Page 30 - Chinese Porcelain Vol I, Galland

2 CHINESE PORCELAIN.

of to refer to, and from the inherent of
specimens obscurity
technical terms when translated into another little
language,
information is to be derived from it."
There can be no doubt that the Chinese themselves consider
the manufacture of to have been at its best the
porcelain during
Ming dynasty, and to have reached its height in the Seuen-tik
from 1426 to 1436, but a how far
period it is just question
their veneration for the and their love for
past, anything
ancient, may have biased them in arriving at this conclusion.
The commenced in 1368. It is, however, not
Ming dynasty
till the of Queen Elizabeth that we can
reign (1558-1603)
our hands on that will enable us to form a
lay anything judg-
ment of the and the few authentic we
Ming productions, pieces
possess of this period are certainly not equal to the pro-
ductions of the Peter the Great's ambassador
Tsing dynasty.
"
wrote in 1692, The finest china is not exported, or at least very
"
rarely ; and as this probably was the case in earlier times also,
we
may perhaps have to make some allowance on this score,
but the fact remains that we have no of the
tangible proof
of the wares. The Dresden collection was
superiority Ming
formed between 1694 and 1702, but as the came
Ming dynasty
to an end in 1644, the of the to
majority pieces probably belong
the Kang-he period (1661-1722) ; and, in the absence of any
collection formed to 1644, we have no sure to what
prior guide
was the The of
really produced during Ming period. history
referred to, is divided into seven books,
King-te-chin, already
"
the third of which is devoted to the ancient imitated
porcelain
at while Pere d'Entrecolles the mandarin
King-te-chin," says
in had made from earth to imitate
charge reproductions yellow
the of the to
heavy sea-green porcelain (celadon ?) Ming period,
send as to his friends at Court. There is no doubt that
presents
during the Kang-he and later periods, very beautiful reproduc-
tions of what are known both here and in China as the
Ming-
styles were manufactured, while there is reason to believe that
the date marks at least be taken as some to what
may guide
the Chinese considered to be the decoration of such at the
pieces
not to be as evidence of
given period, although depended upon
the of the
age piece itself. This, of course, does not apply to
pieces ordered by European traders to be made with " Ming "
marks
regardless of decoration.