Footnotes

Treasury 7, no. 1605


煤精刻棣園圖鼻煙壺
松溪，1844～1853


Bowing to the Stone

Jet; with slightly concave lip and recessed foot surrounded by a protruding convex footrim; engraved on one main side with a picture of Mi Fu in official robes, holding his hu tablet in front of him as he honours a natural rock formation in a garden setting with a low fence, the rock with long grass growing around its base, with one seal of the artist Songxi (Pine brook), and on the other main side with a garden scene with a large table set beneath a tree with a cup of wine on a saucer on the table and with a scholar seated on a barrel-shaped stool playing the flute while a young woman sits opposite him listening, presumably on a similar stool hidden from view, with two overlapping seals of the artist Di and yuan (together: 'Prunus japonica Garden)
Songxi, 1844–1853
Height: 5.45 cm
Mouth/lip: 0.49/1.95 cm
Stopper: coral; stained walrus-ivory collar
Condition: repaired area towards the base of the rock on the side with Mi Fu, maximum extent 1.4 cm. (poorly repaired in a brownish colour with only partial matching of the design); tiny chip on inside lip at the edge of the mouth; the lip with abrasions from stopper wear; the surface covered with a network of tiny scratches and abrasions from use


Lot 116 Provenance:
Kaynes-Klitz Collection
Sotheby's, Hong Kong, 16 November 1989, lot 214
Published:
Treasury 7, no. 1605

Lot 116 Commentary:
This is from a small group of jet bottles that may be from the same hand. All are masterly engravings with the iron brush. One is in the J & J Collection ( Moss, Graham, and Tsang 1993, vol. 1, no. 90; also in Poly Art Museum 2003, p. 52; JICSBS, Spring 2006, p. 4, fig. 4; and Christie's, New York, 30 March 2005, lot 79). It has a studio name in an extremely well-carved seal on the foot that probably identifies its owner but also links it, in any case, to another of the group that is from the John Ault Collection (Hugh Moss Records). The Ault bottle has a stylistically identical seal in the same position on the foot (although identifying a different owner), and the two appear to have been added by the same seal carver. We shall discuss these two bottles first.

The seal on the Ault bottle reads Mingke qingwan (For the pure appreciation of Mingke). Mingke seems to be a Qing dynasty term for 'tea'—it is not attested previously, except for one much earlier use meaning 'drunken' (perhaps a miswriting of graphically similar word). Mingke was adopted as a name by several known Qing individuals; two we have identified as of this writing are too early to be associated with this bottle, but we note them just in case. The most famous of these is Zhang Huiyan (1761–1802), a native of Changzhou and an important lyric writer as well as a scholar of the classics and calligrapher (noted for his seal script). Less famous and even earlier is Shi Yanghao (zi: Jingbo, hao: Mingke, Xiran) from Qiantang (Hangzhou), a juren of 1753, but he was also noted for his calligraphy and poetry. Other individuals who used the name are too late to have made the present bottle, but they could have owned it. Mingke was used by Li Yinsang (1882–1945), for example, a master seal carver and a painter noted for his flower paintings. He published several works on seals, and later in life he dealt in them for a living.

Perhaps we are wide of the mark in assuming Mingke is the name of a person. There was a site in the Qichun yuan, within the Yuanming yuan, called the Mingke jingshe (jingshe being one of many terms that we translate by the term 'studio' in English). Could the mark mean 'for the pure enjoyment of [someone in] the Mingke Studio'? The Ault bottle does not strike us as designed with a courtly audience in mind, but it might have been appropriate as a present to a prince or staff member. Moreover, it is plausible to place the career of our artist within the period during which we know the structure existed: from 1802, when it was the subject of a poem by the Jiaqing emperor, to 1860, when the British rampage destroyed many parts of the garden (though not necessarily the Mingke jingshe). Furthermore, if our artist is indeed from Yangzhou, it is relevant to note that many details of the garden's furnishings were contributed by Yangzhou craftsmen, who may have been going back and forth for renewal, repair, and augmentation for years after the Jiaqing period. (Our best source of information on the Mingke Studio has been Zhongguo Yuanming yuan xuehui 1992, vol. 5, pp. 157 and 177.)

As for the J & J bottle, the inscription on the bottom, Jiaolin guan cang (Held by the Hall of the Plantain Grove) is the sort that one might see on a book or painting documenting ownership. Jiaolin was a name used by a Du Yanshi (also known as Du Zhongshi), a jinshi of 1823 who rose to some prominence as an individual and sent urgent memorials to the court warning of British opium traders in his native Fujian. If he was the owner of the J & J bottle, it could be thus roughly contemporaneous with the present bottle, but we do not know enough about his life to say more than that at this time.

The reason we are able to be so definite about our dating of the present bottle is that the seal on the side with the flute player names a person who is known to have owned the garden named in the seal on the other main side between 1844 and 1853.

The garden was in Yangzhou. Its name, Di yuan, means Prunus japonica garden. In the early Qing, the garden was called Xiao Fanghu (Little Fanghu, Fanghu being one of the three isles of the immortals in the eastern sea) and belonged to someone named Chen; it was taken over by Huang Langfeng as the Zhuchun yuan (Garden where spring stays); then it became Xiao Panzhou (Little Panzhou). In 1844, a Bao Songxi bought and rebuilt the garden. If Songxi is a sobriquet (and it must be, if it appears as a seal on our bottle), we have not yet discovered his actual name, but we do know that he was a salt official (yuntong, short for tongzhi yanyunshi sishi). A book by his next-door neighbour for a time, Liang Zhangju (1775–1849), Langji congtan [Chats from my rovings; written in 1846–1847], not only provides information on the Di yuan (juan 2, p. 20), it also cites Bao Songxi as one of his sources of information on the successful negotiations that saved Yangzhou from a British fleet in 1842 (p. 37); this indicates that Bao was in Yangzhou before he bought the garden in 1844. The garden is known to have been taken over by a Taiping general; the fall of Yangzhou to the Taipings in 1853 thus gives us our likely date for the end of Bao Songxi's ownership.

Still later, the Di yuan was incorporated into the grounds of the Hunan Guild hall; despite further ravages and improvements, it has not disappeared altogether. The garden was a famous place for staging musical and theatrical performances; if that was the situation in the 1840s, the gentleman playing the flute on one side of our bottle may be a reflection of Bao's role in sponsoring such events. There are a great many Lake Tai stones in the garden, also, which could explain the presence of Mi Fu (1051–1107) on the other side, bowing respectfully to a garden stone—perhaps it is Bao Songxi re-enacting the famous story. (For more on the garden, see Zhu Jiang 1984, pp. 109–110.)

In any case, it would seem that this bottle was carved to commemorate Bao Songxi's ownership of the garden, whether at his behest or at the bidding of a friend who wished to give him a present. This gives us roughly a nine-year period during which we know that a carver whose technique and style is also reflected in the Ault and J & J bottles was working, and it gives us a likely location for his workshop: Yangzhou. We have presented possible scenarios for the Ault bottle going to the Yuanming yuan and the J & J bottle being owned by Du Yanshi, both in the mid-nineteenth century, but the evidence is not nearly as convincing. We cannot rule out the inscriptions on the bottoms of those bottles being added by a later hand, though the notion of two bottles by a single artist coming to a single seal engraver decades later for dedication to two different recipients (whose identities we can only speculate on) comes with its own difficulties.
Mi Fu (1051-1107) was a famous Northern Song literatus and an immensely influential figure aesthetically. He was a painter, calligrapher, and poet as well as an avid collector of natural rock-sculptures as high art - one particular legend relating to him providing the scene that appears both here and on the Ault bottle. Among his treasures was a perforated Taihu rock (a rock from Lake Tai). On his prized stone he inscribed the eulogizing phrase Dongtian yipin (A first-rate cave heaven), a cave heaven representing the paradisiacal realm. He was so impressed by this stone that he once donned his official robes, took his hu in his hand and bowing respectfully to it, addressed it respectfully as 'Elder Brother.' Mi Fu was one of a circle of Song aesthetes who helped to finally define these natural rock-sculptures as the highest form of sculpture in the culture. For further information on stones as high art, see Tsang, Moss, and Ribeiro 1986, no. 9.


米元章拜棣園奇石，包松溪慮揚子夷船

煤精；略凹唇、斂底、突出凸形圈足；一正面刻米芾拜石圖、"松溪"二字篆印，另一正面刻園中石桌旁一學士一婦女的景色，學士坐吹簫，婦女傾耳聽，左下刻"棣"、"園"二搭接篆印

松溪，1844～1853
高：5.45厘米
口經/唇經：0.49/1.95 厘米
蓋：珊瑚，染海象牙座
狀態敘述：米芾拜石圖一面石頭下方有修補處，最大徑為1.4 厘米，顏色與刻紋都不相稱；口沿有微小的缺口，唇呈蓋子磨損痕跡，壺身表面呈因累年觸摸而來的細小擦痕

來源：
Kaynes-Klitz珍藏
蘇富比，香港，1989年11月16日，編號214
文獻﹕
Treasury 7，編號1605

說明：
本壺可能屬於鐵筆優勝的一小群煤精鼻煙壺，而且它們也許都是同一位刻師的作品。一件為J & J 珍藏所屬收（Moss, Graham, and Tsang 1993， 第一冊，編號90；保利藝術博物館2003，頁52；《國際中國鼻煙壺協會的學術期刊》Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, 2006年春期，頁4，圖4；佳士得，紐約，2005年3 月30日，拍賣品號79），據底款，它是"蕉林館藏"，可能是1823年進士杜彥士（原名中士，字蕉林）所珍藏，待考。另一件是Ault 珍藏所收一件煤精米芾拜石鼻煙壺，底刻著風格跟 J & J 壺一樣的款識﹕"茗柯清貦"。論述本壺之前，我們先說說為甚麼可以推測那件"茗柯"壺可以提供本壺為揚州製的旁證。

首先得說明，"茗柯"是清代"茶"的別名。清朝前只見於《世說新語》，但很可能是"茗艼"之誤，茗艼，酩酊也，大醉貌。且不深究清代人對"茗柯"的瞭解的問題，我們知道有清人用它當字或號。有名的張惠言號茗柯，文人施養浩（乾隆十八年舉人）也號茗柯，但他們在世太早，因為文士學人刻煙壺是十九世紀的習俗。篆刻家李尹桑（1882～1945）字茗柯，但他在世晚點。我們已經日暮途窮了吧？

讓我們把注意力轉到另一個探討方向吧。圓明園南，綺春園裏曾有一座茗柯精舍。1802年有御題詩， 1860年英軍搶奪圓明園，可推測茗柯精舍至少有約六十年的歷史。也許"茗柯清貦"的意思是"茗柯精舍主人清玩"或是表明那件煙壺是送給茗柯精舍的家政員。不管賞玩的是誰，最有意義的是，綺春園很多陳設器具與建築修飾都是繪畫出來的，可以想像，那幾十年會有許多的揚州工藝匠穿梭著京師廣陵之間。（關於茗柯精舍，請參閱中國圓明園學會1992，第五輯，頁157、177。）如果"茗柯清貦"那件鼻煙壺是在揚州刻飾的，那就是本壺為揚州刻飾的的旁證。

或許要反過來說，本壺是Ault珍藏的那件是在揚州修飾的的旁證。因為我們認為，壺身刻名的棣園就是揚州的棣園，而刻名的松溪就是1844～1853年間的園主，包松溪。

據隔壁人梁章鉅 (1775-1849) 的《浪跡叢談》，包松溪1842年已經在揚州﹕
"道光二十二年六月初七日，焻夷兵船闖入圌山關，將犯揚州......次日......夷人已將瓜洲民房佔踞，並璤樹赤幟，將江路全行堵截，無 一民船往來，而火輪船及三板船已有七、八十隻，盡攔入金山、北固之麓......傳聞駐防海都 統閉城錮民，盡遭屠戮，顏心膽俱碎......顏復上夷船，囑嗎酋與口塀僕酋，允為減銀數，往復數四，議定給洋銀五十萬元，每元作銀七錢一分，遂面與口塀僕酋定約，旋 即分次送給，而揚城安保無恙，居民亦旋定安輯矣。余初聞顏柳橋之名，住揚州半載，未見其人，故無由詳其通缠之事，後遍詢同人，得包松溪、程跷華所述......包現為總商，家門鼎盛......"。（卷二，顏柳橋）

而關於棣園﹕"揚城中園林之美甲於南中，近多蕪廢，惟南河下包氏棣園為最完好。國初屬陳氏，號小方壺，繼歸黃中翰，為駐春園，最後歸洪鈐庵殿撰，名小盤洲，今屬包氏，改稱棣園，與余所居支氏宅，僅一牆之隔。園主人包松溪運同，風雅宜人，見余如舊相識，屢招余飲園中。"（同，棣園）包松溪是1844年買的棣園，因為棣園後歸一名太平將軍而揚州是1853年陷落的，所以我們推定本壺是那兩年之間刻飾的。棣園後來成為湖南會館的一部分，並沒有完全毀滅，太湖頗多，也許米元章拜石的圖像不是偶然的，是跟棣園主十分喜愛園中的湖石有關係的。（棣園的詳細，可參閱朱江1984，頁109～110。）