Page 89 - Collecting and Displaying China's Summer Palace in the West

74 Stacey Pierson
for the collector. This is reflected in the development of the language used to describe
Summer Palace objects at the point of sale where the site became “famous” and the
8
objects became “spoils” or “treasures.” This kind of language impacts the reception
of the objects and helps to confirm it as a desirable provenance. On a more basic
level, the provenance is also just that—a factual reference to the object’s location of
origin. One sees it, therefore, beyond art market texts in general histories of objects
published after 1860. This is especially true of histories of ceramics because many
of the other types of goods taken from the Summer Palace, such as bronzes, jades,
and cloisonné, had yet to find enough specialist collectors before the 1890s to warrant
survey histories. Ceramics, however, especially in Britain, were already a specialist
area of collecting and by 1850 “Oriental ceramics” were fitted into this. 9
If we examine one of the earlier survey histories of ceramics in English, we can
see that the incorporation of the Summer Palace provenance into the existing dis -
course was straightforward because it was well documented in the popular press
and familiar. 10 There further was no agonizing over the circumstances of the objects’
removal, but this would have been fairly unusual (but not unheard of) in the mid-
nineteenth century in any case. Thus in 1850, before the destruction of the palace,
the standard survey history of ceramics in English was Joseph Marryat’s Towards a
History of Pottery and Porcelain, which includes a section on “Oriental” wares.
It does not of course mention the Summer Palace. In a later version of this book,
however, A History of Pottery and Porcelain, Medieval and Modern (1868), the
Summer Palace is briefly mentioned, but purely as a provenance: “a pair of turquoise
cylindrical vases . . . from the Summer Palace at Pekin, sold in 1862. . . .” 11 At
the same time, this provenance is mentioned quite frequently with reference to
objects on public display in London, starting as early as 1862 with the International
Exhibition of Industry and Art, where the Chinese objects were classified as
“Industry” not “Art.” 12 Here and in related exhibitions in the same year in other
parts of Southern England, the objects are described somewhat triumphantly as
“trophies brought by . . . gentlemen from China, and forming a part of the treasures
taken from the celebrated Summer Palace of the emperor.” 13 The objects are
“trophies,” “treasures,” and from a “celebrated” location. The conception of the
objects as “treasure” and “trophies” elevates them to a category of object with
symbolic power and value in that they have been acquired through aggressive human
14
intervention, whether “discovered” as treasure or “wrested” as trophies. In the case
of the Summer Palace objects, they were the consequence of both discovery and
forcible removal, and were therefore imbued with the mystery of treasure and the
victoriousness of trophies. That they further were seen to have come from a
“celebrated” location reveals the continuing callous attitude towards the destruction
of foreign property. In the collecting world, that destruction was primarily seen to
be an advantage. As a collector noted in the Cornhill Magazine: “The sacking of the
Emperor’s Summer Palace at Pekin brought many fine examples of China into
Europe.” 15
Such descriptions of the porcelains would continue to be used in art literature,
exhibition-related publications and arts commentary but, as has been noted else where,
the Summer Palace provenance was also employed in museums for object des crip -
16
tions. In the V&A, for example, a record for an object accessioned in 1871 features
the line “From the Summer Palace, Pekin” in its label: “SCENT BOTTLE. Granulated
white and red jade. . . . From the Summer Palace, Pekin.” 17 This is simply noting its