m la ij.Uj nil fJImSk l fmm 111 ■ Vf! r a 8 t jyASjmll E : % f/ fs A- thJm H l ^sli /rjfflilwWBl l Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/vindicationofdecOObowe A VINDICATION OF THE DECORATED POTTERY OF JAPAN BY JAMES L. BOWES His Imperial Majesty's Honorary Consul for Japan at Liverpool AUTHOR OF “ Japanese Marks and Seals" “ Japanese Enamels ” “ Japanese Pottery ” and Joint Author of “ Keramic Art of Japan " &c. PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION. MDCCCXCI. A TEA CLUB. The following letter, written in reply to an anonymous article referring to my book, Japanese Pottery , which appeared in the New York Nation and the Evening Post , has called forth three, or more perhaps, for aught I know, lengthy letters from Pro- fessor Morse on the same subject. My reply to the original article was refused admission into the columns of the journals named, although the work had not been sent to either of them for review. English literary journals decline, for obvious reasons, to admit notices, by anonymous writers, of works which have not been sent to them for review, but the custom in America appears to differ in this, as well as in another respect; for in this country, the conductors willingly allow an author to reply to such an attack as that to which I refer, especially when it is couched in language so temperate as that employed by me, in answer to an article which carried its own condemnation in its tone. The Nation , however, whilst excluding my letter, readily and politely enough accepted a series of paid advertisements giving the opinions expressed about my work by English journals, and, for a sufficient consideration, afforded them a prominent position. The editor of the Evening Post also refused insertion of the reply, and I venture to refer him for his future guidance to the words which Mr. Bigelow recently used with reference to his predecessor William Cullen Bryant : “ He never could be beguiled into personal controversy, insisting that every line of a newspaper belonged to the public that paid for it, and could not honestly be perverted to the 2 gratification of the vanity, or spite, or self-sufficiency of its editors,” under which denomination I imagine such writers as the author of the notice in question would come in America, as they certainly would in England. The name of the writer of the anonymous review has not been disclosed, nor am I in a position to declare it. Professor Morse refers in his letters to it in a way that would suggest that it was the work of another hand, but the unbe- coming language, common to all the articles, leads one to suppose that the whole of the attacks upon my work, and upon myself personally, proceed from the same pen. And, further, the criti- cisms in the original article are repeated in the later ones. Although aware that my reply had been refused insertion by the papers named, and that I had, in consequence, found it necessary to issue it as a circular, Professor Morse condescended to write to the Boston Transcript of my reply as “having lurked about in the form of a circular,” etc. And here I must express my grateful acknowledgments to the Transcript and Boston Herald (and to the New York Studio also, for I understand this journal gave a place to my reply), for having proved their desire for fairplay by inserting my letter which the newspapers I have named had endeavoured to burke. I would that I could dismiss any further reference to the tone employed by Professor Morse in his letter, for I consider the personal aspect of the subject altogether subsidiary to the larger question of the right appreciation of the Keramic Art of Japan. But I find it impossible to avoid mentioning the following sentence in Mr. Morse’s letter to the Transcript with reference to mine : “ In the circular now issued by him he leaves out all reference to the Herald , and mendaciously attributes the article quoted as being directed against my illustrated article on 1 Old Satsuma,’ which appeared in Harpers’ Magazine for September, 1888.” This refers to the article from the Japan Mail , which I gave in my book, page 552, and reprint at the close of these pages. What I said was this, “ The Boston Herald , referring to our criticisms of Professor 3 Morse's article on Old Satsuma/' &c., and I believe that I am correct in saying that Mr. Morse has written only one paper on Old Satsuma, and that it was printed in Harpers' Magazine for September, 1888. Other remarks of a similar character might be commented upon, but they may be more conveniently referred to in the Notes; these will afford an idea of the feeling in which Professor Morse has approached and treated a subject which is one that should be dealt with in the spirit so well set forth by the Athenceum in its preface to a highly eulogistic notice of Professor Whitney's The Century Dictionary : “ If we could condescend to be unfair, we might base a slashing attack on the instances of omission or error we have collected ; but unprejudiced experts know perfectly well that a few dozen — or a few hundred— blemishes in a large dictionary only prove that lexicography has not yet got very near to perfection ; while it is improbable that it ever will get near enough to escape false inferences of the captious.” THE MAK1MONO — EMBLEMATICAL OF WISDOM. The Letter referred to in the foregoing remarks. I beg that you will acquit me of any desire to remark upon the tone of the review of Japanese Pottery which appeared in your Journal, but I venture to hope that I may be permitted to point out that the main object of the work is to make clear the distinction between the three principal branches of the industry, namely, the Undecorated, the Decorated, and the Export wares, to assign to each its fair share of 4 commendation, and to treat them in such a manner as may make them useful to the potters of other nations. I am aware that the rude objects which come within the first category have exercised a strange and, to others besides myself, an unaccountable fascination over the minds of certain American collectors, who have become so absorbed in the contemplation of these early chajin wares that they are apparently unable to see any beauty in the artistic works produced during the past two centuries, when Japan, secure in peace and closed to foreign influence, under the able rule of the great Tokugawa family, made such wonderful advances in every branch of art. I have expressed my own opinion on this matter very clearly in my work, endeavouring, by illustration and description, to prove my position, and I am glad to find my views fully confirmed by an authority to which even Professor Morse, the High Priest of the curious cult to which I have referred, will acknowledge that even he must defer on this question. I refer to Captain Brinkley, in whose Journal, The Japan Mail, I find a very plainly worded criticism of the pretensions advanced by the Professor in his well-known article, in Harpers' Magazine upon ‘ Old Satsuma.’ The article appeared to me to be in the highest degree fallacious, but in dealing with it in my work I combated the views expressed in it in a gentle spirit, not venturing to use such trenchant language as I find in the article in The Japan Mail, which ridicules in unsparing terms the Professor’s peculiar views. The entire critique is printed in the Notes to my book, but perhaps you will kindly permit me to extract the following remarks which this most competent authority makes about the chajin wares with which Professor Morse is so enamoured. Their characteristics are referred to as “ Features which to vulgar eyes looked like gross technical imper- fections ; ” “ their shrivelled shapes and blotched surfaces suggested beauties imperceptible to the profane ; ” “ the experts of the 13th and 14th centuries threw into their dust-bins piles of distorted and blistered cups, bowls and pots which, in their silly ignorance, they conceived to be disgraces to the technical skill of their time ; these rejected treasures the chajin , two hundred years later, disinterred from the dirt and placed amongst the gems of his cult.” These are the objects which the disciples of the late Mr. Ninagawa, admirers of the Undecorated wares, display for the delecta- tion and education of western connoisseurs and potters ; but even in Japan, where blind reverence for antiquity is the dominant feeling, a 5 more enlightened spirit prevails, for we read in the article referred to, that “ True Japanese art rose superior to this cramping influence, and has bequeathed to us exquisite objects, which American connoisseurs will soon, we trust, learn to appreciate at their real value.” I hope this may be so, and that the potters of England and America will not believe that the beautiful keramic art of Japan is fitly represented by such unsightly wares as those I have referred to. Your reviewer questions the correctness of the classification of about a dozen pieces, mostly of minor importance, out of the thousand examples which I have described in my book; he states that his opinion is based upon the photographic representations of the objects, but I need hardly say that, however perfect such plates may be, they afford an altogether unsafe guide where glazes are concerned. It is, however, a remarkable and suggestive coincidence that the classification of most of the pieces referred to was also questioned by Professor Morse, when he once spent an hour at my Museum- It has been my custom, for twenty years past, to place any doubtful specimens aside for reference to experts who might visit me, and to take their opinion about them. I made a note of the Professor’s views about these pieces, but, as Japanese connoisseurs who subsequently saw them did not confirm his opinion, I reverted to my original classification, in which they agreed. Take a single instance as a test of your reviewer’s judgment ; the piece of Nagato ware which he classifies 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 conclusively proves the correctness of my classification Is it necessary for me to further pursue these over-confident so-called corrections in the face of evidence such as this ? Would that I could say that these few specimens were the only ones about which I have had doubts, but there are others of the rude early wares which have puzzled me for well-nigh half my life, and regarding the origin and date of which the cleverest native connois- seurs have differed and differ still. But seriously, the subject is not worth a moment’s discussion, for the objects are devoid of beauty and interest to sensible people, whether they be Japanese or otherwise ; and although such wares may be of value from an ethnological point of view, they are altogether of secondary interest to the Decorated wares of the 17th and 18th centuries, or even to the Export wares, whether as examples of technical skill and decorative art, or as models for our 6 potters and decorators of to-day. Shades of Kakiyemon, Ninsei, and Morikage ! May these departed spirits be spared the knowledge that the rude chajin wares are preferred by your reviewer as models for the artist potters of this 19th century to their beautiful works, which, with others of almost equal merit, he so cavalierly dismisses as worthy only of a place in an “ industrial ” museum ! As for the names of kilns and potters, of which so brave a show is made by the reviewer, it would be easy to increase them ten- fold ; for within a generation every potter who handled clay, especially in no higher form than that of furnaces, or some other chajin ware, considered himself an artist, and dubbed his cottage some poetical name. But such an array of names would be as meaningless and valueless as the wares themselves. One word more. Your reviewer remarks upon the translations of the numerous marks and signatures which I have given, without, however, pointing out any errors. The perfect transliteration of the characters used by Japanese potters is a matter on which no foreigner living may dogmatize, indeed, various meanings may properly be assigned to many of these characters ; but I feel no doubt whatever that the renderings of the marks in my volume are substantially correct, for they have been passed under review by four accomplished native scholars. In conclusion, permit me to say that I should welcome discussion upon so interesting and important a subject as the right appreciation of Japanese keramic art works with the view of making them valuable to the potters of your country and of my own ; but this only with those who, having the courage of their opinions, sign their names to what they write. The Kakuregasa, or Concealing Hat, the wearer of which can at will render himself invisible to those around him. PLATI 7 Before I meet the charges which Professor Morse has brought against me, I may mention that my works on Japanese Pottery , Enamels , and Marks and Seals represent the only serious attempts to deal with the three subjects named ; some essays have, indeed, been written about pottery, but they go very little beyond the native reports, and the writers have, in the main, been content to accept the standard of taste affected by the chajin , the correctness of which I have been one of the first to challenge, successfully so as regards the best European opinion, and I find that my views are now being accepted by the Japanese themselves, and have been endorsed in Japan by Captain Brinkley, who has boldly thrown down his gage to the admirers of the chajin ware and, judging by the interesting extracts from his forthcoming work which appeared in the Brinkley-Greey Catalogue, all lovers of Japanese pottery will welcome its appearance. A book on Japanese pottery, by Pro- fessor Morse, was announced long ago, but I have not heard of its publication. Passing now from these matters to the more important question of the correct appreciation of the keramic wares of Japan which I have touched upon in my first letter, and which, indeed, it was the object of my work to encourage, I wrote : “ I have endeavoured to describe the merits of each class of ware impartially, to correct the mistaken views which have obtained, and also to clear away the misconceptions upon other points which have followed upon the careless statements of dealers and others. ” As I have said, the objects may be divided into three groups : (1) The Undecorated, (2) The Decorated, (3) The Modern wares. Each division has been fully treated in Japanese Pottery , and may only be briefly referred to here. The Undecorated wares comprise mainly the objects made for the chanoyu, the ceremonial tea-drinking, an observance which 8 was the embodiment of the conservative thought of Japan, and the chajin , who engage in it, have always affected the greatest admir- ation for the rude productions of a by-gone age, ignoring the progress of their own day in the direction of the beautiful. These chajin wares comprise small jars, generally only a few inches in height, for holding the powdered tea used in the ceremony; they are made of stoneware, covered with brown, black, yellow and other glazes of sombre hues, and there are also tea bowls, and other objects made of clays of varying degrees of fineness, glazed or partially glazed, and sometimes ornamented rudely in colours, or with impressed or incised designs filled in with white or other clays, some of this latter ware being interesting and beautiful. Such, briefly, are the characteristics of the chajin wares, some examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying Plate A,* which shows a cup of Karatzu pottery ; other cups of Seto-kuro and rakn wares, each of them the choicest of its class, and illustrating in their “ blotched surfaces, beauties imperceptible to the profane ” ; also a tea jar by the matchless Toshiro, and one of Seto-kusuri Satsuma. These are the wares which have so dominated the minds and obscured the judgment of the chajin of Japan and their followers elsewhere who have been content to accept their standard, of whom Professor Morse is the champion. It is a very curious point in connection with this peculiar taste that the wares, although made in Japan, are of an alien origin. In former times, as it is to-day, the disposition of the Japanese leads them to readily adapt themselves to foreign influences and fashions, and as they now accept our customs and our laws, and have allowed much of their art to be degraded by foreign influences, so they accepted the crude productions of Corean and other potters, and preferred them to the artistic wares made by their own countrymen. The character of the wares named is excellently described in Captain Brinkley’s article, by again printing which, I shall, no doubt, give renewed offence to Professor Morse. The Decorated faience and porcelain, on the other hand, * Plates A and B in this Paper form the Frontispiece of Japanese Pottery. 9 are those which have spread the fame of Japan in every land. They include the true artistic Satsuma, perfect in paste and manipulation, and unrivalled in its crackle and its decoration in colours and gold ; also the Kaga ware, generally painted in red and gold, but in the older works also with other colours ; the varied works in porcelain produced in Hizen from the time of Shosui and Kakiyemon to the later Hirado and Nabeshima wares ; and also the endless variety of decorated faience pro- duced in Kioto, by Kinkozan, Yeiraku, Taizan, Tanzan, Kitei, Dohachi, and many others, including Ninsei, the most dis- tinguished of them all, for it was he who commenced the decoration of such ware in 1650 ; and, last of all, the com- paratively modern porcelain of Owari, decorated in blue under the glaze, all made during the present century, which includes examples of the highest artistic value and interest. The develop- ment illustrated by the wares I have named is coincident with that which occurred in lacquer working, cloisonne enamelling, and painting, during the existence of the Tokugawa Shogunate, commencing with the earlier years of the seventeenth century, and continuing until not much more than a generation ago. The admirers of the chajin wares do not ignore or contemn the wonderful lacquers of the time of Iyemitsu, Iyetsuna, and Tsunayoshi, or prefer to them the cruder, and, in the true sense, less artistic lacquer of the Ashikaga period. They admit the progress made in other branches of art during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but ignore that which occurred at the same time in keramic wares, and affect to think the alien wares, made by Corean potters, and after their fashion, more worthy of admiration than the finest efforts in true Japanese taste. In the second plate four typical specimens of Decorated wares are figured ; they do not appeal to the artistic eye of Professor Morse, who, in commenting upon my illustration of them, describes my taste as follows : — “ Loud colours, gold, red, and blue, in emphatic masses, are what he understands by decoration.” And he refers to the classification in Plates A and B as “ an extraordinary division of what is called decorated 10 and undecorated wares.” His perception of colour and design seems pitched in a low key, for he writes of 4 the refined decoration in blue on the Karatzu bowl,’ contrasting it with my debased taste, as evidenced by my admiration for the Decorated wares. The third branch is the Modern ware, or, as Professor Morse designates it, 4 Export goods.’ He does not appear to have formed an exact idea of what should be included under this head, for he speaks of “ gaudy vases, plaques, and grotesque figures, made expressly for export,” and adds that even in an industrial museum their influence would be pernicious. Passing by his remarks as to the gaudy vases, in con- sideration of his peculiar views about colour, we come to the plaques ; he refers, no doubt, to the large specimens in this form made, and decorated in blue, by Kawamoto Masukichi, which, whether as regards the painting or the subjects depicted are without question altogether in perfect Japanese taste. This I have from my native friends, who speak very decidedly on the point, and an opinion can be formed by others if they will refer to Plate LI I in Japanese Pottery , in which one of the plaques is illustrated by chromo-lithography. They tell me that every Japanese would use such plaques for screens. I may further mention that some other plaques of a similar kind, in my collection, were sent over to the Paris Exhibition of 1867, that is, before the time of ‘ Export goods.’ As for the grotesque figures he names, of course such figures are now made for export, but those illustrated show one of the most favourite forms which pottery has taken for native use. Surely Mr. Morse must be aware that these statuettes, representing their gods, saints, and heroes, were modelled in stoneware, faience, and porcelain, both in the plain ware and also splendidly decor- ated, and that they found a place in every house in Japan. Amongst the most beautiful examples of these figures were those made and decorated at the Satsuma factory ; and I find a number of such figures described in the Brinkley-Greey Catalogue amongst the specimens of Awata faience, dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even to fulfil the II canon he lays down as to the constitution of an art museum, that it should include “ things in accordance with Japanese taste and tradition,’’ these plaques and grotesque figures are a necessity, and certainly they better illustrate the history and traditions of the country than an endless repetition of undecorated jars and cups, which suggest nothing beyond the single cere- monial of chanoyu and the blind veneration of the chajin for whatever was ancient, without regard to beauty. In passing, I may say that the chajin wares have not even the negative merit of rarity, for they are infinitely more abundant than the decorated wares. In anything really rare, a true chajin finds, or rather found, the most intense delight, of which I may mention an instance told me by a Japanese friend, now by my side. His father, and other gentlemen of position, preserved, until recent years, in their collections, the square glass bottles in which the Dutch traders took Hollands gin to Japan two centuries ago. They cherished them, because of their rarity and for a certain rude beauty and quaint contour which their eye detected in them, and which I do not deny they possessed. They preserved them in wooden cases, and when the sake proved to be unusually fine in flavour, they would fill one of these bottles with the spirit and send it, in its case, to some friend, who, of course, would return the precious vessel, with thanks for the gift, to its owner, to be carefully replaced amongst his artistic treasures. This feeling of admiration for these gin bottles has weakened greatly during recent years, owing partly to the new and more enlightened views which now obtain about chajin wares, and partly to the increased importation of glass bottles, and the feeling that they are no longer rare. - Surely the level attained by Professor Morse is but a low one, for he writes about the chanoyu vessels thus : — “ They have been breathlessly examined by the chajin , in much the same way that an American, if it were possible to induce any reverence in him, might examine the boots of Christopher Columbus,” etc. I decline to accept the standard of taste here laid down by Professor Morse, either for the American collec- 12 tors with whom I am acquainted, or for myself, and I chal- lenge him to make good his charge that I have attempted to belittle the taste of American collectors, as he has stated elsewhere. But I have strayed from the point, which is to arrive at a definition of Modern and Export wares. The latter, to my mind, are those which have been made to the order of foreign traders for shipment to other countries ; such works, often European in form and design, show but slight traces of native feeling either in the drawing or the colouring, and are bedizened with gold, thickly laid on, to please the taste of western buyers as it is interpreted to the Japanese decorator by the foreign trader. Of these wares, I have included a few pieces in my collection by way of contrast to the others, and to enable me in my remarks to point a moral. But the word Modern covers quite a different class, and one more difficult to define I have already remarked upon the pure Japanese feeling shown in the plaques by Masukichi. I cannot say when they were made, and I have never ventured to state a date without having sufficient authority to satisfy me as to its substantial correctness. I go no further in my book in this case, than to state that the objects were purchased at the Vienna Exhibition of 1873. They may have been made for that Exhibition or some time before, I cannot say, but I know they belong to this century, because such porcelain has only been made in Owari since the opening years of this century. Take another example, which, no doubt, Professor Morse would describe as ‘ Export goods : ’ the dish of faience, by Tanzan of Kioto, Plate XLVII, on which he painted a group of wild geese altogether in Japanese fashion. He may contend that the large size of the dish, twenty-five inches in diameter, brings it within the category of export goods, but that is a fallacy much in favour with the admirers of the small chajin wares, who exclaim against everything of a larger size, declar- ing that it is modern ; they forget that even tea jars were sometimes made of large size, and that fire bowls were by no 13 means small ; and further, we know that large dishes were produced in Kaga, long before the country was opened — dishes quite unsuited for native use, but still acquired by native connoisseurs as examples of their country’s art. These were not export goods any more than the larger works made of Satsuma clay perhaps twenty or thirty years ago, on which the subjects painted, although bolder and more decorative than that on the earlier wares, were still conceived and executed in the true Japanese spirit. Indeed, the line between these and the works which are known to be examples of the highest development of Sat- suma faience is but a narrow one, for an authenticated piece, illustrated in Plate B, was made about the opening of the present century, and pieces in my collection, which native judges pronounce typical as to paste and decoration, bear the year- period of Tempo (1830-1843). We may safely conclude, I think, that for a generation before the opening of the country, in 1858, a change came over men’s minds, and this we see exemplified in the changes which occurred in the lacquer ware of that period ; less care was displayed in the work, larger pieces were produced, and the decoration was more freely and boldly treated; a comparison of the series of decorated Satsuma which I have gathered together, will plainly show the development of this branch of keramic art from the brown stoneware, the Mishima and Sunkoroku — the foreign wares — through the varied phases of the plain and painted faience, to specimens of the latter made a dozen years ago, when I closed the series. In concluding this section of my remarks, I may repeat that my desire has been to assign to each class its fair share of commendation. The undecorated wares are interesting and in their place, and in due proportion, valuable in a collection ; they represent a phase of the keramic industry of Japan, but after all it is a foreign art that they represent, and they do not illustrate the poetical thought, the legends, the birds, flowers, and emblems of the Japanese, as we find them portrayed in the decorated wares. 14 The latter aspect of the art seems to be without attraction for Professor Morse, who appears to be unacquainted with the artistic pottery of the country, for he passes over in almost absolute silence the comprehensive series of decorated Hizen, Satsuma, Kioto, and Owari described and illustrated, which form the principal feature in my book ; these possess no charms for him ; his sympathies go with the alien wares which, practically, alone he refers to; he has lived in Japan, but he is not of the Japanese, and cares not for the stories which their works of art tell so plainly and so daintily. His artistic instincts are satisfied by the contemplation of the chajin wares — and Christopher Columbus’s boots ! He even objects to the inclusion of “ beautiful objects” in a collection, for referring to them he says : “ 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 Malay Kriesses made in Birmingham have in a collection of British weapons.” On the other hand, from what I read and hear, he has apparently considered it right to confine his collection to little else than an endless repetition of the alien Corean wares. My view is different. It appears to me well to illustrate the art from its origin, to trace its rise and progress, and, not uninteresting or useless also to illustrate its decay. For instance, take the series of bowls of raku ware, so rare that they might have attracted any collector’s attention, although apparently they escaped Professor Morse’s notice. They illustrate the works of the eleven generations of the Chojiro family, who have, since it was founded by Ameya in the sixteenth century, produced this ware, and to make my collection complete I have included a specimen by the representative now living. ‘Export goods,’ I fear! Again, I have placed with the seventeenth century productions of Kin- kozan, of Kioto, specimens of his descendants’ work of a dozen years ago, which show that the successor of the clever old potter who made the name distinguished has prostituted his art to meet the basest demands of the foreign trader. He has also remarks of a disparaging nature to make J 5 about my earliest book, Keramic Art of Japan . This work, commenced in 1875, was concluded in 1879. At that time little was known about the subject, and no work dealing with it had been published. Very few specimens of the Undecorated wares had been received and native reports were unavailable. The book, therefore, chiefly dealt with the Decorated wares, but, as a matter of fact, it really, in this respect, anticipated the present position, for the craze for the Undecorated wares which has since then cropped up, is now, both in Europe and Japan, giving place to the right appreciation of the Decorated wares with which it dealt. As was only natural in treating such an almost unknown subject, some errors occurred in the classifi- cation, but these were corrected, so far as my knowledge went, in the final part. The second edition, issued in 1881, was written up to date, and included information about the subsidiary wares, chanoyu utensils and so forth, gathered from a native report, which rendered the work practically complete and correct ; indeed little of value can be added to it to-day, and the opinion there expressed as to the artistic value of the chajin wares needs no correction. Professor Morse makes numerous references to the marks in Japanese Pottery without, however, saying much that is definite; he does, indeed, question the correctness of the rendering of a few, only ten out of about five hundred — which embrace one thousand nine hundred characters ; these I have dealt with in the notes, and I may mention that he avoids the written characters, preferring to criticise the impressed marks, which are often imperfectly stamped and most difficult to decipher, and when he imagines that he has detected an error, he repeats each instance of the mark as if it involved a new point. Some years ago, when a well-known authority in London courteously pointed out an error, which I of course corrected, arising from the omission of a dot by the copyist, I went into the matter fully with some native friends, who told me that many difficulties followed upon the names being written in Chinese characters, which may be read in two or more ways, i6 instead of Japanese Kana. For instance, the characters for my own name may be also read as ‘‘striving after longevity.” Another suggestion, that the characters rendered in my Marks and Seals as Ideme , should properly be read Deme , was met by the remark that the difference was analogous to the pronunciation of my name as Bows or Bowis, my friend adding that he himself would prefer the former pronunciation because it had come down from ancient times. These remarks will show that one may not dogmatize in such a matter, and I venture to offer for Professor Morse's consideration the concluding sentence of my friend's letter. “ In a work of such magnitude and ramifications as yours we cannot expect to entirely escape mistakes ; it is much easier for anyone to discover a few errors in the book of another than to write one himself.” Professor Morse implies that I have treated the subject of Japanese pottery without including the marks of the various potters. The fact is, however, as I have said, that the book contains five hundred marks and seals which were copied in facsimile, under my eye, with a fidelity that surprises the Japanese themselves ; probably not another work contains fifty marks in facsimile, except my own book, Marks and Seals . An analysis of Mr. Morse’s lengthy letters discloses the following curious facts. Out of eight hundred examples of deco- rated wares he has questioned the classification of twelve pieces only, and out of two hundred specimens of chanoyu vessels, most of which are susceptible to difference of opinion, he has disputed the arrangement of thirty-six pieces, but this includes some referred to more than once. And further, out of the native names given against each of the thousand specimens, he has ventured to dispute the correctness of only one. A reference to the notes accompanying these remarks will show the character and value of his criticisms. Pie had every opportunity afforded for criticism, for each piece is described, every mark is given, and fully one-third of the examples are illus- trated in Japanese Pottery . But Mr. Morse has not availed him- self of these, the usual aids to reviewers; he has contented himself x 7 with his recollections of a number of debatable pieces which 1 showed him when he spent a couple of hours in my museum some, years ago, and, where this did not serve his purpose, with hazarding a “ guess” (the word is his own). His remarks are chiefly confined to chanoyu wares, which may, with an equal degree of certainty, be assigned to different provinces, as I have shown by quotations from his own article in Harpers ' , and he avoids reference to the decorated specimens, except for general condemnation ; and as regards his opinions about the former when I passed them before him, I may say that I made notes of his classification of some of these disputable pieces, but finding that he settled off-hand, and without consideration, the origin of every doubtful piece, I no longer paid attention to his remarks and discontinued taking notes. He puts into my mouth words that I never used when he says that I have stated that for one to have been in Japan “is rather a hindrance to the proper forming of a correct judg- ment in regard to the subject,” What I have suggested is that those who have watched the arrivals of pottery in Europe during the last thirty years have gained a wider and more correct experience in this branch of art than visitors to Japan, or even residents in that country, have been able to obtain. I may adduce in support of this statement the fact that no one who has lived in Japan has yet produced a work on the pottery of the country ; Captain Brinkley’s forthcoming work is looked for with great interest by all who care for the subject, but, so far as I know, it is still in the future. Mr. Morse’s efforts in this direction are confined to an essay on the shell mounds of Japan, and the article in Harpers ’ Magazine , which was so unmercifully handled by Captain Brinkley. Nor have residents in Japan produced any book on marks and seals, and they have not attempted to solve the mystery of cloisonne enamels. The latter subject is one which in itself proves my contention, for only the other day a writer in Captain Brinkley’s journal, when referring to enamels, illustrated the danger of dis- B i8 cussing art works which he has not seen, for it is quite plain to anyone who knows the objects that his remarks refer to the modern imitations of the older works, now in this country, which have recently been identified as belonging to an earlier period, as indeed is clear to all who see them. It has been the fashion amongst native dealers, for a dozen years past, to decry these works, and class them with the modern imitations which they bring over for sale ; and two or three years ago one of them, a Mr. Kataoka, in arranging an exhibition in London, ventured to describe a dish which H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh had been pleased to accept from me, as being signed by a modern maker, whereas it bore no signature what- ever, and H.R.H. at once withdrew the dish from the exhibition. Mr. Kataoka at the same time had the effrontery to tell me that I had bought all my enamels at the Paris Exhibition of 1878, where not a single old piece was shown, although I had stated in Japanese Enamels the precise dates when they had arrived in Europe, from 1865 to 1872. I regret that Captain Brinkley does not agree with my theory on this unknown branch of art, but I have sufficient confidence in his sense of fairness to know that he will keep an open mind on the subject until the mystery is solved, and should he visit England and study the objects, I feel no doubt whatever that he would change his views. So convinced am I on this point that I intend to send out to Tokio a selection of these beautiful works for the information of those who, I feel certain, have never seen them. The remarks of Capt. Brinkley to which I have referred, occur in a recent issue of the Japan Mail , in which Japanese Pottery is reviewed. I should not have referred to the opinions there expressed about it, had not Mr. Morse seized the oppor- tunity of inserting one of his characteristic letters in the newspapers. Referring to my opinion that objects of art were sometimes made in pairs in Japan, he joins the writer of the notice in coupling this with the statement that I have made this a ground for asserting that pairs of large vases of Satsuma were i9 old Satsuma, and he disingenuously applies this as a confirmation of his views of the characteristic features of that ware. I have, however, never gone further than to express the opinion that the fact of objects being found in pairs did not prove that they were made for export, nor have I ever used the classi- fication of “Old Satsuma ” — that is a jargon peculiar to Messrs. Morse and Hart. I have fixed no dates for the decorated Satsuma, contenting myself with the simplest classifications until further information on the subject is available* I disagree with the opinion on this subject expressed by Mr. Morse, and incline to that of Captain Brinkley, as I have stated, with my reasons, in Japanese Pottery. On other points, I must also join issue with the writer in the Japan Mail , notably as to his view about the composition of the objects sent by the Shogun’s government to the Paris Exhibition of 1867, for I saw the collection there displayed, and acquired a number of the objects exhibited, some of which bear the crest of the Shogun, amongst them being a lacquer cabinet made by Kajikawa the first for the fourth Shogun (1650 to 1680). Other objects from that exhibition, with the crests of the nobles, have been identified by my visitors as works borrowed from their family collections by the late government, and never returned to those who lent them. Therefore, it is plain that the statements that “ they were one and all obtained in the open market,” and that “not a single specimen was taken from the Tokugawa collection,” are incorrect, and as I can prove my information and deductions in this respect to be accurate, I may also be right in what I believe to be the circumstances under which the old cloisonne enamels and the collections of the nobles were dispersed. Returning to the contradiction of my statement that art objects have been made in pairs in Japan, I find the writer declares “there could have been no use for a pair of anything, whether on the shelves of an alcove or before a temple altar,” and referring to the instance I had cited of pairs of vases in a makimono of the seventeenth century, he states that they must 20 be Chinese, and Mr. Morse, by quoting these opinions, may be taken as endorsing them. I feel certain that Captain Brinkley will acknowledge that this contradiction cannot be maintained, for he cannot but know that the temples contain many pairs of dishes, flower vases, and bronze lanterns, the latter often being votive offerings from the princes of Japan and ornamented with their badges, which proves that they are Japanese work. I, myself, know several pairs of such lanterns, counterparts in every respect, in this country, which bear the crest of the Tokugawa family. If Professor Morse will refer to Mr. Anderson’s splendid work, Pictorial Arts of Japan , he will see a pair of these lanterns figured in the view of a Nara temple, and they may be seen in every book in which such temples are illustrated. I am aware that there are no pairs of chanoyu utensils, and therefore the chajin may deny that such a custom as making objects of art in pairs existed in Japan. But even a chajin may reconsider this opinion when reminded that not only are there pairs of lanterns in Buddhist temples, as I have said, but also ancestral tablets, arranged, if there be three of them, one in the centre with the others on either side ; if there be only two ancestors to commemorate, the principle of pairs is maintained by placing a buddha in the centre, with the pair of tablets one on either side. The custom of arranging objects thus is indeed habitual with the Japanese, and it is exemplified everywhere. It would be tedious to enlarge upon the practice, but I may illustrate it by a plate showing a Buddhist domestic altar, copied from Siebold’s Nippoii , which confirms the point I wish to make. Commencing at the roof of the altar we find suspended from it a lamp, and upon the upper shelf the Buddha in the centre, with two buddhas and two ihai (ancestral tablets) disposed in pairs on either side ; on the second shelf a koro , for burning incense, occupies the central position, with two tea bowls, two water cups, and two flower vases, all arranged on either side in pairs ; and on the lower shelf the same arrange- 21 ment is carried out, a lectern in the centre, with two flower vases and two candlesticks, all of which are disposed in pairs. The chajin may reply that this altar is the altar of an alien religion, for Buddhism is of Indian origin, and although it was introduced into Japan over a thousand years ago, our plate c. A Buddhist Domestic Altar. conservative friend may still consider it a mushroom growth. Let us therefore enter a Shinto temple, the abode of the kami , divine ancestors of the Emperor, and there may, almost universally, be seen the pair of yagoro, who, with bows and arrows, watch and guard the shrine. And in these temples of the native 22 creed there are always pairs of omikitsubo , small bottles in which sake is offered to the gods. If this evidence be not sufficient to convince the incredu- lous chajin and his champions that pairs are really not altogether unknown in Japan, even in connection with pottery, I may tell them that I have before me, as I write, a number of specimens in pairs of pottery in undisputed Japanese taste. Amongst them : a pair of dishes of faience, by Kinkozan, seventeenth century ; a pair of plates by Kitei ; a pair of flower vases of Kiyomidzu porcelain ; a pair of stands of Satsuma faience, dated the year- period of Tempo ; a single Satsuma dish, bearing the name of the princely potter, and the crest of the Tokugawa Shogun, to whom doubtless it was presented — the fellow of this piece was given by Mr. Franks to the British Museum ; and, finally, I have many pairs of omikitsubo of porcelain, which were made for native use. All these are perfect pairs as regards their form, but there is, of course, no slavish copyism in the rendering of the designs with which they are decorated, the common subject found upon each pair being treated with the freedom natural to the Japanese artist just as was the case in the decoration of the middle-period Satsuma faience, to which so much excep- tion has been taken by those who have chiefly confined their attention to the chanoyu pottery. I have, I fear, devoted too much space to this portion of my subject, but the assertion that “there could have been no use for a pair of anything, whether on the shelves of an alcove or before a temple altar,” was so surprising to me, and, being endorsed by Professor Morse, likely to be so misleading to American collectors, that I had no option but to show how erroneous the statement was, especially as for a dozen years past the thoughtless acceptance of this fallacy has confused my attempts to classify and determine the correct dates of enamels, pottery, and other art works. It follows, therefore, in this case at least, that one who has not been in Japan “ may have gained a wider and more 23 correct experience ” in some matters “ than those who have resided in that country.” But whilst Mr. Morse had before him the Japan Mail , from which he quoted, he might in fairness to me have made the following extracts from the review of the work that he has so fiercely condemned : — “ Probably no one has done so much to familiarise the Western public with the art of Japan as Mr. James L. Bowes, of Liverpool It is a noble book If we dispute Mr. Bowes’ thesis as to the superior opportunities enjoyed by connoisseurs in Europe, we do not at all dispute the fact that he has made excellent use of his opportunities, and given the public a book of most valuable and genuine character. He is unsparing in his exposure of some of the shameless frauds that have been practised on innocent collectors The publication of a book like this by Mr. Bowes ought to close the way to such audacious chicanery. We would fain follow Mr. Bowes through his clear and masterly, though all too short, descriptions of the various porcelains and faiences of Japan It is evident that Mr. Bowes has brought together a really representative collection of Japanese wares, and that he has made every specimen it contains the object of careful research and intelligent scrutiny. . . . We can all enjoy the clear descriptions and exquisite plates contained in such a work as Japanese Pottery .” Such unsolicited and generous words about the book from so great an authority as Captain Brinkley make me fain to forgive him his scepticism about enamels and “ pairs,” and console me for the following unkind remarks by Professor Morse about the same work : — “ With the extravagant claims of Mr. Bowes, and the praise bestowed 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.” And again : — “ Mr. Bowes has been woefully deluded, and judging from the lavish praise bestowed upon his book, he has successfully deluded many others. It is 24 hopeless, of course, to undertake to dispel this delusion in Mr. Bowes, but it is a pity that others are to be deceived by his pretentious display under the guise of the bookmakers’ art and the lithographers’ skill.” Disagreeable, indeed ! now that the opinions of reputable and disinterested English reviewers are confirmed by that of the foremost journal in Japan.* I have reprinted, at the close of this paper, Captain Brinkley’s article, in which he deals with Mr. Morse’s views as they were expressed in Harpers' Magazine , as those who wish to form a correct idea of the character of chajin wares should read it. It concludes with the following words : —