Dobrovits Aladár szerk.: Az Iparművészeti Múzeum Évkönyvei 1. (Budapest, 1954)
Idegennyelvű kivonatok
In our Museum we have two blue and white vases, fig. 40—41, 42—43, írom the collection of Francis Hopp, who bought, them in China. On the information that he got from the dealers, he wrote on the bottom of them, with Indian ink, „Miiig dynasty". Their shapes are, if not identical, still very close to each other. Both have the longer part of the neck cut off, after a drawn line. 10 The form with the complete neck was — no doubt — identical with a vase in the British Museum. 11 This is not Chinese, but Near-Eastern (vine bottle). The slender neck with a bulb as partition, let us save for the Chinese craftsmen, was not so practical in porcelain, as it was in cepper. Our two vases are rather similar with the thickness of the wall, the brilliancy of the Muhammedan blue and the shining suface. The desings are executed on bcth of them with a bold powerful hand. The lines are clearly drawn, the distribution of the parts of the drawing is well arranged. No doubt, they are the products of Ching-te Chen when this style was at its height. On the firts vase, fig. 40—41. the large band is painted with figures in landscape A young man is galloping away on a beautiful spotted horse. In his right hand he has his whip, on his back, he carries a sword. Above him, in the sky, we see stars in constellation. Other men are following him, two of them bringing torches with them, a third one holds a halberd. Further back, partly hidden by a rock-wall, another horseman, an official, with a footman proceeding him with a flag (or a canopy?). This scene was taken from the classical novel of San Kuo Shi illustrating the part of Ho Sao Po-weng (The burning of Po-Wang) I know about another vase with the same decoraticn in the Hallwyl Museum of Stockholm, 12 which is dated as „probably early K'ang-Hsi". On our vase we find on the shoulder, bordered on both sides with double lines, ..stiff leaves, rolling foliage and a formal plant design-, suggestive of a tulip," which help us to date this piece to the Transition period. The main desing of the vase, fig. 42—43, is divided into two parts: the fight of a cock and a hen, with the sun above them, and a fancy shaped rock with wild chrysanthemums growing at its base. This latter would suggest open country side, although such an impressive rock is usually found in a garden. Anyhow this design is so much Chinese in taste, so unfitted for export purposes, that I doubt that the blue and white of this Transition period was meant all for export. The general trend of the Ming arts went through a definite change in the first half of the 17 th century, which was held up or stopped altogether by the Manchu conquest. In porcelain paintings this new trend could be well followed, this very vigorous, sometimes realistic style as the adoptation of the art of the late Ming wood block printing, especially the book illustrations. Owing to the popularity and wide dispersal of these books, this kind of pictorial representations were also adopted for the porcelain wares, adding to the richness and variety of the late Ming style. Our two vases were made between 1620—1640. The „tulip" decoration on the neck of the fig. 40—41, could help us to date some other pieces with the same motive. To this group belongs a „bottle: transition blue and white: about 1640" in the British Museum. 13 The double gourd shape divides the vase into three distinct parts. Both the body and the bulbous lower part of the neck are decorated with figures in landscape. This repetition of the same kind of decoration is already a sign of the deterioration of a purer style, which was better suited to the shape of the gourd vases. I know some other vases on which the figures in landscape motive are not repeated above the body, i. e., on the vase in the Dresdner collection, we find the „tulip" motive on the narrower band. The vase is dated „about 1650." 14 On the vase from the British Museum, between these two bands of similar design, on the shoulder, there is a scroll of „stiff leaves" and a line of smaller design. Below the mouth we see the „tulip" motive, but in a simplified form. The other painted parts look —• as far as I can see, on the rather small size illustration — very well executed, much in the style of the Transition period. Only I believe, according to the treatment of the „tulip" motive, the dating could not be „about 1640" as Hobson has thought of it, but of later years, sometime between 1650—1680, possibly 1650—1670. The strict and closed style of figures in landscape loosened up in the early years of K'ang Hsi rule. To illustrate the process, 1 give here the picture of a double gpurd vase in our Museum, fig 44. ir > which is very much the same as the above one in the British Museum. On this we could easily follow the degree of the deterioration of the original form and decoration As far as the form is concerned, the proportions are changed, the body part is smaller in its width, and at the same time- more rounded up, the ring became larger bet-
