CERAMIC ART IN CHINA. 313 



T'ANG DYNASTY, 618 TO 906. 



Under the succeeding, the T'ang d3'nasty, which ruled from 618 to 

 OOP), the manufacture appears to have spread over the greater part of 

 the empire, and to have reached in some places a degree of excellence 

 far in advance of that previously attained. The following varieties are 

 specificalh' enumerated (in the reverse order of their merit): 

 The JliDujcJutu-yao^ a yellow-black porcelain from Hungchow, the 



present department of Nan-ch'ang, in Kiangsi province. 

 The Shou-yao, a yellow porcelain from Shouchou in (present) Kiangsu 

 province. 



spoken of, it would read "the second year of (the) Yi'ian t'ung (period)," and simi- 

 larly 1336 and 1343 would read "the second year of (the) Chihyiian period)" and 

 " the second year of (the) Chihcheng (period)." Owing to the fact that dates are 

 thus rendered by the Cliinese foreign writers have at times erroneously spoken of 

 the nien-hao, or "period," as the reign, whereas the miao-hao or " temple designation " 

 alone corresponds to the Western idea of reign, so far as any time prior to the Ming 

 dynasty is concerned. During the Ming and its successor, the present dynasty, how- 

 ever, each emperor has practically used but one "yeardesignation" throughout the 

 period he has occupied the throne, because though Ying Tsimg of the ^ling dynasty 

 employed two such designations they were separated by an interregnum of seven 

 years' duration; and though T'ai-Tsung-Wen, of the present dynasty, also employed 

 two, he seldom or never comes to the notice of foreign writers. The term "period" 

 being in any case an inconvenient one, and the "year designation" under the 

 Ming and the present dynasty being synchronous with the reign, it seems hyper- 

 critical to insist on unifoimly translating nien-liao by "period" in the case of 

 emperors of those dj'nasties, especially as consistency would require that names so 

 well known to every schoolboy, as Kunghsi, Yungcheng, and Chienlung be replaced 

 by the proper titles, Sheng-Tsu-Jcn Huangti, Shih-Tsung-Hsien Huangti, and Kao- 

 Tsung-Shun Huangti. In the following pages, therefore, the nien-Iiao or "year 

 designation" has been rendered "period" prior to the accession of the Ming dynasty 

 in 1368, and subsequently to that date as "period" or "reign," a(;cording to circum- 

 stances. 



The dates upon porcelain are also usually recorded by the use of the nien-hao, as 

 above described, though other marks are mentioned by Chinese writers, and if the 

 article has been manufactured for the special use of some emperor or prince, it will 

 possibly bear the name of the pavilion or portion of the palace for which it is spe- 

 cially intended. Chinese writers state that the i)ractice of marking the date of man- 

 ufacture was instituted by the Emperor Chen Tsung of the Sung dynasty, when, on 

 theestal)lishment of the government factory at Chingte-chen, he ordered that each 

 article manufactured should be marked with the nini-hao then used "Chingte, 1004 

 to 1007." Foreign writers on the marks upon porcelain specify other marks of the 

 same dynasty, but upon what authority is not clearly specified. So far as my own 

 knowledge goes, I am unaware of any such date-marks being inscribed under the 

 glaze prior to the Ming dynasty. Since that time, putting aside monochromes, 

 which, in probably the majority of instances, bear no mark, they have been employed 

 uninterruptedly, except during a portion of K'anghsi's reign. In 1677 the magis- 

 trate in charge at Chingte-chen forbade the practice alike of in.scribing the date 

 and of portraying the actions of celel)rated personages, on the ground that if the 

 article were broken, disrespect might be shown to them or to the emperor. During 

 this period, which was of but short duration, however, a leaf, a censer, and other 

 marks replaced the nien-hao. 



NAT MUS 1900 23 



