Regina Krahl

The Qianlong period (1736-1795) is unmatched in the opulence of its works of art and hardly any kind of porcelain could better embody the essence of the artefacts made to surround the Emperor in the various palace and temple halls of the Forbidden City and other residences than this five-piece garniture that is lavishly covered in gold, even including insides and bases. Yet gold-ground fencai pieces are among the rarest porcelains of the period. Gold was hardly ever used on porcelain other than to imitate real gold or bronze, to pick out handles, borders and other details, or to paint on monochrome glazes. Extant items of the period with an overall gold ground are numbering, it seems, not much more than two dozen.

In spite their rarity today, the Qianlong Emperor appears to have been extremely attached to such sets, several of which might still be in the Palace Museum today in addition to the one companion set which has been published. Historical records preserved in the First Historical Archives of China, Beijing list no less than sixteen deliveries of gold-ground sets of wu gong (‘five offering vessels’), starting in the year 1735, but dating mostly from the 1780s and ‘90s, destined for the Temple Hall of the Forbidden City and for the Emperor’s summer residence in Yehol (Rehe), and one set even for the Emperor’s travelling palace in Suzhou on the occasion of his last Southern inspection tour in 1784, see below.

1735 Tribute Records – (servant) Shan Tai delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong…

Qianlong 45th year (1780) Tribute Records – (servant) Eerdengbu delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to Rehe)…

Qianlong 47th year (1782) Tribute Records – (servant) Eerdengbu delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to temple hall)…

Qianlong 48th year (1783) Tribute Records – (servant) Eerdengbu delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to Rehe)…

Qianlong 49th year (1784) Tribute Records – (servant) Eerdengbu delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to Suzhou travelling palace)…

Qianlong 50th year (1785) Tribute Records – (servant) Mukedeng delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to temple hall)…

Qianlong 50th year (1785) Tribute Records – (servant) Mukedeng delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong…

Qianlong 50th year (1785) Tribute Records – (servant) Mukedeng delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong…

Qianlong 52nd year (1787) Tribute Records – (servant) Hai Shao delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to temple hall)…

Qianlong 52nd year (1787) Tribute Records – (servant) Hai Shao delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong…

Qianlong 55th year (1790) Memorial Records – Gold-ground yangcai wugong…

Qianlong 55th year (1790) Miscellaneous Records – Shan Tai…Gold-ground yangcai wugong…

Qianlong 56th year (1791) Tribute Records – (servant) Fu Chang delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to Rehe)…

Qianlong 56th year (1791) Tribute Records – (servant) Fu Chang delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to temple hall)…

Qianlong 58th year (1793) Tribute Records – (servant) Fu Ying delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to Rehe)…

Qianlong 58th year (1793) Tribute Records – (servant) Fu Ying delivered…Gold-ground yangcai wugong (deliver to temple hall)…

When reading about the complexity of firing gold onto porcelain, especially the quest to achieve an even surface colour, it is not hard to see why it was not attempted more often for other vessels. The challenge began with the purity of the raw material. Rose Kerr and Nigel Wood (Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, part xii: Ceramic Technology, Cambridge, 2004, p. 703), quoting another scholar, Rudolf Hainbach, state “It is essential that chemically pure gold should be used [for overglaze-gold], since the presence of even minute traces of foreign metals will prevent the formation of a true gold colour, spoiling the tone and causing changes due to oxidation.” Further, for use in porcelain decoration, this gold had to be ground to an extremely fine powder in order to be thoroughly dispersed in the painting medium, so fine in fact, that Hainbach considered it possible only by chemical means. To achieve this mechanically must not only have required immense skills, but was clearly exceedingly laborious and time-consuming. Finally, firing the gold onto the porcelain required very precise observation of the kiln temperatures (ibid., p. 697): “If kiln temperatures are too low the gold will simply rub away after firing, while if the kiln is overfired the gold will tend to form fine beads as its melting point is exceeded and the definition of the gilding will be compromised.” The potters working at the imperial kilns in Jingdezhen were the most experienced of their time. That difficulties such as these are worth mentioning means that it was a tall order, out of the ordinary, to get together a garniture of five large matching gold-ground pieces.

Some experiments with a gold ground on porcelain were made already in the Kangxi period (1662-1722), both in the Beijing palace workshops and at Jingdezhen, probably in connection with the exploration of colloidal gold to achieve a ruby-pink enamel, which required far smaller quantities of the precious metal. Two falangcai bowls in the Baur collection, Geneva, have a gold ground, but applied to the unglazed biscuit, see John Ayers, Chinese Ceramics in the Baur Collection, Geneva, 1999, vol. 2, nos. 162 and 164; and a cup of Kangxi mark and period in the Palace Museum, Beijing, painted with blue-enamel shou characters on a gold ground is illustrated together with early rose-pink vessels in Yu Pei-chin, ed., Yin cheng xu ying. Qing Yongzheng falangcai ci/Porcelain with Painted Enamels of Qing Yongzheng Period (1723-1735), National Palace Museum, Taipei, 2013, p. 290, fig. 15.

Vessel sets of any type are extremely rare in Chinese art. The three vessel shapes making up the present set are all based on ancient forms. The ding incense burner and the pair of gu vases represent baroque versions of archaic ritual bronzes, which had been revived in ceramic form already in the Song dynasty (960-1279). The candle sticks may be based on bronze versions of the Tang (618-907), but ceramic examples remained rare until the Ming period (1368-1644).

Altar garnitures are known at least since the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368), but then consisted of only three pieces, an incense burner and two vases, as is documented in the inscription on the David Vases, now in the British Museum, which were commissioned in 1351 together with an incense burner for a temple near Jingdezhen, and is corroborated by many smaller sets that are preserved. Such sets similarly consist of a censer with upward-bent handles and two gu-shaped vases, see, for example, a blue-and-white set excavated from a Yuan hoard at Futian, Pingxiang, Jiangxi province, included in Chen Xiejun, Chen Kelun & Lu Minghua, Youlan shencai. Yuandai qinghua ciqi teji/Splendors in Smalt. Art of Yuan Blue-and-white Porcelain, Shanghai Museum, Shanghai, 2012, no. 70. The candle stick is a form rarely seen in porcelain and may have been introduced from abroad. In the Yongle period (1403-1424), porcelain candle sticks were copying Middle Eastern metal shapes, and in the Zhengde period (1506-1521) blue-and-white examples had Arabic inscriptions, but are believed nevertheless to have been intended for use in a Buddhist context, like two examples in the Palace Museum, Beijing, illustrated in Geng Baochang, Ming Qing ciqi jianding [Appraisal of Ming and Qing porcelain], Hong Kong, 1993, fig. 212, and in Gugong Bowuyuan cang wenwu zhenpin quanji/Qinghua youlihong The Complete Collection of Treasures of the Palace Museum. Blue and White Porcelain with Underglazed Red, Shanghai, 2000, vol. 2, pl. 56.

The idea of wu gong, ‘five offering vessels’, may have had its origin in the Ming dynasty. The earliest extant complete groups are probably those carved in stone that were placed on massive stone altars in front of the Ming Emperors’ tombs outside Beijing, beginning with that of the Yongle Emperor, where they presumably replaced in permanent form the utensils employed in the funerary ceremonies (fig. 1). These sets, which are equally seen at the Eastern and Western Qing (1644-1911) tombs, including the Qianlong Emperor’s tomb, comprise a similar incense burner and candlesticks, but a pair of vases of pear-shaped hu form with ring handles. Sets of this composition are also known in blue-glazed porcelain, decorated with gilded biscuit dragons, of Jiajing mark and period (1522-1566), for example from the Grandidier collection in the Musée Guimet, Paris, illustrated in Oriental Ceramics. The World's Great Collections, vol. 7, Tokyo, New York, San Francisco, 1981, fig. 66. One rare Yongzheng (1723-1735) set of painted enamel ware still follows the Ming sets quite closely in shape; see Gugong Yangxindian wenwu zhan. Ba dai di ju/Hall of Mental Cultivation of The Palace Museum. Imperial Residence of Eight Emperors, Hong Kong Museum of Art, Hong Kong, 2017, cat. no. 138.

The present five-piece combination with gu-shaped vases seems to be an innovation of the Qianlong period, when sets of the same composition as the present one became popular in many different versions, for example, with various coloured grounds, in fencai, in doucai, painted in pink enamel only, carved in imitation cinnabar lacquer, in cloisonné and in glass, and some can still be seen in situ, for example in the historic Tanzhe Temple in Beijing (fig. 2), or in the Forbidden City; but complete sets of any type are very rare.

The only other wu gong set of gold-ground porcelain altar vessels that appears to be recorded is also preserved in the Palace Museum, Beijing, and was included in the exhibition Lightness of Essence. Tibetan Buddhist Relics of the Palace Museum, Macao Museum of Art, Macao, 2004, cat. no. 107-7 (fig. 3). A single censer of this design is held in the Shenyang Imperial Palace Museum, Shenyang, published in The Prime Culture Relics Collected by Shenyang Imperial Palace Museum, Shenyang, 2008, p. 239; and a related candlestick, but with a blue key-fret border at the foot, was sold at Christie’s Hong Kong, 26th April 2004, lot 989.

This gold-and-fencai style appears to have been favoured for vessels intended for Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies and is also found on a very small group of vessels in specific Tibetan shapes, such as a duomuhu monk’s cap ewer and four penbahu ewers with dragon spout. The former was sold at Christie’s Hong Kong 30th May 2006, lot 1295, one of the latter, from the collection of K.S. Lo, is in the Hong Kong Museum of Art, included in the Museum’s exhibition The Wonders of the Potter’s Palette. Qing Ceramics from the Collection of the Hong Kong Museum of Art, Hong Kong, 1984-5, cat. no. 68; another was sold in our Hong Kong rooms, 26th October 2003, lot 107 (fig. 4); and a pair from the Alfred Trapnell collection was sold at Christie’s London, 28th April 1980, lot 170. The only other Qianlong vessel with closely related gold-ground decoration appears to be a vase with halberd handles in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, a piece that was frequently illustrated and included in the Museum’s exhibition Qianlong huangdi de wenhua daye/Emperor Ch’ien-lung’s Grand Cultural Enterprise, Taipei, 2002, no. V-25 (fig. 5).

Similar altar sets of Qianlong mark and period, but lacking the gold ground, include two with ruby-coloured ground, one in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, included in the exhibition Gugong lidai xiangju tulu/A Special Exhibition of Incense Burners and Perfumers Throughout the Dynasties, National Palace Museum, Taipei, 1994, cat. no. 105; the other in the Shanghai Museum illustrated in Zhou Lili, Shanghai Bowuguan zangpin yanjiu daxi/Studies of the Shanghai Museum Collections: A Series of Monographs. Qingdai Yongzheng – Xuantong guanyao ciqi [Qing imperial porcelain from Yongzheng to Xuantong], Shanghai, 2014, pl. 3-153; one with fencai mille-fleurs decoration, sold in these rooms 29th March 2011, lot 61; and two doucai sets sold in our rooms, in London, 11th May 2011, lot 230; and in Hong Kong, 4th April 2012, lot 50, from the Meiyintang collection.

The present garniture, which is painted with particular attention to detail, has a long history. It is said to have been acquired in China about a century ago by Dr Denman Waldo Ross, who gifted it to J. Arthur MacLean, and it remained in the family ever since. Denman Waldo Ross (1853-1935) was an American painter, professor of art at Harvard University, collector and patron, who was a highly influential figure in the art circles of the Boston area and as Trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, had a major impact on the formation of the Museum’s collection as well as that of the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard. In 1912, he travelled extensively in China with MacLean, the two men clearly sharing the same interests.

The exceptional imperial five-piece garniture set from Qianlong Emperor’s reign collected by John Arthur MacLean (1879-1964) (fig. 1), offers a fascinating insight into the institutionalization of East Asian art by American museums during the 20th century. MacLean, a highly esteemed scholar from Boston, was instrumental in the formation of Asian Art collections at multiple museums, including the Museum of Fine Arts, Art Institute of Chicago, the Cleveland Museum of Art, the John Herron Art Institute, and the Toledo Museum of Art, leaving behind a great legacy for the many generations of curators and scholars to come.

Born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, MacLean discovered his fascination in Chinese and Japanese art during his time at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston from 1902 to 1914. In 1906 he was appointed as the Assistant in charge of the Chinese and Japanese Collections, where he not only had at his disposal one of the world’s greatest museum collections of East Asian art, but also the guidance of Okakura Kakuzo (1863-1913) (fig. 2), the preeminent Japanese art historian and author of the time. His intellectual development was deepened through his extensive travel through Asia accompanied by Dr. Denman Waldo Ross (1853-1935) (fig. 3), a trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts and professor of art at Harvard University. Together, the two traveled through Japan, Korea, Mongolia, China, Burma, India and Egypt in search of artworks to add to the museum and Ross’ personal collection. The present altar set is said to have been acquired in China by Ross, who then gifted it to MacLean.

MacLean’s work in the MFA’s expanding Oriental Art Department soon attracted the attention of the Cleveland Museum of Art, which hired him in 1914 as the inaugural Curator for the entire museum, and in 1919 appointed him as Curator of the Oriental Art Department. MacLean advocated for the appreciation and institutionalization of East Asian art during his time at Cleveland Museum of Art, which now boasts an internationally renowned East Asian art collection. By the start of 1922, the Art Institute of Chicago had hired him as Assistant Director of the museum and Curator of the Oriental Arts Department. The following year, MacLean left to become Director of the John Herron Art Institute, which included the Art Association of Indianapolis, was later renamed the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and is now known as Newfields. In 1926, MacLean accepted the position of Curator of Oriental Art at the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio, where built up the collection and in 1930 mounted a pathbreaking exhibition of 343 shin hanga prints. After retiring in 1945, MacLean continued to be heavily involved in the museum world, acting as an East Asian Art Collections Consultant to the Akron Art Institute in Ohio, where the present altar set was exhibited in 1948 (fig. 4).

Alongside his curatorial work and extensive travel, MacLean was also an outspoken advocate for the acceptance of China and other Asian nations, which, at that time in America, were deemed inferior. In a 1914 newspaper article ‘Curator Makes Plea for Chinese People and Art’, MacLean expressed his deeply felt responsibility to spread awareness and acceptance of China and urged others to follow suit:

Throughout his career, MacLean was instrumental in establishing some of the foremost collections of Asian art in the U.S. and bringing public consciousness to Asian art and culture. The wugong in his collection encapsulates MacLean’s lifelong appreciation of East Asian works of art and testifies to the superb quality of art he was able to access and promulgate through his work.

康蕊君

乾隆盛世，藝術珍品奢華富麗，冠絕各朝。紫禁城內無論宮殿廟堂或帝皇起居之地，皆盡瑰麗堂皇，本套五供通體遍施金彩，正是此中佳例。金地粉彩瓷器十分珍罕，通常瓷器上所見的金彩多用於模仿金銅質地，或小範圍點畫器耳及紋飾等細節，或勾勒紋飾於單色彩瓷之上。通體金地彩瓷者存世極為少見，而本品五供為完整一套，輝煌至極，倍加珍稀。

乾隆皇帝更是對此品類五供偏愛有加。據中國第一歷史檔案館所藏的清宮瓷器檔案記載，約從1735年開始，至少有16次金地五供器交送紀錄。清宮瓷檔中乾隆四十五至五十八年，頻見金地洋彩五供交佛堂及熱河等記錄，更見有一套曾在乾隆四十九年最後一次南巡時，著命交蘇州行宮供。

1735年貢檔進單

（奴才）善泰跪進……金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆四十五年（1780年）貢檔進單

（奴才）額爾登布跪進……（交熱河）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆四十七年（1782年）貢檔進單

（奴才）額爾登布跪進……（交佛堂）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆四十八年（1783年）貢檔進單

（奴才）額爾登布跪進……（交熱河）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆四十九年（1784年）貢檔進單

（奴才）額爾登布跪進……（交蘇州行宮供）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十年（1785年）貢檔進單

（奴才）穆克登跪進……（供器一分俱交佛堂）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十年（1785年）貢檔進單

（奴才）穆克登跪進……（供器一分俱著伊差人送進京交金簡）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十年（1785年）貢檔進單

（奴才）穆克登跪進……金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十二年（1787年）貢檔進單

（奴才）海紹跪進……（寶塔寶瓶奔巴壺俱交佛堂）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十二年（1787年）貢檔進單

（奴才）海紹跪進……金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十五年（1790年）奏折文稿

……金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十五年雜錄檔（1790年）

善泰所進……金地洋彩五供一分……

乾隆五十六年（1791年）貢檔進單

（奴才）福昌跪進……（交熱河）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十六年（1791年）貢檔進單

（奴才）福昌跪進……（交佛堂）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十八年（1793年）貢檔進單

（奴才）福英跪進……（交熱河）金地洋彩五供成分……

乾隆五十八年（1793年）貢檔進單

（奴才）福英跪進……（交佛堂）金地洋彩五供成分……

瓷器上施金地難度極高，若要成色均勻則更難上加難，這或許是金地在瓷器品種中不常見的原因。首先，原料必須純淨。柯玫瑰及奈傑爾•伍德曾在其書中引述學者Rudolf Hainbach的觀點：「（釉上金彩）原料化學成份必須純淨，稍有細微雜質，則會因氧化導致色澤變異，不成真金之色」（《Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, part xii: Ceramic Technology》，劍橋，2004年，頁703）。其二，原料必須研成極微細粉末，才可均勻分佈表面。Hainbach認為如此微細的金粉當以化學方法才可製成。而如以手工研磨，則不但需精湛造詣，更要耗費大量工時。最後，窰燒火候亦極其講究（出處同上，頁697）：「溫度太低，出窰後金料一抹即落，溫度高於熔點，則易生小粒，亦有損輪廓之清晰」。景德鎮御瓷藝匠造詣冠絕當時，然而製造如本五供般尺寸碩大的成組器，仍可謂難度極高。

康熙年間，京中御窰及景德鎮藝匠便已開始實驗燒製金地瓷器，相信與燒造胭脂紅彩而研製膠態金原料相關，而胭脂紅彩瓷所需之金料則遠遠要少於金地彩瓷。日內瓦鮑氏收藏兩琺瑯彩例，金地施於素胎之上，參考 John Ayers，《Chinese Ceramics in the Baur Collection》，日內瓦，1999年，卷2，編號162 及164；另見一康熙酒圓例，藏北京故宮博物院，飾金地藍彩壽字紋，與數件胭脂紅彩瓷同載於余佩瑾編，《金成旭映: 清雍正琺瑯彩瓷》，國立故宮博物院，台北，2013年，頁290，圖15。

無論形制品類，成組之器皆非常罕見。本組五供共三種器形，均以古器為原型：鼎、觚乃高古青銅禮器，自宋代起藝匠即開始以瓷器仿效；而燭台則或以唐代銅器為基礎，然而直至明朝之前，此器形一直鮮見於瓷器。

壇前供器，自元代開始已有，當時一組僅三件，共一爐兩瓶。大英博物館珍藏大維德爵士故藏元代青花瓶（亦稱「大維德瓶」），瓶上題記元代至正十一年（即1351年），兩瓶連同一香爐為景德鎮附近一所廟宇而製。另可參考一套三件青花供例，江西萍鄉元代窖藏出土，錄於陳燮君、陳克倫及陸明華，《幽藍神采：元代青花瓷器特集》，上海博物館，上海，2012年，編號70。燭台器形罕見於瓷器，亦或由外國引入。永樂年間，瓷燭台靈感來自中東金屬器形，至正德一朝，青花燭台多帶阿拉伯文字，但亦明顯作佛教相關之用，可比較兩例，一藏北京故宮博物院，圖載於耿寶昌，《明清瓷器鑑定》，香港，1993年，圖212；另一例收錄於《故宮博物院藏文物珍品全集•青花釉裡紅》，上海，2000年，卷2，圖版56。

五供之概念，或源自明代。現存最早成套作例或為北京城外明十三陵正面巨型石製五供例，最早見於永樂帝皇陵，相信乃為取代喪禮供器之用（圖一）。相近成組作例亦見於清代皇陵，包括乾隆裕陵在內，此類例香爐及燭台均與本組相類，但多配環耳壺一對。此類另見有嘉靖藍釉素胎描金龍紋例，如一套出自Grandidier 收藏，現存於巴黎吉美博物館，圖載《Oriental Ceramics. The World's Great Collections》，卷7，東京，紐約，舊金山，1981年，圖66。 另比一罕見雍正例，效仿明代作例器型，載於《八代帝居——故宮養心殿文物展》，香港藝術館，香港，2017年，編號138。

如本套連花觚之五供組合，似乎首創於乾隆年間，更可見粉彩、鬥彩、胭脂紅彩、仿剔紅、掐絲琺瑯、料器等品類，部份作例現仍藏於原處，如北京潭柘寺（圖二）、紫禁城等。儘管如此，任何材質的整套完整五供保存至今都極屬罕見。

金地粉彩五供完整成套者，目前應僅知一例，現存於北京故宮博物院，曾展於《妙諦心傳•故宮珍藏藏傳佛教文物展》，澳門藝術博物館，2004年，編號107-7（圖三）。另見瀋陽故宮藏一單一香爐例，載於《瀋陽故宮博物院院藏文物精粹》，瀋陽，2008年，頁239；再見一燭台例，足飾藍彩回紋，售於香港佳士得2004年4月26日，編號989。

藏傳佛教儀式，喜以金地粉彩瓷為供器。此品類可見少數藏器專有器形，包括一多穆壺作例及賁巴壺四例。前者售於香港佳士得2006年5月30日，編號1295，後者其一出自羅桂祥珍藏，現藏於香港藝術館，《清瓷薈錦——香港藝術館藏清代瓷器》，香港，1984-5年，編號68；其二售於香港蘇富比2003年10月26日，編號107（圖四）；一對出自Alfred Trapnell收藏，售於倫敦佳士得1980年4月28日，編號170。乾隆瓷作相類金地粉彩者，應僅見台北國立故宮博物院所藏的一件金地粉彩花卉戟耳瓶，多有出版記錄，曾展於《乾隆皇帝的文化大業》，台北，2002年，編號V-25（圖五）。

另可參考其他乾隆五供作例，兩套為胭脂紅地，其一藏於台北國立故宮博物院，曾展於《故宮歷代香具圖錄》，國立故宮博物院，台北，1994年，編號105；另一例上海博物館收藏，圖載周麗麗，《上海博物館藏品研究大系：清代雍正 – 宣統官窰瓷器》，上海，2014年，圖版3-153；再比一粉彩萬花錦紋例，售於紐約蘇富比2011年3月29日，編號 61；兩套鬥彩作例，其一售於倫敦蘇富比2011年5月11日，編號 230；其二出自玫茵堂收藏，售於香港蘇富比2012年4月4日，編號50。

本套五供製工極精，且來源顯赫，應於大約一個世紀前，由Denman Waldo Ross教授在中國購得，並後將之贈予J. Arthur MacLean先生，此後由後者家族珍藏傳承至今。Denman Waldo Ross（1853-1935）為美國畫家、哈佛大學藝術系教授、收藏家和贊助人，在波士頓地區藝術界極具影響力，曾任波士頓美術博物館信託管理人，對該館收藏的集成以及哈佛大學福格藝術博物館的收藏影響重大。1912年，Ross博士與MacLean先生一同周遊中國，可以見得兩人志趣相投。

本次拍賣所呈之清乾隆金地粉彩五供，出自John Arthur MacLean先生（1879-1964）（圖一）收藏，來源極佳，傳承有序。MacLean先生是一位備受尊崇的學者，他對於多個美國重要博物館亞洲藝術收藏的集成貢獻良多，其中包括波士頓美術館、芝加哥藝術博物館、克利夫蘭藝術博物館、約翰•赫倫藝術學院和托萊多藝術博物館等，其成就非凡，影響了後世許多代策展人和學者。

MacLean先生在麻省的波士頓出生長大，於1902 年至 1914 年在波士頓美術館工作期間開始對中國和日本藝術產生濃厚興趣，1906 年開始幫助管理該館的中國和日本藝術品收藏。該館之東亞藝術收藏在業內佼佼不群，而他更得以師從當時最著名的日本藝術史學家兼學者岡倉覚三（1863-1913）（圖二）。MacLean先生在時任該館信託管理人、哈佛大學藝術教授Denman Waldo Ross博士（1853-1935）的陪同下曾經遊歷亞洲各地，收穫頗豐。兩人一起到訪過日本、朝鮮、蒙古、中國（圖三）、緬甸、印度和埃及。本套五供便是Ross博士在中國購得，之後贈予MacLean先生。

MacLean先生在波士頓美術館對東方藝術的推動，引起了克利夫蘭藝術博物館的注意，後者於1914 年聘請MacLean為首任策展人，並於 1919 年任命其為東方藝術部策展人。該館現擁有著國際知名的東亞藝術收藏，這與先生任職期間致力推廣東亞藝術的鑑賞及學院化可謂息息相關。1922年初，他獲聘出任芝加哥藝術學院助理院長，以及東方藝術部策展人，翌年離職，出任約翰•赫倫藝術學院館長，印第安納波利斯藝術協會屬於該院旗下，後易名為印第安納波利斯藝術博物館，現稱為Newfields。1926 年，MacLean接受俄亥俄州托萊多藝術博物館邀請，擔任其東方藝術部策展人，在那裡建立藝術收藏，並於 1930 年舉辦日本新版畫大展，囊括343 幅傑作，矚目藝壇。MacLean先生於1945 年榮休後，仍積極活躍於博物館界，擔任俄亥俄州阿克倫藝術學院的東亞藝術收藏顧問，本次上拍之五供亦曾於 1948 年在該館展出（圖四）。

除了策展工作及遊歷之外，MacLean先生致力倡導美國對中國及其他亞洲國家文化的重視，與當時美國主流認為亞洲文化不及本土文化優秀的觀點大相徑庭。1914 年，MacLean在報紙撰文（題為《策展人為中國人民和藝術陳情》）表達他矢志推廣中國文化而望其獲得更多認同：

MacLean先生在其職業生涯當中曾促成了美國多個重要亞洲藝術收藏，並大幅提高了普羅大眾對亞洲藝術文化的欣賞程度。這次上拍的五供代表著先生對東亞藝術的欣賞，亦見證了他所經手並推崇之藝術品的優秀與不凡。