cracking the mysteries of “china”: china(ware) in the early modern

Cracking the Mysteries of “China”: China(ware) in the Early ModernImagination

Jane Hwang Degenhardt

Studies in Philology, Volume 110, Number 1, Winter 2013, pp. 132-167(Article)

Published by The University of North Carolina PressDOI: 10.1353/sip.2013.0003

For additional information about this article

Access provided by UMass Amherst Libraries (28 Jun 2013 11:11 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sip/summary/v110/110.1.degenhardt.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sip/summary/v110/110.1.degenhardt.html

©2013TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress

132

CrackingtheMysteriesof“China”:China(ware)intheEarly

ModernImaginationby Jane Hwang Degenhardt

This essay explores early modern views of China as they were expressed through Euro-pean representations of Chinese porcelain. Analyzing a range of artistic, printed, and dramatic texts, I show how sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury western mythologies surrounding the production of chinaware offer a striking contrast to the more denigrat-ing discourse of chinoiserie that developed in the eighteenth century. Focusing par-ticularly on descriptions of chinaware that circulated in early modern England, I dem-onstrate how writers ranging from Mandeville to Hakluyt to Shakespeare and Jonson foster ideas about the mysteries of Chinese porcelain that emphasize its virtuous and magical properties. I also consider contemporary English translations of Marco Polo, the Portuguese trader Duarte Barbosa, and the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci, as well as Italian paintings by Andrea Mantegna and Giovanni Bellini, revealing an admiration for chinaware that circulated throughout Europe. Examining the shifting ways that commodification affected perceptions of chinaware and vice versa, I draw attention to a particular period of transition over the first half of the seventeenth century when Chi-nese porcelain became increasingly available to moneyed English consumers. During this time, the myths surrounding porcelain’s creation were both demystified and re-claimed, while on the public stage diverse perceptions of chinaware offered a way to arbi-trate social competency. Throughout, I chart an early modern discourse of chinaware in relation to an evolving history of East- West trade, revealing how the mysterious origins of Chinese porcelain both resisted and played into its commodification.

THEnotionthatChineseporcelainembodiedafragilitythatsig-nified artifice and lack of integrity was commonplace by theearlyeighteenthcentury.IntheclimacticmomentofAlexander

Pope’sThe Rape of the Lock,forexample,theseveringofBelinda’ssacredlockandthelossofherinnocencearefamouslymockedthroughtheir

Jane Hwang Degenhardt 133

comparisonto“richChinavessels,fal’nfromhigh...inglittringdustand painted fragments.”1 As David Porter observes, the proliferationof eighteenth-century Chinese-inspired European decorative objects,or chinoiserie, transformed the once venerated products of an ancientandhighlycivilizedcultureintosymbolsof“capriciousness,folly,andillusion.”2yetbeforethese“richChinavessels”fell,EuropeancultureswerecirculatingadifferentsetofobjectsanddiscoursesofthefarEast.AdescriptionofchinawareinRichardHakluyt’ssecondeditionofThe Principal Nauigations (1598–1600) calls it “the best earthen matter inalltheworld”preciselybecauseofthevirtuesitwascharacteristicallyunderstoodtolackbytheeighteenthcentury—itsintegrity,itsbeauty,anditsstrength.3Priortoitsmassimportationandeventualmanufac-tureinEngland,theporcelainteacup(nowasymbolofEnglishnationalculture)wasthoughttoembodysuperiorChinesetechnologyandaes-thetics. ThisessayuncoversadiscursivehistoryofEuropeanand,inparticu-lar,Englishreceptionsofchinathatprecededthedenigratingdiscourseofchinoiserie.ItdoessobyretracingthehistoryoftradebetweenEuropeandChinaback to theearliestpointsof contact,whenChinese com-moditieswerejustbeginningtoenterEnglishdomesticspacesthroughMediterranean trade and European re-export. Offering an interdisci-plinaryexaminationofnumerousartistic,printed,anddramatictexts,I showhowsixteenth-andseventeenth-centurywesternmythologies

1 Pope,The Rape of the Lock(1717),fromtheTwickenhameditionofThe Poems of Alex-ander Pope,vol.2,ed.GeoffreyTillotson,gen.ed.JohnButt(London:MethuenandCo.,1940),canto3,lines155–60.

2 SeePorter’sinfluentialessay,“ChinoiserieandtheAestheticsofIllegitimacy,”Studies in Eighteenth- Century Culture 28 (1999): 33. Recent work by Eugenia Zuroski JenkinsbuildsuponPorter’sconclusionsbyfocusingonhowchinoiseriefunctionedasbothaposi-tiveandanegativeidealinmediatingtherelationshipbetweenwomenandtheirposses-sionsintheeighteenthcentury.SeeJenkins,“‘NaturetoAdvantageDrest’:Chinoiserie,Aesthetic form, and the Poetry of Subjectivity in Pope and Swift,” Eighteenth- Century Studies43(2009):75–94.OntherelationshipbetweenChinesedecorativeartsandfemalesubjectivity,seealsoElizabethKowaleski-Wallace,Consuming Subjects: Women, Shopping, and Business in the Eighteenth Century(Newyork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1997).forotherliterarydiscussionsofeighteenth-centuryperceptionsofChinaandchinaware,seeDavid Porter, The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2010),esp.ch.7;Chi-mingyang,“virtue’svogues:EasternAuthenticityandtheCommodificationofChinese-nessonthe18th-CenturyStage,”Comparative Litera-ture Studies39(2002):326–46:LydiaH.Liu,“RobinsonCrusoe’sEarthenwarePot,”Critical Inquiry25(1999):728–57;andElizabethKowaleski-Wallace,“Women,China,andCon-sumerCultureinEighteenth-CenturyEngland,”Eighteenth- Century Studies29(1995/96):153–67.

3 Hakluyt,The principal navigations,3vols.(London,1598–1600),2(pt.2):91.

134 China(ware) in the Early Modern Imagination

surrounding theproductionof chinaware suggest aworldviewquitedistinctfromthatassociatedwiththepost-Enlightenmentperiod.How-ever,ratherthanemphasizeastaticworldvieworoneinwhicheasternsuperioritywas steadily (orevenabruptly) supersededby theascen-danceoftheWest,themanylocalexamplesthatIconsiderdrawatten-tiontomultiplemomentsofdynamictransition. Chinaware’srelativeinaccessibilityduringtheearlymodernperiodfueledamythologyofChinesemysteryandexoticismthatattimesre-sembled but was not equivalent to modern Orientalist discourses oftheEast.RecentscholarshiponEuropeanencounterswithChinaandthefarEasthasestablishedasharpdistinctionbetweentheseencoun-tersand thoseofa colonialorproto-colonialnature. In thewordsofAndrewHadfield,“tradeandprofitweretheprincipalgoals,notcolo-nizationandconquest.”4HistoricalstudiesbyKennethPomeranz,K.N.Chaudhuri, and others have challenged Eurocentric histories of theearlymodernworldpredicatedonprogressivistnarrativesoftheeco-nomicriseoftheWest.5TheynotethatChinawasdominantintheworldeconomyupuntil1800,whereasEuropeannationsoccupiedamargin-alizedstatus.Buildinguponthiswork,RobertMarkley’sstudyofEn-glish literarytextsreveals“avarietyofcompensatorystrategies” thatreflectEngland’sdeepinvestmentinfarEasterntradeasanantidotetodomesticeconomiccrises.6IfEuropeansweremeresuitorsfortrading

4 Hadfield,ed.,Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels: Travel and Colonial Writing in English, 1550–1630: An Anthology(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),189.Otherstudiesthatpressforpre-colonialmodelsforapproachingconstructionsoftheEastintheearlymod-ern period include Robert Markley’s The Far East in the English Imagination, 1600–1730(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Jonathan Burton’s Traffic and Turning(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,2005);andRichmondBarbour’sBefore Oriental-ism(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003).

5 Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000); and Chaudhuri, Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilization of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). See also Andre Gunder frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1988);andJackGoldstone,Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World(Berkeley:UniversityofCali-forniaPress,1991).

6 Markley, The Far East and the English Imagination, 6. Other scholarship focused onEnglishRenaissanceliteratureandChinaisquitelimited,thoughIamindebtedtosev-eralcriticswhohavetakenthismaterialindifferentdirections,notablyAlexanderHuang,TimothyBillings,andWalterLim.SeeHuang,Chinese Shakespeares: Two Centuries of Cul-tural Exchange(Newyork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009);Billings,“visibleCities:TheHeterotopicUtopiaofChina inEarlyModernEuropeanWriting,”Genre: Forms of Dis-course and Culture 30 (1997): 105–34, and “Caterwauling Cataians: The Genealogy of aGloss,”Shakespeare Quarterly54(2003):1–28;andLim,“China,India,andtheEmpireof


privilegesinthefarEast,thentheEnglishwerevirtuallyexcludedfromdirect tradewithChinathroughouttheearlymodernperiod, thoughtheyincreasinglyimportedChinesegoodsthroughothersources. Bearingthisinmind,IexaminebelowthenuancedwaysinwhichtheEuropeanand,inparticular,theEnglishdesireforandexclusionfromChinese trade were brought to bear upon the single, highly chargedcommodityofChineseporcelain.IdemonstratehowChina’sinacces-sibility prompted Westerners to project onto chinaware attributes ofinestimableintegrityandvirtue,andhowtheseattributesplayedintoporcelain’svalueasacommodity,persistingevenafterchinawarebe-came more readily available to the English in the early seventeenthcentury.Tracingtheshiftingsignificationof“china”and,byextension,“China”asitregisteredinartistic,literary,andtheatricaldiscourses,Iseek to complementeconomichistoriesof earlymodernglobal tradewithaninterdisciplinaryculturalhistory.InparticularIdrawattentiontoaperiodoftransitionthattookplaceduringthefirsthalfoftheseven-teenthcenturywhenChineseporcelainbecameincreasinglyavailabletotheEnglishasanimportedcommodity.Duringthistime,themys-teries surrounding porcelain’s creation were largely demystified andyet a wide range of texts forcefully reclaimed and reinvented china-ware’smystique.These textsultimatelyenhancedchina’scommercialallurebydetachingitfromtheprocessofcommodification. In examining three different sets of local texts—early RenaissanceItalianpaintings,seventeenth-centuryEnglishprintedtexts,andLon-donstageplaysperformedintheJacobeanandearlyRestorationperi-ods—I bring to the fore three separate but interrelated discourses ofchinawarethatspeakto itssignificanceindistincttemporalandgeo-graphicalcontexts. Ibeginwithadiscussionof twoItalianpaintings,the first by Andrea Mantegna and the second by Giovanni Bellini,that juxtaposechinawarewithreligious iconography.ThesepaintingsreflectanadmirationforChineseporcelainthatcirculatedthroughoutEurope and associate Chinese commodities with priceless value andasenseof timelessness thateludeshumanhistory.Then,drawingonEnglishtravelnarrativesbysuchauthorsasJohnMandevilleandHak-luyt,aswellasonEnglishtranslationsofMarcoPolo,thePortuguesetraderDuarteBarbosa,andtheItalianJesuitMatteoRicci,IuncoveramythologyofChineseporcelainthatcirculatedfromtheContinentto

CommerceinMilton’sParadise Lost,”inSinographies: Writing China,ed.EricHayot,HaunSaussy,andStevenG.yao(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2008),115–39.


England and from the thirteenth century to the seventeenth. Center-ingonchina’smysteriouscompositionandmagicalproperties,thismy-thologypersisted—andevenintensified—despiteporcelain’sgrowingavailabilityinEnglandintheearlyseventeenthcentury.finally,mov-ingtothemostlocalizedsetoftexts,IexaminehowthepopularLon-donstageappropriatedchinawareasamarkerforgaugingtheculturalcompetenciesandmoralprinciplesofurbancitizensduringaperiodwhenLondon’ssocialclasseswereinfluxastheresultofEngland’sin-creasingparticipationinmaritimetrade.IncitycomediesbyWilliamShakespeare, Ben Jonson, and William Wycherley, chinaware repre-sentsastandardofluxurythatexposesthefolliesofunsuccessfulsocialclimbersandthemoralandsexualexcessesofunrestrainedconsumers.Bypresentingthiswide-rangingarrayof localexamples, Iattempttoilluminatesomeofthenuancedwaysthatwesternreceptionsofchina-wareshiftedinrelationtoglobaltradeandtoshow,aswell,howthespecificmaterialcommodityofchinaconveyednotionsofChinaacrosstemporalandgeographicalboundaries.

PARTI : C H INESEvESSELSINI TALIANPA INTINGS

The first visual representations of Chinese porcelain in the West ap-pearedin latefifteenth-andearlysixteenth-centuryItalianpaintings,whereitsdepictioninrelationtoChristianandpagandeitiessuggestsitsexaltedvirtues.TheearliestpaintingsofchinaincludeAndreaMan-tegna’sAdoration of the Magi(ca.1495–1505)andGiovanniBellini’sFeast of the Gods (1514), though it isuncertainwhether the individualblueandwhiteporcelaindishesrepresentedinthesepaintingsarebasedonChinese originals or earthenware copies.7 If original, the pieces weremost likely imported from China by the Ottoman empire and trans-ported into Italyas individualgiftsoraspartof the limitedChinesetradethatmadeitthisfarwest.Ifcopies,theywerelikelyofOttomanmanufacturebasedonoriginalChinesedesigns.Regardlessoftheori-ginsoftheseobjects,theirrepresentationoffersasharpcontrasttothecommon superfluity that chinaware assumed by the eighteenth cen-

7 forcriticaldebateontheprovenanceofthechinadisplayedinItalianpainting,seeA.I.Spriggs,“OrientalPorcelaininWesternPaintings,1450–1700,”Transactions of the Ori-ental Ceramic Society36(1964–66):73–87;JohnCarswell,“The Feast of the Gods:ThePorce-lainTradeBetweenChina,Istanbulandvenice,”Asian Affairs24(1993):180–85;andRosa-mondMack,Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300–1600(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2002).


tury.Thechinarepresentedinthesepaintingspossessesararifieddig-nity:itisagiftsuitableforgods. Mantegna’sAdoration of the Magi(fig.1)featuresaporcelaincupfilledwithgoldcoinsasoneofthegiftsofferedtoChristbythethreewisemen.TheeasternkingCasper,beardedandbald-headed,bowsbeforetheChristchildwhilegentlyofferinguptheporcelaincup inhis lefthand.AsRosamondMacknotes, thebluemotifofflower stemsandleavesonthecup“recallsflowerscrollsonearlyfifteenth-centuryMingblue-and-white,”thoughMantegna“mayhavealteredthecup’sshapeanddecorationtofittheMagus’sgrasp.”8Thecupoccupiesthecentralforeground of the painting, its rim nearly touching the child’s smallfoot.WithJosephlookingonfrombehindher,thevirginMaryextendsthechildtowardthewisemenasthoughpresentinghimasagift,cre-

8 Mack,Bazaar to Piazza,105.

figure1. Andrea Mantegna, AdorationoftheMagi (ca. 1495–1505). Distemper on linen, 48.6 x 65.6 cm. With permission from The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA.


atingakindofsymmetrybetweentheprofferedChristchildandthesumptuousgiftsofferedbyeachofthethreekings.Theimpliedunitybetweenthechildandthethreeobjectsisreinforcedbythechild’sges-tureofblessing,whichfunctionsasthepainting’scenteroffocus.Theother twogifts includeaTurkishperfumecensermadeof jasperandaPersianagatecup—preciouscommoditiesindigenoustotheeasternMediterranean.9Withinthenarrativeofthepainting,theexchangeofeasterngiftsforthegiftofChristpositsthespreadofChristianitytotheEast.Representativeofthemosthighlyprizedandvaluablecommodi-tiesthatthekingscouldobtain,theprofferedgiftsrepresentahumbleequivalencetotheinestimablegiftofChrist.Atthesametime,thede-tailedparticularityof thesepreciousgiftsacknowledgesthewaythattheWestbenefits,economicallyandculturally,throughChristiancon-version. If the objects in the painting advertise the three eastern kings’ ac-cesstotheMediterraneantraderoutes,theyalsoimplyItaly’saccesstotheseroutes.AsLisaJardinehassuggested,theprofusionoflovinglydepicted,seculardetailinItalianRenaissancepaintingsis“asmuchavisual celebration of conspicuous consumption and of trade” as it isa tribute to theholysubjectsof thepaintings.10Within thecontextofItaly’s burgeoning consumer culture, the porcelain cup representedahighlydesirablebutnotyetaccessibleluxuryitem.Whileconsider-ablequantitiesofsilk,gems,andspicesenteredvenicefromtheeasternMediterraneaninthe latefifteenthandearlysixteenthcenturies,Chi-neseporcelainremainedrelativelyoutofreach.Thedifficultyofobtain-ingporcelain in Italy rendered it avaluable collector’s item,bestow-ingprestigeon itsowner.AsR.W.Lightbownnotes inhis thoroughcataloguingoffarEasternartworkintheinventoriesofItaliancollec-tions, porcelain had “long been known and esteemed in venice, buteven there [in the most active European port city] not many pieces”werepresentintheearlyRenaissance.11TheearliestdocumentedChi-

9 AccordingtoSuzanneBoorsch,thegiftsrepresentedinthepaintingsharecertainaf-finitieswiththecollectinginterestsofIsabellad’Este,DuchessofMantua,whomayhavecommissionedit(Boorschetal.,Andrea Montegna,exhibitcatalog[Newyork:Metropoli-tanMuseumofArtandLondon:RoyalAcademyofArts,1992],237).

10 Jardine, Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance (New york: Doubleday,1996),8.

11 Lightbown, “OrientalArtand theOrient inLateRenaissanceandBaroque Italy,”Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes32(1969):229.SeealsoSpriggs’susefulcata-loguingofdepictionsofChineseporcelaininEuropeanpaintingsbetweentheyears1450and1700,whichconfirmstherarityofblueandwhiteporcelainfromthisperiodinItalianart.OnimportedChineseporcelaininRenaissanceEurope,seealsoJohnCarswell,Blue


neseporcelainthatsurvivesinItalydatestothe1550s.ByincludinganobjectthatwassorareandinaccessibletomostcontemporaryItalians,Mantegna’spaintingsubtlyperpetuatesafantasyofItaly’saccesstothefarthestreachesoftheEast. GiovanniBellini’sThe Feast of the Gods(fig.2)offersanextremedis-placement of porcelain vessels that simultaneously accentuates andmakeslightoftheirexaltedvalue.PaintedbyBelliniin1514andcom-pletedbyTitian(whomodifiedthebackground)in1518–29,thepaint-

and White: Chinese Porcelain and Its Impact on the Western World,exhibitcatalog,DavidandArthurSmartGallery(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1985).

figure2. Giovanni Bellini, feastoftheGods (1514). Oil on canvas. With permission from the Widener Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.


ingjuxtaposesChineseporcelainwithancientgodsandgoddessesfromclassicalmythologyratherthanwithChristianiconography.Itfeaturesthree fifteenth-century blue and white pieces altogether: one on theheadofabare-chestedsatyr,oneinthehandsofthenymphstandingnexttohim,andonecontainingfruitonthegroundinfrontofNeptune. Thesechinaobjectssignifythemarkofcivilization,herecontrastedagainstanantitheticalstateofprimitivism.Theirprominentandstrik-ing role in Bellini’s composition, as well as their seemingly odd dis-placementamongclassicalpagangods,invitescriticalspeculation. Scholarshaveprimarilyfocusedontryingtodeterminetheoriginsof the curious pieces depicted in the painting. John A. Pope was thefirst to identify thebowlsas the typeanddesignmade inChinabe-tween1470and1510,apreciousfewofwhichmadetheirwaytothevenetianportandfromthereinland,byavarietyofoverlandandsearoutes in theearly1500s.12Others, includingSpriggsandf.R.Shap-ley,havequestionedwhetherit ispossibletodeterminewhetherBel-lini’sChinesebowlswerebasedonoriginalsorcopies.JohnCarswellhypothesizesthatthethreebowlsmayhavebeengivenasagiftfromMehmedIItoBellini’sbrother,Gentile,whovisitedConstantinoplein1479–80.AsCarswellnotes,whilethisstyleofbowlwas“veryrareinEurope,”itwas“quitecommoninSyria,andnumerousinthegreatcol-lectionofChineseporcelainintheTopkapiSarayMuseuminIstanbul,whichoncebelongedtotheOttomansultans.”13Macksuggeststhatthe“large,denselypaintedpalmettesandblossomsframedbyleadscrollsandtendrilsonBellini’sbowlscorrespondtothedecorationofalate-fifteenth-andearly-sixteenth-centuryMingtypethatwasexportedinlargequantitiestoPersia,Syria,andEgypt.”14ItisalsopossiblethatthechinabowlswereagifttoBellini’spatron,DukeAlfonsoId’Esteoffer-rara,orambassadorialgiftstovenice,suchasthosegiventoDogeBar-barigobyambassadorsfromtheSultanofCairoin1490.Bellini’spatronapparentlytookaspecialinterestinporcelainandattemptedtoorderavenetianimitationofitinthesameyearthathepaidforThe Feast of the Gods.ThoughCarswellconcurswithPope’sdatingofthebowlsaslatefifteenthcentury,hecontendsthattheyaredecoratedina“pseudo-14thcenturystyle...asiftheChinesepotterswerespeculatingonwhatwas

12 PopeandA.J.Wenley,China(Washington,DC:TheSmithsonianInstitute,1979).SeealsoPope’sA History of the History of Ming Porcelain: A Lecture(London:OrientalCeramicSociety,1972).

13 Carswell,“The Feast of the Gods,”182.14 Mack,Bazaar to Piazza,105.


successfulintheirgrandfathers’time.”15Giventhetenuouspossibilitiesfortheirorigins, therepresentationoftheseparticularChinesebowlsinBellini’spaintingclearlyderivesfromanexceptional,ratherthanacommon,setofcircumstances.Bycontrast,thechinabowls’seamlessintegrationintoaclassicalmythologicalnarrativetranslatestheircon-spicuoussingularityintosomethingalmostunremarkable. WhatareChinesebowlsdoinginthisparticularsceneofOlympiangods?WhyshouldgodsfromtheMediterraneanhavetoventuresofarafieldasChinatofindsuitablevesselsfortheirfeast?AndwhydoesaRenaissancepaintingsituatetheseporcelainbowlsasobjectscastback-wardintoanimaginarypast?AsLouisHourticqfirstobservedin1919,thepainting’sliterarysourceisapassagefromOvid’sFasti.16Thescenedepictsanimpendingsexualassaultjustpriortoitsprevention.Pria-pus,thegodofvirility,canbeseenonthefarrightraisingtheskirtofLotis,whoisawakenedjustintimefromherwine-inducedstuporbyanoutburstfromSilenus’sass.Thankstotheass’sinterruption,Lotis’svirtue issaved,andPriapus ismadea laughingstockbyall theothergods.Representedinthemidstofclassicalmyth,thechinabowlsap-pear oddly out of place. Mercury is depicted with his characteristicstaff;Neptune,withhistrident;Ceres,withherwreathofwheat;andSilenus,withhiscompaniontheass;buthowdothechinabowlsfitin? Whilecriticaldiscussionsofthepaintinghavefocusedonwhatwecan learnaboutTitian’salterations toBellini’soriginalpainting fromcomposite x-ray technology, few have looked at the seemingly oddjuxtapositionofculturaliconographythathasremainedconstantinthepaintingsinceitsfirstincarnation.17Interspersedthroughoutthescenefromclassicalantiquityare,infact,severalcarefullydepictedvessels:theChinesebowls,anearthenwarepot,latemedievalbeakers,aglasspitcher, a pewter cup, wooden barrels, and a typical wooden tub tothefarright,whichcontainstheinscription“joannesbellinusvenetusMDXIIII”(1514). Inadditiontoconstitutingavariedcollection,thesediverse vessels offer a juxtaposition of objects ancient and new, high

15 Carswell,“The Feast of the Gods,”184.16 Hourticq,La jeunesse de Titien(Paris:Hachette,1919).Otherinfluentialsourcestudies

includeJohnShearman’sOnly Connect . . . Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1992);andAnthonyColantuono’s“DiesAl-cyoniae:TheInventionofBellini’sFeast of the Gods”(The Art Bulletin73[1991],237–56).

17 Onx-rayanalysisandconservationofThe Feast of the Gods, see JohnWalker,Bel-lini and Titian at Ferrara: A Study in Styles and Taste(London:Phaidon,1956),48–62and99–103; and David Bull, The Feast of the Gods (Chicago: Library Media Project, 1996),curatedvideo/dvdcollection.


andlow,aestheticandutilitarian,foreignanddomestic,ajuxtapositionthatinteractswiththemythologicalnarrativeofthepaintingincuriousways.Theparticularplacementsofthethreechinabowlssuggestthreedifferingnotionsofvalue:oneservingautilitarianpurposeinholdingfruit;onebeingofferedbythenymphasanobjectinitself;andoneontheheadof thebare-chestedsatyr,paralleling the female formto therightwhoisholdinganurnonherhead.Eachbowlbearsacriticalorga-nizingroleintermsofthepainting’scomposition.Thebowlcontainingthefruitservestoorientthefiguresseatedandstandingaroundit.Thebowlbeingofferedbythestandingnymphoccupiesaspaceclosetothecenterframeofthepainting,raisingthequestionofwhyathing,ratherthanaperson,shouldoccupythisprivilegedposition.Andthebare-chestedsatyrwiththebowlonhisheadseemstoofferamockingsym-metry to the curvaceous, bare-breasted nymph standing to the rightwithanearthenwareurnonherhead.WhilethefemaleformbalancinganurnonherheadrepresentsaclassicalRenaissance type, thebare-chestedsatyrholdingtheChinesebowlconveysacuriousandperhapshumorousconflationofclassicismandChineseartisanship,asifstagingarepetitionwithadifference,arebirthofclassicalantiquitythatsubsti-tutestheChinesebowlfortheclassicalurn.18 Aspreviouslynoted,The Feast of the Godsalsopicturesanumberofvesselsoriginatingintheoccidentalworld,raisingthequestionofwhatkind of relationship the Chinese bowls bear to the other vessels de-pictedorwhatkindofarepetitiontheymightbestaging.Whereastheurnontheheadof thenymphrepresentsarelativelypedestrianclaypot, thecorrespondingChinesebowlontheheadof thesatyrsubsti-tutestherareandpreciousmaterialofporcelain.AretheChinesebowlsthemost“modern”objectsfeatured,orwouldtheblown-glasspitcherofcontemporaryvenetianmanufacturebeconsideredmoremodern?DotheChinesebowlssuggestanintentionaldisruptionand“modern”retellingoftheclassicalmyth?Inonesense,thechinabowlslooktothefuturebyshowingoffferrara’saccesstoforeignmarketsanditsacqui-sitionofpreciouseasterngoods.Butinanothersense,thebowlsarenotsomuchthemostmodernobjectsinthesceneasthemostancientones,comingfromahighlycivilizedculturethatbothpredatedclassicalan-

18 See Elizabeth Cropper’s pioneering work on the analogous relationship betweenvasesandthefemaleforminRenaissancepaintingandtheirjointassociationwiththeclas-sicalconceptsofharmonyandperfection.Note,forexample,her“OnBeautifulWomen,Parmigianino,Petrarchismo,andthevernacularStyle,”The Art Bulletin58(1976):374–94.


tiquityandcontinuedtoproduceinnovativedesignsandtechnology.fromtheEuropeanperspective,Chineseculturewasunderstoodtobeancientandunchanging,thusimbuingthebowlswithaqualityoftime-lessnessorofanexistenceoutsideofhistory.PerhapsinthecontextofBellini’spainting,thechinabowlisnotsomuchtheobjectthatdoesnotbelongastheenduringsignifier,asymbolsimultaneouslyofmodernityandofatemporalitythatdefieshistoricityaltogether. ThesignificanceofporcelainasanItaliancollector’sitemmayofferadditionalinsightintotheinclusionofporcelainpiecesinbothMante-gna’sandBellini’spaintings.19Isabellad’Este,DuchessofMantua,wholikely commissioned Mantegna’s painting, was known for collectingvaluablevessels,includingthosemadeofporcelain.The Adoration of the Magimaythushaveofferedavisualsamplingoftherangeofhercollec-tion.Similarly,theporcelainbowlsfeaturedinThe Feast of the Godsmayhaveconstitutedonedistincttypeofvesselwithinalargercollection.Bellini’s patron—brother to Isabella—specifically commissioned The Feast of the Godsfordisplayinhiscamerinoorprivatecollectionspace.Allofthepaintingscommissionedbythedukeforthisspaceincludedvesselsofvariouskinds, indicating that these representationsofves-selsmayhaveconstitutedakindofcollectioninthemselves.Chineseporcelainprovedaparticularlyvaluablecollector’sitembecauseofitsrarityandexoticoriginsandbecause it representedanunusual typeintermsofitsmaterialcomposition.Asevidencedbyatreatiseonthesocialvirtuesof“splendor”writtenbytheNaples-basedhumanistGio-vanniPontanoin1498,acollection’svaluewaspartlydependentonitsvariety,whichwasmoreimportantthanitssize:“Itisnotnecessary,in-deed,thatthereshouldbemanycupsresplendentonthedresser,butthat theseshouldbeofvarioustypes.Someshouldbe ingold,silverandporcelain;andtheyshouldbeofdifferentforms....Ofthesesomeshouldseemtobeacquiredforuseandforornament,andothersforornamentandelegancealone.”20Mantegna’sandBellini’spaintingspaytributetochinaasaparticularlyvaluableiteminanItaliancollection—valuablepreciselybecauseofitsutterlackofsuperfluity.

19 Here Iam indebted to theworkandgenerousconversationofMonikaSchmitter.SeeSchmitter,“virtuousRiches:TheBricolageofCittadiniIdentitiesinEarlySixteenth-Centuryvenice,”Renaissance Quarterly57(2004):908–69.

20 Pontano,“IltrattatodelloSplendore,”I libri delle virtu sociali(1498),astranslatedbyEvelynWelch,“PublicMagnificenceandPrivateDisplay:GiovanniPontano’sDe Splen-dore(1498)andtheDomesticArts,”Journal of Design History15(2002):215.


PARTI I : ENGLISHTEXTSONC H INA(WARE)

PriortothearrivalofPortuguesetradersinChinainthemid-sixteenthcentury, European awareness of China was mainly limited to singu-laraccountssuchasthoseofPoloandMandeville.fifteenth-andearlysixteenth-century English narratives of China were few and far be-tween, with the exception of a small number of translations such asRichardPynson’s1520translationoffrereHayton’sLa fleur des histoires de la terre d’Orient(ca.1307).21Thisrelativedearthofmaterialdoesnot,however,reflectalackofinterestinChinaorinitsvaluablecommodi-ties.LikelycontainingtheearliestpurportedfirsthandaccountofChinabyanEnglishwriter,Mandeville’sTravels appeared in themid-1300sandbytheyear1400hadbeentranslatedintoeverymajorEuropeanlanguage.22 The popularity of Mandeville’s narrative attests to Euro-peanaudiences’ thirst for informationaboutChinaandotherdistantplaces,aswellastotheparticulardesirabilityofeasterntrade. ModernreadersmostreadilyassociateMandeville’snarrativewithfantastical descriptions of foreign and exotic places and beings, butthenarrativeisexplicitlyorientedaroundadesiretoencouragefuturetravels,andinparticulartrade,bydrawingattentiontothewaysthatEuropeansmightbenefitthroughactiveinterchangewithotherplacesandcultures.Aboveall,Mandeville’sdescriptionsof “Cathay” (com-plexlyrelatedtoChinathroughassociationandfrequentconflation23)—itsnaturallandscape,itspeople,itsculture,anditsmaterialtechnolo-gies—emphasize itsabundanceand thesuperiorityof itscivilization.These impressionsofChinesesplendor frequentlycenternotonlyonthebeautyandrichnessofthecountryitself,butontheappealofChi-nesecommodities:

21 Hayton,Here begynneth a lytell cronycle,trans.RichardPynson(London,1520).22 AsC.W.R.D.Moseleynotes,morethanthreehundredmanuscriptsofMandeville’s

TravelshavesurvivedwhereasonlyaboutseventyofPolo’sDivisament dou Mondeareex-tant(JohnMandeville,The Travels,ed.andtrans.Moseley[London:Penguin,1983],10).WhereasMandeville’stextappearedquitewidelyinEnglishtranslationbythelate1300s,theearliestEnglishtranslationofPolo’stextappearstobeJohnframpton’sThe most noble and famous travels of Marcus Paulusin1579.

23 for a discussion of the relationship between “China” and “Cathay,” see Billings,“Caterwauling Cataians,” 5. Billings offers a persuasive argument for treating Cathay(“Cataia”)asadiscursiveconstructiondistinctfromChina.Hedrawsattentiontohowthe“Cataian”mighthavereferredinthelate1590snotto“lyingChinese,”asthetermhaslaterbeenglossed,buttodeceitfulEuropeans,suchasMandevilleandevenfrobisher,whosegrandiosetalesofCathaysmackedoffalsity.Nonetheless,medievalwriterssuchasPoloaswellasmanyRenaissancereadersandwriters,includingMatteoRicci,identi-fiedCathayandChinaasthesameplace.


ThelandofCathayisagreatcountry,beautiful,rich,fertile,fullofgoodmer-chandise.Everyyearmerchantscometheretogetspicesandothersortsofmer-chandise—theygotheremorefrequentlythantheydoelsewhere.youshouldunderstandthatthemerchantswhocomefromveniceorGenoaorotherplacesinLombardyortheGreekEmpiretravelbylandandseaforelevenortwelvemonthsbeforetheygettoCathay,thechiefrealmoftheGreatKhan.24ByofferinghisreaderstheexampleofEuropeanmerchantswhotraveltoCathay“morefrequently”thantoanyotherplace,Mandevilleem-phasizesthetremendousdesirabilityoffarEasterncommoditiesthatwouldcompelmerchantstotravelsofar.However,incallingattentiontothelongandarduousjourneyoverlandandsea,healsorevealstherelativelysmallscaleoftradebetweenEuropeansandthefarEastinthemid-1300s.Although theOttomanempire importeda substantialvolumeofcommoditiesfromChinainthefourteenthandfifteenthcen-turiesthatsometimesmadetheirwayintothewesternportsofveniceandGenoa(andintoasmallnumberofEuropeanpaintings),NorthernEuropean tradewithChinawasalmostnonexistentduring this time.Nonetheless, medieval and early Renaissance depictions of China inbooksandartworkpresentChina’sappealintermsoftrade—anappealoftenprojectedontotherareandmysteriousmaterialityofporcelainor“china.” Perhaps the earliest surviving European description of ChineseporcelainiscontainedinPolo’slatethirteenth-centuryDivisament dou Monde.WhereasintheItalianpaintings,porcelainmayseemtoexudeatimelessquality,hereitischaracterizedbyitsdependenceonalengthytemporal process—simultaneously disrupting the immediate profitthatitcanyielditscreatorandincreasingitseventualvalueasacom-modity:Letmetellyoufurtherthatinthisprovince,inacitycalledTinju,theymakebowlsofporcelain,largeandsmall,ofincomparablebeauty....Thesedishesaremadeofacrumblyearthofclaywhichisdugasthoughfromamineandstackedinhugemoundsandthenleftforthirtyorfortyyearsexposedtowind,rain,andsun.Bythistimetheearthissorefinedthatdishesmadeofitareanazuretintwithaverybrilliantsheen.youmustunderstandthatwhenamanmakesamoundofthisearthhedoessoforhischildren;thetimeofmaturingissolongthathecannothopetodrawanyprofitfromithimselfortoputittouse,butthesonwhosucceedshimwillreapthefruit.25

24 The Travels,trans.Moseley,141.25 MarcoPolo,The Travels,trans.RonaldLatham(London:Penguin,1958),238.


Thereissomethingbothmatter-of-factandwondrousaboutPolo’sde-scription of china dishes maturing out of “mounds” of dirt that aregraduallyshapedovermanyyearsthroughtheeffectsof“wind,rain,andsun.”Whiletheprocessofmakingchinainvolvesakindofmysticaltransformation,itisaprocessattributedsolelytonatureandremovedfrom a practical or commercial agenda. Though revered for its tech-nologyandartifice,porcelainconstitutesawonderofnatureunavail-able to its immediate human creator. The transformation of dirt intorefinedporcelaineludeshumanobservationandunderstandingnotbe-causeithappensinstantaneouslybutbecauseithappenssogradually.further, because the transformation cannot be rushed, it necessarilybenefitsfuturegenerationsratherthantheindividualwhoinitiatesit.Thus, china’s creation is portrayed by Polo as carefully and lovinglyundertaken,associatedwiththeactofgift-givingratherthanwithself-gainorprofit.Andyet,likethelaterpaintingsofMantegnaandBellini,Polo’sdescriptionalsohintsatwaysinwhichporcelain’sresistancetoimmediate commodification ultimately enhances its value and desir-abilityasacommodity. Whenin1557,theChineseauthoritiesallowedthePortuguesetofor-tify the island of Macao in the mouth of the Pearl River below Can-ton, European trade with China vastly expanded.26 from that pointon,EuropeancontactandinterestinChinarapidlyincreased,andbe-tween1570and1600,manyEuropeansbesidesthePortuguesebegantotradeintheIndianOcean.27ThoughEnglishmerchantsdidnottradedirectlywithChina,theypurchasedChineseimportsfromotherEuro-peanmerchantsandhadbythelatesixteenthcenturymadesignificantadvancesinenteringtheMiddleEasternmarketsoftheMediterranean,wheretheyobtainedluxuryimportsfromavarietyofeasternorigins.

26 foradetailedhistoryoftradebetweenEuropeandtheEast,seePhilipD.Curtain,Cross- Cultural Trade in World History(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984).forausefulandsuccinctaccountofthePortuguesetradeinChineseporcelain,seePortugal and Porcelain(exhibitcatalog),Newyork:MetropolitanMuseumofArt,Nov.19–feb.3,1985.foracollectionofessayssurveyingtherelationshipbetweenoverseasEuropeanex-plorationanddevelopmentsinthevisualarts,seeCirca 1492: Art in the Age of Exploration,ed.Jay.A.Levenson,exhibitcatalog,NationalGalleryofArt(NewHaven,CT:yaleUni-versityPress,1991).

27 As Niels Steensgaard has discussed, the demise of the transcontinental caravantradeandsubsequentriseoftheEuropeanshippingcompaniesattheendofthesixteenthcenturyalsomarkedamajorturningpointinEast-Westtraderelations,significantlyex-pandingtheNorthernEuropeanshippingtradewiththefarEast(The Asian Trade Revolu-tion of the Seventeenth Century: The East India Companies and the Decline of the Caravan Trade[Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1974]).


As Robert Brenner has detailed, England underwent a commercialrevolutionbeginninginthelatesixteenthcenturyasaresultofitsde-cliningclothexporttradeanditsgrowingrelianceonforeignimportsfromtheMediterranean,thefarEast,andtheNewWorld.28By1609,EnglishcitizenscouldperuseandpurchaseawidevarietyofimportedluxuryitemsintheproliferatingshopsalongtheStrand,laterknownastheNewExchange,thoughasDavidBakercautions,theExchangewasviewedatthetimeasariskyendeavorandEngland’sfootholdinglobaltradewasfarfromsturdy.29 WhileitisimportantnottooverestimatetheextentoftheEuropeanpresence—andespeciallytheEnglishpresence—intheIndianOcean’ssixteenth- and seventeenth-century trade community, the volume ofporcelainimportedintoEuropeduringthistimeperiodwasquitesub-stantial.OliverImpeyestimatesthatinthelastquarterofthesixteenthcentury Europeans imported “hundreds of thousands of pieces” peryear, which were then re-exported throughout Europe.30 As Chaud-hurihasnoted,chestsloadedwithporcelainwereextremelyheavyandhelpedtoprovidethenecessaryballastforships.31ThePortuguesecar-rackSanta Catarina,capturedbytheDutchintheStraitsofMalaccain1604,carriedsome200,000piecesalone.Atthebeginningoftheseven-teenthcentury,theDutchtookovertheEasternmonopolyfromthePor-tugueseandwithittheimportofporcelaintoEurope.InanimportanthistoricalstudyofporcelainandBritishconsumerism,RobertBatche-lorestimatesthenumberofChineseandJapaneseporcelainpiecesim-portedintoAmsterdaminthefirsthalfof theseventeenthcenturyatthreemillion.32

28 Brenner,Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). BrenneroffersadetailedhistoryofthefactorsthatenabledEngland’spenetrationoftheeasternmarketsandtheimpactofthegreatjointstockcompanies.

29 Baker,“‘TheAllegoryofaChinaShop,’Jonson’sEntertainmentatBritain’sBurse,”English Literary History 72 (2005): 159–80.fora contemporaryaccountof theNewEx-change,seeJohnStow,“TheTemporalGovernmentofLondon,TheHaberdashers,”A Sur-vey of the cities of London and Westminster(London,1755),11,A4v.Stow’sSurveyappearedinanumberofeditionsintheearlyseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies.

30 Impey,Chinoiserie: The Impact of Oriental Styles on Western Art and Decoration(Newyork:CharlesScribner&Sons,1977),92.

31 K.N.Chaudhuri,The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660–1760(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978),406–7.

32 Batchelor,“OntheMovementofPorcelains:RethinkingtheBirthofConsumerSo-cietyasInteractionsofExchangeNetworks,1600–1750,”inConsuming Cultures, Global Per-spectives: Historical Trajectories, Transnational Exchanges,ed.JohnBrewerandfrankTrent-mann(Oxford:BergPublishers,2006),96.


Despitea lackofdirect tradebetweenEnglandandChina, thelate1500sandearly1600srepresentedaperiodofintensifiedEnglishinter-est in Chinese commodities and unprecedented access to them. Al-thoughtheEnglishremainedarelativelyinsignificantpresenceinthearenaofglobalcommerce,theystrovetomaximizetheiropportunitiesin the Near Eastern Mediterranean trade and to imagine themselvesintheimageofthePortugueseandtheSpanish,whohadreachedthefarEastandtheNewWorldlongbefore.Numeroussixteenth-centuryprintingsofMandeville’sTravels,apopularstageplay(nowlost)basedontheTravels,andreproductionsofMandeville’stextinbothRichardEden’sHistorie of Travaile (1577)andthefirsteditionofHakluyt’sThe Principal Nauigations(1589)attesttotheEnglishappetitefortalesandgeographicalinformationaboutthisfarawayland.Polo’stravelnarra-tivewasprintedinEnglishforthefirsttimein1579,translatedbyJohnframptonfromaSpanishedition.33Itstitlepageadvertiseditaggres-sivelyas“Mostnecessary forall sortesofpersons,andespecially fortrauellers.”Inaddition,smallpamphletslikeThe Strange and Marueilous Newes from Chyna (1577)began tocirculate inLondon in the latesix-teenthcentury.LikeotherputativelyfirsthandaccountsofChina,thispamphletwasoriginallywritteninSpanishforacontinentalaudienceandthentranslatedintoEnglishforLondonpublication. The English translation and circulation of Spanish and PortuguesenarrativesofChinainthelatesixteenthcenturysuggestbothanemerg-ing interest in“newsofChina”andageneraldearthoffirsthand in-formation.Excerpts fromMandeville’sTravelswere included inHak-lyut’s1589firsteditionofThe Principal Nauigationsbutomittedfromthesecondedition.BythetimethatHakluytpublishedhissecondeditionin 1598–1600, he was able to replace Mandeville’s accounts of ChinawithseveralmorerecentnarrativesofChineseexploration,includingthoseofthevoyagesofMartinfrobisher“forthediscoveryofCathay”34anda1590 treatiseonChinabyanunknownauthor. In1588,RobertParke’s English translation of Juan Gonzalez de Mendoza’s SpanishhistoryofChina,The Historie of the Great and Mightie Kingdom of China,waspublishedinLondon.Ofcourse,eventhesemorerecentdescrip-tionsofChinawerecharacterizedbyseeminglyfarfetchedandgrandi-oseclaimsaboutChinesesplendorandabundance.Mendozawouldbe-

33 frampton,The most noble and famous travels of Marcus Paulus . . . into the East partes of the world(London,1579).

34 Hakluyt,The principal navigations,3:29ff.;forthefullrangeoffrobisher’svoyagesincludingallreports,see3:29–96.


comefamousforauthoringthefirstdetailedwesternhistoryofChina,andyet,havingnevervisitedthecountry,hebasedhisobservationsen-tirelyonsecondhandaccounts.AlthoughthebodyofEnglishpublica-tionsaboutChinawasgrowing, itconsistedmainlyofoldermaterialrecycledfromMandevilleandPoloandoftranslationsofSpanishandPortuguesetexts. forpracticalpurposes,EuropeanmissionariesandtradersfrequentlycollaboratedwithoneanothertopursuetheirseeminglyincompatibleobjectivesinChina.Jesuitmissionariesoftenreliedupontheaidofmer-chantstostrategizewaysofinfiltratingtheChinesebordersandwereevenknowntotraveltoChinaonDutch(Protestant)merchantships.Intheearly1550s,francisXavier(bornfranciscodeJasoyAzpilicueta)solicitedhelpfromPortuguesetradersandmerchantsstationedoffthecoastofChinatoattemptentryintothemainland,andothermission-aries like Michele Ruggieri tried to smuggle themselves into CantonduringthesemiannualpublicfairsattendedbyPortuguesetraders.In-cludedinframpton’s1579EnglishtranslationofatextbyBernadodeEscalantaistheoriginaldedicationtothearchbishopofSeville,whichcontrasts China’s advanced civilization with its unenlightened reli-giouspractices.EscalantadescribestheChineseemperoras“geventoidolatrie,andinthatwaymostvaine,”butinsiststhatChina’snaturalresourcesandtechnologies,aswellasitshighlycivilizedgovernment,socialsystems,andarts,aresosuperiorthat“noothernations...seemetopassethem.”35TheideathatapaganculturemightbesoworthyofEuropeanemulationprovidedabitofaconundrumforChristianEuro-peans.AsWalterLimputsit,“TheprosperityandvenerableageofChi-nesecivilization...generatedwonderandanimpulseforemulation,butwithanattendantanxietyhingeduponhowitwasthataheathenlandcouldhaveobtainedthebenefitsbelieveddispensedonlytoGod’sownfaithful.”36

THEMAGICANDMySTERyOfC H INESEPORCELA IN

WhileEuropeansfaultedtheChineseforascribingvaluetofalseidols,theirattemptstoapprehendanddescribeporcelainchinarevealtheirownstruggletonegotiatecompetingnotionsofvalue.Hakluyt’ssec-ondeditionofThe Principal Nauigations(1598–1600)containsamysteri-

35 frampton,A discourse of the navigation which the Portugales doe make to the realmes and provinces of the east partes of the worlde(London,1579),4.

36 Lim,“China,India,andtheEmpireofCommerce,”119–20.


oustreatiseonChina,whichfeaturesaprovocativedescriptionofthatmosttreasuredofcommodities,Chineseporcelain.InhisprefaceHak-luytdescribesthemanuscriptas“printedinLatineinMacaoacitieofChina,inChina-paper,intheyeereathousandfivehundredandnine-tie,and . . . intercepted in thegreatCarackcalledMadre de Dios twoyeeresafter, inclosedinacaseofsweeteCedarwood,andlappedupalmostanhundredfoldinfinecalicut-cloth,asthoughithadbeensomeincomparablejewell.”37Thusitselfascribedwithanairofwonderandmystique,themanuscriptcontainsanenumerationofvaluableChinesecommodities, includinggold,silk,spices,cotton-wool,andporcelain.Themanuscript’sdescriptionofporcelainexpressestheauthor’sdeepadmirationforChinesetechnologyandaesthetics:Letusnowentreatofthatearthenorpliablemattercommonlycalledporcellan,whichispurewhite,&istobeesteemedthebeststuffeofthatkindinthewholeworld:wherofvesselsofallkindsareverycuriouslyframed.Isay,itisthebestearthenmatterinalltheworld,forthreequalities;namely,thecleannesse,thebeauty,&thestrengththereof.38Revealingly,thecontentsofthispreciousmanuscriptencased“almostanhundredfoldinfinecalicut-cloth”consistnotofarare“jewel”butofalistanddescriptionofChinesecommodities.Partofwhatmadethelistcomparabletoa“jewel”wastherarevalueofthegoodsthatitcon-tained.Indeed,theEuropeanauthor’sdescriptionofporcelainidealizesitspracticalandaestheticqualitieswithouttheslightesthintofirony.Thus, while late sixteenth-century Europeans valued Chinese com-moditiesover the“misguided”practiceofChinese idolatry, theirde-scriptionsofthesecommoditiesalsobetrayanadmirationforChineseaestheticsandtechnologythatborderedonfetishization.39 AsHadfieldhasobserved,descriptionsofEuropeanencounterswithChinawerefarmoreextensiveinSamuelPurchas’s1625Purchas his Pil-grimes thaninHakluyt’searliercompendium,primarilybecausePur-chaswasnotlimitedtoEnglishvoyagesandincludedanumberofJesuitaccounts.40 for example, a letter written by the Spanish Jesuit Diego

37 Hakluyt,The principal navigations,2(pt.1),*4r.38 Ibid.,2(pt.2),91.39 WilliamPietz’sarticlesontheoriginofthe“fetish”inthelatesixteenth-centurytrad-

ingspacesoftheWestAfricancoastprovideausefulmodelforunderstandinghowthedevaluationof“illegitimate”religiousidolsenabledtheemergenceofaEuropeansubjectwhowasdefinedbyhisabilitytorecognizethe“truevalue”oftheobject-as-commodity(“TheProblemofthefetish,I”Res9[1985]:5–17,and“TheProblemofthefetish,II,”Res13[1987]:23–45).

40 Hadfield,ed.,Amazons, Savages, and Machiavels,190.


DePantoialaudstheChineseforhavingthebest,mostplentiful,andcheapest porcelain: “They have the best Porcelane that hitherto hathbeenefound,whichisexceedinggoodcheape,andinsuchplenty,thatbesidesall theKingdomeofChinadoth furnish it selfe thereof, theysendforthasmanyshipsladingsastheywill.”41AsimilarexamplemaybefoundinRicci’sjournal,firstcompiledbyNicholasTrigaultin1615andexcerptedbyPurchasin1625foranEnglishreadership.42LikeotherJesuitaccountsofChineseculture,Ricci’sdiarycontainsextensiveob-servationsaboutChinesemechanicalartsandcommodities.Thoughheattemptstocharacterizechina’spropertieswithinascientificormecha-nisticlanguageofcausality,Riccicannotescapeanoteofwonderatitsinnovativetechnology:ThereisnothinglikeitinEuropeanpotteryeitherfromthestandpointofthematerialitselforitsthinandfragileconstruction.Thefinestspecimensofporce-lainaremadefromclayfoundintheprovinceofKiam,andtheseareshippednot only to every part of China but even to the remotest corners of Europewhere theyarehighlyprizedby thosewhoappreciateeleganceat theirban-quetsratherthanpompousdisplay.Thisporcelain,too,willbeartheheatofhotfoodswithoutcrackingand,whatismoretobewonderedat,ifitisbrokenandsewedwithabrasswireitwillholdliquidswithoutanyleakage.43Thestrength,resilience,andself-mendingcapacitiesofsuchadelicateand fragile substance deeply impressed European missionaries, whowereseeingChineseporcelainforthefirsttimeandhadlittleunder-standingofhowtomanufactureit.Ricci’sobservationofhowthisma-terial stands up to “the heat of hot foods without cracking” testifiestoitssophisticatedtechnology,and“whatismoretobewonderedat,”itsabilitytobesewntogetherifbrokenandcontinueto“holdliquidswithoutanyleakage”wasvirtuallymiraculous.further,sinceChineseporcelainwasprizedby“thosewhoappreciateeleganceattheirban-quetsratherthanpompousdisplay,” itwaspraisedfor itssophistica-tion,refinement,andintegrity—quiteantitheticaltotheassociationsof

41 Asquotedbyibid.,198.42 Purchas,Purchas his Pilgrimes(London,1625),part2,book2,chaps.5,7,and8.43 Ricci,China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci 1583–1610,trans.

Louis J. Gallagher, forward by Richard J. Cushing (New york: Random House, 1953),14–15.Ricci’sdiarywasfirstpublishedinItalianin1615.InPurchas’srendering,Ricci’sdescription of Chinese porcelain is limited to the following: “The vulgar vse earthendishes, called, I [k]now not why, porcellane; the best whereof is made in the KiamsinProuinceofayellowearth.Itendurethwithoutriuing[ruining]hotmeates,yeaaswood-dendishesherewithawyre,theysowetheriftsandmakethemholdliquor”(Purchas his Pilgrimmes,part2,book2,ch.7,p.382).


decadence, superficiality, and brittleness that would characterize theeighteenth-centuryviewofchinoiserieinEngland. As demonstrated by Ricci, Europeans regarded Chinese porcelainwithacertaininvestmentinitsmiraculousandmysteriousproperties.Aslateas1633,CristoforoBorridescribedaChinesemethodofblood-lettingthatmadeuseoftheuniquepropertiesofaporcelain-coveredgoosequill.According toBorri, thegoosequill isattachedto“diuerslittlepiecesofPorcelanethatareverysharpe,fashionedandplacedliketheteethofaSaw,somegreater,andsomelesse.”44Todrawbloodfromapatient,theyapplyoneofthesequillsthereunto,andgiuingalittlestroakethereonwiththeirfinger,theyopentheveinewiththePorcelane,whichenterethnofurtherthenisrequisite.But thatwhich isyetmorestrange, is, thatwhentheyhauedrawenBloodsufficiently,theyvsenoband,norLigatureaboutit:butonelywettingtheirthumbewithalittlespittle,theypresseitonthewound,andmaketheskinreturnetohisplace,theBloodsuddenlystanching,andtheouertureclosing together: Which I attribute to their opening of it with the Porcelane,whichmakeththeveinetoclosevp,andtohealesoeasily.45Here,weseethatporcelainhastheabilitynotonlytohealitselfbutalsotohealawoundthatitcutsinhumanskin.Byattributingthestaunch-ingofbloodand“closingtogether”ofpuncturedskintotheporcelain“teeth”usedtoopenthevein,BorrigivespraisenotonlytothesuperiortechnologyofChineseporcelainbuttoitsmiraculouspowertoheal. Inadditiontothiscurativepower,porcelainwasalsobelievedtobe-stowuponthefoodorliquidthatitcontainedamagicalimmunitytopoison.AsThomasBrownenotesinhisseventeenth-centurysurveyofRenaissanceloreonthemakingofporcelain,someoftheuniqueprop-ertiesattributedtochinadishesinclude“thattheyadmitnopoison,thattheystrikefire,[and]thattheywillgrowhotnohigherthantheliquorinthemariseth.”46 Unable to replicate Chinese porcelain or understand how it wasmade, earlymodernEuropeansunabashedly recycledold, erroneoustheoriesandgeneratedaseriesofnewones.Polo’sthirteenth-centuryexplanationforthemakingofchinawasnotsignificantlyupdatedbythetimeframptonpublishedhisEnglishtranslationin1579.Specula-

44 Borri,Cochin- China containing many admirable rarities and singularities of that countrey / extracted out of an Italian relation, lately presented to the Pope(London1633),G1v.

45 Ibid.,G1v.46 Browne,Pseudodoxia Epidemica,6thed.(1672),book2,chap.5,no.7:98.Onporce-

lain’sappealingattributesforearlymodernEuropeans,seealsoLightbown,“OrientalArtandtheOrient,”229.


tionsaboutchina’soriginationandcompositionledtoheatedcontro-versies.farfromguessingthatporcelain’sstrengthcouldbederivedbyfiringclayat sustainedandcontrolledhigh temperatures,Europeanssurmisedthatitmusthavebeenmadeoutofeggshellsorbones,orelsesomeliquidsubstance. Aparticularcontroversydeveloped in the1550s inresponse to thetranslation of Barbosa’s travelogue, which introduced the idea thatporcelainwas formedunderneath theground.47 “It is certain,”wroteGerolamoCardanoin1550,“thatporcelainislikewisemadeofacertainjuicewhichcoalescesunderground,andisbroughtfromtheEast.”48In1557, JuliusCaesarScaliger surmised that chinawarewasmade fromshells that were pounded into dust, reshaped, and then buried. LikePolo, Scaliger hypothesizes that the maturation process for porcelaintakeslongerthanahumanlifespan:They are made in this fashion. Eggshells and the shell of umbilical shellfish(named porcelains, whence the name) are pounded into dust, which is thenmingledwithwaterandshapedintovases.Thesearethenhiddenunderground.Ahundredyearslatertheyaredugup,beingconsideredfinished,andareputupforsale.49Infact,ScaligerdescribesaprocessevenmoremysteriousthanPolo’s,suggestingthatthemakingofporcelaintakesonehundredyearsratherthanthirtyorfortyandthatithappensundergroundratherthanaboveground where its exposure to the elements might be observed. forScaligerandotherswhosubscribedtotheburial theory, thetransfor-mationofshellsintoporcelainexceededthepowersofhumanobser-vationandcomprehension.Howeverinaccuratethetheory,therewasatruemagictotheseproductsoftheEast,amagicnotdivorcedfromtherealitythatthe“mysteries”(astheguildswerecalledinEngland)couldnotunderstandthesemysteriesandthuswereunabletoreproducethetechnologythemselves.50 Significantly,theearliestEnglishtermusedtodenotechina,“porce-

47 On thecontroversybetweenCardanoandScaliger, seeLightbown,“OrientalArtandtheOrient,”230;Batchelor,“OntheMovementofPorcelains,”99–100;Impey,Chinoi-serie,89–90;andGordonElliott,Aspects of Ceramic History,vol.2(Endon:GordonElliott,2006),45–48.forBarbosa’sdescriptionofporcelain,seeGiovanniBatistaRamusio,“LibrodiOdoardoBarbosa,”inNavigazioni e Viaggi,vol.2,ed.MaricaMilanesi(Torino:Einaudi,1978),694–95.

48 Cardano, De subtilitate rerum (Nuremberg, 1550), 100v–101r. Quoted from Light-bown,“OrientalArtandtheOrient,”230.

49 Scaliger,Exotericum exercitationum(Paris,1557),135v–136r.QuotedfromLightbown,“OrientalArtandtheOrient,”231.

50 Oxford English DictionaryOnline(hereafterOED),s.v.“mystery,”def.n23.


lain,”derivesfromtheOldfrench“pourcelaine,”meaning“vanusshell,cowrie,orsimilarunivalve,”embodyingthe fallaciousassumptionofScaligerandothersthatchinawasmadefromshells.51ButScaliger’sac-countalsosuggeststhepossibilitythatEuropeanstookpleasureintheverymysteriessurroundingporcelain,whichencouragedtheseimagi-native hypotheses. Clearly, china’s mysterious composition and pro-ductioncontributedtoitsallure.Theunobservableandthereforeamaz-ingtransformationofcommon“eggshells”andthe“shellsoffish”intochinadisheswasimaginedasprecedingasecond,moreabrupttransfor-mationinwhichthedisheswere“dugup”andimmediately“putupforsale.”EuropeanauthorssuchasGiovanniBoteronotedhowseashells,“whichsomementermePorcelline,”werethemselvesusedascurrencyinplacessuchasChina,India,andEthiopia.52Inasense,Scaliger’sac-countofporcelainobscuresthepotentiallyawkwardjuxtapositionbe-tween European conceptualizations of value located in the magicalpropertiesofamaterialandthetransformationofmaterialobjectsintomonetaryorexchangevalue.According toBatchelor, the“doublena-ture”ofporcelainasaself-makingmaterialandconsumedcommodityattains comprehension through a “parallax view.”53 In another sense,themonetaryvalueofporcelainwassometimesunderstoodtobeen-tirelyseparatefromandincommensuratewithitsartisticandtechno-logicalqualities.AsPontanonotedin1498,“Therearesomethatpre-fer the tiniest little vase of that material which they call porcelain tovasesofsilverandofgoldeventhoughthelatterareofhighercost.Itdoeshappenoccasionallythattheexcellenceofthegift isnot judgedsomuchbyitscost,asbyitsbeauty,itsrarity,anditselegance.”54Thissensethatporcelain’svaluecouldnotbetranslatedintomonetarytermsbecauseofitsuniquenessasamediumofartenduredwellintothesix-teenthcentury,accompaniedbytheoriesofitsmysteriousproductionandnature. The early decades of the seventeenth century marked a significantturningpointintheEnglishdiscourseofChineseporcelain.DuringthisperiodcompetingexplanationsforhowtomanufacturechinabegantocirculateinEngland,somedoubtingtheburialtheoryorthebeliefthatitoriginatedfromeggorseashells.RobertParke’stranslationofMen-

51 Ibid.,s.v.“porcelain,”def.nandadj,etymology.52 Botero,Relations of the most famous kingdomes and common-wealths thorowout the world

(London,1630),501.53 Batchelor,“OntheMovementofPorcelains,”99.54 AstranslatedbyWelch,“PublicMagnificenceandPrivateDisplay,”212.


dozasuggestedthatpiecesofearthweregroundand“putintocisternswithwater”;andfrancisBaconcontendedthatporcelainwas“artificialcement”thatunderwentaprocessof“induration”when“buriedintheEartha long time.”55EdwardGrimstone’s1615English translationofPierred’Avity’sThe estates, empires, & principallities of the worldsetsforthtwodistinctpossibilities.Itfirstassertsthatporcelainvesselsaremadeofakindofearthwhichtheybreakeinpeecesandsteepe,pouringitintopooleswhicharewalledabout,&pauedwithfreestone:hauingdissolueditwelinthewater,theymakethefinestvessellofthefattestoftheearthwhichswimsabout:andasfortherestthemoreitgoestothebottomethegrosserandthickeritis:Theygiueitwhatformetheyplease,&thengilditandputitintoanycolour,thewhichisneuerlost,andthentheybakeitinanouen.56Whilethisexplanationdetailsatransparentstep-by-stepprocessthatmightbereplicatedanywhereandbyanyone, itremainscircumspectaboutthe“kindofearth”fromwhichporcelainfirstoriginates.IsthistypeofdirtorclayuniquetoChina?Areitspropertiesopentoscientificexplanationorare theysupernatural innature?DrawingonBarbosa,d’AvityaddsthatSomehold that thePorcelainevessel ismadeofeggeshellsbroken,andkeptonehundredyearesintheground,orelseoftheshellsofseasnailes,thewhichtheysteepeandlayinthegroundtoberefinedfortheliketime,asoneEdward Barbosahathwritten.Butifthatweretrue,thereshouldnotbesuchgreatstoreofPorcelaine inChina,neithershould they transport somuch intoPortugal,Perou,NewSpaine,andotherpartsoftheworld.57Here,d’Avityacknowledgesthebeliefthatporcelainwasmadeofbro-kenshellsburiedundergroundforahundredyears,buthereasonsthatsuchabeliefseemsinconsistentwiththe“greatstore”ofporcelaininChinaaswellasthevolumetransportedoutofthecountryintodispa-rategeographicallocations.Hisreasoningseemstosuggestalinkbe-tweenrejectingthefantasticalhundred-yearburial theoryandrecog-nizingthemassmanufactureandcommercialexportofchinaware toglobalmarkets. Similarly, a manuscript authored by Peter Mundy between 1634and 1637 notes the waning of the popular mythological explanationforchinaware inrelation to its increasedproductionasacommodity

55 Mendoza,The Historie of the Great and Mightie Kingdom of China,trans.Parke(Lon-don.1588),22–23;andBacon,Sylva sylvarum: or A naturall historie(London,1626),26.

56 Grimstone,trans.,The estates, empires, & principallities of the world(London,1615),722.57 Ibid.


forwesternimport.Heexplainsthatwhilesomebelievethatporcelainpiecesshouldly100yearesundergroundebeforetheycometoperfection,soethatheethatbeginesthemNeverseestheirend,butt leavesthattohisposterityafterhim,IcouldhearNothingofthisNowadaies.Gooddrinkingcuppesatt1dand11/2d,andfruittDishesatt21/2deach;therestaccordingtothatrate,forawholebarsa,whichis2tubbes,willcost28or30Ryalleight,andtheyusuallycontainabout600peeceslittleandgreat.58Mundy’sabrupttransitionbetweennotingthedisappearanceoftheoldexplanationandprovidingthecurrentpricesforbothindividualpiecesofchinawareandbulkpurchasesistelling.Itseemsthemythologicalexplanationis incompatiblewithperceptionsofchinaasanexportedcommodity. Butinotherwaysthemythologymaybeseentoworkinaccordancewithandtoenhancetheperceivedvalueofchinaware.Europeanscon-tinuedtobedrawntotheideaofporcelain’smagicaltransformation—unseen, and over a long span of time—long after chinaware enteredEuropean markets in sizable quantities. The sellers’ retention of thiserroneoustheoryseemstobepartlywillful,suggestingthatpreservingchina’s mysterious production enhanced its appeal and profitability.Just as alluring as the notion that porcelain derived from shells thatmagically transform underground was the sense that it served pos-teritybyvirtueofitslongmaturationprocess.In1635,GerhardMerca-torofferedthefollowingexplanationforhowchinawasmade:They mingle Sea snales or Periwinkles, with egge-shells, and putting someotherthingstothem,theybeatethemtilltheybecomeonesubstance.Thentheylayitundertheground,andtheretheyletitlyetoseasonandripen80.or100.yeare,andtheyleaveittotheirheyresasaprecioustreasure,sothattheycom-monlydocometousethatwhichtheirGrandfathersfirstlaidtoripen.Anditisanancientcustomeobservdamongstthem,thathethattakesawaytheoldmustlaynewintheplace.59Byemphasizinghowthemakingofchinabenefitednotthemakerbuthisheirs,suchdescriptionsseparatedtheproductionofporcelainfromitscommercialorientationandtheideathatitwasmadeforprofit.fur-ther,thesedescriptionsindicatedthatporcelain’sproductionnotonly

58 Mundy,The Travels of Peter Mundy, in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667,vol.3,pt.1,ed.RichardCarnacTemple(London:HakluytSociety,1919),305.

59 Mercator,Historia mundi: or Mercator’s atlas Containing his cosmographicall description(London,1635),868.


linkedgenerationsbutalsowascontinuouslyperpetuatedbyan“an-cientcustome”wherebyeachgenerationreplacedwhatittookfromthelastbygivingtothenext. ThecyclicalprocessattributedtoancientChinesecustombecameafamiliartouchstonefordescribingmaturationprocessesthatexceededthehumanlifespan,asexemplifiedbya1638poembyCharlesAleyn.InapassagecelebratingtheweddingofMargaretTudor(daughterofHenryvII)andJamesIvofScotlandin1502,AleynsuggeststhattheunionsignifiedtheeventualmarriageofEnglandandScotlandundertheirgrandsonKingJames.Politicalallianceonthismomentousscale,however,wasnottoberushed:“ItisaworkeofTime,”thespeakerre-mindsMargaretandJames,

therecannotbeThespring-timeinyourAge,andHarvesttoo,yourAgetheseede,thenextthebladeshallsee,AthirdtheEare.ThusChinaGrandsiresdoeBurytheirPorcellandishesintheground,Whoseprofitsbuttotheirsonnesheiresredound.60

To Aleyn, the production of china—a valuable commodity plantedbyoneselflesslyfarsightedgenerationforthebenefitoftheirdescen-dantstwogenerationslater—offeredthebestanalogyforhisera’smostmythologizedact:genealogicalnation-building.ThecomparisonwithchinawarefiguresMargaretasakindofproductivecommodity,abride-seedplantedinwhatwasoncehostilegroundtogrowbymysteriousmeansovertwogenerations.Aftertime,thepoemargues,thisseedwillbecomethatexponentiallymorevaluablecommodity,England’snewspouseScotland. Incorporated intoEngland’s senseof imperial iden-tity,themisunderstoodproductionofchinaisthuspressedintotheser-viceofbothcommercialandnationalagendas,transformingthewill-ful ignorance that perpetuated such mythologies into something ofvalue.Atthesametime,theEnglishwerestillgenuinelyperplexedbythetechnologyofporcelainandwereunabletomanufactureitthem-selvesuntiltheeighteenthcentury.SuchuncertaintyinflatedthevalueofchinaintheEnglishculturalimaginationaswellasontheEuropeanmarket—conditionsthatbenefitedtheChineseatEngland’sexpense. BythetimeBrownecameoutwiththesixthandfinaleditionofhisPseudodoxia Epidemicain1672,Europeanswerestill“notthoroughlyre-

60 Aleyn,The historie of that wise and fortunate prince, Henrie of that name the seventh, King of England(London,1638),142.


solvedconcerningporcelainorchinadishes,”thoughBrownewasableto include an account of a Dutch visit to China in 1665, which pur-portedtodiscredittheburialmythonceandforall.61Contrastedagainstthemagicalandindeedmiraculouspropertiesassociatedwithchinainearlier editions of the Pseudodoxia Epidemica, this ambiguity seems toepitomizethetransitionthat tookplaceoverthecourseof theseven-teenthcenturyaschina’sassociationwithmagicwasdebunkedandyetitsprecisescientificexplanationstillremainedoutofreach.Intheearlydecadesof the seventeenthcenturyDutchpottershadbegun topro-ducedelftware,tin-glazedpotterythatwasagoodimitationofporce-lain.Dutchdelftwarewasevenexported toChina, allowingChineseporcelainmanufacturersinturntoimitateandappropriateEuropeandesignsforexportbacktoEurope.However,thesecretofcreatingtruehard-pasteporcelaineludedEuropeanmanufacturersuntil1710,whentheMeissenworksnearDresdenbroughttomarketthefirstEuropeanporcelain.CrackingthismysteryradicallychangedthewaythatchinasignifiedinEnglishculturaldiscoursesandyet,asweshallsee,chinacontinuedtoholdontosomeofitsmysteriesintotheRestorationperiod.

PARTI I I : C H INAWAREINTHELONDONTHEATER

WhenchinawarefirstbegantobereferencedinthepopulardomainoftheEnglishpublictheater,itsignifiedasanexoticandmisunderstoodmaterial that was nonetheless perceived to be increasingly availabletoEnglish consumers.AsLindaLevyPeckhasdemonstrated, china-ware’sacutedesirabilitywaspartofalargergrowthinEnglishdesireforluxurygoodsthatwascreatedbyglobaltradeandattendantdevel-opmentsindomesticretailshopping,print,travel,andeducation.62Inturn,earlyseventeenth-centuryconsumerdemandwasinstrumentalindrivingandtransformingtheEnglisheconomy.63Duringthistime,asPeckshows, themeaningof “luxury”underwent transformationandexpansioninEngland,asitlargelysheditsconnotationsofimmoralityandsinandassumedassociationsofgentility, fashion, respectability,emulation,andrefinement.64InJacobeancitycomedies,thecomicde-

61 Browne,Pseudodoxia Epidemica,98.62 Peck,Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth- Century England(Cam-

bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005).63 Onconsumerdemand,seeDavidJ.Baker,On Demand: Writing for the Market in Early

Modern England(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2010).64 Peck,inConsuming Splendor,112.


ploymentofchinamayseemtoreflecttheearlystagesofitsdevalua-tion,butcloserconsiderationrevealshowthe theaterexploitschina’sstatusastheheightofluxurytoexposethemuddledusesthatlowchar-actersmakeofit. While,asIhaveshownabove,china’sincreasingavailabilityinEn-glishhouseholdsworks todemystify it, chinaassumesanewsortofmystification on the stage as a kind of secret code that is intelligibleonlytothosewhoarecapableofdiscerningtruefromfalseluxuryandvalue.Notably,chinaconstitutedanabsentpresenceonthestage—itsavailabilityimpliedbutneverphysicallymaterializedasapropbecauseitsexpenseputitbeyondthereachofanytheatercompany.Asifcom-menting on the false perception of china’s attainability, the stage ex-ploitedchinawareforitssusceptibilitytomisreadingbythefools,gulls,andgallantswhopopulatedLondoncitycomedies.Theseplaysseemtodemonstratethatdespitebothchina’sapparentubiquityandtheappar-entsocialmobilityavailabletocitizensinacitynewlytransformedbyglobaltrade,china’sultimateunattainabilityandunreadabilitymarkedadivisionbetweenthosewithtrueclassandthosewhosimplyaspiredtohaveit.JustasChinarepresentedaplacethattheEnglishmarveledatbutcouldbarelylocate,ChineseporcelainwasacommoditythatEn-glishcitizensdesiredbutcouldbarelylayclaimto. InShakespeare’sMeasure for Measure(1604),forexample,Pompeytheclownrefers todishes that “arenotChina-dishes”but “gooddishes”nonetheless:Sir,shecameingreatwithchilde:andlonging(sauingyourhonorsreuerence)forstewdprewyns;sir,wehasbuttwointhehouse,whichatthatverydistanttimestood,asitwereinafruitdish(adishofsomethreepence;yourhonourshaueseenesuchdishes)theyarenotChina-dishes,butverygooddishes.65Althoughtheclowninsiststhathisare“gooddishes,”the jokeisthatthey cannot possibly be anything like “china-dishes,” which wouldcost considerably more than “three pence” and were owned neitherby middling English households nor by London theater companies.Similarly,theideathatsuchfinedishesshouldhold“stewedprunes,”notoriousforbeingservedinhousesofprostitutiontopreventvenerealdisease,demonstratesPompey’sbungledmimicryofhighculture.AsinPope’sThe Rape of the Lock,Chineseporcelainis invokedtodebasesomethingelsetowhichitisbeingcomparedbutinatotallyopposite

65 Shakespeare,Measure for Measure, inMr. William Shakespeares comedies, histories, & tragedies(London,1623),2.1.90–95.


way.Whereas the“fragments”of shattered“Chinavessels” inPope’smockepicpoemareofferedasaparalleltothemeaninglessandover-blown “rape” of Belinda’s lock and the debasement of her sexuality,the fine “China dishes” invoked in Measure for Measure constitute anextremecontrasttothecommondishesfoundinEnglishhouseholds,aswellastotheplay’sthematicconcernwith“common”womenandsexualpromiscuity. In a somewhat similar way, Jonson’s Epicoene (1609) employs theabilitytoproperlyvaluechinawareasanarbiterofsocialtasteandcul-turalcompetence.Theplayisacutelyconcernedwithmappingdistinc-tionsoftasteamongLondon’smoneyedcitizenry,demonstratingthateconomicstatusdidnotnecessarilyguaranteesocialstatus.AsAdamZuckerargues,Epicoeneexemplifiesanew“logicofpowerorganizedaroundculturalcompetence,”whichis“informedbytheexpansionofamarketfornonessentialcommodities.”66SetinLondon’sfashionableWestEnd,inandaroundtheStrandandtheNewExchange,theplayconstructsculturalcompetencelargelythroughitscharacters’relation-ships to objects and spaces. Similar to Measure for Measure, the playincorporates chinaware in the mocking of a social climber’s bungledmimicryofhighculture.ThecritiqueisorientedaroundCaptainTomandMrs.Otter,ahusbandandwifewhoseconstantbickeringcenterson Mrs. Otter’s attempts to correct her husband’s crude manners. Amemberoftheemergingandnewlymoneyedmiddlingclass,CaptainOtterisamerchantoflandandsea(asmockinglycaricaturedbyhislastname),andhisparvenuwife,Mrs.Otter,runsasuccessfulchinashopin theWestEnd.TheplayridiculesMrs.Otter’s socialaspirationsbyexposingherconstant,misguidedattemptstocurbherhusband’sbe-haviorsoastomakeabetterimpressionontheirneighbors.Moreover,herown inability todiscerndistinctions in culturalvalue is exposedthroughtheironyofherprofessionasapurveyorofimportedchina—aluxuryitemwhosevalueshecannotcomprehendbeyonditsmonetaryworth. Inanextensionofthisirony,Mrs.Otter’seffortstomanageherhus-band’s behavior center on the question of appropriate drinking ves-sels.Confrontedwithherhusband’sdesire to showoffhis collectionofcarousingcups,whichtaketheshapesofabear,abull,andahorse,Mrs.Otterchastises,“Isabearafitbeast,orabull,tomixinsocietywith

66 Zucker,“TheSocialLogicofBenJonson’sEpicoene,”Renaissance Drama33(2004):42.SeealsohisThe Places of Wit in Early Modern English Comedy(Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress,2011),ch.2.


greatladies?Thinki’yourdiscretion,inanygoodpolity.”67Whilefash-ionable in Jacobean London, Captain Otter’s zoomorphic cups serveasvisualreferencestohisformeroccupationasabearwardenandasmoregeneralremindersofthesportofanimalbaiting—acentralmeta-phor throughout theplay.As JuanaGreenobserves, “forMrs.Otter,the carousing cups signify her husband’s slovenliness and drunken-ness,characteristicsthatexposehislower-classorigins.”68Significantly,Mr.Otterhasmarriedhiswifeforhermoneyandinexchangehasim-plicitlyagreed tocedecontrolover thehouseholdand itsproperties.Mr.Otter’scontinuedsubserviencetohiswife,expressedmostovertlythroughhiscustomaryaddressofheras“princess,”demonstrateshowthepowerofmoneycantrumpthatofgenderbutalsohowtheclasssystemreplicatedwithintheirmarriagedoesnotquitemeshwiththeprivileged social hierarchy involving more subtle distinctions of dis-criminatingtasteandwit.NomatterhowmuchmoneyMrs.Otterhas,shewillneverbea“princess”norevenanurbanecitizenequalinstatustoTruewit,Dauphine,orLadyHaughty.Mrs.Otter’seffortstopoliceherhusband’sfavoritedrinkingvesselsdemonstrateherunsuccessfulattemptstoapethepretensionsofpeoplehigherinthesocialorder. IfEpicoeneexposesissuesofculturalcompetencythroughtheOtters’relationshiptothecarousingcups,italsoextendsthiscritiquebyim-plicitlylocatingthecarousingcupsinacontextofimportedcommodi-ties.69forexample,asGreennotes,thefactthatthecarousingcupsex-emplifiedaGermanstyleofmetalworkknownas“Nurembergplate”andwerenotofEnglishmanufacturealludedtoa“conflictamongre-tailers of foreign plate and the Goldsmiths’ Company between 1600and1620.”70Mostlikely,thecupsfeaturedintheplaywereEnglishimi-tations. The very fact that Nuremberg metalwork was so susceptibleto cheap imitation, and widely displayed in London households andtaverns,workedtodebaseitsculturalcapital,causingittosignifythemiddle-classapingof courtlypretentions rather thanmarkauthenticstatus.Similarly,thesilverdishesthattheOtterssupplyfortheweddingdinner servedbyLafoolegestured towardvaluablemetal imported

67 Jonson,Epicene, or the Silent Woman,ed.RichardDutton(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2003),3.1.17–19.

68 Green,“PropertiesofMarriage:ProprietaryConflictinEpicoene,”inStaged Properties in Early Modern Drama,ed. JonathanGilHarrisandNatashaKorda(Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,2002),271.

69 foradiscussionofJonson’sEntertainment at Britain’s BurseinrelationtotheopeningoftheRoyalExchangeandattendantanxietiesaboutEasterntrade,seeBaker,“‘TheAlle-goryofaChinaShop,’”159–80.

70 Green,“PropertiesofMarriage,”265.


fromtheNewWorld,thusalludingtotheOtters’affluenceandcourtlyaspirations.However,likethecarousingcups,thesilverfeaturedintheplay—bothasaliteralstagepropandasarepresentationalobject—waslikelyaninauthenticcopy. Inadifferentway,Iwouldarguethattheplayimplicitlysetsthecon-tested value of Captain Otter’s carousing cups against the importedchinaware upon which Mrs. Otter makes her living. Green quotes apassage from Thomas Heywood’s Philocothonista itemizing “diverseandsundrysorts”71ofdrinkingvesselsinordertomakethepointthattheCaptain’s carousingcupssignifiedhispositionwithina“culturalmatrixofLondonmateriallife,”72butwhatshedoesnotcommentuponishowHeywoodsetsthezoomorphiccupsinrelationtothemostcher-ishedvesselsofall:porcelain.According toHeywood, “Ihave seene[cups]madeintheformeorfigureofbeasts,asofDogges,Cats,Apes,andHorses....Butthemostcuriousandcostly,eitherforWorkman-ship,orMetall[“material”73],arebroughtfromChina.”74Significantly,Mrs. Otter’s china shop and its porcelain wares—real or imitation—never appear on the stage in Epicoene, reflecting both the erasure ofthecommodityculturethatframestheplayandporcelain’sresistancetoEuropean imitation.Mrs.Otter’sexaggeratedconcernwith theso-cialvalueofobjects,projectedontoherobsessionwithherhusband’scarousingcups,exposesherinabilitytodiscernthevalueofthechinathatshesells.Porter,whosebriefreadingoftheplayfocusesonhowchinafunctionsasavehicleforillicitdesire,interpretsthechina-houseasasiteofseductionandsexualcommodification.75Bycontrast,Iem-phasizehowchinaanditsproperinterpretationfunctioninthisplayasagaugeofEnglishculturalcompetence.Bakerarrivesatasimilarcon-clusion inhis readingof Jonson’s1609masque,Entertainment at Brit-ain’s Burse,atextthatliesoutsidemypresentfocusonpublictheater.76ChallengingcriticswhoreadthemasqueasasimplecelebrationofEn-glishmercantilism,BakerarguesthatreferencestoChinaanditscom-modities conjure an awareness of English belatedness and ignorancesetimplicitlyagainstChina’scommercialdominanceandepistemicsu-

71 Heywood,Philocothonista, or, The Drunkard, Opened, Dissected, and Anatomized(Lon-don,1635),f3r.

72 Green,“PropertiesofMarriage,”264–65.73 OED,s.v.“Metal”:def.n.II.7,refersto“Material,matter,substance,fabric;esp.clay

orearthenmaterial”;cf.“china-metal.”74 Heywood,Philocothonista,f3v.75 Porter,The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth- Century England,137.76 Baker,“‘TheAllegoryofaChinaShop.’”


periority.BecausethemasquewasstagedonthepremisesoftheBurseitself,itsperformersweresurroundedbyaproliferationoftheChineseobjectsthattheydescribed.forMrs.Otter,thechinaremainsanabsentpresence,itsvalueregisteredonlyintermsofthemoneythatitfetches,whichinturnenableshertohobnobwiththeupperclass.Inshort,shecannot discern the distinctions in cultural value between Mr. Otter’scarousingcupsandthefinechinathathasmadethemrich.Thus,theplayexpressesadifferentformofambivalenceaboutglobaltradeandthesocialmobilitythatitproducesbyexposingtheessentialdiscrep-ancybetweenhavingmoneyandhavingsocialknowledge,taste,andwit. At the same time, as Jason Scott-Warren has argued, it critiquesthosewhomMrs.OtteraspirestoemulatebydrawingparallelsbetweentheuncivilsocialitesoftheWestEnd,whooperatethroughmockery,cruelty,andviolence,andthebear-gardenswhereTomOttercollectedhiscarousingcups.77 Jonson seeks to locate his own creative productions and authorialidentityonasimilarspectrumofculturalvalueinhis1623poem“AnEpistleAnsweringtoOnethatAskedtobeSealedoftheTribeofBen.”Althoughthispoemismoreconcernedwiththeconditionsofwritingforacourtaudiencethanforapublicone,itoffersvaluableinsightsintohowJonsonmeasuredhisowncraftinrelationtobothotherdramatistsandthepredilectionsofaudiencemembersbyusingceramicclayasametaphor.Proclaiminghisrefusaltobeinfluencedbythegossipofthetavernsceneorby thenewscontroversies thatpreoccupyothermas-quersof theperiod, Jonsonsuggests thatheandtheyoungfollowers“sealedofhistribe”retainaself-containedandautonomousintegrity.Herealizes,however, thatthispostureofdetachmentmightcompro-misehislivelihood,causinghimto

LoseallmycreditwithmyChristmasclayAndanimatedporcelainofthecourt;Aye,andforthisneglect,thecoarsersortOfearthenjarstheremaymolestmetoo:Well,withmineownfrailpitcher,whattodoIhavedecreed;keepitfromwavesandpress,Lestitbejostled,cracked,madenought,orless;LivetothatpointIwill,forwhichIamman,AnddwellasinmycentreasIcan.78

77 Scott-Warren,“WhenTheatersWereBear-Gardens:Or,What’satStakeintheCom-edyofHumors,”Shakespeare Quarterly54(2003):63–82.

78 Jonson,“AnEpistleAnsweringtoOnethatAskedtobeSealedoftheTribeofBen,”ed.IanDonaldson,Ben Jonson: Poems(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1975).


Inreferringtohimselfasa“frailpitcher”amongthe“animatedporce-lain”(ornateandshowycourtiers)and“earthenjars”(“coarser”mem-bersof thecourt), Jonsonnegotiateshisartisticandmoralautonomyamongothercourtiersandwithinasystemofpatronagethatrenderedhimvulnerable.Hismetaphorofa“frailpitcher”emphasizeshisvul-nerabilitybutalsounderstandsittobeafunctionofhisrareintegrityandthusasignofhissuperioritytoothermembersofthecourt.Aswiththesubstanceoffinechina,Jonson’scoreexhibitsfragilityandvirtueasinterfusedqualities,eachafunctionoftheother,thoughasJonson’sdis-dainfulreference to“animatedporcelain”mightsuggest,chinacouldalsobemisusedorpervertedbytheMrs.Ottersandshowycourtiersoftheworld. Givenhisself-professedartisticcommitmentstoplainstyle,honesty,and moral integrity, Jonson refers to “animated porcelain” and “thecoarsersortofearthenjars”inamannerthatdisparagesothermasquerswho create ostentatious entertainments and also put themselves onpublicdisplayorcrudelyengageingossipandbear-baitingtactics.AscriticssuchasDavidRiggshavenoted,Jonsonhadfallenoutoffavorwith thecourtby1623andwasalsoengaged inafierce rivalrywithInigoJones,whoseelaboratesetdesignsJonson’spoeminvokeswithitslaterreferenceto“friendships...builtwithCanvasse,paper,andfalselights.”79IanDonaldsonglossesthepoem’sreferencestoceramicobjectsasexpressionsofJonson’sanxietyabout“thedangerofhissupersessionatcourt.”80Thereferencetolosingcreditwithhis“Christmasclay”mayreferpracticallytotheearthenwareChristmasboxesusedbyappren-ticesandservantstocollectmonetarycontributionsatChristmastimeand metaphorically to the royal patronage that playwrights receivedforcourtlyentertainments.Despitethethreattohislivelihood,Jonsonresolvesto“dwellasinmycentreasIcan,”aprinciplereinforcedbythesimpleintegrityoftheself-containedvessel,itssolidandroundedshape(perhapsalsoareferencetoJonson’srotundity). Ifonsomelevel,Jonson’sceramicmetaphorsreferencetheideathatallhumanbeingsaremadeofclay,hisemphasisfallsnotontheircom-monalitybutonthedistinctionsthathedrawsbetweenthem.Alludingtoboththeauthorsandaudiencesofmasquesandthedifferentkindsofmasquesandroyalswhoperformedinthem,thesemetaphorssuggestdifferentusesofclay—whethershowy,crude,orfrailyetcentered—as

79 DavidRiggs,Ben Jonson: A Life(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989),264.

80 Donaldson,ed.,Poems,209.


wellasdifferentcapacitiesfordiscerningdistinctionsofaestheticandmoralvalue,forunderstandingthedifferencebetweenoutershowandinnerintegrity.Inadditiontoexpressingthepoet’sresentmentataudi-enceswhohaveabandonedhisart foremptyspectacleand frivolousgossip,Jonson’sepistlemayalsotellussomethingaboutwhyceramicclayofferedafittingmetaphorformarkingthesedistinctionsin1623.While“thecoarsersortofearthenjars”werecommonandeasilymanu-facturedinEngland,ChineseporcelainremainedacostlyluxurythattheEnglishcouldnotthemselvesproduce.Atthesametime,Chineseporcelain’s increasingavailability to thosewhocouldafford it raisedthethreatofitspotentialdebasementthroughostentatiousorimproperuse.farfrombeingapassiveorstaticobjectofconsumption,ceramicclayanditsshiftingspectrumofvalue(fromcoarseearthenwaretofineporcelain)activelyhelpedshapeJonson’sdistinctionsofsocialworth. BothJonson’spoemandplayreflectparticularmomentsinthehis-toryofEnglishreceptionsofporcelainwhenchinawareretainedasenseofexaltedvirtueandimmunitytoreproductionbutwasincreasinglyimported and integrated into wealthy homes. The sense of mysterythatmanyEuropeansstillassociatedwithChineseporcelainenhanceditsvalueasacommodity,thoughthediscourseofmysterynowcom-petedwithotherdiscourses thataimed todemystify china’sproduc-tionortosullyitsuse.Certainly,porcelain’sesteemedvalueandasso-ciationwithdiscriminatingtastesdidnotspontaneouslydisappearthemomentthatEuropeansbeganproducingchinaontheirown.Eveninseeminglyclear-cutrepresentationsofporcelain’sdevaluation,itispos-sibletoperceivemorecomplicatedconnotations,particularlyifwelookforcontinuitieswith theearlymodernhistoryofchina.forexample,inWilliamWycherly’sThe Country Wife(1675),theword“china”func-tionsascodeformalesexualpotencyinwhathasbecomeknownasthefamous“chinascene,”81butimplicitintheplay’suseofthiscodeisthelikelihoodthat“china”constitutednotamereequivalencetothepro-tagonist’sindiscriminatespendingofsemenbutpossiblyitsopposite—hishotlydesiredsexualpotency. WhenHornerandLadyfidgetemergefromHorner’schinacloset,whereLadyfidgetadmitsto“toilingandmoilingfortheprettiestpieceof china,”Squeamishconfesses towantingsomeofHorner’s“china,”too(4.3.187).Hornerproclaimsthathis“china”hasbeenallusedupon

81 Wycherley,The Country Wife,ed.JamesOgden,NewMermaids,2nded.(Newyork:Norton,1991),4.3.AllsubsequentreferencestoThe Country Wifearefromthiseditionandwillbecitedparentheticallywithinthetextbyact,scene,andline.


Ladyfidget,butSqueamishsuggeststhatperhapsthereisstillabitleft.Inturn,LadyfidgetrepliesthatifHornerhadreservedany,shewouldhave taken that, too, “for we women of quality never think we havechinaenough”(4.3.201–2).Hornerthenclosesthediscussionbysaying,“Donottakeitill,Icannotmakechinaforyouall”(4.3.203).Clearly,theword“china”standsinhereforHorner’ssexualstamina,whichmakescuckoldsofthesewomen’shusbandsandisthusassociatedwithdecep-tion,debauchery,andillicitpleasure.Inonesense,althoughLadyfid-getandSqueamishplaceahighvalueonHorner’s“china,”itscapacitytoregenerateovertimemaycheapenratherthanenhance itsvalue—thusofferingacontrasttoearliernarrativesofchina’smysticalincarna-tion.Certainly,by1675,chinawasbeginningtoassumenegativeasso-ciationsrelatedtoitscheapreproduction.MarkleyevenspeculatesthatthechinainHorner’sclosetrepresents“thestuffofaknock-offtrade:cheaplyproducedandmarkedupforred-hairedbarbarians.”82How-ever,wemightalsoconsiderthepossibilitythatthechoiceoftheword“china”signifiesinwaysthatareinnocuousorevenantitheticaltothelicentiousactivitygoingoninthechinacloset.WhereasPorterhasper-suasivelyreadchina’sfunctioninThe Country Wifeas“atokenofemas-culatingfemininelibido,”Ibrieflyconsiderwhatitmightmeantoreadchinaasapointofcontrasttodebasedsexualityratherthanassynony-mouswithit.83Inalargersense,Iwanttosuggestthattheshiftbetweenexalted discourses of china and debased discourses of chinoiserie didnotconstituteanabruptandabsolutebreak.Rather,chinacontinuedtofunctionasanarbiterofpropertasteanddiscernmentintotheRestora-tionperiod.84 InThe Country Wife,asinEpicoene,chinaconstitutesasocialcodethatdividesthoseintheknowfromthosewhoremaininthedarkandarethe butt of laughter. Its literal effectiveness as a codeword that is in-decipherable to the cuckolded husbands would have been enhancedbyitsextremecontrasttothelicentiousactivitygoingoninthecloset.Coulditbepossiblethattheword“china”conjurednotmerelycheapknock-offsbutalso inimitableworksofart?MichaelNeillhas in factarguedthatmanyofthesignsinThe Country Wifeactuallydenotetheir

82 Markley,The Far East in the English Imagination,191.83 Porter, Ideographia: The Chinese Cipher in Early Modern Europe (Stanford: Stanford

UniversityPress,2002),184.84 HereIaminaccordancewithJenkins’sinsistenceonthepositiveassociationsthat

stilladheredtoChineseporcelainevenintotheeighteenthcentury(“‘NaturetoAdvan-tageDrest’”).


opposites,tyingintotheplay’slargerconcernwithdeceptionandthediscrepanciesbetweenoutwardsignsandinwardhonor.85Inthecon-textofthisreading,Horner’spromiscuousspendingofhismanhoodisparadoxicallyemblematizedbysuchrefineddomesticobjectsaschinavases.Itseemsalsopossiblethattheindeterminatevalueof“china”inthis play—potentially cheap and valuable at the same time—mirrorsthevalueofHorner’spotency,whichdespiteitsabundanceisneverthe-lesshighlyvaluedbyhisladies. Ontheonehand,thetemptationtoequatetherepresentationofcom-modifiedchina inMeasure for Measure andEpicoenewithThe Country Wife exemplifies the dangers of anachronistically imposing modernOrientalistorcapitalistnarrativesontothepast.Butontheotherhand,potentialcontinuitiesbetweenearlyandlateseventeenth-centuryEn-glishdepictionsofchinaobjectsopenupthepossibilityofamorenu-ancedunderstandingofchinaware’slateseventeenth-centurysignifica-tion.EventheemergenceofEuropeanchinoiserieintheearlyeighteenthcentury,whichcriticshaveassociatedwiththeadventofwesternim-perialisminthefarEast,retainedaspectsofporcelain’searliervirtuousassociations.Recallingchina’sroleasanarbiterofculturalcompetencyon the Renaissance stage, chinoiserie functioned partly as an index ofurbaneaccomplishmentandcivilizedsociety.Thus,eventhoughchinawas (re)made by Europeans in the eighteenth century, it carried theweightofitspastincarnations.AnyconsiderationofwesternvaluationsofporcelainmusttracethestorybacktotheearliestpointsofEast-Westcontact,whenthechinathatenteredearlymodernEuropewasmiracu-louslyunblemished,uncommon,and“un-crackable.”86

University of Massachusetts Amherst

85 Neill,“HornedBeastsandChinaOranges:ReadingtheSignsinThe Country Wife,”Eighteenth- Century Life12,no.2(1988):3–17.

86 IamespeciallygratefultoPeterStallybrassforfosteringthisessayfromitsearlybe-ginningsandtoAnnieJonesforhershrewdadviceinthefinalstages.IoweasubstantialdebtofgratitudetoWalterLimforconvincingmethat thisresearchwasworthdevel-oping.Ialsowanttothankmycolleaguesandgraduatestudentsfortheirmultifacetedexpertise,especiallyJennyAdams,JosephBlack,SuzanneDaly,Arthurf.Kinney,PhilipPalmer,MonikaSchmitter,Wesleyyu,TimothyZajac,andAdamZucker.

cracking the mysteries of “china”: china(ware) in the early modern

Documents