bit of 

 pottery is styled by the Chinese ts'e, yet is not true porcelain in our 

 conception of the matter, we are obliged to give the Chinese credit for 

 their appellation, and to get at their mode of reasoning. By rejecting 



1 La ceramique chinoise, p. 16 (Paris, 1894). 



* Hard Paste Porcelain, Part first (Oriental), p. 7 (Philadelphia, 1910). 



* Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, Vol. I, p. 148. 



