About "Revising Xi Qing Gu Jian"
Revising Xi Qing Gu Jian 2
During the 11th month of 14th year of the reign of Emperor ChienLong (1749), a project to catalog the bronzes in the Imperial Collection was initiated. The workers consisted of two members of the royal family, 11 high level officials and scholars, as well as some two dozens of artists, calligraphers, and editors. The printed copy of the Xi Qing Gu Jian (XQGJ) was finally printed six years later during the 20th year of his reign. The catalogue has been reprinted many times in the ensuing years. Included in this publication was a group of bronzes from the Bronze Age. These pieces were treasured for their artistic value as well as for the inscriptions which were cast on some of the objects. The inscriptions are the only firsthand written materials of this early period of human history and as such they serve as an invaluable source to validate the written history compiled years later. Indeed, bronzes are often referred to in Chinese as Zhong Qi, important objects.
From the late eighteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century China went through a very chaotic period including several foreign invasions and civil wars. There has been much speculation as to how and where the art objects described in the Xi Qing Gu Jian were dispersed. This speculation was further complicated by art dealers and collectors claiming imperial collection provenance for pieces, for any work owning such a history often could command a very high price. There are so many stories of objects that were stolen or sold by the court that the actual status of this important collection was very much a mystery.
One way to obtain some concrete answers was to do a detailed study of a small corner of the collection, such as the archaic bronzes catalogued in the XQGJ. We chose this group for its manageable number of objects to track and find out how the objects were collected and dispersed. This idea to take on this project was presented to the Beijing Palace Museum, the National Palace Museum of Taipei, the Shanghai Museum, and the First National Document Center of China. When the proposal was well received and the above parties were willing to commit resources to participate, the project was launched in 2014.
Gathering of data and finding the objects
Both the National Palace Museum and the Beijing Palace Museum as well as the First Document Center of China have very rich collections of court documents. We were given access to search some of the records relating to the bronze objects at these locations. Searching and locating records turned out to be a very difficult task, however, as the documents related to bronzes are imbedded in huge archives, many of which have yet to be digitized. It is difficult, if not impossible, for any person not familiar with the archive materials to find any relevant documents related to the collection of bronze objects. Fortunately, the staff at all three institutions volunteered for the task. The search brought us a lot of insights about the collection. Both the First Document Center and the Beijing Palace Museum contributed a summary of their work which are included in the Beijing Palace Museum volume.
As for the pieces held outside of the palace, we tried to gain assess to collectors, dealers, and auction records. We were able to review most of the auction records; we searched through some collectors’ archives and some dealers’ records. Most of these are scattered all over the world. We were able to see most of the well known bronze dealers’ records, although some important records, such as Yamanaka’s records were lost in the Second World War. After reviewing the records we were led to believe that most of the items that left China are now in museums or have had public shows. There may be still a few items that are in private hands and have not been published, as such, they were missed by our search.
The Palace Museums have records of most of the inscription pieces. To be complete, it was decided that we try to search for all of the archaic bronzes. The ones without inscriptions would have to be specifically chosen to include here on the basis of its shape and physical measurements. In both of the Palace Museums the objects in the XQGJ are now mixed in with their vast bronze collections in their storage facilities. Both Palace Museums have very strict rules concerning outside visits: only a limited number of items can be viewed per visit. This rule made it impossible for an outside scholar to complete a search. The task of searching for objects, therefore, fell on the staffs’ shoulders at both the National and Beijing Palace Museums.
For objects held outside of the Palace Museums we have limited our search largely to bronzes with inscriptions. Many museums have published items that they believe to be in the XQGJ, some of which are included in this volume. The Shanghai Museum arranged the greater part of our museum visits in China, England, Europe, and Japan. We visited most, if not all, of the museums that have bronze collections as well as private collections. We also visited many museums in the United States. Every effort was made to ensure completeness and accuracy— every piece that we selected was studied by at least one of our team members. For some items, we visited multiple times to form our decisions. We also requested some tests and measurements which were not always available. In the final analysis, the inclusion or the rejection of a few objects was the result of our group’s subjective and collective decision.
The inscriptions recorded in XQGJ are not an actual rubbings, these are illustrations — a hand copy drawing of each inscription. That there are some discrepancies between the actual object and drawn representation would be inevitable. This fact added to the difficulty of the search. Fortunately, there are many pieces in the Palace Museums that we felt quite confident are in the XQGJ. From these pieces we could compare and set up guidelines for our search process. In the end we visited more than 50 museums and Institutes in Asia, Europe, and the US.
The total job of searching and gathering the material took us over 12 months. At that point we believed that our search had arrived at the point of diminishing returns for we had run out of reasonable sources.
In the end, we have found 98 objects from Beijing Palace Museum, 96 objects from National Palace Museum in Taipei, and 60 objects outside the Palace. Of the 60 objects 30 are still in museums and private collections in China with the Shanghai museum having the lion’s share at 21 objects. Outside of China, the United States has most of the objects with 13 items, a detailed table can be found in the Beijing Palace Museum volume on page 289.
Cataloging
In the XQGJ, each object is presented with a hand drawn illustration on one page and the descriptive text, a hand copied inscription, as well as the physical measurements, such as dimensions and weight on the following page. In our update, we followed the same format for presentation with a high resolution picture on one page and the description on the second page. Our description page, however, includes some changes, for when we incorporated up-to-date information, such as current archeological information and paleography, in a few cases the text would expand beyond one page. By using the latest archeological data, we could more accurately assign dating and naming for a majority of the items. The inscriptions presented are either rubbings and/or high resolution photographs. We present the inscriptions using a uniform platform and provide the equivalent (modern) characters whenever possible. By so doing, for the first time one can see a true image of the actual inscription on each object as well as read a modern transcription.
In the original description pages the measurements and the weight of the objects were also provided. We were not able to reproduce how the size measurements were made in all cases (the criteria for measurement was occasionally indecipherable), but we were able to reproduce the weight measurements. We, therefore, adopted a simpler measurement just indicating the height, width, and weight of each piece. As for the object photographs, we kept the same view as was depicted in the original format even though some of the views are probably inappropriate, such as in how we understand the way to display and view the Ding.
In the XQGJ there are no descriptive essays, however in compiling this work we found several articles and supporting materials of interest. Besides a brief introduction, all essays are collected after the cataloguing in deference to the spirit of the original book’s design.
The project guidelines provided in the above description were a result several meetings involving the teams of all participating members. In this section we shall give a couple of examples of how issues arose and how decisions were made.
A simple case of Pa Ju Hu in Morgan Library
In 1917 the Morgan Library acquired the Pa Ju Hu at a very high price commanded by its imperial provenance. For many years the Pa Ju Hu was an object of much debate among scholars. The main contention was that the two inscribed characters in the second line (see fig.1) appear very differently from the depiction in the XQGJ. Browsing through the revised catalogue one finds this type of variation is quite typical in the hand copied inscriptions in the XQGJ. These illustrations often appear to be much more orderly rather than an exact representational copy as in the example of fig.2 of item 10 in our Beijing Palace Museum Volume. Because we know that a Hu or You of this type has never been found in same size pairs in excavation; they are found often with one large and another smaller, we knew we were looking for a single object. The height of this object as well as the weight was almost identical to the one recorded in the XQGJ. We, therefore, had no doubt that this piece was the one catalogued in the XQGJ.
The richness of Zhui Gui and Zhou Chu Gi Zun
In San Francisco’s Asia Art Museum there is a Zhui Gui which has been attributed to be a piece in the XQGJ. Both the shape and inscription are as the one in the XQGJ. However during our search we found that there are four (or possibly more) Zhui Gui in existence, amongst these — the Beijing Palace museum has two and the National Palace Museum of Taipei has one. We know from excavation data that Gui are found in one or multiple pairs. It is, therefore, not surprising that we would find multiples of them. From inspection it is clear all of these four are of the same period and perhaps excavated from the same site. In a Japanese museum there is a Gui cover which also has the same inscription, making it clearly another piece belonging to one of the Zhui Gui. The Beijing Palace Museum also found an additional matching cover. Hence, we have 4 items to be selected for one entry plus two covers which are not illustrated. The inscription in the Beijing Palace Museum cover and the above mentioned two covers have the same numbers of characters per line as the one in the one illustrated in the XQGJ. As noted above that there are differences between the hand written inscription and the actual, but the calligrapher probably would not change the numbers of characters per line, neither have we have found cases in the Palace Museums where the number of characters differs between the copied inscription and the actual. We, therefore, believe that the cover in the Beijing Palace Museum is the match to the Zhui Gui illustrated in the XQGJ. Since the cover is collected and stored in Palace Museum we made the exception to include the cover by assuming that it was separated from the vessel in storage and left out of the original catalog.
A more difficult case of choosing which piece to illustrate is the Zun (no.18 in National Palace Museum volume). This item is well known and has always been attributed to a piece illustrated in the XQGJ. In the process of the researching this project, the Beijing Palace Museum found another zun that clearly is the pair to the original. The Beijing Palace Museum’s Zun is actually in better condition, however, the group decided to stay with the item in Taipei, based on the fact that the inscription appears to be closer to the original illustration.
The He Zi You (Deer You)
The XQGJ has an entry of a pair of covered you with deer decoration on the body. The deer are also referred to in the inscription. In the Minneapolis Art Museum there is a you with a cover and in the Shanghai Museum, another you without a cover. The entry in the XQGJ was brief and said that the two pieces form an identical pair. This entry is unique for two reasons: 1. As we mention above, you in all excavation reports are not found in pairs, and are usually found in different sizes; 2. It is rare, if ever, to find a bronze that with a long inscription referring to hunting deer or any animal, and for the vessel to be decorated with prey. However, the He Zi You is well known and has been in some prominent collections. Additionally, these pieces have received a lot of attention from scholars. In the middle of 20th century Mr. Chen MengJia wrote that the cover in Minneapolis Art Museum and the body of the one in Shanghai Museum should be one of the vases in the XQGJ. His judgement was based on his study of the inscription: he concluded that the inscription on the body of the Minneapolis Museum is apocryphal. He dated the piece to be 10th century BCE. His judgement was accepted by most, if not all the scholars.
The Shanghai Museum has done a detailed study and found that actually the body of their He Zi You to be apocryphal as well: it does not show chaplets in X-ray photography and one also cannot find mold lines from casting. There are other problems about the construction of the vessel as compared with other known pieces. Furthermore, given the physical measurements of the cover and body, they cannot possibly to fit each other as the rim of the cover is smaller than that of the rim on the body. The pieces also have different patination than that of the standard palace examples. We have decided there is not enough evidence to conclude that the you in the Shanghai Museum is one of the items in the XQGJ. This left us to consider whether the cover in Minneapolis is a piece from the catalog or the 10th century BCE. We made several visits and were not able to reach a consensus. Unable to obtain clear X-rays to help with the dating, none of the He Zi You were included in our selection.
Conclusion
After an exhaustive search we found that most of the collection still can be found in the Palace Museums. Of those bronzes that have left the Palace collection, many are still in China. In fact of all the items outside of the Palace Museums, the Shanghai Museum has more pieces belonging to the XQGJ than any other museum or country. Moreover, many of the bronzes outside the Palace Museums can be traced back to the personal collections formed by ministers in the Qing court. We were not sure how these Imperial Bronzes entered their collections, however it seems possible that they were collected directly, or indirectly as gifts from the court, rather than by illegal means. If so the number of pieces that were lost from the palace by theft is rather small. The rumor that massive looting of the palace occurred seems contradictory based on our findings, at least for bronzes. In a private conversation, the Palace Museum confirms that the storage facilities had never been broken into by outsiders, so whatever stealing that may have taken place was limited to the pieces on display.
We were not able to find documents about the formation of the collection. In fact we were surprised by the fact that Emperor ChienLong had not one single document talking about bronzes in this first 14 years of reign. The search only found one document from his predecessors. We were led to believe that there was not much interest in these objects from the court. After the publishing of the XQGJ, however, we found many documents relating to bronze. This publication seems to have revived court interest. It seems safe to say the XQGJ brought a resurgence of interest in bronze, i.e. inspired more collecting activities and studies in China. The lack of the Emperor’s attention to bronze in his early years also leads one to ask the question whether ChienLong was instrumental in forming the collection himself or did he inherit these bronzes which left in storage by his many predecessors.
In the final analysis both Chienlong’s catalog and our revision both took six years and likely we used more labor, despite contemporary tools. Many thanks to all who helped complete this project for publication.