n8 Beginnings of Porcelain 



or "kaolin," makes its first appearance in the Pie lu, an early Taoist 

 work of uncertain date, and preserved only by way of quotations in 

 subsequent pharmaceutical literature. This lacune in our knowledge, 

 however, is no matter of great concern for the history of porcelain, 

 for that work contains no allusion to pottery. Chang Yi and Kuo P'o 

 of the third century appear to have been familiar with kaolin; likewise 

 Wu P'u, the author of a materia medica under the Wei (p. 115). The 

 medical literature of the T'ang period is, and thus far remains, the 

 earliest source to convey an allusion to white porcelain produced from 

 kaolin. Prior to that time, this substance seems to have found applica- 

 tion chiefly in medicine, and as engobe on pottery. It probably played 

 a rdle also in alchemical experiments. There is every reason to believe 

 that it was the nature-loving and drug-hunting professors of Taoism 

 who first experimented with this clay, and this accounts for the fact 

 that the subject has found its way into the pages of the Shan hai king. 

 What the share of the Taoists was in the initial stages of porcelanous 

 ware, or whether a share in it is due to them at all, we have as yet no 

 means of ascertaining. That they had a share in it, however, is more 

 than probable, since the preparation of clays and glazes is a matter of 

 chemistry; that is, in ancient times, of alchemy (see also p. 142). 



It is obvious that no forcible conclusion as to the date of porcelain 

 can be deduced from a consideration of the history of kaolin. It is 

 notable, however, that it was known at least in the third century a.d. ; 

 and this chimes in with my dating of the early kaolinic ware in the 

 same period. Once more we see that for the history of porcelain we 

 have to depend on archaeological evidence. 



It is unfortunately impossible to outline a similar sketch of the 

 history of petuntse, or porcelain stone; but it is not surprising that 

 the Chinese have preserved no historical notes regarding this substance. 

 It is simply a feldspathic rock, for which no other than the general 

 designation "stone" (shi 2J) exists. It is a general error to believe 

 that the mass itself is styled by the Chinese "petuntse" (properly, 

 pai tun-tse 6 /Tv -?■), an error chiefly propounded by A. J. C. Geerts. 1 

 Julien 2 was somewhat astonished at the expression, saying that the 

 Chinese authors who wrote on porcelain fail to explain the sense of the 

 word tun ^C. K'ang-hi's Dictionary does not ascribe to the latter any 

 mineralogical significance; in fact, it has none whatever, and is never 

 used by Chinese writers on mineralogy. The character in question is 



1 Les produits de la nature japonaise et chinoise, Vol. II, p. 376 (Yokohama, 

 1883). 



2 Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, p. 122. 



