An exceptional and possibly unique large blue and white ‘makara dragon' jar, Ming dynasty, Yongle period | 明永樂　青花夔龍紋罐

拍品描述

Property from a distinguished collection 顯赫收藏 w. 29.8 cm 來源 香港蘇富比1989年5月16日，編號112 出版 《香港蘇富比二十週年》，香港，1993年，圖版55 《香港蘇富比三十週年》，香港，2003年，圖版211 Made for a Buddhist Emperor Regina Krahl Porcelains from the Yongle (1403-1424) imperial kilns are painted in a wonderfully imaginative manner, in a style abounding with a free spirit. This jar appears to be unique, but its decoration embodies the best work from these workshops. The two dragons chasing each other around the vessel are charmingly rendered, their wide-open mouths heralding strength, their clawed feet powerfully striding ahead, their fluttering manes indicating swift movement, and their long curlicue tails trailing behind in a seemingly joyful manner – the whole cannot but make one smile, like a ferociously barking dog that is wagging its tail. Chinese dragons come in a multitude of appearances, of which the kui (or xiangcao, ‘sweet grass’) dragons depicted on the present vessel are perhaps the most endearing manifestation. Although in a Buddhist context this motif was very popular in China in the early Ming dynasty (1368-1644), it remained very rare on Chinese porcelain. Dragons of this kind developed from the Indian makara, a water guardian spirit used particularly as an architectural element to protect gateways. In Tibet, makaras formed an integral part of arch-like structures – derived from the Indian torana gateways – that were used to frame Buddhist figures both in three- and two-dimensional images already around the 13th century; see, for example, a pair of gilt-copper makara figures that would have been part of an arch-like throne-back for a Buddhist sculpture, illustrated in Jane Casey, Naman Parmeshwar Ahuja & David Weldon, Divine Presence. Arts of India and the Himalayas, Milan, 2003, p. 135; and painted versions from thangkas and temple walls in Deborah E. Klimburg-Salter, ‘A Thangka Painting Tradition from the Spiti Valley’, Orientations, November 1997, especially pp. 40-45. As Tibetan Buddhist iconography became influential in the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368), the arch incorporating a pair of makaras was adopted also in China and can be seen, for example, on the Cloud Terrace on the Juyongguan mountain pass of the Great Wall (fig. 1). This platform, which originally supported three white dagobas and was completed in 1345, is carved with Tibetan Buddhist imagery and inscribed with sutra texts. The arch-shaped reliefs around its passageway show the classic composition that is also seen in the early Ming period: a garuda between two spirit figures, or apsaras, at the top, a pair of makaras with curling tails at the shoulders, and a sequence of animals stacked above each other along the jambs of the arch. The Yongle Emperor actively patronized Tibetan Buddhism, initiated many Buddhist building projects, and bestowed many imperial gifts on Tibetan lamas and temples both in the capital and in Tibet. Thus, this arch formation with makara figures also became popular in the early Ming period, in multiple figurations: surrounding the entrance of the ‘porcelain pagoda’ of the Da Baoen Temple in Nanjing, for example, which the Yongle Emperor had commissioned to honour his mother, in form of sancai-glazed tilework; see Clarence Eng, Colours and Contrast. Ceramic Traditions in Chinese Architecture, Leiden and Boston, 2015, pp. 240-43 (fig. 2); surrounding Buddhist deities on thangkas; see, Michael Henss, ‘The Woven Image: Tibeto-Chinese Textile Tangkas of the Yuan and Early Ming Dynasties’, Orientations, November 1997, especially pp. 29-31; and surrounding Buddhist sculptures, for example, the statue of Kasyapa at the main altar of the Daxiong Baodian, the main hall of the Fahai Temple outside Beijing, which was completed only slightly later, in 1443, see Ursula Toyka, The Splendours of Paradise. Murals and Epigraphic Documents at the Early Ming Buddhist Monastery Fahai Si, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series LXIII, Sankt Augustin, 2014, vol. 2, pl. 27. In the Yongle reign, Buddhist themes also entered the repertoire of the imperial kilns at Jingdezhen, Jiangxi province, about two hundred nautical miles from the capital Nanjing, whose activities appear to have interested the Emperor greatly. While much blue-and-white porcelain of the Yongle period was made for export, it also was most suitable for imperial gifts to the Buddhist clergy, and the present jar would have been ideal for that purpose. While in most of the early Ming arch structures the makaras remained quite faithful to the Tibetan prototype, at Jingdezhen, a distinctly Chinese version of the makara was developed, as this jar shows. It depicts a makara dragon, kui, which in fact is very close to the long dragon, but has wings instead of hind legs. It is rather different from the Tibetan makara: its head has a typical dragon’s snout instead of the high curled-up nose of the Tibetan animal; it shows tufts of hair that the latter is lacking; its legs have three-clawed dragon feet instead of lion’s paws; its body is scaled; and its long tail retains only a vague echo of the distinctly foliate features of the Tibetan version. The scene depicted on the present jar is remarkable also for the painterly representation of the sea that is borrowed from Chinese ink painting. The rendering of the waves in graded tones of blue, fading to pure white, aims at a three-dimensional effect as it was only ever introduced on porcelain in the Yongle period. It was similarly employed, for example, in the depiction of mountains and flat ground on the two famous Yongle moon flasks painted with foreign dancers and musicians, one in the Taipei Palace Museum, and one in Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul (Shi yu xin: Mingdai Yongle huangdi de ciqi/Pleasingly Pure and Lustrous: Porcelains from the Yongle Reign (1403-1424) of the Ming Dynasty, Palace Museum, Taipei, 2017, pp. 116-9; and Regina Krahl, Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul, ed. John Ayers, London, 1986, vol. 2, no. 612). On these superb flasks, the design is also bordered by very similar blue-ground lotus petals. A very similar fragmentary jar with a small section of the underglaze-blue rings around a reign mark remaining on the glazed base – undoubtedly deriving from a Xuande (1426-1435) mark – was excavated from the Jingdezhen imperial kiln site, see Ming Qing yuyao ciqi. Gugong Bowuyuan yu Jingdezhen taoci kaogu xin chengguo/The Porcelain of Imperial Kiln in Ming and Qing Dynasties. The New Achievements on Ceramic Archaeology of the Palace Museum and Jingdezhen, Beijing, 2016, pl. 130. This Xuande jar is of the same size and the decoration is virtually identical, even down to the formation and layout of the clouds, indicating that the painters were following the same imperial design that had been devised already in the Yongle period. The makara dragon design was rarely used on blue-and-white porcelain in the early Ming period and pieces with Buddhist-themed decoration are scarce altogether among the large numbers manufactured overall. It suggests that the court commissioned them only for special occasions. While no other Yongle jar of this design, nor an intact Xuande version appears to be recorded, five smaller jars of Xuande mark and period decorated with makaras are executed in a very different style, with animals without scales striding on lion’s paws and emitting lotus sprays from their mouths, much closer to the Tibetan model: see one in the Palace Museum, Beijing, in The Complete Collection of Treasures of the Palace Museum. Blue and White Porcelain with Underglazed Red, Shanghai, 2000, vol. 1, pl. 100); and one, illustrated in Adrian M. Joseph, Ming Porcelains. Their Origins and Development, London, 1971, pl. 33, and sold in these rooms, 2nd October 2017, lot 101 (fig. 3). The design of the present piece was revived briefly later in the Ming dynasty: one jar of Jiajing mark and period (1522-1566), of larger size, was sold in our London rooms, 10th December 1982, lot 194, and again in these rooms, 8th April 2009, lot 1672. 帝器佛心 康蕊君 永樂御窰產瓷畫風精妙，筆觸靈動，饒富想像。此罐當世無雙，紋飾博納御窰作坊之工藝精華。二龍繞器一周，首尾互逐；口牙廣開，利爪前展，盡顯龍姿勁健，鬚髮揚逸，長尾蜿蜒，更添快悅神采，使人觀之欣然，彷彿犬隻搖尾叫吠，躍然生動。 華夏之龍形態眾多，此器所飾夔龍（又名「香草龍」）尤得人愛。該紋飾有佛教淵源，明初已風靡中國，然用於瓷器，則實為殊罕。 此類龍紋衍自印度摩迦羅（摩羯魚），摩迦羅乃海中異獸，常用於建築物入口，護衛門戶。十三世紀前後，西藏佛教塑畫已以摩迦羅裝點神壇拱形結構，承襲印度托拉納門傳統；可比較一對鎏金銅摩迦羅作例，或原屬一佛造像拱形背龕，圖見 Jane Casey、Naman Parmeshwar Ahuja 及 David Weldon，《Divine Presence. Arts of India and the Himalayas》，米蘭，2003年，頁135；唐卡及寺院壁畫亦見類例，如 Deborah E. Klimburg-Salter，〈A Thangka Painting Tradition from the Spiti Valley〉，《美成在久》，1997年11月，特別是頁40-45。 藏傳佛教圖像於元朝影響深遠，中土亦見拱形門券設摩迦羅成對，如居庸關雲台（圖1）。居庸關雲台於1345年竣工，原托三座白色佛塔，台上雕刻藏傳佛教形象，且銘經文。廊道外拱券浮雕呈經典制式，該式於明初仍可尋見：左右二神，或為飛天，擁迦樓羅（大鵬金翅鳥）居中立於拱頂，一對摩迦羅長尾盤曲，堆聳及肩，諸神獸次第排列，遍布拱券。 永樂帝篤奉藏傳佛教，於京畿及西藏廣修佛土，並御製大量佛器供養寺僧，故而摩迦羅拱券風靡明初，形態多樣：或見建築物入口，如永樂帝為母所造南京大報恩寺琉璃寶塔，塔門拱券以三彩琉璃瓦造，錄於 Clarence Eng，《Colours and Contrast. Ceramic Traditions in Chinese Architecture》，萊頓、波士頓，2015年，頁240-43（圖2）；或見唐卡尊神身側，如 Michael Henss，《The Woven Image: Tibeto-Chinese Textile Tangkas of the Yuan and Early Ming Dynasties》所載，《美成在久》，1997年11月，特別是頁29-31；或見佛造像身側，如京郊法海寺大雄寶殿迦葉尊者，該寺落成時間略晚，為正統八年（1443年），收入 Ursula Toyka，《Monumenta Serica Monograph Series LXIII: The Splendours of Paradise. Murals and Epigraphic Documents at the Early Ming Buddhist Monastery Fahai Si 》，聖奧古斯丁，2014年，卷2，圖版27。 永樂一朝，佛教題材亦為景德鎮御窰廠所採，景德鎮位於江西省，與都城南京相望二百餘海里，其窰燒事務備受皇帝關注。永樂青花多作外銷，亦宜成器以供佛事，此罐便為禮佛御器。明初，拱形結構中摩迦羅形象多依其藏傳原型，而景德鎮別出心裁，所創獨具中原風格，恰如此罐。罐身摩迦羅可謂「夔」，與「龍」委實相近，惟以雙翼取代後腿，較之西藏摩迦羅頗有分別：鼻與龍無異，不似西藏神獸作高翻狀；鬚髮叢簇，而西藏摩迦羅不見毫髮；爪分三趾，非同獅掌；身有龍鱗；長尾舒卷如纏枝，與西藏摩迦羅尾部姿態僅稍有呼應。 罐身借鑑水墨筆法描繪海水，技藝精湛。浪濤用色由青及白，層疊漸變，以求栩栩之效，為永樂朝瓷器首創。此法亦畫山巒、平地，可比兩件永樂抱月瓶，繪胡人樂舞伎，其一藏台北故宮博物院，其二存伊斯坦堡托普卡比皇宮博物館（見《適於心：明代永樂皇帝的瓷器》，故宮博物院，台北，2017年，頁116-9；康蕊君，《Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul》，約翰．艾爾斯編，倫敦，1986年，卷2，編號612）。兩件抱月瓶上，畫片皆繪於青花蓮瓣紋內，與此罐頗似。 景德鎮御窰廠址出土一殘罐，器底施釉，僅存局部，見青花年款雙圈，為宣德款無疑，錄於《明清御窰瓷器：故宮博物院與景德鎮陶瓷考古新成果》，北京，2016年，圖版130。該宣德罐與此罐尺寸相當，紋飾雷同，乃至雲紋布局等皆如出一轍，可知畫匠所遵御窰制式於永樂朝已有。 明初青花雖產量浩瀚，卻罕用摩迦羅夔龍紋，以佛教題材作飾者也稀見無多。由此推知，宮廷命御窰廠燒造此類器物，僅應特殊場合之需。遍尋記錄，未見其他永樂罐帶此紋飾，亦無宣德類例完好留存，只得五件小罐可比較，宣德年款，飾摩迦羅，然風格迥異，獸身無鱗，爪如獅掌，口吐蓮枝，更近西藏樣式：一例存北京故宮博物院，收入《故宮博物館藏文物珍品大系．青花釉裏紅（上）》，上海，2000年，圖版100；另一例載 Adrian M. Joseph，《Ming Porcelains. Their Origins and Development》，倫敦，1971年，圖版33，售於香港蘇富比2017年10月3日，編號101（圖3）。 此紋飾於明中後期稍有復興，可比較一罐，嘉靖年款，尺寸稍大，先後售於倫敦蘇富比1982年12月10日，編號194，及香港蘇富比2009年4月8日，編號1672。

图片