Page 171 - Jindezhen Porcelain Production of the 19th C. by Ellen Huang, Univ. San Diego 2008
P. 171
154
duobao ge. They were, in Crossley’s words “the toys of universalism, in which reality is
bestowed upon objects by subjecting them to the imperial power to stereotype,
30
miniaturize, and segregate.” As such, these treasure troves cannot simply be dismissed
as a leisure activity engaged by the Qing imperial family in the eighteenth century or a
personal enthusiasm for petty playthings.
The duobao ge of the Qing court, and their mapping onto actual documentation as
seen through these catalogues jives with what other recent scholarship has observed
regarding Qing imperial ideology. Through collection, recording, precise illustration and
systematic documentation, Qianlong’s cabinets of curiosities negotiated between
adopting Ming period consumption habits and developing an emperor’s own image. This
emperor-centric imperial ideology was a central tenet of the Qing imperial project that
31
was universalistic and historicizing in nature. Given the personal stamp and mark of
Qianlong emperor on these research and collecting activities, they show the importance
of the idea of personhood in the form of emperorship in Qing rulership. This is the
general point made by Crossley in her study of Qianlong’s construction of imperial
32
ideology. Literally, Qianlong wrote over one-hundred poems celebrating his porcelain
collection; certain choice ceramics pieces of which were impressed with these poems that
33
flowed from the emperor’s own calligraphy. Even Qianlong’s imperial seal stamped the
beautifully, silk-bound illustrated catalogues. Crossley’s study of court productions of
historical knowledge through Manchu and Chinese language texts makes the point that
imperial rule under Qianlong radiated outward from the persona of the emperor himself.
Expanding upon Crossley’s general observation, I argue that the bond between persona
and ideological production in governance is nowhere else better demonstrated in court
