The Material World of the “Chinese” Tea Party in Europe in the Second Half of the 17th—18th Centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pseudo-Chinese aesthetics of the object world of tea drinking, which developed in Europe in the second half of the 17th—18th centuries, was conditioned by the initial development within the framework of chinoiserie — the myth of distant and fabulously rich China, created by Europeans and for Europeans. With time, not earlier than the beginning of the 18th century, their own, independent traditions of material design of tea ritual develop. By this time, tea drinking had become the most important social practice, which contributed to the further formation of its rules and the formation of the associated world of things. The highest point of this process occurred in the middle of the 18th century, when things symbolizing tea drinking (primarily the cup, teapot and tea set) acquired individual and classical forms. At the same time, tea drinking in Europe becomes an established social custom with a known etiquette and a characteristic tradition. At this time it is still within the aristocratic culture: the scarcity and costliness of tea, the expensive paraphernalia accompanying its serving, and the leisure time required for its consumption strictly limited the use of tea to the upper classes. Tea drinking, as well as the possession of tea-table decorations, signified participation in current cultural trends and was a matter of social prestige. The process of “Europeanisation” of Chinese tea and the design of the object world of European tea drinking were synchronous; they reached their relative completion only by the third quarter of the 18th century, when tea consumption went beyond the aristocratic circle. This article explores tea drinking in an interdisciplinary context as a social practice generated by the chinoiserie style and revealed through the prism of the world of things. Such a formulation of the question by domestic researchers has not been applied so far. We reconstruct the process of “Europeanisation” of Chinese tea; we clarify the range of objects that accompanied tea drinking as a new social practice for Europe in the second half of the 17th—18th centuries, and identify the circle of the most significant objects that characterize the boundary stages of its development. The significance of things-symbols, which acquired the significance of cultural markers demonstrating material, cultural and social wealth and exquisite artistic taste of their owners, is determined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".