.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The current pair of gilt-bronze luohan figures is masterfully cast and of notably large size in the form of an older and a younger monk. The older monk wears a Chinese- style robe with a right-hand opening, and is inscribed on the underside of left-side hem with the characters ‘zuo san (left three)’. The younger monk wears an Indian-style robe exposing his right chest and right arm, and is inscribed on the underside of the right-side hem with the characters ‘you er (right two)’. Both are depicted sitting cross-legged, with the hem of the robes hanging over the pedestals. The inscribed characters probably indicate their positions when displayed in the temple, however no manufacture dates are inscribed. Two other known examples, very possibly from the same set as the current pair, are recorded: one was sold in Christie’s New York, 22 March 2024, lot 1148 (fig. 1), wearing Chinese style robe and inscribed with the characters ‘zuo liu (left six)’; the other is in the Tsz Shan Temple, wearing Indian-style robe and inscribed with the character ‘you jiu (right nine)’, and previously sold at Christie’s Hong Kong, 30 November 2016, lot 3233 (fig.2).
Although the origin of luohan can be traced to the arhats in Indian scriptures, arhats were not objects of devotion in ancient India. The cult of luohan and its artistic representation is therefore indigenous to China, a by-product of Buddhism’s long history of Sinicization. Xuanzang’s translation of Nandimitravadana in 654, a scripture dedicated to the Sixteen Arhats (Luohan), provided the theological foundation for the cult of luohan as well as the basis for their artistic representations, which took shape in the late Tang/Five-Dynasties periods. Although there are depictions of monks in Tang cave sculptures, the earliest depiction of the Sixteen Luohan as prescribed in Nandimitravadana is found in the Yanxia Cave in Hangzhou (fig.3), dated to 953 in the Wuyue Kingdom period. Apart from the Sixteen Luohan in the scripture, two more figures were added: Nandimitra, the author of Nandimitravadana, and another unnamed figure, possibly Xuanzang. This set could also be considered the earliest depiction of the ‘Eighteen Luohan’, a composition not rooted in any Buddhist scriptures but gained popularity from Song period onwards. A small gilt-bronze figure of luohan excavated at the base of Huiguang Pagoda in Ruian in 1966 is one of the earliest examples of bronze luohan in this period.
The worship of luohan reached its zenith in the Song period, when stories of miraculous events associated with luohan were widespread and propagated by the literati class. From the imperial family to laymen, all were participating in the worship, and Su Shi was the most famous amongst them. His grandfather on his mother’s side, Cheng Wenying, was said to have received generous help from sixteen monks, who he believed to be the Sixteen Luohan in disguise, when he suffered crippling adversity at one point in his life. Thereafter, he organised four large-scale ceremonies of luohan worship every year to commemorate them. When Su Shi was demoted and banished to Hainan Island, he remembered his grandfather’s story, and visited a local luohan temple to pay his respects. He offered his calligraphy to the temple and also composed four poems in praise of luohan. Later, he acquired a painting of the Eighteen Luohan by Zhang Xuan of Five Dynasties, and sent it as a gift to his brother Su Che. There are a wide range of subjects for which people offer their prayers to luohan in the Song Dynasty: prayers concerning the weather (rain); health, longevity; success in examination and officialdom; and prayers for the dead – almost every aspect of one’s life was touched by the worship of luohan.
The translation of Nandimitravadana heralded the start of luohan image making, but the scripture did not provide any description of their appearances or characteristics, resulting in very free and diverse styles full of creativity. The starting point for the luohan imagery is normally a senior, virtuous monk with either an Indian or a Chinese appearance. There are two distinctive types: those following painter Guan Xiu, also called ‘Chanyue Style’ (Chanyue is Guan Xiu’s sobriquet), are painted with caricatured, archaic, Indian-inspired appearances; those following painter Li Gonglin, also called ‘Longmian Style’ (Li Gonglin resides in Mt. Longmian), are more naturalistic and depicted in a lifelike setting. These two styles and their variations, incorporating the descriptions given in Su Shi’s poems, became the basis for luohan imagery from Northern Song onwards, and is one of the most important genres in Chinese Buddhist art. The most celebrated Song sculptures of luohan are the Eighteen Luohan found in Chongqing Temple in Shaanxi dated to 1079, and the 27 figures of luohan in the Lingyan Temple in Shandong dated to 1066. Their lifelike features and distinctive characters are the hallmarks of the naturalistic style of Song sculptures. Very few Song Dynasty bronze examples of luohan remain, the most notable being the four examples in the Xiangguo Temple in Kaifeng (fig.4). They were allegedly part of a set of Five Hundred Luohan, all destroyed in 1927 apart from these four, which also show a naturalistic and unadorned style.
In the Yuan and Ming periods, Tibetan Buddhism became the adopted religion for the Imperial families. Although luohan worship exists within Tibetan Buddhism, it did not appear until after 15th century, when the Kashmiri scholar Sakya Rishi translated the text Offerings to the Sixteen Arhats. This text differs from Nandimitravadana in its accounts of the Sixteen Arhats: 1. The order of the arhats is different; 2. Two of the arhats’ names are different, namely: Nakula (Chinese) versus Bakula (Tibetan); Subinda (Chinese) versus Abhedya (Tibetan). Furthermore, in the Offerings, the appearances of the arhats are noted in detail. For example, Bakula is described to be holding a shrew in his hands; Rahula is described to be holding a crown etc. A few gilt bronze examples in the formal court style dated to the early Ming period follow closely the descriptions in Tibetan texts: two sold by Christie’s Hong Kong, one on 24 October, 1993, lot 543 (fig. 5); the other on 30 October, 1994, lot 390 (fig. 6); and one in the Victoria & Albert Museum, all identifiable from the attributes they hold in their hands and most likely came from the same set. There are no known examples of Sixteen Luohan sculptures dated to the Yuan period, but we can surmise from paintings of luohan figures dated to the Song and Yuan periods that Yuan luohan iconography follows earlier Chinese examples and is not influenced by Tibetan traditions.
The dating of the current pair of luohan figures and their related group has varied widely in the past, from Song, Yuan to the Ming dynasties, since they do not hold attributes like the 15th century figures mentioned above and their style of modelling is more naturalistic and dynamic than the formal court style, leading to speculation of an earlier dating. However, the current scholarship is inclined to date them in the early 15th century, since there are many stylistic similarities between them and other early Ming imperial Buddhist sculptures, especially in the treatment to the robes, the facial features and the musculature of the torso. These figures show the stylistic transition from the more naturalistic Song style towards the formal and refined Court style in the 14th and 15th century. These would have been a significant commission for a large Imperial temple complex. It is interesting to note that both monks wearing Chinese-style robes are marked ‘left’, and monks wearing Indian-style robes are marked ‘right’, indicating that they were displayed in groups according to their clothing style.
Compare another pair of large gilt bronze luohan figures cast with legs pendent in the Cleveland Museun of Art (acc. no. 4.2023), sold in Christie’s Hong Kong, 30 March 2022, lot 2891.
Although the origin of luohan can be traced to the arhats in Indian scriptures, arhats were not objects of devotion in ancient India. The cult of luohan and its artistic representation is therefore indigenous to China, a by-product of Buddhism’s long history of Sinicization. Xuanzang’s translation of Nandimitravadana in 654, a scripture dedicated to the Sixteen Arhats (Luohan), provided the theological foundation for the cult of luohan as well as the basis for their artistic representations, which took shape in the late Tang/Five-Dynasties periods. Although there are depictions of monks in Tang cave sculptures, the earliest depiction of the Sixteen Luohan as prescribed in Nandimitravadana is found in the Yanxia Cave in Hangzhou (fig.3), dated to 953 in the Wuyue Kingdom period. Apart from the Sixteen Luohan in the scripture, two more figures were added: Nandimitra, the author of Nandimitravadana, and another unnamed figure, possibly Xuanzang. This set could also be considered the earliest depiction of the ‘Eighteen Luohan’, a composition not rooted in any Buddhist scriptures but gained popularity from Song period onwards. A small gilt-bronze figure of luohan excavated at the base of Huiguang Pagoda in Ruian in 1966 is one of the earliest examples of bronze luohan in this period.
The worship of luohan reached its zenith in the Song period, when stories of miraculous events associated with luohan were widespread and propagated by the literati class. From the imperial family to laymen, all were participating in the worship, and Su Shi was the most famous amongst them. His grandfather on his mother’s side, Cheng Wenying, was said to have received generous help from sixteen monks, who he believed to be the Sixteen Luohan in disguise, when he suffered crippling adversity at one point in his life. Thereafter, he organised four large-scale ceremonies of luohan worship every year to commemorate them. When Su Shi was demoted and banished to Hainan Island, he remembered his grandfather’s story, and visited a local luohan temple to pay his respects. He offered his calligraphy to the temple and also composed four poems in praise of luohan. Later, he acquired a painting of the Eighteen Luohan by Zhang Xuan of Five Dynasties, and sent it as a gift to his brother Su Che. There are a wide range of subjects for which people offer their prayers to luohan in the Song Dynasty: prayers concerning the weather (rain); health, longevity; success in examination and officialdom; and prayers for the dead – almost every aspect of one’s life was touched by the worship of luohan.
The translation of Nandimitravadana heralded the start of luohan image making, but the scripture did not provide any description of their appearances or characteristics, resulting in very free and diverse styles full of creativity. The starting point for the luohan imagery is normally a senior, virtuous monk with either an Indian or a Chinese appearance. There are two distinctive types: those following painter Guan Xiu, also called ‘Chanyue Style’ (Chanyue is Guan Xiu’s sobriquet), are painted with caricatured, archaic, Indian-inspired appearances; those following painter Li Gonglin, also called ‘Longmian Style’ (Li Gonglin resides in Mt. Longmian), are more naturalistic and depicted in a lifelike setting. These two styles and their variations, incorporating the descriptions given in Su Shi’s poems, became the basis for luohan imagery from Northern Song onwards, and is one of the most important genres in Chinese Buddhist art. The most celebrated Song sculptures of luohan are the Eighteen Luohan found in Chongqing Temple in Shaanxi dated to 1079, and the 27 figures of luohan in the Lingyan Temple in Shandong dated to 1066. Their lifelike features and distinctive characters are the hallmarks of the naturalistic style of Song sculptures. Very few Song Dynasty bronze examples of luohan remain, the most notable being the four examples in the Xiangguo Temple in Kaifeng (fig.4). They were allegedly part of a set of Five Hundred Luohan, all destroyed in 1927 apart from these four, which also show a naturalistic and unadorned style.
In the Yuan and Ming periods, Tibetan Buddhism became the adopted religion for the Imperial families. Although luohan worship exists within Tibetan Buddhism, it did not appear until after 15th century, when the Kashmiri scholar Sakya Rishi translated the text Offerings to the Sixteen Arhats. This text differs from Nandimitravadana in its accounts of the Sixteen Arhats: 1. The order of the arhats is different; 2. Two of the arhats’ names are different, namely: Nakula (Chinese) versus Bakula (Tibetan); Subinda (Chinese) versus Abhedya (Tibetan). Furthermore, in the Offerings, the appearances of the arhats are noted in detail. For example, Bakula is described to be holding a shrew in his hands; Rahula is described to be holding a crown etc. A few gilt bronze examples in the formal court style dated to the early Ming period follow closely the descriptions in Tibetan texts: two sold by Christie’s Hong Kong, one on 24 October, 1993, lot 543 (fig. 5); the other on 30 October, 1994, lot 390 (fig. 6); and one in the Victoria & Albert Museum, all identifiable from the attributes they hold in their hands and most likely came from the same set. There are no known examples of Sixteen Luohan sculptures dated to the Yuan period, but we can surmise from paintings of luohan figures dated to the Song and Yuan periods that Yuan luohan iconography follows earlier Chinese examples and is not influenced by Tibetan traditions.
The dating of the current pair of luohan figures and their related group has varied widely in the past, from Song, Yuan to the Ming dynasties, since they do not hold attributes like the 15th century figures mentioned above and their style of modelling is more naturalistic and dynamic than the formal court style, leading to speculation of an earlier dating. However, the current scholarship is inclined to date them in the early 15th century, since there are many stylistic similarities between them and other early Ming imperial Buddhist sculptures, especially in the treatment to the robes, the facial features and the musculature of the torso. These figures show the stylistic transition from the more naturalistic Song style towards the formal and refined Court style in the 14th and 15th century. These would have been a significant commission for a large Imperial temple complex. It is interesting to note that both monks wearing Chinese-style robes are marked ‘left’, and monks wearing Indian-style robes are marked ‘right’, indicating that they were displayed in groups according to their clothing style.
Compare another pair of large gilt bronze luohan figures cast with legs pendent in the Cleveland Museun of Art (acc. no. 4.2023), sold in Christie’s Hong Kong, 30 March 2022, lot 2891.