Yongzheng Refinement:
Garlic Head to Lotus Bud

Regina Krahl

A quintessential Yongzheng product, this bottle clearly draws on models from China’s past, but far from copying, presents a completely new and unique, contemporary design, as we have come to expect from this period. The ultimate source of this form would seem to be archaic bronze or gilt bronze hu vessels, which were popular for a short period of t.mes at the late Warring States and early Western Han period, the 4th to 2nd century BC. The bronze models are mostly of very plain pear shape with a lobed, bulb-shaped top and small circular rim, somet.mes s of more compressed form, and some show a raised rib halfway down the neck as it appears also on this porcelain version. One such bronze is identified in an inscription as a warming vessel for wine. With some rare exceptions, they are lacking the animal-mask ring handles. At the t.mes , they were also copied in pottery.

“A quintessential Yongzheng product, this bottle clearly draws on models from China’s past, but far from copying, presents a completely new and unique, contemporary design, as we have come to expect from this period. ”

A shorter bottle of that type, presumably in the imperial collects ion during the Yongzheng Emperor’s t.mes (1723–1735), was selected for inclusion in one of the ‘Pictures of Antiquities’, Gu wan tu, painted in 1729; it shows the vessel supported on a wood stand, probably for display. The scroll is preserved in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (E.59-1911) (fig. 1). For other plain examples, see Jenny F. So, Eastern Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler collects ions, New York, 1995, no. 52, fig. 52.2 and fig. 131, and for a piece with raised rib from the Shanghai Museum collects ion, see Wang Tao, Mirroring China’s Past. Emperors, Scholars, and Their Bronzes, The Art Institute of Chicago, New Haven and London, 2018, pl. 168, (fig. 2). A related bottle with animal-mask handles, horizontal raised ribs and silvered decoration is illustrated in Li Xueqin, The Glorious Tradition of Chinese Bronzes, Asian Civilizations Museum, Singapore, 2000, pl. 89.

The shape, known as suantouping (garlic head bottle), was revived in bronze in the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), somet.mes s with a freely modelled dragon climbings around the neck. A white porcelain version with such a dragon picked out in copper red is in the Palace Museum, Beijing (fig. 3). It appears to have been among the Yongzheng Emperor’s favourites, as it can be seen in two paintings specially commissioned by him: in one of the paintings of Twelve Beauties at Leisure, painted in the late Kangxi period (1662–1722) for the later Emperor while he was still Prince, and in a painting depicting the Emperor himself reading, with the bottle displayed in a cupboard nearby, see Feng Mingzhu, ed., Yongzheng. Qing Shizong wenwu dazhan/Harmony and Integrity. The Yongzheng Emperor and His t.mes s, Palace Museum, Taipei, 2009, nos I-58 and I-64. The Palace Museum bottle, which is attributed to the Jiajing period (1522–1566), is illustrated in Zhongguo taoci quanji [Complete series on Chinese ceramics], vol. 13, Shanghai, 2000, pl. 52. All these versions show a lobed garlic-bulb shape, but not the petal tips around the mouth.

In porcelain, pear-shaped bottles with a proper lotus-blossom rather than a garlic-head mouth were created already in the Ming dynasty. A blue-and-white example was recovered from the site of the imperial porcelain factory at Zhushan, Jingdezhen and attributed to the Interregnum period (1436–1464), see Refilling the Interregnum. Newly Discovered Imperial Porcelains from Zhengtong, Jingtai and Tianshun Reigns (1436-1464) of the Ming Dynasty, Art Museum, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2019, no. 26; and a late Ming polychrome bottle with a flower-shaped mouth without a separate rim is published in The Fame of Flame. Imperial Wares of the Jiajing and Wanli Periods, University Museum and Art Gallery, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2009, no. 105. The potters’ addition of animal-mask ring handles on the Yongzheng version, however, are an explicit reference to a bronze rather than a porcelain form that supplied the inspiration.

The basic bronze bottle form was altered by Yongzheng craft.mes n in two major ways: through a change of the proportions and a modification of its main stylistic feature, the bulb. To improve the silhouette, they turned the graceful bronze shape into an even more elegant porcelain one by ‘stretching’ the body to a continuous undulating swerve from the convex mouth over the concave neck across the convex belly. Through the addition of distinct pointed tips to the lobed bulb, the somewhat prosaic garlic head changed into a propitious lotus bud, with the rim representing the receptacle in the centre of the bloom. Through these subtle adjustments, they re-defined the shape and created a sophisticated yet unpretentious form that is characteristic of Yongzheng works of art. Blueprints for such exactingly balanced vessel shapes are likely to have been prepared by designers at the court in Beijing.

“The basic bronze bottle form was altered by Yongzheng craft.mes n in two major ways: through a change of the proportions and a modification of its main stylistic feature, the bulb. [...] Through these subtle adjustments, they re-defined the shape and created a sophisticated yet unpretentious form that is characteristic of Yongzheng works of art. Blueprints for such exactingly balanced vessel shapes are likely to have been prepared by designers at the court in Beijing.”

The potters working at the imperial factories far south in Jiangxi province had to decide what to do with these shapes. The present one must have pleased the Yongzheng Emperor in particular since it was created in at least five other versions besides the present one: with a celadon glaze covering carved decoration, with a red ‘flambé’ glaze, a turquoise ‘robin’s egg’ glaze, a greenish-brown ‘tea dust’ glaze, as well as with decoration in blue and white.

Tang Ying (1682–1756), kiln supervisor at Jingdezhen, had revolutionised the production at the imperial kilns in that reign. Under his guidance, Yongzheng potters had not only extended the number of glaze colours they could fire, but had also widened the range of specific shades of certain colours, in particular those of celadon greens. The famous record of Jingdezhen’s porcelain production at the t.mes , Taocheng jishi beiji (Commemorative stele on ceramic production), which Tang Ying had composed in 1735 and inscribed on a stele, includes a list of styles then in production. It.mes ntions three types of green glazes copying Song dynasty (960–1279) guan ware, two types copying ge ware, two types copying Ru ware, two shades copying Longquan ware, two copying northern celadon ware, a pale greenish tone copying some unspecified Song ware, as well as other greens which may or may not refer to celadon tones. There was probably never a wider variety of celadon glazes available, in nuances that could be produced with such precision that companion pieces came out identical in tone.

A pair of companion bottles with the same celadon glaze as the present piece is in the Fondation Baur, Geneva, published in John Ayers, The Baur collects ion Geneva: Chinese Ceramics, vol. III, Geneva, 1972, nos A362 and 363; and a single example is in the Palace Museum, Beijing, no. 故00151915.

A celadon example with a carved kui dragon and phoenix design in the Palace Museum, Beijing, is illustrated in Gugong zhencang Kang Yong Qian ciqi tulu/Kangxi, Yongzheng, Qianlong. Qing Porcelain from the Palace Museum collects ion, Hong Kong, 1989, p. 270, pl. 99; another was sold at Bonhams New York, 17th March 2025, lot 27. Ayers mentions flambé, ‘robin’s egg’ and ‘tea dust’ versions in the Victoria and Albert Museum; the flambé piece (C.382.1910) is illustrated in his Far Eastern Ceramics in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1980, col. pl. 65; the ‘robin’s egg’ example (601&A-1907) in Rose Kerr, Chinese Ceramics. Porcelain of the Qing Dynasty 1644-1911, London, 1986 (rev. ed. 1998), col. pl. 64; for another ‘robin’s egg’ example in the Palace Museum, Beijing, see Gugong zhencang Kang Yong Qian ciqi tulu, op.cit., p. 291, pl. 120; for a ‘tea dust’ bottle in the Baur collects ion, see Ayers, 1972, op.cit., no. A391; the one in the V&A has acquisition no. C.132.1939.

A blue-and-white example of this form, painted with Ming-style flower scrolls, was sold three t.mes s in these rooms, 15th May 1990, lot 135, 29th April 1997, lot 408, and 8th April 2011, lot 3117, and is included in Replica Shoes 's Hong Kong, Twenty Years, 1973-1993, Hong Kong, 1993, pl. 171, as well as in Sotheby's. Thirty Years in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2003, pl. 265.

The examples with thick, opaque red, turquoise and brown glazes all bear a four-character reign mark, incised or impressed on the base in seal characters. The blue-and-white bottle is inscribed with the regular six-character reign mark, written in underglaze blue in kaishu (regular script) in two lines and enclosed in a double circle. The celadon-glazed examples, however, are marked in underglaze blue with the very rare six-character zhuanshu (seal script) mark under the celadon glaze, which also covers on the base. This type of mark was introduced in the late Yongzheng reign and was taken up as the standard reign mark in the Qianlong period (1736–1795).

This lotus-bud form appears to have been made for only a very short period in the Yongzheng reign and did not survive into the Qianlong period. It was recently, however, picked up again by a contemporary craftsman, Xu Zhen, who in 2014 created a ‘robin’s egg’ version with a bent neck, as is somet.mes s also found in bronze prototypes, see Wang Tao, op.cit., pl. 170 and p. 233.

The present bottle which combines utmost quality with greatest understat.mes nt has been admired for decades in Japan, where it became a celebrated work of art, featuring for over sixty years in exhibitions and publications.

“The present bottle which combines utmost quality with greatest understat.mes nt has been admired for decades in Japan, where it became a celebrated work of art, featuring for over sixty years in exhibitions and publications.”

世宗妙韻濯清漣：
考蒜頭到蓮口之變

康蕊君

此瓶堪稱雍正典範，其制取法於華夏古器，然非摹形重現舊物，而更煥發時代新韻，為當朝獨創。此式之源可溯至公元前四至二世紀青銅或鎏金銅壺，於戰國晚期至西漢早期短暫流行。銅鑄原型多簡素，梨形身、花蕾頭、圓口沿，亦有器身呈扁圓或頸上作弦紋者，本件瓷器所仿恰屬其後。一青銅例採此形制，據銘文可知為溫酒器。除極少數之外，此類器不設舖首。彼時，該式已為陶器所用。

雍正七年（1729年）所繪《古玩圖》中寫有一瓶，同形制，頸較短，應為雍正在位時（1723-1735年）皇家珍藏；圖中，器置木座上，當為陳設用。該圖卷現藏維多利亞與艾爾伯特博物館，倫敦（藏品編號E.59-1911）（圖1）。仍有其他簡素藍本，如一例，錄蘇芳淑，《Eastern Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler collects ions》，紐約，1995年，編號52，圖52.2及圖131，及一例，頸帶弦紋，藏上海博物館，載汪濤，《吉金鑑古：皇室與文人的青銅器收藏》，芝加哥藝術博物館，紐黑文及倫敦，2018年，圖版168（圖2）。一件錯銀，既飾舖首又帶弦紋，見李學勤，《中國青銅器萃賞》，亞洲文明博物館，新加坡，2000年，圖版89。

此式銅器於明代（1368-1644年）復興，稱「蒜頭瓶」，或作游龍盤繞長頸。北京故宮博物院藏有一例，器身為白瓷，盤龍施紅釉（圖3）。奉雍正令所繪圖中，寫此式瓶者無獨有偶，可見雍正對其青睞有加：一為《十二美人圖》，乃康熙朝（1662-1722年）晚期雍正仍為雍親王時所製，另為雍正帝讀書像，身側博古架上置有一瓶，刊馮明珠編，《雍正：清世宗文物大展》，故宮博物院，台北，2009年，編號I-58及I-64。北京故宮所藏瓶斷代嘉靖朝（1522-1566年），錄《中國陶瓷全集》，卷13，上海，2000年，圖版52。諸例皆呈瓣狀蒜頭形，非作蓮瓣圍繞口沿。

以瓷為材、作蓮花口而非蒜頭口之鼓腹長頸瓶於明代已然創燒。景德鎮珠山御窰廠遺址出土一青花例，斷代空白期（1436-1464年），載《填空補白：考古新發現明正統、景泰、天順御窰瓷器》，香港中文大學文物館，香港，2019年，編號26；再比明晚期彩瓷一例，花口、無沿，刊《爐火純青：嘉靖及萬曆官窰瓷器》，香港大學出版社，香港，2009年，編號105。然而，雍正御窰增飾舖首，所依之制則屬銅器。

雍正窰藝對銅器原型革新有二，一為通體比例之變化，再爲瓶口徵貌之演進。爲求輪廓優美，瓷坯一改銅胎敦重，高挺秀拔，瓶口飽滿，下接長頸，垂落收束，至腹而復圓。瓶口添設尖瓣，化蒜頭為蓮蕾，口沿恰似花芯。經此微妙調整，舊形乃賦新意，成器精巧而不失樸實，尤得雍正藝品之神髓。此類立器制式嚴謹，須分毫不差以保平衡， 其樣稿應爲北京宮廷藝匠所製。

遠在江西，御窰廠匠依樣稿產燒。此樣尤得雍正鍾愛，因本件粉青例之外，尚有青釉刻花、窰變釉、爐鈞釉、茶葉末釉、青花等至少五種演繹。

督陶官唐英（1682-1756年）駐職景德鎮，於此朝革新御窰生產。在其任内，雍正御窰廠匠擴展釉色種類，豐富釉色層次，尤以青釉為最。雍正十三年（1735年），唐英撰《陶成紀事碑記》詳載當時景德鎮窰業，列有在產諸釉。其中，仿宋代（960-1279年）官窰青釉者三種，仿哥釉者二種，仿汝釉者二種，仿龍泉釉者二種，仿北方青釉者二種，仿宋代青白釉者一種，更有青釉系若干種。青釉種類之豐前所未有，細微差別皆可精準呈現，匹配之器釉色可達毫無二致。

比瓶一對，粉青釉色與本件相同，藏鮑氏東方藝術館，日内瓦，錄John Ayers，《The Baur collects ion Geneva: Chinese Ceramics》，卷三，日内瓦，1972年，編號A362及363；另比一件，藏故宮博物院，北京，藏品編號故00151915。

北京故宮亦藏粉青釉浮雕仿古龍鳳蓮口瓶一件，錄《故宮珍藏康雍乾瓷器圖錄》，香港，1989年，頁270，圖版99；一例相類，售於紐約邦瀚斯2025年3月17日，編號27。同形異釉者，Ayers有著提及窰變釉、爐鈞釉、茶葉末釉等例，均藏維多利亞與艾爾伯特博物館；窰變釉例（藏品編號C.382.1910）錄Ayers，《Far Eastern Ceramics in the Victoria and Albert Museum》，倫敦，1980年，彩圖65；爐鈞釉例（藏品編號601&A-1907）錄柯玫瑰，《Chinese Ceramics. Porcelain of the Qing Dynasty 1644-1911》，倫敦，1986年（修訂版1998年），彩圖64；另一爐鈞釉例藏故宮博物院，北京，錄《故宮珍藏康雍乾瓷器圖錄》前述出處，頁291，圖版120；鮑氏收藏亦有茶葉末釉一例，錄Ayers 1972年前述出處，編號A391；維多利亞與艾爾伯特博物館藏之例入藏編號C.132.1939。

同形青花者可比一例，繪明代式樣纏枝花卉，曾三度售於香港蘇富比，1990年5月15日，編號135，1997年4月29日，編號408，及2011年4月8日，編號3117，且載入《香港蘇富比二十週年》，香港，1993年，圖版171，及《香港蘇富比三十週年》，香港，2003年，圖版265。

窰變、爐鈞、茶葉末諸例皆底帶四字篆書款，或刻或印，青花例寫六字楷書雙行雙圈款。粉青釉者則將青花六字篆書款寫於圈足内粉青釉下。此類年款於雍正晚期始用，而後成為乾隆朝（1736-1795年）標準款。

蓮蕾口僅於雍正時期曇花一現，未延續至乾隆時期。然當代藝術家徐震近年重拾此式，於2014年以爐鈞釉採曲頸瓶形制加以再創，其曲頸亦取自古代銅器原型，見汪濤前述出處，圖版170及頁233。

本件蓮口瓶集臻美品質與極簡風範於一身，在東瀛備受推崇數十載，六十年來屢經展覽、出版，被奉作藝苑名品。