Page 40 - Bonhams Fine Chinese Ceramics and Works of Art, Nov 2014 Hong Kong

Image courtesy of the Palace Museum, Beijing
Image courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, into the ongoing discussion on dating of cloisonné enamel, a subject
New York, bequest of Benjamin Altman, 1913
38 | Bonhams
The present vase provides collectors, academics and cloisonné
enamel enthusiasts alike with a rare opportunity to delve once more
which have been reinvigorated since the new publications in the area
by the Palace Museum, Beijing and the exhibition and accompanying
book edited by B.Quette, Cloisonné: Chinese Enamels from the Yuan,
Ming and Qing Dynasties, New York, 2011.
As noted by Zhang Rong in ‘Cloisonné for the Imperial Courts’, ibid.,
p.152: ‘A close examination of surviving enamel objects from the
Yuan has led to the discovery that most of them have been reworked,
including the zun cloisonné vessel in the front piece [see ibid., p.150].
Only the middle section of the zun - a guan (jar) - is actually dated
to the Yuan dynasty; the rest of the piece, including the neck, feet,
handles, and its Jingtai-period mark, were added during the Kangxi
reign (1662-1723) of the Qing dynasty.’ This vase is further illustrated
in The Complete Collection of Treasures of the Palace Museum: Metal-
bodied Enamel Ware, Hong Kong, 2001, pl.1.
The Palace Museum zun from the Qing Court Collection is similar not
only in the decoration on the body but also in the later Kangxi period
assembled parts and mounts including the gilt-bronze monster-
mask handles, the cloisonné enamel loose rings and the gilt-bronze
stylised dragon handles on the neck. A similar example is another
similarly shaped vase bequeathed by Benjamin Altman in 1913 to the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, where the body of the vase is
dated to Yuan or early Ming dynasty and the foot and neck are dated
to the Kangxi period; see B.Quette, ibid., pl.119.
However, the enamelling on the body of the present vase is
comparable to that on a bowl from the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
dated 15th century, illustrated in B.Quette, ibid., p.238, pl.27, whilst
the neck and foot are most likely from the Kangxi period. It would
therefore seem reasonable to extend Zhang Rong’s analysis mentioned
above to the use during the Kangxi period of earlier Ming dynasty
pieces in general.
本器極為特殊，其器身各部分之斷代問題非常值得研究探討。其特殊
性可謂為收藏家、學者和掐絲琺瑯愛好者提供又一次難得機會對相關
論題進行研究。詳見北京故宮博物院最新出版的掐絲琺瑯系列專書和
2011年紐約出版B.Quette編，《Cloisonné: Chinese Enamels from the
Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties》一書，書中對清宮收藏的掐絲琺瑯器
之改造及加工問題的討論引起各界的熱烈討論。
張榮在B.Quette編《Cloisonné Chinese Enamels from the Yuan, Ming
and Qing Dynasties》一書《Cloisonné for the Imperial Courts》文章
中（頁152）曾指出經過對元代傳世的琺瑯器仔細檢查後，發現大部
份的琺瑯器後來有再經過加工，包括該書封面上的掐絲琺瑯尊（見同
上，頁150）。此尊只有中間罐形的部位為元代製品，其他部位包括
頸部、足部、耳部及其景泰年款均為後來清代康熙一朝所加工。此尊
也曾著錄在《故宮博物院文物珍品大系：掐絲琺瑯》，香港，2001
年，圖版1。
北京故宮博物院所藏此件清宮舊藏的掐絲琺瑯尊不僅在紋飾上與本器
相似，其後來加工的部位包括銅鎏金獸首鈕、掐絲琺瑯活環和頸側的
銅鎏金龍紋耳均與本器如出一轍。另一件類似的例子可參考1913年
Benjamin Altman遺贈紐約大都會藝術博物館的掐絲琺瑯尊，此尊與本
拍品造型相似，器身定位元代或明初製品，其足部和頸部定為清康熙
時期，見B.Quette編，同上，圖版119。
但本拍品器身的琺瑯紋飾與紐約大都會藝術博物館藏一件十五世紀掐
絲琺瑯盌類似，見B.Quette編，同上，頁238，圖版27，其頸部和足
部則具康熙時期的風格。因此足見張榮所提出有關康熙一朝把明初物
品加工之理論的合理性。