Heaven and Earth Intertwined
Regina Krahl
It would be hard to find a porcelain vessel that can better embody the artistry and aesthetics fostered by the Qianlong Emperor and the peak of craftsmanship at the imperial kilns in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi province. In its outstanding technical intricacy, combining reticulated, interlocking and revolving features, its auspicious design with Chinese symbolism and Western baroque features, and its rich and superbly balanced colour scheme and brocade-style ground, this ceramic work of art is of a sophistication that has never been surpassed. Even this most demanding of patrons, the connoisseur Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736-95), who was hard to please, could not have wished for more. Court archives show that this vase must have been made either in 1743 or immediately thereafter, at a period when the Emperor was in his prime and the imperial manufactories achieved their greatest triumphs.
It was only two years before, in the 6th year of Qianlong, 1741, that the Emperor had reprimanded Tang Ying (1682-1756), the most inventive and capable supervisor the imperial kilns ever had, for low quality and breakages in porcelains sent to the court. Since Tang was largely stationed elsewhere, in Huaian and later in Jiujiang, also in Jiangxi, to follow his other duties as customs official, a resident manager, Laoge, was appointed to directly supervise the work at Jingdezhen and to assure consistent high quality. This, however, was not all. The imperial reprimand must have raised serious alarms with Tang and his potters, who knew that they had to come up with something out of the ordinary to recover lost grace. According to Liao Pao Show, the seventh year of Qianlong, 1742, marks a turning point for yangcai ceramics, the exceptional porcelains made at Jingdezhen for the court, mainly between 1741 and 1744 (Liao Baoxiu, Huali cai ci: Qianlong yangcai/Stunning Decorative Porcelains from the Ch’ien-lung Reign, National Palace Museum, Taipei, 2008, p. 39). These few years saw an unprecedented and unparalleled culmination of technical virtuosity in porcelain production.
By the end of the preceding Yongzheng period (1723-35), the manufactories had already explored such a vast spectrum of styles, designs and colours and reached such a level of technical refinement, that it must have seemed virtually impossible to venture beyond; so, the potters had to search far and wide for inspiration. Openwork had already been accomplished much earlier, for example, at the much coarser celadons of the Longquan kilns of Zhejiang province in the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). This probably did not pose too many problems for Jingdezhen’s potters.
Pieces with moveable and interlocking parts were unheard of in ceramics, but existed in jade, where they also were very complicated to realize. Examples can be seen in the Guwantu (‘Pictures of antiques’), two handscrolls depicting works of art, probably from the imperial collection painted for the Yongzheng Emperor (see Regina Krahl, ‘Chinese Jade Before Qianlong’, in The Woolf Collection of Chinese Jade, London, 2013, pp. 52 and 58, figs 8 a and b). To create such forms in porcelain and to fire them repeatedly at different temperatures, first for the porcelain itself, where it shrinks, and then again for the various colours, was a challenge never attempted before. Once it became possible to produce porcelains with detached, interlocking parts, it may have seemed like the natural next step to make these freely moveable and able to rotate. In the following year already, 1743, the potters were successful and the first examples were sent to the court. This delivery included one vase just like the present piece.
An imperial ruby-ground yangcai 'trigrams' reticulated vase, seal mark and period of Qianlong, formerly in the collections of Laurent Héliot and Jack Chia, Sotheby's Hong Kong, 17th May 1988, lot 116
圖一
清乾隆 御製洋彩紫紅錦地乾坤交泰轉旋瓶 《大清乾隆年製》款
Laurent Héliot 及 Jack Chia 舊藏 香港蘇富比1988年5月17日，編號116
On the 21st day in the leap 4th month of the 8th year of Qianlong, 1743, Tang Ying submitted a memorial to the Emperor recording his presentation to the court of a total of nine jiazeng linglong (layered openwork) and jiaotai (interlocking) vases of innovative design, stating that he did not dare to create larger numbers, since they are so expensive to make; yet, he would later, if accepted, make pairs. The Emperor replied that he ought to make pairs for those that stand alone, but that indeed he should keep numbers low and only to submit them for special occasions.
For the 17th day of the 5th month of the same year, there is another record that Eunuchs Gao Yu and Hu Shijia, as proposed by Treasurer Bai Shixiu and Deputy Foreman Dazi, had presented a yangcai red-ground ‘brocade work’ [sgraffiato] reticulated vase with ‘heaven and earth intertwined’ design, for which the Emperor had ordered a fitted stand, which was completed on the 21st day of the same month. Two further pairs are recorded, one for the 30th day, 11th month, 10th year of Qianlong (1745), for which fitted huali wood stands were tailor-made and presented on the 21st day of the following month; the other was presented on the first day, 5th month, 11th year (1746) and fitted stands were submitted on the 18th day of the same month.
The Emperor’s reaction has not been passed on, but circumstantial evidence suggests that he must have been pleased. Not only did he ask for pairs to be made for the singles, in spite of their exaggerated costs, but also he ordered stands to be made as soon as the vases had arrived and asked for them to be kept together with other top-rated artefacts such as falangcai wares in the Qianqinggong, the main hall of the Inner Court in the Forbidden City.
1743 is also the year in which Tang Ying annotated a painted album of the porcelain-making process for the Emperor, who had asked for it (Peter Y.K. Lam, Chinese Ceramics from the Dawentang Collection, Hong Kong, 2019, vol. 2, pp. 270-313). The twenty illustrations and detailed explanations could have left the Emperor in no doubt about the complexity of ceramic manufacture; and he would have seen that the album dealt merely with the regular production that was done on a large scale and showed nothing of the individual treatment and exceptional working procedures reticulated, interlocking and revolving vases would have required. It was only for a few years that Tang Ying managed to get his potters to create such marvels. The level of craftsmanship they commanded and the amounts of manual labour and material they consumed – failures must have been considerable – were excessive even for an imperial workshop, so that even the Emperor advised moderation. It is not surprising that they remain among the rarest and priciest pieces of imperial porcelain today.
An imperial yellow-ground yangcai 'trigrams' reticulated vase, seal mark and period of Qianlong, made in the 9th year of the Qianlong reign (1744), Qing court collection, Taipei Palace Museum
圖二
清乾隆九年（1744年） 御製洋彩黃錦地乾坤交泰轉旋瓶
《大清乾隆年製》款 清宮舊藏 台北故宮博物院
With the development of these vases, Tang Ying not only managed to present works to the court that were considered gui fu shen gong (‘demon labour and spirit work’); he also knew how to touch the Qianlong Emperor personally. Trigrams and their message in the Yijing (Book of Changes) appear to have carried important meaning for the Emperor who used the first of the Eight Trigrams, qian, consisting of three unbroken strokes and representing heaven, or the male principle, in his reign title and as such also on works of art and in his seals, together with dragons, long, homophone of the long in his title. In the archives, these vases are referred to as qiankun jiaotai, ‘heaven and earth intertwined’, with qian the first, kun the eighth trigram, and the two together signifying heaven and earth, or the male and female principles. For the Qianlong Emperor, such symbols of a harmonious universe must have felt like a gratifying comment on his own rule.
The inner tube which represents the actual body of the vase, is painted with underglaze-blue lotus scrolls in early Ming (1368-1644) style. A glimpse through the narrow openings in the outer wall thus seemingly offers a view into a distant past – a glorious imperial past, whose natural heirs the Manchu emperors claimed to be.
The strongly Western-oriented painted decoration on the outside of this vase contains a completely different message, but one that the Qianlong Emperor would have welcomed no less. “Nowhere was the multicultural nature of Qing rulership more evident than in the paintings, porcelains, and other objets d’art that were created for palace use and for presentation to officials and embassies. The use of material culture as an expression of the court’s cosmopolitan vision is exemplified in the activities of the Qianlong emperor” (Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors. A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998, p. 51).
Although the construction of Western-style palaces in the Yuanmingyuan summer resort had not yet begun, the court had received Western artefacts in many different media through the Jesuits who had been active at the court already in the Kangxi period (1662-1722). Most of these foreign objects, even scientific instruments, were decorated with the floral ornaments that were en vogue particularly in France at the time. Prototypes of the curly foliate scrolls around the lower part of the vase, which Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens calls ‘in European seventeenth-century art … omnipresent’, appear, for example in French tapestry and carpet design, but also in many other media (Michèle Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens, ‘Notes on European Decorative Arts at the Chinese Court during the Kangxi Reign: Importations, Copies and Adaptations’, National Palace Museum Bulletin, vol. 45, October 2012, p. 7, figs 6 and 7a). Idealized eight-petalled blooms with pearl rings around the centre, not unlike the flower-heads in the pendent ruyi panels of this vase, can already be seen on a Kangxi-period brocade in the Palace Museum, Beijing (Kangxi, Empereur de Chine, 1662-1722. La cite interdite à Versailles, Musée national du château de Versailles, Paris, 2004, p. 10, no. 120). Not only the imaginary blooms and leaves and the geometric arrangement of the overall floral design are Western in origin. In parts of the decoration, distinct shading was introduced to create three-dimensionality, a Western painting device that was basically rejected by Chinese painters. On this vase, a veritable trompe-l’oeil effect has been achieved particularly with the rings suspended from ruyi motifs at the neck.
Tang Ying, who had worked at the palace in Beijing himself, was clearly aware of the latest trends in the capital and made sure that Jingdezhen’s porcelain painters adapted their repertoire. These used foreign models as inspiration, but turned them into their own independent, idiosyncratic style – a style that became one of the characteristics of yangcai porcelain.
There exists only one very similar vase, but not the exact pair to the present piece, formerly in the collections of Laurent Héliot and Jack Chia and now in a private Hong Kong collection, sold in these rooms, 17th May, 1988, lot 116 (fig. 1). That vase is very similar in shape, design and size, but has an additional raised rib below the neck, and the two show very minor differences in the painted decoration. One of these vases might represent the first piece delivered in 1743, the other may have been made as a pair to it, but later, after the Emperor had asked for this.
Catalog of the Special Exhibition of K'ang-hsi, Yung-cheng and Ch'ien-lung Porcelain Ware from the Ch'ing Dynasty in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, 1986, cover
圖三
《清康雍乾名瓷特展》，台北，1986年，封面
A pair of much smaller yangcai vases (19.5 cm tall) of very similar overall form, construction and decoration but on a yellow ground is in the National Palace Museum, Taipei. It is recorded in the palace archives of 1744. One of them was included in the Museum’s exhibition Qianlong huangdi de wenhua daye/Emperor Ch’ien-lung’s Grand Cultural Enterprise, Taipei, 2002, cat. no. V-27; and again in the exhibition of yangcai wares, see Liao Pao Show, op.cit., cat. no. 73, where both are illustrated together, p. 272, no. 62 (figs 2 and 3). Liao explains the complex workmanship, structure and decoration techniques of these vases, which are composed of four sections: an inner vase, which is connected to the overhanging collar, and two detached parts for upper and lower sections of the outer walls. The inner vase is painted – like on the present piece – with underglaze-blue lotus. She writes “Ingenious designs such as the one in the example here were made to laud the prosperity and peace of the empire during the height of the Ch’ien-lung [Qianlong] reign”.
An immediate predecessor of this vase can be seen in a yangcai wall vase without any openwork, recorded to have been made in the 6th year of Qianlong, 1741, which is of similar pear-shaped form and decorated with similar Western-style flower scrolls on a ruby ground, but its handles continue further down the body (fig. 4). This had to be modified for the present shape where the neck is constructed as a separate part; see Liao Baoxiu [Liao Pao Show], Dian ya fu li. Gugong cang ci [Elegant and sumptious. Porcelains collected by the Palace], National Palace Museum, Taipei, 2014, p. 163, fig. 30.
The present vase has one of the most illustrious provenances for Chinese works of art, as it comes from the ‘Fonthill heirlooms’ of Alfred Morrison (1821-1897) of Fonthill House in Wiltshire in the southwest of England (fig. 5). Morrison’s outstanding collection comprised not only superb Chinese imperial works of art but also Western historical documents, paintings, sculptures and other works. In 1861, he bought a substantial group of Chinese porcelains and enamel wares from Baron Loch of Drylaw (1827-1900), to which this vase may have belonged, but he had added Chinese porcelains to his collection already prior to this major purchase and continued to do so afterwards. Dr Wou Kiuan purchased the vase at Christie’s sale of the Morrison collection in 1971, after which it remained in the Wou family for over half a century.
天地交泰蘊乾坤
康蕊君
欲尋一器以總結乾隆帝的藝術美學觀念，兼展示當時江西景德鎮御窰的工精技絕，難矣。然此瓶，巧奪天工，鏤雕、交泰、轉旋集匯一身，以中國禎祥紋樣，搭襯西方巴洛克風圖案，且配色艷麗，紫紅明黃妙相合，隙地錐剔鳳尾卷草錦紋，誠鬼斧神工，超前絕後。乾隆帝（1736-95年間在位）善鑑好藏，要求嚴格謹慎之處，無出其右，一般難以取悅，然接獲如此巧製佳瓷，也是無可挑剔了。據清宮檔案，此瓶當是乾隆八年（1743年）或即後數年燒成，時皇權正盛，御窰發展更是攀峰登極。
唐英（1682-1756年）可謂御窰史上最富創思巧藝的督陶官，然才不過兩年之前，即乾隆六年（1741年），皇上訓斥他監理不力，「傳旨唐英燒造上色之磁器甚糙、釉不好，磁器內亦有破的」。當時唐英雖駐江西，但先後長守淮安、九江，主職關務，難以兼顧窰事，遂指派副手老格在景德鎮直接打點陶務，確保御瓷品質。激怒龍顏定必讓唐英及其他陶人寢食難安，是以未敢就此掉以輕心，煞費心神，誓要推陳出新、將功補過。廖寶秀指，景德鎮製供御洋彩瓷器，卓越超凡，主要製作於乾隆六至九年間（1741-44年），而七年（1742年）當是重要的轉捩點；詳見廖寶秀，《華麗彩瓷：乾隆洋彩》，台北故宮博物院，2008年，頁27，英譯見頁39。雖只數年，窰廠卻見證了瓷藝技術前所未有的躍進，後世難以企及。
Seal Mark and Period of Qianlong
h. 31 cm
Est: HK$ 60,000,000 – 120,000,000 / US$ 7,644,000 – 15,287,000
雍正末年（1723-35年），御窰在風格、樣式、釉彩等各方面均有所成就，種類五花八門，技術精益求精，彷彿藝已臻極，無可超越。乾隆御窰陶人定必費煞思量，萬覓千尋，才能找到啟迪。如借鑑元代（1271-1368年）浙江龍泉窰已有的鏤空之技，惟昔時質甚粗糙，但對清代景德鎮匠人而言，則應該沒有太大難度。
此前，轉旋與交泰設計在陶瓷上雖聞所未聞，卻在玉雕中有跡可尋，其工藝程序也甚是繁複。相信為記錄雍正帝御藏所繪之〈古玩圖卷〉二軸，便有載此類玉器，圖見康蕊君，〈乾隆以前的中國玉雕〉，《伍夫收藏中國玉器》，倫敦，2013年，頁52及58，圖8 a 及 b。欲得交泰轉心瓷，必須分段製作，反覆以不同溫度燒成。初造瓷胎，期間坯土受熱收縮，然後添施彩料，再行入窰燒就，過程講究，極具挑戰性，曠古未有。藝匠掌握了分段與交泰的燒造技術後，或許轉旋便順理成章地成為下一個目標。次年（1743年）窰匠已成功燒造轉旋瓷器，並上進首批作品，包括一件與此瓶吻合之品。
乾隆八年（1743年）閏四月二十一日，唐英上奏稱「新擬得夾層玲瓏交泰等瓶共玖種，謹恭摺送京呈」，但礙於費工耗料，「故未敢多造，伏祈皇上教導改正，以便欽遵，再行成對燒造」。乾隆帝回覆曰：「不必照隨常瓷器一樣多燒，嗣後按節進十數件。如不能成對，即將各樣燒造」。
同年五月十七日，「司庫白世秀副催總達子來說太監高玉、胡世傑交⋯⋯洋彩紅地錦上添花乾坤玲瓏交泰瓶一件⋯⋯旨著配座」，並在同月二十一日配得木座。據檔尚有另外兩對相關瓷瓶。乾隆十年（1745年）十一月三十日進「洋彩紅地錦上添花乾坤交泰瓶一對」，下月二十一日「配得花梨木座」。翌年（1746年）五月初一又進「洋彩紅地錦上添花交泰瓶一對」，木座則在同月十八日製成。
當時乾隆帝的反應如何，如今已無從稽考，但閱清檔記錄，便悉即使造價高昂，聖喻為單獨之器配燒成對，又命為新進瓷瓶製座，存紫禁城內廷要殿乾清宮，與其他甲等御藏如琺瑯彩瓷等同置一堂，由此可推龍顏之悅。
同是乾隆八年，唐英奉旨編註〈陶冶圖〉（林業強，《瓷緣：達文堂藏瓷》，香港，2019年，卷2，頁270-313）。〈陶冶圖冊〉二十開，圖文並茂闡釋燒瓷程序，個別工藝細節雖則從缺，更沒有收錄如鏤空、交泰、轉旋等複雜技法，但僅一般大宗陶事，乾隆帝看畢也可理解窰務繁瑣。在唐英麾下，短短數年間御窰瓷藝突飛猛進，其功不可沒。凡製此類瓷作，技術要求嚴苛，往往事倍功半，廢棄品眾，即使對御窰而言，也是耗材費工之舉，難怪聖旨也籲燒造適度。現今傳世御瓷中，這類瓶器罕如鳳毛麟角，價格不菲，實屬意料之事。
An imperial ruby-ground yangcai 'floral scroll' vase, seal mark and period of Qianlong, Qing court collection, Taipei Palace Museum
圖四
清乾隆 御製洋彩紫紅錦地雙耳轎瓶 《乾隆年製》款 清宮舊藏 台北故宮博物院
這類玲瓏轉心瓶設計精妙，堪稱鬼斧神工，唐英還以《易經》八卦暗藏玄機，在取悅君心上再下一籌。八卦以乾卦為首，三爻皆陽，象徵天、君、父等。高宗以此為年號，御器、璽印上，添飾龍紋拱襯，兩者相合，諧音乾隆。八卦中，首卦乾為天，末卦坤為地，分主男女，二卦契合，陰陽調順，互為補足。同類瓷瓶，清檔故曰乾坤交泰。乾坤交泰瓶既有天地協和之意，對一國之君而言，正中下懷。
結構上，此器以內瓶為主，繪飾纏枝蓮紋，溢早明（1368-1644年）雅風，從外瓶玲瓏透雕隙縫窺看，彷彿乍見往昔皇室鼎盛，呼應清帝延襲前朝輝煌之說。
外瓶密飾纏枝番花，洋風極濃，寄語雖與前異，但同得君心。正如羅友枝寫道，清朝統治的文化多元性，在供御及賞賜給朝臣使節的繪畫、瓷器和其他工藝品上最為顯著，乾隆年間藝文活動便是清宮以物質文化展示其國際視野的例證（詳見著作《最後的皇族：清代宮廷社會史》，柏克萊及洛杉磯，1998年，頁51）。
儘管當時圓明園洋風樓閣尚未興土木，傳教士自康熙年間（1662-1722年）已行走宮中，引入西方藝品。大部分舶來之品，甚至科學儀器，均飾以當時流行的花卉圖案，曲瓣卷草，尤其風靡法國。此瓶下方所飾的纏卷枝莖，仿照流行飾紋而繪，Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens 指它們於十七世紀歐洲藝術中無處不在，如法國織毯圖案，但也見於其他材質之品（Michèle Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens，〈Notes on European Decorative Arts at the Chinese Court during the Kangxi Reign: Importations, Copies and Adaptations〉，《台北故宮博物院年刊》，卷45，2012年10月，頁7，圖 6、7a）。瓶腹俯向如意雲頭上的八瓣番蓮，花心綴珠，早見於北京故宮藏康熙織錦，圖載於《Kangxi, Empereur de Chine, 1662-1722. La cite interdite à Versailles》，Musée national du château de Versailles（凡爾賽國家博物館），巴黎，2004年，頁10，編號120。奇葩仙葉，饒富想像，整體作幾何式布局，種種均可追溯西方始源，局部飾紋更以色彩濃淡添陰影，增強立體效果，這正是遭中國畫師屏棄的西洋技法。此瓶繪飾，如器頸上仰如意雲紋與圓環相扣，前後層次清𥇦，效果幾可亂真。
唐英曾供職內廷，對京城潮流定必瞭然，遂命景德鎮畫匠倣模此風。雖以外國式樣為範，終卻自成一格，發展成洋彩瓷器的獨特藝風。
與此瓶接近之例僅一，卻未能配對，由 Laurent Héliot 及 Jack Chia 遞藏，1988年5月17日售於香港蘇富比 ，編號116（圖一），現屬香港私人珍藏。論器形、紋樣、尺寸，兩瓶十分近似，唯獨前者頸下飾有凸棱，繪畫也有細微分別。二瓶之一，或正乃乾隆八年進宮雛例，另一則疑屬後來奉旨燒造的對瓶。
台北故宮藏洋彩黃地對瓶，器形、結構、飾紋均與此相近，但瓶身更矮（高19.5公分），乾隆九年（1744年）清宮檔案有錄。其中一瓶曾展於《乾隆皇帝的文化大業》，台北，2002年，編號V-27，又見於上文提及的洋彩展覽，見廖寶秀，前述出處，編號73，成對照片則見於頁272，編號62（圖二、三）。筆者詳述此類瓷瓶的複雜工藝、結構及裝飾技巧，解䆁必須分開四層製作，器頸與內瓶結榫套合，配上器腹與底座便成轉旋瓶，正如此器，內瓶繪青花蓮紋，從鏤空隙間透現。廖寶秀道：「如此巧妙的套合原理，不僅展示高超的製作技術，亦有贊頌乾隆盛世，天地上下交通，國泰民安之意。」
參考一洋彩紫紅地錦上添花纏枝番蓮紋轎瓶，同採梨式，卻沒鏤空，據載製於乾隆六年（1741年），可視為此瓶雛形（圖四）。對照兩器雙耳，比例上後者較短，或因分層燒造之故，圖見廖寶秀，《典雅富麗：故宮藏瓷》，台北故宮博物院，2014年，頁163，圖30。
Unknown artist, Old House at Fonthill, Wiltshire, between 1800 and 1810, detail, watercolor and graphite on medium, slightly textured, cream wove paper, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, B1975.2.25
圖五
1800-10年 佚名《放山君舊房》局部 水彩、石墨紙本 耶魯英國藝術中心 保羅梅隆收藏 B1975.2.25
此瓶原屬艾弗瑞．莫里森（1821-97年）寶蓄，藏英倫西南部威爾特郡大宅放山居（圖五），來源出眾，在中國藝壇中鮮見。莫里森所藏甚豐，除中國御器珍品外，尚有西方歷史文檔、繪畫、雕塑等。1861年，他從洛赫勛爵（1827-1900年）手中買下一批中國琺瑯及瓷器，這瓶或為其一，然此前他早已有中國瓷器入藏，爾後也未見竭止。1971年，吳權博士在佳士得莫里森專場中購下此瓶，往後續於吳家傳承，至今已逾半世紀。