AN IMPORTANT AND EXTREMELY RARE RU ‘SKY-BLUE’ TEA BOWL
AN IMPORTANT AND EXTREMELY RARE RU ‘SKY-BLUE’ TEA BOWL
AN IMPORTANT AND EXTREMELY RARE RU ‘SKY-BLUE’ TEA BOWL
1 更多
AN IMPORTANT AND EXTREMELY RARE RU ‘SKY-BLUE’ TEA BOWL
4 更多
寥若晨星:北宋汝窯天青釉茶盞蘇玫瑰(亞洲藝術部資深國際學術顧問)本季推出的汝窯茶盞風華絕代,將汝窯御瓷特有的淡雅溫潤詮釋得淋漓盡致,觀者無不一見傾心、愛不釋手。此器的形制與釉色搭配得宜,其釉色純淨瑩澈、腴潤如絲,歷經數百年滄桑而風采依然,充份體現了這類珍罕名瓷的蘊藉之美。汝瓷美不勝收,然寥若晨星,故從北宋末年以來,歷代藏家一直汲汲以求。中國文化源遠流長,而歷代陶瓷之中,汝瓷素來被皇室和文人藏家奉為圭臬。明清二代有「五大名窯」之說,所指的便是汝窯及官、哥、定、鈞四窯。但五大窯系之中,仍以汝窯為魁。正因汝窯御瓷地位尊崇,所以自十一世紀末至十二世紀初器成以來,迄今仍備受藏家青睞。不獨南宋宮廷對汝瓷趨之若鶩,明清君主亦珍若拱璧,並敕令能工巧匠複製這抹奇罕無比的天青釉。汝瓷之美如空谷幽蘭,加上國際收藏界迄今已確認的汝窯整器不足百件,且絕大部份屬博物館珍藏,所以益發難求。北京故宮2015年汝瓷特展圖錄中,作者羅列了世界各地博物館和私人收藏的九十件傳世汝瓷,其中私人珍藏僅佔八例,詳見《汝瓷雅集:故宮博物院珍藏及出土汝窯瓷器薈萃》頁283-305「附錄」(北京:2015)。附錄臚列汝瓷共九十件,但盌僅有二例,這對本拍品來說可謂意義重大。另一個有趣的現象是,上述二盌之中,一者的御題詩明確指出,即便是在十八世紀,盌的數量與盤相比宛若「晨星見一二」。此詩出自大維德爵士珍藏汝窯名盞內底,圖見蘇玫瑰著作《Imperial Taste – Chinese Ceramics from the Percival David Foundation》頁34-5編號11(三藩市:1989)。此乃乾隆皇(1736至1795年在位)作於1786年的御題詩,當中提到「……至今盤多椀艱致。內府藏盤數近百,椀則晨星見一二。」根據銘文,大維德盌顯然來自乾隆舊藏,但很可能早在乾隆之前已流入宮廷。大維德中國藝術館有一幅大維德爵士夫人捐贈的大型手卷《古玩圖》,此乃雍正六年(公元1728年)佚名宮廷畫家所作。畫中展示了宮廷收藏的各類奇珍異寶,如陶瓷、青銅、玉器等。陶瓷器物中有一盌,與大維德盌如出一轍,甚至可以說兩者應是同一件作品。圖中的盌沿亦鑲銅,且開片相若,圖見前述蘇玫瑰著作《Imperial Taste – Chinese Ceramics from the Percival David Foundation》頁35圖17。雍正帝眼力卓犖,為歷代清帝之冠,而1728年的手卷,以及倫敦維多利亞與艾伯特博物館藏同一系列但繪於1729年的另一幅畫作(圖見E.S. Rawski及J. Rawson合編的《盛世華章》圖錄頁252-55展品168及169。倫敦:2005),均有雍正(1723至1735年在位)朝中宮廷汝瓷的身影,足證他對汝瓷是何等看重。汝瓷具體的燒造年份尚未明確,但中國學者陳萬里提出應是公元1086至1106年左右,前後僅廿載,在此期間汝窯製品為北宋宮廷用瓷。陳氏斷代的部份依據,來自兩份宋代文獻,其一是徐兢(1091至1153年)的《宣和奉使高麗圖經》,其二是葉寘(活躍於十三世紀初)的《坦齋筆衡》。別的學者認為燒造年代或許略長,甚或長達四十年,但普遍認為汝窯御瓷的燒造年代不長,故成品數量難免偏低。生產規模有限,除了與燒造年代短有關,還可歸咎於燒造汝瓷所用的標準華北饅頭窯,因其窯膛甚小。此外,汝瓷俱用匣缽(用於隔擋窯內碎屑的泥匣)獨立裝燒,於是單品在窯膛內佔用空間更大。從窯址出土的素燒品看來,汝窯御瓷至少有一部分是用無釉焙燒而成,其窯溫很可能較低,旨在保持坯體乾燥,掛釉後再以較高的溫度二次窯燒。初次窯燒雖能祛濕,進而提高成品釉的質量,但每次窯燒難免會有殘損,成品數量亦相應減少。燒造汝窯御瓷的巔峰時期,應是北宋徽宗年間(公元1100至1126年在位)。徽宗固非治世之材,但其鑑藏、藝術和審美造詣卻早有定論,他統治期間以素雅為尚,這一審美觀對後世影響至深。他命人為宮中古玩編纂圖錄,並為宮廷廟宇定制大批藝術精品,其好古慕雅之名遂不脛而走,造就了中國史上有名的文化盛世。汝瓷之所以意義重大,更是因為相對於貢瓷而言,它們或許是首批由朝廷定製的陶瓷器物。陸遊(1125至1210年)曾於《老學庵筆記》中提到:「故都時,定器不入禁中,惟用汝器,以定器有芒也。」此說亦散見於其他文獻。皇室捨白色定瓷而取天青汝瓷,這一變遷實乃意料中事,因宋室早已對另一類天青瓷青睞有加。這裏所說的就是浙江越瓷,一種單憑自身的審美價值脫穎而出的中國陶瓷器物之一。越瓷為唐宋貢瓷,根據記載,北宋立國頭三十年(即960至990年期間)內,進貢越瓷已高達十七萬件左右。故及至北宋下半葉,青瓷之名早已深入人心。徐兢著於1124年的《宣和奉使高麗圖經》有一段記載頗堪玩味,他說高麗的宮廷用瓷仍以仿定為尚,其中一款香爐「最精絕,其餘則越州古祕色、汝州新窯器,大概相類。」南宋周輝著於公元1192年的《清波雜志》曾論及汝窯製瓷:「汝窯宮中禁燒,內有瑪瑙末為油,惟供御揀退方許出賣,近尤艱得。」由此看來,這些器物似乎特為宮廷製作,供御落選者方可售賣。周氏於1192年撰成此書,當時汝瓷已日益稀少。至於釉料中摻有瑪瑙,此話亦頗耐人尋味。大維德盤(PDF A58)器底銘文出自《乾隆御製詩集》的,其言堪可作為「瑪瑙」之說的佐證:「趙宋青窑建汝州,傳聞瑪瑙末為油。而今景德無斯法,亦自出藍寳色浮。乾隆己亥夏御題」言下之意,釉料的製備可謂不惜工本,但以御瓷來說,這亦無可厚非。瑪瑙的主要成份為二氧化硅,且以鐵呈色,而這兩種成份均見於汝釉,所以釉中有瑪瑙之說頗為可信。中國研究人員已找到大量文獻,以資證明宋代(以政和一朝為主,即公元1111至1118年)確曾在汝州開採上等瑪瑙。在相關記錄中,他們發現若干報呈皇上有大量優質瑪瑙的敘述,根據《宋史‧食貨志》,此類瑪瑙產自汝州青嶺鎮,即現今寶豐縣大營鎮,距清涼寺窯址僅五華哩。種種跡象顯示,當地燒造的御瓷很可能確曾以名貴的瑪瑙入釉。如今,汝窯御瓷的窯址已確認為清涼寺。過去三十年來,中國發表的考古和文獻研究成果既深且廣。但早於1930年代已開始研究汝瓷史料者,首推英國藏家和學者大維德爵士(1892至1964年)。作為藏家,大維德爵士汲汲於庋藏汝瓷,蒐集了一批中國境外最為可觀的汝瓷珍藏。作為學者,他孜孜於探索汝瓷,重點發掘中國文學史料中的論述。他於1936年撰文發表研究成果,標題為〈A Commentary on Ju Ware〉,全文載於《東方陶瓷學會會刊》1936-7年刊號14頁18-69,文中還刊印了中文原著的相關章節。時隔八十載,他當年輯錄的文獻匯要,對後學仍裨益良多。可惜的是,他於1964年去世時,汝窯的窯址依然成謎。但上海博物館的研究人員於1986年透露,已在河南寶豐縣清涼寺村中發現汝窯遺址;及至1987年,他們發表了中文研究報告,詳見江慶正、范冬青和周麗麗合撰的《汝窯的發現》(上海:1987),其擴編英文版《汝窯的發現》(The Discovery of Ru Kiln - A Famous Song-ware Kiln of China) 於1991年出版,譯者為朱仁明和許傑(香港:1991)。其後,進一步的報告在中國期刊陸續發表。1990年,河南省文物研究所的《文物》期刊發表了一份長篇報告,詳見《文物》1989年11期頁1-14所載〈寶豐清涼寺汝窯址的調查與試掘〉。此後數年內,中日兩地相繼推出了大量的研究、著作和學術展覽。除清涼寺之外,當地還發現了別的窯址,其中一處的出土陶瓷似與汝窯御瓷密切相關。該窯位於汝州張公巷,鄰近汝州東南面。2004年,當地出土探方兩個,合計約124平方米。此處共發現房基四座、水井四眼、灶六個、灰坑七十九個和過濾池(用於淘析原料)一個,以及大量陶瓷和窯具。窯址的地層堆積雖然複雜,但考古學家提出,其燒造年代應是北宋末年至元初。至於張公巷文物與汝窯之關聯,學者素來眾說紛紜,更有人認為張公巷出土的器物,可能是汝窯御瓷與杭州其後燒造的南宋御瓷之間的過渡之作。1989年發表的清涼寺考古發掘報告,證實了此前一些報告的觀點,即出土汝窯御瓷的形制與紋飾,將遠遠超出傳世品的樣式。根據研究八、九十年代出土汝瓷的學者匯報,該處燒造的陶瓷種類繁多,包括白器、黑器及各式綠釉、三彩、仿鈞釉和褐釉器物。但諸多清涼寺文物之中,最重要的當屬汝窯「官瓷」或「御瓷」。及至2000年,河南考古學家組織了進一步的挖掘,並發現了500平方米的遺址,有多個窯爐、作坊和釉料坑,以及大量的製瓷材料,出土陶瓷數量可觀。出土文物之中,汝窯御瓷佔了98%。該窯址還有匣缽裝燒(如上文所述)的痕跡,此外還有火照及插餅,可見燒造御製汝瓷的過程極為嚴謹。這些火照用於測試窯溫和爐內氣氛,確保就某個釉料批次而言,每個環節皆精準到位。御製汝釉顏色多變,既有淺淡的鴨蛋青,也有像本拍品般泛藍的天青,其飄逸素雅之美,觀之忘俗。大部份汝瓷的釉面開細碎紋片,但遠不及南宋官哥二窯明顯,而全無開片者甚罕。紋片故意為之者,似以汝窯開風氣之先,其配方和窯燒均須嚴加控制,方能形成理想的細膩片紋。本盞開片格外清淺,有幸經手者方能一睹其妙。汝瓷泰半滿釉裹足支燒,故釉面有芝麻狀的橢圓痕跡。大多數情況下,支釘以器底為支撐面。但也有一些特例,是將細小的支釘支在淺窄的器足下沿。本拍品即為一例,其足沿仍有三個依稀可辨的小支釘痕。形狀大小相同的已知茶盞僅有一例,此器乃清涼寺出土文物,有趣的是,它也採用了這種高難度的三支釘燒造方式,圖見大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館《北宋汝窯青磁考古發掘成果》頁152-3及267編號67(大阪:2009)(圖一)。除此之外,以同一種方式支燒的已知例子,僅見於一批樣式不一的汝窯盞托,如大維德爵士珍藏葵瓣式盞托,圖見蘇玫瑰前述著作《Imperial Taste – Chinese Ceramics from the Percival David Foundation》頁37編號13。大維德盞托與清涼寺出土的一例汝窯近似例,足底均有五個細小的支釘痕,圖見大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館前述著作《北宋汝窯青磁考古發掘成果》頁156-7及267編號69(圖二)。這種將圈足下沿支於小支釘上燒造的方式,難度極大。陶工若用此法,惟有希望盞或盞托的圈足在窯燒之際,能與支釘以等量、等速收縮。否則,器物便會從支釘上傾倒而報廢。這種燒造方式極為罕見,且動輒出錯,故只能用於特殊定製之物。而定製方若非宮廷,瓷工亦斷不肯冒此奇險。另一個耐人尋味的問題是:用此法燒造的盞與盞托會不會是配對之作?本拍品原來配有一個類似大維德珍藏的盞托嗎?我們若比對兩者大小,便會發現這一搭配確有可能且極為美觀。北宋滅亡之後,汝窯的名瓷魅力不減。徽宗面臨金軍大舉進犯,終於在公元1126年1月遜位。徽宗之子趙桓即位為欽宗,但於1127年1月降金,並於3月退位。1127年5月,徽欽二宗被金兵擄至東北金都。徽宗第九子趙構於6月在宋代南都河南應天府(今商丘)稱帝,是為宋高宗(公元1127至1162年在位)。由於金國節節進逼,宋高宗退守浙江東南的臨安(今杭州),並於1129年在當地設置「行宮」。是次南遷雖美其名曰「渡江」,但後世學者皆視之為北宋與南宋的分水嶺。徽宗的珍奇古玩幾為入侵金兵破壞或掠奪殆盡,而宋室南下時攜帶的家當亦乏善可陳。此時,汝瓷已非朝廷唾手可得之物,然其吸引力絲毫未減。文獻中有一段逸事,足證汝瓷在南宋依然獨領風騷。根據周密(公元1232至1298年)著於十三世紀的《武林舊事》卷九記載,高宗曾親臨功臣張俊(1086至1154年)府第,張氏曾為宋室迎戰金兵,據說因朝廷封賞賜地,卒成高宗治下華南首富。紹興二十一年十月(公元1151年11月),張俊在府中為皇上設筵,與會者約155人,席間賓客競相獻上各式奇珍,除了金銀珠寶、名貴字畫、綾羅綢緞、雀翎等物,尚有十六件汝瓷,計有「酒瓶一對、洗一、香爐一、香盒一、香球一、盞四、盂子二、出香一對、大奩一、小奩一」。無疑,南宋早期燒造的官瓷,仍順理成章地以仿燒汝瓷為主,這不僅體現於形制和釉料,連燒造技術亦一脈相承。時至明代,北宋汝瓷依然備受矚目,而宣德年間的景德鎮御窯瓷工,更嘗試用江西白瓷胎仿燒宋代汝釉。珠山宣德地層業已出土相關的實證,詳見《景德鎮珠山出土永樂宣德官窯瓷器展覽》頁276-7編號97(香港:1989)。清代君王亦對汝瓷青眼有加,汝瓷的乾隆御題堪可為此現身說法,台北國立故宮相關的珍藏請見《得佳趣:乾隆皇帝的陶瓷品味》頁68-91編號10-22(台北:2012)(圖三a、b),北京故宮珍藏可參見《故宮博物院藏文物珍品大系 32:兩宋瓷器(上)》頁2-3編號1及頁8-9編號7(香港:1996)。有充份證據顯示,雍正帝對宋代汝瓷情有獨鍾。除了上述1728及1729年兩幅描寫宮廷的院畫, 亦可證諸知名御窯督陶官唐英(1682至1756年)的著述。雍正王朝最後一年(公元1735年),唐英著成《陶成紀事碑記》。碑文列舉御瓷五十七種,當中提到仿宋汝窯器為「仿銅骨無紋汝釉,仿宋器貓食盤、人面洗色澤。」就此可參見林業強的英譯, 載於其編撰的《五色瓊霞:竹月堂藏元明清一道釉瓷器》展覽圖錄頁44(香港:2005)。台北國立故宮《大觀:北宋汝窯特展》圖錄的作者指出,1735年碑文提到的貓食盤,其實是底承四矮足的橢圓形水仙盆,圖見圖錄頁32-61編號7-9(台北:2006)(圖四)。台北故宮珍藏三例皆有乾隆題詠,詳見《得佳趣:乾隆皇帝的陶瓷品味》頁82-7編號17-19(台北:2012)。若干清代宮廷繪畫中,近似的汝窯器皆用作花盆。至於碑文所指的水仙盌,清宮可能曾將珍藏的宋代汝瓷運至景德鎮,作為仿燒的參照物。就此而言,《陶成紀事碑記》另有一筆記錄,其說法更直截了當:「仿銅骨魚子紋汝釉,仿內發宋器色澤。」(英譯請見林業強上述論文)。顯然,雍正皇帝不惜將宮中的宋代汝窯珍瓷發往景德鎮,以確保御窯瓷工能準確地複製釉料甚或器形。所謂的「銅骨」,很可能是因為宋代汝窯採用不掛釉裸燒的方式,當窯燒結束時,露胎處因接觸空氣而再度氧化,故而胎體泛紅。林氏指出,雍正時期的仿汝釉器亦有複製「銅骨」, 詳見林氏發表於《A Millennium of Monochromes》頁156的論文〈Qing Monochromes and Tang Ying〉(日內瓦:2018)。古往今來,北宋汝窯天下聞名,迄今仍長盛不衰。藏家慕其蘊藉之美,惜千金難得,故莫不視之為終極的收藏目標。本茶盞彌足珍貴,且美不勝收,洵為芸芸汝窯佳器之中的絕色。日本私人珍藏
北宋 汝窯天青釉茶盞

NORTHERN SONG DYNASTY, LATE 11TH-EARLY 12TH CENTURY

細節
北宋 汝窯天青釉茶盞
盞敞口,弧壁,矮圈足。通體施素雅天青釉,呈清逸灰藍色,釉面凝脂泛油光,開淺片紋。圈足留有三個芝麻狀小支釘痕,露胎處呈香灰色。
4 in. (10.2 cm.) diam., Japanese wood boxes, one inscribed Seiji Chawan (celadon tea bowl)
來源
日本久留米古美術草場(創立於1905年),入藏於1941年以前
九州大学及広島大学法國文學學者佐藤弓葛(1917-1996)舊藏,1950年代初購於久留米古美術草場
日本私人珍藏
出版
《宋磁の美》,大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館,2016年,頁18-23,圖版1號
《朝日新聞夕刊》,日本,2016年12月5日
《典藏》,2017年9月,台北,頁162-165
《陶說》,779二月號,日本陶磁協会,頁15-22
展覽
大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館,《特集展「宋磁の美」》,2016年12月10日 - 2017年3月26日
大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館,《特集展「宋磁の美」》,2017年8月12日 - 9月10日
更多詳情
Recounting Reemergence:
Dispelling Sixty Years of Myths on the Collection History of Bada Shanren’s Landscapes and Calligraphy

In 1699, Zhu Da (Bada Shanren) created Landscapes and Calligraphy dedicated to a gentleman friend. The eighteen leaf album was executed in ink on paper. The first six leaves reproduce the famous Preface to the Orchid Pavilion. The remaining twelve leaves constitute six pairs of landscapes and original verses.

During the Qing period, historic works of painting and calligraphy from the preceding dynasties were especially prized. As such, the genius of Bada Shanren’s free and expressive brushwork in the work was not recognised in his own day, and it is not known in records of the period. Landscapes and Calligraphy first comes to light through Zhang Daqian’s 1955 publication Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang. In December 1949, Zhang Daqian departed Chengdu on a direct flight to Taiwan. He took with him 50 of his own copies made from the frescoes at Dunhuang, along with numerous classical works of painting and calligraphy. These works accompanied him on his itinerant lifestyle, which took him from Hong Kong, to India, Argentina and many other destinations. In 1954 Zhang moved to Mogi das Cruzes in Brazil, buying over 200 acres of land. Here he built a Chinese style garden, which he named the Garden of Eight Virtues, or Bade Yuan. During this time, Zhang was in robust health, travelling between Japan, Brazil, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Europe and America. From a solid base in the art worlds of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan, he also sought to break into the West. This was an expensive undertaking, and stretched his purse beyond the funds raised through his selling exhibitions. To meet this financial need, Zhang decided to sell off some of the historic works that had left Chengdu with him. In autumn 1954, Zhang began compiling a selection of classical Chinese paintings and calligraphic works from his own collection, to be published as Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang. In January 1955, after the closure of his latest exhibition in Hong Kong, Zhang flew direct to Japan to supervise printing of this publication. In Winter of that year its four imposing volumes were published in Japan, coinciding with the opening of Zhang’s latest Japanese exhibition. This publication cemented Zhang’s international reputation as a connoisseur, collector and practitioner of classical Chinese painting and calligraphy.

The pages of Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang lead the reader through an astounding array of classical works from the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties. Soon after its publication, this compendium of Zhang’s collection attracted distinct attention from the metropolitan centres of New York and Beijing. In New York, Japanese American antique dealer Joseph Umeo Seo (1911-1998) brought Zhang’s catalogue to the attention of preeminent collector John M. Crawford Jr. (1913-1988). Together Seo and Crawford acquired several of the works listed in the catalogue. In 1962 Lawrence Sickman (1907- 1988) organised an exhibition of Crawford’s collection in New York. The accompanying volume edited by Sickman, Catalogue of the Exhibition of Chinese Calligraphy and Painting, includes 19 works also found in Zhang’s Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang. These span the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, including exceptional examples by leading masters of each period. Though we know it to be a substantial figure, it is impossible to calculate the exact number of classical paintings and calligraphy pieces Crawford acquired from Zhang’s collection.

Turning our attention to Beijing, preeminent connoisseur Zhang Heng (Zhang Congyu, 1915-1963) discussed Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang in his late 1950s publication Notes on the Authentication of Painting and Calligraphy from the Muyan Studio. Zhang Heng was a leading authority in connoisseurship: a member of the Palace Museum’s Committee for the Authentication of Cultural Relics, Deputy Editor in Chief of the Cultural Relics Bureau Publishing House, and Deputy Head of the Cultural Relics Bureau. In his Notes, he comments on several works by Bada Shanren recorded in Zhang Daqian’s Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang, and the discussion of Landscapes and Calligraphy reads as follows:

Bada Shanren, album of poems and paintings, six leaves.
Six leaves in ink and colour on paper, measuring … high and … wide. The landscapes are exceptionally fine, each leaf paired with an inscription. The dimensions of the inscriptions match those of the painting, and are undated. On the basis of the signature the album was likely produced when the artist was in his 70s. The album includes a freehand copy of Wang Xizhi’s (303-361) Preface to the Orchid Pavilion, which is recorded separately…. An accompanying semi-cursive script inscription dates the work to the yimao year, in the 38th year of the Kangxi reign period (1699), when Bada Shanren was 74 years of age.

Zhang Heng’s Notes approach the work in two parts, documenting the Preface to the Orchid Pavilion in a separate entry from Bada’s twelve album leaves of paired painting and original verse. He describes the landscapes as “exceptionally fine”, an appraisal based upon its publication in Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang. Zhang Heng was clearly deeply familiar with Bada’s oeuvre. His preliminary estimate, made before the transcription of the full inscriptions, states that the work dates from Bada Shanren’s seventies. This correlates directly with the 1699 date he later encountered on the accompanying inscription, when Bada was 74 years of age. This is testimony to Zhang Heng’s careful and protracted study. In the biography of Zhang Heng co-authored by his three children, they give the following account of their father:

Our father undertook this Herculean labour of documentation outside of his working hours… Every evening after finishing work and dinner he would immerse himself in a pile of books, deep into the night. Yet every evening there would be visitors, and our father would have to set his work aside…. Every evening he would wait for his guests to leave, whereupon he would resume his work, carrying on late into the night.

This Herculean project was the compilation of Notes on the Authentication of Painting and Calligraphy from the Muyan Studio. Zhang Hengs Notes exemplifies assiduous scholarship, diligently produced in the little spare time he had available. His work has rightly been the subject of serious, in-depth study by subsequent generations, who have lauded his mindset, erudition, selfpossession and insight.
Following its first publication in Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang, the location of Landscapes and Calligraphy on the Orchid Pavilion became a protracted mystery. In 1982, the Shanghai Renmin Chubanshe published the 17th edition of Yiyuan Duoying, focused on Bada Shanren. This referenced the twelve leaves of paired painting and calligraphy. However, Badas preceding six leaves reproducing the Preface to the Orchid Pavilion were omitted. In Zhang Hengs Notes, the two are necessarily separated as part of his systematic treatment of painting and calligraphy as distinct artforms. Yiyuan Duoying presents no discernable justification for its bisection of the album.

There is a recurrent error in the recorded provenance of Poems and Paintings on the Orchid Pavilion Preface. In Bada Shanren Quanji, vol. 4, the eighteen leaves of the work are captioned as in the collection of John M. Crawford Jr.. In Bada Shanren Shichaos
catalogue of Bada’s poems inscribed on paintings, the work is again recorded as in Crawford’s collection. There is also an index of extant paintings by Bada Sharen at the end of volume four of Bada Shanren Quanji. While this index clearly records private and public collections, both within China and internationally, Landscapes and Calligraphy is inexplicably omitted. How can we determine if the work was part of Crawford’s collection? The assertions of the aforementioned studies are certainly questionable. Preeminent scholar of Bada Shanren Wang Fangyu (1913-1997) repeatedly stated that the location of the work, and the identity of its owner, were unknown. Wang was a Chinese immigrant to America, and a close associate of Crawford. The two men were born in the same year. In The Calligraphy of Bada Shanren, Wang includes the following short entry, entitled ‘Bada Shanren’s Preface to the Orchid Pavilion’:

No. 12. Simao year (1699), 8th month. Former collection of Zhang Daqian. Current location unknown. Recorded in Masterpieces
of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang, vol. 3. Landscapes and Calligraphy, six leaves (authentic). (From Bada Shanren Quanji, vol. 5. pp. 1205.)

In his 1990 Yale U.P. publication Master of the Lotus Garden: The Life and Art of Bada Shanren, Wang repeats his assertion that the location of Landscapes and Calligraphy is unknown (p.270, appendix C, dated works no. 119). Once again, the only reference Wang gives is Zhang Daqians catalogue of 1955. Wang was the preeminent scholar and collector of Bada Shanren outside of China. Yet he never knew the location of Landscapes and Calligraphy. He never had the opportunity to view it in person, and continually referred to it through Zhang Daqians 1955 publication. Thus, we can be certain that Landscapes and Calligraphy was not in the collection of Wangs friend John M. Crawford Jr.

There are some who claim that Landscapes and Calligraphy was in Wang Fangyu’s own collection. However, there is no discernible
basis for this. Were Wang to have this work within his family collection, it is not conceivable that he would have still omitted to mention this in his own 1990 publication. Moreover, the work is not included among the thirty pieces recorded in the 2003 publication of Wang and his wife’s collection: In Pursuit of Heavenly Harmony: Paintings and Calligraphy by Bada Shanren from the Estate of Wang Fangyu and Sum Wai.

Following its publication in 1955 in Zhang Daqian’s Masterpieces of Chinese Painting from Ta Feng Tang, Landscapes and Calligraphy
seemed to have disappeared without trace. For more than sixty years its location was unknown to the international community of collectors. The consignment of twelve leaves of paired painting and verse from Landscapes and Calligraphy, offered this autumn
in Christie’s Hong Kong, is hugely beneficial for the scholarly record of this work. This album travelled with Zhang Daqian
through his itinerant life. As these travels included Zhang’s brief residency in Hong Kong, the reappearance of this album in Christies is something of a homecoming.

Lamentably, the album leaves of Landscapes and Calligraphy have been remounted as six vertical scrolls. Each scroll displays the paired calligraphy above the corresponding painting in a Japanese style mount. In its present format, Bada Shanrens preceding six-leaf rendition of Preface to the Orchid Pavilion is lost. Yet this remounting in no way detracts from the painting and calligraphys compelling and thought-provoking beauty. The collection history of Landscapes and Calligraphy has been a mystery for over sixty years. As with many of Bada Shanrens great accomplishments, these sixty years will likely remain one of art historys enduring enigmas.





拍品專文

北宋汝窯天青釉茶盞

出川哲朗
(大阪市立東洋陶磁美術館館長)

論新發現傳世汝窯茶盞的釉色與形制之美

於2016年,大阪市立東洋陶瓷美術館(下稱「本館」)因緣際會,藉《宋磁の美》展覽推出了一例剛發現的汝窯茶盞。如此機緣,難能可貴,現謹於拙文將其緣起概述如下。

本館的北宋汝窯天青釉水仙盆,乃永久館藏的一大鎭館之寶。汝瓷以其經典的天青釉,被譽為芸芸瓷器中的絕色。能否燒造出淡雅的天青色,誠為汝窯青瓷的頭等大事。為此,必須嚴格控制窯溫,至於胎土是否硬脆,或是否有細微片紋,皆已無關宏旨,至關重要的始終是釉色。汝瓷對釉料要求之高,別的中國陶瓷鮮能望其項背。河南寶豐清涼寺窯址曾發現大量瓷片堆積層,但如本拍品般色呈天青者少之又少,可見釉色確為首要的品鑑標準。若要觀賞青瓷釉色的幽微之美,以自然光充足的環境為上,所以本館佈展時概以此為依歸。鑑於人工照明會影響溫度和釉色,令青瓷外觀大打折扣,所以觀賞時以自然光效果尤佳。

本館曾於1999年舉辦《宋瓷》展覽(1999年6月20日至8月15日),展品中有汝窯青瓷五件,三者為日本珍藏傳世品:一例為本館的水仙盆,另一例其後贈予東京國立博物館,而最後一例於2012年在拍賣會上易手,目前由海外藏家持有。除了台北國立故宮博物院(珍藏汝瓷21例)、北京故宮博物院(15例)、中國國家博物館(8例)、大維德中國藝術館(12例)和大英博物館(4例),若想在別處看到五件汝瓷同時亮相,機會率微乎其微。汝瓷是該次展覽的亮點,作為展品並列而置,觀者更容易比對和鑑別各傳世品的色澤和形制之微妙差別。自1987年發現清涼寺窯址以來,考古研究突飛猛進,故及至1999年推出展覽時,汝瓷業已天下聞名。

時至2009年,本館舉辦了《北宋汝窯青磁考古發掘成果》展覽(2009年12月5日至2010年3月28日),呈獻汝窯遺址自1987年以來的出土文物(圖一)。芸芸展品之中,有一部份為此前傳世品所未見,足證汝瓷品種繁多。為是次展覽所出版的圖錄,對我們日後的新發現至為關鍵。展覽中提出的一些汝瓷新觀點,在中國境外亦廣獲認同,對此吾等深感欣慰。主管發掘工作的考古學家在圖錄中指出,出土瓷器鮮有天青色,與傳世品相較之下,益顯天青汝瓷彌足珍貴。

本館以台北故宮珍藏的北宋汝窯水仙盆為題,於2016年舉辦了特展(2016年12月10日至2017年3月26日)。是次展覽合共推出四件台北故宮珍藏水仙盆,其中以一例稀世「無紋水仙盆」尤為矚目,同時亮相的還有此器於清代的仿燒之作。

北宋汝窯「無紋水仙盆」被譽為「人類史上陶瓷藝術品的巔峰之作」。在眾多中國陶瓷作品中,汝瓷以質量之高獨領風騷。《格古要論》亦有汝窯青瓷「無紋者尤好」一說,足證此作在人類史上洵為登峰造極之作。

與此同時,我們還推出了《宋磁の美》特展,重點推介本館永久館藏內的宋瓷。「新發現」的汝窯茶盞亦是展品之一,吸引了大批觀眾,可謂轟動一時(圖二)。這件首次曝光的作品,是日本已知第三例傳世北宋汝瓷,也是唯一的盞形器物。此器的形制、大小,均與前述《北宋汝窯青磁考古發掘成果》展覽圖錄中的一例出土汝瓷(編號67)相若,但其淡雅的天青色與後者迥然有異。它的口沿曾有破損,後用金粉修補,但修復時僅用原片,並未添加外物。此物代代相傳,原來保存完好,破損之後,當時的物主用傳統的「金繼」法 (描漆敷金) 黏補修復。原來的殘片用漆黏合,為求美觀,再沿接縫敷以金粉。傳統而言,此法多用於修補茶具,所用金漆華彩熠然,格外美觀。在大阪展出時,據圖錄所示,其盞沿已崩成六片,並用金繼法修復如新(圖三)。

新發現的汝窯盞成為展品之一,其實純屬意外。在籌備《宋磁の美》的過程中,我們獲悉有一件傳世汝瓷,其外觀與2009年圖錄所示相近。物主派人將實物攜至本館,以鑑定其真偽。2015年11月,首席策展人小林仁檢驗了實物,並向本人作出匯報。及至2016年3月,此器再被帶到本館,本人方有緣得識其廬山真貌。茶盞的形制、大小均與出土文物相當,器足亦有三個小支釘痕。然而,它的釉色無懈可擊,能流傳至今,想來與此不無關係。我們確信此乃汝窯真品,原盞當天即存放館內,俟十二月展出。有些情況下,我們也會諮詢外部專家的意見;但就汝瓷而言,我們所做的調查研究不知凡幾,所以對於是次的評鑑結果,我們均信心十足。小林與我鑑定過的出土和傳世汝窯青瓷數目眾多,而我倆對此器的結論可謂不謀而合、毫無疑義。

此盞與出土文物不同的是,其釉色素雅幽靜,器表腴潤,觀之端凝大氣。盞沿釉層偏薄,隱約可見其下微微泛紅的胎色,器足有三個小支釘痕。相形之下,出土文物多有崩損,外形差強人意。

來源

這件汝窯茶盞配一古色古香的木盒,盒身墨書「青磁茶碗」(圖四)。據此盒看來,茶盞早已納入某個日本收藏,可惜除此之外,其他細節一概闕如。

此盞為佐藤弓葛(1917-1996)(圖五)舊藏,據醫生暨陶瓷學者工藤吉郎先生透露,佐藤先生畢業於東京外國語大學,獲頒西班牙語學位,其後在九州大學教授法文。工藤是久留米大學醫科生,因緣際會在一家古董店認識了佐藤。於1954年前後,佐藤在久留米古美術草場購入此盞。

《宋瓷の美》展覽結束後,工藤先生親臨本館,將佐藤當年購入青瓷盞的經過娓娓道來。佐藤曾向工藤展示青瓷盏,但此後一度將之歸還古美術草場。但經過工藤多番遊說和孰促,佐藤終於再次購入原器,當時盞沿已用金漆修補過。自此直到晚年,佐藤一直對青瓷盞珍若拱璧,即使要為留學法國雷恩大學籌措學費,亦不願割捨出讓。旅法歸國後,佐藤在廣島大學任法文教授。

東京都京橋繭山龍泉堂的繭山順吉為知名中國藝術古董商,工藤亦曾向他提及佐藤珍藏的青瓷盞。繭山為一睹為快,遂親赴廣島,並願意出價收購,但遭對方回絕。佐藤其後遷至築波大學,年屆國立大學退休年齡之後,再轉往神戶女子學院教書。

汝窯茶盞之特色

青瓷盞口徑僅10.2厘米,高5.2厘米,如何才能斷定此乃傳世之作呢?它的天青色清雅絕倫,釉面瑩潔如玉,凡此種種,俱與出土作品迥然有別。出土文物鮮見如此佳妙的天青色,本品雖曾修補,但殘片保留齊全,看來破損之前,本應完好如新。此盞器形完整,釉色淡雅,原為殘次品的可能性微乎其微。

本品典雅工緻,其口沿略薄,而佐藤購藏之前,已用金繼法妥為修復,足證此乃在日本代代相傳的典藏之作。

(翻譯自英文譯文)

更多來自 不凡- 宋代美學一千年 (晚間拍賣)

查看全部
查看全部