A fine, superb and possibly unique carved celadon-glazed 'dragon' vase, meiping, Seal mark and period of Qianlong | 清乾隆 粉青釉淺浮雕五龍圖梅瓶 《大清乾隆年製》款

An English collection.

Sotheby's Hong Kong, 4th/5th November 1997, lot 1356.

英國收藏

香港蘇富比1997年11月4/5日，編號1356

Sotheby's Thirty Years in Hong Kong: 1973-2003, Hong Kong, 2003, pl. 150.

《香港蘇富比三十週年》，香港，2003年，圖版150

With its harmonious yet striking combination of form, glaze colour, motif, and carving technique, the magnificence of this vase can hardly be overstated. Covered with an elegant celadon glaze, modelled with outstanding proportions and superbly carved with ferocious dragons against waves, the vase serves as a testament to the period of aesthetic achievement and technological mastery in porcelain production when Tang Ying (1682-1756) was supervisor of the imperial kilns in Jingdezhen. Tang’s exposure to the imperial art collection during his youth enabled him to study celebrated masterpieces from the past and adapt them to the contemporaneous tastes of the Yongzheng (1723-1735) and Qianlong (1736-1795) Emperors under whom he worked. The current vase, which is a particularly exemplary piece, is typical of wares made during this most celebrated period at the late Yongzheng to early Qianlong period.

Ceramics with celadon glazes have always been held in high esteem from as early as the beginning of their production almost four thousand years ago, and in the Song dynasty alone, there was evidence of a continuation of imperial taste and style from the Northern (960-1127) to the Southern Song (1127-1279) dynasties, culminating in a superb clear bluish-green tone achieved on some of the finest wares from the Longquan kilns in the Southern Song dynasty. Despite this longstanding admiration of the celadon colour, the pure reduction firing technique required to achieve the said watery blue-green tone – perhaps due to its difficulty – appears to have been lost in the Yuan and Ming dynasties, and it was not until the Yongzheng period in the Qing dynasty that it was revived and employed on smaller pieces – albeit very rarely coupled with relief decoration. The inspiration of the style of decoration on the current vase may have been derived from a Yongzheng period celadon-glazed basin carved in relief, illustrated in Zhou Lili, Collection from the Shanghai Museum: Qing Dynasty Imperial Porcelain from the Yongzheng to Xuantong Period, Shanghai, 2014, pl. 3-32 (fig. 1). The seemingly soft bluish-green glaze on the current vase, however, is far from muted; evenly veiled over the exaggerated proportions of the vase upon which dragons are crisply carved and waves incised, the lustrous celadon glaze has thinned and pooled on the raised designs and recesses, creating tonal nuances in the glaze colour.

The large and dramatic silhouette of the vase, marked by its heavily lipped rim atop the distinctly broad and prominent shoulders, a tapering waist, and a subtly splayed foot, on the one hand, demonstrates the painstaking precision and careful calculation in every stage of its production to avoid any irregularity, reminiscent of elegant Longquan celadon meiping from the early Ming dynasty, such as one in the Tokyo National Museum, formerly in the Yokogawa collection, published in the Illustrated Catalogue of Tokyo National Museum. Chinese Ceramics, vol. 2, Tokyo, 1990, pl. 486. On the other hand, it evokes the forceful relief-decoration of Longquan ‘dragon’ jars of the Yuan, such as the tall vessel in the Yamato Bunkakan, Nara, illustrated in Mikami Tsugio, Sekai tōji zenshū/Ceramic Art of the World, vol. 13: Ryō, Kin, Gen/Liao, Chin and Yüan Dynasties, Tokyo, 1981, pl. 156 (fig. 2).

In addition to harking back to Longquan wares of earlier dynasties, decorative inspiration for the current vase may have come from a type of meiping from the Yongle period, of which close copies were made in the Yongzheng period, decorated with dragons reserved in white against a dense copper-red ground of crashing waves, such as one in the Palace Museum, Beijing, illustrated in Geng Baochang, Ming Qing ciqi jianding [Connoisseurship of Ming and Qing Porcelains], Hong Kong, 1993, fig. 26C.

Although dragons soaring amongst clouds and waves in pursuit of flaming pearls have been heavily employed as a motif on carved ceramic vessels and form part of the general repertoire of Chinese works of art, there is no question that the present representation of this glorified mythical beast is far superior to its common depiction, in terms of the remarkable quality of the carving and illusion of spatiality, as well as its compositional arrangement and subtle incorporation of archaistic elements.

The current vase is impressively carved in relief with five dragons, of which one is portrayed sinuous and extending vertically along one side of the vessel, and two pairs are depicted with one dominating and the other slightly subordinate, a motif that was not seen before the Qing dynasty as they were hitherto arranged symmetrically or rendered on a par with each other. One large three-clawed dragon, in particular, with its serpentine body writhing across the shoulder of the vase, is rendered swooping down towards a smaller five-clawed beast emerging from the crashing waves, with a flaming pearl in its mouth – a rare design exemplifying the creativity of the craftsmen under Tang Ying’s supervision. Such depictions of pairs of dragons are likely to refer to the Emperor and the Heir Apparent, though it has also been suggested that the depiction of large dragons with three claws and small ones with five may be an act of filial piety and a reflection of the Qianlong Emperor’s respect towards his father, the late Yongzheng Emperor.

The use of three-clawed dragons also points at the infusion of elements reminiscent of those found on earlier ceramic wares, such as a slightly smaller Yuan dynasty blue-ground meiping (33.6 cm) reverse-decorated with a three-clawed dragon accentuated with raised slip, from the collection of Ernest Grandidier, now preserved in the Musée Guimet, Paris, inventory no. G121; and a Longquan celadon charger with an applied three-clawed dragon in biscuit, dated to the early to mid 14th century of the Yuan dynasty, illustrated in Regina Krahl, Chinese Ceramics In The Topkapi Saray Museum Istanbul. A Complete Catalogue. I. Historical Introductions. Yuan and Ming Dynasty Celadon Wares, London, 1986, pl. 109.

The portrayal of dragons with differing numbers of claws can also be found on other contemporaneous porcelains, particularly meiping rendered with nine dragons, including a cobalt-blue and copper-red example with a related design from the Qianlong period, sold once in our London rooms, 27th November 1973, lot 275, and three times in these rooms, 22nd May 1979, lot 197, 7th May 2002, lot 579, and 10th April 2006, lot 1536 (fig. 3); and a Qianlong seal mark and period cobalt-blue and iron-red example in the collection of the Palace Museum, Beijing, illustrated in Kangxi. Yongzheng. Qianlong. Qing Porcelain from the Palace Museum Collection, Hong Kong, 1989, pl. 8.

This pristine vase, with its almost tercentenary brilliance and lustre preserved, is possibly unique; no closely related example of the design and size appears to be recorded. Compare a very similar but slightly smaller example (34.9 cm), also decorated with five dragons but arranged differently from the current one – regrettably bearing a firing crack extending across the mark and along one side of the vase – sold in our New York rooms, 4th June 1982, lot 220; and a further smaller example (33 cm), of less dramatic form and carved with three five-clawed dragons, first sold in our New York rooms, 4th June 1982, lot 219, from the collection of Albert Keller, and later sold at Christie’s Hong Kong, 3rd November 1996, lot 572, from the Jingguangtang collection. See also a Qianlong seal mark and period celadon-glazed jar, densely carved with two large five-clawed dragons in relief, endowed with an illustrious provenance, having once belonged to the Lord Loch of Drylaw and the collection of the Idemitsu Museum, Tokyo, sold in these rooms, 8th October 2014, lot 3901 (fig. 4).

“Only by the form, the pattern,

Can words or music reach

The stillness, as a Chinese jar still

Moves perpetually in its stillness.” (T.S. Eliot, Burnt Norton, 1936)

Perhaps it would not be so preposterous to extend Eliot’s analogy to this imposing meiping. Not only is it masterfully depicted with a dynamic scene of ferocious dragons soaring amidst tempestuous waves, it has also stood sturdily as a material movement across centuries through and through.

本品所呈形制、雕工、釉色、紋樣，和諧相宜，鬼斧天成。青釉溫潤，線條流麗，浮雕海水龍紋，傲顯天威，展現唐英督陶時期景德鎮御窰之精製妙造、雅致大方。唐英十六歲入宮，雍、乾兩朝期間在內務府供職，涉獵清宮浩瀚庋藏，飽覽前朝經典，秀穎聰慧，借鑑創新，恪盡職守以投聖意。此瓶精益求精，至臻大雅，處處展現雍正晚期至乾隆初年御瓷特色。

早約四千年前陶瓷初興之時，青釉已為人所鍾。及至北宋，天青蘊藉臻絕，偏安以後，續燒柔色，秉承趙家一貫高致品味。觀南宋龍泉青釉上品，釉色瑩潤，如春翠綠，微泛天藍，延此逸風。青釉樸雅，向受惜慕，但或因製作難艱，還原氣氛下方可燒就之水漾透亮，元明絕跡，直至雍正一朝始才復興，多綴小器，配飾浮雕者極罕。然此類盛清青釉浮雕，也有雛例可依，如雍正年製雲龍紋缸，圖見周麗麗，《清代雍正至宣統官窰瓷器》，上海，2014年，圖版3-32（圖一）。此梅瓶所罩青釉柔和，翠中泛藍，晶瑩澄澈，絲毫沒有乳濁暗啞之感，勻施在深刻邃雕之海水龍紋上，釉隨飾起伏散聚，層次分明。

梅瓶小口厚唇，上寬下歛，近足復張，輪廓線條收放有度，柔中帶剛。遙想盛清當年，藝匠必經周密計量、斟酌考究，每個步驟一絲不苟，方可製得如斯佳器。細膩之處，不禁讓人聯想到明初龍泉青釉梅瓶，如東京國立博物館橫河民輔舊藏之例，載於《東京國立博物館圖版目錄：中國古陶磁篇》，卷2，東京，1990年，圖版486。浮雕之深峻有力，則與元代龍泉青釉罐上雕刻有異曲同工之妙，如奈良大和文華館藏雲龍紋四繫瓶，圖載於三上次男編，《世界陶磁全集》，卷13：遼、金、元，東京，1981年，圖版156（圖二）。

此瓶既蘊前朝龍泉瓷風，或也承載朱明巧思，如永樂釉裏紅海水留白龍紋梅瓶，雍正一朝也有倣傚，見北京故宮博物院藏例，圖載於耿寶昌，《明清瓷器鑑定》，香港，1993年，圖26C。

龍紋，屬中國工藝品紋飾大宗，乘浪、穿雲、逐珠，雕瓷常有飾之，但此梅瓶上所呈，剔刻利落，龍軀矯健，疏密有致，活靈活現，隱涵古韻，一般龍紋實難相媲美。

器上雕五龍，當中一龍曲身攀瓶而上，其他游龍則兩兩相對，上大下小，尊卑立分。清代以前，龍紋多採對稱或對等之貎，鮮有高下之別。細觀此梅瓶上之三爪巨龍，軀若蟠蛇，傲踞器肩，吻含火珠，俯衝往下，進逼奪浪而出之五爪小龍，威風凛凛，佈局精心，尤為罕見，展示唐英麾下妙思巧工。大小二龍相持，又稱蒼龍教子，或喻天子與儲君的關係，暗示皇位更迭，但也有指乾隆帝藉著三爪巨龍與五爪幼龍的搭配，表達他對先父雍正帝的敬慕，順頌孝賢之道。

三爪龍紋，呼應早期瓷器飾樣，例如 Ernest Grandidier 舊藏元代藍地三爪白龍梅瓶，尺寸略小（33.6 公分），現存巴黎吉美國立亞洲藝術博物館，藏品編號G121。另參見一龍泉青釉大盤，盤心素貼三爪龍紋，定為元代十四世紀早至中葉之器，圖載於康蕊君，《Chinese Ceramics In The Topkapi Saray Museum Istanbul. A Complete Catalogue. I. Historical Introductions. Yuan and Ming Dynasty Celadon Wares》，倫敦，1986年，圖版109。

同代瓷器也有飾爪趾數目不一之龍，特別是九龍紋梅瓶尤為多見，例如一乾隆青花釉裏紅梅瓶，初售於倫敦蘇富比1973年11月27日，編號275，後三度售於香港蘇富比，1979年5月22日，編號197、2002年5月7日，編號579及2006年4月10日，編號1536（圖三）。北京故宮博物院也藏一相關乾隆篆款青花釉裏紅梅瓶，圖見《故宮珍藏康雍乾瓷器圖錄》，香港，1989年，圖版8。

三百寒暑，光澤依然，繼續獨領風騷。翻閱公私收藏記錄，未見同式之器，遂悉此瓶或為孤品。然尚有尺寸、紋飾稍異者堪資比較，如一瓶身較矮之例（34.9 公分），1982年6月4日經紐約蘇富比拍出，編號220，同飾五龍，但圖樣佈局與此相異，奈何遭窰縫破相，貫穿年款、延展瓶身，莫不婉惜。另有一尺寸較小之例可作參考（33 公分），器形稍欠婀娜，雕三龍，俱五爪，原屬 Albert Keller 雅蓄，初售於紐約蘇富比1982年6月4日，編號219，後入靜觀堂藏，再於1996年11月3日經香港佳士得易手，編號572。還可參考一乾隆篆款粉青釉蒼龍教子圖罐，密雕五爪雙龍，其來源顯赫有緒，舊屬洛赫勛爵收藏，後入東京出光美術館，2014年10月8日經香港蘇富比拍出，編號3901（圖四）。

「惟有形狀與圖案

才能讓文字和音樂觸及

那份寂靜，猶如那個中國瓷罐依然

堅毅地在其寂靜中躍動」

—— 節錄自艾略特，《燒毀的諾頓》，1936年

梅瓶雍雅典麗，青龍御濤駕浪，年華雖已數百，依然屹立旁觀，見盡蒼海桑田，若把艾略特之詩句套用於此，或未嘗不可。