painting; 繪畫(Chinese) BM-1919-0101-0.37

Period:Unknown Production date:10thC (Previously dated 8thC-9thC)
Materials:silk, 絲綢 (Chinese),
Technique:painted
Subjects:buddha bodhisattva paradise prince/princess 佛 (Chinese) 菩薩 (Chinese) 淨土 (Chinese) 國王/王后 (Chinese) 王子/公主 (Chinese) king/queen attendant
Dimensions:Height: 204 centimetres Width: 183.50 centimetres

Description:
Large, colourful painting of the Pure Land of Amitābha, assembled from fragments, including 1919,0101,0.64, 1919,0101,0.218 and 1978,0626,0.1.a-e. The central Buddha is missing, but subsidiary groups of Amitābha with attendant bodhisattvas (Avalokiteśvara and Mahasthamaprapta) survive. Side scenes show illustrations from the Amitābha Sutra, with the story of King Bimbisara, Queen Vaidehi and their unfilial son, Prince Ajatasatru. Ink and colour on silk.
IMG


Comments:Lilla Russell-Smith (2005; 2015) suggests that this painting was most likely commissioned by Uygur patrons in Dunhuang some time in the 10th century. She compares the painting to Uygur paintings found in the Turfan area. EnglishFrom Whitfield 1982:This Amitabha paradise must have been, when complete, resplendent with colour. Even now, although much less than half of it seems to have been preserved, the freshness of the colours is amazing, and can only be paralleled in some of the large paintings of the mid-to late tenth century in the Pelliot collection (Banniere, Nos.6,101,104).However, it is not like them in style. Indeed, considered from this viewpoint, it seems to exhibit features not easily identifiable with any of the other silk paintings in the Stein collection, and therefore demands careful attention.As can be seen from the makeshift assembly (Fig.55), comprising all but the smallest of the fragments, the painting has the standard form of an Amitabha paradise, with side scenes of the Sixteen Visions of Queen Vaidehi on the right, of the story of Bimbisara on the left and of the Ten Sorts of Wickedness at the bottom. The entire picture space, comprising three whole widths of silk each approximately 59 cm wide, is enclosed by a painted border in brown on which is a series of separate scrolling stems in orange and red edged in yellow. No other painting has such a border, and by it we can recognize a fragment in the Pelliot collection (Bannieres, No.5) as also belonging to this painting, being part of the lower border and a narrative scene illustrating one of the Ten Sorts of Wickedness.To return to the composition: while the central Buddha is almost completely missing, subsidiary Buddha groups, seated and standing, are visible on either side, making five Buddha triads in all, without counting the Bodhisattva triads above them. The latter are actually Avalokitesvara and Mahasthamaprapta, the chief Bodhisattvas attendant upon Amitabha, and it is worth examining these three chief figures in a little more detail.Although Waley’s Catalogue states that the figures of Buddha and Avalokitesvara are almost intact, his descriptions show these to be the subsidiary seated Buddha triad on the right-hand side, in which indeed Buddha’s right hand is “held out at some distance from his side, in vitarka-mudra; left hand spread on knee”. In fact, close examination of the fragments (Fig.55) is needed to discover what remains of the main figures. From what can just be made out of the Buddha, he is seated on a gorgeously decorated lotus throne in the centre, wearing a red robe whose folds are delineated with fine gold lines. His right hand must have been held in front of his chest, for the elbow and a very small part of his forearm, with the exposed part gilt, can just be seen at the top edge of the fragment. Akalavinka, standing very upright with blue wings, can just be seen to the left of the throne; further up and to the left, set close to the floral border like the Buddha triads below, is a seated Bodhisattva who must be one of the two main attendants of Amitabha. This Bodhisattva is splendidly attired, with luxuriant black hair flowing in locks over his shoulders and down to his elbows, and billowing robes decorated with green and blue flowers and patterns in fine white lines. He is seated on a green lotus, again finely veined in white. His counterpart on Buddha’s left hand is only partly visible: the face is gone, but the left side of the head, left hand in vitarka-mudra, and his own left attendant are all clear (Pl.19-1). Again, rippling black hair falls on the shoulder; garlands of flowers cover all of the left arm save only the hand and the gold-decorated bracelet and armlet. The headdress is almost entirely in gold. It is adorned with a blue jewel over the ear and two red ones; above these another patch of red is in fact all that remains of the “parent” figure that identifies this Bodhisattva as Avalokitesvara.The side scenes are separated from the main area by a broad band of scrolling leaves and flowers on a pinkish red ground (Pl.19-1). At the top, still within the main picture area, these bands are capped by a lotus flower with a glowing pearl(Fig.56). A different floral scroll is seen at the level of the orchestra on either side, as a complete wall behind the standing Buddha triads. This is not multi-coloured but instead is grey on black, giving a most handsome effect (Pl.19-2). This may be compared with Cave 148 at Dunhuang, dated to the mid-Tang period (A.D.775, according to the Lo Archive; see Dunhuang bihua, Pl.168), which has the same interwoven quality and bulbous ends to the leaves. Naturally there are parallels too in the scrolling foliage engraved in low relief on tang stelae, and it seems possible that the use of monochrome on a vertical surface in the Stein painting was intended to convey ornament in relief on the high platform supporting the partitions.Although the wall paintings furnish parallels for such a motif as the scrolling foliage, the style as a whole still presents some problems. Compared to other paintings, colour is used more abundantly for outlines, for instance the red lines of facial features. Also, there are intriguingly different halo types, which do not appear elsewhere. On the first question, the use of colour, the answer may lie partly in the astonishing degree to which this has been preserved, since the underlying preliminary sketches in ink are still almost entirely covered by the surface colour. Nevertheless, the impression remains of an art more Central Asian than Chinese in this aspect. The haloes too are extremely colourful. Plate 19-1, of Avalokitesvara and his attendant, illustrates this well. The Bodhisattva’s nimbus consists of overlapping bands of points, while the attendant’s, plain orange-red, is dotted with red. In the subsidiary triads, the decoration of many of the haloes has a pronounced clockwise movement, even that of the wavy type which, as normally seen at Dunhuang, is balanced on both sides, meeting at the top.Looking at the facial features, the main outline takes in the style of the face and the chin in a single smooth curve, almost without any modulation at all. The mouth is a mere rosebud, with no subsequent accenting in ink. The eyes have a somewhat supercilious look with the upper lids down-curved and sharply angled at the corner of the eye. Some of these features, but not the last, appear related to the wall paintings from Bezeklik: note especially the tiny mouth and full-fleshed face, the prolific use of bright colour, and atypical halo patterns with a pronounced one-directional sense of movement (Andrews, 1948,Pl.ⅩⅦ). This is not to suggest that we shall find this painting to have been made outside Dunhuang; it is clearly Chinese and the characters in the cartouches to the side scenes might still be considered to be closest, in the series of manuscripts we have illustrated, to the eighth century of the Tang, but this painting does seem to illustrate a different current in the art of Dunhuang, with a substantial contribution from another center in addition to purely Chinese features such as the “Tang foliage”.Perhaps the most vital clues of all are to be found, as always, in the side scenes, and particularly in the story of Bimbisara and Ajatasatru on the left-hand side. At the very top Ajatasatru is seen in his previous incarnation standing outside his hermit’s cell, a thatched conical hut with red wickerwork frame visible in the doorway (Pl.19-3). A tree stands beside it, and a winding wall leads from it to the hills that indicate its remote setting. These, and the even more impressive peaks of the next scene, when Ajatasatru has changed into a white hare fleeing from Bimbisara, are naturalistically drawn in brown, with darker shading and relief obtained by means of repeated long brushstrokes. There are areas of green on the level ground between the two scenes, and on a small high ledge. Apart from the larger trees near the hut, the prominent features and skylines of the hills are crowned with trees. These have bright green foliage massed over repeated horizontal ink strokes or over much broader, round-topped touches of the brush in the first and second scenes respectively. Both kinds also have serried ranks of red trunks. This kind of attention to details of structure and surface form in landscape, at Dunhuang at least, is characteristic of the eighth century (e.g., Cave 209,de Silva,1967,p.149).We may glimpse the painter’s skill also in the distinction he draws down between the inside and outside views of the prison where Bimbisara and Queen Vaidehi are confined. Just below the landscape scenes, they are seen inside, listening to a sermon; at the bottom, guards are seen outside the prison gate. The same crested bird roof finials recur (there is another in blue fully drawn with beady eye, toucan-like beak and a crest on the roof above the standing Buddha triad on the left), but there is no mistaking the inside and the outside views. There is liveliness and a very Chinese sense of movement and timing, too, in the figures of the two ministers Candraprabha and Jiva as they draw and trandish their swords to save Queen Vaidehi from Ajatasatru (Pl.19-4).Such considerations seem to justify a date that is earlier, rather than later, among the silk paintings from Dunhuang-late eighth century even, rather than early ninth. But there does remain one important question that is difficult to resolve: while the painting is fragmentary, its condition is in fact better than almost any other. There are remarkably few signs of wear: even the border, where it is visible, seems quite intact. There is little sign of damage even along the lines where the three widths of silk must have adjoined. Rather, the divisions between fragments seem to run right through the very faces of principal figures such as Avalokitesvara, Mahasthamaprapta and the buddhas in the triads below them (Pls.19-1, 19-2). The central Buddha is missing altogether, yet nothing is missing on either side of these divisions. It is almost as though the painting had been deliberately destroyed before it was put away in the sealed chapel. Could it be that the divergent style of the painting, despite the splendour of its execution, was once held to diverge also from the proper iconographical rendering of the Western Paradise as it was understood at Dunhuang? ChineseFrom Whitfield 1982:該觀經變相圖在完整的時候無疑使用了華麗耀眼的色彩。現在畫面已斷成碎片，然而在剩下不到一半的畫面上，其驚人的鮮豔顔色仍可與伯希和收集品中10世紀中葉到下半葉的大型作品匹敵（參照《敦煌幡畫》，圖6，101，104）。但在風格上，不僅與伯希和收集品有很多不同之處，還具備了不能和斯坦因收集品中的其他絹畫同日而語的種種特徵，因此不得不充分重視。將小斷片拼合，試著復原其畫面（參見Fig.55）時，可以發現該繪畫的右側外緣部分是韋提希夫人的“十六想觀”，左側外緣部分是“頻婆娑羅的故事”，底部是“十惡人”，具備標準的觀經變相圖的形式。當初的畫面是三幅寬約59cm的絹連接起來的，邊緣是褐色底子上描有黃色輪廓線的赤和橙色唐草花紋的裝裱。這種描繪裝裱非常特殊，見不到其它更多的例子，所以可以確認，在伯希和收集品中有同樣此類裝裱的一個斷片（《敦煌幡畫》,圖5）也是該繪畫的一部分，是“十惡人”的故事和下端邊緣的一部分構成的。回到構圖的話題，主尊幾乎完全殘損，其左右有三尊的坐像和立像，連同主像共六組。主像中的左右兩位應該是阿彌陀的二脅侍觀音和勢至菩薩，對於這三尊主像還需要詳細核查。儘管Waley的目錄中對那些佛和菩薩像的描述幾乎是完美無缺的，他的描述只是關於右邊的輔助的三尊坐像，佛的右手確實是“往前伸，結說法印，左手展開放在膝蓋上”。爲了辨認剩下的有關主尊的部分，需要仔細分析殘片，並做很多拼合工作（Fig.55）。其結果，中央部位還是稍微再現了主尊的姿態。主尊坐在裝飾豪華的寶台上，有褶皺的紅色衣服裝飾華麗的金線做的邊。右手應該是在胸前舉起，施用金彩的手臂和手腕的僅一小部分殘留在斷片上端。青色翅膀的迦陵頻伽直立在寶台的左旁。其左上方，與飾有花草的紋樣帶連接的畫面的正下方，是一個與三尊佛同樣採取坐姿的隨侍菩薩，他無疑是阿彌陀如來主尊的脅侍菩薩之一。這一菩薩的裝束極其華麗，覆蓋肩膀的黑而豐滿的頭髮垂落到手臂，衣裳裝飾有綠和青色的花柄和美麗的白條紋。台座的蓮瓣塗了綠色，而葉脈則描成白色。與此對應的主尊的左脅侍菩薩只剩一部分，臉部已殘失，只有頭部的左側和結說法印的左手，以及他旁邊的小菩薩（參見圖19－1）還都完整地保留著。主尊左脅侍菩薩的黑髮呈波浪形垂落在肩上，左臂上挂滿花飾，帶著金腕釧和臂釧，僅露出手。寶冠也幾乎是金的，耳朵部分鑲著藍色和紅色的寶石。中央部分的紅色寶石上可看出有紅色小片，那是化佛的一部分，由此可確定此菩薩是觀世音菩薩。紅赤底色上描着唐草花紋風格的花和葉子的寬花紋帶，將主畫面和邊緣部分隔開。花紋帶上部，有橫跨兩個領域，托著火焰寶珠的蓮花座（參見Fig.56。樂伎群左右的三尊立像背後有作爲屏障的花紋，繪的是另一種唐草花紋（參照圖19－2）。此圖用的不是彩色，而是在黑底上凸出灰色紋樣，顯得極爲緊湊。與此形式相同，而葉尖稍寬唐草花紋，在中唐時期的敦煌第148窟（據羅寄梅檔案為775年；參照《敦煌壁畫》圖版168）也可見到。同時，與唐代石碑中浮雕的唐草花紋也很相似，本圖所繪紋樣以垂直面單色表現，可能是要更好顯現支撐隔壁高臺上的浮雕。儘管壁畫中可見類似的唐草紋，但有關整體的形式上還存在些疑問。與其它繪畫比較，輪廓線顔色的使用很顯眼。如，臉部輪廓線可以看出是紅色的線，頭光則用了不見於其他地方的奇特紋樣。第一點，從這些斷片保存狀態驚人的好，多少可以說明輪廓線的顔色問題。即，用墨在上描的線，現在再次塗後幾乎會完全被隱埋。然而即使那樣，仍殘留著與其說中國式還不如說是中亞風格的印象。背光的色彩極其豐富，在圖19－1中的觀音和脅侍，其觀音頭光的色彩成帶狀重疊，而旁邊脅侍的頭光是橙赤底色上散著紅色斑點。同時，主尊以外的三尊像的頭光多是右卷的旋渦狀，爲敦煌常見的波浪形，均衡地分佈在頂部兩側。仔細觀察臉部表現，輪廓線没有间断，流暢的曲線從額頭一口氣描到下顎。口部只點了像是薔薇花蕾似的紅點，看不到墨線。上眼瞼下垂，使外眼角成尖角，顯出高傲的神情。此若干現象，即便不能肯定，但也可從中看出與伯孜克里克石窟壁畫的關係。特別引人注目的是，小小的口形，豐滿的臉龐，多處採用的明亮色彩，明確單一方向性的頭光花紋等（Andrews;Wall Paintings Bezeklik,Shrine iii,Pl.XVII）。但是，這並不提示該繪畫是在敦煌以外的地區製作的。本圖邊緣長方形榜題中的文字，與所講過的唐代8世紀的寫經字體接近。因此，該繪畫是，在純粹中國的唐代的唐草紋樣的形式上加上其他地域的因素，形成了敦煌美術的另一風格。和其他作品一樣，邊緣部分有著最重要的線索。特別是左側的“頻婆娑羅的故事”（參見圖19－3）。最上段是作爲“阿闍世王的前世身”的仙人，站立在隱居的庵前。庵是圓錐形的草屋，房門是用紅色樹枝編的框架。其旁的一棵樹和庵下方向山谷彎曲延伸的圍牆，說明是邊境地區。此場景的山與用作隔離下一場景仙人的魂變成白兔逃出頻婆娑羅的山，都塗了褐色，用幾根長長的濃墨線描出了山的皺褶，顯得極爲真實。這兩個場景間的分界和小高山上塗有綠色，山脊和突起部、庵旁的大樹及許多樹也用了極其特殊的綠色。第一場景和第二場景的那些美麗的葉叢，杆用墨線表現，垂直畫成若干細條，上面用圓頭筆刷抹，出現了更寬的線。樹杆不是只用墨線來表現，還描了赤茶色線。可見到如此照顧風景的細部，至少是敦煌美術的8世紀的特色（參照de Silva:Chinese Landscape Painting p.149,第209窟）。同時，從下邊的頻婆娑羅和韋提希夫人被幽禁于監牢裏的場景，也可看到畫家爲了區分建築的內外側而所採用的手法之一端。上述的兩個連續場景，聽說法的兩個人立於屋子內側，下一場景的獄卒們則站在屋子外側。外邊以重復出現同一形式的屋頂的鴟尾（但淨土圖左邊的三尊立佛像上部的大屋頂卻與此不同，配有飾念珠般的孔和像鳥嘴一樣的青鴟尾），分別描繪建築物的內和外。爲了從阿闍世王的手中拯救韋提希夫人，月光和耆婆兩個大臣，一人手拔刀、一人揮刀的姿態，極爲生動，使人感到中國式的動感和空間感。這樣看，此繪畫在敦煌出土的絹畫中無論如何是早期的作品，與其說是9世紀初的作品，還不如說是8世紀後半葉更爲正確。然而，還有一個重要的疑問未得到解決。即，該畫儘管斷裂嚴重，但和其他作品相比，其保留的狀態極好。畫面幾乎沒有殘損，就連磨損嚴重的邊緣部分也保持了原有狀態。該絹畫無疑是由三幅絹縫合而成，但沿著縫合處沒有見到損壞的痕迹。看其各斷片的斷裂處，切口基本在觀音、勢至和分佈于下方的三尊佛等主要尊像的臉部（參見圖19－1，19－2）。另外，主尊部分完全遺失，但兩側還留有相當一部分。這些現象說明，該繪畫在放入藏經洞之前，被有意撕裂的。儘管該繪畫是傑出的作品，卻幾乎切成碎片，也許是因爲它與敦煌通常理解的西方淨土相違而造成的。