清十八 / 十九世紀 粉紅地套涅白料「蠶桑」圖鼻煙壺 揚州派製

Mr and Mrs Lionel Rosenberg
紐約蘇富比，1991年11月26日，編號138

Hugh Moss、Victor Graham 及曾嘉寶，《A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection》，卷5，香港，2002年，編號1010

It is in good condition.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This rare single-overlay version of the silkworm subject is obviously related to Sale 1, lot 61 and Sale 7, lot 171. Were it not for the rare subject, there would be few clues that this probably comes from the same Yangzhou school. Once the connection is posited, however, one notices that this bottle is of an unusually flat shape that is repeated on a number of the more exuberant multiple overlays of the school; the foot rim is not particularly well matched to the overlay colour; and the undulating ground plane retains traces of the lapidary’s tools. Pink grounds and white overlay are found elsewhere in both the multiple overlays of the school and its lower-relief single-overlay counterparts, endorsing attribution to it.

A date in the mid-Qing period, reasonable even in the absence of a link to Yangzhou, becomes irresistible in the light the two that bear Qianlong dates. One of those was in the Stevens Collection and now graces the Holden Collection (Stevens 1976, not. 1006; Sotheby’s New York, 25th June 1982, lot 10; Rachelle R. Holden 1994, no. 95; and JICSBS, Spring 1997, p. 12, figs. 45 and 46, where figs. 47 and 48 are a modern copy of it.) The other was in Sotheby’s New York, 31st May 1994, lot 671, and JICSBS, Autumn 1994, p. 3, fig. 2. Both have dates corresponding to 1786; both have overlay relief Qianlong marks unusual for being on the side, not the foot. Those two bottles were part of a group of overlay bottles in the Bloch Collection that includes Sale 6, lot 113, but since the judgement now is that bottle was made for a Yu Changsui 于昌遂 (1829 – 1883) between his retirement to Yangzhou in 1861 and his death there in 1883, the reign-marked bottles obviously represent an earlier stage in the tradition.

As for this bottle, although it is spectacular as an overlay combination, a critical look at the carving reveals it to be more decorative in nature than Sale 1, lot 61 and Sale 7, lot 171, without that level of total commitment that made them such masterpieces. This may be an early prototype, produced while the carver familiarized himself with the art of carving overlay, or it may represent a later, more standard rendering of a typical subject now betraying signs of weariness resulting from repeated use. A third possibility, always worth bearing in mind when dealing with the work of commercial craftsmen in China, is that it was made for a less discerning or exalted patron. If one imagines Sale 1, lot 61 and Sale 7, lot 171 being made for the court of the Qianlong emperor and this one being produced for a local salt merchant whose wealth exceeded his artistic sensibility, one may have the reason why this one exhibits a less painstaking finish and a generally lower level of commitment.

Compensating for these minor quibbles over detail, however,  there is a striking colour combination and a very well-conceived and powerful composition. The formal layout of the white relief and its balance with the pink space beneath is nothing short of masterly, and a few extra hours spent on it could have elevated it to the same heights as the other two silkworm-subject bottles.

The unusually long neck contributes greatly to the elegance of the composition. It is also a cogent reminder of the difficulties of judging whether the neck of a snuff bottle has been reduced to hide damage, for if we judged Yangzhou necks by this one, all would appear reduced. One might reduce the length of the neck here by more than half a centimetre and still leave a bottle of perfectly acceptable shape, yet the additional length achieves a far more balanced result.