The name by which we know the emperor of China was not his personal or family name, but was assumed on ascending the throne, and in old times was frequently changed. But from the time of the Sung dynasty such a change has only once occurred. This was in the case of the unfortunate Ming emperor Cheng-tung, to whom we referred on p. 93. We rarely find the name of any emperor of an earlier time than the Ming dynasty on porcelain, and the few instances that do occur are obvious forgeries. Perhaps the earliest date on Chinese porcelain with any claim to authority is the _nien-hao_ of Yung-lo (1402-25), in quaint ‘tadpole’ characters engraved in the paste beneath the glaze. This inscription occurs on the thin bowl of Ting ware in the British Museum, described on page 67 (PL. A. 1).
We have said before, and we cannot too strongly impress this fact upon the reader, that the vast majority of the Ming marks so frequently found on Chinese porcelain are of no value. They teach us nothing themselves, and when we can accept them it is on evidence derived from other sources. As Franks observed many years ago, all we can say is that a piece of porcelain is not older than the date which it bears.
When we find the date inscribed in a horizontal line round the neck of a vase, as is not infrequent in later Ming times, especially in the reign of Wan-li[74] (1572-1619), more reliance may perhaps be put on it, as regards ware of Chinese origin at least, for the Japanese were very fond of decorating their blue and white ware with Ming inscriptions placed in this position.
We have innumerable vases in our collections undoubtedly made in the reign of the great Kang-he (1661-1722),[75] but his reign-mark is comparatively rarely found. The absence of this _nien-hao_ is usually explained by a proclamation, issued in 1677, which has been preserved in the Chinese books, forbidding the inscription of the imperial name on porcelain. With this proclamation the empty double ring of blue often found on the base of vases of this time may perhaps be connected. Many of the finest pieces, however, bear no mark of any kind.
In place of these date-marks we may often find an inscription stating that the piece was made at a certain _Tang_--for example, _Shun ti tang chi_--literally ‘Cultivation virtue hall made’ (PL. B. 17). We have here translated the character _tang_ by the somewhat vague word ‘hall,’ but it is doubtful whether the inscription should be rendered ‘made for the Shun-ti pavilion,’ _i.e._ for the imperial palace, or rather, ‘made at the Shun-ti hall,‘--that is to say, at the studio or factory of that name, presumably at King-te-chen. The best authorities, however, are in favour of the latter rendering (Bushell, p. 78 _seq._, and the Franks _Catalogue_, p. 213), and they regard these so-called hall-marks as more or less equivalent to the signature of the manufacturer. The character _tang_ is sometimes replaced by other words, as _tsuan_, a balcony; _ting_, a summer-house; or _chai_, a studio. This last word is the Japanese _sai_, which so often forms a part of the adopted names of Japanese artists, as for example Hoku-sai, which means the ‘northern studio.’ The Japanese potter often signs his work, and even in China we find in a few cases a name, that of the painter, inscribed in the field of the decoration,--we have already mentioned some instances of signatures found in this position (p. 108).