That story is briefly this: He was born poor, but he had patience, industry, and an aspiring nature. He studied, he learned, he sought; he became something of a draughtsman, a painter, a surveyor, a writer. Glass-painting may be said to have been his occupation, or one of them; and, in following this, he came quickly into sympathy with cognate arts. We can well believe, therefore, that when he saw a beautifully-enameled cup—whether one of those now so famous as the Henri-Deux ware, or whether one of those already made at Nuremberg by Hirschvogel (probably the latter)—we can well believe that it inspired his soul with enthusiasm, and held him with the tenacity we know to have marked his character.

From that day he was possessed; he had a mastering thought: it was to discover the secrets of this art, and to apply them to the production of like ware in France, where it was not known. With little or no knowledge of chemistry, with none of pottery, he set himself to the task. He worked persistently, indefatigably, but darkly, ignorantly, wastefully, and at last only reached a half-success. He did this, too, by sacrificing largely of his own life for sixteen years, and, more than that, as he has himself told the story, by the hard and almost cruel sacrifice of the decent comforts of life of his wife and family. He borrowed the money of his friends and neighbors to conduct his experiments; he burned his tables and chairs to heat his furnaces; he could not pay his assistants; he could bear the tears and reproaches of his wife and his friends, and did so for years; and all this for what some persons call the “glorious result” of discovering a glaze for pottery—which had already been known and was in full practice at Nuremberg, only a hundred miles from him! If, as is stated by Demmin, he did himself visit Nuremberg to see and learn what was there being done, his course becomes still more inexplicable and unpraiseworthy. And what makes the matter still more curious is that, after all, he did not succeed in discovering or applying the stanniferous enamel; for M. Demmin states positively that his glaze was the plumbiferous glaze, and not the stanniferous. Quoting his words, he says: “On ne rencontre pas la moindre parcelle d’émail stannifère, blanc ou autres, sur les poteries attribuées à ce maître. Le blanc est une terre blanchâtre qui, couverte d’un vernis incolore, conserve sa blancheur.”

If, therefore, it may be questioned whether the object of discovering a stanniferous glaze was worthy the sacrifice of sixteen years of his own life, as well as of the peace and comfort of his friends and family; and if, after all, he did not discover it; and if, besides that, he might have obtained it from Hirschvogel without all this tribulation, and did not—we may well be at a loss to understand the high praise which in some quarters has been lavished on Palissy; and for myself I am not willing to continue it. Martyrdom is usually a very poor business, and the cause of good pottery certainly does not demand it.

The work begun at Saintes about 1535, and afterward carried on at Paris, is marked by peculiarities which for a long time were supposed to be confined to the wares of Palissy. These were the use of shells, lizards, snakes, fish, frogs, insects, and plants, in high-relief upon the surface of his plates and dishes. This will be shown in the example we give (Fig. 73), which is one of the finest pieces of this work extant, now in the museum of the Louvre. And even this is now believed by some competent experts to be of modern manufacture.

These natural objects were modeled with considerable care, and colored to represent the real things, so that they have a value to the naturalist as well as to the potter.

As works of ceramic art, can we accord them a high rank, or can we get much satisfaction in their contemplation? Can we accept them as art at all? Admit them to be clever imitations—and that is all, it seems to me, we can do—and they fall to the place of prettiness, and rank with wax-flowers and alabaster-apples.

It is quite certain that work of this sort was done by many potters after Palissy, if not by his contemporaries; and collectors have been induced to pay great prices for things alleged to be the work of Palissy which are now known not to have been made by him. In addition to this, the world is full of counterfeits of this sort of thing which out-Palissy Palissy; and the extravagant prices once paid for counterfeits cannot now be obtained for what are known to be genuine.

The other two examples shown in Figs. 74, 75, and 76, differ from the first; and it may be doubted whether these are not to be attributed to some other potter than Palissy. The cornucopia on Fig. 74 was a favorite decoration at Rouen, and might readily enough find a place there.

This style of work, being made in moulds, can be easily and cheaply reproduced.

At one time a large number of figurines, such as “The Nurse” and others, were attributed to Palissy, notwithstanding that the dresses, and in some cases the persons, did not exist until after the time of Palissy; but it is now asserted that there is nothing at all to prove that Palissy ever made this style of work.

A great number of examples may be seen of so-called “Palissy” in the Kensington Museum at London and in the Louvre at Paris. But they nowhere hold the high places they once did, nor do they bring the prices they once did. In the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia of 1876 a great variety of this sort of work was shown, made by the clever potters of the day in Europe.

A very large sale has been found within the last twenty years for imitations of Palissy ware, and these have been made with great skill by Barbizôt and Aviso, of France, and by Minton, of England; indeed, some of these seem much better than any I have seen supposed to be the genuine thing. The virtues most needed are, of course, patience and a keen faculty of imitation—art in any good sense is not essential.

The sales of Palissy ware at the Bernal sale were not at the high figures they afterward reached. The prices ran from seven to one hundred and sixty-two pounds, the latter price having been paid for a circular dish twelve and a half inches in diameter, which, having been broken into pieces and mended, was bought by the Baron Rothschild.

We give, in Fig. 77, another style of work—a very beautiful jug in the collection of the Louvre. It is there placed among the works of Bernard Palissy; and there are various other pieces of like work so catalogued in the public and private collections of Europe. But there are doubts as to these, which in some minds approach to certainty—doubts whether Palissy himself worked at all with the human form. It is well known that he was a naturalist, a geologist, a scientist, but it is not certain that he was an artist in this direction. Some students assert distinctly that he was not; and it seems most probable that he was not a modeler of the human figure.

As work like this, shown in the last illustration, has for so long a period been attributed to him, it has seemed desirable to give an example of it in our pages. That it is work of his time, if not made by him or under his direction, is not questioned.

Henri-Deux Ware: Faience d’Oiron.—This unique earthen-ware for years perplexed the lovers of pottery. It seemed to appear from Touraine and La Vendée, and only here and there a piece. It was so peculiar, so different from any and all the known styles, that no one could decide whence it came or by whom it was made. The impression—and it was only an impression—seemed to be that it must have come out of Italy, and that Benvenuto Cellini was as likely as any one to have had to do with its designs or execution; and this simply because he was known to have stamped his peculiar taste upon works which might be classed with this only in expressing the finer forms and decorations of the Italian Renaissance.

A few pieces only of this ware came to light from time to time, but they were eagerly seized upon, and they gave rise to much speculation. Why there should be so few, and why no traces of like ware were found in other directions, remained for a time a mystery. But it was solved. I quote here from a paper by Mr. Ritter, which sums up what is now known upon the subject; he writes with the knowledge and appreciation of a practical potter:

“It was so late as the year 1839 that M. André Pottier, a French writer on art, first announced to the world the existence of the singular species of pottery now known as ‘Henri-Deux’ ware. He gave it as his opinion that it was the production of Florentine artists working in France. Until thus brought to the knowledge of connoisseurs, the very existence of this exquisite ware had been forgotten. It soon, however, became famous. Every corner of Europe was ransacked for specimens of it. Dukes, princes, and millionaires, contended with the heads of national museums for the few pieces still to be found. No ware ever yet became so costly; for every hundred pounds that a rare piece of Sèvres or maiolica will fetch, the ‘Henri-Deux’ will bring its thousand. As yet only about fifty pieces have come to light; and of these fifty more than one-half have found their way into the galleries of our wealthier English amateurs.

“Those who see a specimen of this rare and precious pottery for the first time are apt to be extremely disappointed. They see a vase, or a ewer, or a candlestick, of fantastic shape, covered with a thin, greenish-yellow glaze, the coloring not by any means brilliant, and the surface seemingly inlaid and incrusted with the innumerable details of a most elaborate ornamentation, made out in quiet browns, blacks, and sad neutral tints. Nothing is less striking to a casual or an ignorant observer—nothing in the whole range of decorative art so absolutely exquisite in design and effect to the cultivated appreciation of a connoisseur in Renaissance-work.

“No sooner was the ware discovered than speculations began as to its maker, its date, and the locality of its fabrication. On no single point did the ten or twelve French writers on the subject come to an agreement, and a certain amount of unsolved mystery still attaches to all these points. There is no so-called ‘potter’s mark’ on any of the pieces except one, and this solitary mark is not recognizable as that of any known potter. It may be tortured into a monogram, or assumed to be a device, at the pleasure of those who form their various theories on the origin of the ware.

“The pieces are decorated with the arms of French royal and noble families. One piece has on it the salamander surrounded by flames, the device of Francis I. of France; and very many out of the fifty bear the well-known monogram of Henry II. worked into the ornamentation of the surface—a circumstance which has given the ware its name. The date is, therefore, more or less fixed to the short period between 1540 and 1560, or twenty years. As to the nationality of the artist, the best authorities join in thinking he must have been a Frenchman, because the work is essentially of the style of the somewhat distinctive French Renaissance then prevailing. The precise locality of its production could only be inferred to be somewhere in Touraine, because a majority of the pieces can be traced as coming from that province.

“Such was the mystery which hung about all connected with this curious ware—a mystery which not a little enhanced the interest taken in it, and perhaps the estimation in which it was held.

“This mystery is now, to a great extent, cleared up.

“At the court of King Francis lived a widow lady of high birth, named Hélène de Hangest. Her husband had been governor of the king, and Grand-Master of France. She was herself an artist, and a collection of drawings by her of considerable artistic merit is preserved. They are portraits of the celebrities of the period. She was in favor at court; the king himself composed a rhymed motto to each of her portraits, and some of these verses are written in his own hand. It is established that Hélène de Hangest set up a pottery at her Château of Oiron, and that Francis Charpentier, a potter, was in her employ. To his hand, under the auspices of the Châtelaine of Oiron, is due the famous ware of ‘Henri-Deux.’

“Mr. J. C. Robinson gives it as his opinion that the technical merit of the ‘Henri-Deux’ ware is very small. With due deference to Mr. Robinson, who, as a rule, writes well and learnedly upon this and cognate matters, we do not think he would say this if he had been able to appreciate the subject from a potter’s point of view. The body of the ‘Henri-Deux’ ware is of admirable texture and quality; the mode in which the various clays are incorporated into the substance of the pieces without shrinking or expansion, the clearness, thinness, and smoothness of the glaze—which, by-the-way, is plumbiferous—all these things are so many marvels of skillful manipulation, and fill the mind of a practical potter with admiration.”

These curious and interesting facts were brought to light by the researches of a French savant, M. B. Fillon, about 1862.

It appears that this ware was not made for sale, and that it was not sold, but was made for presents, and therefore was produced only in small quantities. The clay itself is what the French term terre de pipe, and what we know as pipe-clay—a white, delicate, and very light clay. The inlaying, or the incised lines which are filled with colored clays, are most delicately cut, and so much resemble work done by book-binders that some persons have suggested that they were made with the tools used in the bookbinder’s trade. At any rate, one should give these pieces a close look, for any thoroughly good piece of work is a source of supreme satisfaction. Admirable copies have been made of some pieces of this work by an artist named Toft, which were exhibited at Philadelphia in 1876 by Minton, of England.

We give, in Figs. 78 and 79, two examples, more to exhibit something of the forms and conceits indulged in than to show the delicacy and precision of the work, which are perfect. Fig. 78 is termed a biberon; it is but seven inches high. “The upper part is white, the ornaments yellow; and the lower part black, with white ornaments. On the shield underneath the spout are the three crescents interlaced.” Fig. 79 is a salt-cellar.

After the decease of Madame Hélène de Hangest, who was the widow of Arthur Gouffier, a gentleman of rank, the manufacture of this peculiar ware was continued at the Château d’Oiron by her son, Claude Gouffier; but the production was still limited, and it is doubtful if any pieces were ever sold. It is therefore of great rarity and of corresponding money-value, only fifty-three specimens of it being known to exist.

The interest in these pieces is such now that many persons may like to know where they are and what they are thought to be worth. I transcribe from Chaffers as follows:

In England there are twenty-six pieces:

In France there are twenty-six pieces:

In Russia, one piece:

CHAPTER VIII.

FRENCH FAIENCE.—NEVERS, ROUEN, BEAUVAIS, ETC.

Great skill and much good taste have been expended upon the faiences of France, and some of the work rises into the region of art. Much of that found in collections and museums is of this kind. But it should not be forgotten that the great purpose and business of those manufactories was the production of dishes, plates, and services, for the table—for the uses of life. And in this direction the production in France was very large and profitable, until the time when, as said above, the introduction of cheap wares from England ruined the makers. These disastrous changes and whimseys of trade, disagreeable as they may be to the masters and the workmen who are ruined, do give a certain zest and variety to human history; they relieve life from the monotony and dullness which usually attends upon unbroken prosperity. As some of the doctrinaires tell us, they are really blessings—often very much in disguise; at least, they seem so to those who are the immediate sufferers.

Nearly the whole of the French potteries went down about the period of the great Revolution, from the effects of the wares introduced from England, and the troubles growing out of the political disorders. Within this last quarter of a century a noted revival has come to this most interesting industry, of which some notice will be made hereafter.

It is the fine examples of the work of the older potteries which collectors are desirous to get.

Marks are often found upon pieces of the faiences of France, the delft of Holland, etc.; but I do not reproduce them here, partly because they are much less important than those on the porcelains, and partly because we should have almost no occasion for their use.

Nevers.—It is supposed that at Nevers was made the first enameled pottery in France, in the days of Catherine de’ Medicis. M. Broc de Ségange, in his work “La Faïence, les Faïenciers et les Émailleurs de Nevers,”[6] traces the beginning of the work to an Italian named Conrad, who probably came to France with the queen, and was naturalized in 1578. He and his brothers began the manufacture about that time. Another famous potter there was Pierre Custode.

It was inevitable that the early faience of Nevers should bear a likeness to that which had grown up so rapidly in Italy, and had impressed itself so vividly upon the artistic mind of Europe. But it was not an imitation. We have little if any examples of this work in our country, and I give Marryat’s brief distinction:

“The Nevers pottery differs in many points from its Italian original. The outlines of the figures are traced in violet, the flesh in yellow. The red color is seldom used, but a copper-green is peculiar to this ware. Blue and yellow are the predominating colors, separated by a line of white. The sea is represented by undulating lines of blue, in the style of Orazio Fontana, and the Urbino school. The lips of the ewers are in the form of leaves, the handles in that of dragons.”

Demmin separates the work done here into four styles or periods, as follows:

“1. The Italian, 1602 to 1670.

“2. The Persian, about 1640.

“3. The Chinese and Dutch, 1640 to 1750.

“4. The popular and patriotic, about 1789.”

The examples shown (Fig. 80) are of the later periods, and partake of a general character which prevailed at other manufactories of the periods in France.

The colors during the Persian period were often effective, and the lapis-lazuli blue was rich.

A very great quantity of plates, vases, dishes, etc., was made, many of them rude and cheap, during the time of the French Revolution, which were decorated with revolutionary emblems, pictures of the destruction of the Bastile, with the liberty-cap, and with patriotic cries, such as “Liberté, égalité, ou mort!” and “Vive le roi citoyen!”

At the beginning of the eighteenth century there were twelve manufactories, or “fabriques,” in full blast at Nevers. At the present time there is a very considerable production of faience at Nevers, much of which is only the imitations or reproductions of that made in the earlier centuries. Nothing of special interest, so far as I know, was shown at the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia.

At the Bernal sale was “No. 1981: A pair of bottles of Nevers ware, light blue, spirally fluted with dark-blue flowers; twelve inches high. Eleven pounds.—J. S. Forbes, Esq.”

Beauvais.—How early pottery was made at Beauvais is not certainly known; one of the earliest notices is of a pot of Charles VI. in 1399, “Un godet de terre de Beauvais, garny d’argent;” and Rabelais mentions this work more than once, in this way, “Une salière de terre; et ung goubelet de Beauvoys,” etc. Various pieces of this very quaint and interesting pottery are extant in the museums of Europe. The great plate we illustrate is in the Imperial Library at Paris, and bears the date of 1511 (Fig. 81). It is of fine paste, and is about seventeen inches in diameter. Its ornaments are in relief, and are the arms of France and of Brittany at that period. Many elaborate and decorative pieces were made here, and some of them were designed and were used for presents to distinguished personages who visited the city. Not only were these works of luxury made, but large quantities of household work were manufactured for the uses of France; and there was a very considerable export of it to England.

Rouen.—One of the most extensive productions of pottery in France began at Rouen as early as 1542; and after 1640 were made here many large and highly-decorated pieces, of which we give some illustrations. Just when work of this kind was first produced does not clearly appear; but a very considerable number of fabriques were established in this city, and many men and women were employed. There is no question that at one time the potteries of Delft had a considerable influence upon the work at Rouen, and much that was then made

showed traces of imitation. Pieces of large size were produced, such as fountains, vases, busts, figures and figurines, and even mantel-pieces. Work was done for the table, some of which holds high rank. When Louis XIV. sent his silver to be minted in 1713, to pay for his extravagant wars, he had it replaced by a service made at Rouen. Some pieces in the Sèvres Museum, marked with the fleur-de-lis, may have belonged to this.

Many of the rich and the noble followed his example, and the result was that a marvelous impulse was given to the increase and the perfection of the faiences at Rouen. Before the final closing of the works, about 1789 or 1790, some eighteen extensive fabriques were in active work.

The variety of articles made at Rouen was very great, ranging from salt-cellars and candlesticks to mantel-pieces and stoves.

The paste of the Rouen faience is stronger than that of Delft, and the pieces I have seen show a reddish clay through the breaks of the enamel.

Many of the paintings indicate much taste and skill. It seems to me that this work is marked by more originality, and by a finer perception of the fit and the beautiful, than any other French pottery. The pieces shown in Figs. 82 and 83, as far as engravings can do it, prove this. They do not show the variety and the richness of color which distinguish much of the best work.

The early Rouen work, in a considerable degree following the Delft, was painted, as some suppose, by men brought from there. Imitations of the Chinese at one time were in vogue; and a good deal of work was done in blue—en camaïeu—in one color only. But the colored or polychrome Rouen is most distinctive, most brilliant, and most desired. One of the styles most sought for is termed à la corne, showing cornucopias combined with flowers and birds. It is very effective. The example engraved is a beautiful plate from Mr. Wales’s collection at Boston (Fig. 84). Many pieces of this ware are in existence, and they are found in all the museums and in many private collections of Europe. Mrs. Moses Ives, at Providence, has some perfect examples, gathered by her from old houses in Rhode Island. Her belief is, that they got into Rhode Island from ships captured by privateers and brought into Newport, where their cargoes were sold and scattered. It seems probable.

Moustiers.—Within the last twenty-five years the faience of Moustiers has been separated from that of other places in France, into which it had once been merged.

The little town in the department of the Lower Alps seems to have had a fabrique as early as 1686, when the records mention the name of Antoine Clerissy as maître fayensier. Two other names are known as master-potters of that town—Olery and Roux. All these made ornamental work of an excellent class, some of which is much valued.

Three styles of decoration are assigned to these potters. The earliest is recognized as being painted in blue camaieu (in one color), with subjects—hunting-scenes, escutcheons and armorial bearings, country-scenes, figures of the time of Louis XIV., etc. Most of these are assigned to Clerissy.

The second style runs from about 1700 to 1745. “The specimens of this period are better known to amateurs, and not so rare; they are also decorated in blue camaieu, with highly-finished and gracefully-interlaced patterns, among which are Cupids, satyrs and nymphs, terminal figures, garlands of flowers, masks, etc.; and canopies resting on consoles, or brackets, from which hangs drapery bordered or framed with foliage and hatched spaces; mythological personages, vases of flowers, and other designs, being frequently introduced; the centre subjects are classical or champêtre figures in costume of the time, sometimes coats-of-arms. Some of the faience of this period is painted in cobalt-blue in the Chinese style, which M. Davillier attributes to Pol Roux, and refers to a similar plate in the Sèvres collection bearing the arms of le grand Colbert.” In this style there is evidently a following of the maiolicas of Italy in what is known as the Raffaelesque ware. But that was never, I believe, painted in blue.

The third style, running from 1745 to 1789, is almost always painted in polychrome; the colors are blue, brown, yellow, green, and violet. Garlands of flowers, fruits, and foliage, are used. Mythological subjects also appear—Cupids, medallions, gods and goddesses, etc. To this class apparently belongs our illustration (Fig. 85). Some of these ornamental pieces are well painted, and latterly have been much sought for, but they do not rank with the work of Nevers or Rouen. At the time of the French Revolution there was a large industry in pottery at Moustiers—some twelve fabriques being in full activity. Nearly all have disappeared,[7] and the town has dwindled into one-third its former size.

Strasbourg, or Haguenau.—The beginnings of a faience fabrique here were probably about 1721. Hannong was a potter, who came to the town from Germany and established himself at Haguenau, near to or a part of Strasbourg. This had been a German city until Louis XIV. clutched it and made it French and Catholic. In 1870 the Germans took it back, and are now converting it to German and Protestant. The faience made here has never taken so high a place as that made at the other fabriques I have mentioned. But some of the decorated pieces—vases especially—were of good form and pleasing coloring. The most common painting was roses and flowers, in a free, bold, and rather rough style. Sometimes this has been confounded with delft; but it is quite different. It more resembles the pottery made at Marseilles.

Some of the marks on the faience are like those on the porcelain which was made here for a short time; these were an “H.” or “P. H.” combined, indicating the maker’s name—Hannong.

The Marseilles potteries were in full activity at the beginning of the 1700’s—a single piece exists which is marked 1697. In the middle of this century the number of fabriques had increased to some twelve, employing about two hundred and fifty workmen. All have gone down.

The faience made here followed that of Moustiers for its best work, and that of Strasbourg for the more common. The flower-painting done here is said to be distinct from that of Strasbourg, in that the flowers are perceptibly raised by the paint; while in that of Strasbourg the painting is melted into the glaze. A very pleasing style of classic vases, made here in the time of Louis XV., are painted in camaieu rose-color, the wreaths and ornaments often being in relief.

At Sarreguemines, in the Moselle country, very beautiful faience was made in the last century—about 1775—some of which was highly finished in the lathe. Work was made there, too, with white figures on blue and colored grounds, much resembling the jasper ware made by Wedgwood.

There is an extensive pottery now at work at Sarreguemines, in which great quantities of domestic pottery are made for the market.

At Sinceny, Nancy, Creil, Montpellier, and many other small places, potteries were at work in the last century; few, if any, of which continued beyond the great Revolution.

Paris, too, had many small fabriques of faience, but none of them reached much importance. The name of Briot is yet kept in mind.

To-day (1876) France has burst into a great blossoming, not only of porcelain, but of decorative faience.

In Paris, Collinot has made a style of relief-enamel, in imitation of cloisonné, which is rich and effective in color, and often very beautiful; many have followed him.

Barbizôt has made and is making the imitations of Palissy better than Palissy himself.

Brianchon has made and perfected a lustrous ware like mother-of-pearl, which he calls “Nacre;” it is pretty and fanciful, and is very like what is made in Ireland, and called Belleek.

Durand Ruel had, in his exhibitions in 1875, some of the most superb and richly-colored faience-vases I have ever seen; but the name of their manufacturer was not made known.

Laurin, Chapelet, and some other artists at Bourg-la-Reine, struck out a style of faience-painting about the same time—1874 to 1875—which, for richness and mystery of color, freedom and force of design, and for delicious treatment—if I may call it so—has rarely been surpassed. It is original, and different from anything the Orientals have done, and quite as good.