Regina Krahl

This bowl, impressed with five-clawed dragons and glazed in cobalt blue and iron brown, appears to be unique, but it belongs to a miniscule group of bi-chrome glazed porcelains with anhua designs, among the earliest with coloured glazes. Pieces of the group are variously attributed to the late Yuan dynasty (1279-1368) or the Hongwu reign (1368-1398) of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), but a fragment of a blue-and-brown glazed vessel with anhua dragon design of this type was recovered from the site of the Ming imperial palace at Nanjing.¹ It was discovered together with Hongwu blue-and-white and underglaze-red decorated porcelain fragments by the Jade Belt River (Yudaihe) that surrounded the inner palace buildings and, given this location, can be considered to represent Hongwu imperial porcelain made for use by the imperial family.

We do not know much about the Hongwu Emperor’s possible interest in the arts and crafts. Born into a very poor family and orphaned while still young, his ascent to defeat the ruling Mongols, to govern China for a solid three decades, to become the founder of one of China’s longest-lasting dynasties and, despite a total lack of prior education, to leave many writings, including a commentary on Laozi, is near-miraculous. It cannot have left him much t.mes for aesthetic pursuits. Yet in the imperial kilns at Jingdezhen in Jiangxi province, which were founded in the Yuan dynasty, we see from the Hongwu period onwards the unquestionable emergence of an imperial style – a style that exerted a defining and lasting influence on the porcelains designed for the court right up to the end of China’s imperial era in the twentieth century. Of this, the present bowl is an archetypal example.

Many aspects of this bowls can be traced to origins in the Yuan dynasty, but in the early Ming the various features were consolidated, polished and refined and thus developed into a classic design – almost certainly evidence of strict imperial supervision of the porcelain production. Five-clawed dragons are a motif that appeared in works of art already in the Yuan dynasty, but only in the Ming was it appropriated as the foremost symbol of the person and the authority of the Emperor.

The anhua (‘hidden decoration’) technique, achieved by impressing the piece against a mould, perhaps with a thin layer of white slip in between, to create a shallow relief, was also developed in the Yuan dynasty, when it was used particularly on monochrome white pieces, but also in combination with underglaze-blue decoration as, for example, on a bowl in the Tianminlou collects ion, painted with a blue dragon outside and with a blue double Vajra in the centre, surrounded by white anhua dragons.² In white on white, however, the ‘hidden’ design is often indeed difficult to make out. Under the cobalt-blue glaze of our bowl, the elegant physique and energetic stride of the dragons is strikingly evident. In the Hongwu period, the whole design became clearly defined: on bowls and stem cups it appears always with a large billowing cloud the centre, whose undulating vapours form auspicious lingzhi (longevity fungus) formations; on dishes it is combined with three smaller cloud motifs.

Both blue and brown glazes were already in use in the Yuan dynasty, but are extremely rare. Brown was hardly used at all, either for underglaze painting, or as a glaze, but a small brown-glazed inkstone box and cover from the Yuan is preserved in the Capital Museum, Beijing.³ Blue also remained very scarce, but appears on a couple of Yuan porcelains with gold decoration and on a dozen or so pieces with motifs reserved in white.⁴

Like with underglaze-painted porcelains, cobalt blue appears in the Hongwu period to have been used more rarely than copper red. A blue glaze can be seen on one monochrome dish with anhua dragons from the Sedgwick collects ion in the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, which was included in the Oriental Ceramic Society exhibition The Arts of the Ming Dynasty, London, 1957, cat. no. 112, and is illustrated in the accompanying Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, vol. 30, 1955-57, pl. 33. Red bowls and dishes are much more numerous, and a fragmentary bowl was found at the Hongwu stratum of the Jingdezhen kiln sites, see Chang Foundation (fig. 1).⁵ Others are, for example, in the Cleveland Museum of Art from the Severance and Greta Millikin collects ion, in the British Museum, London, from the Eumorfopoulos collects ion; and two from the V.W. Shriro collects ion were sold in our London rooms, 28th May 1963, lots 123 and 124;⁶ red dishes are in the British Museum, from the Sedgwick collects ion; in the Shanghai Museum; and in the Idemitsu Museum of Art, Tokyo.⁷

To apply two differently coloured glazes on the inside and the outside of a vessel would seem a highly complex manner of treating a vessel. It was hardly ever attempted either before or after, and only a few exceptions come to mind, such as white-and-black Ding ware bowls of the Song dynasty (960-1279), or Jiajing (1522-1566) porcelains with bicoloured glazes. Only four other pieces of the present design and glazed in this colour scheme appear to be preserved, three stem cups and one dish, and only two other bi-chrome glazed bowls of this type are recorded, but in different colour combinations:

One blue-and-brown stem cup is in the British Museum from the Sedgwick collects ion (fig. 2); another is in the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City; and a third from the Norton collects ion was sold in our London rooms, 5th November 1963, lot 172.⁸ The three vary in size and were obviously individually fashioned rather than produced in a larger series. One blue-and-brown dish from the Eumorfopoulos collects ion is also in the British Museum (fig. 2).⁹

A red-and-blue bowl with a cobalt-blue glaze inside and a copper-red one outside, from the collects ion of Lady David and later in the Idemitsu Museum of Arts, was sold in our London rooms 6th July 1976, lot 131 (fig. 3);¹⁰ and a brown-and-white bowl, glazed brown inside and probably with a neutral glaze over the white porcelain body on the outside, is in the Yamato Bunkakan, Nara.¹¹

Our blue-and-brown bowl with a matching stem cup and the matching dish (fig. 2) might suggest a set made for ritual use. Jessica Harrison-Hall suggests about the colouration “Conceivably it represents the blue of heaven and the red-brown of earth”.¹² In this connection, it is tempting to mention, as Christine Lau has stated, that “in the tenth year of his reign (in 1377), the Hongwu Emperor decided to hold the sacrifices offered to Heaven and Earth together in one place under one roof”.¹³ Of course traditionally, blue was the colour of heaven and yellow the colour of earth, but bright yellow porcelain was not yet available at this period, and therefore had to be replaced with items approximating that colour, such as yellow jades, and it seems conceivable that the brown glaze might have been considered to serve the purpose. There is no indication, however, that two-coloured wares were ever used for such combined rituals, nor that wares of this type were made for ritual purposes at all, although the existence of stem cups might suggest this.

¹ See Zhu Ming yicui. Nanjing Ming gugong chutu taoci/A Legacy of the Ming. Ceramic Finds from the Site of the Ming Palace in Nanjing, Art Museum, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1996, no. 26.
² Lin Yeqiang (Peter Y.K. Lam), ‘Yuan qinghua longwen kao: Yi Zhizheng ping wei zhongxin/Dragons on Yuan Blue-and-White as Seen from the Bands on the David Vases’, Li Zhongmou et al., Youlan shencai. 2012 Shanghai Yuan qinghua guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji/Splendors in Smalt. Art of Yuan Blue-and-white Porcelain Proceedings, Shanghai, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 194-205, fig. 23.
³ Zhongguo taoci quanji [Complete series on Chinese ceramics], Shanghai, 1999-2000, vol. 11, pl. 249.
⁴ Zhongguo taoci quanji, op.cit., pls 241-244.
⁵ Imperial Hongwu and Yongle Porcelain Excavated at Jingdezhen, Chang Foundation, Taipei, 1996, cat. no. 15.
⁶ Sherman E. Lee and Wai-kam Ho, Chinese Art under the Mongols. The Yüan Dynasty (1279-1368), The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, 1968, cat. no. 165; Jessica Harrison-Hall, Catalogue of Late Yuan and Ming Ceramics in the British Museum, London, 2001, no. 2:3.
⁷ Harrison-Hall, op.cit., no. 2:4; Lu Minghua, Shanghai Bowuguan zangpin yanjiu daxi/Studies of the Shanghai Museum collects ions: A Series of Monographs. Mingdai guanyao ciqi [Ming imperial porcelain], Shanghai, 2007, pl. 3-8; Idemitsu Bijutsukan: Kaikan jūgo shūnen kinen ten zuroku/The Fifteenth Anniversary Catalogue, Tokyo, 1981, col. pl. 766.
⁸ Harrison-Hall, op.cit., no. 1:20; Chinese Art under the Mongols, op.cit., cat. no. 160.
⁹ Harrison-Hall, op.cit., no. 1: 21.
¹⁰ It is also illustrated in Chinese Art under the Mongols, op.cit., cat. no. 162; and in Idemitsu Bijutsukan, op.cit., col. pl. 765.
¹¹ Yamato Bunkakan shozōhin zuhan mokuroku 7. Chūgoku tōji/Chinese Ceramics from the Museum Yamato Bunkakan collects ion, Illustrated Catalogue Series No. 7, Nara, 1977, no. 114.
¹² Harrison-Hall, op.cit., p. 69.
¹³ Christine Lau, ‘Ceremonial Monochrome Wares of the Ming Dynasty’, in Rosemary E. Scott, ed., The Porcelains of Jingdezhen, Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia, no. 16, London, 1993, p. 94.

康蕊君

洪武朝御製雲龍紋盌，外罩醬釉，內施藍釉，模印五爪祥龍騰游瑞雲，應為存世孤品，屬單色瓷發展初期，一類為數甚稀之暗花雙色釉瓷。此類瓷器造於元末至明洪武朝，如南京明代宮殿遺址出土一例藍釉及醬釉暗花龍紋殘器¹，發掘於玉帶河畔，內宮原址，同處並出土洪武青花、釉裏紅瓷片，故推測應為宮內御用之器。

洪武帝出身貧寒，幼年失怙，然奮起滅元，創立大明，治理中國長達三十載，雖早年失學，仍作文豐沛，其《御註道德真經》，精闢妙絕。朝政之餘，或無閒暇浸賞文藝。江西景德鎮御窰遺址，創設於元朝，出土洪武時期以降文物，見明顯御製風格之發展，此風延續至清末二十世紀初為止。本品，乃御製風格之典範。

本盌風格特徵多可前溯至元，將其去蕪存菁，融會成經典紋飾，幾為當時嚴格朝廷監造製瓷之證。元代已見五爪龍紋，但至明時，此紋僅限帝王使用，象徵至高無上之皇權。

「暗花」技法，模印紋飾於瓷胎，間或施薄層化妝土，以得淺浮雕紋樣，始見於元，多作於白釉瓷或青花，如天民樓藏一盌，青花繪龍紋於外，金剛杵於盌心，內壁飾白釉暗花龍紋。² 白釉暗花，常隱微難辨，罩鈷藍釉者，如本品，則鮮明靈動，優雅細膩。洪武時期，已確立御製器皿紋飾：盌、高足盃等，飾大型雲紋於中，上下細綴靈芝形祥雲；若為盤器，則同綴三雲紋。

元代已有醬釉、藍釉，極為珍罕。醬釉幾無存例，釉下彩或單色瓷皆是，惟見北京首都博物館藏一元朝醬釉硯盒連蓋。³ 藍釉亦稀，僅知二例金彩者及約十二件藍地留白紋飾者。⁴

洪武朝，青花瓷較釉裏紅更為稀少，鈷藍釉亦少於銅紅釉者。布里斯托城市博物館與美術館藏一件藍釉暗花龍紋盤，出自 Sedgwick 舊藏，展出於東方陶瓷學會，《The Arts of the Ming Dynasty》，倫敦，1957年，編號112，並錄於《東方陶瓷學會彙刊》，卷30，1955-1957年，圖版33。相較之下，紅釉瓷為數較豐，景德鎮遺址之明洪武地層出土一件紅釉盌殘片，參考鴻禧美術館展覽圖錄（圖一）。⁵ 其他類例，參考克利夫蘭藝術博物館 Severance 與 Greta Millikin 雅蓄，倫敦大英博物館尤莫弗普勒斯舊藏，與 V.W. Shriro 珍藏二例，售於倫敦蘇富比，1963年5月28日，編號123、124；⁶ 大英博物館，Sedgwick 舊藏洪武紅釉盤；上海博物館藏品；東京出光美術館藏品。⁷

雲龍紋盌內外施異色釉藥，於當時應屬繁縟技法，前例罕有，後代亦鮮。可相比擬者，惟宋代黑白釉定瓷，與嘉靖窰雙色瓷。與本品紋飾、釉色相類者，僅存四例，三件高足盃與一盤；此類雙色釉盌，惟另二器，釉色搭配皆異：

大英博物館，Sedgwick 舊藏外醬釉內藍釉高足盃（圖二）；第二件藏於堪薩斯納爾遜阿特金斯藝術博物館，第三例出自 Norton 珍藏，1963年11月5日售於倫敦蘇富比，編號172。⁸ 三者尺寸皆異，應為分別燒造。大英博物館藏外醬釉內藍釉盤，乃尤莫弗普勒斯舊蓄（圖二）。⁹

大維德夫人雅藏一件外紅釉內藍釉盌，後入藏出光美術館，1976年7月6日售於倫敦蘇富比，編號131（圖三）。¹⁰ 另一例為外白內醬釉之盌，現藏奈良大和文華館。¹¹

與此件內藍釉外醬釉雲龍紋盌，釉色、紋飾皆相類之高足盃與盤（圖二），或原為一套祭祀用器。霍吉淑論此色彩意謂「藍天紅土」¹²，Christine Lau 亦曾述及「洪武十年，天地合祀」。¹³ 傳統色彩上，天藍而地黃，然明代初期，黃釉尚未可得，需以相近材料相替，如黃玉，醬釉或亦同。雖無史料直證此類雙色瓷為祭祀天地所用，據同類高足盃器形推測，應為禮器。

¹ 見《朱明遺萃：南京故宮出土陶瓷》，香港中文大學文物館，香港，1996年，編號26。
² 林業強，〈元青花龍紋考：以至正瓶為中心〉，《幽藍神采：元青花國際學術研討會論文集》，2015年，卷2，頁194-205，圖23。
³ 《中國陶瓷全集》，上海，1999-2000年，卷11，圖版249。
⁴ 《中國陶瓷全集》，前述出處，圖版241-244。
⁵ 《景德鎮出土明初官窰瓷器》，鴻禧美術館，台北，1996年，編號15。
⁶ 李雪曼與何惠鑑，《Chinese Art under the Mongols. The Yüan Dynasty (1279-1368)》，克利夫蘭藝術博物館，克利夫蘭，1968年，編號165；霍吉淑，《Catalogue of Late Yuan and Ming Ceramics in the British Museum》，倫敦，2001年，編號2:3。
⁷ 霍吉淑，前述出處，編號2:4；陸明華，《上海博物館藏品研究大系：明代官窰瓷器》，上海，2007年，圖版 3-8；《出光美術館十五周年紀念展》，出光美術館，東京，1981年，彩圖766。
⁸ 霍吉淑，前述出處，編號1:20；《Chinese Art under the Mongols》，前述出處，編號160。
⁹ 霍吉淑，前述出處，編號1:21。
¹⁰ 亦錄於《Chinese Art under the Mongols》，前述出處，編號162；《出光美術館十五周年紀念展》，前述出處，彩圖765。
¹¹ 《大和文華館所蔵品図版目録 7：中囯陶磁》，奈良，1977年，編號114。
¹² 霍吉淑，前述出處，頁69。
¹³ Christine Lau，〈Ceremonial Monochrome Wares of the Ming Dynasty〉，蘇玫瑰編，《The Porcelains of Jingdezhen. Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia》，號16，倫敦，1993年，頁94。</small>

Past Auction

Monochrome II