CERAMIC ART IN CHINA. 317 



times been used to designate. Pere d'Entrecolles affirms that the name 

 porcelain was first given by the Portuguese to the Chinese vases 

 imported by them into Europe in 1518, but further researches into 

 the history of the word by ]M. Brongniart and M. de Laborde show 

 that the name arose from a supposed resemblance in appearance of 

 surface between the transparent potter}" of the East and certain shells 

 which had been previously so designated. M. de Laboi-de says: 



Les anciens ayant trouve on cherche une ressemblance entre ce (ju'ils appelaient 

 porea et certaines coquilles, donnerent a celles-la le nom de porcella. Le moyeii age 

 accepta cette analogie en appelant porcelaine une faniille entiere de coquillen, et anssi 

 le8 ouvrages qui etaient faits de nacre de perle, et, par metonymie, la nacre senle 

 tiree de la coquille. 



A partir du XIV'' siecle, les gardes des joyaux decrivent en grand nombre dans les 

 inventaires, et les experts mentionnent et estiment dans leurs rapports, des vases, des 

 ustensiles de table, des tableaux de devotion, et des joyaux faits de la porcelaine. 

 Cette ex])ression a travers quelques variantes sans importance, reste la meme et s'ap- 

 plique aux memes choses jusqu'au XVP siecle; de ce moment elle se bifunjue pour 

 conserver d'une part sa vieille signification, et s'etendre de I'autre a des vases et 

 ustensiles d' importation etrangere qui offraient la meme blancheur nacree. C'etait 

 la poterie emaillee de la Chine qui s'emparaitde ce nom aTnintd ellen'avait droit que 

 par une analogie de teinte et de grain. 



!M. du Sartel is strongly of opinion that the word porcelain was used 

 in its present sense far earlier than the date assigned by ]M. de Laborde, 

 and in support of his view quotes the mention of " pourcelaine " in royal 

 inventories dating from 1360 to 1416 for France, and from the beginning 

 of the sixteenth century for the Roman Empire. These documents 

 appear to m<\ however, rather to support M. de Laborde's views; for 

 the details given in the French inventories of representations on the 

 articles named, of our Lord, the Blessed Mother, and of Saints, and of 

 their decoration with jewels,' would seem to make the possibility of their 

 being oriental porcelain more than doubtful; while the inventories 

 })elonging to the Romaii Empire — that is, from the date M. de Laborde 

 says the word was applied to oriental pottery, do mention articles 

 undoubtedl}' of real porcelain, all, with one exception, in monochrome. 



A statement quoted by M. du Sartel from Pierre Belon, of 1553, is 

 worth reproducing, as evidence that in the latter half of the sixteenth 

 century the word porcelain was still applied to shells, to mothor-of-pearl, 

 to oriental pottery, and even to Italian faience. He says: 



Des vaisseaux de porcelaine, qu'il a vus vendre en public an Caire, lesquels vases 

 de jiorcelaine sont transparents et coustent bien cher au Caire et ilz disent mesme- 

 ment qu'ilz lea apportent des Indes, mais cela ne me sembla vraysemblable; car on 



nV^ith regard to the last mentioned, it should be stated that in the magnificent 

 Dresden collection, formed chiefly by Augustus the Strong, King of Poland and 

 Elector of Saxony, between 1694 and 1705, there is a small ivory-white i)late with 

 uncut rubies and emeralds in gold filigree let into the })aste, with the character fn, 

 happiness, on the foot in blue under the glaze, which is said to have been brought 

 by a crusader from Palestine in the twelfth century. 



