View full screen - View 1 of Lot 343. A rare blue and white 'dragon and phoenix' meiping Yuan Dynaysty | 元 青花龍鳳紋梅瓶.
343

A rare blue and white 'dragon and phoenix' meiping Yuan Dynaysty | 元 青花龍鳳紋梅瓶

VAT reduced rate

Estimate:

400,000 - 600,000 GBP

A rare blue and white 'dragon and phoenix' meiping Yuan Dynaysty | 元 青花龍鳳紋梅瓶

A rare blue and white 'dragon and phoenix' meiping Yuan Dynaysty | 元 青花龍鳳紋梅瓶

Estimate:

400,000 - 600,000 GBP

Lot sold:

378,000

GBP

A rare blue and white 'dragon and phoenix' meiping

Yuan Dynaysty

元 青花龍鳳紋梅瓶


robustly potted with high broad round shoulders sloping down towards the tapering ovoid body, painted in rich cobalt blue tones, the main register with a wide band enclosing a pair of scrolling dragons chasing flaming pearls to the centre, set between a further decorative band over the shoulder and the foot encircled by upright and pendant lappets

Height 40 cm, 15¾ in.

The neck and rim are restored with associated areas of over spray contained within the blue circled area above shoulder, a further circa 3cm., oval area of over spray to the plain band between the phoenix and dragon bands at the upper body.


頸、口沿經修,連帶局部噴釉,位於器肩上方青花區域,另有一橢圓形局部噴釉,約3公分,位於龍、鳳紋飾帶之間。




In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby’s is merely a subjective qualified opinion.

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD “AS IS” IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

Jean-Paul Desroches, Two Americans in Paris, A Quest for Asian Art, 2016, Paris, no 280.

Jean-Paul Desroches編《Two Americans in Paris,A Quest for Asian Art》,2016年,巴黎,圖版280

From the Land of Asia, Pointe-à-Callière Museum, Montréal, 17th November 2016 - 19th March 2017.

From the Land of Asia, Kimbell Art Museum, Texas, 4th March – 19th August 2018.

《From the Land of Asia》,Pointe-à-Callière 博物館,蒙特利爾,2016年11月17 - 2017年3月19日

《From the Land of Asia》,Kimbell美術館,德克薩斯,2018年3月4 - 8月19日

Dragon-and-Phoenix Meiping: A Quintessential Yuan Vessel

Regina Krahl

 

Dragon and phoenix are ubiquitous in Yuan (1279-1368) art, but it is very rare to find a piece of Yuan blue-and-white decorated with both these mythical creatures.

 

In the Yuan capitals Dadu in Beijing and Shangdu in Inner Mongolia, dragons and phoenixes were ubiquitous. They decorated carved stone panels, posts and balustrades of palace buildings, and alternated on the green-and-yellow end tiles of palace roofs (James C.Y. Watt, ed., The World of Khubilai Khan. Chinese Art in the Yuan Dynasty, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2010, figs 53 and 54, fig. 101, and fig. 282; Da Yuan san du/The Capital Cities of Yuan Dynasty, Capital Museum, Beijing, 2016, pp. 72-3; and Chūgoku Uchi Mōko hoppō kiba minzoku bunbutsu ten [Exhibition of cultural relics from the northern horsemen of Inner Mongolia, China], Tokyo, 1983, cat. nos 102-3 and 4).

 

Emperor Wenzong (r. 1330-1332), his brother and both their wives wore dragon-ornamented garments, when they had themselves immortalized as donors on a tapestry mandala they had commissioned (Watt, op.cit., pp. 110-114 and fig. 146). Dragons and phoenixes appeared on silver ware of the period, on lacquer ware, on textiles, on Cizhou ceramics, and on a huge jade bowl in Beijing that impressed foreign visitors such as the Italian friar Odoric of Pordenone (1286–1331) (Watt, op.cit., passim). Dragon and phoenix appear also as decoration on a lute (pipa) depicted on the Juyongguan toll gate on the Great Wall outside Beijing, that was built between 1342 and 1345 (Sherman E. Lee & Wai-kam Ho, Chinese Art under the Mongols. The Yüan Dynasty (1279-1368), The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, 1968, p. 8, fig. 2).

 

The impression on foreign visitors of a Chinese realm frequented by dragons and phoenixes must have been overwhelming and is seen reflected, as if in mirror image, in the decoration of the Persian palace Takht-i Sulaiman, the only excavated palace site of the Mongol period in Iran. Built around the 1270s, the palace walls here were faced with local lustre tiles painted with dragon and phoenix designs in unmistakeable Yuan style (Linda Komaroff & Stefano Carboni, The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2002, figs 59, 97, 100-1-2, cats. 84, 86, 99-101, and p. 74).

 

In Yuan blue-and-white decoration, the mythical creatures also feature frequently, but rarely together. Dragon and phoenix appear of course on the iconic ‘David vases’ of 1351, but there they are painted in a very different style. Peter Y.K. Lam has discussed dragon designs on Yuan blue-and-white in a symposium in Shanghai, and has discerned five different manners of dragon representation (Peter Y. K. Lam, ‘Dragons on Yuan Blue-and-Whites as Seen from the Bands on the David Vases’, in Li Zhongmou et al., eds, Youlan shencai. 2012 Shanghai Yuan qinghua guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji/Splendors in Smalt. Art of Yuan Blue-and-white Porcelain Proceedings, Shanghai, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 194-205, fig. 7). The five types of dragons do not seem to signal different periods of creation, however, but perhaps different workshops or different destinations of the final products.

 

What is particularly unusual on the present meiping is its sparse style of decoration, with bands of blue design alternating with bands in plain white. This style is extremely rare and the only closely related vases appear to be four meiping discovered in the famous hoard of over two hundred pieces of blue-and-white, underglaze-red and monochrome white Jingdezhen porcelains and Longquan celadons of the Yuan dynasty, discovered in Gaoan, a county southwest of Nanchang, not far from Jingdezhen (Liu Jincheng, ed., Gaoan Yuandai jiaocang ciqi/The Porcelain from the Cellar of the Yuan Dynasty in Gao’an, Beijing, 2006).

 

The Gaoan hoard is believed to have belonged to the influential Wu family of Wujiacun [‘Wu Family Village’] at Shangquan in Gaoan. Two members of that family are particularly noted, Wu Xingfu, a consort of an imperial princess, and his son Wu Liangcheng, both government officials at Dadu, the principle Yuan capital, in the latter part of the dynasty. Wu Liangcheng is believed to have returned to his home village and to have buried the family treasures before the fall of the Yuan dynasty. The hoard most likely dates from the time when peasant revolts rocked the area, particularly in the 11th and 12th years of the Zhizheng reign (1341-1368).

 

The hoard contained a total of six blue-and-white meiping, all of similar size as the present piece but with covers, four very similarly decorated and two with floral designs replacing dragons and phoenixes (ibid., frontispiece and pp. 52-63). These six blue-and-white meiping were each inscribed in ink on the bases and inside the covers with the term for one of the six ‘arts’ desirable for a Confucian-educated gentleman to master: rites (li), rulership (yu), mathematics (shu), calligraphy (shu), music (yue), and shooting (she) – a most unusual treatment, but one that is considered to be in keeping with the ideology of Wu Liangcheng, who is known to have been a strong advocate of the Confucian classics.

 

The Gaoan meiping are very similarly decorated with pairs of phoenixes, distinguished by their tails, hovering among peonies – a combination signalling wishes for wealth and honour –, pairs of dragons among clouds, one looking forward, one turning back, and lotus blossoms in petal panels. Only three of the Gaoan pieces, however, also feature four-clawed dragons like the present vase, while on the fourth the dragons are three-clawed. The painting manner of the dragons and phoenixes on our vase differs from that of the Gaoan vases and does not appear to be by the same hand, but the lotus-filled petals around the base are very similar particularly to two of the Gaoan meiping and may well have been added by the same painter.

 

This fact and the rarity of this general decoration style with white borders between the design friezes, which in the Gaoan hoard is also found on a pair of guan jars (ibid., pp. 48-51), strongly suggest that the present vase was done at the same time as those of the Wu family – presumably prior to the 1350s – and may have had a Chinese owner of similar standing. This style of decoration is not associated with Yuan blue-and-white exported abroad, and Liu Jincheng (ibid., p. 12 and p. 23) stresses the fact that such rare and important porcelains could only have been obtained by the Wus due to their close contacts to the imperial house. This ethereal design concept was probably more in line with Chinese taste than the horror-vacui painting manner of most Yuan blue-and-white wares, which in the collector’s handbook Gegu yaolun (The Essential Criteria of Antiquities) by Cao Zhao of 1388 were still dismissed as ‘vulgar’ (Sir Percival David, Chinese Connoisseurship: The Ko Ku Yao Lun: The Essential Criteria of Antiquities, London, 1971, p. 143 and pl. 40b).

 

A decoration in bands, separated by plain white areas, is otherwise extremely rare, but can also be seen on the much published meiping from the collection of Ataka Eiichi, now in the Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, where the upper band, however, shows a lotus scroll, the central one a peony scroll, and the shape is somewhat different in its proportions; see Tōyō tōji no tenkai/Masterpieces of Oriental Ceramics, The Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, 1999, pl. 32; and Mikami Tsugio, Sekai tōji zenshū/Ceramic Art of the World, vol. 13: Ryō, Kin, Gen/Liao, Chin and Yüan Dynasties, Tokyo, 1981, col. pl. 58.

 

Meiping are believed to have been used for storing wine and are in wall paintings in tombs often depicted in connection with the preparation of feasts. Dragons and phoenixes often form the decoration of yuhuchun bottles and stem bowls, which in banquets may have been used together with meiping; see Youlan shencai. Yuandai qinghua ciqi teji/Splendors in Smalt. Art of Yuan Blue-and-white Porcelain, Shanghai Museum, Shanghai, 2012, cat. nos 21, 66, and 75-77.


元瓷至臻:青花龍鳳紋梅瓶


康蕊君


龍、鳳乃元代經典紋飾,比比皆是,然而,同飾龍及鳳紋之元代青花瓷器卻甚為罕見。


北京大都及內蒙上都乃元代首都,宮殿建築遍飾龍鳳,如雕板、石柱、欄杆等,屋頂邊沿黃綠色瓦片亦飾交替龍鳳紋(James C.Y. Watt編,《The World of Khubilai Khan. Chinese Art in the Yuan Dynasty》,紐約大都會藝術博物館,2010 年,圖 53及 54,圖 101 及圖 282;《大元三都》,首都博物館,北京,2016 年,頁 72-3;及《Chūgoku Uchi Mōko hoppō kiba minzoku bunbutsu ten》(中國內蒙古北部騎兵文物展覽),東京,1983 年,編號 102-3 及4。

參考文宗(1330-1332 年在位)年間宮廷御令製作之織錦曼陀羅(Watt,前述出處,頁110-114及圖146),可見曼陀羅刻劃文宗及其兄弟夫婦,各人袍服均飾龍紋。


龍鳳紋飾,見於元代銀器、漆器、織品、磁州瓷等,亦見於北京一巨大玉盌作例,意大利傳教士和德理(1286-1331年),對該盌印象尤深。(Watt,前述出處)。 長城居庸關雲台浮雕,刻劃圖案亦包括一把龍鳳紋琵琶, 該台建於 1342 年至 1345 年間(李雪曼、何惠鑒,《Chinese Art under the Mongols. The Yüan Dynasty (1279-1368)》, 克利夫蘭藝術博物館,克利夫蘭,1968 年,頁8,圖 2)。


當時到訪中土之外來客人,對中國之龍鳳形像定必非常深刻。塔赫特·蘇萊曼波斯皇冠,乃伊朗境內唯一出土之蒙古時期宮殿遺址,建於 1270 年代左右,宮牆飾有當地彩瓦,上繪龍鳳圖案,明顯屬於元代風格 (Linda Komaroff 及Stefano Carboni,《The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353》,紐約大都會藝術博物館,2002 年,圖 59、97、100-1-2,cats. 84、86、99-101 及頁74)。


元代青花紋飾,常見各種靈獸,但多數則單獨出現。大維德爵士珍藏之1351 年「大維德瓶」當然亦飾龍鳳紋,唯畫風與本品截然不同。林業強在上海一次座談會上,講述元青花瓷之龍紋主要分五款 (林業強,〈 Dragons on Yuan Blue-and-Whites as Seen from the Bands on the David Vases〉,李仲謀等編,《幽藍神采--2012上海元青花國際學術研討會論文集》,上海,2015年,卷2,頁194-205,圖 7)。 然而,該五款龍紋似乎並不以製作時期區分,但可能屬於不同之瓷窰、或產品之最終目的地。


本瓶紋飾風格簡潔,青花與素白環帶相間,如此風格極為罕見,僅四梅瓶例可比,出土自高安元代窖藏。高安位於江西省南昌市西南方,離景德鎮甚近,曾出土逾二百件元代青花、釉裡紅、景德鎮白瓷及龍泉青釉瓷,見劉金成編,《高安元代窖藏瓷器》,北京,2006年。


高安窖藏,相信乃屬高安伍氏所有,元代伍興輔於晚元首都大都任職,官至駙馬都尉,其子伍良臣亦於大都為官。據傳,伍良臣於元滅之際攜同家族珍藏返回高安,至正(1341-1368年)年間,高安農民起義,至十一、十二年尤其動盪,伍氏相信乃於當時窖藏珍寶。


高安窖藏共出土六件青花梅瓶,與本品尺寸相近,唯該六瓶均帶瓶蓋,其中四瓶紋飾與本瓶相近,兩瓶青花為花卉而非龍鳳紋飾,(前述出處,卷首及頁52-63),每瓶底部、瓶蓋內側書一字,分別為 「禮、樂、射、御、書、數」,即儒家六藝, 如此設計甚為罕見,但與伍良臣崇尚儒家經典之性情相符。


高安窖藏之梅瓶飾雙鳳牡丹,憑其鳳尾可辨。紋飾寓意富貴榮華,並飾雙龍騰雲間,一龍前望、一龍回首,綴以蓮瓣紋飾。本瓶飾四爪龍,高安窖藏梅瓶當中,僅三瓶為四爪,一瓶為三爪。本瓶龍鳳紋飾風格異於高安梅瓶,似非為同一畫師所繪,然而,近足處之蓮瓣紋則與高安梅瓶當中兩例相近,或出自同一畫師之手。


基於蓮瓣紋之相近,以及瓶身青花與素白環帶相間之獨特風格(亦見於一對罐例,前述出處,頁48-51), 故此本品相近製作時期,相信與伍氏家族收藏之作例相近,約於 1350 年代之前,而兩者物主之身份地位相信亦甚相似。此類紋飾,鮮見於外銷元代青花,劉金成(前述出處,頁12及23)論述,此類瓷器珍稀貴重,伍氏家族得以收藏,乃因其與朝廷關係密切。元代青花多數紋飾繁密滿繪,元末明初曹昭1388年著《格古要論》,批評元代青花「且俗甚矣」, 而本品紋飾巧用留白技法,實更符合中國傳統品味。(大維德爵士,《Chinese Connoisseurship: The Ko Ku Yao Lun: The Essential Criteria of Antiquities》,1971年,頁143,圖版40b)。


素白環帶與環紋相間之作例極其看見,唯可參考一著名作例,文獻記載甚詳,出自安宅英一收藏,現存於大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館,上部環帶飾蓮紋,中部為纏枝牡丹,比例與本品稍異,參考《東洋陶磁の展開》,大阪,1999年,圖版32;以及三上次男編,《世界陶磁全集》,卷13:遼、金、元,東京,1981年,彩圖58。


梅瓶為盛酒之皿,亦見於刻劃湊備宴會之壁畫。龍鳳紋多見於玉壺春瓶及高足盌,與梅瓶同樣常見於宴會之上;參考《幽藍神采:元代青花瓷器特展》,上海博物館,2012年,編號21、66及75-77。