CLP 88: 1984 “On the Album of Scenes of Huangshan Attributed to Hongren.” “Huangshan School” symposium Hefei



"Lun Hung-jen Huang-shan t'u-ts'e ti kuei-yü (On the Album of Scenes of Huang-shan Attributed to Hung-jen), Duoyun (Flowery Cloud) no. 9, 1985, pp. 108-124.  (With rejoinders by Xu Bangda, ibid., pp. 125-129, and Shi Guofeng, pp. 130-136.)

Hongren paper Intro

The paper that follows was posted earlier as one of my CLPs, no. 88, under the title “On the Album of Scenes of Huangshan Attributed to Hongren.” Paper for “Huangshan School” symposium, Hefei, May 10-20, 1984.”  But because it made little sense in that simple form--the text only of a slide-illustrated paper given at an international symposium--we have decided to add this introductory note, and eventually insert illustrations, to post it as one of the “Writings of JC.” It does indeed require some introduction, because it was one of the most important papers I have delivered, and yet has never before been published in English. An account of the background and circumstances of its preparation and delivery, and its aftermath, are needed, and those are what I will try to provide here.

By the late 1970s, my grad students and I were seriously trying to understand the importance of local schools in Chinese painting, and also the economics of style--why certain ways of painting came to be associated both with socio-economic forces and with regional schools in China. The seminar I gave in Spring of 1980, which included such future luminaries in the field as Ginger Hsu, Scarlett Jang, Jane Debevoise, Hiro Kobayashi and Judy Andrews, probed deep into these issues, with some help from my History Dept. colleague Fred Wakeman and his students, who filled us in on, for instance, the power and spread of the Anhui (or Huizhou) merchants over the whole Jiangnan Region. The resulting exhibition and its catalog, titled Shadows of Mt. Huang: Chinese Painting and Printing of the Anhui School, shown also at an East Coast venue, aroused a lot of attention--Jonathan Spence praised it in a long footnote to a NY Review of Books article, for one. The historian (and my friend) Joseph McDermott, assigned to a study year in the Anhui capital at Hefei (he had wanted Beijing), took copies of our catalog with him and gave them to museum people and others, among whom they caused an even bigger stir: A group of foreign scholars devotes this much study and publicity, more than we have done, to our local school of artists! The outcome was the first international symposium on Chinese painting to be held in China, on the Anhui (or Huangshan, or Huizhou) School of painting, held in Hefei in May, 1984, with an exhibition at the Anhui Provincial Museum there drawing on collections all over China. A photo taken on the trip after the symposium (Fig. 1) shows some of the distinguished participants: Dick Edwards, Chu-tsing Li, Bill Wu Jonathan Hay (then still a grad student in China), as well as distinguished Chinese scholars such as Wang Shiqing. And, as originator of the event and special honored guest, I was asked to speak to the whole group at the opening session on the first night.

I had decided to do something radical and unexpected, which needs a word of explanation. I had prepared an unchallenging slide-show of Anhui-school paintings in U.S. collections ready to give, but I decided to present instead my challenging, even explosive paper--through an interpreter, Lin Xiaoping, and illustrated with double slide-projection in a way they weren’t used to. My argument, richly backed up with these images (a mode of presentation new to most of the Chinese participants), was that the famous album of seventy scenes of Huangshan supposed to be by the central artist of the school, Hongren, a treasure of the Beijing Palace Museum (of which the Director Yang Boda and the curator Xu Bangda were both present), was not by Hongren at all, but by his less-famous contemporary Xiao Yuncong.

Why did I decide to give this paper? In the years preceding, notable Chinese connoisseurs such as Xu Bangda and Xie Zhiliu had come to the U.S. and toured U.S. museums, with their followers, and had pronounced many of our greatest treasures to be fakes. I wanted to show the Chinese that we too could play that game, and do it on a sounder basis, using visual comparisons with other works by the two artists, besides showing that the “Hongren” seals on the album didn’t match those on others of his paintings and so didn’t really support the attribution to him.

I hardly need say that the paper caused a huge commotion, which continued through the three days of the symposium: Professor Cahill has challenged Chinese connoisseurship! My paper was the chief topic of discussion through the rest of the symposium. Jonathan Hay told me that I shouldn’t have delivered it, it was insulting to the Chinese. I told him my reasons, but they didn’t convince him. Xu Bangda talked with me privately in the garden during a break, telling me that he himself had always doubted the Hongren authorship of that album. (Fig. 2 is a photo of Xu Bangda and myself with Wang Shiqing, also taken on the post-symposium trip.) Yang Boda reportedly marched Xu off to the Museum the next morning to look at the album with him, and made him deliver an impromptu talk before the whole body supporting the Hongren attribution. I was very sorry for Xu as I watched him do this, obviously uncomfortable about it.

I was approached after my paper by Lu Fusheng, editor of the Shanghai art journal Duoyun, or “Flowery Cloud,” about publishing it in his journal, and I agreed. Like other Chinese publishers who wanted to publish lectures and papers by me, he turned out to want only the text, and to care little or nothing about the pictures--he even lost the color slides I gave him for use in reproduction. But it did appear, with a few illustrations, as (copying from my Bibliography, old spelling): "Lun Hung-jen Huang-shan t'u-ts'e ti kuei-yü (On the Album of Scenes of Huang-shan Attributed to Hung-jen), Duoyun (Flowery Cloud) no. 9, 1985, pp. 108-124.  (With rejoinders by Xu Bangda, ibid., pp. 125-129, and Shi Guofeng, pp. 130-136.)

For some reason, I never got around to publishing it, properly illustrated, in some English-language journal, as I should have, so that its posting here constitutes, surprisingly, its first English-language publication. As I say, we will add illustrations later so that readers can understand better my arguments.

James Cahill, February 10, 2012


Paper for Hefei Symposium, May 10-20, 1984:


(HR=Hongren, XYC=Xiao Yuncong)

S.S. One of most famous works of Anhui School of ptg is Album of Scenes of Huangshan,  w. seals of Hongren. (Actually set of 7 albums of 10 ptgs each, w.8th album of inscriptions.)  These are two leaves.  As work of central artist of Anhui School, depicting central subject of school, extremely important for our understanding of Anhui school painting. Also, most complete early series of pictures of Huangshan that we have.  Has been universally accepted as genuine work of Hongren. However, I have long suspected that it was not really by him; and while living in Peking in fall of 1982, had chance to study 9 leaves of the album in originals on exhibition. Confirmed my earlier suspicions, based on reproductions: that ptgs not by Hongren at all. Later, after climbing Huangshan and studying them some more, I came to second conclusion: that they are by his older contemporary Xiao Yuncong.  Today I will try to show first that evidence for its being a work of HR not reliable; and then that evidence (stylistic) for its being work of XYC, on the contrary,is overwhelming. In saying this I am not changing the quality or the importance of the album in any way; the paintings are unchanged. I am only trying to clear up the question of its authorship, and give the proper credit to XYC.

S.S. The two artists had distinct styles.  Here,two works by HR: LS in Honolulu,  Palace Mus.  Peking.  Style: linear, geometricized, w/o color; structural;  concerned w. space and mass.

S.S. Typical works by XYC, by contrast, use color; contain figures; are less structurally strong in composition; retain more of trad. of Wen Cheng-ming and other Suchou ptrs; and in mood and effect, exhibit more of light whimsy,less of the seriousness,  even austerity, that HR represents.   (Leaf from album in Cleveland Mus. dtd. 1668; sec’n of handscroll in Los Angeles County Mus. dtd. 1669.)

S.S. But: the two artists were contemporaries, working in same place; natural that they would have points of style in common, overlap in certain of their works. HR said to have learned from XYC;in later years, XYC affected by HR’s style. XYC sometimes (as in ptg in Freer Gal. dtd.1658) moves into HR’s stylistic territory;  and HR sometimes uses some color, works w. flatter forms, or otherwise comes closer to XYC,as in this sec'n of handscroll dtd. 1661 (Sumitomo col)

So: how to distinguish them? If we try to question the attribution of some work ascribed to one of them and suggest it's really by the other, on the basis of style, as I'm doing, someone can always reply: yes, but why couldn't XYC have decided to do a ptg in HR's manner, or HR in XYC’s? And of course this is a possibility.

S.S. Let me use an analogy: here are two works by Huang Pin-hung 黃賓虹 and Fu Pao-shih 傅抱石. Contemporaries, knew each other, sometimes working in same place.  But they have individual, distinctive styles. Now, if we found a work in style of FPS but with seal of HPH, this could be a case in which Huang deliberately worked in Fu's style.   (Not likely, but theoretically possible.)  But we would have to be very sure that Huang1s seal is reliable before accepting the ptg as by him. And this would be especially true if Huang's ptgs had become much more admired & valuable than Fu's.  In case of HR & XYC,HR's ptgs have been much more valuable than Xiao’s since their own time; always a temptation to increase value of XYC work by attrib. it to HR.

S.S.  Only real evidence for attrib. Beijing album of Huangshan scenes to HR, apart from colophons (which can easily be switched from one album to another)  are seals on the ptgs; and these, as I will now try to show, are unreliable. HR seems to have used at least two small, round seals reading Hongren. Both are found on leaves of album now in Nelson Gal., Kansas City, dtd. 1664 (last dtd work, ptd only 13 days before death.)   I will call these Type A and Type B.  In this one Type A, jen character written w. vertical lines; verticals predominate.

S. This seal found also on LS in Freer Gal., others.

S. Detail of Freer ptg: seal.

S. Other,Type B: curvilinear; lines of jen character of equal length, and curve to conform to round outline of seal.  This one also seen on a number of reliable works, such as:

S. Several leaves in 1657 album (whereabouts unknown) that HR painted in Nanking.  Here is whole leaf;

S. Here is detail of seal. These two seals, Types A & B, seem to match up on reliable works of Hongren.

S.S. A third round seal found on this undated LS of Mt. Wu-i 武夷, in Fukien;  I know only from old reproduction, and can't judge authenticity, but looks good. Left leg of jen character shorter than right; otherwise like Type B.

S. Seal on Beijing album of Huangshan scenes doesn't agree with any of these;  so far as I know, can’t be matched with any seal on any other Hongren work.  Seems midway bet. Types A and B in design: characters curved slightly, but not enough to conform with round outline of seal.

Also: no other case (known to me) in which same seal put on every leaf of album (70 leaves!) without, moreover, any inscription by artist.

Seals are thus not reliable evidence for its being a work by HR;  and inscriptions identifying him as artist could of course be switched from one album to another, may not have been attached to this album originally.  So: only real basis for deciding who painted it is style; and style, as I'11 try to show, points strongly to XYC as artist.

I will show a series of slides to demonstrate this: that characteristic features of style to be seen in leaves of Beijing album can be paralleled closely in XYC’s works, not in Hongren's.

S.  Here is leaf representing 雲谷寺 Cloud-Valley Temple from Beijing Album V (i.e. fifth in series of seven albums. I am grateful to Mr. Yang Xin of Palace Mus. for information on organization of these albums.)  Pointed peaks ptd in "Mi Style", w. horizontal tien , heavy clouds. HR never attempted this style, to my knowledge; against the whole direction of his style.

S.S. XYC, by contrast, did it several times.  Here is sec'n of handscroll in Vannotti Col., Lugano, Switzerland, dtd. 1663.  Same peaks, same clouds.   (Minor differences, but much closer than any correspondences we could find in works of other artists.)

S.S.  Another example, sec'n of XYC handscroll from same year in Palace Mus.,  Beijing; compare to leaf in Album III of Bezjang Huangshan album, representing 蓮華庵 Lotus-flower Retreat.  Heavy clouds around this.  Also:

S. Leaf in Beijing album IV representing_天門峰_Heavenly Gate Peak:  heavily-outlined bands of fog twist around peaks.  Never seen in HR's ptgs; but:

S. A.feature often found in XYC's ptgs.  Here, sec'n of handscroll by him in private collection in Hong Kong.

S. Strange, unnaturally curling mists are found in several leaves of Beijing album; distinctive feature. Here,leaf rep. 天都峰 Heavenly Citadel Peak in Album II.  Bands of fog sometimes end in knobby, mushroom-like curls—

S. Best paralleled in works of XYC,such as this sec'n of handscroll in Hong Kong. Nothing remotely like this to be seen in works by HR.

S.S. Several leaves of Beijing album (here, 仙鐙洞 in Album III and 大悲頂 Album IV) employ another odd way of treating mountain slopes, distantly based on style of Wang Meng 王蒙: texture strokes (ts'un ) curve, earth forms twist,to give strange effect of animation. HR never ptd this way;

S. XYC did, as in this leaf from a published album dtd. 1668,  which he inscribes as being "in manner of Wang Meng."

The practice of imitating a wide variety of old styles was more characteristic of XYC than of HR, whose models were quite limited, and not so important to his ptgs.  That is, HR may occasionally work in the manner of some old master, but
his style is not so much altered. XYC, by contrast, regularly, worked in old manners,  changing his style markedly. In 1648 he ptd series of landscapes depicting scenery of T'ai-p'ing region, which were printed by woodblock; these are two leaves,
inscribed as in manners of Wang Meng and Kuo Hsi. Also these represented real places he did them all in old styles, acc. to his own inscriptions. This is a practice somewhat antithetical to normal aim of representing real appearance of scenery;  and it agrees with whole program of Beijing album of Huangshan scenery, in which real places are similarly represented in variety of manners.

(Oil Pool 油潭 from Album II)S.Another manner seen in some leaves of Beijing album is system of shading with ink-wash within parallel interior contour lines, to give some relief-like appearance to forms. Never done by HR, but: _

S. Frequently seen in XYC’s works works, such as this sec’n of published handscroll (old Shanghai publication.)

S.S. Feature seen in several leaves of Beijing album (here 散華塢 Scattered Flowers Valley in Album II and 九龍潭, Nine Dragons Falls in Album VI) is placing of row of treetops, with varied foliage types, along bottom edge of picture. Has effect of elevating scene, suggesting that more lies below its lower boundary.

S. This is device frequently used by XYC. Here, sec’n of handscroll by him, pub. Peking 1959. Hongren will put pine trees at base of composition, but not such a row of various kinds of trees.

S. Another, sec'n of handscroll from old reproduction book (Shanghai, 1910.) Note also figures: we’11 come to these later.

S.S_ XYC likes to scatter a variety of trees, all simply drawn with schematic foliage patterns, around his compositions for effect of differentiation, richness. Left, sec'n from undtd. handscroll, Peking pub. 1959 (note figures, once more); right, leaf rep. 朱砂泉 Red Gravel Spring from Beijing album VI.

S.S. In other ptgs, artist of Beijing album repeats simple pattern of pine trees, all identical, with rows of needles pointing upward like rakes,or brushes.喝石居, 掀雲牖 both from Album II.)

S. These are also typical of XYC’s style.  He was, as I said before, an artist who worked out a repertory of schemata or conventions, or adopted them from earlier ptg, and used them w/o trying much to adjust them to nature—

S.S Perhaps most characteristic of XYC’s ptgs are the simply-drawn, blocky little figures that people his ptgs. Often faceless, or w. only dots for eyes & mouth.  These are details from ptg in Freer Gal. dtd. 1658 (left); from hand-scroll in Los Angeles County Mus. dtd. 1669 (right). Such figures never seen in HR1s ptgs  (which seldom have any figures); but appear frequently in Beijing album.

S.S. Here, for instance,  are details from 油潭 Oil Pond and 朱砂泉 Red Gravel Spring,  both in Album II. Typical XYC figures. Note also artist's fondness for color: robes of figures typically colored red. Hair tied in knots back;  often walk with staffs not individualized; XYZ has strong tendency to work with type-forms,  repeated from one ptg to next. These figures, to be seen in many leaves of Beijing album, should alone betray the hand of XYC, even w/o the landscape settings.

S.S. I know of only a few ptgs by Hongren with figures in them: leaf from early collective (合作) album, known from old publication; figure of monk, in ptg formerly in Victoria Contag collection;

S.S. and landscape in Freer gal, shown before, in which man sits in t’ing-tzu 亭子 in lower right, w. servant standing beside him.

S.In coloring, XYC likes to work within range of cool blue and green tones,  blended w. ink, and to enliven this combination w. areas of pale red-brown, as on tree trunks, and touches of brighter red, as on the foliage of some trees and on the figures. Trees are typically drawn in naive way, w. clusters of circles for leaves.  These are details from Los Angeles hanscroll of 1669.  HR seldom colors his ptgs, never in this way.

S.S. Here is 覺庵_Enlightenment Lodge from Beijing Album II. Exactly the same manner of coloring.  Build-up of mts, w, shaded folds, also typical of XYC's style.

By now, I hope I have established to everyone's satis­faction that in all the features of style where XYC's and HR's paintings differ, the Beijing album agrees closely with XYC.  There are virtually no significant stylistic affinities, by contrast,w. Hongren's ptgs.

Now,  I want to turn from these smaller points of style to some basic observations about the two artists' fundamental methods of rendering mass and space,  and of portraying natural scenery.

S.S. Hongren, as I said at beginning, is concerned with conveying sense of massiveness, even monumentality, in his landscape forms, w/in limitations of his linear drawing.  Constructs his pictures out of clearly scaled forms, small to large.  Simpler, clearly articulated compositions, made up of larger units, are typical of him. (Honolulu, Peking Palace Mus. Ptgs.)

When he attempts more complex compositions, smaller forms are integrated into larger units, so that whole effect is never simple piling-up of small forms, or composition built up simply by additive method. Space is defined sometimes as pockets or recesses between landscape masses, bounded by sheer cliffs.

S.S. His outlines tend to be long, slightly fluctuating and wavering; define huge rocky masses that are characteristic of Huangshan scenery. (Ptg in Shanghai Museum; another private col., Hong Kong, “Done below Biyun Peak”). XYC’s 碧雲峰 line drawing typically drier, not so continuous and fluid at this.

S.S. Hongren, even in his ptgs of quieter, non-impressive scenery, such as these (sec’n of 1661 handscroll in Sumitomo col. In Japan; album leaf in collective album prob. Ptd in 1663) provides clear sense of ground plane, of flat-topped banks and plateaus, of space separating elements in depth – always keeps these clear. Not so in XYC’s works.

S.S. XYC, even when he is closest to HR (as in Freer LS of 1658), works w. flat forms, overlapping, w/o attempting any very convincing effects of space or 3-dimensional form. (Other: leaf from 1668 album). XYC can paint cubic, flat-topped masses, but doesn’t try to go beyond that.

S.S. flat-topped, platform-like forms zig-zagging oddly into distance belong to his repertory; here, sec'n of published handscroll, and 1648 landscape in Tientsin Mus. This odd form was common property of number of Anhui School artists,   including Hongren,used by a number of them.

S.S.  Here is 白砂嶺 White Gravel Ridge leaf from beijing Album II: curious example of this elevated, zig-zagging form.  Has no counterpart in real geology;
imagined.  Or, as simple variant of
this, a zig-zag recession along a river, as in 橫坑 Level Gulley leaf of Beijing Album II.  Something like this appears in early works of HR; but belongs more to XYC's compositional method, in mature years of two artists.

S.S. XYC's inscription attached to Beijing album, dtd. 1665 last two pages of four.) Praises album as work of Hongren; says he himself never went to Huangshan;  too old to go now. But Hongren, he says, since his return from Fukien,has been living among peaks and cliffs, sleeping and eating among seas of clouds and fogs, and has absorbed all these into his mind.

S.S. Beijing album now strikes me as work of someone who has never been to Huangshan.  Artist can transmit certain simple features of Huangshan scenery,  such as shape of rock oddly balanced on rock platform (飛來峰) Peak That Came Flying, from Album VI; cf. photo of real place).  Features that allow identification of scenes, as in schematic pictures in guidebook.

S.S. But this artist seems to have little sense of feeling of place,sense of breathtaking grandeur.  Gives us only these highly schematic versions of famous sights. S Here (right slide)慈光寺 Tz'u-kuang Temple, from Album IV, with Tiendu Feng (Heavenly Citadel Peak)  at right, and 桃華峰 Taohua Feng (Peach-blossom Peak)  at left. Like simplified version of standard woodblock-printed guidebook depiction, as seen in print from early 18th cent. book (left slide). Ptg. transmits no sense of real experience of place.

S. Real scene: Tiendu Feng rises magnificently, towering over temple on one side;

S. Taohua Feng on other side (seen from different angle.)

In October of 1982, after I had climbed Huangshan, spending three days among its peaks, returned to Beijing to study leaves of album further (still on exhib.  at Gugong) and had revelation:  that these were not ptgs by anyone who had ever been to Huangshan.

This is admittedly my weakest argument: subjective, unprovable.  But I want to put it forth nevertheless, however subjective it may be, in addition to my other, firmer arguments, as another reason why I think Beijing album is by XYC, not by HR.

I believe that set of albums in that set of albums in Palace Museum, Beijing, w. spurious seals of Hongren, are really fine works by XYC, probably based loosely on a series of album ptgs by Hongren. Inscription by XYC dtd.  1665 attributing album to Hongren, along with other colophons presently accompanying Beijing
album by
Ch'eng Sui 程邃, Zha Shibiao 查士標 and other, must have seen switched or transferred from genuine album by Hongren;  these colophons seem perfectly genuine, and these writers would not have mistaken work by XYC for work by Hongren. Seals of Hongren probably put on at same time colophons switched, by some earlier owner,  in order to re-attribute the work to Hongren.

Probability that a genuine album by Hongren of scenes of Huangshan existed is strengthened by references in written records to such albums. No time to discuss theses references compiled in Chien-chiang tz'u-liao chi 漸江資料集._ None can be conclusively matched with Beijing album.  No ^ information in any of them--only names and titles.

S.S. Recently, two leaves from what I believe to be a genuine Hongren album of scenes of Huangshan appeared in auction in New York, now in private collection.  Painted on silk, in ink with slight touches of light color.  I don't claim that these are necessarily from the album that XYC copied, or the album that the series of colophons originally were written for.  Hongren may have done several albums of Huangshan scenery. My claim is only that these seem more acceptable as genuine works of the artist, and provide better evidence for how Hongren represented the scenes of Huangshan.

S.Insc. by late Wu Hu-fan,吳湖帆 famous Shanghai collector and connoisseur,  dtd. 1942,state that these are genuine works by Hongren, that they were being "given"(= sold?) to a certain Han-pang 漢邦 whom I haven't identified, and that they are from a series of 16 Views of Huangshan.  Don't know basis for his saying this, and haven't found any info, on whereabouts of remaining leaves. Would be grateful to anyone who can give me clues.  I suspect that there were probably more than 16, since the two scenes these leaves depict aren't among really famous ones or at least one of them isn't), prob. wouldn1t have been included in series of only 16. Also suspect that these were probably among least interesting leaves of album. Nevertheless, they match up in important points of style, as well as in all-over method, with Hongren's paintings.

S.S. Seals on these two leaves match exactly the Type B in examples I showed at the beginning.

S.S. One, Lien-tan T'ai 煉丹臺 or Refining Cinnabar Platform, renders towering cliff,  flat-topped w. spaced outcroppings of rocks,trees.  Drawn in long,fluid,  sensitive line; sense of space in ravine at right, between nearest trees and farther peak.

S.S. Contour drawing of rocky spire in left foreground resembles similar form in Shanghai Mus. ptg; and long, rhythmically fluctuating contour lines seem to come from same hand.

S. Treatment of distant peak, shaped w. “orchid-leaf vein” ts’un (texture strokes), seen in other Hongren ptgs, such as this LS of 1658.

S. Or this one,undated. Such mountain forms not to be seen in XYC's works. Here is version of same scene in Beijing album, perhaps based on this ptg or another one by Hongren. In leaf in Beijing album, landscape forms reduced to flat, playfully geometricized shapes;lose sense of natural form, together with sense of height, mass,  grandeur. Artist treats pine trees as repeated convention, where Hongren, in leaf on silk, depicts them as individually varied, growing plants, however simplified.

S.S. Other leaf represents 光明頂 Kuang-ming Ting or shining Summit.

Depicts profusion of pine trees that might seem superficially like repeated type-forms we have identified as elements in XYC's stylistic repertory.

S.But again, comparison w. detail from one of leaves in Beijing album makes contrast. Artist of leaf on silk (who is,I believe,Hongren himself)is concerned w. giving vitality,interest to trees by varying their sizes and shapes, never slipping into heavy-handed repetitiveness of the other.

S.S. The construction of the main mass in the Kuang-ming Ting leaf,w. horizontal plateaus receding, interspersed with vertically-rising,blocky boulders,has parallels in Hongren's works,e.g.this detail from upper part of LS dtd.1663.

S.S. And again, version of same scene in Beijing album reduces this to oddly lumpy, composite form, in which the only implication of depth is through one of XYC’s typical, schematic zig-zag recessions. Different artistic mentality at work here,using dif. Repertory of forms, but also inspired by quite different attitude toward representation of scenery in nature.

I hope I've persuaded most of you that the Beijing album cannot be from the hand of Hongren, but must be a work of XYC; and, as a work by Xiao,can be seen as one of his finest productions.  Changing the attribution does not, of course, change the quality of the ptgs, which are in themselves quite attractive.  It changes only our understanding of the ptgs, and removes them from consideration when we are trying to deal with the development and achievement of Hongren.  On the other hand,they can now be added to the oeuvre of XYC, and we can try to date & place them w/in his development as artist.

Whether the recently-discovered two leaves on silk will be accepted generally as genuine works of Hongren (as I myself believe them to be),and whether other leaves from the same album will eventually come to light,are questions that must be left to the future. I will be grateful to my Chinese colleagues for advice on these points,  and for criticisms and improvements of my paper.

Thank you.

Latest Work

  • Conclusion Conclusion
    VI Conclusion It is time to draw back and look, if not at the whole Hyakusen, at as much of him as we have managed to illuminate in this study. Dark areas remain, and doubtless many distortions, but...

Latest Blog Posts

  • Bedridden Blog
    Bedridden Blog   I am now pretty much confined to bed, and have to recognize this as my future.  It is difficult even to get me out of bed, as happened this morning when they needed to...