清道光 粉彩「獅子狗與鴿子」圖袖珍雙聯鼻煙壺

Robert Kleiner，倫敦，1992年

Hugh Moss、Victor Graham 及曾嘉寶，《A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection》，卷6，香港，2007年，編號1332

Some minor wear to the guilding on the lip of both bottles. Otherwise, good condition.
"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. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This unusual variation on the well-known group of imperial dog-and-dove bottles of the Daoguang period is unmarked, but obviously of the period. Under lot 1031 in the present  sale it is noted that it was only a half century after the fact that an antiques expert named Chen Liu 陳瀏 (1863 – 1929) made reference to Daoguang emperor’s fondness for doves and an unnamed favourite consort’s passion for small dog. This is not substantiated in any Chinese source, although V. W. F. Collier’s 1921 Dogs of China and Japan in Nature and Art states that it was the empress, not a consort, that she had one small dog she loved (not many), and that she named it Apricot (Xing’er 杏兒;p. 194). This is more information than Chen Liu gives. Although Collier does not cite a source, making it difficult to evaluate his information, he does reproduce a scroll by the painting teacher of Cixi 慈禧 that illustrates ‘imperial dogs’, including one named Xing’er. It is possible that the scroll provided more information, assuming it included famous dogs of previous generations, not just those of the Empress Dowager’s own time.

If one provisionally accepts that the statements by Collier and Chen reflect accurate reports by elderly witnesses at the Daoguang court or documentary evidence that one has not found yet, then this could be an unmarked imperial snuff bottle of the Daoguang era. It could also be a non-imperial bottle of the same period; in any case, the nature of the porcelain, the enamels, and the style all fit comfortably into the broader range of Daoguang-marked wares.

Other twinned-cylinder snuff bottles in the Bloch auctions so far include Sale 2, lot 88 and Sale 5, lot 90, the former being rather unique insofar as it is inspired by twin scrolls. Neither of them is marked, and it prompts one to wonder whether this might have been because of the doubling of the foot. Writing the mark on one half only would seem awkward, and dividing it into two sets of two characters to cover each foot breaks with the tradition of reign marks on ceramics, although it happened occasionally. It is possible that the designers just considered certain shapes to be unsuitable for reign marks.

It prompts one to wonder whether in many cases modern collectors are more concerned with reign marks than emperors themselves ever were. It would be appropriate to have the reign mark used on a wide range of imperial wares to establish an imperial cultural heritage, but having his own reign title written on every work of art was obviously not a priority for an emperor. Thus it is that vast quantities of known imperial wares from the Qing dynasty have no reign marks.