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(五)——約翰 蓋爾（翻譯：德化陶瓷文化研究院 孫延燕）

A tall standing Guanyin from the same exhibition also has the He Chaozong mark (Fig. 22). It is another monumental piece, over 20 inches tall and shows the white-robed and mantled deity standing on a rock lapped by the sea. One foot is revealed but the hands are hidden, clasped under the long sleeves of the robe which is lightly blown by the breeze. In some respects the model is even more impressive sculpturally than that of Wenchang and it is certainly more complex in treatment-in the indication of the hair and head-dress for instance, or in the finely etched waves.

在同一個展覽中的一個高大的觀音立像也有何朝宗的標記(圖22)。這是另一件具有紀念意義的作品，觀音超過20英寸高，穿著白袍和披著斗篷站在海邊的巖石上。一只腳露了出來，但是雙手卻藏了起來，緊扣在被微風輕輕吹動的長袍的長袖里。在某些方面，這個瓷塑在雕刻上甚至比文昌的模型更加令人印象深刻，而且在處理上也肯定更加復雜——比如頭發和頭飾，或者精致的波浪。

（Figure 22. Guanyin standing on clouds. Height 45. 1 cm. Dated 1681. Bluett & Sons.）

（圖22: 祥云觀音。身高45.1厘米。1681年，布魯特家族。）

The porcelain lacks the creamy colour of that model, and all in all it is tempting to suggest it was made a decade or two later.

瓷器沒有那個瓷塑的奶油色，總而言之，它很容易讓人聯想到它是10年或20年后制作的。

Figures of such presence and material perfection were not necessarily made over a very long period; and while a certain number of such superior pieces are to be found, the predominance of poorer ones is admittedly depressing. The British Museum exhibition performed a valuable service in showing a selection of those for which, I think, Donnelly sometimes entertained rather too much respect In Figure 23, for instance, is a figure bear ing the mark'he Chaochun. Donnelly describes He Chaochun as being"possibly a younger brother of He Chaozong, and suggests a period of activity around 1700. But for my money these simpering inventions bear only a remote relation- ship to the kind of work we have just seen: the conception is trivial and banal while the actual modelling, not to mention the finishing, is of a crudity one has difficulty in associat- ng with the eighteenth century.

瓷塑的這種呈現方式和材料上的完美并不一定是在很長一段時間內完成的; 雖然可以找到一定數量的這種優秀作品，但是拙劣作品的主導地位確實令人沮喪。大英博物館的展覽提供了一個有價值的服務展示了那些我認為，唐納利有時戲謔但非常尊重的作品，例如圖23是一個標記著“何朝春”的瓷塑。唐納利形容何朝春可能是何朝宗的弟弟，并暗示他在1700年前后有過一段活動。但是在我看來，這些愚蠢的發現與我們剛才看到的那種作品只有很小的關系: 概念是瑣碎而平庸的，而實際的瓷塑，更不用說是完整的，是一種粗糙的東西，很難與18世紀聯系起來。

(Figure 23: Slip-cast model with mark of He Chaochun. Height 26.7cm. Early 20 century. British museum.）

（圖23: 帶有何超春印款的注漿瓷塑。身高26.7厘米。20世紀初。大英博物館。)

In this lecture I have tried to show some of the ways in which fresh information obliges us to reassess our former views about Dehua porcelain in the West. I have argued, firstly, for he view that Dehua products should be seen as representing a continuous tradition stretching pack to Song times, even if parts of the Ming development are still highly obscure. I have indicated, too, from the pre-existing evidence, supplemented by that of Hatcher and others, chat the flowering of blanc de Chine in the seventeenth century, both at home and for export, certainly occurred earlier than Donnelly thought and may also have been shorter lived than he assumed And given this somewhat firmer ground, I would suggest there is a need to reconsider the dating and grouping of blanc de Chine figures, not to mention other wares, after the seventeenth century in a fairly drastic way. That, however, is too big a topic to become involved in here. Perhaps the most striking outcome of these reflections lies in the realization of just how much of the best of Dehua may date from the first, or predominantly Ming portion of the seventeenth century: bearing out the surprising extent to which those Chinese commentators who have always so argued may, despite Western disbelief. have been right all the time.

在這次報告中，我試圖展示一些方式信息因為新信息的涌入促使我們重新評估我們以前西方對德化瓷器的看法。我認為，首先，他認為德化產品應該被視為代表一個延伸至宋代的持續性的傳統，即使部分明代發展仍然高度模糊。我也從已經存在的證據，加上哈徹號和其他人的證據，談到17世紀瓷器的繁榮，無論是在國內還是出口，肯定比唐納利想象的要早，也可能比他想象的要短，而且考慮到這個更堅實的基礎，我建議有必要重新考慮瓷塑的斷代和分類，更不用說其他產品了，在17世紀之后，以一種相當戲劇的方式出現。但是，這么做太過分了，不能牽扯進來。也許最引人注目的結果在于德化陶瓷精品可以追溯到17世紀的最初，或者說主要是明朝時期: 令人驚訝地證明了那些一直被中國評論家們爭論的結論，盡管西方人不相信，一直都是正確的。

John Ayers was formerly Keeper of the Far Eastern Department, Victoria and Albert Museum, and is now an independent scholar. This essay was first published in Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, Vol. 51, 1986-87, and is reprinted by permission of the Oriental Ceramic Society, London。

約翰·蓋爾曾是維多利亞和阿爾伯特博物館遠東部的管理人，現在是一名獨立學者。這篇文章首次發表在《東方陶瓷學會》匯刊上，1986-1987年51卷，并經倫敦東方陶瓷協會批準重印。

來源：德化陶瓷文化研究院、陶瓷辦

責任編輯：陳美珠