Lot 1103
Treasury 6, no. 1332 (‘Separated Pets’)
HK$27,500

Famille rose enamels on colourless glaze on porcelain; a double bottle, each segment with a convex lip and recessed flat foot surrounded by a protruding flat foot rim; painted on each segment with a garden scene, one with two doves on the grassy ground with orchids growing nearby, the other with a Pekinese dog with bamboo growing nearby, each with traces of original gilding on the glazed lip, and with foot, inner neck, and interior glazed
Probably imperial, Jingdezhen, 1821–1850
Height: 4.25 cm
Mouths/lips: 0.54/1.01 cm and 0.61/1.04 cm
Stoppers: nephrite; vinyl collar

Provenance:
Robert Kleiner (1992)

Published:
Treasury 6, no. 1332

This unusual variation on the well-known group of imperial dog-and-dove bottles of the Daoguang period is unmarked, but obviously of the period. Under lot 1031 in the present auction we note that it was only a half century after the fact that an antiques expert named Chen Liu 陳瀏 (1863 – 1929) made reference to Daoguang emperor’s fondness for doves and an unnamed favourite consort’s passion for small dog. We have been unable to substantiate this in any Chinese source, although V. W. F. Collier’s 1921 Dogs of China and Japan in Nature and Art states that it was the empress, not a consort, that she had one small dog she loved (not many), and that she named it Apricot (Xing’er 杏兒; p. 194). This is more information than Chen Liu gives. Although Collier does not cite a source, making it difficult to evaluate his information, he does reproduce a scroll by the painting teacher of Cixi> 慈禧 that illustrates ‘imperial dogs’, including one named Xing’er. (Online access to Collier's work by the links provided here works only for computers within the United States.) It is possible that the scroll provided more information, assuming it included famous dogs of previous generations, not just those of the Empress Dowager’s own time.

If we provisionally accept that the statements by Collier and Chen reflect accurate reports by elderly witnesses at the Daoguang court or documentary evidence that we have not found yet, then this could be an unmarked imperial snuff bottle of the Daoguang era. It could also be a non-imperial bottle of the same period; in any case, the nature of the porcelain, the enamels, and the style all fit comfortably into the broader range of Daoguang-marked wares.

Other twinned-cylinder snuff bottles in the Bloch auctions so far include Sale 2, lot 88 and Sale 5, lot 90, the former being rather unique insofar as it is inspired by twin scrolls. Neither of them is marked, and it occurs to us to wonder whether this might have been because of the doubling of the foot. Writing the mark on one half only would seem awkward, and dividing it into two sets of two characters to cover each foot breaks with the tradition of reign marks on ceramics, although it happened occasionally. It is possible that the designers just considered certain shapes to be unsuitable for reign marks.

It occurs to us to wonder whether in many cases modern collectors are more concerned with reign marks than emperors themselves ever were. It would be appropriate to have the reign mark used on a wide range of imperial wares to establish an imperial cultural heritage, but having his own reign title written on every work of art was obviously not a priority for an emperor. Thus it is that vast quantities of known imperial wares from the Qing dynasty have no reign marks.

This is not the Sotheby’s sale catalogue. This is a product of Hugh Moss for the purposes of this website. For the catalogue details please refer to Sotheby’s website or request a copy of a printed sale catalogue from Sotheby’s.