The china closet and, by extension, the Lady’s dressing room where oriental porcelain was displayed, were often compared to an oriental temple, but were also seen as an emblematic temple of femininity. The female closet where porcelain, shells and sometimes books, were stored served as an instrument of female sociability, an intimate gynocentric space where women could exchange their knowledge and expertise. The visits paid by women to their respective homes often led to the inspection of the china closet and fuelled discussions on porcelain. Lady Dashwood, for example, asked for Mrs Philip Lybbe Powys’s opinion on oriental porcelain displayed in her china closet at Kirtlington Park: “Her Ladyship said she must try my judgment in china, as she ever did all the visitors of that closet, as there was one piece there so much superior to the others. I thought myself fortunate that a prodigious fine old Japan dish almost at once struck my eye”(Climenson 198). The china cabinet functioned as a female museum, as was explained in an essay from the World:

You are not to suppose that all this profusion of ornament is only to gratify her own curiosity: it is meant as a preparative to the greatest happiness of life, that of seeing company. And I assure you she gives above twenty entertainments in a year to people for whom she has no manner of regard, for no other reason in the world than to shew them the house. [I am] continually driven from room to room, to give opportunity from strangers to admire it. But as we have lately missed a favourite Chinese tumbler, and some other valuable moveables, we have entertained thoughts of confining the shew to one day in the week, and of admitting no persons whatsoever without tickets.

The exchange and display of porcelain allowed women to circumscribe an artistic practice and field of expertise of their own. It gave them authority in the realm of domestic interior decoration as well as in that of scientific knowledge. In her analysis of the Duchess of Portland’s collection of porcelain and shells, Stacey Sloboda has shown how the collection and display of naturalia ‒shells‒ and artificialia –porcelain‒ connected natural history to art, and argued that porcelain occupied an intermediary position, as both exotic curiosity and manufactured object, “complicat[ing] the binary of ”raw“ imperial specimens versus ”cooked“ Western objects of connoisseurship” (Sloboda 467). The china closet decorated with shells thus merged natural history and decorative arts. It can also be read, I suggest, in terms of narration and architecture. Women read exotic stories on the surfaces of oriental porcelain but the authority they exerted over the display of porcelain wares also transformed them into authors. David Porter has argued that the decorative patterns of transitional porcelain wares of the Ming and early Qing dynasties often represented women in ideal garden scenes. He proposes to read these scenes of female communities evolving in peaceful natural surroundings depicted on Chinese porcelain as contemporaneous analogues of female utopias and Sapphic literary works that developed in English literature in the last decades of the 17th and early 18th centuries. Porcelain surfaces read by elite women nurtured their dreams of female academies, retreats and friendly communities.

Quelle:Vanessa Alayrac-Fielding Miranda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The present article seeks to analyze the presence and the symbolical meaning of oriental, and in particular Chinese, porcelain in English interiors in the 17th and 18th centuries. It examines how porcelain, through its dual status as both a natural and artificial artifact, and its exotic association with the Far East, contributed to the development of the rococo in the decorative arts in England and became a metonymy for women and the female material world.

From its first modest arrival in English interiors in the early 17th century to its role in the 18th-century craze for chinoiserie, oriental porcelain always held a significant place in interior decoration. Its function and status varied according to the place where it was displayed, from cabinets of curiosities to china closets and the tea-table. Chinese and Japanese porcelain also carried a set of different, sometimes antithetical meanings according to the type of collectors who acquired them and the way they were organised and arranged in the home. Chinamania was closely associated with women in the modern period, which led to gendered perceptions of porcelain, with the china closet becoming a metonymy for woman. In this essay, I trace the evolution of oriental porcelain in English interiors and unearth the symbolic, semiotic and cultural meanings of its presence in English men and women’s collections by bringing new material and new approaches into research on chinoiserie. I first examine the cultural and stylistic meaning of 17th-century porcelain collections to show that the fascination for porcelain items was grounded in their ambiguous status as curious, natural and artistic objects. I then turn to the case study of the furnishings of Colworth House in Bedfordshire to analyse the social function of porcelain as a signifier of taste, conspicuous consumption and status. This is followed by an interpretation of porcelain along gendered lines, in which I suggest that porcelain functioned as a memento and a fetish. Lastly, I offer a reading of the china closet which can be construed, I argue, as a feminine, rococo and “artinatural” space that epitomises the perceived characteristics of porcelain in the 18th century. 

Quelle:Vanessa Alayrac-Fielding Miranda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The foundation of the East India Company in 1600 made direct trade with China possible and led to an increase in English imports of Chinese wares. Although Chinese porcelain started to reach England in higher quantities at that time, they continued to be considered as precious exotica worthy of display in cabinets of curiosities. Most Chinese porcelain imported in the 17th century consisted of blanc-de-Chine and blue and white ware. Brown Yixing stoneware was also imported, as well as monochrome-glazed porcelain1. In the middle of the 17th century, direct trade with China was hampered by wars of succession within the Chinese empire, which led the East India Company to find other indirect ways of buying Chinese porcelain, and also, from 1657, to turn to Japan for more supplies in porcelain. The imports of Japanese overglazed enamelled porcelain in England provided collectors with porcelain ware of a new type: colours and new compositional patterns hitherto unknown entered English interiors2. Europe’s long-lasting fascination for porcelain can be ascribed to its beauty, its exotic provenance and the secrets surrounding its fabrication. Indeed, the manufacture of porcelain remained a mystery until the 18th century in Europe, when the alchemist Johann Böttger first succeeded in creating a porcelain body of the same type as that made in China for the Meissen factory. Until that time, porcelain had been thought to come from shells. The original Italian term porcellana, meaning “conch shell”, reflects this long-held belief3. At the end of the 17th century, speculations about its composition still ran high, as is shown by Captain William Dampier’s remark on the origin of porcelain:

The Spaniards of Manila, that we took on the Coast of Luconia, told me, that this Commodity is made of Conch-shells; the inside of which looks like Mother of Pearl. But the Portuguese lately mentioned, who had lived in China, and spoke that and the neighbouring Languages very well, said, that it was made of a fine sort of Clay that was dug in the Province of Canton. I have often made enquiry about it, but could never be well satisfied in it. 

The association between porcelain and shells was further evidenced in the common practice of displaying shells and porcelain together in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Duchess of Portland had a famous collection of shells and of unique pieces of porcelain, an association which contributed to blurring the boundary between naturalia and artificialia

Porcelain first occupied a non-functional status in the cabinets of rarities and curiosities of English aristocrats5. The famous collector John Tradescant published in 1656 the first catalogue of his collection, which listed “idols from India, China and other pagan lands”6. He also possessed porcelain, some mounted with silver and gold. In the 17th century, rare and precious porcelain items were often mounted with expensive metalwork, a practice that was common throughout Europe. The Duchess of Cleveland’s collection, which was sold in France in 1672, contained very fine Chinese and Japanese pieces, according to the Mercure Galant in July 1678 : “l’élite des plus belles porcelaines que plusieurs vaisseaux de ce pays [l’Angleterre] y avaient apportées pendant plusieurs années de tous les lieux, où ils avaient accès pour leur commerce.”The Duchess’s finest porcelain pieces were gilt-mounted : “il y en avait d’admirables par leurs figures, par les choses qui étaient représentées dessus et par la diversité de leurs couleurs. Les plus rares étaient montées d’or ou de vermeil doré et garnies diversement de la même manière en plusieurs endroits”7. The adding of expensive, luxurious silver or gold mounts to the porcelain body of an object visually reinforced the latter’s precious status in the cabinet of curiosities. It also celebrated the transformative powers of artistic creation. Not unlike the popular mounted nautilus cup that stood in cabinets of rarities and curiosities, mounted porcelain held the reference to its artistic manufacture together with the allusion to its natural origin. The perceived shell-like substance of the object had undergone two transformations: it had first been moulded and fired by Oriental craftsmen to be turned into a piece of porcelain, and had then been further transformed and enhanced with precious metal by European craftsmen. Porcelain wares thus fitted into larger collections which included naturalia and artificialia, classical works of art, antiquities as well as more unusual curiosities. Although the passion for collecting porcelain was already closely connected to the realm of the feminine in the 17th century, it would be wrong to assume that men did not collect oriental porcelain. On a visit to a Mr Bohun on 30 July 1682 at Lee in Kent, John Evelyn noted the couple’s joint appreciation of Chinese and Japanese wares. The house possessed a lacquered cabinet, and it is likely that the lady’s cabinet which gets mentioned, was a china closet:

Went to visit our good neighbour, Mr. Bohun whose whole house is a cabinet of all elegancies, especially Indian; in the hall are contrivances of Japan screens, instead of wainscot; […] The landscapes of the screens represent the manner of living, and country of the Chinese. But, above all, his lady’s cabinet is adorned on the fret, ceiling, and chimney-piece, with Mr. Gibbons’ best carving. (Bray ed. 173). Quelle:Vanessa Alayrac-Fielding Miranda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The detail of the possessions of the Antonie family at their estate at Colworth House in Sharnbrook (Bedfordshire) in the 18th century, recorded in successive inventories, provides an interesting illustration of men’s taste for porcelain. Marc Antonie was steward to the Duke of Montagu. In 1715, he bought the Colworth estate from John Wagstaff, citizen and mercer of the City of London, who had previously bought it from the Montagus. The Antonies had invested money in the South Sea stock, which resulted in the family’s financial collapse when the South Sea Bubble burst. After Marc Antonie’s death in 1720, the 1723 inventory was made with a view to selling the furniture to get the family out of debt. The presence in the inventory of porcelain dishes and basins exported from China reflects how the fashion for porcelain was connected to the ever more fashionable practice of drinking another Chinese product, tea and, to a lesser degree, coffee. The inventory records a “cheany & Teatable” in the North Parlour, advertised for £ 6 14s, and in the Hall “10 little Cheany plates that sold for £ 1 5s, 6 larg [sic] Cheany Dishes £ 1 15s, 4 Cheany Basons, Cheany mugs and Delf Dishes, Cheany Cassters and Cheany”.

The second inventory of 1771 was made after the death of Marc Antonie’s youngest son, Richard, on 26 November 1771. Richard Antonie had inherited the estate in 1768 after John’s death, Marc Antonie’s eldest son. He first established himself as a draper and then moved on to Jamaica in 1748 where he owned a sugar plantation. The furnishings of the house listed in the 1771 inventory were mostly purchased by Richard and some pieces by John Antonie. They give a good indication of the type of furnishing found in the 1760s in a country house, and, as James Collett-White points out, “reflect what a country gentleman with London connections might have purchased and collected”. 

Ornamental and functional porcelain figures prominently in the inventory. Antonie had an unusually large collection of china. In the two parlours and three of the four principal bedrooms were 125 pieces of ornamental china. The inventory does not mention the provenance of the pieces and it is highly probable these porcelains were not all of Chinese origin, but would have also come from continental centres such as Delft, Meissen and France, and also from English porcelain factories such as Derby, Worcester and Bow. Non-functional porcelain was completed by a huge number of porcelain plates and dishes which were kept in the “china closet”. Two “dragon china” dishes and “Nankeen basins” get mentioned in the inventory, which confirms the presence of Chinese export porcelain in Antonie’s collection. The taste for Chinese-styled indoor and outdoor decoration, which blended authentic Chinese wares with chinoiserie, gained momentum in the century, reaching a peak in the 1750s and 1760s16. Antonie had a particular liking for chinoiserie, as he commissioned a gate or possibly a low fence of oak railings to be made in the Chinese style, which he mentioned in his notes: “Richard Antonie made a New China Work the front of his house.”It thus appears very likely that he would have collected Chinese porcelain to complement the Chinese theme set up outside his house.

Addison, Joseph and Richard Steele ed. The Spectator no. 37, 12 April 1712.

Alayrac-Fielding, Vanessa. “Dragons, clochettes, pagodes et mandarins : Influence et représentation de la Chine dans la culture britannique du dix-huitième siècle (1685-1798)”, unpublished PhD thesis, Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, Paris

---. “Frailty, thy Name is China: Women, Chinoiserie and the threat of low culture in 18th-century England.”Women’s History Review 18:4 (Sept 2009): 659-668.

---. “De l’exotisme au sensualisme : réflexion sur l’esthétique de la chinoiserie dans l’Angleterre du XVIIIe siècle.”In Pagodes et Dragons : exotisme et fantaisie dans l’Europe rococo. Ed. Georges Brunel. Paris: Paris Musées, 2007. 35-41

Ayers, John, Impey, Olivier and J.V.G Mallet. Porcelain for Palaces: the Fashion for Japan in Europe 1650-1750. London: Oriental Ceramic Society, 1990.

Ballaster, Ros. Seductive Forms: Women’s Amatory Fiction from 1684 to 1740. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Baridon, Michel. “Hogarth’s ʽliving machines of nature’ and the theorisation of aesthetics.”In Hogarth. Representing Nature’s Machines. Eds. David Bindman, Frédéric Ogée, and Peter Wagner. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. 85-101.

Belevitch-Stankevitch, Hélène. Le Goût chinois en France. 1910. Genève: Slatkine, 1970.

Benedict,Barbara. “The Curious Attitude in Eighteenth-Century Britain: Observing and Owning.”Eighteenth-Century Life 14 (Nov. 1990): 75.

Burnaby,William. The Ladies’ Visiting-Day. London, 1701.

Bony, Alain. Léonora, Lydia et les autres : Etudes sur le (nouveau) roman. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon, 2004.

Bray, William (ed.). The Diary of John Evelyn, Esq. London/New York: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 1818.

Charleston, Robert J. “Porcelain as a Room Decoration in Eighteenth-Century England.”Magazine Antiques 96 (1969): 894- 96.

Chen, Jennifer, Julie Emerson and Mimi Gates (eds.). Porcelain Stories: From China to Europe. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000.

Climenson, Emily (ed.). Passages from the Diaries of Mrs. Philip Lybbe Powys of Harwick House, Oxon (1756-1808). London: Longmans & Green, 1899.

Clunas, Craig (ed.). Chinese Export Art and Design. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1987.

Collet-White, James (ed.). Inventories of Bedfordshire Country Houses 1714-1830. The Publication of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 74 (1995).

William Dampier, A New Voyage Round the World. London: James Knapton,1687.

Defoe, Daniel. A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain 1724-1726. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986.

Fowkes Tobin, Beth. “The Duchess’s Shells : Natural History Collecting, Gender, and Scientific Practice.”In Material Women, 1750-1950. Eds. Maureen Daly Goggin and Beth Fowkes Tobin. London: Ashgate, 2009. 301-325.

Freud, Sigmund. “Fetishism.”In Sigmund Freud: the Penguin Reader. Ed Adam Phillips. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books, 2006. 91-93.

Hallé, Antoinette (ed.). De l’immense au minuscule. La virtuosité en céramique. Paris : Paris musées, 2005.

Hind, Charles (ed.). The Rococo in England. A symposium. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1986.

Hogarth, William. The Analysis of Beauty, Written With a View of Fixing the Fluctuating Ideas of Taste. 1753. Ronald Paulson ed. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1997.

Honour, Hugh. Chinoiserie: the Vision of Cathay. London: Murray, 1961.

Impey, Oliver. Chinoiserie: the Impact of Oriental Styles on Western Art and Decoration. New York: Scribner, 1977.

Impey, Oliver and Arthur MacGregor (eds.) The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.

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 1690 Devonshire Schedule. New York: Japan Society, 1990. 36-43.

Impey, Oliver and Johanna Marshner. “ʽChina Mania’: A Reconstruction of Queen Mary II’s Display of East Asian Artefacts in Kensington Palace in 1693.”Orientations 29:10 (November 1998): 60-61.

Jackson-Stops, Gervase (ed.) The Fashioning and Functioning of the British Country House, Studies in the History of Art 25. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1989.

Kerr, Rose. “Missionary Reports on the Production of Porcelain in China.”Oriental Art, 47: 5 (2001): 36-37.

Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth. Consuming Subjects: Women, Shopping, and Business in the 18th Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Laird, Mark (ed.). Mrs Delany and her Circle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Langley, Batty. Practical Geometry, Applied to the Useful Arts of Building. London: W. & J. Innys and J. Osborn, 1726.

Llanover, Lady (ed.) The Autobiography and Correspondence of Mary Granville, Mrs. Delany, 6 vols. London, 1860-61.

Lévi-Strauss Claude. Le Cru et le cuit. Paris : Plon, 1964.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.1690. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 2004.

Lunsingh Scheurleer. T.H. “Documents on the Furnishing of Kensington House.”Walpole Society 38 (1960-1962): 15-58.

Minguet, Philippe. L’Esthétique du rococo. Paris: Vrin, 1966.

Moore, Edward (ed.). The World n° 38 (20 September 1753).

Murdoch, Tessa. Noble Households. Eighteenth-Century Inventories of Great English Houses. Cambridge: John Adamson, 2006.

Ostergard, Derek (ed.). William Beckford, 1760-1844: An Eye for the Magnificent. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001.

Park, William. The Idea of Rococo. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993.

Pierson, Stacey. Collectors, Collections and Museums: The Field of Chinese Ceramics in Britain, 1560-1960. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007.

Pietz William. “The Problem of the Fetish, I.”Res 9 (Spring 1985). 5-17
DOI : 10.1086/RESv9n1ms20166719

---. »The Problem of the Fetish, II: the Origin of the Fetish,“Res 13 (Spring 1987). 23-45.

Pomian, Krzysztof. Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux, Paris, Venise : xvie-xviiie siècle, Paris : Gallimard, 1987.

Porter, David. The Chinese Taste in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

---. ”Monstrous Beauty: Eighteenth-Century Fashion and the Aesthetics of the Chinese Taste.“Eighteenth-Century Studies 35:3 (2002): 395-411.

Rigby, Douglas and Elizabeth Rigby. Lock, Stock, and Barrel: The Story of Collecting. London: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1944.

Smith, Charles Saumarez. The Rise of Design: Design and the Domestic Interior in Eighteenth-Century England. London: Pimlico, 2000.

Shaftesbury, Earl of. Soliloquy: or, Advice to an Author. London: John Morphew, 1710.

Shulsky, Rosenfeld. ”The Arrangement of the Porcelain and Delftware Collection of Queen Mary in Kensington Palace.“American Ceramic Circle Journal 8 (1990): 51-74.

Sloboda, Stacey. ”Displaying Materials: Porcelain and Natural History in the Duchess of Portland’s Museum.“Eighteenth-Century Studies 43.4 (2010): 455-472.
DOI : 10.1353/ecs.0.0159

Sloboda, Stacey. ”Porcelain Bodies: Gender, Acquisitiveness and Taste in 18th-century England.“. In Material Cultures, 1740-1920. Eds. John Potvin and Alla Myzelev. London: Ashgate, 2009. 1-36.

Snodin, Michael (ed.). Rococo Art and Design in Hogarth’s England. London: V&A Publication, 1984.

Snodin, Michael and Cynthia Roman (eds.). Horace Walpole’s Strawberry Hill. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Stalker, John and George Parker. Treatise of Japanning and Varnishing Being a Complete Discovery of these Arts. Oxford, 1688.

Wilson, Joan ”A Phenomenon of Taste: the Chinaware of Queen Mary II."Apollo 126 (August 1972): 116-123.

Young, Hilary. English Porcelain, 1745-1795: its Makers, Design, Marketing and Consumption. London: Victoria and Albert Publications, 1999.

Top of page