Lot 117

Lot 117
Treasury 6, no. 1177

A moulded enamel ‘dragons’ snuff bottle

(‘“Glass” Pillar’)

Blue, gold, and iron-red enamel on colourless glaze on porcelain; with a flat lip and recessed, flat foot surrounded by a convex footrim; moulded with a continuous design of an imperial five-clawed dragon chasing a flaming pearl among formalized clouds above a smaller dragon rising from formalized waves; the neck with a band of formalized lingzhi and raised dots; the foot inscribed in iron-red seal script Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’); the lip and footrim painted in gold enamel; the inside of the neck covered with a colourless glaze; the interior unglazed
Imperial kilns, Jingdezhen, 1780 (or, more probably, 1795)–1799
Height: 7.32 cm
Mouth/lip: 0.7/1.73 cm
Stopper: iron-red, turquoise-blue and gold enamel on porcelain; circa 2000

Lot 117 Provenance:
Robert Hall, 1999

Published:
Treasury 6, no. 1177

Lot 117 Commentary
Without the presence of the glutinous blue enamel and the outer footrim in the same colour, there would be little obvious connection to the palace glass overlays that inspired the broader group from which this bottle comes (see under Treasury 6, nos. 1175 and 1176). This is an otherwise typical ceramic form, and the decoration relates it more closely to a series of mid-Qing underglaze-blue bottles inspired by carpet-wrapped columns (see under Sale 1, lot 134). Another intriguing detail here is the gilding on lip and footrim, which is derived from palace enamelled metal wares; by the late Qianlong period this was a reflexive, routine addition at Jingdezhen.

Whatever inspired the series of bottles represented by this example, its most intriguing feature is one element in the reign mark. In principle, the Qianlong reign marks had been made immutable by an edict of 1737. Yet at some time late in the century there was an abrupt change: the ‘S’ element in the lower-left quadrant of the character Qian was reversed on a range of wares that can be confidently dated to the late Qianlong period. Most likely, the alteration acknowledges the fact that the Qianlong emperor was supposedly living in retirement when these wares bearing his mark were made. It is our contention that when it was decided to continue the use of the Qianlong emperor’s reign mark on ceramics and other works of art, a minor adjustment to the seal-script formalization of the mark would allow the knowing to identify those wares made after the 1795 abdication. Given the leeway allowed in seal-script formalizations, it could still be considered the ‘same’ character.