Description
Description: Chinese drum shaped ceramic device for the writing desk. It is a water pot and an ink grinder (ink stone) altogether in a single piece. It has four openings at the top, being two oval and two of trapezoidal shape. All these openings have a sharped edge, as usually seen on water pots for the writing desk, suited to properly trimming the water quantity hold by the brush. At the center top, a concave unglazed circular area for grinding the ink sticks. The object is decorated in polychrome enamels with three fantastic beasts, leaping carps and peonies.
Dating: Jiajing period, Ming dynasty.
Size: 11 cm diameter
Provenance: Antiquarian market
References: The pictures are showing some blue and white examples, respectively: one of the two examples that are at the British Museum, one sold by Christies in 2019, one sold on eBay, one that is in the Gardiner Museum, Toronto (mentioned in the Notes here below), one sold by Christies (with the central concave ink grinding area), and other six examples mentioned in a Chinese site, resumed in a single picture. Besides these twelve ones, further six examples are in Sam Marsh’s collection, illustrated and commented at pages 22 – 26 of his book “Brush pots – A collector’s view”. One of them has the central ink grinding area. A further example, auctioned in 2008, is shown in the penultimate picture, after the two pictures of a scroll. Then, including our one, at the date we are aware of a total of only 20 examples. Among them, our one and only two other examples have the ink grinding area. Of the 20 items, one is made of bronze, four are polychromes, and 15 are underglaze blue and white.
Notes: Since the purchase of this item, we did extensive searches for finding a similar one, with no results. Only 10 years later, thanks to Sam Marsh’s book of his collection of brush pots, we found the first references. The description of all the reference items say that they are brush holders. This is the reason why we never found references for 10 years: we never search for brush holders, because it was evident to us that our item, because of the sharp edges of the holes, was a water pot associated with a grinding stone. Nobody, in having it in hands, would think that it is a brush holder, it makes no sense at all. In fact, in long discussions with collector friends and on Forums along those 10 years, nobody suggested that it could be a brush holder. The presence of the ink grinder and the very sharp edges of the holes were clearly identifying it as a calligraphy water pot. Now, why are them believed to be brush stands? The reason is the painting shown in two of the last pictures, a scroll in the collection of the Princeton University Art Museum, dated 1523 – 1525, portraying the Ming philosopher Wang Yangming seated at his desk while writing. On his desk, it is visible a drum shaped object, holding brushes in perfect vertical position. Also, it has been mentioned in “Arts from the Scholars Studio” that the late Ming scholar Wen Zhenheng (1585 – 1645) said in Zhang Wu Zhi (Notes on superfluous things) that “there are also drum shaped brush stands with holes in them for inserting brushes and ink”. This last writing is not totally clear according to some translations, it seems that Wen Zhenheng is also suggesting other uses.
We are not convinced at all that these objects are brush stand. First at all, it is impossible to keep brushes standing up. Because of the width of the holes, the brush doesn’t stay vertical and as it starts to bend on one side, the top of the handle is slipping on the bottom of the pot. There is literally no way for keeping the brushes standing up. Also not convincing is the idea that the square hole was meant as ink stick holder, because shortened sticks would disappear inside the pot. Besisdes being the sticks made in various sizes. A further reason is the fact that three of the reference items have the central ink grinder, and it would be impossible to grind the sticks in a small space “fenced” by brushes. It really makes no sense.
Some things must be considered. One is the example shown in the penultimate picture, which has removable inserts (called as “covers” by the auctioneer, but obviously they are suited for holding something). And we found a Chinese site where these items are commented. Unfortunately, the translation of the text is far from being accurate, but in many points, these are called “multifunctional”, “water container” and their function is controversial. All this considered, it is really worth to mention that in “Cobalt Treasures – The Bell collection of Chinese blue and white porcelain”, at page 37 Patricia F. Ferguson, in commenting the example of the Gardiner Museum shown here above among the Refences, says: ”This drum shaped desk organizer held the accessories of a Ming scholar: water, ink, brushes and paints. (…) In extant examples, the central hole held a removable porcelain water dropper. The rectangular hole held a solid ink stick in a fitted porcelain receptacle, while the circular ones probably held pots of paint. Brushes were also placed tip upwards in the empty holes. The form never achieved widespread popularity beyond the late Ming dynasty”.
In conclusion, in our opinion it is not correct to call all these pots as “Brush stand”; they are multifunctional devices. Those with the ink grinder can’t be simply considered brush stands, and those with the very sharp holes’ edges were not meant for holding inserts, they were meant as water pots. The best definition, in our view, is that made by Patricia F. Ferguson: desk organizers.
We do not think that a single painting (that of the Princeton University Art Museum) is enough for believing that these objects are brush stands. Who think so, should try to keep brushes upward in these big holes. And, how would him avoid the dripping down to the handle of the very liquid Chinese ink? What is represented in a single paint can’t weigh more than the obvious. If we take for pure gold what is represented in a painting, what should we conclude, seeing the painting at the Philadelphia Art Museum shown in the last picture? It is a work by Shen Du (1357 – 1434), depicting a giraffe brought to China in 1414 by the admiral Zheng He returning from Bengal where Malindi envoys gave him the giraffe (according to other sources, the painting is representing a Bengali envoy presenting the giraffe as a tributary gift in the name of King Saif Al-Din Hamzah Shah of Bengal (r. 1410–12). It was a present for the Yongle Emperor. By the accurate reproduction of the shape of the giraffe it is evident that the painter has seen the animal in real. But what about the pattern of the mantle of the giraffe? Should we conclude that it is a now extinct species of giraffe? Obviously not. It has been a free interpretation made by the painter. Paintings are full of free interpretations. We can’t accept the idea that one detail must be taken as sure reference, especially if all evidences are proving that it is not possible.
A last note about the dating. All the examples known are dated to the late Ming dynasty, and all the scholars and experts agree that these were only made for a short period. Compared to the known examples, our one is odd, because of the decoration. Nevertheless, a couple of experts who discussed it during the mentioned period of 10 years, where nobody of us was aware of the extant Ming examples, was of the opinion that it has a Ming feeling, and we too were of the same opinion. No later copies have been found. Hence, our dating is Ming period, maybe made at a provincial kiln, a sort of “folk” ware.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.