Footnotes

Treasury 1, no. 155


白玉刻銘鼻煙壺
壺：1730～1850
雕刻：朱友麟，1934年


Youlin's Prunus Jade

Flawless nephrite; very well hollowed, with a recessed foot; incised with a design of blossoming prunus branches on both main sides, one inscribed in regular script 'Not to be tainted by a speckle of dust', followed in draft script by 'Carved by Youlin in a summer month of the jiaxu year' and the seal Zhu, and on the other side with the seal tiandan (tranquil)

Bottle: 1730–1850
Engraving: 1934
Height: 6.21 cm
Mouth/lip: 0.47/1.82 and 1.72 cm (oval)
Decoration: Zhu Youlin, 1934
Stopper: tourmaline; vinyl collar
Condition: Original bottle: some almost-invisible surface wear from use


Provenance:
Sotheby's, London, 6 June 1988, lot 79

Published:
Treasury 1, no. 155

Commentary:
The decoration here has been added to an existing bottle. The style is that of the literatus familiar with the iron brush, and the highly literate inscription, date, signature and seals all confirm this impression. The bottle, on the other hand, is typical of a large group of mid-Qing bottles in white jade that share the characteristics of the purity of material, a basically rounded-rectangular form, and very good hollowing through an often exaggeratedly small mouth (for a discussion on the group, see Treasury 1, no. 178; for other examples in white nephrite, ibid., nos. 154 and 162). The material is flawless and very white, while both the carving and formal integrity of the original bottle are faultless. With its lovely material, fine workmanship, tiny mouth and excellent hollowing, the original bottle was exciting even before the engraved decoration was added.


The engraving here is distinctly different from that of the similar subject on Treasury 1, nos. 108 and 36. They show prunus designs incised by jade carvers, albeit probably copying brush-and-ink painting or at least a brushed drawing-style. Here Zhu Youlin has actually 'painted' his subject directly onto the bottle with the carving tool. The scholarly calligrapher, familiar with the 'iron-brush' of the seal carver and able to carve directly into softer stones with
the same calligraphic grace that he would bring to the medium of brush and ink on paper, could pick up any other incising tool, such as a diamond-pointed metal rod, and with equal calligraphic or painterly grace, use it to incise on any material that was softer than the fine point he was using, nephrite being easily marked by a diamond or corundum point. The distinctive markings of this technique on a hardstone, or even glass, neither of which could be conveniently carved with metal points, are to be found in the multiple lines where even what appears to be a single line, or dot, unless very thin, is actually made up of multiple scratches. The artist 'paints' onto the material as he would in a literati painting, building brushstroke upon brushstroke until the desired effect is reached. Even the calligraphy here is made up of multiple tiny scratches to achieve the thick and thin strokes and the flowing lines of literate inscription, in which it differs from calligraphic style on paper. The quality of the drawing of the prunus is also far more literate than on either of the other two examples. They depict the prunus very well, but here the work of art is immediate, personal and much more vital. Here the artist has learned to become the prunus when painting it, to dance spontaneously with his 'iron-brush' in order to create rather than copy the prunus. The lines are more powerful, the composition more natural and more satisfying. This is a far more convincingly real prunus, and at the same time a far more powerfully abstract one. This was no paradox to the Chinese artist who has, for centuries, created abstract masterpieces made up entirely of representational subject matter in a way we are only beginning to explore in the West in the past half century (see Hugh Moss, 'A Unified Theory of Art', Moss and He 1990, pp. 13–33).

Since publishing Treasury 1, we have learned more about Zhu Youlin (1883–1964), hence the re-dating of the engraving to 1934 (instead of either 1814 or 1874 as previously proposed). For one thing, on Treasury 6, no. 1444, which is also in this sale as lot 121, he identifies himself as a native of Beiping, using the Republican-era name for the city. We also know that Zhu was a noted porcelain carver who had already won high honours at exhibitions in Japan, the U.S., and Canada from 1915 to 1920 and was considered a leader in his art by the mid-1930s.


友麐刻梅玉

無瑕閃玉；掏膛非常整齊，長圓形斂足；一正面刻繪一枝橫垂梅花，一正面刻繪老梅幹由左下向上伸出，一條花枝相襯，此面題"不受塵埃半點侵，甲戌夏月友麐〔麟之異體字〕刻"，其後刻"朱"一印，前者刻"恬澹"一篆印

壺：1730～1850
雕刻：朱有麟，1934年
高：6.21 厘米
口經/唇經：0.47/1.82、1.72 厘米（橢圓形）
蓋：碧璽，乙烯基座
狀態敘述： 壺：曾有人享用，石面呈現微乎其微的磨耗

來源：
蘇富比，倫敦，1988年6 月6 日，拍賣品號79
文獻：
Treasury 1, 編號155

說明：
這件煙壺大概是清朝中期製的，看題、印、款識、日期等，可推定是文人後來用鐵筆刻飾的。以無瑕白色閃玉作圓角長方形的壺身、由小口用很高的掏膛技術掏腹，都是清朝中期的特徵；而本壺在這些方面都作得非常成功，追加刻飾之前已經是完美的一件鼻煙壺。

本壺圖畫的刻法不像玉匠模仿墨梅的雕法（參照Treasury 1，編號108、36）。朱有麟是用鐵筆一筆一筆地把梅的神態繪寫在閃玉上的，正像文人用毛筆一筆一點地畫出他想表達的意像。就是壺上的文字，也是以很多細小的刻紋構成的， 然與紙帛的書法有異曲同工之妙。玉匠模仿墨梅的成果是相當可觀的，但不如朱友麟入於神化之境。他描繪的梅，既是姿態如生，又是風格豪邁。關於中國傳統藝術家用寫實的畫法來作抽象美術的傑作，請參閱莫士撝，"A Unified Theory of Art," Moss 1983, 第三冊。

Treasury 1 出版的時候，我們推定"甲戌"年相當於西曆1814年或1874年。現在看Treasury 6編號1444，也就是目前拍賣會的121拍賣品號，是朱友麟在北平刻的，我們知道那件是民國時期的作品。而朱友麟原來是頗有名氣的瓷刻藝術家，從1915年到1920年先後在日本、美國、加拿大的展覽會都獲得了高等獎，1930 年代為瓷刻家最著稱的。