A RARE GOLD AND SILVER-INLAID BRONZE ARCHAISTIC BIRD-FORM RITUAL VESSEL, ZUN
These lots have been imported from outside the EU … 顯示更多 Heavenly Good Fortune – An Archaistic Inlaid Bronze Bird Rosemary Scott, Senior International Academic ConsultantThis handsome bird, which most closely resembles a phoenix, is usually known in Chinese as a ‘heavenly chicken’ 天 雞 tianji. In Views of Antiquity in the Qing Imperial Palace, Macau, 2005, p. 182, the authors explain the reason for this name is that 雞ji chicken provides a pun for 吉 ji meaning auspicious, and thus the bird is a symbol of good fortune. In addition, a rooster is a symbol of high rank because of its of its cockscomb, 雞 冠 jiguan in Chinese, which is a pun for 官guan, meaning official. The vase on the bird’s back also has auspicious connotations. The vase can be either 瓶 ping or 壺 hu. Ping is a pun for 平安 ping’an, meaning peace, while 壺 hu suggests one of the isles of the Immortals 方 壺Fanghu. The vase may also suggest the vase 罐 guan which is one of the Eight Buddhist Emblems 八吉祥 ba jixiang. In this context the vase symbolises the elixir of life as well as containing treasures, which represent all wishes fulfilled. This inlaid bronze bird and vase group is a fine example of the art objects made in the late Ming-early Qing period, which reflect a passionate interest in antiquities not only within the scholar class, but also amongst the upper echelons of the newly wealthy merchant class. While a relatively small proportion of the population would have had access to real antiques, the availability of illustrated books on antiques grew exponentially in the late Ming period. During the Song dynasty not only had there been a great interest in the books relating to ancient bronzes and their inscriptions, but a significant number of ancient sites were excavated, adding to the ancient works which had already been brought to the marketplace by farmers who had found precious antiques during the course of their agricultural activities. Extensive collections were built up – the best known being that of the Emperor Huizong (r. AD 1101-26), who was rumoured to have amassed a collection of some ten thousand items. The illustrated catalogues of these collections provide a rich source of information about these collections, and also provided a rich source of inspiration for bronze craftsmen of later periods, often through later editions of the Song dynasty publications. The earliest of these Song dynasty illustrated publications on antiquities, which survives to the present day, is the 考古 圖 Kaogu tu (Illustrated Research on Archaeology) compiled in 1092 by 呂大臨 Lü Dalin, a supplement to which – completed by another author – was published some 70 or 80 years later. The original Kaogu tu dealt with inscribed pieces from a number of different collections, including items from the imperial collection (for an illustration from the 1601 edition of the Kaogu tu, see R. Kerr, Later Chinese Bronzes, London, 1990, p. 14, pl. 2). The Kaogu tu also set a precedent in terms of organisation and illustration for future publications of this type. Perhaps the best known of these early illustrated catalogues of ancient bronzes is the 重修博古圖錄 Chongxiu Xuanhe bogu tulu (Drawings and Lists of all the Antiquities stored in the Xuanhe Palace) , which was compiled by 王黼Wang Fu on the orders of the Emperor Huizong around AD 1123 and included some 840 bronzes – both inscribed and without inscription - from the palace collections (for an illustration of a goose-shaped pouring vessel – dated in its caption to the Zhou dyansty - from the 1588 edition of the Xuanhe bogu tulu, see R. Kerr, Later Chinese Bronzes, op. cit., p. 16, pl. 3, while a Song dynasty goose-shaped inlaid bronze pouring vessel in the Victoria and Albert Museum is illustrated in pl. 4 ). According to the Xuanhe bogu tulu all the pieces listed belonged to the Shang Zhou or Han periods, while in fact it is clear that a number of them date to later periods, such as the Tang dynasty. Mistakes of this sort caused considerable confusion, a fact that was recognised by contemporary scholars. In the preface to金石錄 Jin Shi Lu (Collection of Texts on Metal and Stone) a book of rubbings from some 2,000 inscriptions compiled between 1119 and 1125, Zhao Mingcheng (趙明誠 1081–1129) and his wife the poet Li Qingzhao (李清照 1084 – c. 1155) pointed out:‘When archaeological materials are used to examine these things, thirty to forty per cent of the data is in conflict. That is because historical writings are produced by latter-day writers and cannot fail to contain errors. But the inscriptions on stone and bronze are made at the time the events take place and can be trusted without reservation.’ (translated by Craig Clunas in Superfluous Things – Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 95-6) Craig Clunas has also pointed out that two famous Ming dynasty literati, Wang Qi (王錡 1433-99) and Wen Zhenheng (文震亨 1585–1645), like their Song dynasty predecessors, were wrong about many things, including the belief that bronzes inlaid with gold and silver dated to the Xia dynasty (夏朝c. 2070-1600 BC), when in fact they should have been dated to the Warring States period (475–221 BC) or later (see Clunas, Superfluous Things – Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China, op. cit., p. 99). It is likely, therefore, that when the current bird and vase group was made, it was mistakenly regarded as copying inlaid bronzes of the Xia dynasty. A smaller Ming dynasty inlaid bronze version of the bird and vase group with the addition of a handle to allow its use as a water dropper is in the collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei (illustrated in Through the Prism of the Past: Antiquarian Trends in Chinese Art of the 16th to 18th Century, Taipei, 2003, p. 49, no. I-24). It is interesting to note that an inlaid bronze vase of similar style to the one on the back of the bird in the current group is also in the National Palace Museum collection, illustrated in the same volume, p. 59, I-34. The Taipei vase has a lid and is dated to 10th-17th century, Song-Ming period. Two more inlaid bronze bird and vase groups from the National Palace Museum, Taipei, are illustrated in the same volume. One, dated to the Ming dynasty, which is very similar in form to the current group, but has a vase of gu or zun form, is illustrated on page 175, no. III-43 (fig. 1), the other, which has a handle attached to the vase on its back and is dated 17th century, late Ming dynasty, is illustrated on page 190, no. III-59 (fig. 2).In the Qing dynasty, this form was not only popular in bronze, but was also made in cloisonné enamel, porcelain and jade. An 18th century cloisonné enamel version in which the bird has a pointed beak and gu-shaped vase on its back in the collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei is illustrated in Through the Prism of the Past: Antiquarian Trends in Chinese Art of the 16th to 18th Century, op. cit., p. 191, no. III-60. A Qianlong porcelain version of the bird and vase group, with a glaze that imitates bronze and even includes greenish splashes to suggest verdigris, is in the collection of the Palace Museum, Beijing, and is illustrated in Views of Antiquity in the Qing Imperial Palace, op. cit., pp. 182-3, no. 58. A Qianlong jade version with a proportionally larger vase and with the addition of wheels is in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, illustrated in Through the Prism of the Past: Antiquarian Trends in Chinese Art of the 16th to 18th Century, op. cit. p. 192, no. III-61.Several versions of this group with the addition of two wheels were made in the late Ming and the Qing Qianlong reign. A bronze bird of essentially similar form to the current bird, but with a gu-type vase on its back, a pointed beak and the addition of wheels is in the collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei, illustrated in Through the Prism of the Past: Antiquarian Trends in Chinese Art of the 16th to 18th Century, op. cit., p. 174, No. III-42, where it is dated to the late Ming dynasty, 16th-17th century. A similar bird and vase group with wheels is illustrated in the 西清古鑑 Xi Qing gujian (catalogue of some 1530 bronzes in the collection of the Qing dynasty Qianlong Emperor, compiled between 1749 and 1755) see a page from the 1908 edition illustrated by R. Kerr in Later Chinese Bronzes, op. cit., p. 77, pl. 61. The caption in the Xi Qing gujian dates the piece to the Han dynasty. The current magnificent bird is therefore not only auspicious, but it is also an important part of the history of archaism in the arts of China.
明 銅錯金銀天雞尊來源: 倫敦古董商Bluett & Sons, 倫敦古董商Michael Goedhuis (傳)蘇玫瑰 佳士得國際資深學術顧問此鳥貌似鳳凰,實為天雞。「雞」,音「吉」,寓意吉祥;雞冠之「冠」,音「官」,可寓加官進爵,見《邃古來今 - 故宮仿古文物精品展特集》,澳門,2005年,頁182。雞背盛器亦可作多重解讀:「瓶」,音「平」,即平安無恙,天下太平;「壺」可引伸渤海神山「方壺」;「罐」屬佛教八寶「八吉祥」之一,象徵佛陀教法圓滿無漏。本銅錯金銀天雞尊,製於明末清初,仿古風格,造型典雅,屬同類製器典範。當時慕古之風正盛,高古藝術深受文人墨客推崇,更得商賈貴族青睞,同發思古幽情。古物珍玩稀罕難求,能親炙其風采者少之有少,其相關叢書遂銷量倍增,以饗社會各界之嗜古熱潮。上溯宋代,收錄古代青銅器及其銘文之圖冊早已大受歡迎。此外,古物出土屢見不鮮,農民田間時有所獲,古物買賣愈趨蓬勃。收藏古玩蔚然成風,最為人所稱道者,非宋徽宗(公元1101 ― 26年在位)莫屬,據說收藏逾萬,蔚為大觀。古物圖鑑不僅為尚古之人提供豐富資料,同時啟發後世銅匠創作不息,其中以宋末出版圖冊為最。傳世最古者為呂大臨編修之《考古圖》,1092年成書,七、八十年後由另一位作者附加補記。原版《考古圖》專研金石學,記載古物銘文,收錄諸多名藏,不乏宮廷瑰寶。(柯玫瑰著《Later Chinese Bronzes》,倫敦,1990年,頁14,圖版2,記一1601年版本《考古圖》內容)《考古圖》圖文並茂,分門别類,精摹細繪,毋庸置疑,乃同類著作先驅,為後世考古圖冊楷模。另一早期考古圖錄為《重修博古圖錄》,公元1123年由宋徽宗命王黼纂修,圖文紀錄宣和宮藏品,包括逾八百件青銅器,有無銘文者皆輯錄其中。(其1588年版本記一周朝鵝形盛器,見柯玫瑰,《Later Chinese Bronzes》,同上,頁16,版圖3;一宋代鵝形銅錯金銀壺,現藏於維多利亞及艾伯特博物館,著錄同上,圖版4。)《重修博古圖錄》所列之器皆斷代為商、周、漢,部分物品實質出自較晚時期,例如唐代。如此誤差固然令讀者產生混淆,而後世學者亦有所論述。趙明誠(1081 - 1129年)、李清照(1084 - 1155年)合撰之《金石錄》,蒐集逾二千銘文,約1119至1125年間成書,序文寫道:「若夫歲月、地理、官爵、世次,以金石刻考之,其抵牾十常三四。蓋史牒出於後人之手,不能無失,而刻詞當時所立,可信不疑。」柯律格指出,明代王錡(1433 - 99年)及文震亨(1581 - 1645年),皆重蹈宋人覆轍,出現斷代謬誤,包括誤指戰國(公元前475 - 221年)或後期錯金錯銀銅器為夏朝(公元前2070 - 1600年)所製,見《長物:早期現代中國的物質文化與社會地位》,劍橋,1991年,頁99。)由此推斷,本尊面世之時,有可能被誤傳為仿照夏朝銅器所製。臺北故宮博物院藏一天雞尊與本器相像,惟多附一耳,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,臺北,2003,頁49,編號I — 24。院藏另一尊與本器風格雷同,載於同一著錄,頁59,編號I—34。該尊連蓋,定為公元十至十七世紀宋至明代所製。院藏範例另有二者,其一造型與本器類近,盛器為觚或尊形,製於明代,見同一著錄,頁175,編號III — 43 (圖 1);其二有耳,十七世紀晚明製作,見頁190,編號III - 59 (圖 2)。清代期間,此形制不僅見於銅器,更紛呈於諸多材質,涵蓋掐絲琺瑯、陶瓷及玉石。臺北故宮博物院藏一掐絲琺瑯製例,作於十八世紀,雞喙尖細,盛器呈觚形,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,同上,頁191,編號III — 60。北京故宮博物院藏一瓷製天雞尊,乾隆年製,撥釉模仿銅鏽,見《邃古來今 - 故宮仿古文物精品展特集》,同上,頁182 — 3,編號58。臺北故宮博物院另藏一玉製例子,乾隆年製,尺寸比本尊略大,連車輪,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,同上,頁192,編號III — 61。晚明至清乾隆製之帶輪者可援數例,臺北故宮博物院藏一銅製天雞車尊,與本雞造型相約,惟背承觚杯,尖喙,帶輪,晚明十六至十七世紀製,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,同上,頁174,編號III - 42。《西清古鑑》輯錄乾隆皇帝珍藏銅器逾一千五百件,纂修於1749至1755年間,當中列一天雞車尊,斷代為漢,其1908年版本載圖見柯玫瑰《Later Chinese Bronzes》,同上,頁77,圖版61。本器不僅寓意吉祥,更印證中國仿古美學之璀璨一頁。

MING DYNASTY, 17TH CENTURY

細節
明 銅錯金銀天雞尊

來源: 倫敦古董商Bluett & Sons, 倫敦古董商Michael Goedhuis (傳)

蘇玫瑰
佳士得國際資深學術顧問

此鳥貌似鳳凰,實為天雞。「雞」,音「吉」,寓意吉祥;雞冠之「冠」,音「官」,可寓加官進爵,見《邃古來今 - 故宮仿古文物精品展特集》,澳門,2005年,頁182。雞背盛器亦可作多重解讀:「瓶」,音「平」,即平安無恙,天下太平;「壺」可引伸渤海神山「方壺」;「罐」屬佛教八寶「八吉祥」之一,象徵佛陀教法圓滿無漏。

本銅錯金銀天雞尊,製於明末清初,仿古風格,造型典雅,屬同類製器典範。當時慕古之風正盛,高古藝術深受文人墨客推崇,更得商賈貴族青睞,同發思古幽情。古物珍玩稀罕難求,能親炙其風采者少之有少,其相關叢書遂銷量倍增,以饗社會各界之嗜古熱潮。上溯宋代,收錄古代青銅器及其銘文之圖冊早已大受歡迎。此外,古物出土屢見不鮮,農民田間時有所獲,古物買賣愈趨蓬勃。收藏古玩蔚然成風,最為人所稱道者,非宋徽宗(公元1101 ― 26年在位)莫屬,據說收藏逾萬,蔚為大觀。古物圖鑑不僅為尚古之人提供豐富資料,同時啟發後世銅匠創作不息,其中以宋末出版圖冊為最。傳世最古者為呂大臨編修之《考古圖》,1092年成書,七、八十年後由另一位作者附加補記。原版《考古圖》專研金石學,記載古物銘文,收錄諸多名藏,不乏宮廷瑰寶。(柯玫瑰著《Later Chinese Bronzes》,倫敦,1990年,頁14,圖版2,記一1601年版本《考古圖》內容)《考古圖》圖文並茂,分門别類,精摹細繪,毋庸置疑,乃同類著作先驅,為後世考古圖冊楷模。

另一早期考古圖錄為《重修博古圖錄》,公元1123年由宋徽宗命王黼纂修,圖文紀錄宣和宮藏品,包括逾八百件青銅器,有無銘文者皆輯錄其中。(其1588年版本記一周朝鵝形盛器,見柯玫瑰,《Later Chinese Bronzes》,同上,頁16,版圖3;一宋代鵝形銅錯金銀壺,現藏於維多利亞及艾伯特博物館,著錄同上,圖版4。)《重修博古圖錄》所列之器皆斷代為商、周、漢,部分物品實質出自較晚時期,例如唐代。如此誤差固然令讀者產生混淆,而後世學者亦有所論述。趙明誠(1081 - 1129年)、李清照(1084 - 1155年)合撰之《金石錄》,蒐集逾二千銘文,約1119至1125年間成書,序文寫道:

「若夫歲月、地理、官爵、世次,以金石刻考之,其抵牾十常三四。蓋史牒出於後人之手,不能無失,而刻詞當時所立,可信不疑。」

柯律格指出,明代王錡(1433 - 99年)及文震亨(1581 - 1645年),皆重蹈宋人覆轍,出現斷代謬誤,包括誤指戰國(公元前475 - 221年)或後期錯金錯銀銅器為夏朝(公元前2070 - 1600年)所製,見《長物:早期現代中國的物質文化與社會地位》,劍橋,1991年,頁99。)由此推斷,本尊面世之時,有可能被誤傳為仿照夏朝銅器所製。

臺北故宮博物院藏一天雞尊與本器相像,惟多附一耳,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,臺北,2003,頁49,編號I — 24。院藏另一尊與本器風格雷同,載於同一著錄,頁59,編號I—34。該尊連蓋,定為公元十至十七世紀宋至明代所製。院藏範例另有二者,其一造型與本器類近,盛器為觚或尊形,製於明代,見同一著錄,頁175,編號III — 43 (圖 1);其二有耳,十七世紀晚明製作,見頁190,編號III - 59 (圖 2)。

清代期間,此形制不僅見於銅器,更紛呈於
諸多材質,涵蓋掐絲琺瑯、陶瓷及玉石。臺北故宮博物院藏一掐絲琺瑯製例,作於十八世紀,雞喙尖細,盛器呈觚形,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,同上,頁191,編號III — 60。北京故宮博物院藏一瓷製天雞尊,乾隆年製,撥釉模仿銅鏽,見《邃古來今 - 故宮仿古文物精品展特集》,同上,頁182 — 3,編號58。臺北故宮博物院另藏一玉製例子,乾隆年製,尺寸比本尊略大,連車輪,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,同上,頁192,編號III — 61。

晚明至清乾隆製之帶輪者可援數例,臺北故宮博物院藏一銅製天雞車尊,與本雞造型相約,惟背承觚杯,尖喙,帶輪,晚明十六至十七世紀製,見《古色 - 十六至十八世紀藝術的仿古風》,同上,頁174,編號III - 42。《西清古鑑》輯錄乾隆皇帝珍藏銅器逾一千五百件,纂修於1749至1755年間,當中列一天雞車尊,斷代為漢,其1908年版本載圖見柯玫瑰《Later Chinese Bronzes》,同上,頁77,圖版61。

本器不僅寓意吉祥,更印證中國仿古美學之璀璨一頁。

14 ½ in. (37 cm.) high
來源
By repute, with Bluett & Sons, London, then Michael Goedhuis, London.
注意事項
These lots have been imported from outside the EU for sale using a Temporary Import regime. Import VAT is payable (at 5%) on the Hammer price. VAT is also payable (at 20%) on the buyer’s Premium on a VAT inclusive basis. When a buyer of such a lot has registered an EU address but wishes to export the lot or complete the import into another EU country, he must advise Christie's immediately after the auction.

更多來自 中國瓷器及工藝精品

查看全部
查看全部