青銅器中，方型的鑄造製作難度比圓形的更難，以塊範法（Piece-Moulding）為例，其需要的塊范要比一般的圓形多數倍，比如卡爾貝克（Karlbeck）的文章中的一個方彝就採用了8塊模板，且模板之間還帶有榫卯結構以確保鑄造後可以拆分。
這件方壺採用了鑲嵌、錯金銀的手法，是戰漢時期流行的裝飾手法，為這件方壺的藝術成就起到了錦上添花般的點睛之筆。
細川家永青文庫（eisei bunko）藏有一例，但並非方型；另外還有3件類似的方壺，來自舊金山亞洲藝術博物館，洛杉磯郡藝術博物館和蘇富比拍賣。達到這般級別和傳承的同類作品的存世量應該是個位數。
本品2020年9月24日在紐約售出830.7萬美金，約人民幣6064萬元，傳為著名富商，雞缸杯的主人劉益謙購得，中國上海龍美術館收藏，本品售出後至今未曾露面。
Adolphe Stoclet (1871-1949) 是一位成功的比利時工程師和金融家。他的妻子 Suzanne Stevens (1874-1960) 是藝術評論家與收藏家 Arthur Stevens (1825-1909) 的女兒，也是畫家 Alfred Stevens (1823-1906) 的侄女。透過這些與藝術界的聯繫，Stoclets 夫婦被介紹給巴黎和維也納的前衛藝術圈。
在奧地利居住時，他們認識了建築師兼設計師約瑟夫‧霍夫曼 (Josef Hoffmann，1870-1956)，並於 1905 年委託他在布魯塞爾建造斯托克雷宮 (Palais Stoclet)。https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1298/
這座 Palais 是裝飾派風格的偉大建築，收藏了他們大量的藝術藏品，包括埃及和中國雕塑、中世紀義大利繪畫、拜占庭珠寶、前哥倫比亞和非洲藝術等。古斯塔夫-克林姆 (Gustav Klimt) 在餐廳中繪畫了壁畫，而 Palais 則用來招待瑞典國王以及歷史學家、考古學家、作家和音樂家。
瑞典國王古斯塔夫六世是一位十分重要的藏家，他是重要的東方陶瓷學會成員，資深的中國藝術考古學家、收藏家。
參考SACA學會專題報導：《王的盛宴：瑞典国王古斯塔夫六世的中国情怀 - Gustaf VI Adolf
▲ 瑞典国王古斯塔夫六世与好友大维德爵士在皇家艺术学院伯林顿展览，1935年
斯托克萊的收藏品位極佳，特別是雕塑、青銅器門類。
參考：
《漢代筆記 vol.9 鎏金大熊：西漢的皇族審美，克里夫蘭博物館所藏、Stoclet舊藏 - Party Animal, the Western Han Dynasty Giant Gilt Bronze Bear Weight, ex-Stoclet, Cleveland Museum of Art Collection.》
《拍賣筆記 Vol.29 斯托克萊（Adolphe Stoclet）傳承，520萬元北齊大理石雕菩薩造像碑 - A Rare Chinese White Marble Buddhist Stele From the Adolphe Stoclet Collection.》
AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE AND IMPORTANT GOLD, SILVER AND GLASS-EMBELLISHED BRONZE VESSEL (FANG HU), WARRING STATES PERIOD, 4TH / 3RD CENTURY BC
戰國 公元前四 / 三世紀 青銅錯金銀嵌琉璃乳釘紋方壺
2020 September 24, 04:35 AM HKT
Estimate
2,500,000 - 3,500,000 USD
Lot Sold
8,307,000 USD
of square section, set atop a straight foot with the swelling belly rising to a slightly flaring neck and surmounted by a slightly domed cover set with four bird-shaped finials, each side of the vessel decorated with a complex design of diamond-shaped glass plaques set into cast recesses of conforming shape, surrounded by wide bands of enlaced lines and volutes inlaid in silver, with raised circular bosses embellished with gold-sheet set at regular intervals, on two sides the shoulder set with an animal mask handle suspending a loose ring, with glass plaque and silver inlay, and raised bosses, the dark brown patina with green malachite encrustation (2)
Height 13¾ in., 35.1 cm
Condition Report
In excellent overall condition, with the inlays and embellishment extremely well retained. The vessel has been cleaned and the surface waxed, most likely in the early 20th century. Repair to one handle. Several scattered losses and chips with some wax infill to the inset glass panels, some of which appear to have been either replaced or restored in the early 20th century. As visible in the catalogue images, some losses to the gold sheet covering the raised bosses and some chips, abrasions and shallow losses to the bosses. Minor losses to the silver wire inlay. Small scattered nicks along the edges of the vessel and cover. With paper label from the 1935 Royal Academy exhibition.
整體品相極佳，所飾保存善好。經清理、表面經蠟，應屬20世紀初所為。一側環耳有修。嵌琉璃牌見些許缺損、磕及填蠟，部分似乎於20世紀初經換或修。如圖錄所示，些許乳釘上所鑲覆之金片見些許缺損，些許乳釘見磕、磨損及淺缺。些許錯銀絲見輕微缺損。壺、蓋邊沿處見些許細微磕痕。附1935年皇家藝術學院展覽舊籤。
Provenance
Collection of Adolphe (1871-1949) and Suzanne (1874-1949) Stoclet, and thence by descent.
European Private Collection.
來源
Adolphe (1871-1949) 及 Suzanne (1874-1949) Stoclet 伉儷收藏，此後家族傳承
歐洲私人收藏
Literature
Albert J. Koop, Early Chinese Bronzes, London, 1924, pl. 103 A.
C.G. Seligman & H.C. Beck, ‘Far Eastern Glass: Some Western Origins’, The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities Stockholm Bulletin, no. 10, 1938, pp. 1-64, pl. X.
出版
Albert J. Koop，《Early Chinese Bronzes》，倫敦，1924年，圖版103A
C.G. Seligman 及 H.C. Beck，〈Far Eastern Glass: Some Western Origins〉，《The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities Stockholm Bulletin》，號10，1938年，頁1-64，圖版X
錦繡戰國—青銅錯金銀嵌琉璃方壺
康蕊君
本品方壺，華飾金銀及彩色琉璃，三者各具特色，工藝各異，繁縟絢麗，錦繡卓絕，應為王室貴族而製，足可代表戰國時期奢華工藝之巔峰。此類裝飾風格尤為華麗，極見匠藝雄心，冠絕於世，極其珍罕。因相類作例稀少，其製作工藝罕為人知，亦鮮有相關文獻見經出版。相類鑲嵌琉璃之例目前僅知有三，其中一例河北出土，年代略晚，經大量出版著錄，廣為人知。另外兩例均於1930年左右現身市場，由日本藏家納入珍藏，自此幾乎絕跡公眾。本品亦然，自1938年後即從未見經出版或公開展出。
嵌飾青銅器，始製於春秋時期。初期所嵌銅飾，受技術限制，多較為粗簡，後來工匠嘗試創新工藝，在成器之上製出凹槽，再錯以珍貴金屬，所呈紋飾，尤為生動細緻。本器之錯銀紋飾，精細靈動，線條流暢，與同時期漆器繪飾相得益彰，互相呼應，足見藝匠造詣。
本壺所飾的金乳釘，應先於成器之上鑲青銅乳釘，再取金片鑲覆其上。與同時期所流行的鎏金法相比，此法製成之金飾更為純厚，尤顯華富。
嵌飾中除見金銀銅外，戰國青銅器亦見嵌孔雀石及綠松石者，以豐其色彩，然而所嵌寶石大多細小，相比之下，嵌五色琉璃效果更為鮮豔斑斕。唯此技法工序繁複且難度極高，冠絕各法，不僅因為當時琉璃製品稀少，亦因各種材質所需技術各異，藝匠因而需要互相合作，佳器方成。本壺應在鑄造之時即預留出嵌飾凹槽，再製作相同形狀的琉璃嵌飾，最後將其嵌入器身。正因如此，本器器壁尤其厚實，整體重量非凡。
當時琉璃製品極少，形制也主要為舶來的琉璃珠一類，故此用琉璃裝飾青銅器，極顯奢華。蜻蜓眼紋琉璃珠大約於公元前二千年中葉開始出現，主要於埃及，亦見於中東、近東等地區及西方等國，其色彩艷麗，通常被用作護身符。
戰國時期，此類舶來琉璃珠傳至中國，不久之後中國匠工便開始嘗試製作。最初以陶珠加琉璃作蜻蜓眼紋，後便能製出純蜻蜓眼紋琉璃珠。[1] 單憑外觀，中國所製琉璃珠與舶來者不易分辨，但通過化學檢測，則可憑兩者成份區分，證實兩者並存於戰國時期。
本品以金、銀及蜻蜓眼紋琉璃作飾，華富瑰麗，不單在中國青銅史及金屬器工藝史上有著極為重要的地位，同時也對於中國琉璃發展史意義非凡。本器上的三角形及菱形琉璃嵌飾，相信乃特製於青銅作坊附近，專門按本品需要而量身設計，形狀及紋飾均為特別構思。蜻蜓眼紋的「眼白」一般呈圓形或橢圓，而本品隨其嵌飾之形改作菱形及三角形，如此幾何構圖，使蜻蜓眼紋融入整體設計，可見中國匠者在舶來元素的基礎上，融會貫通，別具匠心。
與本品最相近之作例為一對青銅壺，據載1930年左右出土於河南洛陽金村，此後流入日本。此對壺尺寸較本品略大（約高42.5公分，不同文獻記載稍有出入），鼓腹，長頸，器身錯銀，飾金乳釘，嵌菱形及三角形蜻蜓眼紋琉璃，整體紋飾風格與本品尤近。此對壺例僅見於舊出版物，日本以外幾乎未知。二者皆出自大阪浅野梅吉典藏，其一獲列為重要文化財，後進入細川護立侯爵收藏，現存於東京永青文庫（圖一）。[2] 與其成對之壺例，則蹤跡不詳（圖二）。[3]杉村勇造形容細川收藏之壺例為周代晚期臻藝之例，很可能是當時君主或諸侯傳家之寶。[4] 羅樾論述，此壺華麗非凡，應可斷代公元前500至300年。[5]
現存第三近例年代略晚於本品：中山靖王劉勝墓出土之乳釘紋銅壺（圖三）。此壺現藏於河北博物院，尺寸碩大，高近60公分，重16.25公斤，應為孤例。壺身飾鎏金及鎏銀寬帶紋，頸、腹寬帶紋間作鎏金斜方格紋，交叉點上鑲銀乳釘，方格紋中嵌蜻蜓眼紋琉璃飾。[6] 劉勝，中山王，西漢景皇帝之子，葬於河北滿城，出土時身著金縷玉衣，其它陪葬物亦極盡奢華。此壺並帶刻銘，通過銘文可知其曾一度為長樂宮中之物。
中國本土所製琉璃珠可見出土於重要戰國墓葬，如公元前五世紀湖北随州市擂鼓墩曾侯乙墓出土之蜻蜓眼紋琉璃珠串，紋飾風格與本方壺琉璃嵌飾非常接近（圖四）。[7] 除此類帶有舶來風格之琉璃珠外，其它形制的琉璃製品於戰國時期極為罕見。此類蜻蜓眼紋琉璃及同類品製作時間極短，當時應屬至珍奢華之品。
時之匠工亦曾嘗試將琉璃施嵌於陶器之上，以模仿嵌琉璃之銅器，從而大幅減低製作成本。[8]現存此類作例極其罕見，可參考一波士頓美術館收藏之罐例（圖五），[9]見相類方格紋飾，交叉點上亦飾乳釘。此類嵌琉璃陶器，相信乃中國鉛釉陶瓷之先例。
自漢代起，琉璃品開始增多，但大多為單色玻璃，常用以代替玉器或其它彩石。此外，亦有銅器飾小塊圓形玻璃以模仿寶石紋飾效果：比較一壺例，無蓋，裝飾風格相異，飾金、銀、綠松石及小片圓形紅玻璃（應為模仿瑪瑙），陝西寶雞出土，現存於寶雞市博物館；[10]
倫敦大英博物館收藏一錯銀三足敦，亦應嵌有小塊圓形玻璃。[11] 除此之外，嵌玻璃之品僅見於小型銅件，如帶鉤帶扣等。此時期玻璃嵌飾造型簡單，多被作為貴重材料的替代品，故其珍貴程度大減。
方壺器形流行於戰國後期至西漢初期，而如本品垂身鼓腹之比例者，則較為罕有；此壺壺蓋略呈金字塔形，亦屬頗為鮮見。可比較一對方壺例，器型略修長，壺蓋相類，但平頂無尖，飾幾何紋及金乳釘，嵌烏銀，原亦或嵌寶石，但無琉璃；其一出自 Eric Lidow 收藏，現存於洛杉磯郡藝術博物館（圖六）[12]，其二出自 Arthur B. Michael 收藏，後入紐約水牛城奧爾布賴特-諾克斯美術館收藏，售於紐約蘇富比2007年3月20日，編號508（圖七）。[13] 另見一方壺例，無蓋，飾錯金屬幾何紋，金乳釘較平，現藏於舊金山亞洲藝術博物館（圖八），[14] 同時再見一例，與其相類，錄於《西清古鑑》（圖九）。[15]
青銅禮器，於周朝深受重視，用於祭祀儀式，以盛食物與酒供奉祖先，以求庇佑。祭祖儀式過後，家族眾人設宴享用祭品，故此儀式亦有家族聯誼之效。此類儀式於宗廟舉行，如本品之方壺，或為儀式之盛酒器。儒家《禮記》著於戰國至漢初之間，記載周朝禮儀：「尊用犧象山罍；郁尊用黃目」。[16]「黃目」亦或指如本壺及相類器上的一種紋飾。
一個世紀以前，本方壺由比利時工業家、銀行家及著名藝術品收藏家 Adolphe Stoclet（1871-1949）珍藏。其位於布魯塞爾之大宅由著名建築師、維也納藝術工坊聯合創辦人約瑟夫•霍夫曼（1870-1956）設計。此建築應屬二十世紀初「新藝術運動」時期最重要且完整的作品，曾獲聯合國教科文組織列為世界遺產。Stoclet 曾收藏有大量西方及世界各地的藝術品，其中亦包括許多中國藝術珍品。從一幅拍攝於1917年的照片中可見，本壺曾置於其大宅之中（圖十）。1935年，Stoclet 曾將此壺以及其他二十七件中國藝術品借予倫敦皇家藝術學院，參加了當時轟動世界的《中國藝術國際展覽會》（圖十一）。
[1] 《中國美術全集•工藝美術篇》，卷10：金銀玻璃琺瑯器，北京，1987年，圖版201-204；沈從文及李之檀，《玻璃史話》 ，瀋陽，2005年，圖版1-7。
[2] 此圖亦曾載於水野清一，《殷周青銅器と玉》，東京，1959年，彩圖版12及圖版176E；杉村勇造，《Chinese Sculpture, Bronzes and Jades in Japanese Collections》，檀香山，1966年，部3，彩圖版2及圖版40；另見於展覽圖錄《中國三千年美の美》，三越，東京，1973年，編號16；李學勤編，《中國美術全集•工藝美術篇》，卷5，青銅器，卷2，北京，1986年，圖版119；亦見於其它。
[3] 梅原末治，《洛陽金村古墓聚英》，京都，1944年重編，圖版18及19。
[4] 杉村勇造，前述出處。
[5] 《Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China》，亞洲協會，紐約，1968年，頁154。
[6] 此壺見多處出版，如《文化大革命期間出土文物》，北京，1972年，頁9；Qian Hao、Chen Heyi 及 Ru Suichu，《Out of China’s Earth. Archaeological Discoveries in the People’s Republic of China》，紐約及北京，1981年，圖版191；彭卿雲編，《中國文物精華大辭典：青銅卷》，上海，1995年，圖版1079。
[7] 《中國美術全集》，卷10，前述出處，圖版201。
[8] 相關討論見於 Nigel Wood 及 Ian C. Freestone，〈A Preliminary Examination of a Warring States Pottery Jar with So-called “Glass-Paste” Decoration〉，郭景坤編，《古陶瓷科學技術3：上海古陶瓷科學技術研究會論文集》，上海，1995年，頁12-17；以及謝明良，〈中國初期鉛釉陶器新資料〉，《故宮文物月刊》，期309，2008年12月，頁28-37。
[9] 《Oriental Ceramics. The World’s Great Collections》，東京、紐約及舊金山，1980至1982年，卷10，彩圖版65。
[10] 載李學勤，前述出處，圖版171；及彭卿雲，前述出處，圖版877。
[11] 傑西卡•羅森編，《The British Museum Book of Chinese Art》，倫敦，1992年，頁72，圖45。
[12] 載蘇芳淑，《Eastern Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections》，紐約，1995年，頁62，圖110。
[13] 載羅樾，《Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China》，前述出處，編號69。
[14] 蘇芳淑，前述出處，頁63，圖112。
[15] 梁詩正等，《西清古鑒》，1755年，卷20：壺，編號22。
[16] 理雅各譯，《禮記》，《明堂位》，紐約，1967年（1885年）；見柳楊，〈To Please Those on High: Ritual and Art in Ancient China〉，柳楊編，《敬天崇祖：楚地禮儀藝術展》，新南威爾士美術館，悉尼，2011年，頁34。
Bronze, Gold, Silver, Glass – Opulence in the Warring States Period
Regina Krahl
This bronze vessel with its embellishments in gold, silver and polychrome glass, individually designed and created probably for some royal patron, must have represented the peak of luxury in the Warring States period (475-221 BC). Vessels decorated in this most ambitious and flamboyant style ever devised for Chinese bronzes are so exceedingly rare, that the technique is virtually unknown and almost nothing has been published about this important aspect of the bronze craft, since examples are virtually impossible to see. Of only three other known bronze vessels with related glass inlays, only one piece, excavated in China, but of slightly later date, has been made widely public and has thus become famous; the other two came onto the market around 1930, entered Japanese collections, but have hardly been publicly shown ever since. The present piece, too, has not been published or exhibited since 1938. Connoisseurs of Chinese art and even specialists in archaic Chinese bronzes may therefore feel they have never seen anything like it.
Inlaid bronzes began to be made in the Spring and Autumn period (770-476 BC). While the early copper inlays that were added to the mold before the bronze was cast, were limited to fairly stiff cut-out silhouettes, other techniques were soon experimented with in order to create more vivid designs. The preferred method became incising into the bronze after casting, where the grooves were then filled with precious metals. The present piece is inlaid with complex silver designs, consisting of lively enlaced lines and volutes. They can be seen as the bronze craftsmen’s masterful answer to the concurrent fashion for fluid painted decoration on contemporary lacquer wares, which are here superbly echoed in bronze.
The gold bosses of our vessel were created by applying rather thickly hammered sheet gold onto raised knobs, rather than through mercury gilding, as was quite commonly used at the time, but which would have added only a much thinner layer of the precious metal. The bosses themselves appear to have been separately added to the cast bronze before being covered with gold.
In addition to the use of gold, silver and copper to enrich the monochrome bronze surface, Warring States vessels were sometimes inlaid with pieces of malachite and turquoise which provided bright color, but were very small. Much more successful in adding color and sparkle was the inlay with polychrome glass plaques. Yet it was clearly also the most complex and demanding method, not only on account of the extreme rarity and preciousness of glass at the time, but also because it required the cooperation of artisans working in very different media, versed in different techniques that required different skills. To receive the glass plaques, the bronze was cast with specially shaped recesses, which explains the walls’ unusual thickness and the vessel’s remarkable weight. The glass plaques then had to be created to fit.
Glass was still hardly in use at the time, known mainly in form of imported beads, and undoubtedly an extravagant choice for embellishing a bronze. Glass beads with ‘eye’ motifs in contrasting colors had been made particularly in Egypt but also in many other Central, Middle, Near Eastern and Western countries from the mid-second millennium BC onwards and were universally popular as talismans. At least since the Warring States period, some of these foreign beads had found their way into China, and it did not take long before they were reproduced locally. At first, they were perhaps copied in form of pottery beads with inlaid glass ‘eyes’, but soon as pure glass ‘eye beads’.[1] Visually, Chinese glass beads are difficult to distinguish from those made abroad, but since they differ in composition, chemical tests have confirmed that both existed side by side in the Warring States period.
The present bronze with its application of gold and silver and its lavish use of ‘eye’-decorated glass plaques is therefore not only of major importance for the history of Chinese bronzes and Chinese metal technology, but equally for the history of Chinese glass making. Its triangular and lozenge-shaped plaques with contrasting ’eye’ patterns must have been custom-made near the bronze foundry to suit the requirements of the vessel. They were specially designed, not only in order to fit in shape, but also in design: the usually circular or oval white inlays defining the ‘eyes’ were here turned into lozenges and triangles that evenly fill the surface of the angular or pointed glass plaques. By creating a geometric pattern that no longer immediately evokes eyes, the Chinese craftsmen freely adjusted the foreign style to suit their own purpose.
The closest vessels known to exist are a pair of hu of similar date and style, recorded as having been excavated at Jincun near Luoyang in Henan province, where important works of the late Warring States period were excavated around 1930, and are since preserved in Japan. These two vessels, which are larger (probably 42.5 cm, but published figures vary) and of circular section, are decorated in a very similar way with an overall diaper design with gold bosses and silver designs and lozenge-shaped and triangular glass ‘eye plaques’, although the latter show more complex floral patterns. These important works of art are both known from old photographs only and are virtually unknown outside Japan. Both were originally in the collection of Asano Umekichi, Osaka. One has been designated ‘Important Cultural Property’, entered the collection of Baron Hosokawa Moritatsu and is now in the Eisei Bunko, Tokyo (fig. 1).[2] The subsequent history and present whereabouts of the companion jar are unknown (fig. 2).[3] Yūzō Sugimura describes the Hosokawa jar as “An example of the finest workmanship of late Chou [Zhou] times, probably a family treasure of one of the kings or feudal rulers of the time”.[4] Max Loehr, in discussing “this dazzling, round Hu”, suggests as its date the period between about 500 and 300 BC.[5]
FIG. 1 A GOLD, SILVER AND GLASS-EMBELLISHED HU, WARRING STATES PERIOD. © EISEI BUNKO MUSEUM.
FIG. 2 A GOLD, SILVER AND GLASS-EMBELLISHED HU, WARRING STATES PERIOD AFTER UMEHARA SUEJI, RAKUYŌ KINSON KOBO SHŪEI/SELECTION OF TOMB FINDS FROM LO-YANG, CHIN-TS’UN, KYOTO, REV. ED. 1944, PL. 18.
FIG. 3 GILT AND SILVERED BRONZE JAR WITH GLASS INLAYS, EXCAVATED IN THE MANCHENG HAN TOMBS. WESTERN HAN DYNASTY. HEBEI MUSEUM, HEBEI. PHOTOGRAPHY BY ZHANG HUI
The third comparable vessel known to have survived is probably of slightly later date: the famous royal gilt and silvered bronze jar with glass inlays from the tomb of Liu Sheng, Prince Jing of Zhongshan, who died in 113 BC (fig. 3). This massive vessel, now in the Hebei Provincial Museum, Shijiazhuang, nearly 60 cm high and weighing 16.25 kg, is considered unique. It is gilded and silvered, shows silver bosses at the intersections of its diaper design and is also inlaid with lozenge-shaped and triangular glass ‘eye plaques’.[6] Liu Sheng was a son of the Western Han Emperor Jing Di (r. 154-141 BC) and himself ruled over Zhongshan principality. He was most lavishly buried in a jade burial suit in a sumptuously appointed tomb in Mancheng county, Hebei province, and his glass-inlaid bronze hu is inscribed with a palace name.
FIG. 4 GLASS BEADS, EXCAVATED FROM THE TOMB OF MARQUIS YI OF ZENG, WARRING STATES PERIOD. HUBEI MUSEUM, HUBEI.
Chinese glass beads have been discovered at some of China’s most prestigious archaeological sites of the Warring States period. A series of beads with an ‘eye’ pattern formed of blue dots enclosed by dark brownish rings, on fields of white that are set into a turquoise-blue ground, very similar to the design on the glass plaques of our fang hu, has been found, for example, in the important fifth-century BC tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng at Leigudun, Suixian, Hubei province (fig. 4).[7] Glass pieces other than these foreign-inspired beads were exceedingly rare in the Warring States period. This type of polychrome glass (liuli) with inlaid ‘eye’ and related patterns was in China made for an extremely short period and obviously enjoyed very high prestige.
FIG. 5 COVERED JAR (GUAN), QIN DYNASTY, 3RD CENTURY B.C. MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON. BEQUEST OF CHARLES BAIN HOYT -- CHALES BAIN HOYT COLLECTION. 50.1841. PHOTOGRAPH © MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON.
Experiments were also made with inlaying glass paste into pottery to create replicas of glass-inlaid bronzes such as the present vessel, probably at the fraction of the cost.[8] Surviving examples are, however, also extremely rare. Those that exist, like a jar in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (fig. 5),[9] show related grid designs with bosses at the intersections. These glass-paste pottery vessels in turn are believed to be the direct antecedents of China’s lead-glazed ceramics.
Glass was employed much more frequently from the Han dynasty (206 BC – AD 220) onwards, but then mostly monochrome glass (boli) was produced that could be used in place of jade or other colored stones. Minor glass inlays in form of small monochrome dots simulating semi-precious stones are also found on a few bronze vessels: A hu without cover, for example, inlaid in a very different style with gold, silver, turquoise and small circular pieces of red glass probably meant to simulate agate, was excavated in Baoji, Shaanxi, and is now in the Baoji Municipal Museum; [10] and a silver-inlaid egg-shaped bronze dui tripod in the British Museum, London, is also believed to have featured small dots of glass.[11] Glass inlays are otherwise known only from small bronze objects such as belt hooks. Since this much simpler form of glass was used to replicate more expensive materials, its prestige in the Han dynasty waned.
The basic shape of our fang hu is well known from late Warring States and early Western Han (206 BC – AD 9) bronzes, although its depressed, bulging proportions and its pointed, pyramidal cover are unusual. A pair of fang hu of more elongated form and with pyramidal covers with a flat, ‘cut-off’ tip, also decorated with diaper designs arranged around gold bosses, were inlaid with niello and originally perhaps semi-precious stones but no glass; one of them, from the collection of Eric Lidow is now in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (fig. 6)[12], the other, from the collection of Arthur B. Michael and later in the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York, was sold in our New York rooms, 20th March 2007, lot 508 (fig. 7).[13] Another related fang hu without cover, also with metal-inlaid diaper design but with less prominent gold bosses, is in the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco (fig. 8),[14] and a very similar vessel is depicted in a woodblock illustration in the catalogue of bronzes in the imperial collection compiled for the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736-1795), Xi Qing gu jian (fig. 9).[15]
(TOP ROW)
FIG. 6 LIDDED SQUARE WINE STORAGE JAR (FANG HU) WITH LOZENGES AND KNOBS, LATE EASTERN ZHOU DYNASTY, EARLY OR MIDDLE WARRING STATES PERIOD, ABOUT 481- 300 B.C. COURTESY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM, LOS ANGELES.
FIG. 7 A RARE COPPER-INLAID ARCHAIC BRONZE WINE VESSEL WITH GILT BOSSES (FANG HU), WARRING STATES PERIOD, 4TH CENTURY B.C. SOTHEBY’S NEW YORK, 20TH MARCH 2007, LOT 508.
(BOTTOM ROW)
FIG. 8 RITUAL WINE VESSEL (FANG HU), PROB. 400–300 BCE. CHINA. WARRING STATES PERIOD (C. 475–221 BCE). BRONZE WITH COPPER, GOLD, SILVER, AND STONE INLAYS. ASIAN ART MUSEUM, OF SAN FRANCISCO THE AVERY BRUNDAGE COLLECTION, B62B38. PHOTOGRAPH © ASIAN ART MUSEUM OF SAN FRANCISCO.
FIG. 9 LIANG SHIZHENG ET AL., XI QING GU JIAN, 1755, VOL. 20: HU, NO. 22.
Sacrificial bronze vessels were of very high importance in Zhou (1045-221 BC) society. They were used during sacrificial ceremonies to offer food and wine to the ancestors to obtain their protection. As the offerings were subsequently jointly consumed at ritual banquets, they also served to bond family clans. A vessel such as the present fang hu might have been used to contain wine in such ceremonies that were held at ancestral temples. The Liji [Classic of Rites], one of China’s classic Confucian texts on Zhou dynasty rites, written between the Warring States and early Han period, states about sacrificial offerings made to the Duke of Zhou in the great ancestral temple: “the bronze zun vessels employed were those cast in the forms of the bull victim, or an elephant, and hills; the vessel for fragrant wine was the one with gilt eyes on it”.[16] ‘Gilt eyes’ (huang mu) may well refer to a decoration as seen on the present fang hu and its companion pieces.
(LEFT)
FIG. 10 THE FANG HU PHOTOGRAPHED IN THE STOCLET PALACE, BRUSSELS, 1917.© BILDARCHIV FOTO MARBURG.
(RIGHT)
FIG 11 THE FANG HU ILLUSTRATED IN THE CATALOGUE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION OF CHINESE ART, ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS, LONDON, 1935-36, CAT. NO. 406.
A century ago, the present fang hu was in the collection of Adolphe Stoclet (1871-1949), a Belgian industrialist, banker and famous art collector, whose villa in Brussels had been commissioned, down to the last detail, from Josef Hoffman (1870-1956), important architect and co-founder of the influential art and design cooperative, Wiener Werkstätte. It is considered the most important intact ensemble preserved from the ‘Jugendstil’ period of the early twentieth century and inscribed by UNESCO as a world heritage site. Stoclet collected Western as well as non-Western art from around the world, including many major Chinese works. The piece is visible in a photograph of a room in Stoclet’s house, taken in 1917 (fig. 10). In 1935, Stoclet lent the present bronze together with twenty-seven other Chinese works of art to the International Exhibition of Chinese Art at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, the most important exhibition of Chinese art ever mounted (fig. 11).
Footnotes
[1] Zhongguo meishu quanji. Gongyi meishu bian [Complete series on Chinese art. Arts and crafts section], vol. 10: Jin yin boli falang qi [Gold, silver, glass and enamel wares], Beijing, 1987, pls 201-204; and Shen Congwen & Li Zhitan, Boli shihua/History of Glassware, Shenyang, 2005, pls 1-7.
[2] The same photographs have been published in Seiichi Mizuno, Bronzes and Jades of Ancient China, Tokyo, 1959, col. pl. 12 and pl. 176 E; in Yūzō Sugimura, Chinese Sculpture, Bronzes and Jades in Japanese Collections, Honolulu, 1966, part 3, col. pl. 2 and pl. 40; in the exhibition catalogue Chūgoku sanzen nen: bi no bi/Select Works of Ancient Chinese Art, Mitsukoshi, Tokyo, 1973, cat. no. 16; in Li Xueqin, ed., Zhongguo meishu quanji: Gongyi meishu bian [Complete series on Chinese art: Arts and crafts section], vol. 5: Qingtong qi [Bronzes], vol. 2, Beijing, 1986, pl. 119; and elsewhere.
[3] Umehara Sueji, Rakuyō Kinson kobo shūei/Selection of Tomb Finds from Lo-yang, Chin-ts’un, Kyoto, rev. ed. 1944, pls 18 and 19.
[4] Sugimura, loc.cit.
[5] Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China, exhibition catalogue, The Asia Society, New York, 1968, p. 154.
[6] The jar has been frequently published, for example, in Wenhua Da Geming qijian chutu wenwu [Cultural relics excavated during the Great Cultural Revolution], Beijing, 1972, p. 9; in Qian Hao, Chen Heyi & Ru Suichu, Out of China’s Earth. Archaeological Discoveries in the People’s Republic of China, New York and Beijing, 1981, pl. 191; and in Peng Qingyun, ed., Zhongguo wenwu jinghua da cidian: Qingtong juan [Encyclopaedia of masterpieces of Chinese cultural relics: Bronze volume], Shanghai, 1995, pl. 1079.
[7] Zhongguo meishu quanji, vol. 10, op.cit., pl. 201.
[8] They are discussed in Nigel Wood & Ian C. Freestone, ‘A Preliminary Examination of a Warring States Pottery Jar with So-called “Glass-Paste” Decoration, in Guo Jingkun, ed., Science and Technology of Ancient Ceramics 3: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ancient Ceramics, Shanghai, 1995,, pp. 12-17; and in Hsieh [Xie] Mingliang, ‘Zhongguo chuqi jianyou taoqi xin ciliao [New material on early Chinese lead-glazed pottery], Gugong wenwu yuekan/The National Palace Museum Monthly of Chinese Art, no. 309, December 2008, pp. 28-37.
[9] Oriental Ceramics. The World’s Great Collections, Tokyo, New York, and San Francisco, 1980–82, vol. 10, col. pl. 65.
[10] Published in Li Xueqin, op.cit., pl. 171; and Peng Qingyun, op.cit., pl. 877.
[11] Jessica Rawson, ed., The British Museum Book of Chinese Art, London, 1992, p. 72, fig. 45.
[12] Illustrated in Jenny F. So. Eastern Zhou Ritual Bronzes from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. New York, 1995, p. 62, fig. 110.
[13] It was included, for example, by Max Loehr in the exhibition Ritual Vessels of Bronze Age China, op.cit., cat. no. 69.
[14] So, op.cit., p. 63, fig. 112.
[15] Liang Shizheng et al., Xi Qing gu jian, 1755, vol. 20: hu, no. 22.
[16] In the translation of James Legge, Li Chi: Book of Rites, 2 vols, New York, 1967 (1885), chapter Mingtangwei; see Liu Yang, ‘To Please Those on High: Ritual and Art in Ancient China’, in Liu Yang, ed., Homage to the Ancestors: Ritual Art from the Chu Kingdom, Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney, 2011, p. 34.
Comments