Xīqīng gǔjiàn 西清古鑑
Mirror of Antiquities of the Xī-qīng (Western Pure) Studio by 梁詩正 (Liáng Shīzhèng, 1697–1763, 清, fèngchì zhuàn 奉敕撰) and 蔣溥 (Jiǎng Pǔ, 1708–1761, 清, fèngchì zhuàn 奉敕撰)
About the work
The 40-juàn Qiánlóng imperial catalog of bronze antiquities in the inner-palace collection, the Bógǔ tú counterpart for the Qīng dynasty. The work was commissioned by the shàngyù of Qiánlóng 14 / 11 / 7 (1749) and presented in 1755; the imperial edict explicitly invokes Wáng Fǔ’s KR3h0087 Xuānhé bógǔ tú and Lǚ Dàlín’s KR3h0086 Kǎogǔ tú as its models. The compilation was directed by Liáng Shīzhèng 梁詩正 (1697–1763) and Jiǎng Pǔ 蔣溥 (1708–1761) — alongside Wāng Yóudūn 汪由敦 — with a large team of Hanlin scholars, court painters (Liáng Guān 梁觀, Lǐ Huìlín 李慧林, Dīng Guānhè 丁觀鶴, Dǎng Yīngshí 党應時, Luó Fúmǐn 羅福旼, Chén Shìjùn 陳士俊, Chéng Liáng 程梁), and seal-script copyists. Supervision was placed under the Héshuò Zhuāng Qīnwáng (i.e. Prince Zhuāng) and the Héshuò Guǒ Qīnwáng. The book records 1,529 ancient bronze vessels held in the Forbidden City, with each piece illustrated in line-drawing, the kuǎnshí (inscription) traced in seal-script and glossed in zhèngshū, and Liáng’s full evidential discussion. The book was followed by the Xīqīng xùjiàn jiǎbiān 西清續鑑甲編 (1793, Qiánlóng 58, on imperial holdings) and Xīqīng xùjiàn yǐbiān 西清續鑑乙編 (1793, on the Shèngjīng Mukden palace holdings), creating a comprehensive late-Qiánlóng three-volume imperial bronze catalogue. The title “Xīqīng 西清” refers to the Xīqīng studio (a Yángxīndiàn 養心殿 inner-palace studio used by the Qiánlóng emperor for connoisseurial work). Like the other Qiánlóng-era imperial catalogs (KR3h0061 Pèiwén zhāi shūhuà pǔ; KR3h0062 Mìdiàn zhūlín; KR3h0063 Shíqú bǎojí) it is structured as an evidential reference work, not a connoisseur’s commentary.
Tiyao
No standalone tíyào in the WYG source — the imperial edict (上諭) of Qiánlóng 14 / 11 / 7 (1749) and the list of compilation officials (職名) head the work in place of a tíyào. The shàngyù: “Ancient fǎwù (canonical objects) — those that have been transmitted from some source — only ritual bronzes zūnyídǐngnài run through the ages with constant remoteness. This because their substance is firm and their body thick, not moved by dry-or-damp and not damaged by corrosion. Their deep light, in solemn manner, lets us see the manners and atmosphere of the Three Dynasties and earlier. Hence the antiquity-loving scholars hasten to take from them. The Xuānhé bógǔ one tú is spread in the yìyuàn (arts garden); to follow on it there was Lǚ’s Kǎogǔ tú. Beyond these the records are sparse. Is it not that the ability to obtain them was not joined with the ability to gather them — sights were narrow and the records insufficient? Our court’s family-discipline does not pursue wánhào (curio-amateurship); ordinary connoisseurial collection by people is not generally prohibited; yet what is displayed in the palace halls and stored in the inner archive cannot be said to be small. I at leisure between court matters have given pǐntí (graded designation); examining the old tú I find much not recorded. Considering ancient vessels’ visibility-and-obscurity has its time, and that if we do not now make a biǎozhāng (manifest) of them and put them in the records, on what would future research be based? I therefore command Minister Liáng Shīzhèng, Jiǎng Pǔ and Wāng Yóudūn, leading the inner-palace Hanlin scholars, to imitate the Bógǔ tú old style — finely depict the forms, fully copy the inscriptions, into a single book called the Xīqīng gǔjiàn. As a leisure pursuit, to lodge a remote thought on the ancient — also enough to be called a graceful taste of peace. Specifically commanded.”
Abstract
The Xīqīng gǔjiàn is the principal Qīng imperial catalog of ancient bronzes and the Qing dynastic counterpart to Wáng Fǔ’s KR3h0087 Xuānhé bógǔ tú. The 40-juàn scope and 1,529-vessel coverage make it the largest single early-modern Chinese antiquarian compilation. The work was the basis for Qīng-period bronze typology and for the modern reconstruction of pieces dispersed during the 1860 sack of the Yuánmíngyuán and the Eight-Nation-Allies’ Beijing intervention of 1900 — many vessels documented in this book are no longer traceable. The compilation team’s mix of court painters, seal-script copyists and Hanlin evidential scholars makes the book one of the largest interdisciplinary editorial enterprises of the eighteenth-century Qiánlóng court. The completion in 1755 places it between the KR3h0062 Mìdiàn zhūlín (1744) and the KR3h0063 Shíqú bǎojí (1744) and the imperial provincial gazetteer compilations of the 1750s — part of the great Qiánlóng cultural-cataloging programme. The dating range is set by the 1749 edict and the 1755 completion. The Sìkù tíyào is replaced by the imperial edict and compilers’ roster, in keeping with the work’s imperially-authorised status.
Translations and research
- Mowry, Robert D. China’s Renaissance in Bronze. Phoenix, 1993.
- Hsu, Ya-hwei 許雅惠. “Antiquaries and Politics” (and various essays on Qīng jīn-shí xué).
- Ebrey, Patricia. Accumulating Culture (treats the Xī-qīng gǔ-jiàn as the Qīng imperial counterpart to the Xuān-hé bó-gǔ tú).
- Rong Geng 容庚. Shāng Zhōu yí-qì tōng-kǎo. Beijing: Yanjing Daxue, 1941. [Uses the Xī-qīng gǔ-jiàn extensively, while also noting its many misattributions.]
- Liú Yǔ 劉雨, Yú Xǐ 盧岩 et al. Jìn-chū Yīn-Zhōu jīn-wén jí-shì 近出殷周金文集釋. Beijing: Zhōnghuá shū-jú, 2002.
- Wáng Tāo 王濤. Xī-qīng gǔ-jiàn yánjiū 西清古鑑研究. Doctoral and post-doctoral studies.
Other points of interest
The Xīqīng gǔjiàn and its two xùjiàn supplements (1793) together document about 4,000 bronze vessels in the Qīng imperial collection. A large fraction of these are no longer extant or have been dispersed, making the catalog illustrations the unique source for the modern reconstruction of pieces from the Yuánmíngyuán, the Shèngjīng Mukden palace, and the inner Forbidden City. The reproduction of inscription tracings, however, contains many palaeographic errors — modern scholars (Rong Geng, Liú Yǔ) read the Xīqīng gǔjiàn tracings as a primary source for the actual vessels but not as authoritative palaeographic readings.