REVIEWS FROM THE NEW YORK NATION, BOSTON TRANSCRIPT AND NEW YORK STUDIO OF THE WORK OF JAMES L. BOWES, ESQ., ENTITLED “ JAPANESE POTTERY.” SALEM PKESS PUBLISHING AND PKINTING CO. 1891. NOTE. The appearance of Mr. Howes’ richly illustrated l>ook on Japa- nese pottery has called forth unstinted praise from a nurnbor of English journals of the highest repute. The Academy says, “ It must always remain an indis|)ensable authority;” the Art Journal pronounces it “ remarkably free from mistakes,” and the Birmimj- ham Post says it is “ invaluable for the purposes of identification ami classification." How far this high praise is justified muy be seen by the following pages. Were it not for the extravagant claims of the author concerning the all-embracing character of his collection of which this book is in a way an illustrated and de- scriptive catalogue, the accompanying reviews would never have l>een evoked. The many plates illustrating the liook are of such remarkable lieauty and accuracy, nnd the marks are in most cases so well drawn that with extensive elimination und revision the book muy lie utilized for good service in identification. As the discussion of the merits of this book has excited some interest among collectors, the following reviews from the Nation, the Boston Transcript and the Studio arc republished and, ut the same time, occasion is taken Uvcorrect a number of ty|>ographical errors in the Studio review, as this was published when the writer, being far west, was denied even the chance of a first revision. There is also appended extracts from a general notice of Mr. Howes’ l»ook in the Japan Weekly Mail. In this notice Capt. F. Brinkley, the collector and exj»ert, calls attention to Mr. Howes’ fallacious ideas about Japanese enamels, Satsuma ware and other matters, and this [>ortion is here republished to show that others have rightly estimated the value of Mr. Howes’ book. Edward 8. Mou-k. From the New York Nation—Nov. 13, 1890. A glance at the opening pages of Mr. Bowes’ sumptuous book shows that the author claims to have brought together a collection of Japanese pottery so complete, as representing provinces, makers, and marks, that he ventures to imply that the Japanese themselves will in the future be obliged to appeal to it to learn about their own pottery. It devolves upon us, therefore, to determine, if possible, how far his claim is justified, and first of all by answering the ques- tion, What should such a collection include? In any comprehensive study of the potter’s art in Japan one must collect and study the common ware made for kitchen utensils, the vessels used by the better classes, and the brilliantly decorated and even gaudy vases, plaques, and grotesque figures made for export. A museum of art or an ethnological museum would be justified in excluding the latter class of objects—a museum of art, in that the decoration would not represent the true art feeling of the people; and the ethnological museum, in that the objects are not such as the Japanese find use for. Pieces of this nature might find a home in some industrial art museum, though even here their influence, on the whole, would be pernicious. Any complete collection of Japanese pottery, which is to furnish material for a work on the subject, should include only those objects made for the Japanese, and representing, of course, only things in accordance with Japanese taste and traditions; and these products should cover the whole range of fictile ware. A collection, even for an art museum, would not be true if it included only pieces hav- ing great intrinsic beauty ; or, to put it in another way, if an art museum were to preserve only the beautiful pottery of any country, nine-tenths of the objects of this nature from England, Belgium, Holland, and Germany, and a goodly portion of the pottery of other countries, would have to be banished. Applying the same rule throughout a museum of art, other collections would suffer in the same way—rusty ironwork, rough glass and begrimed wood-carv- 4 ings, faded fabrics and fragments of ancient sculpture, jiewtcr dishes and roofing-tiles, patina-covered coins and indistinguishable paint- ings of mediieval age—all would be discarded. The idea is at once so monstrous that no museum of art yet founded would listen to such a scheme for an instant. In the minds of man)' it has been found difficult to draw a hard-and-fast line between the collections proper for a museum of art and those for an ethnological museum. An acute student of classical antiquities regards as proper for an art museum all objects from nations which have been conspicuous as producers of art work in any line, and in these lines the collec- tions should lie exhaustive. The ethnological museum finds it still more difficult to draw the line, but its mutcrial comes usually from savage and barbarous peoples. This division does not, of course, exclude from the museum of art objects of suvuge and barbaric art. Returning, then, to what a complete collection of .lupanese pot- tery should l>€, a collector finds the following groups to study. First, the common ware of the masses, such as kitchen utensils, jugs, pans, etc. A few of these might well l>e got together to show how tasteful even common pottery is in an artistic country. This lot- tery, when of fair age, is usually the rarest to get, for, l>eing in daily use and without value, it is when broken thrown away. Second, lottery for table use ; objects used by the more refined classes for the tea ceremonies, for the writing-table, for the serving of wine, for flowers, and for house adornment generally, and for heating and illuminating purposes. The work of the amateur should also lie collected, as showing a curious phase of the art; uor must he over- looked pieces noted for their age or ugliness, but which excite the admiration of the tea-lover, not for their lieauty (for they have none), but I>ecau8e they come from the site of some famous kiln, or were used by some celebrated man in past times. Such speci- mens are breathlessly examined by the chajin in Japan in much the same way that an American, if it were possible to induce any rev- erence in him, might examine the boots of Christopher Columbus or the jack-knife of George Washington. The collection would not lie complete without examples of the prehistoric und early lathe- turned pottery of the country. If a collector were to limit himself to any portion of this scheme, he would obviously select the (tottery made for the lie tier classes —the i>oet, the artist, the scholar, the lover of tea and flowers— just as in collecting pictures he would not care for the painted signs. 5 the pictorial advertisements, and least of all for the stuff painted for the foreign market, but would collect paintings which had adorned the houses of cultivated people. Above all, no collection would be worthy the name that did not include as far as possible the marks of the various potters. In every important work on pottery, silver- ware, and the like, the marks have been assiduously collected and recorded, for, after all, if the piece is genuine, the mark is the first and last source of appeal. With these brief suggestions as to what a collection of Japanese pottery should embrace, let us examine the beautiful work before us. We are not concerned with the statement on the title-page that the author is “His Imperial Majesty’s Honorary Consul for Japan at Liverpool,” but we are with the statement that he is the joint author of “Keramic Art of Japan,” for, in the ten years that have elapsed since the publication of that work, he should have awakened a sadder and a wiser man. A casual survey of the ob- jects figured prepares one to understand why he is at variance with nearly all collectors and artists who have been fascinated by the intrinsic beauty of genuine Japanese pottery. Not only does he find their tastes in this respect unaccountable, but he criticises a little manual issued in 1878 by the National Museum in Japan as being singularly deficient in information in regard to the brilliant development of the artistic taste of the country at an epoch to which he assigns many of his pieces. In his preface he acknowl- edges his indebtedness to a number of Japanese friends for assist- ance in verifying or correcting his classification, and he thanks them for specimens, some of them heirlooms, which were necessary to complete the sequence of several of the groups; Government de- partments even aiding him in this. From these positive statements one prepares himself to a book which for the first time is to ascribe Japanese potteiy to its rightful dates, makers, and provinces ; to expect, also, that all the important makers at least, and all the provinces in which pottery was produced to any extent, are to be represented either by figures, marks or descriptions. It is true, the author has never been in Japan, has never come in contact with Japanese connoisseurs, or spent days poring over the treasures in some musty kura; has nev- er sat down with the amiable Rokubei, the dignified Dohachi, the good-natured Yeiraku ; has never had the opportunity of gathering words of wisdom from the lips of Kohitsu, Machida, Tanemura, 6 Maida, Ninagawa, and other exerts. It is amazing to learn, how- ever, that this not only makes no difference, hut that such an ex- igence is rather a hindrance to the proper forming of a correct judgment in regard to the subject. According to this dictum, then, we are to Indieve that Professor Fenollosa’s profound knowledge of Japanese art would have been more trustworthy had he obtained his information) by roaming alsmt England and the Continent; and that I)r. Anderson’s collection of kakemono in the British Museum would have been far better if he had picked it up from brie a-brae shops and auction sales. Let us see the result of this confidence on the uuthor's part as af- fecting the proper identification of the specimens he figures. The following corrections we make with the kindliest—nay, the most sympathetic—feeling, knowing the insii|>eruble difficulties one must encounter so far away from the “base of supply.” We pass over for the present Mr. 4 Bowes’ numerous mistakes in confounding the name of the kiln with that of the |>otter, the marks which have been wrongly read, and, above all, the erroneous dates assigned to so many specimens, and come at once to the vital question as to whether the attribution of many of his pieces is correct or not. If correct, then his Itook may l>c taken as a guide, ns far ns it goes. More than a third of the specimens figured come under the category of export goods, many of them exceedingly Ireauliful, but we are con- cerned only with such as truly represent native pottery. And here we might apply the author’s own words, which are quite just in re- gard to the old Japanese |K>rcelain in the Dresden Museum, made, as every one now knows, by the Japanese expressly for ex|*>rt. Mr. Bowes says: “Turning, now, from this old Japan porcelain, which, ns regards the form of the objects and their decoration, is at variance with the taste of Japan,” etc. Fortunately for the student, the plates, some of which have done service l»efore in‘‘Kerainic Art of Japan,” are marvels of the chromo- lithographer’s skill, and the l>ook is also illustrated by mnny excel- lent heliotypes. The pieces are so well depicted that one can tell at a glance the character of the specimen figured. On the plate lettered as Satsumn are specimens from three other provinces, a Itottle from Tamha, a square bottle of old Kiyomidzu (called urno- mori by the Japanese, from a peculiar staining which resembles the rain stains on the paper aAo/f), ami a ekokn from Higo. On the plate marked Province of Iligo there are figured six specimens, only 7 one of which belongs to that province : two and probably three of them are Chikuzen, and two of them are Satsuma (Mishima, white on gray). Of the nine specimens figured and described as Iligo, only three are from that province and one of these has been defaced by subsequent decoration. On the plate marked Suruga not one of the specimens figured was made in that province. The two spec- imens figured as Awaji of the eighteenth century were made with- in thirty years at Shido, Sanuki. (This will add an important province to Mr. Bowes’ list, and if he can get examples of the beautiful work of Minzan and Nawohachi and of the Tomita, Yasli- ima, Takamatsu, and other ovens, the province will be fairly rep- resented.) Nine specimens are catalogued as belonging to the province of Nagato, four of which appear on Plate lviii, one on Plate lvii and one on Plate lxvi. Following the catalogue numbers in the de- scription, we find No. 1 is Shino, Owari. No. 2 is an exceedingly rare and old specimen of Onohara, Tamba. (The figure of this specimen is so accurate that we venture to say its bottom is un- glazed and bears the impression of cloth on a dark-red clay.) No. 3 is Mishima Satsuma obscured by subsequent decoration. Nos. 5 and 6 are not Nagato. No. 7 is questionable, and Nos. 8 and 9 from the description alone should be recognized by the novice as Kiyomidzu, Kioto, and if further proof were needed, the mark is given which, though unintelligible to the author, is that of Kitei, one of the typical Kiyomidzu makers. Why go further ? Yet it is impossible to pass over such a glaring error as in the case of the specimen figured in Plate lxvi, as belong- ing to the province of Kii, and made by Sanrakuyen. Shades of Zengoro! It was not made within three hundred miles of that province, and there is no such maker as Sanrakuyen. On the de- cline of a ware made at an oven in Kii, a potter was hired to revive, if possible, the ware in Tokio, Province of Musashi. The oven was called the poetical name of Sanrakuyen. The essay of this oven proved such a dismal failure that, after a few years, it was abandoned. The pieces bear either the large or small mark, and sometimes the painted mark of Sanrakuyen. As this specimen was figured in a plate that has already done service in the work of Auds- ley and Bowes, published nearly ten years ago, time enough has elapsed to have corrected the error. On Plate xl, a piece is figured as Omi, whereas it was made in 8 Ofnke village, Owari. A plastic figure is described as made by Na- gami Iwao, Province of Yamashiro, whereas it was made by a (wit- ter named Nagami in the village of Yamashita, Province of Iwami. (This will add another province to Mr. Bowes’ list.) With the exception of two tea-jars, the ten specimens described as Idzumo are all of the yellow, bufr, and mottled brown glazes. The exam- (ile No. 981 was not made in the early part of the century, but within thirty years, evidently under Government direction, as the decorated model may be seen in the National Museum, Tokio. There is not a suggestion in Mr. Bowes’ collection of the vigorous work of Zenshiro, the lieautiful productions of the Rakuzau oven, or the remarkable white glaze and blue decorated wares of two hundred years ago. Similarly, under the province of Settsu, the poverty of his collection is shown by cataloguing eleven pieces of Sanda celadon, mostly modern ; one piece of Kikko; a trap for cut- tle fish, and two pieces made in Kolie for ex|iort. Not a word, how- ever, about the brilliant glazes of the Sakurai oven, the pure white and quaintly decorated pieces of Kosobe, the varied and remarkable products of Kiuzan, and theiesthetic work of the early Nauiwu oven. Mr. Bowes’ estimate as to the artistic quality of the |iottery of Tamba, Tdtbmi, and certain other province* is invalidated because his material, as revealed by his catalogue, is altogether too meagre and imperfect u|ion which to base an opinion. The work, for what relates to the identification of (lottery, is a striking example of how far one may go astray who undertakes to study the products of a country from just the opposite side of the globe. From thk Boston Transcript—Dkckmhkk 30, 1890. To the Editor of the Transcript: I have lo thank you for making public a reply of Mr. Bowes to a review of his work on Japanese |>ottcry which appeared in the Nation of Nov. 13. So long as this reply lurked aliout in the form of a circular it was im|ios*ible to find a sufficient pretext for noticing it. Now that it has shown its head the way is plain. I regret to say that the richest portion of this circular, namely, his attempt to defend one of the many sjieci- mens involved in the Nation's criticism, is unaccountably missing in your paper. That your readers may get an insight into some of the features Mr. Bowes counts as essential in identifying (lottery I am compelled to reproduce it here. 9 Mr. Bowes alludes to the tone of the Nation'ft review. The tone, severe or otherwise, was naturally evoked by the preposterous pre- tensions and inexcusable blunders of Mr. Bowes. There are different grades of errors. One may perhaps be ex- cused for assigning a wrong date to a specimen, unless in every case hundreds of }7ears are added where tens would do. A more serious blunder is to wrongly read a mark, as willing Japanese are always accessible to aid in its interpretation. A still grosser blunder i4 to assign a piece to the wrong province ; it could only be greater by assigning it to the wrong country. In the Nation's review, twenty-four blunders of the latter class were corrected. Naturally believing that the more important specimens were fig- ured, and the figures themselves being unmistakable, attention was mainly given to these. Observe now what Mr. Bowes says: “Your reviewer questions the correctness of the classification of about a dozen pieces, mostly of minor importance!” Mr. Bowes seems about as unable to count as he is to identify. Of these twenty-four specimens he attempts to justify the correctness of his attribution of one only, and as he is willing to take this as a test, let us abide by it. He says, “Take a single instance as a test of your reviewer’s judgment; the piece of Nagato ware which he classified as Shino, Owari, was also so placed by Professor Morse, whose attention, as I see by my notes, it especially attracted. This specimen I find has burnt into it the crest of the Prince of Nagato, which conclu- sively proves the correctness of my classification. Is it necessary for me to further pursue these over-confident so-called corrections, in face of such evidence as this?” Well, yes ; I should say we had better go a little further, since he is willing to take this as a test case. It is necessary to tell Mr. Bowes, with what gravity one can command, that the proper identification of a specimen is not at all affected by whatever crest or other decoration it carries upon it. Ilis book would indeed have been “confusion worse confounded” had he followed this unique method of classification. If he binds himself to this method, let him turn to his book, page 187, and he will find a piece of Ilizen that will have to be removed to Tsushima ; on page 258 a piece ofKaga, decorated in red and gold, will have to be removed to Bizen ; on page 301 a piece of Kioto will have to be carefully broken into two pieces, one of which must be classified with Mino and the other fragment with Bitchiu ; on page 310 10 another piece of Kioto (Awataof Kinkozun) will have to lie placed with Totoini. All these pieces have “burnt in,” us he expresses it, the crests of the princes of these respective provinces. Could the force of absurdity go further? Mr. Bowes says in his circular that the photographic representa- tions of the objects, however perfect they may be, are altogether unsafe guides where glazes are concerned. What, then, is the reader to dejiend upon? He will look in vain for even a brief al- lusion to the fact that the crest of a Nagato prince is to In* seen on this typical specimen of Shi no. If his excuse is that he has not seen it !>efore, he shows how superticially he has examined his specimen. We come now to examine a more serious blunder committed, one might say, without excuse. Iu his hook he quotes in full an article from the Japan Mail iu reply to one iu the Button Herald. in the circular now issued by him and published in the Trantcript, he leaves out all reference to the Herald and mendaciously attrib- utes thu extracts quoted as l>eing directed against my illustrated article on “Old Satsuina” which appeared in Harper t Magazine for Septeinlier, 1N8X. As Mr. Bowes has probably never seen the Herald article we shall reproduce it. The article in question was written by one of the stair of the Bottom Herald who has for years l>een familiar with my collection, lie has brought artists uud art- letters to view the collection and has noticed the fact that wares decorated only by their delicious glazes, and l>euutiful in their graceful shapes have always excited immediate admiration. A reference to the intrinsic merits of these kinds was made in my Salsumu article. Captain Brinkley, who has never seen my collection, takes exception to this, and his article lieing shown to the Herald correspondent, he felt called upon to write the article which prompted the reply in the Japan Mail. Before reproducing the Herald article, it may be well to make a few extracts from Brinkley’s “History of Japanese Keruiuics” and the Brinkley-Greey catalogue, to show that he is not wholly blind to the beauty of rich glazes. Of Takatori Captain Brinkley says, “The rich color of its gluze uud skilful blending make it wortii a place in auy collection.” Of Zeze, Omi lie says, “Of such excel- lent finish that their reputation is scarcely second to the Takatori chef iTteuvret." Of Tosa, that “ Specimens are also found whose miniature desigus, executed with great care and taste in colored 11 enamels, recall the style of old Satsmna.” References to mono- chrome and flambe glazes of Satsuma, and of other wares, are in the same spirit. Now I wish emphatically to state that it is to specimens of this nature that I had reference in my Satsuma article, and not to the Horidashi, the quaint, deformed and often plain objects that one sometimes sees among the utensils of the chajin. It is an ignorant aspersion on the taste of the Japanese and an outrageous aspersion on the tastes of American collectors to imply that they see beauty in such objects. Truth compels me to say, however, that many of these odd pieces are more attractive to persons of refinement than the mass of export goods which have unaccountably found their way into some collections abroad. The following is the Herald's article to which the Japan Mail refers. It will be seen by this that Captain Brinkley’s estimate of the Satsuma article is somewhat at variance with that of Mr. Bowes. Edward S. Morse. From the Boston Herald—Jan. 21, 1889. The Japan Weekly Mail for Dec. 1, the English newspaper published at Yokohama, has an appreciative comment on Professor E. S. Morse’s arti- cle on “Old Satsuma” that appeared in Harper’s for September. This com- ment is particularly notable from its being from the pen of Mr. Brinkley, the maker of the well-known collection of Japanese pottery and porcelain bearing his name, brought to New York and sold piece by piece, a few years ago. Mr. Brinkley, who is the editor of the Japan Mail, ranks high among pottery connoisseurs, but has collected not so much for the sake of representative specimens as for conspicuously attractive articles. Mr. Brinkley says— “An essay on ‘Old Satsuma’ by Professor Morse, in Harper’s Magazine for September, is incomparably the most interesting and exhaustive con- tribution yet made to the public’s knowledge of this greatly prized and greatly misunderstood ware. We have already alluded at some length to the opening paragraphs of the essay, and expressed the opinion that Pro- fessor Morse’s faithfulness to the canons of the tea clubs seemed likely to betray him into an exaggerated estimate of the sober and sombre types of Japanese ceramic productions—types which the world ought not to be taught to consider representative of the country’s best art. This nec- essary criticism, however, should be tempered by the admission that Pro- fessor Morse has been the first to direct Western attention to the groove in which the taste of ninety-nine per cent, among Japanese virtuosi has travelled since the days of Yoshimasa (1490). He has corrected the very mistaken notion that the gaudy, elaborately decorated and imposing wares 12 exported from till* country since it* port* were opened to the outer world nre worthy example* of It* true art. Hu tin* also collected an Immenae number of specimen* tit to form a frontispiece to the gospel of the Chn- no-yu, and these specimens enable him to llluntrate the excellent theses which lie publishes from time to time on hi* favorite subject. • • • * Nothing could be more useful than hi* exposure of the frauds practised in obedience to the mania for highly decorated ‘Satsiima,’ that prevailed in former years, and still prevail* iu Kurope ami America. Among the numerous specimens of so-called * Katsuma-ynkl' sent abroad since the opening of the country, probably not one In every ten thou*and was really * old Satsuma,’ and certainly not one per cent, was ‘Hatsuma’ at all. Professor Morse explains all this fully, and with the authority of an expert. It i* really pleasant to iind the subject of Japanese ceramics treated by one who knows what he is talking about and is not compelled to trust to the dicta of superficial observers and presumptuous charlatans. We sin- cerely hope that Professor Morse will succeed iu educating American col- lectors to a true sense of the lieautlcs of Japanese ceramic products, to which end we would fain see him lead them a little beyond the austere conservatism of the Cha-no-yu ethics." Concerning the foregoing remarks, It should lie said that Mr. Hriukley has, in some respects, an erroneous notion of the character of the collec- tion of Professor Morse, which he has never seeu. He appears to have mistukenly conceived that the entire collection consists of tea jars uud sombre bowls, whereas it includes many hundreds of the most fascinatingly beautiful specimens In decoration and glaze. In other words, It is a com- plete representation of Japanese ceramic art, from the most charming forms of Kioto, Satsuma and Ksga, through the delicious glazes of the Cha-no-yu taste down to the common utensils of the lower classes, and beyond to the early and prehistoric forms. This Is what makes the col- lection absolutely unique. It would have, Indeed, been one-sided If It hail contained only the utensils of the Chajin, or, worse still, If It had been merely made up of the objects termed “ pretty." Again, Mr Hriukley Is mistaken if he supposes that the Cha-no-yu forms and colors are not at- tractive. It is a noteworthy and significant fact that the Itest artists who have seen Professor Morse’s collection—men like Vedder, Coleman, Chase. Vinton, Ross Turner and others—are immediately fascinated by the very school of art that Mr. Hriukley seems, as yet, to have been unable to ap- preciate. It Is also a significant fact that American collectors, such as Mr. Havemeyer, Mr. Dana, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Walters, Mr. Hastings, and many others have been equally enraptured over the enduriug charms of just the kind of [tottery that Mr. Brinkley seem* most unaccountably blind to. Had he followed the sale of his collection In New York, Mr. Hriukley would probably have been amazed at the promptness with which the quaint howl* and tea jars were snatched up; and he would probably find among those yet remaining unsold the very specimens that seemed pretty in bis sight. 13 From the Studio—Jan. 10, 1891. To the Editor of the Studio : Since you have deemed it of sufficient interest to publish the re- ply of Mr. Bowes to the Nation's review of his book, together with my answer to that reply in the Transcript, it may be of interest to your readers to pursue the matter a little further. With the extravagant claims of Mr. Bowes and the praise be- stowed upon the book by reviewers in reputable English journals, there is really no other course to pursue than to follow the matter up, disagreeable as it is, and to show how unreliable the book is as a guide to a knowledge of Japanese pottery. Instead of an exhaustive collection which Mr. Bowes claims to possess, the poverty of its material is far more apparent than the richness of it. The only explanation of this condition of things is that Mr. Bowes has been woefully deluded, and, judging from the lavish praise bestowed upon his book, he has successfully deluded many others. It is hopeless, of course, to undertake to dispel this delusion in Mr. Bowes, but it is a pity that others are to be de- ceived by this pretentious display under the guise of the book- maker’s art and lithographer’s skill. Mr. Bowes states that the Nation's review calls attention to about a dozen errors, mostly of minor importance. In reality twenty- four errors of major importance were shown, one only of which he attempts to defend. Judging as far as one can from his meagre descriptions, from the names of the objects such as cups with saucers, etc., and the admissions he makes regarding many of them, it would be safe to say that at least half the specimens figured, and a large number of those described, come under the definition of “export” goods, many of them doubtless very beautiful, but as much out of place in a collection of Japanese pottery, as representing the people and their tastes, as would a lot of Manchester-made Java sarongs be in a collection of typical English cotton prints. There may be left three or four hundred examples which, from their genuineness, are worthy of attention. To classify the bulk of these properly, re- quires but little skill or credit. With the admirable South Ken- sington Hand-book of Japanese Pottery edited by Dr. Franks, an ordinary collector should be able to assign most of these to their 14 rightful dates, and provinces, as for example, such wares as Kan- zan, Dohachi, Toyosukc, Ilozan, Iwakurazan, Mim|>ci, Kenzan, Kinkozan, Kitei, Rokultci, Kenya, Ninsei, Seifu, Rengetsu,Taisan, Tanzan, Tozan, Yeiraku, Yusetsu, Zorokn, Akahada, Bunko, Inu- yama, Kameyaina, Kuwana, Miuato, Old, Kutani, Soma, Asuhi, Totbrni, Idzumo, Idzutui, ami many others. In fact, to know these wares is to learn the alphabet of the study. Having subtracted the above wares from Mr. Bowes’ list, a still smaller residuum remains, and on this the real work of identifica- tion and classification Itegins. In fact it is among these alone that any one claiming to be an expert in such matters should show some knowledge. Unfortunately Mr. Bowes has made u number of grave blunders among those of the simpler class as was |>ointed out in the Na- tion’s review. In his reply he says that as the Nation's review docs not point out any errors in the translation of the numer- ous marks, he feels no doubt that the renderings are essentially correct. The limits of the Nation's review probably |>crmitted only the [minting out of the grosser blunders, und since he felicitates himself u|H>n the idea that the remainder of his work is substan- tially correct, it Incomes an unpleasant duty to |>oint out many other errors in identification, classification, etc. The errors on Plate I, which acts as a frontispiece, are prophetic of what is to follow ; a glance at this plate shows an extraordinary division of what is called decorated and undecorated wares. The refined decoration in blue on a Karatsn bowl is evidently no decor- ation in his eyes; loud colors, gold, red and blue in emphatic and crowded masses are what he understands by decoration. As to the other four specimens, the tea-jar is not a Toshiro, and the Seto- Kusuri Satsuma has no resemblance to that ware and, right or wrong, they give no idea whatever of the Istautiful running and mottle*I glazes of Chikuzen, Tatnba, Omi, Iga. Buzen and other provinces. On Plate VII, out of forty-seven different objects represented as utensils used in the ceremony of Cha-no-yu, twenty of them are never used in the ceremony; these arc used in another tea-service called Sen-Cha, in which the tea, instead of being ground to a fine jmwder ami drank from a large liowl in which it is made, is prepared in the ordinary leaf form in a tea-pot ami drank from 15 small cups. The cloth labelled finger-napkin is not used to wipe the fingers upon, but to wipe the bamboo spoon and the top of the tea-jar. The fingers of the Chajin are supposed to be clean. On page 63 Mr. Bowes complains of Dr. Ernest Hart, who in a lecture before the Society of Arts made the statement that he did not know of half a dozen pieces of genuine Satsuma in England. Mr. Bowes writes “and this he said without having informed him- self on the subject by an inspection of the series here catalogued, a series which is as well known in Japan as it is in this country.” I must confess that in a somewhat extended acquaintance in Japan with collectors, antiquarians, dealers and others likely to be inter- ested in such matters I never heard this series mentioned. I did see an allusion to the Satsuma figured in the “Keramic Art of Japan,” and as half the specimens are there marked as being in the possession of James L. Bowes, Esq., and as a number of the Sat- suma plates of that book are called upon to do service in the present volume, it is no injustice to quote the words in question, partic- ularly as they are by one to whom he so often approvingly appeals. Captain Brinkley in his “History of Japanese Keramics” says, “it may be worth noticing that in the beautifully illustrated work of Audsley and Bowes pains are taken to divide a series of Satsuma specimens — representing at most a period of twenty years—into three sections, which are distinguished as Old, Middle and Modern, but which in reality represent nothing more than different degrees of medication. In truth, these evidences of age, the amateur is so much disposed to trust, are of all things most deceptive, and he has profited well by his experience on whom the first impression their presence produces is one of suspicion.” Steeping in strong infusions of tea, boiling in decoctions of yashi and sulphuric acid, or exposure to the fumes of damp incense are among some of the methods mentioned. His statements on page 80 are quite ridiculous in their absurdi- ty. In speaking of the Raku ware lie expresses surprise that this ware should have taken “ so strong a hold on the minds of the Japanese, and still more that connoisseurs in other countries have so blindly accepted such objects as the highest outcome of that na- tion in Keramic Art.” In a somewhat extended study of the subject I have met many of the leading connoisseurs in Europe and America and do not re- member hearing a word of praise or otherwise in regard to this cu- 16 rious ware. Some of the earlier bowls liavc a remarkable deep black glaze and this has been commented upon. It is curious to observe, however, that among the few specimens in the |K>sscssiou of Mr. Bowes are some that have “soft Uaku glazes and wore of varied and brilliant hues, and were applied with skill nnd taste producing very satisfactory results.” (Page MS.) In this connection it may lie mentioned, as an odd coincidence, that when the work of any potter of whom he may have heard is wanting in his collection it is generally referred to as not only in- artistic but absolutely of no value. (Page 85.) He is equally emphatic in his expressions concerning the |>ottery of those prov- inces of which he has but few examples. The Japanese prefer Baku l>owls to drink tea from, not because they impart a delicate flavor to the tea, as Mr. Bowes says, but liecause being of soft lottery and thick, they are non-conducting, thus keeping the tea hot and enabling the IhjwI to l>e held in the hand without pain. Page 127. He speaks of Takatori ware as having beauties ap- parent only to the eyes of the native connoisseurs! Page 130. Mimpei was an Awaji potter and not a Kioto one. Page 134. His remarks alout Koto ware and date assigned are erroneous, as will Ire seen further on. Page 136. The province of Buzen is dismissed in eleven lines. Page 140. He describes Chikugo pottery, of which he has none, as having a soft, light-colored clay, somewhat similar to that em- ployed in Minato ware. Typical pieces of Chikugo, bearing the mark of Yanagiwara and also a kakihan, are made of a dense hard grey or dark brown clay, and give out a ringing sound when struck. The pottery descril»ed by Mr. Bowes has no more resemblance to Minato ware than it has to Royal Worcester. Page 143. Mr. Bowes derives his estimate of Tamba ware, pre- sumably, from the two specimens catalogued. He concludes that these specimens “ serve only to show how rude the objects were which fascinated the minds of the Chajin.” (’apt. Brinkley has oc- casion to remark that tea-utensils of considerable merit were manu- factured in this province towards the end of the 16th century, and that early in the present century pieces of greatly improved descrip- tion were turned out at Sasayama. The paste was carefully manip- ulated, anti the decoration, sometimes applied in the form ol pile xurpile to an unglazed surface, and sometimes enamelled in the ordinary method, was generally of a very artistic nature. 17 Page 144. Mr. Bowes considers the pottery made at Shidoro particularly inartistic and rough, both as regards pottery and glaze. We judge from this that he has been particularly unfortunate in his selection of the two examples he has in his collection. Page 145. We are told that the introduction of the industry in Tsushima appears to be of recent date, for nothing is heard of it until the period of Bunkwa (1804-1818). He should see some of the examples of Yalieda, made in 1680 or thereabouts. Page 148. He has one specimen of Tosa, and this example leads him to express the opinion that “ no great proficiency was attained during the time the kiln had been in existence.” Page 152. Mr. Bowes, after confessing his meagre information on the subject, says in regard to the pottery of Suwo, “ it is im- probable that it was pursued to any extent beyond the making of common wares for daily use, or for the cha-no-yu ceremonial.” Chancing, however, to have an unsigned and undecorated example of ware from this province which he ascertains is rare, he says it “ is one of the rarest and most beautiful of Keramic wares of the country It is a dish of buff pottery of very fine text- ure, covered with an opaque grey glaze, which is crackled in an al- together perfect manner.” If these expressions of admiration are not animated by the rarity of the specimen, then Mr. Bowes is slowly—very slowly—beginning to appreciate what the Chajin ad- mires. Page 152. His erroneous conceptions of Akahada ware, based upon the possession of a few specimens, will be shown further on. Page 160. A piece bearing the mark of Sanrakuyen is said to be a typical piece of Yeiraku. The laughable absurdity of this blunder is shown up in the Nation’s review. Page 161. Equally erroneous is the statement that Zuisido is the potter’s name. Dzuishi is a poetical name for the oven, and do means house. Meppotani ware usually bears the impressed mark of Dzuishi. Page 208. The specimen catalogued as Seto-Kusuri Satsuma has no resemblance to that ware whatever. If any of his Mishima and Seto-Kusuri are signed, he fails to note it. Page 208. Cat. No. 169 is not late in the 17th century, but pos- sibly middle of 19th century. It is recent in form and decoration. Page 230. Mr. Bowes would have shown his wisdom in defer- ring to the views of his Japanese friend. It is certainly not Sat- 18 suma. Judging from the meagre description, it will probably turn out to he Fukagawa, Nagato. Page 248. A dish regarded as Kaga is sandwiched between a piece said to Ih» an example of early ware and one made in the earlier years of the eighteenth century. He says, “some difference of opinion has been expressed as to the origin of this piece, hut the balance inclines to this classification.” Capt. Brinkley, however, says in regard to this piece: “As for Messrs. Audsley and Bowes* ‘oldest example, a large, deep dish, of rather crude manufacture, clearly denoting its early date, decorated with archaic llgures and conventional ornaments in a |>eculiarly dull red,*—a dish proposed to the readers of the Keramie Art as a means of enabling them to ‘identify ancient pieces which may hereafter come to hand’—we can only say either that it belongs to the last |>eriod of the al»ove three, or that, as seems not unlikely from the illustration and ac- companying description, this dish, ‘many centuries old,' is one of the many pieces produced in Owari within the past few years especially for the purjxrse of deceiving unwary collectors.” Capt. Brinkley further says: “It may tie well to mention here that the soft, ivory-tinted jxite described by Audsley and Bowes ns peculiar to the early Kaga ynki belongs essentially to the last period of manufacture” (1860-1880). Page 225. Seiundo is not the name of the |K>tter, but Seiun is a |>oetical name, and do, house. Page 291. A solitary s|>ecimeu of Ohi, Kaga prompts him to say, “this rude work affords a fair example of the ware made at the factory of Ohimnchi for the use of the Chajin.” Page 295. The mark Kiuruku is rendered by Mr. Bowes Keiraku, and this blunder causes another one, as the author suggests that Kei may signify that the piece was made by Keiniu, the eleventh Chojiro! whereas the mark is that of a potter named Yasuke, who lived at Shintnachi, Kioto, and made Baku ware up to i860. He liears no relation to the Baku family, and, of course, the mark has never appeared in the Baku generations. Page 298. Shosai is the name of a Baku maker in Scttsu, not in Yamashiro. Page 300. The seal Ninsei is a false mark, and therefore the bowl is not genuine. Page 314. We are here informed that a clumsy-looking teapot was not only made by Kenzan, but that in doing this he had the 19 modest affectation to inscribe upon it that he copied it from Makudsu. Makudsu was horn many years after Kenzan died. The teapot in question was made by the modern Makudsu at Yoko- hama, who lias marked it a copy of Kenzan. Page 318. Apiece of genuine Dohachi, judging from the de- scription and characteristic marks, is commented on as follows : “Stated bj? connoisseurs to have been made by Dohachi about 1850, but it bears the following impressed marks.” Why shouldn’t it? Page 336. The simple mark Seiniu is rendered Seikiyoshiniu, which combines in a novel way the Chinese and Japanese pronun- ciation. Page 337, Cat. Nos. 545 and 546. The author says, probably made by Kitei and possibly used by the Mikado. These were not made by Kitei, and the other statement is probably equally erro- neous. Page 337, Cat. No. 547. Not Kioto, but Shigaraki, Omi. Page 338. Mark Seifu, is upside down. Page 339, Cat. No. 554. The mark Shawa is not Kioto, nor even the province of Yamashiro, but belongs to a village in Ise ; date 1858, or thereabouts. This ware also bears the marks Se- kitokuan, and Unkinan. Page 340. The mark of Mimpei is not that of the original Mimpei, but a later period—say 1870. Page 364, Cat. No. 666 has no resemblance whatever to an early form of Inuyama, but is nearly the last—say 1850. Page 365. The mark Genzan should be read Kenzan. Page 365, Cat. No. 671, is not Owari, but Ise. Page 368, Cat. No. 681. We are told that the mark Horaku is the name of the maker, whereas it is one of the numerous marks of the Toyosuke pottery. Page 431. A vessel called Yojitate is said to be made to hold chop-sticks. Yoji means toothpick ! Page 432. The same blunder is repeated in Cat. Nos. 915 and 916. Page 435. Mr. Bowes gives the date of Koto as 1800, and says, page 134, that native records give no account of the ware. It would be interesting to know what native records he consulted. Had he referred to the Brinkley-Greey Catalogue he would have found the date 1840 quite correct. Page 441. His piece of Tozan is accredited to the year Kwan- 20 yei—1624-1643. Capt. Brinkley says Hint the ware wns first pro- duced in 1840. My own date places its origin in 1826. If there is any douht about it I should incline to the later date. Which- ever proves correct, Mr. Bowes should take ofiT al»out 200 years. Page 442. A large vase is placed with Ilaritua, for what reason only the extraordinary methods of Mr. Bowes can explain. He catalogues only two specimens besides this one — not enough by fifty tojudgeof a ware. A good guess would 1k» Akahada, Yumato. He says some connoisseurs have been inclined to place it with Hokubei, but none of the generations of Rokultei have ever used a mark even remotely approaching this. A further study of the specimen will probably reveal the fact that it is one of a number of 8|>ecimens that have within a few years turned up in New York and Paris, each s|>eciinen different in matter of surface and glaze, but all Itcaring the spiral mark and either Ho or Sei in addition. These are so recent in the market that they are almost warm from the oven. Page 443. The bottle described under Catalogue No. 953, said to l>e seventeenth century, is not over, forty years old. We venture to say that there is no spiral thread mark on the tiottoin ; clay, slate- colored and fine, and the bottle slightly constricted in the middle. Page 444. A bowl marked Shidoro is placed somewhere between the years 1596 and 1614. The mark Shidoro was not used until a hundred years after Mr. Bowes’ date, and the mark he figures is a recent form, perhaps fifty years old. The mark used on Shidoro l»efore the time of Yenshiu (1680) has never l>een deciphered by Japanese antiquaries. Page 452. The first mark on this page should read Unyei, not Wunsui. The second mark should read Unzen, not Unki. Page 453. Second mark should read Unyei, not Wunsui. Page 454. Under the province of Suwo, Mr. Bowes catalogues one specimen, unsigned. He also makes public a private letter from a Japanese friend, which reads as follows: ‘Prof. Morse has l»een in my province two months looking for Tads ware, with what success 1 know not. Nowadays specimens of this ware are ver}* scarce.’ A reference to my journal shows that 1 was in that prov- ince just two days; in that time, however, thanks to the high officials to whom I had !>een commended by a gentleman (who, if the Shogunate had been prolonged, would have l»een Daimio of the province), I had placed in my jMjssession forty-six specimens of 21 Tada and other Suwo wares, many of them with impressed and written marks. No wonder the ware had become scarce! Page 460. His specimens of Akahada do not date back between 1751 and 1763 ; they are all recent, as proved by the marks. In the early part of this century the mark Akahada was first used in a symmetrical gourd-shaped figure. In 1830 a potter from Koriyama made pottery at Akahada and added the impressed mark Moku- haku. The round stamp Akahada on Mr. Bowes’ specimens is the very latest and may be twenty years old. The characteristics of this ware, as described by Mr. Bowes, refer only to the recent pro- ductions. Page 463. The character, when alone, should read (7/«, not Ji. Page 465. The work of Zuisido is again referred to. Page 466. The mark Sanraku}Ten, as belonging toKii, fittingly terminates this unique catalogue. As to typographical errors, a fair reading of the work would have eliminated Harria for Harima; Takagamire for Takagamine; Kin Ivozan in one part of the book and Kinkozan in another. In the earlier part of the book, Rukubioye can drink out of a Kando- tskuri, later on Rokubei uses a tokkuri. The errors thus far pointed out do not by any means complete the list. There is no reason to believe that the ages attributed to his Hizen and other porcelains are not in many cases as wide the mark as in those to which attention has already been called. The circumstances that have led Mr. Bowes to systematically lengthen the ages of so many of his specimens naturally incline one to believe that he increases their value in his eyes by so doing. With a lamentable lack of material he has attempted to judge the merit of the products of many provinces. He has mixed up a host of objects with his many good specimens — objects that have no more place in a collection of Japanese pottery than the Malay Kriesses made at Birmingham have in a collection of British weapons. He is, however, wedded to this material, and finding the market exhausted of those specimens that truly merit attention as being made for the Japanese, used by the Japanese, and in strict accord- ance with Japanese tastes, he is exceedingly reluctant to be unde- ceived. The poverty of his own collection, however, cannot be con- cealed by his attempt to belittle the tastes of American collectors. Edward S. Mouse, Salem, Mass., January 7,1891. 22 From the Japan Weekly Mail—Jan. 10, 1891. “Mr. Bowes has never been in Japan, we believe. In reviewing one of his previous works, w*e alluded to this fact as a drawback to perfect knowledge, but we now find that our sympathy was mis- placed, for Mr. Bowes asserts very emphatically that Kurope is the proper place to study Japanese Kcramic art. His theory about this is so curious that we venture to quote it in full.” (Here fol- lows a long quotation from Mr. Bowes’ book.) “ We admire the boldness of this announcement ami its original- ity. But at the same time, we at this end of the water cannot con- sent to be thus quietly relegated to a back seat. It may be frankly admitted that a student of Japanese Kcramic art in Kuroj>e jw>s- sesscs some ad vantages. He can study the collection made by the Elector of Saxony between 1698 and 1721, that brought together in Madrid, and those assembled in more recent times for museum purposes. At Dresden he can be quite certain of seeing what kind of work Japanese potters were capable of doing at the end of the seventeenth and the l>eginning of the eighteenth century, whereas in Japan there exists no collection of corres|>ondingly authenti- cated date. But surely this is a very small stage on the route to complete knowledge. The collections in Dresden ami Madrid are virtually confined to one class of ware. They tell us nothing what- ever about the hundred varieties which complete the Japanese re- pertoire, and the information which they do convey is not only par- tial but misleading, since there arc the strongest reasons for Im»- lieving that these exported specimens of Hizen |>orcclain owed much of their decorative motive to foreign inspiration. Further, Mr. Bowes is mistaken in his ideas as to the routes by which Ja|>- anese Kerainic specimens travelled westward. It is entirely erro- neous to suppose that the Kerainic exhibits, sent by Japan to Paris in 1867, were taken from the Tokugawa collection. Of not a sin- gle specimen can this be stated. They were one and all procured in the o|>en market, ami similar pieces might have been obtained by anyone whose fancy lay in that direction. Truly, we can scarce- ly suppress a smile when we read that the real pur|>o*e of these exhibits was to raise funds wherewith to carry on the war. Mr. Bowes has evidently very little conception of what the To- kugawa Regents were even in 1867. Equally glaring in his mis- conception about the manner in which the collections of the feudal barons were dispersed. There was no hesitation whatsoever about 23 offering these collections in the Japanese market. In fact, no other way of getting rid of them existed. The invariable method was to call for tenders from Japanese tradespeople, and as the highest tender was unhesitatingly accepted without reference to the real value of the article, many extraordinary bargains were made. But foreigners had no share in this spoil. They were not even suffered to know that such sales took place. Not until after the specimens came into the hands of Japanese dealers were they offered to for- eigners. It is a mere myth to imagine that they were privately sent out of the country, or that collectors abroad had better oppor- tunities of procuring them than collectors in Japan. Mr. Bowes must abandon this silly theory, entirely inconsistent as it is with the sound judgment he displays in other directions. We wish, too, that he could be induced to recognize the truth about those curious enamels upon which he now builds another wonderful argument. Early in the Meiji era an enterprising exporter conceived the idea of turning to account the enamel-making capacities of Japan. With this object he had a number of specimens manufactured. Be- ing intended for the western market, they differed from previous specimens of the same class, both as to size and decorative de- sign. These enamels have perplexed Mr. Bowes ever since. He cannot reconcile himself to the fact that they were a new and spe- cial manufacture, and since he fails to find any Japanese connois- seur who can identify them as old work, he concludes that they are specimens which were secretly spirited out of Japan, having lain there for decades hidden from public gaze. Even the paper pasted over them at the time of shipment helps to confirm him in this view, though in point of fact the use of Japanese paper in this man- ner has been a common device of careful packers for the past twen- years, and is a common device to-day.” Giving Mr. Bowes the credit of unsparingly exposing some of the shameless frauds practised on collectors, Captain Brinkley says :— “ We note, however, with regret, that Mr. Bowes himself clings to some fallacious ideas. He still thinks that large, boldly deco- rated specimens of Satsuma faience were manufactured in old times, and he still maintains that objects of art were often made in pairs in Japan. With regard to the former point we can only say that we have never ourselves seen, nor have we ever met a Japa- nese who had seen a large vase or censer of old Satsuma decorated 24 with ponies ami phenixes in the niahiki style, Perhaps such things existed, but it will certainly l>e safer for the foreign collector to as- sume that they did not. As for pairs of vases, censers, etc., they were never made in this country for Japanese service. There could have l>een no use for a pair of anything, whether on the shelves of an alcove or before a temple altar. The evidence adduced by Mr. Bowes—namely, that flower vases are depicted in pairs in maki- mono of the seventeenth century — possesses no value; for the vases shown in such pictures are almost invariably Chinese, uud everyone knows that the Chinese |K>tlcrs constantly manufactured pairs. We do not say that a |>erfect pair may not l>e occasionally found in ancient Japanese ware. Five or ten identical s|>ecimens were not infrequently |>ottedt and two or three of them sometimes survive intact.”