Page 63 - Sotheby's October 3 2017 Song Ceramics
P. 63
fig. 1 fig. 2
Ru brush washer (no. 30) Ru brush washer (no. 42)
© Collection of the Palace Museum, Beijing © Collection of the National Palace Museum, Taipei
though he did not always correctly identify Ru ware, and at least in province, with the discovery of proper kiln remains following
one instance had a poem inscribed also on a Yongzheng copy (ibid., somewhat later. Besides a large number of sherds of typical Ru
cat. no. 197). guanyao vessels that were recovered, the excavations have also
shown that the potters were more ambitious than the heirloom
In 1923, after the fall of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) and before pieces let one to believe. Whereas virtually all extant pieces of
the opening of the Forbidden City as a public museum, a fire at one Ru official ware are small and plain, the kilns experimented with
of the palace halls, supposedly deliberately planted by eunuchs in many complicated sculptural forms, openwork designs and
an attempt to hide that objects were missing, destroyed a storage detailed engraved decoration, of which no complete examples are
area, where ancient works of art had been kept. From the burnt preserved, or may ever have left the kilns. Other more recently
remains that were cleared by an outside company only some Ru excavated kiln sites are now sometimes mentioned in this context
wares, and some polychrome (doucai) porcelains of Chenghua mark as possible official kilns of the Northern Song period, in particular
and period (1465-1487) were apparently deemed worth keeping in the Zhanggongxiang kilns also in Ruzhou, Henan province (Beijing
spite of damage done to their glazes. Fifteen fire-damaged pieces 2009), but almost no extant heirloom pieces can be matched to
are among the eighty-seven Ru pieces preserved world-wide. those manufactories.
In the West, the identity of Ru ware came to be known through A taste for a ware so extremely
the International Exhibition of Chinese Art at the Royal Academy modest and unspectacular could
of Arts, London, 1935-1936, to which the Chinese Government only evolve from a world view that
lent ten examples identified as Ru, although by that time several propagated modesty and honesty
Western collectors already owned some, without being sure about over ostentation and pretence.
their identity. Ru pieces from the collections of Sir Percival David
and George Eumorfopoulos were also included in the exhibition.
The opportunity to inspect first-hand and to handle so many Ru
pieces led David to study the historical sources and to publish his
ground-breaking ‘Commentary on Ju Ware’ in the Transactions of
the Oriental Ceramic Society right after the exhibition (David 1936-
1937).
In China, many attempts had been made to locate the kiln site, but
it was only in 1986 that a site considered to represent the official
Ru manufactories was identified at Qingliangsi, Baofeng, Henan
SONG — IMPORTANT CHINESE CERAMICS FROM THE LE CONG TANG COLLECTION | 61
