Page 102 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008

85

a variety of collected objects in their own right, forming a social phenomenon that Craig

14
Clunas has called a “discourse on objects.” Between the second half of the sixteenth

century and the first few years of the seventeenth century, texts about antique things

found widespread circulation and increased frequency of publication, a phenomenon

symptomatic of and instrumental to social distinctions based on a system of preferences

15
and taste. Notable examples include Gegu yao lun, which of course was a text also

reproduced in the Siku quanshu. A Qing dynasty successor of such biji on things was the

Wenfang sikao (Research on the Scholars Studio) a text held in low regard by the writers

of the Jingdezhen Tao lu. Wenfang sikao was an illustrated manuscript about a scholar’s

16
desk and writing implements and was itself a compilation of various texts. Besides

ceramic wares, the text recorded observations about the origins and qualities of different

inkstones and bronzes. In so far as ceramics were concerned, the compiler and author,

Tang Bingjun ࡥ٢ඓ, who was a specialist in medicine and ginseng root, had somehow

obtained another essay on ceramics. Tang Bingjun then included the other essay on

17
ceramics in his Wenfang sikao. It was Liang Tongshu’s ૑Νࣣ text, Guyao qikao,

which gave an overview of all types of kiln styles (wares), praising qing (celadon) as the

best. “The most valuable of ceramic types are celadon wares,” (Taoqi qing wei gui ௗኜ

18
ڡމ൮) as he commented. But these were not texts specifically on ceramics or on

Jingdezhen. Rather they were about various collectibles of different wares and kiln types.

Each section of the text was entitled, “x kiln-ware” (x yao). Liang described the style and

patterns of bronzes and ceramics in a piece called “Gutong ciqi kao,” of which the section

entitled “Guyao qikao” comprised the part devoted to ceramics.