CIRCA 1731, BLUE CROSSED SWORDS MARK TO BACK OF BASE

This important early model is one of only three models of this type which are known to have survived.¹ Two further models, which were published by Carl Albiker in 1935 when they were in the Dresden Schloss, have been missing since World War II.² The rarity of this model is such that other than the appearance of the two Dresden Schloss examples in Albiker’s publications, this model has never been published, and currently very little is known about it.

A specification of the porcelain which was ordered by Augustus the Strong before and after his final visit to Meissen included two peacocks of this type which Augustus commissioned to form part of a diplomatic gift to the King of Sweden. The peacocks were listed among pieces with ‘old Japanese decoration’ (Stücken mit alt Japan: Mahlerey) and they were described as 2 Pfauen groß, Detto kleine (two large peacocks and two small peacocks).³ The exact date of Augustus’s visit and of the specification are unclear, but as Augustus was in Dresden for the final time between October 1732 and 16th January 1733 (when he left for Warsaw, where he died later that year), this provides a terminus ante quem for the order of the gifts. At this time Kändler had yet to create his life-size model of a peacock for the porcelain menagerie at the Japanese Palace in Dresden, so Rainer Rückert concluded that the Pfauen groß model in the specification must relate to the present sitting peacock model, and the two smaller peacocks must have referred to the small standing peacock models (which although still very rare, are more numerous than the present model).⁴ Deliveries were made to King Fredrik I of Sweden and his Queen Ulrike Eleonora before and after Augustus’s death between 1732 and 1734.⁵

The manufactory at Meissen may have based this peacock model upon an Asian prototype from Augustus the Strong’s vast collection of Asian porcelain in the Japanese Palace. Augustus first sent porcelain and stoneware from the royal collection to the manufactory for use as prototypes in 1709,⁶ and Chinese soapstone figures from the palace were also copied at Meissen.⁷ A Japanese glazed stoneware Ko-Kiyomizu-ware incense-caddy of a related peacock form is in the Tokyo Museum,⁸ and it is possible that an object of this type may have been used as a prototype for the present model, although if this is the case, it underwent significant revisions. The present lot is also a container, functioning as an ewer (liquid poured into the pocket-shaped aperture at the back of the tail can be poured out through the beak).

The Kakiemon palette and ‘alt Japan Mahlerey’ (old Japanese decoration) on the present peacock (and on the other surviving pair of peacocks cited in note 1 and the missing Dresden Schloss examples) match the intention of producing something which looked Japanese. All the same, even if Meissen did use a Japanese incense-caddy as inspiration for the model, the result was a pseudo-Japanese object which was completely new and unique to Meissen. In 18th century European minds the Far East was a mystical place with fantastical palaces, ceremonies, traditions and ways of life. The present lot’s function as a ewer was probably intended to conjure up such a fantastical ceremony, and its bird-shaped ewer form may also have been partially inspired by Asian water-droppers which were used to bring blocks of ink to life.⁹

In 1729 the French merchant Rudolphe Lemaire promised Augustus the Strong that he would promote Meissen porcelain abroad, using his influence to make Meissen more desirable and more valuable than expensive porcelain imports from Asia. He tricked the king into giving him an exclusive privilege to sell Meissen porcelain in France and Holland, and between 1729 and 1731 Meissen produced very close copies of over 200 Asian originals at Lemaire’s instigation. Lemaire’s true intention was to sell these Meissen pieces in France as Asian porcelain, and with the collaboration of Count von Hoym at Meissen, the copies were given overglaze crossed swords marks (which could be removed), underglaze caduceus marks (pseudo-Asian marks) or sometimes they had no marks.¹⁰ The underglaze blue crossed swords mark on the present lot suggests that it was not part of this group. After the scandal broke, Lemaire was arrested, von Hoym ultimately committed suicide and a large collection of pieces they had yet to sell was confiscated and sent to the Japanese Palace in Dresden where they entered the royal collection. In March 1731 it was decreed that all pieces would henceforth bear underglaze crossed swords marks (with some exceptions),¹¹ so the present peacock probably dates to about this time.

As these models of seated peacocks do not appear in the 1729 or 1731 valuations of the manufactory’s porcelain stock in the Dresden and Leipzig warehouses,¹² Rainer Rückert concluded that the present model was initially developed in about 1732 in response to Augustus’s order for the King of Sweden, but as the other surviving pair of peacocks (cited in note 1) have caduceus marks, the model was almost certainly developed slightly earlier. The caduceus marks and French mounts of that pair indicate that they were produced for Lemaire in the 1729-31 period and successfully sold by him in France (as Asian porcelain) before his scam was discovered. The pair were most probably created in the earlier part of that period, given that Lemaire had had time to sell them in France, and they were subsequently mounted. After the Lemaire scandal, the manufactory absorbed the model into its repertoire, as evidenced by Augustus’s order of two seated peacocks for the King of Sweden. Between July 1737 and January 1738 Heinrich Graf von Brühl¹³ received ‘2 St. Pfaue à 5 Thaler’ (two standing peacock models each valued at 5 Thalers) and ‘1 Pfau mit breiten Schwanze’ (1 peacock with a broad tail, presumably similar to the present seated peacock model), which was valued at 4 Thalers.¹⁴ It is not clear how many of these models were made as bird models were often only recorded in contemporary documentation under collective headings, but the rarity of these seated peacock models today and their absence from most documents suggests that in all probability very few were made.

Before the arrival of the stone sculptor Johann Gottlieb Kirchner at Meissen in April 1727, the manufactory did not employ a full-time sculptor or Modellmeister; instead, it had relied on works supplied by sculptors from Dresden, or moulds had been taken from goldsmiths’ models. The manufactory’s Formers, who carried out a variety of forming tasks also worked flexibly by producing more sculptural works. The weekly reports of their output written by the factory administrator Johann Melchior Steinbrück (or the inspector Reinhardt) between June 1722 and December 1728 have survived.¹⁵ These reports show that sculptural pieces such as butter-dishes in the form of tortoises (their shells forming covers) were made as early as 1723, and another 17 of them, made by Georg Fritzsche and Johann Gottlieb Schmahl, left the factory in 1727,¹⁶ but the present peacock model does not appear in these listings. The only mention of birds in these reports are three consignments of 13 pieces for Schmahl in 1728, but as noted by Melitta Kunze-Köllensperger, their low prices suggest that these birds were small models,¹⁷ and the present model is quite large.

It is not certain who created this model of peacock, although in all probability it was Georg Fritzsche, who by the 1720s was ‘an experienced and talented former’ who ‘shaped all kinds of animals and various figures that had never appeared at the factory before freehand, without any drawing or model as an aid’.¹⁸ Other early bird and animal models including large falcons, recumbent stags and smaller models of peacocks are also thought to have been created by Fritzsche. The large falcons modelled perched on curious uneven elongated bases are based upon Asian originals and they are thought to date to about 1730.¹⁹ An important group of ormolu-mounted recumbent stags and small standing peacocks in the Residenz, Munich, all of which bear caduceus marks, are also thought to have been modelled by Fritzsche. After the fire of 1729, the French architect François Cuvilliés was appointed to refurbish the Residenz creating a series of state rooms (known as the Reiche Zimmer) in the French taste which were principally decorated with elaborately ormolu-mounted East Asian porcelain. The caduceus marks on the recumbent stag models and on the small standing peacock models confirm that like the pair of seated peacocks (cited in note 1) they were made at Meissen for Lemaire in the 1729-1731 period, and their Parisian ormolu mounts suggest that they had been successfully sold by Lemaire in France before his scheme was discovered and then mounted in Paris at some point before 1737, the date the refurbishment of the Reiche Zimmer at the Residenz was completed. The standing peacocks and the recumbent stags also have Asian prototypes, and these prototypes were presumably part of the group of Asian pieces sent to Meissen from the royal collection in the Japanese Palace. The Asian-inspired decoration and modelling of the stags in particular is very similar to the feel of the present lot. The Residenz standing peacocks and stags would almost certainly have been considered Asian in the 18th century, and in fact the stags were still thought to be Japanese or Chinese until 1972 when their ormolu mounts were removed, revealing their Meissen caduceus marks.²⁰ Presumably the other surviving pair of seated peacocks (cited in note 1) were similarly thought to be exotic Asian imports when they were mounted in Paris in the 18th century.

1. An ormolu-mounted pair of similar form was with the London dealer Errol Manners in 2015 and is now in a private collection. This pair has caduceus marks and 18th century French mounts.
2. Albiker does not note whether the Dresden Schloss peacocks had marks or not. The decoration of the tail feathers of these missing birds is very different from the present lot and the pair cited in note 1. Cf. Carl Albiker, Die Meissener Porzellantiere im 18. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1935, no. 242, where he illustrates both birds and gives a date of 1720-1730. The bird on the right-hand side of the 1935 illustration is published again (using half of the same illustration) by Albiker in Die Meissner Porzellantiere im 18. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1959, no. 123, where the caption still notes it as being in the Dresden Schloss.
3. Rainer Rückert, ‘Zur staffierung der gesichter von Meissener Porzellanfiguren’, Part III, in Keramos, no. 151, January 1996, p. 86. We are very grateful to Melitta Kunze-Köllensperger for bringing this reference to our attention. Rückert cites the archival source as Dresden Hauptstaatsarchiv; Loc. 1341, Varia … ohne Tag und Jahr, Teil II, fol. 9-10.
4. For the small standing peacocks in the Residenz, Munich, see Julia Weber, Meißener Porzellane mit Dekoren nach ostasiatischen Vorbildern, Stiftung Ernst Schneider in Schloss Lustheim, Munich, 2013, Vol. I, pp. 54-55.
5. The peacocks (both the standing and seated models) do not appear in the lists of what was sent to Sweden published by Lars Ljungström, ‘Sweden, Hesse-Cassel, and Meissen’ in Maureen Cassidy-Geiger Ed., Fragile Diplomacy, Meissen Porcelain for European Courts ca. 1710-63, Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design and Culture November 2007 – February 2008 Exhibition Catalogue, 2007, pp. 257-273, and in particular p. 332 for the transcripts of what was sent. The gift is recorded in three documents which may not have been comprehensive. The archival sources for these documents cited by Ljungström differ from Rückert’s source and are: (Documents 1 and 2) Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen, Archives, Acta 1733, I Aa 20 66 (1 February 1732) and II Aa 2 352 (August 1732), and (Document 3) HStA, Geh. Kab., Loc. 520⁄1, Porcelain Waaren Lagers zu Dreßden Rechnung vom 1. Jan. bis 31. December. 1734. Further research is necessary to establish whether the peacocks were sent to Sweden or not.
6. Cf. Ulrich Pietsch, Meissener Porzellan und seine Ostasiatischen Vorbilder, Leipzig, 1996, p. 17, and Maureen Cassidy-Geiger, ‘The Japanese Palace Collections and Their Impact at Meissen’, in The International Ceramics Fair and Seminar Handbook, June 1995, p. 10 and note 2.
7. Maureen Cassidy-Geiger, ‘Rediscovering the Specksteinkabinett of Augustus the Strong and its Role at Meissen: An Interim Report’, in Keramos No. 145, July 1994, pp. 3-10.
8. Inventory number G-914. This piece is published by Seizo Hayashiya and Gakuji Hasebe et al., Oriental Ceramics, Vol. 1, Tokyo Museum, Tokyo, 1982, fig. 345, where it is described as Edo period, 17th century. The wings, neck and head of the Japanese incense-caddy form a cover, the lower half of the body and tail forms the caddy.
9. Chinese water-droppers are small vessels used to drip a few drops of water onto a solid ink cake, causing the ink to turn into a fluid and enabling it to be usable in calligraphy. These were made in a variety of shapes including birds and animals as well as more regular pot shapes or ewers.
10. For the Lemaire scandal, see Claus Bolz, ‘Hoym, Lemaire und Meissen’ in Keramos, No. 88, April 1980, pp. 3-101, and also Maureen Cassidy-Geiger, ‘Returning to “Hoym, Lemaire und Meissen”, in Keramos, No. 146, October 1994, pp. 3-8.
11. Such as snuff-boxes or cutlery-handles where there was little room for a mark without the mark disrupting the design of the piece.
12. Cf. Claus Bolz, ‘Die wöchentlichen Berichte über die Tätigkeit der Meissner Dreher und Former vom 6. Juni 1722 bis 31. Dezember 1728’, in Keramos, No. 178, 2002, pp. 134-143.
13. 1700-1763, the Prime Minister of Saxony and Director of the Meissen manufactory.
14. Cf. Rainer Rückert, ibid., 1996, p. 87.
15. Claus Bolz, ibid., 2002, p. 32.
16. See Ulrich Pietsch and Claudia Banz (eds.), Triumph of the Blue Swords, Porzellansammlung, Zwinger, Dresden, 2010 Exhibition Catalogue, 2010, p. 181, Cat. No. 39. For an example in the Palazzo Pitti, Florence, see Tim Clarke and Andreina d’Agliano, Le Porcellane tedesche di Palazzo Pitti, Ferrara, 1999, pp. 38-39, no. 2, where other examples are noted.
17. Cf. Triumph of the Blue Swords, Exhibition Catalogue, 2010, p. 300, Cat. No. 308.
18. Melitta Kunze-Köllensperger, ‘Meissen. Dresden. Augsburg, Meissen Porcelain Sculpture before Kirchner and Kaendler’ in Triumph of the Blue Swords, Exhibition Catalogue, 2010, p. 58, citing Claus Bolz, ‘Eisbären und Polarfüchse. 6 Kästen sächsiches Porzellan’, in Keramos, No. 148, 1995, p. 31.
19. This model was previously erroneously described as a parrot, due to the bright colouring. See Melitta Kunze-Köllensperger, ibid., 2010, p. 58, and also p. 300, Cat. No. 308, where Kunze-Köllensperger discusses this model. Two falcons of this type from the Saxon Royal collections were sold in the Dresden Johanneum Sale by Lepke, Berlin on 7th October 1919, lots 110 and 111. Also see the pair of falcons (described as parrots) with blue crossed swords marks illustrated by Yvonne Hackenbroch, Meissen and other Continental Porcelain Faience and enamel in the Irwin Untermyer Collection, London, 1956, p. 11 and pl. 11, and the example sold by Christie’s London on 18th December 2006, lot 50, which was subsequently offered at Bonhams, London, in the Said Marouf Collection Sale, Part II, 2nd May 2013, lot 5.
20. See Julia Weber, ibid., 2013, Vol. I, pp. 54-55. One of the stags is illustrated at larger size by John Ayers, Oliver Impey and J.V.G. Mallet, Porcelain for Palaces, The Fashion for Japan in Europe 1650-1750, British Museum July – November 1990 Exhibition Catalogue, p. 197, no. 190, where a 1965 publication (which described the pair as Japanese) and a 1966 publication (which described them as Chinese) are cited. The Meissen stags, which were mounted as candelabra, and which would almost certainly have been thought to be Chinese at the time, were recorded in the Bedchamber which was decorated with Kangxi period (1662-1722) porcelain, cf. Katharina Hantschmann, ‘Always up to Date: Porcelain at the Munich Court’, in Karine Tsoumis and Vanessa Sigalas (eds.), A Passion for Porcelain, Essays in Honour of Meredith Chilton, Stuttgart, 2020, p. 28.