編者按：由柯玫瑰(Rose Kerr)、約翰?蓋爾(John Ayers)所著《——德化白瓷》(Blanc de Chine—porcelain from Dehua)于2002年經新加坡亞洲文明博物館出版，是繼唐納利《——福建德化瓷》之后的一本專門研究德化白瓷的專著，影響甚為深遠。

該書收錄的都為國外研究德化白瓷的知名學者所撰寫德化白瓷研究資料。包括柯玫瑰的“德化器物款識介紹”，海蒂(Heidi Tan)的“鑒賞家探訪”，約翰?蓋爾的“的影響”，何翠媚(Chuimei Ho)的“考古眼光中的”，郭勒遜(Kenson Kwok)的“德化雕塑結構的一點看法”， 埃娃?施特勒伯(Eva Strober)的“德累斯頓的斯特朗大帝收藏的德化瓷”，以及附錄介紹等七個部分，從不同角度介紹了德化白瓷。與此同時，該書收錄的160件德化窯精品，為Hickley家藏，后捐贈給新加坡亞洲文明博物館，是了解、品鑒、研究德化白瓷不可多得的藝術精品。

本欄目將定期精選出相關代表性文章進行翻譯，以饗讀者。然而，由于作者水平的局限，翻譯過程中難免有所錯漏，不足之處敬請各位讀者提出寶貴意見。

Blanc de chine: some reflections by John Ayers  的影響(三)——約翰 蓋爾（翻譯：孫延燕）

As to dating, Donnelly concluded -rightly, I think -that the seventeenth century, which probably saw their beginning was also their greatest period. But before this things were obscure: ". The Wanli Figures(that we know)were later excelled, he wrote, "but they were already by a confident hand: and the question arises, had they no antecedents?. Dehua had probably started with domestic wares and then turned to figures at the end of the sixteenth century, possibly as a result of the energies of some gifted modellers. He concluded, however, that precursors could be found; and as fulfilling this requirement lighted upon a group of large figures of Buddhist deities which were clearly of earlier date -one of which, belonging to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, he illustrates in his book. All have a more or less yingging-type glaze and this one, which he dates"fifteenth century or earlier", is, he says, "the whitest of all; and I am sure it hails from Tehua. He was unfortunately mistaken about this, as I myself had in fact argued in a paper concerning the group several years previously, and one of them in fact bears an inscribed date corresponding to the e vear AD 1298/99(Ayers 1969: 97-109). The group has since been enlarged by further discover- ies and its Jingdezhen origin and broadly Yuan dating are now beyond dispute.

至于斷代，唐納利總結說，十七世紀可能是它的開端同時也是最偉大的時期。但在此之前很多事情是模糊的:“萬歷的瓷塑(我們知道)后來都很優秀”，他寫道，“但是他們已經技藝純熟，問題來了，他們沒有先例嗎？”德化有可能是從國內用品生產開始，然后在16世紀末轉向瓷雕，可能是由于一些有天賦的陶瓷制造者的力量。然而，他的結論是，可以找到它的先例; 當滿足這一條件時，他發現了一群顯然是更早時期的佛教神像——其中一個，屬于芝加哥自然歷史博物館，他在他的書中說明。所有物品都有或多或少的影青瓷釉的影子，而這一種，他認為是“15世紀或更早” ，他說，是“最白的，我肯定它來自德化。不幸的是，他弄錯了，正如我幾年前在一篇關于這個群體的論文中所說的，其中一個群體有一個與公元1298/99年相對應的記載日期。隨著進一步的發現，這個群體的規模不斷擴大——其景德鎮產地和廣義元定測年現在已經不容置疑。

Truly early precursors for the blanc de Chine figure would therefore seem non-existent at present, nor have the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries yet turned up any literary evidence for their appearance. As Donnelly notes, the first reference we have is in a work of 1604 entitled The Records of Chuan-nan, which speaks of"Buddhist figures now appearing in the market of Po-shan, and also describes the mining of the clay in some detail. Little help comes from other literary sources, and we are thus brought to a direct consideration of the le surviving pleces.

真正早期的瓷塑的前身現在看來似乎并不存在，十五、十六世紀也沒有發現任何文字上的證據。正如唐納利所指出的，我們第一次參考的是1604年的一本名為《川南記》（《泉南雜記》？）的著作，其中提到佛教瓷塑現在出現在“坡山”的市場上，并且詳細描述了對陶土的開采。來自其他文字資源的幫助微乎其微，因此我們直接考慮幸存下來的標本。

It is fortunate indeed that a number of early figures are actually inscribed with dates and he first, and in many ways most valuable of these is a model in the British Museum representing the God of Wealth, Caishen(Fig. 12)which belongs to the late Ming reign of Wanli, and is clearly dated equivalent to 1610. Donnelly grudgingly recognises this to be a major document but adopts a curiously reluctant attitude to it, remarking that' that greatl respected authority R. L. Hobson, in accepting the 1610 date. opens the floodgates to scores, nay hundreds of others which are indistinguishable from this one in style, gla aze material and ornament. Was this piece actually fired in 1610? Or might it be some later repetition? He considers various features of the model and admits he would be happier if it were dated a century later.

幸運的是，一些早期的人物實際上刻有日期，而且第一個，在許多方面最有價值的是大英博物館的一個瓷塑，代表了財富的神仙——財神，它屬于晚明的萬歷統治，清楚地相當于1610年。唐納利不情愿地承認這是一份重要的證明，但卻采取了一種奇怪的勉強態度，認為“偉大的受人尊敬的權威霍布森，接受了1610年的日期。找到了斷代的關鍵，不僅如此，還有成百上千的其他作品，在風格、材料和裝飾上，都與這個作品無法區分。”這件瓷器真的是在1610年燒造的嗎？或者是以后的重復？他考慮了這種瓷塑的各種特征，并承認如果它的日期是一個世紀以后，他會更高興。

（Figure 12: Caishen, God of wealth. Dated AD1610.Height25.7cm.British Museum. 圖12：財神。日期為公元1610年，地點25.7厘米，大英博物館。）

But, far from being indistinguishable from the mass, this Caishen figure does, I think, pos sess distinctive features that are found only in a certain limited class, and in the light of the new evidence for dating may be seen not merely as exemplifying an isolated early-seven- teenth-century style but as prefiguring a larger development.Characteristic features share d by this early group are a relatively smooth and fine-grained body having a yellowish to cream tinge that is at times quite pronounced, and a thin, close-fitting and rather Estrous glaze Sculpturally, too they are distinguished from most later figures by thick, heavy potting that is especially noticeable round the base where substantial firing cracks are quite common. The heaviness of style extends to the modelling and in this case even to the draperies. Note also the general proportions of the body which is short and stubby, and the large head and quite podgy hands and feet. The deity sits on a high-backed hexagonal throne with his feet on a dais with arcaded sides-a frequent feature of these early figures-and on the floor are his attributes, randomly scattered. The face shows holes for the insertion of a beard and moustache of real hair. There are both moulded work on the head dress and breast armour and incised patterning on the robes. Perhaps it is this that leads Donnelly to describe the decoration as"almost excessive'-whereas on the contary I would say that a characteristic of the work of this period is breadth of sculptural treatment and simplicity of detail: note for example the uncomplicated folds of the drapery and large ain areas, and on the back the simple sleeves, collar and belt (Fig. 13); all this contrasts with the complex fussiness of many later figures. On the back, below the throne, is the rare inscription with its plain Wanli date: the year 1610.

但是，這個財神的特征絕非與眾不同，我認為，這個財神的特征只存在于某個有限的類別中，而且根據新的年代學證據可以看出，這不僅僅是一個孤立的早期七十九世紀的風格，而且預示著一個更大的發展。

這個早期群體的特征共有的是一個相對光滑和細密的胎體，有著黃色到奶油色的色調，有時非常明顯，還有一個薄的、緊密結合的和有光澤的釉色。雕塑方面，它們有與大多數晚期人物的區別在于厚重的，特別是在底部周圍顯見的陶瓷制造，燒成的裂縫非常常見。風格的沉重延伸到模具，在這種情況下甚至延伸到帷幔。還要注意身體的一般比例，又矮又短，頭很大，手腳很豐滿。這位神坐在一個高背的六角形寶座上，他的腳放在有拱廊的臺面上——這是早期人物的常見特征——地板上是他的附屬物，隨機分布。臉上有洞，可以插入胡須和真正的毛發。頭飾和胸甲都有模制工藝，袍子上也有雕刻圖案。也許正是因為這個原因，唐納利把這個裝飾描述為“幾乎過度”——然而，我可以說，這個時期作品的一個特點是雕塑處理的寬度和細節的簡潔: 例如，注意布料的簡單褶皺和大面積的主要區域，以及背面簡單的袖子，領子和腰帶(圖13) ，所有這一切與許多后來的人物復雜的模樣形成鮮明對比。王座下方的背面刻有罕見的碑文，刻有萬歷年代: 1610年字樣。

（Figure 13: Back of Caishen figure with inscription. 圖13: 刻有銘文財神像的背面。）

Several other figures were shown in the British Museums exhibition for which an earl seventeenth-century date is clearly appropriate. Among them is one of Wenchang, the God of Letters, with his assistant Guixing(Fig. 14), which has a similar type and colour of material and plain styling of modelling: the rocky base with its slashed and pierced work is novel and interesting, and worthy of note also is the unusual shaping of the high-backed throne and plain back with a panel of incised decoration.Another obvious candidate for the period is a noble standing figure of Wenchang-once British Museum, again massive and solidly made, short, stocky and large-headed, and having a conspicuous firing-crack here again, the back of the model is plainly and broadly stylised. A notable family resemblance to the last model is evident too in a standing figure of Guandi, God of War (Fig. 16): this is comparable both in the facial features and in the understated movement of the body and robes, while it again features the sculptural plinth with arcaded sides, in this case outlined by incised lines.

在英國博物館的展覽中還展出了其他一些雕塑，其中公元17世紀早期的斷代顯然是合適的。其中一個是文昌——文神和他的助手魁星(圖14) ，這有一個類似的類型、顏色和簡單的造型: 刪減和穿透的巖石底座的創造是創新和有趣的，值得注意的是不尋常的高背的王座的造型和有雕刻的裝飾的平背。這個時期另一個明顯的競爭者是一個高貴的文昌君立像——再次是巨大的和堅固的制作，矮小，敦實和大頭，并有一個明顯的射擊裂縫。同樣，瓷塑的背面是質樸和明白的風格。與最后一個瓷塑的家族相似之處也很明顯，那就是戰神關帝的立像(圖16) : 無論是面部特征，還是身體和長袍保守的動作，都具有可比性，同時雕塑的基座也有弧形的側面，在這個案例中用切割線勾勒出來。

（Figure 14: Wenchang, Star God of letters, with Guixing.height 26.6cm. 1610-40.British museum. 圖14：文昌，文神，身高26.6厘米。1610-40年.大英博物館。）

（Figure 15: Wenchang standing. Height 33.2cm.1610-40. British museum圖15: 文昌立像。身高33.2 cm，1610-40年。大英博物館。）

（Figure 16: Guandi, god of war. Height 29.6cm.1610-40. British museum. 圖16: 關帝，戰神。身高29.6厘米1610-40。大英博物館。）

All these pieces are, as Donnelly seems indeed to have recognised, indicative of the earliest known Dehua figure style, and they would appear to be of late Ming date, c 1600-44. Another very important milestone noticed by Donnelly is a model bearing a Tianqi date 1629, which contained an inscription incised on the base.Identified only as belonging to a collection in Hong Kong, this is our very first Dehua Guanyin, and shows that most popular of deities seated on a rocky throne flanked by a vessel(now broken off)and a set of texts, with her two acolytes below: it is evidently the precursor of the model in Figure 1. Interestingly, the inspection indicates that the piece was made as a thank-offering for the birth of a son: which shows it was not intended as an export piece. Once again, the base is solidly made and has suffered some firing-cracks.

唐納利似乎確實認識到了，所有這些瓷器顯示了和已知最早的德化瓷塑一樣風格，它們似乎是晚明時期的作品，鑒于公元1600-44年之間。唐納利注意到的另一個非常重要的里程碑，是一個刻有1629年天啟年代的瓷塑，瓷塑底座上刻有銘文。這是香港首個德化觀音，展示了最受歡迎的觀音坐在一個巖石寶座上，旁邊放著一個容器(現已折斷)和一套經文，下面還有她的兩個追隨者: 這顯然是圖一中模型的前身。有趣的是，銘文表明，這件作品是為了感謝一個兒子的出生: 這表明它并不打算不是作為一件出口作品。再一次，底座堅固，并有一些燒成的裂縫。

來源：德化陶瓷文化研究院、陶瓷辦

責任編輯：陳美珠