.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The origin of this design has been the subject of much research. It is not only the style of the fountain that is fascinating, but the fact that a fountain should appear at all on a porcelain vessel made by craftsmen from a country in which fountains were still regarded as a novelty in the mid-eighteenth century. In a paper, published in the Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, No. 24, Stockholm, 1952, pp. 1-8, the late Sir Percival David suggested a link between these fountains and the great silver fountain designed by Guillaume Bouchier for Mangu Khan at Karakorum in AD 1254.
However, since at least one of the known blue and white 'magic fountain' ewers bears a genuine reign mark of the Jiajing period (1522-66) and the others appear to be of similar date, a three hundred year time lapse between the date of the Bouchier fountain and the representation on ewers makes this link unlikely. Other scholars have suggested that the fountains may be of Near Eastern origin. This proposition is to some extent supported by the fact that there are several of these ewers in the collection of the Topkapi Saray, Istanbul and another from the collection of the Ardebil Shrine, now in Teheran. However the methods by which these porcelain collections were amassed, do not suggest that the ewers were made as special commissions. Some of the ewers in Istanbul now have Near Eastern metal mounts, mostly dating to the 17th century. The present ewer also has Near Eastern mounts, including an elaborate lid. Indeed, while there are a number of variations on this design, the ewer bears decoration that is almost identical to that on one of the Istanbul ewers.
L.R. Shulsky discusses her findings on the subject in the Bulletin of Far Eastern Antiquities, No. 67, Stockholm, 1995, noting the number of examples in Western collections including the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the British Museum, the Grandidier Collection in the Musée Guimet, the Hamburg Museum and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. An example is also found in a Dutch still life of the 17th century by Willem Kalf, now in the Thyssen Bornemisza collection. Dr Shulsky pursues the idea of a Christian Jesuit influence, initiated by John Pope.
From the establishment of Macao by the Portuguese in 1557, Catholic missionaries lived there and a residence for Jesuits was set up in 1565. In addition, from 1549, Jesuit missionaries like Frances Xavier were established in Japan and were involved in the Japan-Macao trade and Chinese porcelain industry. Jesuit missionaries could therefore have provided the images from which the 'magic fountain' derives. Shulsky has noted a number of aspects of Christian iconography which could account for the appearance of fountains on these ewers and identifies depictions of the Virgin Mary Tota Pulchra, which show 'the Virgin surrounded by symbols of her immaculacy taken from the Song of Solomon' including fountains similar to those on the ewers.
A vase in the Percival David Foundation has an elephant beneath the fountain on the one side and a horse on the other. The elephant, deemed to embody wisdom, symbolises Christ. The horse should perhaps be seen as a unicorn, which at that time was also a symbol of Christ and often appears on fountains in Christian art. The creature beneath the fountain on the current ewer, however, is purly Chinese - a qilin. While not Christian, this creature would have seemed to the Chinese craftsmen an entirely suitable beast to adorn an auspicious vessel since it was believed to be gigantic, rare and 'not born of a mother' and was thus regarded as particularly auspicious. This type of ewer was clearly intended to be auspicious, since several of the known examples, like that in the Victoria and Albert Museum, bear four-character inscriptions invoking good fortune, in the latter case wan fu you tong (may all happiness gather here).
Similar examples are illustrated by Ayers and Krahl in Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum Istanbul, p. 655, no. 1015 with waves around the spreading base and a san character. Compare also the examples in ibid, nos. 1013, 1014, 1016 with alternative decoration around the base and alternative reign marks or auspicious four-character marks. A second example with breaking waves, a san character and silver mounted as in the present case from the Musée Guimet, Paris, is illustrated in Oriental Ceramics, The World's Great Collections, Tokyo, New York and San Francisco, 1981, vol. 7, fig. 80. Examples with slightly different decoration and alternative four-character auspicious or apocryphal reign marks are illustrated in Oriental Ceramics, The World's Great Collections, vol. 3, fig. 200, from the Museum Pusat, Jakarta and vol. 4, col. pl. 61, from the Iran Bastan Museum, Teheran. The vase from the Percival David Foundation is illustrated in vol. 6, fig. 144.
A ewer of similar design, but bearing a Xuande six-character mark, was sold at Christie's Tokyo sale, 16 and 17 February, 1980, lot 797. Another, also with a san mark, was sold Sotheby's London, 15 October 1968, lot 161. Compare also the pear-shaped vase with this design sold, Phillips London, 8 June 1994, lot 456, and another sold Sotheby's London, 17 November 1999, lot 907.
However, since at least one of the known blue and white 'magic fountain' ewers bears a genuine reign mark of the Jiajing period (1522-66) and the others appear to be of similar date, a three hundred year time lapse between the date of the Bouchier fountain and the representation on ewers makes this link unlikely. Other scholars have suggested that the fountains may be of Near Eastern origin. This proposition is to some extent supported by the fact that there are several of these ewers in the collection of the Topkapi Saray, Istanbul and another from the collection of the Ardebil Shrine, now in Teheran. However the methods by which these porcelain collections were amassed, do not suggest that the ewers were made as special commissions. Some of the ewers in Istanbul now have Near Eastern metal mounts, mostly dating to the 17th century. The present ewer also has Near Eastern mounts, including an elaborate lid. Indeed, while there are a number of variations on this design, the ewer bears decoration that is almost identical to that on one of the Istanbul ewers.
L.R. Shulsky discusses her findings on the subject in the Bulletin of Far Eastern Antiquities, No. 67, Stockholm, 1995, noting the number of examples in Western collections including the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the British Museum, the Grandidier Collection in the Musée Guimet, the Hamburg Museum and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. An example is also found in a Dutch still life of the 17th century by Willem Kalf, now in the Thyssen Bornemisza collection. Dr Shulsky pursues the idea of a Christian Jesuit influence, initiated by John Pope.
From the establishment of Macao by the Portuguese in 1557, Catholic missionaries lived there and a residence for Jesuits was set up in 1565. In addition, from 1549, Jesuit missionaries like Frances Xavier were established in Japan and were involved in the Japan-Macao trade and Chinese porcelain industry. Jesuit missionaries could therefore have provided the images from which the 'magic fountain' derives. Shulsky has noted a number of aspects of Christian iconography which could account for the appearance of fountains on these ewers and identifies depictions of the Virgin Mary Tota Pulchra, which show 'the Virgin surrounded by symbols of her immaculacy taken from the Song of Solomon' including fountains similar to those on the ewers.
A vase in the Percival David Foundation has an elephant beneath the fountain on the one side and a horse on the other. The elephant, deemed to embody wisdom, symbolises Christ. The horse should perhaps be seen as a unicorn, which at that time was also a symbol of Christ and often appears on fountains in Christian art. The creature beneath the fountain on the current ewer, however, is purly Chinese - a qilin. While not Christian, this creature would have seemed to the Chinese craftsmen an entirely suitable beast to adorn an auspicious vessel since it was believed to be gigantic, rare and 'not born of a mother' and was thus regarded as particularly auspicious. This type of ewer was clearly intended to be auspicious, since several of the known examples, like that in the Victoria and Albert Museum, bear four-character inscriptions invoking good fortune, in the latter case wan fu you tong (may all happiness gather here).
Similar examples are illustrated by Ayers and Krahl in Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum Istanbul, p. 655, no. 1015 with waves around the spreading base and a san character. Compare also the examples in ibid, nos. 1013, 1014, 1016 with alternative decoration around the base and alternative reign marks or auspicious four-character marks. A second example with breaking waves, a san character and silver mounted as in the present case from the Musée Guimet, Paris, is illustrated in Oriental Ceramics, The World's Great Collections, Tokyo, New York and San Francisco, 1981, vol. 7, fig. 80. Examples with slightly different decoration and alternative four-character auspicious or apocryphal reign marks are illustrated in Oriental Ceramics, The World's Great Collections, vol. 3, fig. 200, from the Museum Pusat, Jakarta and vol. 4, col. pl. 61, from the Iran Bastan Museum, Teheran. The vase from the Percival David Foundation is illustrated in vol. 6, fig. 144.
A ewer of similar design, but bearing a Xuande six-character mark, was sold at Christie's Tokyo sale, 16 and 17 February, 1980, lot 797. Another, also with a san mark, was sold Sotheby's London, 15 October 1968, lot 161. Compare also the pear-shaped vase with this design sold, Phillips London, 8 June 1994, lot 456, and another sold Sotheby's London, 17 November 1999, lot 907.