An Overview of Qing Glass Snuff-Bottle Production, Part II
By Hugh M. Moss
Editor’s Note: Kindly reproduced with permission from the author and from the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, who originally published this article in the spring volume of the ICSBS Journal, 2004. A link to the Society website can be found here.
This essay is an expanded version of a lecture presented to the International Snuff Bottle Society in Houston in October 2001, by Hugh Moss, derived from the research undertaken for the fifth volume of the Bloch Collection (Moss, Graham, Tsang, A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles, Vol. 5, Glass), where the reader will find a great deal more information on the subject.
1750–1799
As far as Imperial wares are concerned the end of the Qianlong period is in 1799 when the Emperor died, rather than 1795 when he abdicated. The use of his reign name was continued as a courtesy on many courtly wares until his death. The Jiaqing Emperor may have wielded the trappings of power, but his father continued to wield the power until his death.
Again, reference to the archives of the Zaobanchu is informative. In 1751 (sixth month, twenty-fourth day) we see further evidence of the role snuff bottles played as gifts at court, with thirty glass snuff bottles delivered to be presented as prizes during the hunt. The Qianlong Emperor frequently hunted at his palace in Jehe (Jehol), far to the north of Beijing, and snuff bottles were distributed as prizes to successful hunters (35) In 1754 (first month, thirtieth day) a further one hundred glass snuff bottles were ordered for the same purpose (36) Throughout the reign there are many other references to snuff bottles, but by the mid-Qianlong period the range of possible glass colors and combinations was about as broad as it was going to get, and to learn that a blue on green overlay bottle existed is less exciting than it would have been from the Yongzheng period. The final record of interest to us at this point is from the last year of the Emperor’s life, in 1799, when a list of workers active in the glasshouse, apart from the glass blowers from Boshan, includes thirty-four other artisans among whom are jade workers (to carve and polish the glass), “throwers,” builders, scrapers, carpenters, “filers” and sula-attendants. Throwers, scrapers and filers all worked with the traditional lapidary tools to finish the glass products (grinding and polishing). Sula-attendants were the odd-job men who did whatever else was required (37) Clearly the Imperial glassworks were still functioning at a high level at the time, although where they were located is another matter.
In early 1728, a branch glassworks had been set up at the Yuanmingyuan, the Yongzheng Emperor’s private country residence to the northwest of Beijing, which he preferred to the Forbidden City (38) The country residence and other nearby gardens have become collectively known as the Summer Palace to Westerners. This glassworks was certainly still active for most of the Qianlong period, and may have continued in production until the destruction of the Summer Palace by the British and French in 1860, whereas there is some evidence that the Beijing Imperial glassworks was in decline in the late Qianlong period, and was derelict by 1829 (39).
Fig. 45. Crizzled clear glass with sapphire-blue sploshes, the side showing one small spot of opaque red glass, high on one shoulder, 1736–1770. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 46. Crizzled brown glass bottle and the base marked, Qianlong nianzhi, 1736–1770. Bloch Collection.
Figure 45 has a Qianlong reign mark, in seal-script, on the foot and probably dates from early in the reign, perhaps the first half, and figure 46, similarly marked, and of crizzled brown glass, is also probably from the earlier part of the reign. It is an indication of the Qianlong tendency for snuff bottles to get bigger until they become “full- hand” bottles or “magnums.” If this is from the first half of the Qianlong period, we have an early example of this trend, but by the second half larger bottles had become quite common. Figure 47 has a four-character Qianlong reign mark and would be possible from anywhere in the reign, although perhaps the second half is a little more likely. Figures 48, 49 and 50 are part of a fairly large series of Imperially inscribed bottles which usually date from the latter part of the reign, although figure 48 is of a shape which would suggest an early Qianlong date. It may, however, have been an earlier bottle which the Emperor designated for an encomium to a military official at a later date. It is marked Qianlong yuzhi [Made by Imperial command of the Qianlong Emperor]. Figures 49 and 50 both have Qianlong seal-script marks and may have been made during the second part of the reign, the latter being related to a group of similar bottles in transparent gray agate, some of which can be reliably dated to the last two decades of the reign.
Fig. 47. Emerald-green glass bottle carved with six ogival panels containing floral designs, Qianlong mark on the base. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 48. Imperial yellow glass engraved on both sides with a poetic inscription in clerical script, the base marked in regular script, Qianlong yuzhi [Made by Imperial command of the Qianlong Emperor], 1760–1799. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 49. Faceted Imperial yellow bottle with incised inscription, Qianlong mark on the base.
Fig. 50. Milky-white glass carved with eight lobed panels inscribed with a poem in regular script divided between lobes, 1750–1799. Bloch Collection.
Faceted bottles of various types continued to be popular throughout the reign and figure 51 is one of three known bottles all blown into the same, faceted mold. In this case we know the mold was faceted because of the integrity of the thin, upper layer of scarlet and yellow mottling, whereas on the faceted realgar glass of figure 20 (40), the glass was blown into a plain mold, and the faceting was superimposed by the lapidary, so that the original surface layer of brighter red is visible only at the corners and edges of the facets where the least glass had to be removed. There is a crystal version of this shape, painted inside by Yiru Jushi in 1811, so we know it was a reasonably early form (41) In the case of the realgar glass versions, however, I suspect they may date from the first half of the Qianlong period. A bizarre faceted form in ruby glass is typical of the Qianlong period with its formal excess and may be from the first half (fig. 52). Although of faceted double-gourd shape, the lower portion is exactly the same form as the early- eighteenth century octagonal Fig. 53. Multi-faceted double gourd turquoise-blue glass bottle, 1700–1770. Bloch Collection. faceted bottles, one of which we saw in figure 40 (42). Figure 53 is another faceted bottle, presumably from the Qianlong period but possibly, again, from the earlier part. It is as fine a job of faceting as one is likely to find, and of a complex form, again based on a double gourd. The perfect match with a genuine stone stopper proves the excellent job in glass of copying the more precious variety of turquoise.
Fig. 51. Multi-faceted realgar glass bottle, 1710–1780. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 52. Double gourd bottle with eight vertical facets in the upper section and convex oval panels in the lower segment, 1736–1780. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 53. Multi-faceted double gourd turquoise-blue glass bottle, 1700–1770. Bloch Collection.
Figure 54 is one of a range of similar bottles, made as a series, probably from the early- or mid- Qianlong period and relates, in its use of a pale wash of ruby-red from colloidal gold in colorless glass to the rare bottle in figure 43 (43). This group also has the rope-borders which are borrowed from antiquity and which were apparently popular at the beginning of the Qianlong reign. Figure 55 represents a relatively large group of related wares, many of which are of the lotus design, although cabbages and fish also appear and, of course, many plain versions of the sandwiched group of glass bottles. In this case a thin powdering of ruby glass is sandwiched between layers of semi-transparent pink glass. Certainly a Qianlong type, it is difficult to date them any more precisely at this point. Figures 56, 57 and 58 are all from the same spectacular carver who seems to have worked at court during the Qianlong period, and probably from the early to mid reign.
Fig. 54. Pale ruby-pink glass with convex circular panels on each side, one containing a lotus plant and the reverse a carp, 1830–1780. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 55. Pale pink glass bottle carved to illustrate a continuous design of formalized lotus petals, 1730–1820. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 56. Blue glass bottle carved to illustrate a continuous design of a peach tree laden with its fruit.
Fig. 57. Blue-green glass bottle carved to illustrate a tree with prunus blossoms.
Fig. 58. Cranberry glass carved to illustrate a fortified palace surrounded by water on one side, 1736–1770.
The first half of the Qianlong reign represents a standard of glass carving which is uniformly impressive, whereas from the second half of the reign a decline in carving standards is often apparent, although frequently transcended with magnificent works. It wasn’t that the finest carving could no longer be done at court, but that the pressures of demand and the acceptance of lower standards, which accompanied it, began to erode the commitment of both patrons and craftsmen. Top quality carving at court continued sporadically into the Daoguang period, although by the latter part of the Qianlong period it becomes very difficult to tell what was made at court and what in private workshops.
Figure 59 is a delightfully dateable bottle for so plain and colorless a piece of glass, for there is an enameled version of it in the J & J Collection which can be dated to the Qianlong reign post 1760, and probably to the 1760s or 1770s. Clearly the two were made by the same glassmakers and only one was enameled, for whatever reason. Figure 60 is quite different from most of the other monochrome glass bottles we have seen so far, which were blown. This one is carved from a solid block, like the aventurine glass bottle of figure 25 (44). The carving of glass blocks as if they were a hardstone was a common enough alternative to blowing the vessels and often reserved for glass imitating precious stones such as aquamarine, amethyst and, as in this case, beryl. This particular group seems to be from the second half of the Qianlong reign, and several are recorded with these typical chi dragon sides, their tails curled beneath the bottle to form the foot.
Fig. 59. Colorless glass bottle, 1760–1799. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 60. Carved lime-green glass bottle with a chi dragon climbing up each narrow side, 1760–1799.
Overlay techniques were obviously highly refined by the early Qianlong period and the reign saw the production, much of it by the Imperial glassworks, although we must assume private production to a high standard as well by this time. Figure 61 is probably from the first half of the reign, and the very rare combination of ruby red on a transparent, pale green ground allows us to link it to a group of bottles dateable to the first half of the Qianlong period, some of which bear Qianlong reign marks, while the famous one from the J & J Collection is marked Qianlong yuzhi [By Imperial command of the Qianlong Emperor] (45) Figure 62 is a very courtly blue overlay which probably dates from the first half of the reign, or the mid- reign at the latest. Decorated with peaches, a suitable birthday gift, it has the panel of decoration and the mask and ring handles typical of courtly production and can be sensibly attributed to the Imperial glassworks. Figure 63 represents a broad group of superbly rounded, high-relief cameo overlays, which often have wide mouths. I believe they are an early group, possibly made at court, and probably from the early- to mid-Qianlong period, but it is impossible to separate private production from Imperial production for a good deal of glass from the Qianlong period.
Fig. 61. Ruby-red overlay on pale green ground carved with mask and ring handle on each side, 1730–1780. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 62. Sapphire-blue overlay on transparent milky glass ground carved to illustrate a bat and two peaches on each side, 1730–1770. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 63. Pale sapphire-blue overlay on snowflake ground carved to illustrate a bat flying above a rising sun, 1730–1780. Bloch Collection.
Figures 64 and 65, on the other hand, can be reasonably dated to around the 1760s. The first is thought to be a design, which became popular in 1759 and represents a bannerman riding back to Beijing to bring the Emperor news of the Qing victory over the rebels on the northwest borders - a victory that brought into the empire the whole of Turkestan or what is now Xinjiang province. It would have been a popular courtly subject for a few years thereafter, probably less so as the century wore on. The poem refers to Imperial victory and other examples are known of the subject in glass and agate. The carving style relates this to figure 65, and thereby to various other bottles. This red overlay, probably also dating from the 1760s, is one of the finest of all cameo overlay carvings from China or, indeed, from anywhere else. It is so stunning that I have been tempted, once again, to suggest the possibility of Castiglione or one of the other Jesuit artists at court as the designer (not, of course, as the carver).
Figure 66 is one of a well-known and spectacular group which we can date to the mid-Qianlong period, and the same is probably true of figure 67, although possibly related only in color combination. With figures 68 and 69 we come to some unusually solid dating given the problems of Qing glass attribution in general. In a seal on the bottle in figure 68 is a cyclical date corresponding to 1780. The heavy crizzling of the transparent azure blue ground, and the style of carving, allows a firm attribution to this particular cycle. Because of the style and content of the poem on one side, we can link it to a whole series of other bottles, helping to date them as well. It also enables us to date a series of multiple cameo overlay carvings, the most spectacular of which by far is figure 69. Both bottles are pivotal early examples of a dragon style, which became very popular on court carvings in glass, and continued, albeit with lower and lower standards well into the nineteenth century. Two characteristics are worth noting: the drilled holes to represent gaps between the claws and in the clouds (obvious in fig. 68), and the starfish- shaped tail of the dragon, evident on both. This finest of all the star-tailed dragon group presumably dates from the 1770s or 1780s. It is related to a group of double overlay bottles many of which have acanthus-leaf necks (fig. 70). They are conceptually similar to this star- tailed dragon masterpiece in having three layers of color with the middle layer used as a net-like pattern, but there are other features that link them. It seems likely that the acanthus-leaf neck group is a little later and probably continued into the last decade or two of the eighteenth century and thence, in devolved form, into the nineteenth century.
Fig. 64. Transparent ruby-red overlay on white glass carved with a poetic inscription in clerical script on one side, 1759–1770. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 65. Ruby-red overlay on snowstorm ground carved to illustrate a horse and bat on each side, 1750–1780. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 66. White overlay on dark sapphire-blue ground carved with two lily flowers on each side, 1750–1790. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 67. White overlay on dark sapphire- blue ground carved to illustrate trees with prunus blossoms and animals.
Fig. 68. Semi-transparent white overlay on peacock-blue ground carved with a dragon on one side, the reverse with a seal script inscription followed by a cyclical date seal, 1780. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 69. Double overlays of milky white and transparent sapphire-blue colors on white glass carved with a continuous design of two four-clawed dragons, 1760–1790. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 70. Double overlays of deep brown and translucent turquoise-blue colors on white glass carved to illustrate children at play, the reverse with an open pavilion and attendants, 1780–1820. Corning Museum Collection.
Another masterpiece from the Qianlong period, perhaps from the 1760s to 1780s, is the basket of flowers from the J & J Collection (fig. 71). It is one of those spectacular bottles which is in a class with the star-tailed dragon bottle and represents the height of Qianlong glass carving where impeccable skill and commitment join with extraordinary artistic grace to create some of the finest glass bottles ever made.
Fig. 71. Double overlay in pink and green on a milky-white ground, 1750–1850.
J & J Collection.
One other group of bottles that can be fairly precisely dated to the latter part of the Qianlong period is inscribed with the studio name, Guyue Xuan. In 1767 the Jian Yuan was completed in the Changchun Yuan complex (a series of Imperial gardens to the West of Beijing adjoining the Yuanmingyuan). One of the halls within the Jian Yuan was the Guyue Xuan. The Changchun Yuan was intended as a retirement home for the Qianlong Emperor, although he never took up full- time residence there (46) The Emperor commemorated his new home by ordering a series of enameled glasswares bearing the name and, although much rarer, one or two glass bottles which were not enameled. Figures 72–74 are three genuine examples bearing the mark (there have been forgeries made recently, including one exact copy of the bottle in fig. 72). They can all be dated to the period from about 1767 into the 1770s. There is another group of bottles, which can be tentatively dated to the late Qianlong period, but we will deal with this under the mid-Qing heading, since they lead to a school, which flourished in the early- nineteenth century.
Fig. 72. Emerald-green glass, the base inscribed in relief seal script, Guyue Xuan [Ancient Moon Pavilion], 1766–1790. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 73. Translucent white glass carved on the narrow sides with mask and ring handles, 1767–1790. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 74. Realgar glass carved with mask and ring handle on each side, mark on the base.
There is one other distinctive group of glass carvings, which includes vessels other than snuff bottles dateable to the Qianlong period, although when in this long reign they were made is still a puzzle. They are represented by figures 75–79. They are more frequently reign marked than any other group of bottles and both snuff bottles and other vessels remain in the Imperial Collection in some quantities. They must be from the Imperial workshops, and the typical, four-character Qianlong reign mark in regular script was used during the very early years of the reign, although it continued in use thereafter. It is tempting to date the entire group to the early part of the reign except that it is characterized by often rather crude carving, which is puzzling. As a rule, the standards of carving at court were very high in the early part of the reign. At the court, teams of designers and carvers would have changed frequently during so long a reign, and this may represent the work of one particular group of artisans, but the frequent signs of relatively crude carving on so Imperial a group of wares is puzzling and may suggest a date from later in the reign. What we can be sure of is that they are from the Qianlong period and are Imperial.
Fig. 75. Ruby-red overlay on a yellowish- white ground carved with a continous design of seven double gourds, 1750–1790.
Bloch Collection.
Fig. 76. Sapphire-blue overlay on a milky- white ground carved with a continous design of a kui or chi dragon, the base marked in regular script, Qianlong nianzhi, 1750–1790. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 77. Pink overlay on a turquoise-blue ground carved with a bow tied around a flowering peony and bamboo, 1750–1790. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 78. Pale olive-green overlay on a transparent milky ground carved to illustrate a chi dragon and a bat, 1750–1790.
Bloch Collection.
Fig. 79. Sapphire-blue overlay on a milky-white ground carved to illustrate a butterfly flying over a rocky ground with flowering narcissus, 1750–1790. Bloch Collection.
1780–1850
The next period is from the last two decades of the Qianlong reign into the mid-nineteenth century. Our main problem with the mid- Qing period is that we have no reliable information whatsoever about the extent and quality of private glass production following Imperial style. There must have been such production, and we may assume that it was of high quality if the school of Li Junting, attributed to Yangzhou, is anything to go by, but separating it from the Imperial production that no doubt inspired it, seems currently impossible. What is certain is that those who claim to be able to identify the works of the Yuan, Xin and Le families of private glassmakers, supposedly of the Qianlong period, are deluded. The only early reference to them is no more than the opinion of one late- nineteenth century scholar and, in any case, gives insufficient description to identify their works.
Let us look instead at a private glassmaker about whose existence there is no doubt and whom we can date with astonishing accuracy for the field, although his attribution to Yangzhou has yet to be proven beyond a doubt. Once known as the “Seal School,” from the proliferation of seals that appear on the bottles, then as the “Yangzhou School” when a tentative, but reasonable attribution to that city was made for them, and now as the Li Junting School after its most prominent carver. There are two distinct styles for the school, a painterly, low relief style and a higher relief, usually multiple cameo overlay style. It has always been assumed that the painterly style gradually evolved to the higher relief style. It seems now that it was the other way around. When the school first started, the fashion at court was well established for either bold, high relief, single color, cameo overlay bottles or for fancy, multiple overlays. A new glassmaker would begin by creating what was in demand and fashionable at court and among influential patrons whose demand was inspired by court style. Only once the school began to evolve in its own right would it begin to develop a completely new style of glass carving.
There is a group of superbly carved overlays decorated with silkworms, which are the early works of the Li School (figs. 80 and 81), the first of which could almost be one of the magnificent multiple overlays of the 1770s and 1780s represented by figure 81. In the Bloch volume on glass we propose that whoever founded the Li School may have worked at or for the court in the 1780s. There are other courtly links to some of the early wares of the school including two bottles in Imperial yellow, one in the Bloch Collection and one in the Franz Collection. These silkworm bottles then seem to lead to the standard, multiple overlays of the type where two are dated (figs. 82 and 83), both to the same year, 1786. This reversal of the progression to allow the higher-relief bottles the earlier date allows for a much more logical picture of production.
Fig. 80. Double overlay of white and emerald-green on a pink ground carved to illustrate silkworms, silk moths and cocoons on branches of a mulberry tree, Li Junting School. Bloch Collection
Fig. 81. Double overlay of deep green and yellow on a pink ground carved to illustrate silkworms, a silk moth and cocoons amidst branches of a mulberry tree, Li Junting School.
Fig. 82. Double overlay of cinnabar-red and black on a white ground carved to illustrate two herdboys riding their water buffaloes amidst flying bats, dated 1786, Li Junting.
Fig. 83. Double overlay of black and cinnabar-red on a turquoise ground carved to illustrate an Immortal in a log boat while another figure crouches in the prow and the sun above, dated 1786, Li Junting.
The Li School seems to have flourished in the first half of the nineteenth century when it would seem strange to be adding fake Qianlong marks to such masterpieces. Demand for fancy snuff bottles was still riding high at this time and the art form still evolving, so there was little need to produce masterly fakes. When we believed the Li School to be late nineteenth century, a fake Qianlong mark seemed reasonable, but from the early nineteenth century it is not. From a point of view of dating, the Li Junting School is a cornucopia of joy. There are dozens of precisely dated bottles ranging from 1786 to the 1830s, and from these we can see that the evolved, early-nineteenth century painterly style was produced as early as 1805 and continued until at least 1836. It is represented by figures 84–87. Figure 84 is signed by Li Junting and dated to 1820; figure 85, also signed and dated 1819; and figure 87 is of the type with carving in the ground color, found on some of the finest works of the school.
Fig. 84. Red overlay on a white ground carved to illustrate Princess Shouyang asleep on a bench beneath a prunus tree with an inscription to the side, the reverse with the Hehe Immortals in a long boat and a seal, Junting, dated 1820. Bloch Collection
Fig. 85. White overlay on a turquoise ground carved to illustate a boy tending two horses with two swallows above and an inscription, the reverse with an old man and a walking staff, his servant standing next to a crane while another flies above, seal Junting, dated 1819. Bloch Collection
Fig. 86. Green overlay on a white ground carved to illustrate a scholar asleep under three plantains with an inscription on the right, the reverse with two boys paddling a boat with an inscription and seal of the artist, Weizhi. Bloch Collection
Fig. 87. Cinnabar-red overlay on a white ground carved to illustrate a planter on a stand with prunus tree and inscription above, the reverse with brush-pot holding objects and another scene below, Li Junting. Bloch Collection.
Figure 88 is a very rare glass version of the standard crystal bottles copying a Spanish coin of eight reales. In this case the coin was minted in 1796 and we can safely assume it could not have been made prior to about 1797 allowing for its passage from the mint in Mexico to a Chinese glassworks, probably in Beijing. It probably dates from the first decade or two of the nineteenth century. This helps to establish the denser sort of snowstorm ground as a feature of the mid-Qing period, and confirms the continued skills of the lapidaries who carved glass.
A realgar glass bottle bearing the hallmark of the first Prince Cheng, Yongxiang, who died in 1823 (fig. 89) can be confidently dated to some time within the thirty or forty years preceding that date, while a particular shape can be associated with the first half of the nineteenth century, represented by figures 90 and 91. The first is identical in material to a bottle bearing the hall name of the fifth Prince Ding, who died in 1854 (47) In this example the shape is distinctive, with its horizontally ridged shoulders, and we find confirmation of the date of this form from figure 91, which bears a Daoguang mark. We can also see signs of a marked decline in quality if this represents an Imperial Daoguang bottle. It may come from the end of the reign, since we know that by 1858 his successor was so exasperated by the poor quality of workmanship from the Imperial glassworks that he ordered only plain bottles be made, with the reign marks rendered clearly, suggesting that even the calligraphy had become sloppy, which is borne out by surviving marks from the nineteenth century.48
Fig. 88. Blue overlay on a snowflake ground carved as a Spanish coin of eight reales, the reverse with the monarch’s head. J & J Collection.
Fig. 89. Plain realgar glass with mask and ring handle, on the narrow sides.
Bloch Collection.
Fig. 90. Amber-brown glass with swirling threads of milky white. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 91. Pale peach color with horizontal band and Daoguang mark.
There are one or two glass pieces with Jiaqing reign marks including the standard, faceted octagonal form which we saw in figure 18 (49). Although they are rare, and several with Daoguang marks (figs. 91–93), the last of which confirms the ongoing popularity of the octagonal faceted form, but also the trend to make them larger and gradually evolve the style. Later Qing examples seem mostly to have narrow sides not of rectangular or square panels, but of circular, slightly lazier panels.
Fig. 92. Blue-green monochromatic glass in tear-drop shape. J & J Collection.
Fig. 93. Teal-blue monochromatic glass in polygonal shape with Daoguang mark.
Figure 94 is of the general group of multiple cameo overlays which were so popular during the mid- to late-Qianlong reign, but seems to represent the early nineteenth-century version which is a little less painstaking in its carving and detailing. Another example showing the typical decline of the first half of the nineteenth century is figure 95. It is obviously a devolved version of the star-tailed dragon style of figure 68. It gets worse - there are examples of this same style which are so poor that they can only be late Qing versions.
Fig. 94. White and black overlays carved to illustrate animals and birds amidst pine trees.
Fig. 95. Ruby-red overlay on a snowflakeground carved to illustrate a dragon seeking the flaming pearl.
Fig. 96. Cinnabar-red overlay on a white ground carved to illustrate on each side four boys linked together to share two heads and two sets of legs and arms, 1780–1850. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 97. Blue overlay on a pinkish-white ground carved in the shape of a peach with a severed leafy branch wrapped around it, 1770–1880. Bloch Collection.
Figures 96 and 97 probably date from the last decades of the eighteenth or the early decades of the nineteenth century, and there are many similar examples. One last group, however, figures 100–103 represent a large group of snuff bottles and other vessels, which are of a distinctive style. There seems to be two possibilities to account for them. They are either the products of another glassmaking center than Beijing and the court, such as Guangzhou, in which case their usually slightly more rudimentary quality of carving may be due to regional variation rather than chronological decline, or they are a mid-Qing group produced for, and probably at the court. I personally favor the second possibility. As yet the records do not give any indication of wholesale production of overlay snuff bottles at Guangzhou for the court and are certainly not sufficient to account for this very large group of wares. It seems more likely that they are products of the Qing court, since there are many courtly subjects among them and some are of Imperial yellow color, and in mid-Qing style, perhaps from the last decade or two of the eighteenth century, and the first half of the nineteenth century.
Fig. 100. White overlay on a sapphire-blue ground craved to illustrate a chi dragon on each side.
Fig. 101. White overlay on a sapphire-blue ground carved with a chi dragon on each side.
Fig. 103. Faceted clear blue glass with a Tongzhi reign mark.
1835–1912
Our last period, again overlapping a bit with the previous one, is from the latter part of the Daoguang period through to the end of the Qing dynasty, say from 1835–1912. While court glass carving obviously declined rapidly from the late Daoguang period into the Xianfeng era, private glassmaking seems to have flourished, if the Li Junting School is anything to go by. However, certain political events caused considerable disruption at court and throughout the country, putting a stop to a good deal of demand for artworks, and diverting attention from luxury goods to political survival. The Opium War from 1840–1842 was the first event to dent Imperial prestige, but the most damaging nationally was the Taiping Rebellion, which raged through China with devastating effect from 1851 for a decade or more with immense loss of life and destruction of property. After the end of the Taiping Rebellion there is a period known as the Tongzhi Restoration, when things began to pick-up again economically and fine quality glass carving was encouraged once more, to continue to the end of the dynasty. Under the frugal hand of the Jiaqing Emperor, the output of glass from the Imperial glassworks had been reduced in 1820 to one hundred and sixty pieces a year in total (50) This quota changed from time to time, but never came near to equaling the expansive production of the Qianlong period with its often thousands of pieces produced in a single year. In 1837, for instance, the usual annual quantity had become one hundred and eighty- one glass items and one hundred and twenty snuff bottles (51) A portrait of the Daoguang Emperor (fig. 102) probably from around the mid reign shows him with two glass overlay snuff bottles, one obviously decorated with the ubiquitous chi dragons so popular on courtly objects (52). We cannot assume, however, that these were made during the Daoguang reign. They are set in front of a vase which appears to be enamel on metal and is probably from the Kangxi period, so the bottles are probably earlier as well. This portrait seems to represent no more than a trend for valuing earlier bottles. From about the same time, during the Daoguang reign, comes further evidence of this shift in emphasis from continued evolution of the art form to treating its earlier manifestations as worthy of collecting, a process undoubtedly already prevalent during the Qianlong reign, but which led during the nineteenth century to the first noticeable waves of deliberate faking. The scholar, Shen Yu, who died in 1851, published Qiuyin zaji [Miscella- neous Jottings Made in the Autumn Shade] in which he wrote: “The use of snuff bottles arose with the present dynasty and at first this custom was limited to the Eight Banners and to the official class, but in recent times no small tradesman or even lowly shepherd boy would be without one.” He lists various types of bottles, and continues: “The most popular type is cloudy glass with a red overlay (taohong) and those of this type with a “lotus root powder” ground are thought to be the best. Bottles in which snuff can be kept for a long time without its drying out are called “old overlays” (laopi) and these are valued very greatly.” (53).
Fig. 102. Daoguang Emperor portrayed with two glass overlay snuff bottles.
The dire state of Imperial glassmaking by the mid century is suggested by the admonition of the Xianfeng Emperor in 1858 to the glassworks that they make only simple, undecorated wares. “The marks,” he adds, “must be clearly rendered.” (54).
Figure 103 is Imperial and bears a Tongzhi reign mark. Made at some time between 1861 and 1873, it is of the traditional faceted form, although more simply achieved and not as crisp or well made as the eighteenth- century counterparts we have looked at, and the mark is of typical, nineteenth-century style, fairly crudely incised with a spinning wheel. One can see why the Xianfeng Emperor had become exasperated by the standards of calligraphy at the glassworks. A similarly poorly written reign mark, but from the following Guangxu period, however, accompanies one of the great masterpieces of recognizable Imperial glass from the last phase of Qing production (fig. 104). This bottle serves as a lesson in humility in approaching Qing glass. Without its Guangxu mark, I would have dated it to at least a century earlier and expected no dissent. So little of this quality of glass carving is dated to the late-nineteenth century and one wonders how many other, undated bottles by the same skilled glassworkers are in our collections masquerading as earlier products. There would have been copious faking of Imperial glass bottles after the 1860s and, as yet, we may not be in a position to identify some of it.
Fig. 104. Turquoise-blue glass carved on each side with an identical design of a tied bunch of lotus stems, the narrow sides each with an inscription and the base, Guangxu period. Bloch Collection.
Such a note of caution might make a fitting ending to a subject so riddled with confusion as Qing glass, but four more bottles suggest themselves for inclusion. Figure 105 serves to represent a wide range of nineteenth-century versions of earlier styles. Most types were continuously produced, and overlays were no exception. With its subject of Pekinese dogs, this might be from the latter part of the Daoguang reign, but in any case it stands for a vast array of overlay bottles from the latter part of the Qing dynasty. Sometimes, like this, of reasonable quality, but not of the standards of the height of the art during the eighteenth century, and sometimes a great deal worse than this. One group can be dated accurately to the Guangxu period and is represented by figure 106. Through other porcelain bottles with the same owner’s name on them, this bottle can be dated to the last two decades of the nineteenth century, and gives us some idea of the standard of glassmaking and carving at the time. The colors of the glass are excellent, but the carving is fairly crude and the pictorial grace wholly questionable, although extremely amusing. The artist has so misunderstood a traditional image of the Imperial dragon that he has managed to tie a knot in its body.
Fig. 105. Multi-colored overlay on a snowflake ground carved as a single overlay illustrating a fu lion in a rocky landscape.
Fig. 106. Overlays in blue, ruby-red, green and purple on a white ground carved to illustrate sixteen mythical creatures in various stages of transformation of a carp into a dragon, Guangxu period. Bloch Collection.
Not all late Qing glassmaking was derivative, however. There is a school of micro-engravers that sprang up in the dying years of the Qing dynasty to produce masterly works (fig. 107). One of the men responsible for this movement was Zhou Honglai, a scholar from the Jiangnan region, south of the Yangzi, a skilled painter and calligrapher using, presumably, a diamond pointed tool. Most of his works date from the last decade of the dynasty. Others followed his footsteps to create a viable school of micro-engravers, and one more artist will suffice to represent the others (fig. 108). After Zhou Honglai he is the most prolific artist among the group. His name is Wu Xijiu and he worked from the late-nineteenth century into the 1920s. He was not the lofty scholar-artist Zhou Honglai was, and was not above faking, since several of his bottles have spurious Qianlong reign marks on them, but he was capable of fine work.
Fig. 107. Translucent white glass engraved on one side with three scholars and trees, the reverse and the area above the figures inscribed with the text from Su Shi’s Second Ode to the Red Cliff, 1890–1910. Bloch Collection.
Fig. 108. Tanslucent grayish-white glass engraved on one side with a scholar being punted in a boat beneath cliffs and inscription, the reverse with an inscription followed by a signature,
Wu Xijiu, and seal of the artist. Bloch Collection.
Since my subject here is Qing glass, we will not venture past 1912, nor into the minefield of the enormous number of recent forgeries that constantly test our understanding and patience while keeping us on our critical toes. There is quite sufficient confusion awaiting us from the genuine Qing-dynasty production without looking for more.
Notes
35) Zhang Weiyong, op. cit, 74.
36) Peter Y. K. Lam, op. cit., 56, archive no. 3448.
37) Ibid., 42–43.
38) Ibid., 41, and in Emily Byrne Curtis, “Enamels for the Kangxi Emperor...Nella Sua Fornace da Smalti,” JICSBS (Winter 1993).
39) Emily Byrne Curtis, “Qing Imperial Glass. The Workshop on Can Chi Kou,” in Robert Kleiner, Chinese Snuff Bottles in The Collection of Mary and George Bloch (London: British Museum Press, 1995), footnote no. 81.
40) Hugh M. Moss, “An Overview of Qing Glass Snuff Bottle Production,” JICSBS (Spring 2004): 21.
41) Moss, Graham, Tsang, A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles No. 4, Inside Painted, no. 445.
42) Moss, op. cit., 26.
43) Ibid., 26.
44) Ibid., 22.
45) Moss, Graham, Tsang, The Art of the Chinese Snuff Bottle, no. 334.
46) Peter Y.K. Lam, “Studio Marks in Imperial and Court Related Snuff Bottles,” in The Imperial Connection. Court Related Chinese Snuff Bottles. The Humphrey K. F. Hui Collection, 33–34.
47) Gerard Tsang and Hugh Moss, Snuff Bottles of the Ch’ing Dynasty (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Museum of Art, 1978), no. 84; and Christopher Randall, “The Hall of Constancy, Xingyouheng Tang,” JICSBS (Spring 2003): 19–21.
48) Yang Boda, op. cit., p. 83.
49) Moss, JICSBS (Spring 2004): 21.
50) Yang Boda, “An Account of Qing Dynasty Glassmaking,” in Robert H. Brill and John H. Martin, eds., Scientific Research in Early Chinese Glass (Corning, New York: The Corning Museum of Glass, 1991),136; and Emily Byrne Curtis, “Qing Imperial Glass. The Workshop on Can Chi Kou,” op. cit., xxv.
51) Zhang Weiyong, op. cit, 74 and 77.
52) Hugh M. Moss, “An Imperial Habit, Part II,” JICSBS (March 1976): 17, fig 91.
53) Lynn, Richard John, “Researches Done During Spare Time into the Realm of Yong Lu, God of the Nose: The Yonglu Xianjie of Zhao Zhiqian,” JICSBS (Autumn 1991): 16.
54) Yang Boda, op. cit., 83.