CHINA
CHINA
merly set up for themselves by English amateurs may be gathered froma passage in the recent writings of Mr. A. W. Franks, of the British Museum. “In England,” he says, “till lately, so little was blue-and- white porcelain esteemed, that innumerable specimens, including even those of high quality, were hopelessly spoiled by being daubed over with green, red, and gold (unfortunately burnt in), in order to render them saleable. The majority of English collectors, in short, had only one conception of Chinese porce- lain. ‘They regarded it as ware brightly painted in many colours, and to be esteemed chiefly for purposes of decorative furniture. Fortunately the error of such an idea has been recognised. But the tendency at present is to run to the opposite extreme. Mono- chromatic and blue-and-white wares are placed on an unreasonable eminence as compared with specimens of the enamelled style, and it is no longer admitted, as it should be, that to the latter class belong some of the most beautiful and remarkable efforts of Chinese keramic art.
Decoration by means of vitrifiable enamels and pigments over the glaze seems to have had its origin under the Yuan dynasty (1260-1361). But, like many other points in the history of the art, this also is wrapped in obscurity. Chinese annals give no trustworthy information on the subject. Probably their silence is attributable to the comparatively worthless character of early essays in the style. Their phraseology, too, is unhappily loose. Thus the Tao-/u, referring to ware made in the opening years of the Yuan dynasty at Liu-ch’wen, near Foo- chow, says that some of the pieces had < flowers rudely painted.” In this vague statement connois-
180
180
