Abstract
In contrast to scholarship that has emphasized a European exoticization of China in the early modern period, this essay focuses on the “domestication” of Chinese material culture through an examination of the Dutch reception and reproduction of Chinese porcelain. The term “domestication” is used here to explain the evolving identification of blue-and-white ceramics as a Dutch, rather than a Chinese, national product. Tracing almost 300 years of history, the essay argues that the quotidian domestic language with which Chinese porcelain was first described in Dutch texts, was replaced in the eighteenth century with concerns about the corrupting influences of porcelain, as it was displayed and imitated (in delftware) and exported to female consumers in eighteenth-century England. Following a period of neglect and decline, delftware was rediscovered by Dutch entrepreneurs and American tourists in the nineteenth century, who returned these blue-and-white wares to a benign domestic space. American writers, responding in part to the resurgence and promotion of the Dutch delftware industry, presented Dutch femininity and domesticity as a model of stability and harmony. None of these interpretations would have been possible, however, had the viability of delftware as a specifically “Dutch” material relied on only the physical properties of the earthenware body; instead, this essay argues, their interpretations depend upon the representational possibilities of the vessels’ painted surfaces, upon particular combinations of blue and white, to form an image of “Dutchness.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
I employ the popular term delftware to refer to blue-and-white tin-glazed earthenware (also called faience) produced not only in the city of Delft but throughout the Dutch republic in the seventeenth century.
- 2.
Others have noted this transformation, see for example, Julie Hochstrasser, Still Life and Trade in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 122 and Julie Hochstrasser, “Wisselwerkingen Redux-Ceramics, Asia, and the Netherlands,” in Points of Contact: Crossing Cultural Boundaries, ed. Amy Golahny (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2004).
- 3.
In a recently published essay Anne Gerritsen also employs the term “domestication” to explore the embodied experiences that result when objects from overseas are brought into seventeenth-century Dutch domestic spaces. She concludes that “Through physical proximity, these global goods produce a version of Dutchness that is global yet domesticated, and exotic yet familiar; ‘other’ in the past, but self in the present.” Anne Gerritsen, “Domesticating Goods from Overseas: Global Material Culture in the Early Modern Netherlands,” Journal of Design History 29, no. 3 (2016): 232. Kristel Smentek makes similar claims about the French reception and reframing of Chinese monochrome porcelain. Kristel Smentek, Rococo Exotic: French Mounted Porcelains and the Allure of the East (New York: Frick Collection, 2007).
- 4.
The term “female china lover” is employed by Elizabeth Kowaleski-Wallace in “Women, China and Consumer Culture in Eighteenth-Century England,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 29, no. 2 (Winter 1995/1996): 153–67.
- 5.
Tijs Volker, Porcelain and the Dutch East India Company, as recorded in the Dagh-registers of Batavia Castle, those of Hirado and Deshima, and other contemporary paper, 1602–1682 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954), 227. Volker’s text is central to an understanding of the VOC porcelain trade in East Asia; however, his estimate does not include those wares ordered privately. Although the trade in porcelain between China and Europe was important, China conducted an even more extensive intra-Asian trade. Chuimei Ho shows that in 1645 alone 229,000 pieces of porcelain were sold to the Japanese. Europe never comprised more than 31 percent of the Chinese porcelain trade and this only for the brief period from 1645 to 1661, while the South Seas and Japan claimed in general over 80 percent of the trade. See Chuimei Ho, “The Ceramic Trade in Asia, 1602–82,” in Japanese Industrialization and the Asian Economy, ed. Heita Kawakatsu and John Latham (London: Routledge, 1994), 37–8. For more on the VOC porcelain trade in East Asia, see also Christian J.A. Jörg, Porcelain and the Dutch China Trade (the Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982).
- 6.
Quoted in Maria Antonia Pinto de Matos, “The Portuguese Trade,” Oriental Art 45, no. 1 (1999): 27.
- 7.
Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, Itinerario, voyage ofte schipvaert naer Oost ofte Portugaels Indien 1579–1592: Eerste stuk, ed. H. Kern, rev. by H. Terpstra (the Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955), 97.
Die porceleynen, dieder ghemaeckt worden, is onghelooflick te vertrecken, ende
die daer jaerlicks uytghetrocken worden naer Indien, Portugael ende Nieu
Spaengien ende ander weghen; maer die fijnste en mogen uyt het landt niet
ghevoert werden op lijfstraffe, dan dienen alleenelick voor die heeren ende regierders
van ‘t landt, welcke zijn so fijn, dat gheen cristalynen glas daer by te gelijcken is (Translation mine).
- 8.
van Linschoten, Itinerario, 97.
- 9.
Matteo Ricci, China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci: 1583–1610, trans. L.J. Gallagher, S.J. (New York: Random House, 1953), 14–5. Gallagher’s text is a translation of Matteo Ricci’s journals, which were first published in an edited and translated (from Italian to Latin) version by Nicolas Trigault, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas (Augsburg: Christoph Mangium, 1615). Ricci’s description of the “brass wire” (filo aereo in Trigault’s text, page 14) used to mend broken porcelain is the kind of specific, objective, and unadorned detail that sets Ricci’s text apart from more popular descriptions of Chinese “marvels” and, as noted by this essay’s anonymous reader, may refer to the Chinese use of heated iron staples to repair porcelain.
- 10.
Ricci, China in the Sixteenth Century, 15.
- 11.
Alvaro Semedo, The history of that great and renowned monarchy of China: wherein all the particular provinces are accurately described, as also the dispositions, manners, learning, laws, militia, government, and religion of the people, together with the traffick and commodities of that country (London: E. Tyler for John Crook, 1655), 19.
- 12.
Engelbert Kaempfer, Kaempfer’s Japan: Tokugawa Culture Observed, ed. and trans. B.M. Bodart-Bailey (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999), 293.
- 13.
van Linschoten, Itinerario, 97.
Dese porseleynen worden ghemaeckt te landewaerts binnen, van een seker aerde,
die seer hert is, welcke wordt aen stucken gestooten ofte ghemalen, ende latent
dan in backen van ghehouwen steen, daer toe ghemaeckt, in water weycken,
ende alst wel gheweyckt ende dickwils gheroert is, gelijck alsmen die melck
karent om die botter te maken, so makense daer na van het ghene, dat boven
drijft, het alderfijnste werck, ende daer nae wat onderder grover, ende alsoo naer
venant, ende schilderense ende makender die figueren ende conterfeytsels op,
diese willen, ende werden also ghedrooght ende inden oven gebacken (Translation mine).
- 14.
Although glazed earthenware is also impermeable to liquid, early seventeenth-century earthenware bodies were, in general, heavier than porcelain bodies and more prone to chipping.
- 15.
Frits Scholten, Dutch Majolica & Delftware, 1550–1700: The Edwin van Drecht collection. Exhibited in the Paleis Lange Voorhout Museum, The Hague (Amsterdam: E. van Drecht, 1993), 32. Pewter, in contrast to porcelain, requires scouring to clean, which often results in pitted and scratched surfaces that hold dirt.
- 16.
François Xavier Dentrecolles, Lettre du pere d’Entrecolles missionnaire de la Compagnie de Jésus, sur la porcelaine, au pere Orry de la même Compagnie (Amsterdam: Jean Frederic Bernard, 1738). For more on “espionage” as it relates to porcelain, see Lydia He Liu, “Robinson Crusoe’s Earthenware Pot,” Critical Inquiry 25, no. 4 (1998): 728–57.
- 17.
For more on the term “Dutch porcelain,” see Jan-Daan van Dam, Delffse porceleyne: Dutch Delftware 1620–1850 (Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 2004), 14.
- 18.
Johannes Nieuhof, Het Gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, ann den Grooten Tartarischen Cham, den tegenwoordigen Keizer van China… (Amsterdam: Jacob van Meurs, 1665), 91.
Op de vaten, die van deze aarde gemaakt zyn, wetenze allerlei slagh van dieren bloemen en boomen zeer aardig en kunstig met Indigo of Weed (dat in de Zuiderlijke Landschappen in grooten overvloet voort komt) te schilderen. En deze kunst, van op Porcelein te schilderen, houdenze ook zoo verborgen, datze die aan niemant, dan aan hunne kinderen, vrienden, of nakomelingen, willen leeren. De Sineezen zyn ook zoo vaerdig en gaauw in dit schilderen, dat men hen geen gedaante van dier of kruidt vertoonen zal, of zy weten dat op het Porcelein na te bootzen (Translation mine).
- 19.
Volker, Porcelain, 143, quotes a letter from Batavia to Deshima dated June 21, 1662, “Your Honour shall look to it that everything is fine and curious as to painting…”
- 20.
See David Mugello, Curious Land. Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989) for use of the term curiosus and its relationship to seventeenth-century scholarly work on China. For recent examinations of the early modern preoccupation with curiosity, see Barbara Benedict, Curiosity: A Cultural History of Early Modern Inquiry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Neil Kenny, The Uses of Curiosity in Early Modern France and Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); and Robert John Weston Evans and Alexander Marr, Curiosity and Wonder from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006). For use of the term “curious” and its application to art, see Peter Parshall, “Introduction. Art and Curiosity in Northern Europe,” Word & Image 11, no. 4 (1995): 327–32; and Christopher Wood “‘Curious Pictures’ and the Art of Description,” Word & Image 11, no. 4 (1995): 332–52.
- 21.
John Nieuhoff, An embassy from the East-India Company of the United Provinces, to the Grand Tartar Cham, Emperor of China… (London: John Ogilby, 1673), 45, 102, 106, and 120. Nieuhof also uses “curious” in ways that suggest it may be understood as similar to “particular” or “fastidious” as on page 168 “not curious in their diet, for they eat all manner of flesh without difference” and on page 177 “in the preserving [who may be buried in gravesites] whereof they are “very curious, insomuch that none other are admitted to be Interr’d there…” While the English translation of Nieuhof’s text employs the word “curious,” the earlier Dutch (Nieuhof 1665) and French (Nieuhof 1665) editions use terms such as duur (expensive/costly), aardig (pleasant/nice), and waardig (worthy/dignified).
- 22.
Volker, Porcelain, 60.
- 23.
van Dam, Delffse, 18; and Christian J.A. Jörg, Interaction in Ceramics: Oriental Porcelain & Delftware (Hong Kong: the Council, 1984), 19. Jörg writes, “Where there were only three or four faience factories in Delft in 1647, there were already twenty or more in 1661, while in the last quarter of the century faience was being made in over thirty factories, most of it painted in Chinese style.”
- 24.
Although Jörg suggests (Jörg, Interaction in Ceramics, 142) that a Dutch vessel is a “literal imitation” of a kraak porcelain bottle, a comparison of the two vessels he cites provides an additional example of similar but not identical decoration.
- 25.
Claire Corbeiller, “China into Delft: A Note on Visual Translation,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 26, no. 6 (February 1968): 269–76.
- 26.
van Dam, Delffse, 18.
- 27.
Michael Archer, Delftware: The Tin-Glazed Earthenware of the British Isles, A Catalogue of the Victoria and Albert Museum (London: The Stationery Office, 1997), 3.
- 28.
Maxine Berg makes a similar argument for British semi-luxury goods in the eighteenth century. Maxine Berg, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 45.
- 29.
van Dam, Delffse, 37, notes this painting as well. Lauren Craen’s (active c. 1643–1664) still life of 164(3?) also appears to depict a delftware jug. It is placed on a table with a lobster, crayfish and façon-de-Venise wine glass. The painting was recently sold at auction (Christies, November 7, 2001, Lot 77/Sale 2526).
- 30.
The size, shape, and decoration of this vase—particularly the ways that visual spaces are organized and divided, the clothing and posture of the figures, and the decoration within the cartouches—are consistent with ceramic pieces produced in Delft in the second half of the seventeenth century. The Historisches Museum Frankfurt has titled the painting Still Life with Frankfurter Faience Vase, but as Jan Danïel van Dam has argued, “Much of the faience preserved in Germany with a decoration derived from Chinese porcelain was, from about 1920, attributed by German art historians to the faience factory in Frankfurt. In reality, though, this faience was made in Delft, partly as an export product for German courts. On statistical grounds alone, a substantial technically excellent and varied production was impossible in Frankfurt: one factory with an estimated 30 employees could obviously never have made more than the over 20 [Delft] factories with an estimated 1500 employees.” van Dam, Delffse, 37.
- 31.
See van Dam, Delffse, 63, and Caroline Henriette de Jonge, Dutch Tiles (London: Pall Mall Press, 1971), 100, for assessments of Daniel Marot’s role in introducing new models for the display of porcelain and delftware in domestic interiors.
- 32.
For more on the relation between print and porcelain in Ming dynasty China, see Craig Clunas, “The West Chamber: A Literary Theme in Chinese Porcelain Decoration,” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 46 (1981–1982): 69–86; Hsu Wen Chin Hsü, “Fictional Scenes on Chinese Transitional Porcelain (1620–ca. 1683) and Their Sources of Decoration,” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 58 (1986): 1–146, and Stephen Little, “Narrative Themes and Woodblock Prints in the Decoration of Seventeenth-Century Chinese Porcelains,” in Seventeenth-Century Chinese Porcelain from the Butler Family Collection, ed. Michael Butler (Alexandria: Art Services International, 1990), 21–33.
- 33.
van Dam, Delffse, also makes this point.
- 34.
Rotterdam, rather than Delft, was the center of the tile production and in some ways tile remained an industry separate from other forms of delftware production. Wall tiles had been a Dutch industry before Europeans encountered Chinese porcelain and some potters concentrated on this product, which was relatively unaffected by Chinese ceramic imports throughout the seventeenth century. For more on this issue, see van Dam, Delffse, 11. In addition, as Hans van Lemmen, Delftware Tiles (New York: Lawrence King, 1997), 35, explains, the idea of a tile picture is not a Dutch invention but the use of tiles by an expanding Dutch middle class was a new phenomenon and marked a new pattern of consumption in Europe.
- 35.
Plates were also displayed on racks, forming a different kind of “gallery.” See Alan Caiger-Smith, Tin-glaze Pottery in Europe and the Islamic World; the Tradition of 1000 years in Maiolica, Faience & Delftware (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), 136; van Lemmen, Delftware, 35.
- 36.
Caroline Henriette de Jonge, “Hollandse tegelkamers in Duitse en Franse kastelen,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 10 (1959): 161–3; Hendrik Enno van Gelder, “Het grote tegeltableau der Collectie Loudon,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 4, no. 4 (1956): 96–101. For a more recent discussion, see Esther Schreuder and Elmer Kolfin, ed., Black is Beautiful (Amsterdam: De Nieuwe Kerk, 2008), catalogue no. 32.
- 37.
For more on imari and delftware, see Frits Scholten, “Vroege japonaiserie in Delft, 1660–1680,” Mededelingenblad van de Nederlandse Vereniging Vrienden van de Ceramiek 128, no. 3 (1987): 17–25.
- 38.
My interpretation of the panel has benefited from discussions with Wei-Cheng Lin and Bonnie Cheng. Although there is no evidence that Dutch artists would have been aware of this model, the composition of the tile panel—its proportions, rendering of space, and the inscription contained in the cartouche rectangle at the top left of the image— is strikingly similar to Chinese cave temple murals. Temple murals in late imperial China were often composed of narrative vignettes, usually based on stories found in sutras, which unfolded within a larger composition and could be read in conjunction with an inscription.
- 39.
As Maxine Berg argues, the practice of “imitation” was fundamental to the production of material goods that had at their heart an “economy of delight” and of “modern luxuries.” “[These products] relied upon a perception of the exotic and oriental provenance of traditional luxury goods… . Sometimes substitutes, but more frequently quite new commodities, their production processes were to be marked by skill, technique, variety and artistry. These attributes were also perceived at the time to be the principles underlying the success of oriental luxuries.” Berg, Luxury and Pleasure, 45.
- 40.
The content of the Amalienburg image is even less coherent to modern eyes than the Rijksmuseum panel, for many of the Amalienburg tiles appear to be wrongly placed and the composition disrupted.
- 41.
Although the aesthetic qualities of porcelain were appreciated in the seventeenth century, porcelain as interior decoration belongs to the eighteenth century. See Volker, Porcelain, 25.
- 42.
As quoted in Simon Schama, An Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 318.
- 43.
“…after 1700 the market for tiles within the Netherlands was exclusively rural. Sales in the cities were negligible,” Jan-Daan van Dam, Dutch Tiles in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1984), 29. “Such flexibility [to produce fewer and more expensive tiles depending on demand] enabled Dutch tile-makers to deal with orders from abroad, particularly when changing fashions in interior decoration led to a decline in the market for tiles in the urban areas of Holland towards the end of the seventeenth century,” van Lemmen, Delftware, 1997. Not only delftware tiles but also Chinese porcelain generally fell out of fashion in the Netherlands by the late seventeenth century, “…porcelain, once the sensation of the public sales and eagerly sought by Hollander and foreigner alike for a high price and in 1619 still a ‘curiosity,’ had 63 years later come down to a merchandise of so little importance to the Company as hardly to be worth mention and auctioned off with more important goods.” Volker, Porcelain, 18–9.
- 44.
de Jonge, Dutch, 90–1.
- 45.
See, for example, the Arundel Castle Archives of 1641, as discussed in Juliet Claxton, “The Countess of Arundel’s Dutch Pranketing Room,” Journal of the History of Collections 22, no. 2 (2010): 187–96. In France and England, the term chiminées hollandaises was used to describe any shelved arrangement of porcelain. For more on the “Dutchness” of tea drinking and porcelain collecting, see Roger G. Panetta, ed., Dutch New York: The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture (Yonkers: Fordham University Press, 2010), 280–1: van Lemmen, Delftware, 70, “In an entry for 1695, the English diarist Celia Fienne (fl. 1685–1712) used the words ‘Delft-Ware Closet’ in a description of a small room in Queen Mary’s Water Gallery at Hampton Court. This room was filled with a display of Dutch blue-and-white pottery and Chinese porcelain and had tiles made in Delft on the walls.” Oliver Impey, Chinoiserie: The Impact of Oriental Styles on Western Art and Decoration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 56, cites Daniel Defoe, who blamed Queen Mary for introducing into England “the custom… of furnishing houses with Chinaware… piling the China upon the tops of Cabinetes, scritoires, and every Chymney Piece… And here was also her Majesty’s fine collection of Delftware which indeed was very large and fine; and here was also a vast stock of fine Chine ware, the whereof was not to be seen in England…”
- 46.
See, for example, Jean-Nicolas de Parival (1605–1669), Les delices de la Hollande, contenant une description éxacte du païs, des moeurs et des coutumes des habitans... (La Haye: van Dole, 1710), 121: “Cette ville [Delf] fait un grand Commerce de cette Porcelaine de terre qu’on fait dans ses maufactures, qui se débite par toute la Hollande et dans les pais étrangers.” Eventually, even the term “delft,” like the term “china,” came to signal not simply a country of origin but a material that could be appropriated by ceramic producers from other places. See, for example, Archer, Delftware, 4, for use of term “delft” to refer to English wares.
- 47.
Although it may not have been true in practice that women collected more porcelain than men, it was true in the popular imagination. “By the late eighteenth century porcelain had become synonymous with effeminacy, and [as a journalist of 1755 put it] a man’s soft spot for porcelain and chinoiserie smacked suspiciously of a ‘delicate make and silky disposition,’” Robert Finlay, The Pilgrim Art: Cultures of Porcelain in World History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 284.
- 48.
David Porter, The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), addresses gender and chinoiserie generally. Elizabeth Kowaleski-Wallace, “Women;” Elizabeth Kowaleski-Wallace, Consuming Subjects, Women, Shopping and Business in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997); and Stacey Sloboda, “Porcelain bodies: gender, acquisitiveness, and taste in eighteenth-century England,” in Material Cultures, 1740–1920: The Meanings and Pleasures of Collecting, ed. John Potvin and Alla Myzelev (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 19–36, consider gender and porcelain specifically.
- 49.
Kowleski-Wallace, “Women,” 15, argues that the female, originally the object of male desire, became over the course of the long eighteenth century, the desiring subject.
- 50.
As one example of the resurgence in popularity of Chinese porcelains among elite collectors in the eighteenth century, see Oliver Impey, “Collecting Oriental Porcelain in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” in The Burghley Porcelains: An Exhibition from The Burghley House Collection and Based on the 1688 Inventory and 1960 Devonshire Schedule, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Alexandra Munroe and Naomi Noble Richard (New York: Japan Society, 1986), 36–43. While blue-and-white delftware and many forms of blue-and-white Chinese export ware became increasingly common, inexpensive, and undesirable over the course of the eighteenth century, European elites continued to collect (and even compete for) exquisite East Asian porcelains. These high prestige wares were often embellished with innovative multicolor overglaze enamel, rather than simple underglaze blue, which facilitated special orders for personalized decoration, including family coats of arms and depictions of country houses. See, for example, Nishida Hiroko’s entry on the Burghley Bowl in Alexandra Munroe and Naomi Noble Richard, ed., The Burghley House Collection and Based on the 1688 Inventory and 1960 Devonshire Schedule, exhibition catalogue (New York: Japan Society, 1986), 102–3, cat. 17. My thanks to this essay’s anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to this point.
- 51.
“Faïnce artistique veritable Delft, décor bieu entièrement fait à la main, copie exacte des forms anciennes chacque object porte la marque authentique: Delft.” Advertisement reproduced in Rick Erickson, Royal Delft: A Guide to De Porceleyne Fles (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2003), 37.
- 52.
For more on nationalism, the revival of the delftware industry and exhibitions, see van Jan-Daan van Dam, “Van een verwaarloosd naar een nationaal product: het verzamelen van Delftse faience,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 49, no. 1 (2001): 72–83.
- 53.
van Lemmen, Delftware, 167.
- 54.
Panetta, Dutch, 267.
- 55.
For more on American tourism in the Netherlands, see Laura Vookles, “Return in Glory: The Holland Society Visits ‘The Fatherland’,” in Dutch New York: The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture, ed. by Roger Panetta (Yonkers: Fordham University Press, 2009), 257–97.
- 56.
Not only delftware but also Dutch craft in general was understood by viewers from the United States to reflect “the delights of peaceful domestic life” well into the 1930s. In a 1936 publication of the Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin, for example, the newly installed “Dutch room” of 1608 was described in these terms: “Its task was the adornment not of the palace, but the house of a simple citizen, raised for the first time to a plane of economic security and solid industrious well-being. His household possessions—the work of skilled local craftsmen—reflected the delights of peaceful domestic life,” quoted in Ella Schaap, Delft Ceramics at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2003), 3.
- 57.
Edmondo de Amicis, Holland and Its People, vol. 1, trans. from the 13th edition by Helen Zimmern (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884), 159.
- 58.
de Amicis, Holland and Its People, 136.
- 59.
Annette Stott, Holland Mania: The Unknown Dutch Period in American Art and Culture (Woodstock: Overlook Books, 1998), 198.
Bibliography
Archer, Michael. Delftware: The Tin-Glazed Earthenware of the British Isles, A Catalogue of the Victoria and Albert Museum. London: The Stationery Office, 1997.
Benedict, Barbara. Curiosity: A Cultural History of Early Modern Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Berg, Maxine. Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Caiger-Smith, Alan. Tin-glaze pottery in Europe and the Islamic World; the Tradition of 1000 years in Maiolica, Faience & Delftware. London: Faber and Faber, 1973.
Claxton, Juliet. “The Countess of Arundel’s Dutch Pranketing Room.” Journal of the History of Collections 22, no. 2 (2010): 187–96.
Clunas, Craig. “The West Chamber: A Literary Theme in Chinese Porcelain Decoration.” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 46 (1981–82): 69–86.
Corbeiller, Claire. “China into Delft: A Note on Visual Translation.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 26, no. 6 (February 1968): 269–76.
de Amicis, Edmondo. Holland and Its People. Translated from the 13th edition by Helen Zimmern. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1894.
de Jonge, Caroline Henriette. “Hollandse tegelkamers in Duitse en Franse kastelen.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 10 (1959): 161–3.
de Jonge, Caroline Henriette. Dutch Tiles. London: Pall Mall Press, 1971.
de Parival, Jean-Nicolas. Les delices de la Hollande, contenant une description éxacte du païs, des moeurs et des coutumes des habitans .... La Haye: van Dole, 1710.
Dentrecolles, François Xavier. Lettre du pere d’Entrecolles missionnaire de la Compagnie de Jésus, sur la porcelaine, au pere Orry de la même Compagnie. Amsterdam: Jean Frederic Bernard, 1738.
Erickson, Rick. Royal Delft: A Guide to De Porceleyne Fles. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2003.
Evans, Robert John Weston, and Alexander Marr. Curiosity and Wonder from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006
Finlay, Robert. The Pilgrim Art: Cultures of Porcelain in World History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.
Gerritsen, Anne. “Domesticating Goods from Overseas: Global Material Culture in the Early Modern Netherlands.” Journal of Design History 29, no. 3 (2016): 228–44.
He Liu, Lydia. “Robinson Crusoe’s Earthenware Pot.” Critical Inquiry 25, no. 4 (1998): 728–57.
Ho, Chuimei. “The Ceramic Trade in Asia, 1602–82.” In Japanese Industrialization and the Asian Economy, edited by Heita Kawakatsu and John Latham, 35–70. London: Routledge, 1994.
Hochstrasser, Julie. “Wisselwerkingen Redux-Ceramics, Asia, and the Netherlands.” In Points of Contact: Crossing Cultural Boundaries, edited by Amy Golahny, 50–81. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2004.
Hochstrasser, Julie. Still Life and Trade in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
Hsu Wen Chin Hsü. “Fictional Scenes on Chinese Transitional Porcelain (1620–ca. 1683) and Their Sources of Decoration.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 58 (1986): 1–146.
Impey, Oliver. “Collecting Oriental Porcelain in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” In The Burghley Porcelains: An Exhibition from The Burghley House Collection and Based on the 1688 Inventory and 1960 Devonshire Schedule, exhibition catalogue, edited by Alexandra Munroe and Naomi Noble Richard, 36–43. New York: Japan Society, 1986.
Impey, Oliver. Chinoiserie: The Impact of Oriental Styles on Western Art and Decoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Jörg, Christian J.A. Interaction in Ceramics: Oriental Porcelain & Delftware. Hong Kong: the Council, 1984.
Jörg, Christian J.A. Porcelain and the Dutch China Trade. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982.
Kaempfer, Engelbert. Kaempfer’s Japan: Tokugawa Culture Observed, edited and translated by B.M. Bodart-Bailey. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
Kenny, Neil. The Uses of Curiosity in Early Modern France and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth. “Women, China and Consumer Culture in Eighteenth-Century England.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 29, no. 2 (Winter 1995/1996): 153–67.
Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth. Consuming Subjects, Women, Shopping and Business in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Little, Stephen. “Narrative Themes and Woodblock Prints in the Decoration of Seventeenth-Century Chinese Porcelains.” In Seventeenth-Century Chinese Porcelain from the Butler Family Collection, edited by Michael Butler, 21–33. Alexandria: Art Services International, 1990.
Mugello, David. Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
Munroe, Alexandra, and Naomi Noble Richard, ed. The Burghley House Collection and Based on the 1688 Inventory and 1960 Devonshire Schedule, exhibition catalogue. New York: Japan Society, 1986.
Nieuhof, Johannes. Het Gezantschap der Neêrlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie, ann den Grooten Tartarischen Cham, den tegenwoordigen Keizer van China…. Amsterdam: Jacob van Meurs, 1665.
Nieuhoff, John. An Embassy from the East-India Company of the United Provinces, to the Grand Tartar Cham, Emperor of China…. London: John Ogilby, 1673.
Panetta, Roger G., ed. Dutch New York: The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture. Yonkers: Fordham University Press, 2010.
Parshall, Peter. “Introduction. Art and Curiosity in Northern Europe.” Word & Image 11, no. 4 (1995): 327–32.
Pinto de Matos, Maria Antonia. “The Portuguese Trade.” Oriental Art 45, no. 1 (1999): 22–9.
Porter, David. The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Ricci, Matteo. China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of Matthew Ricci: 1583–1610. Translated by L.J. Gallagher, S.J. New York: Random House, 1953.
Schaap, Ella. Delft Ceramics at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2003.
Schama, Simon. An Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Scholten, Frits. “Vroege japonaiserie in Delft, 1660–1680.” Mededelingenblad van de Nederlandse Vereniging Vrienden van de Ceramiek 128, no. 3 (1987): 17–25.
Scholten, Frits. Dutch Majolica & Delftware, 1550–1700: The Edwin van Drecht collection. Exhibited in the Paleis Lange Voorhout Museum, The Hague. Amsterdam: E. van Drecht.
Schreuder, Esther, and Elmer Kolfin, ed. Black is Beautiful. Amsterdam: De Nieuwe Kerk, 2008.
Semedo, Alvaro. The history of that great and renowned monarchy of China: wherein all the particular provinces are accurately described, as also the dispositions, manners, learning, lawes, militia, government, and religion of the people, together with the traffick and commodities of that country. London: E. Tyler for John Crook, 1655.
Sloboda, Stacey. “Porcelain Bodies: Gender, Acquisitiveness, and Taste in Eighteenth-Century England.” In Material Cultures, 1740–1920: The Meanings and Pleasures of Collecting, edited by John Potvin and Alla Myzelev, 19–36. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009.
Smentek, Kristel. Rococo Exotic: French Mounted Porcelains and the Allure of the East. New York: Frick Collection, 2007.
Stott, Annette. Holland Mania: The Unknown Dutch Period in American Art and Culture. Woodstock: Overlook Books, 1998.
Trigault, Nicolas, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas. Augsbourg: Christoph Mangium, 1615.
van Dam, Jan-Daan. “Van een verwaarloosd naar een nationaal product: het verzamelen van Delftse faience.” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 49, no. 1 (2001): 72–83.
van Dam, Jan-Daan. Delffse porceleyne: Dutch Delftware 1620–1850. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 2004.
van Dam, Jan-Daan. Dutch Tiles in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1984.
van Gelder, Hendrik Enno. “Het grote tegeltableau der Collectie Loudon.” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 4, no. 4 (1956): 96–101.
van Lemmen, Hans. Delftware Tiles. New York: Lawrence King ,1997.
van Linschoten, Jan Huyghen. Itinerario, voyage ofte schipvaert naer Oost ofte Portugaels Indien 1579–1592: Eerste stuk, edited by H. Kern, revised by H. Terpstra. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955.
Volker, Tijs. Porcelain and the Dutch East India Company, as recorded in the Dagh-registers of Batavia Castle, those of Hirado and Deshima, and other contemporary paper, 1602–1682. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1954.
Vookles, Laura. “Return in Glory: The Holland Society Visits ‘The Fatherland’.” In Dutch New York: The Roots of Hudson Valley Culture, edited by Roger Panetta, 257–97. Yonkers: Fordham University Press, 2009.
Wood, Christopher. “‘Curious Pictures’ and the Art of Description.” Word & Image 11, no. 4 (1995): 332–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Odell, D. (2018). Delftware and the Domestication of Chinese Porcelain. In: Grasskamp, A., Juneja, M. (eds) EurAsian Matters. Transcultural Research – Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75641-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75641-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75640-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75641-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)