The Smithsonian InstitutionRegents of the University of Michigan

Written and Unwritten: A New History of the Buddhist Caves at Yungang by James O.CaswellReview by: Harrie A. VanderstappenArs Orientalis, Vol. 19 (1989), pp. 125-127Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the Historyof Art, University of MichiganStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4629394 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:45:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 125

painting exists in this volume. In fact, as Professor Suzuki's history of Chinese painting slowly emerges, volume by volume, the immensity of his achievement becomes more and more apparent. This is a serious academic work, unlikely to be paralleled in depth and scope by anything for years, perhaps generations, to come. Nevertheless, the challenges posed by Yuan dynasty painting will be with us for a long, long time.

As a final note it should be pointed out that there are a number of errors, oversights, and controversial choices in the book; only the more important ones are listed here. Gao Kegong's Clearing Rains in Spring Mountains (Chunshan qingyu tu, pl. 22), whose whereabouts are described as unknown, is in the collection of the National Palace Museum, Taibei, and the Li Kan inscription upon it is dated 1299, not 1295. The first two plates of the book, which should reproduce two different paintings by Qian Xuan, both entitled Dwelling in the Mountains (Shanju tu), repeat the same scroll from different sources. To clarify: plate 1, whose whereabouts are described as unknown, is the painting entitled Dwelling in the Mountains (Shanju tu) in the National Palace Museum, Beijing;8 plate 2 should be the painting published by Xu Bangda as The Hidden Dwelling (Youju tu), which is also in the National Palace

Museum, Beijing.9 While the two paintings are easily confused, only the former possesses a poem by Qian Xuan, and only the latter has a title inscribed at the scroll's beginning. This last error, which is particularly unfortunate for plunging the reader into confusion right at the very start, is indicative of a laxity in the editing of this volume that results in the occasional failure to coordinate text and plates. A number of paintings discussed in relative detail are not reproduced, such as the twin Autumn and Winter hanging scrolls attributed to Yan Ciping (mistakenly printed Yan Cinian) in the Tokyo National Museum, which are considered important enough to merit their own subsection in the chapter on the Li/Guo style (p. 103). At other times paintings are reproduced in truncated form, or worse, as details only-notably Tang Di's Drinking Party in the Shade of Trees (Linyinjuyin tu, Shanghai Museum, pi. 34,) and Ma Wan's Hidden Dwelling Amidst Lofty Peaks (Qiaoxiu youju tu, National Palace Museum, Taibei, pl. 95). In contrast, a few paintings reproduced are barely mentioned at all in the text-Zhao Mengfu's Poetic Ideas Inspired by Autumn (Qiuxing shiyi tu, pl. 13) and Huang Gongwang's Clearing Snow on the Nine Peaks Jiufeng xueqi tu National Palace Museum, Beijing, pl. 62) and The Nine Pearl Peaks (Jiuzhufeng cui tu, National Palace Museum, Taibei, pl. 63). Fortunately, most of the quirks to the illustrations disappear by the second half of the book.

Tang Di's Fishing in the Snowy Cove, (Xuegang buyu tu, Shanghai Museum, pl. 40) is a copy of a painting whose present whereabouts are unknown. Interestingly, the resemblances Professor Suzuki sees between this painting and Dai Jin's work (p. 89) are supported by a recent article by Howard Rogers, who proposes the theory that this scroll, which possesses the Mu family seal, is a Dai Jin copy.'0 In his discussion of the anonymous Kanshu tu in the Freer Gallery (pl. 176, p. 241), mention should be made of the prototype attributed to Wang Qihan in the Nanjing University collection.11

A number of paintings chosen to represent Zhu Derun and Wang Meng will be considered controversial. The same can be said of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts' Nine Songs (Jiuge tu), which has been used to represent Zhang Wo.12 Given the problems associated with Lu Guang's attributed Towers and Pavilions in the Mountains of Immortals (Xianshan louguan tu, National Palace Museum, Taibei), a more standard work such as Spring Morn at the Alchemist's Terrace (Dantai chunxiao tu,

Elliot Collection) would have served better as the sole painting representing the artist's oeuvre.

Notes

1. Xu Bangda, Gu shuhua wei e kaobian, Nanjing, 1984, shang, pp. 213-16, pl. 42.3.

2. See also Richard Vinograd, "River Village-The Pleasures of Fishing and Chao Meng-fu's Li-Kuo Landscapes," Artibus Asiae, v. 40, nos. 2/3, 1978, pp. 124-42.

3. "Gendai Ri/Kaku ha sansui gafui ni tsuite no ersan no k6satsu," Tyo-y bunka kenkyuijo kiyoi, v. 41, pp. 77- 130, translated into English as "A Few Observations Concerning the Li/Guo School of Landscape Art in the Yuan Dynasty," Acta Asiatica, v. 15, 1968, pp. 27-67.

4. Chuigoku kaigashi, v. I, p. 278, n. 260.

5. Gu shuhua wei e kaobian, xia, p. 41, p. 43 n. 1, pi. 14.5.

6. See in particular the reviews of Chu-tsing Li's The Autumn Colors on the Ch'iao and Hua Mountains by Max Loehr, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, v. 26, 1965-66, pp. 269- 76), and Richard Edwards,Journal of the American Oriental Society, v. 85, 1965, pp. 441-45.

7. See in particular Richard Vinograd, "Family Properties: Personal Context and Cultural Pattern in Wang Meng's Pien Mountains of 1366," Ars Orientalis, v. 13, 1982, pp. 1-29.

8. It is published in Zhongguo lidai hui-hua, Beijing, 1983, v. 4, pp. 2-3.

9. See, Xu Bangda, Zhongguo huihuashi tulu, Shanghai, 1981, shang, pl. 158.

10. "Packaging the Past: Chinese Paintings of the Ming Dynasty," Orientations, April, 1989, pp. 42-63.

11. See Thomas Lawton, Chinese Figure Painting, Washington, 1973, pp. 78-80.

12. See Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chinese Painting, Taibei, 1970, pp. 219-21.

PETER C. STURMAN

Written and Unwritten: A Nezw History of the Buddhist Caves at Yungang. By James 0. Caswell. 255 pp., 62 black-and- white photographs, 4 color plates, appendixes, glossary, bibliography, index. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1988. $36.95.

In this book the author sets out to redefine the patronage and the dating of the Buddhist caves of Yungang. Closely connected with these two questions are matters of style at Yungang and its autonomous character described on page 11 as "Yungang ... as though in a vacuum." One half of the book is text, and the other half consists of footnotes in which an impressive array of sources and references are listed and quoted to bolster the arguments for the striking

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:45:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

126 BOOK REVIEWS

new conclusions the author proposes in the text. I limit my comments to the text.

Any study on Yungang is forever indebted to the monumen- tal work by S. Mizuno and T. Nagahiro (Unko Sekkutsu, 16 dou- ble volumes, Kyoto, 1952-56). In subsequent studies a num- ber of major and some minor changes in date and patronage have been made by Alexander C. Soper. Su Bai's publication (Beijing Daxue Xuebao, 1956, no. 1, pp. 71-84) of historical notes and repairs recorded in 1147 by Can Yao as preserved in a copy from a Jin stone tablet added substantial information on later Yungang history and, more importantly, on Northern Wei patronage of the Yungang caves. Based on these sources and a large number of various other pieces of information, Professor Caswell proposes to assign most of the caves except the imperially sponsored Tanyao caves to aristocratic patrons and to the patronage of Buddhist societies and individuals or groups of individuals with an interest in Buddhism and ambi- tions to record their piety. Not only does he separate these caves from the earlier imperial caves by their patronage but he suggests that these privately sponsored caves are also sepa- rated in time from the Tanyao caves. Although it has always been recognized that there was a variety of patronage for the construction of the Yungang caves, an assumption supported by the few preserved inscriptions, such as those of 483 and 489, and by the many intrusions of carvings of smaller compo- sitions in the principle layout of the walls of the caves, it has been assumed that the main impulse for their construction lay in the continued support and patronage of the imperial house. Little or no imperial presence in the later Yungang caves, as is argued by Professor Caswell, would drastically alter those assumptions.

The proposed patronage changes in Yungang find their best support in Caswell's demonstration that the members of the imperial family were investing heavily in Buddhist projects other than the Yungang caves and that the records do not show they were much interested in Yungang after the sixties of the fifth century. Although one cannot claim much positive evidence in this argument, it is supported by the report in the Jin tablet that at least one cave (pair of caves?) was constructed by Wang Yu. No matter the precise identity of this cave, it is clear that it was not a niche or a minor project but an undertaking of major proportions. That fact alone alters substantially the hitherto held traditions of exclusive imperial patronage in the later large caves at Yungang. Professor Caswell argues that the obvious differences between the Tanyao and the other caves at Yungang favor the assumption of differences in patronage. In size and in concentration on central image and shallow enclosure, the Tanyao caves seem exclusively intent on the singular idea of an isolated image and attendants, and are therefore well matched to the symbol of individual imperial presence. The variety of imagery and layouts in later caves suggests a different interest. This may suggests family concerns and devotional purposes and iconographical schemes to match particular doctrines. But these differences between the Tanyao and later caves seem of limited use when arguing for non-imperial patronage. The imperial family could well have acted as a family rather than a representative unit for "Ruler," and their interests would not then have differed that much from those of other aristocratic Tuoba families who might have sponsored caves at Yungang. On the other hand, Professor Caswell's argument does gain strength from the parallel presence in the eighties of the fifth century of lay sponsorship in the Guyang cave at Longmen and similarly from the presence of large caves sponsored by monks and lay people in the Gansu area in the early sixth

century. No matter where the particular sponsorship is to be found, it is clear that the author's arguments highlight the importance of seeing the various levels of Buddhist concerns that led to distinctly different expressions in sculptural layouts and references.

Instead of following traditional concepts of dating that place the large Yungang caves in a roughly continuous sequence from the sixties to about 495 and the western caves from later years until about 525, Professor Caswell suggests three main building periods. He places the activity for the Tanyao caves in the sixties, following the commonly accepted pattern. Suggesting a termination of imperial interest after the Tanyao caves, he assumes a period of fifteen years of little sculptural activity and then a second major period of construction from about 483 to 495. The third period of activity he envisions coincides with the commonly accepted decades of activity for the western caves after the transfer of the capital from Datong to Luoyang. This scheme of dating the Yungang caves matches the differences in patronage between the early and later period of activity and results in a well-ordered pattern for the whole construction of this large Buddhist site.

There are a number of differences between this proposed dating by Professor Caswell and that of earlier attempts. Though there has never been uniformity of opinion on the precise dating and sequence of the construction of the Yungang caves, the construction of Caves VII and VIII is, at least, generally assumed to have taken place in the decade between the late sixties and the late seventies. Su Bai assumes a date in the mid to late seventies, which is late compared with that of others who have ventured opinions on the matter. Professor Caswell dates Caves VII and VIII to the eighties, and that is crucial for his new history of Yungang. Whereas Su Bai has tentatively identified the pair of Caves IX and X as the caves constructed between 484 and 489 by Wang Yu, Caswell argues for VII and VIII, thereby placing VII and VIII at the critical juncture of the last decade of Yungang activity before the transfer of the capital to Luoyang. An attribution of VII and VIII to Wang Yu based on the information in the Jin tablet is as ambiguous as Su Bai's arguments for IX and X. We know only that there was a large incomplete inscription in front of the Huguo caves and a short complete one in front of the Chongfu caves, and that one of the Huguo caves had an equestrian representation of a Tuoba prince and that both caves were easily opened in the eleventh century. (I am not sure how one interprets the Chinese reference. Could it mean that the Huguo caves were opened without effort since they are without a front wall? Unlike IX and X?) Su Bai argues that there is no space large enough in front of the Caves IX and X to accomodate the large incomplete stele but that there is such a space in front of VII and VIII. He argues, moreover, that there is room enough for a small inscription in front of Caves IX and X and that these caves have the kind of elaborate ornamental splendor described in the Jin tablet of the Wang Yu caves made between 484 and 489. There is no figure in either VII or VIII or in IX and X that can be identified as an equestrian Tuoba prince.

In any case the placement of VII and VIII in the eighties of the fifth century as argued by Caswell does seem very difficult. There is no other comparable set of caves in Yungang. The regularity of the Buddha niches in four rows of friezes in the main rooms on all the walls except the north wall in these caves is unique. Though most of these Buddha figures defy identification, many are condensed representations of stories of the life of Buddha. More important though, at least to this reviewer, is the difficulty of reconciling the sculptural style of

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:45:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 127

VII and VIII with that of later Yungang caves. There is no room to argue this in detail, but a few points can be made. I fully agree with Professor Caswell when he sees a style as different from a mode. Various modes can be represented in the same style. The figures of Caves VII and VIII remain bulky, and they retain remnants of gestures that are part of the lively representations of earlier traditions still seen in some of the earliest figures in Bingling si and even in caves in Central Asia. I consider this style different from that of the figures in the window reveal of Cave XVII, which is dated to 489. The figures of this relief are in the same mode as that of Caves VII and VIII, but they are restrained in their gestures, which are reduced to carefully balanced symmetries around a clear upright center, and thus adjust to the severity of the Chinese emphasis on frontal, symmetrical, and linear-style forms. Even a quick comparison of the niches of the 489 relief or those of Cave VI and other later carvings with those of Caves VII and VIII reveals that the emphasis in all the later niches is on frontality, evenness of distribution of levels of carving, and careful ordering of sequences of levels of depth of recessions. The later niches reveal "the heritage of the two-dimensional sketch" mentioned by Caswell on page 93. This is not so in Caves VII and VIII. Here the figures and the niches tend to allow slow turnings around the corners rather than the clear separating of one layer of carvings from another. This difference seems to be a matter not only of mode but also of style, and one seems to be earlier than the other. In general there are a number of modes to be seen in Yungang, and I suppose that the Udayana mode referred to by Professor Caswell, helpful though that is, would have been clearer had subcategories more along the suggestions made by Marilyn Rhie been considered ("Some Aspects of the Relations of 5th Century Chinese Buddha Images with Sculpture from North India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia," East and West, n.s. v. 26, nos. 3-4, 1976, pp. 439-61).

There are other difficulties with placing all the later Yungang carvings in little more than a decade. It seems too much for so little time. Even granted that a small army of carvers and workers existed that could be employed by various donors, it seems difficult to comprehend that all this work could have been done in a matter of a dozen years or so. Such diversity of activity and different interests would even be more difficult to compress into such a short period of time than had all the work been the result of a more unified central authority.

A change in the identification of the Tanyao caves, marking XIXA as one of them instead of Cave XVI (which the author would tentatively identify as a cave made for Tanyao), may have some plausibility. After all, the large central image on the north wall and the ordered niches and carvings (all of later Yungang-style features) on the other walls of Cave XVI create a room rather than an enclosed niche. The cave is thus essentially different from the traditional Tanyao caves. Once one accepts that later Yungang patronage is, at least in good part, other than imperial, one opens possibilities for explanations hitherto not considered. There is, however, little real documented evidence for most of the assumptions that have been made about Yungang, and the major change in the Tanyao sequence proposed by Professor Caswell must remain no more than a possibility.

Professor Caswell's book is a tribute to the Yungang caves and to his own long and careful attention and study of this site. He has treated this monumental Buddhist complex of shrines separately from other contemporary or earlier endeavours. He has thereby emphasized the truly unique splendour of Yungang. Visiting Chinese Buddhist complexes

such as Dunhuang, Bingling si, Maijishan, and even Longmen, one is aware that Yungang does have a character of its own. This character seems to be determined by the richness and variety of the images and sizes of caves and niches all in the same gentle sandstone color. Compared to that, Longmen seems fragmented and the only site comparable in unity of stone and design is Gongxian. But the latter site lacks the size, the variety, and the inspired wealth of invention so prevalent at Yungang. Professor Caswell's insulation of the Yungang caves has its good reason. It is, however, true that the caves at Yungang are the result of a number of religious and artistic traditions, and more discussion of this background would have added a welcome dimension to the project. It is now difficult to get free access to the caves, and it is nearly impossible to get good photographs to illustrate the insides of the caves. The unwillingness of the authorities in China to facilitate legitimate study and photography prevents illustration of the true grandeur of the site, and it is unfortunate that the character of Yungang could not have been better served than by the neat but bookish illustrative material taken from earlier Japanese publications.

HARRIE A. VANDERSTAPPEN

Chinese Painting Colors: Studies of Their Preparation and Appli- cation in Traditional and Modern Times. By Yu Feian. Trans- lated by Jerome Silbergeld and Amy McNair from the Chi- nese: Zhong-guo hua yuanse di yenjiu. 93 + xiv pp., 1 black- and-white illustration, 1 color plate, appendix, bibliography. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, and Seattle: Uni- versity of Washington Press, 1988. $40.00.

There has been a curious lack of interest in the use of color in Chinese paintings compared to that in paintings from most of the other parts of the world. This point, scarcely a novel insight, is commented on by Silbergeld and McNair in the introduction to their translation and is attributed largely to the influence of the Chinese literati, whose intellectual roots lay in Confucian philosophy, and who maintained both a studied detachment from worldly things and a disdain for overt technical skill. The colors, disdained or not, continued to be there on the paintings, nevertheless. Well into the Tang period, the extensive use of color was normal; and even after monochrome ink painting had reached the heights it did in the Song, the use of colored pigments continued, though the extent fluctuated, depending on period, school or artist, and subject matter. A number of historical works that have come down to us have valuable information on the materials concerned, and several are quoted extensively by Yu Feian.

The interest has been no greater when we look at technical studies (that is, those based on scientific techniques) of Chinese paintings and associated materials. A recent bibliography of Chinese pigment identifications had only fifteen entries, not all devoted entirely to Chinese material and not all dealing with pigments from paintings per se.I This bibliography may fairly be said to represent a miscellany, certainly not a coherent body of work, and only with the publication of studies by the Dunhuang Research Institute on paintings in the Mogao caves may such a body be said to be taking shape.2 The contrast with Japanese research is striking. Long-continued basic work on identifications, discussion of the physical properties of

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:45:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions