To understand public attitude toward the Qing imperial art collections after the establishment of the new republic, it is important to remember how unsettled China was in the years before and after the 1911 revolution. As the new republican government struggled to gain political control of the country from contending warlords whose troops dominated various regions of the country, cultural relics were stolen and sold, and some imperial tombs—including those of the Emperor Qianlong乾隆 (1711–1799; reigned 1736–1796) and the Dowager Empress Cixi huangtaihou 慈禧皇太后 (1835–1908)—were looted.² Factions loyal to Puyi 溥儀, the last Manchu emperor (1906–1967; reigned 1908–1912), tried to thwart efforts to establish a new national museum; with some people going so far as to suggest the imperial collections should be dispersed and sold.

An incident that occurred on 23 April 1926, shortly after the Palace Museum had opened to the public, provides a clear indication of the attitude of some military personnel. Troops from the Hebei and Shandong armies surrounded the palace compound in an attempt to commandeer the area. Two officers accompanied by bodyguards drove their military vehicles up to the Shenwumen 神武門 (“Gate of Divine Prowess”), the north gate of the Forbidden City, stated that they wanted to inspect the palace grounds and ordered that the person in charge should be summoned immediately. The officers and their bodyguards then proceeded to inspect the area, pointing out which buildings could be used for specific military functions and estimating how many troops could be quartered in the various buildings. The person in charge at the Palace Museum immediately reported the incursion to government authorities, emphasizing the historical and cultural significance of the former Forbidden City and stressing that the compound should not, under any circumstances, be taken over by the military. The heads of the two armies professed to know nothing of the matter, saying the inspection must have been carried out by low-ranking officers.³

When the Palace Museum opened in 1925 it encompassed only the northern section of the Forbidden City. The circumstances leading to the division of the imperial compound can be traced to the republican government’s decision, following the abdication of Puyi on 12 February 1912, to allow the deposed emperor to remain, temporarily, in the northern section of the Forbidden City—that section, referred to as the neiting 内廷 (“inner court”), containing the residential quarters of the Qing emperors, their consorts, concubines, and children, as well as of the innumerable servants. The southern section, or waichao 外朝 (“outer court”), where the three great ceremonial halls—the Taihedian 太和殿 (“Hall of Supreme Harmony”), Zhonghedian 中和殿 (“Hall of Central Harmony”), and Baohedian 保和殿 (“Hall of Preserving Harmony”)—and many smaller structures are located, was placed under the jurisdiction of the republican government’s Ministry of the Interior (fig. 1). Government officials began speculate on possible public functions for those halls—speculations which climaxed in the establishment of a national museum.

The Forbidden City had been “opened” to the public once before. Early in 1901, following the Boxer Rebellion, the foreign troops that had relieved the siege of the foreign legations in Beijing, entered the imperial compound as a display of strength. On every Tuesday and Friday following that symbolic incursion, Chinese and foreigners were allowed to enter the Wumen 午門 (“Meridian Gate”), the south gate, and depart from the Shenwumen, after having toured the palace compound. That extraordinary opportunity continued only until September of 1901 when the foreign troops left Beijing.⁴

In 1914, eleven years before the establishment of the Palace Museum, the republican government opened the Guwu chenliesuo 古物陳列所 (“Bureau of Exhibition of Antiquities,” hereafter referred to as “The Bureau”), under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, in the southern section of the Forbidden City (fig. 2).⁵ In the opinion of one Chinese scholar The Bureau should be regarded as the first national public museum in Chinese history.⁶  While much has been written about the history of the Palace Museum, The Bureau remains relatively little known today, even though the circumstances relating to its founding and the sources of its collection are as remarkable as those of the Palace Museum’s collection. Inevitably, the histories of those two exhibition areas located within the Forbidden City are inexorably intertwined.

When the Palace Museum opened in 1925, the collections on display were selected from the holdings of the various halls within the residential section of the Forbidden City. The collections of The Bureau, on the other hand, came from the xinggong 行宮 (“imperial summer palaces”) in Jehol 熱河 and Fengtian 奉天 (present day Chengde 承德 and Shenyang 瀋陽), where the Qing emperors had spent part of each year hunting, participating in ritual functions, and, not incidentally, escaping Beijing’s oppressive summer weather.

Early in 1913, Zhu Qiqian 朱啓鈐 (1872–1962), head of the republican government’s Ministry of the Interior, made a decision that had major implications for the history of the Forbidden City (fig. 3). Zhu Qiqian’s official position and his impressive family connections—he was the nephew of Qu Hongji 瞿鴻禨 (1850–1918), a high official during the late Qing dynasty, and the adopted son of Xu Shichang 徐世昌 (1858–1939), an important figure in the Beiyang government in the early years of the republic—lent added weight to that decision. Zhu Qiqian had received reports that some antiquities from the imperial summer palace in Jehol were being sold by dealers in Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Jehol. Rumors also suggested that Xiong Xiling 熊希齡 (1870–1942), the dutong 都統 (“lieutenant governor”) of Jehol, might have been involved in the theft and subsequent sale of the antiquities, but no charges were ever brought against him (fig. 4).

In the midst of the investigation, Jin Cheng 金城 (1878–1926), an official in the Ministry of the Interior, suggested to Zhu Qiqian that it would be an excellent idea to move the antiquities from the Jehol and Fengtian imperial summer palaces to Beijing and to exhibit them in the southern section of the Forbidden City that was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior (fig. 5).⁷ To support his suggestion, he pointed out that the southern section of the Forbidden City would provide an excellent site for a national museum and, if the site were not put to some cultural use, it might prove tempting to some other government agency. Even more compelling was Jin Cheng’s argument that bringing the Jehol and Fengtian imperial collections to Beijing would prevent further thefts and the possibility of additional important art treasures being acquired by foreigners.

Jin Cheng had developed a deep interest in Chinese art as a young man and he expanded his knowledge of foreign cultural institutions while studying at King’s College, London. En route home to China in 1905, he traveled throughout Europe and the United States, visiting national museums and galleries. On his second trip to the United States and Europe as a member of an official government delegation, in 1910, Jin Cheng had another opportunity to observe the organization and functions of foreign museums and galleries. The 1911 revolution had already begun when the delegation returned to China and, during the ensuing governmental reorganization, Jin Cheng joined the staff at Ministry of the Interior.

Zhu Qiqian received Jin Cheng’s suggestion with great enthusiasm. In his capacity as head of the Ministry of the Interior, he announced that he was preparing to move the important antiquities from Jehol and Fengtian to Beijing, where they would be exhibited in the newly-established The Bureau of Exhibition. He also named Zhige 治格, a member of the Manchu Plain White Banner who had held several important posts, including Vice President of the Office concerned with Manchuria and Tibet, as the first director of the new governmental entity (fig. 6).

Although Jin Cheng deserves credit for proposing the establishment of a national museum, it was Zhu Qiqian who possessed the necessary political influence and connections to ensure the pioneering proposal would become a reality. Using his influence and connections to good advantage, he succeeded in obtaining financial support to initiate the project from the Boxer Indemnity Funds remitted by the United States. As a result of his success in obtaining that support, Zhu Qiqian was referred to as caishen 財神 (“God of Wealth”).⁸ To appreciate the significance of his achievement, it should be noted that Cai Yuanpei 蔡元培 (1868–1940), the Minister of Education, who had proposed establishing a museum of history in 1912, had to wait fourteen years before his proposal could realized precisely because of a lack of funding.

In the meantime other preparations for the new museum were underway. In October 1913, the Ministry of the Interior dispatched two officials, together with a group of assistants, to the Bishu shanzhuang 避暑山莊 (“Summer Retreat Mountain Villa”), the Jehol imperial summer palace located in Hebei province, north of the Great Wall (fig. 7).⁹ The Neiwufu 内務府 (“Imperial Household Office”), representing the interests of the Qing imperial family, also sent two officials and a group of assistants. The entire Jehol complex, built in the years from 1703 to 1790, during the reigns of Emperor Kangxi 康熙 (1654–1722; reigned 1661–1722) and Emperor Qianlong, covers 564 hectares (approximately 1,385 acres) and includes palaces and an extensive series of gardens; the layout of the gardens, with small villas set within bucolic surroundings, was influenced by private gardens the two rulers had seen in Suzhou 蘇州 and Hangzhou 杭州 during their Southern Tours. Outside the ten-kilometer-long meandering wall surrounding the buildings and gardens there are ten Buddhist temples and monasteries. The largest of the temples, the Putuozongsheng 普陀宗乗, was modeled after the Potala in Tibet.              

The representatives of The Bureau and of the Imperial Household were responsible for collecting the antiquities dispersed throughout the buildings and supervising their packing for transportation to Beijing. In all there were seven shipments from Jehol, beginning on 18 November 1913 and continuing until 28 October 1914, that required 1,949 crates and included more than 117,700 objects: jades, ceramics, calligraphy and paintings, folding screens, cloisonné, bamboo and lacquer objects, etc. Forty-three live deer were also included with the antiquities. The antiquities and the deer were transported by boat via the Luan River 灤河 to Luanzhou 灤州, and then by rail to Beijing.

The second phase of the project, selection of antiquities from the imperial summer palace in Fengtian, Liaoning province, began in January 1914 (fig. 8).¹⁰ The Ministry of the Interior again sent two representatives accompanied by more than ten cultural specialists, together with ten specialists from the Qibaozhai 奇寳齋, an antique shop in Beijing, who were experienced in wrapping and packing antiquities. The Imperial Household Office again sent its own representatives. Construction of the Fengtian imperial summer palace, which was more modest in scale and more formal in layout than the Jehol complex, had begun in 1636, prior to the Manchu defeat of the Ming dynasty, and continued into the reign of Emperor Qianlong. Beginning on 23 January 1914 and continuing until 24 March 1914, there were six shipments of antiquities from Fengtian, that required 1,201 crates and included more than 114,600 ceramics, ancient bronzes, calligraphy and paintings, jade, etc.

According to one account, the antiquities from the Jehol and Fengtian imperial summer palaces were appraised as having a value of $4,066,047.¹¹ That same account goes on to cite a formal written agreement, dated 11 September 1916, which states those “treasures were acknowledged to be part of private property of the imperial family; …that by mutual arrangement between the imperial family and the republic, all the items except those withdrawn by the former were to be bought by the republican government at the figure named in the valuation; that as financial stringency made it impossible at that time for the republican government to pay the purchase-price, the treasures were to be regarded as on loan from the imperial family to the republic pending a full cash settlement with the finances of the republic permitted”. Apparently the Qing Imperial Household never received any of the estimated $3,511,876 valuation of the antiquities “on loan” to the republican government. 

On 12 January 1914, the Ministry of the Interior announced that The Bureau would include the Wuyingdian 武英殿 (“Hall of Military Brilliance”) and the Jingsidian 敬思殿 (“Hall of Respectful Thought”), two adjoining halls in the southwestern portion of the Forbidden City (fig. 9). Once that decision had been made, The Bureau was formally established on 4 February 1914.

Jin Cheng was responsible for overseeing the contracts with companies hired to renovate the Wuyingdian and the Jingsidian, as well as for supervising all aspects of the work. To ensure that the materials used in the renovation would be comparable in quality to that in the existing structures, Jin Cheng insisted that most of the properly seasoned wood—nanmu 楠木 (Phoebe nanmu), songmu 松木 (pine) and shamu 杉木 (China fir)—should come from older, dilapidated structures located nearby in the southwestern corner of the Forbidden City. From March through November of 1914, the Wuyingdian and the Jingsidian were linked to form an “I”-shaped unit, and a German firm was hired to adapt the interiors of both buildings to make them suitable for use as exhibition galleries. Other changes were considerably less traditional. The telephone installed in the Wuyingdian and the Jingsidian in May 1914 was the first in the Forbidden City; it was not until 1921 that Puyi had his own telephone. Two months later, following a fire in the southern section of the Forbidden City, running water was installed in the Wuyingdian and the Jingsidian to ensure adequate firefighting facilities.

As the antiquities shipped to Beijing started to arrive, Bureau officials turned their attention to providing adequate storage facilities. Those antiquities that arrived in Beijing during February and March 1914 were stored, temporarily, in the Wenhuadian 文華殿 (“Hall of Literary Splendor”), a large building located in the southeastern section of the complex (fig. 10). When the Wenhuadian was full, and the antiquities continued to arrive in increasingly large numbers, Bureau of Exhibiting Antiquities authorities requested that the Ministry of the Interior also make available to them the halls flanking the Zhaodemen 昭德門 (“Gate of Clear Virtue”) and the Tirenge 體仁閣 (“Pavilion of Tangible Benevolence”).

On 10 October 1914, The Bureau officially opened to the public. Although that opening was a significant event in the development of national museums in China, public reaction to The Bureau was not as enthusiastic as it would be when the Palace Museum opened eleven years later. The lack of publicity surrounding the 1914 opening was partly to blame for the difference in public reaction; in addition, the greater public interest in 1925 undoubtedly reflected an understandable curiosity to see the chambers in which the Qing imperial family had lived. A further problem was that the exhibition space initially available to The Bureau was limited to the Wuyingdian and Jingsidian. Some critics pointed out that the first exhibition was installed before the renovation had been completed; moreover too many objects were displayed, with too little explanatory information. Consequently, when the noted author, Lu Xun 魯迅 (1881–1936), visited The Bureau, his reaction was that it resembled an antique shop.¹²

To provide additional exhibition space, the interior of the Wenhuadian was renovated from June 1915 to November 1916, thereby providing public access to the southeastern side of the complex. At that time the Three Great Halls were not yet under the jurisdiction of The Bureau. It was only after Yuan Shikai’s 遠世凱 (1859–1916) brief, ill-fated reign as emperor (12 December 1915–22 March 1916), that the Three Great Halls were turned over to The Bureau—most of the new space was used to store documents. Many more Chinese and foreign visitors were attracted to those new facilities and, beginning in 1919, the Three Great Halls were occasionally used for special events. However, the decision not to display antiquities in the Three Great Halls meant that section of The Bureau attracted fewer visitors than did the Wuyingdian, Jingsidian and Wenhuadian.

In addition to the antiquities from the Jehol and Fengtian imperial summer palaces, The Bureau was given custody of cultural objects from several other sources, such as imperial portraits formerly housed in the Nanxundian 南薰殿 (“Palace of Southern Fragrance”), a hall located in the southwestern corner of the Forbidden City, and antiquities from the Yonghegong 雍和宮 (“Palace of Harmony and Peace”), situated outside the Forbidden City in the northeastern sector of Beijing.¹³ By 1934 the collections of The Bureau numbered more than 280,000 items.

Providing adequate storage facilities for such a large collection had posed a serious problem from the outset. By the time half of the shipments from Jehol and Fengtian had arrived in Beijing, officials from the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had approved plans for a new storage facility to the west of the Wuyingdian and Jingsidian, on the site of the former Xian’angong 咸安宮 (“Palace of Pervading Tranquility”).

Construction of the new facility, the Baoyunlou 寳蘊樓 (“Treasure Storage Building”), began on 2 June 1914 and was completed in June 1915. Designed and constructed in western style, the building presented a marked contrast to the traditional architecture throughout the Forbidden City (fig. 11).¹⁴ The original Xian’anmen 咸安門 (“Gate of Pervading Tranquility”), which survived the fire that destroyed the Xian’angong in the latter part of the Qing dynasty, provided a secure entrance on south side of the “U”-shaped structure. The three-story building and basement were constructed of large bricks that were covered with a layer of cement, which was incised to resemble massive stone blocks. The exterior surface was then painted red; the windows, framed in white, form a contrast with the red walls. Thick ironclad shutters that remained closed throughout the year protected each window. Plaques mounted beneath the projecting roofs of buildings in the Forbidden City, including the Xian’anmen, record the titles of those structures in Chinese and Manchu. In contrast to that tradition, a rectangular stone tablet engraved with the Chinese characters, 寳蘊樓, is set vertically into the courtyard façade of the Baoyunlou. One critic described the Baoyunlou as “a useful but hideous structure”.¹⁵

A decade later, when the Palace Museum had to resolve similar storage problems for its most important antiquities, authorities selected the site of the Yanxigong 延喜宮 (“Palace of Prolonged Happiness”) on the eastern side of the complex, where the original building was so rundown that it could not be renovated. The reinforced concrete, “U”-shaped building that replaced the older structure was not unlike the Baoyunlou in its general design and proportions but, as a concession to the traditional style of the surrounding buildings, the roof of this storage facility has a yellow tile roof, with appropriate eave tiles and acroteria.¹⁶

A series of important, scholarly publications provide a valuable record of some of the objects in The Bureau. The Neiwubu Guwu chenliesuo shuhua mulu 内務部古物陳列所書畫目錄 (“Catalogue of Calligraphy and Paintings in the Bureau of Exhibition of Antiquities, Ministry of the Interior”), published in 1925, set a high standard that was maintained throughout the museum’s brief history.¹⁷ He Yu 何煜, chief editor of the catalogue, wrote a preface. Gong Xinzhan 龔心湛 (1869–1943), who had been acting premier of China from 13 June to 24 September 1919, contributed the first preface and wrote the calligraphy for the title page (fig. 12).

Among the calligraphy included in Neiwubu Guwu chenliesuo shuhua mulu are two quatrains by the Song dynasty Emperor Huizong 徽宗 (1082–1135; reigned 1100–1126) that conclude, “Dancing butterflies are confused by fragrant pathways; fluttering about, they chase the evening breeze”.¹⁸ The large characters, written on silk in the emperor’s distinctive style, characterized by attenuated strokes with contrasting thick and thin elements, and described as shoujin tizi 瘦金體子 (or “slender gold”), are arranged in twenty columns with two characters in each column (fig. 13).¹⁹

The paintings in the 1925 catalogue include a small hanging scroll, Jiu sheng huan yu tu 鳩聲喚雨圖 (“Turtledove Summoning Rain”), by Shen Zhou 沈周 (1427–1509), rendered in ink and color on paper (fig. 14).²⁰  The artist defined the turtledove with a simple wash of color and then added a few details in ink; he rendered the bare branch with equally abbreviated ink strokes. In his five-character-line quatrain Shen Zhou asks how the call of a single turtledove is able to summon rain when the chirping of a hundred-bird flock had no effect on cold or heat. The combination of the tersely painted and poetic images lends a Zen-like profundity to the hanging scroll.

The name of the Baoyunlou was used in the titles of two publications that appeared in 1929 and 1930, at the same time The Bureau’s rival, the Palace Museum, had undertaken its own publication program. Those two publications also date from the interlude following the overthrow by Jiang Jieshi 蔣介石 (1887–1975) of the Beiyang 北洋 government, which had assumed de facto control of Beijing (fig. 15). On 4 June 1928 Jiang Jieshi appointed Yan Xishan 閻錫山 (1883–1960) commander of the Beijing-Tianjin area. In that capacity, Yan Xishan became a member of the Palace Museum Council (fig. 16).

Yan Xishan wrote the calligraphy on the title slip for the first issue of Baoyun and contributed an introductory preface, dated May 1930 (fig. 17). Only a few issues of Baoyun were published; each one includes twenty black-and-white collotype photographs and brief explanatory comments of a selection of antiquities from The Bureau’s holdings.  For example, the first issue included the Songhu 頌壺, an impressive Late Western Zhou period (9th century B.C.) bronze vessel from the Jehol imperial summer palace (fig. 18). The 151-character inscription cast inside the Song hu and its lid records a ceremony that took place in the Zhou dynasty capital during which the Zhou king handed down a charge to an official named Song and conferred a number of royal gifts on him. Song then prostrated himself, and accepted the king’s charge and the accompanying gifts.²¹ In its size and format, the Baoyun resembles Gugong 故宮 (“Former Palace”), published monthly by the Palace Museum, beginning in 1929, which also presented a wide range of objects from the collections. 

In February 1927, Zhou Zhaoxiang 周肇祥 (1880–1954), then director of The Bureau, had assembled a group of specialists with expertise in ancient bronzes to authenticate the examples in the Bureau of Exhibition of Antiquities. Ma Heng 馬衡 (1881–1955),²² Rong Geng 容庚 (1894–1983)²³ and John C. Ferguson (1866–1945)²⁴ were included in the group that met every week for the next two years.

Rong Geng selected ninety-two bronzes from those brought to Beijing from the imperial summer palace in Fengtian for discussion in Baoyunlou yiqi tulu 寳蘊樓彞器圖錄 (“Illustrated Record of Ritual Vessels in the Baoyunlou”), a catalogue published in 1929 (fig. 19).²⁵ Those bronzes had been catalogued earlier in the Xiqing xujian, yibian 西清續鑑, 乙編 (“Western Purity, Supplement II”), the fourth of the imperial bronze compilations prepared during the Qing dynasty. Critics had pointed out the large number of spurious items included in that Qing imperial catalogue, however, and Rong Geng offers refreshingly new analyses.

One of the bronzes selected by Rong Geng is the Tongshi gui 同師簋, a Middle Western Zhou dynasty food vessel with a nine-character inscription in which Tongshi expresses the wish that the bronze would be used for ten thousand years (fig. 20).²⁶ The squat proportions of this covered bronze, the stylized bands of decoration and the modeling of the two handles are typical of ritual bronzes dating from the Middle Western Zhou period (9th century B.C.). Ma Heng, a member of the antiquities section of the Palace Museum who served as director of the museum from 1933 to 1952, wrote the characters for the title slip of Rong Geng’s catalogue. Ma Heng’s active participation in the authentication and publication program of The Bureau is a clear indication of curatorial interaction between the two museums.

Rong Geng did not include a preface in Baoyunlou yiqi tulu, reserving his general comments on the circumstances surrounding that catalogue for the preface of Wuyingdian yiqi tulu 武英殿彞器圖錄, (“Illustrated Record of Ritual Vessels in the Wuyingdian”) (fig. 21).²⁷ Deng Erya 鄧爾疋 (1883–1954), Rong Geng’s uncle, who was a noted epigrapher and seal carver, wrote the calligraphy for the title slip of Wuyingdian yiqi tulu. In that second bronze compilation, which appeared in 1934, Rong Geng selected one hundred bronzes from the 851 examples brought to Beijing from the imperial summer palace in Jehol, none of which had been previously catalogued. Included among those bronzes is a late Shang-early Western Zhou dynasty ritual food container, type gui 簋 (fig. 22), dating from the late Shang-early Western Zhou period (11th century B.C.).²⁸ Horizontal bands of stylized dragons decorate the bowl-shaped body below the everted rim and on the high ring-foot. Much more conspicuous is the nipple pattern that emerges from a diagonal grid.

Once the Palace Museum was established, important government, military, and financial figures such as Jiang Jieshi, Zhang Xueliang 張學良 (1898–2001), Song Ziwen 宋子文 (1891–1971) and Cai Yuanpei served as members of its advisory committee. As the Palace Museum benefited from the support of its influential council members, the status of The Bureau, which had depended on the support of the Beiyang government, began to decline. During a brief period in 1930, when several warlords joined forces to oppose Jiang Jieshi, The Bureau was free of control by the Nanking government. It was during that period that The Bureau, in an overt expression of its autonomy, added large horizontal plaques over the Donghuamen 東華門 (“Gate of Eastern Glory”) and the Xihuamen 西華門 (“Gate of Western Glory”) (fig. 23).

After Jiang Jieshi succeeded in overcoming his military opponents, the Nanjing government again assumed its supervisory role. In a number of significant decisions, Jiang Jieshi appointed a new advisory committee for the Palace Museum and gave the Palace Museum authority over a portion of the Forbidden City that formerly had been part of The Bureau. In addition, some of the cultural relics from the Jehol and Fengtian imperial summer palaces were transferred to the new museum Jiang Jieshi was planning for Nanjing. It is significant that in making those announcements, Jiang Jieshi referred to The Bureau as the Guwu baocunsuo 古物保存所 (“Bureau for Preservation of Antiquities”), thereby stressing its function as a storage facility. That subtle distinction was to have still further implications.

After 18 September 1931, when Japanese forces invaded Manchuria and threatened northern China, the Nanjing government made plans to move the imperial collections to Shanghai and then to Nanjing. When Beijing residents protested, saying the government was placing the antiquities ahead of the people, the five shipments were carried out secretly, at night. The first shipment consisted of Palace Museum holdings, the second included objects from The Bureau and the Yiheyuan 頤和園 (“Summer Palace”) in Beijing²⁹ and the Guozijian 國子監 (“Imperial College”).³⁰ In all, the 5,415 crates from The Bureau, contained 111,549 items: 93,707 ceramics, 1,729 bronzes, 786 jades, 2,817 cloisonné, 493 calligraphy and paintings, etc. The bronzes illustrated in the Baoyunlou yiqi tulu and Wuyingdian yiqi tulu were among those antiquities.

In Shanghai the antiquities were initially stored in warehouses in the French and British concessions where their safety was entrusted to French and British police, assisted by plainclothesmen from the Chinese police. Concerns regarding the possibility of loss or damage as a result of fires, theft or dampness prompted the government to construct modern storage facilities in Nanjing. The new building, constructed of reinforced concrete, was three stories high and, particularly important, was equipped with  temperature and humidity controls.³¹

Nanjing was the capital of the Nationalist government, headed by Jiang Jieshi. Planning for a new museum, the Zhongyang bowuyuan 中央博物院 (“Central Museum”), intended as a major institution in the capital that would symbolize the government’s support of history, science and culture, with collections including the natural sciences, humanities and technology, began in 1933.³² Inherent in Jiang Jieshi’s decision to establish the Central Museum was the realization that it would add legitimacy to his regime.

The government assembled the antiquities to be housed in the Central Museum from several sources, including purchases from private collectors and transfers of objects formerly in the collections of the Beiping Lishi bowuguan 北平歷史博物館 (“Beiping History Museum”), the Guozijian, and The Bureau. In May 1935, as the Nationalist government considered additional measures to consolidate the various collections of antiquities in Nanjing, it cited the need to reduce expenses and proposed that the Palace Museum should be granted jurisdiction over The Bureau. In response, Bureau administrators appealed that proposal, pointing out many other means by which the government might achieve spending reforms. The government withdrew its proposal and, at the same time, reduced The Bureau’s annual budget by twelve percent.

When the Chinese government agreed to participate in the International Exhibition of Chinese Art, held at the Royal Academy in London, from December 1935 through March 1936, the largest portion of the 1,022 antiquities came from the collections of the Palace Museum; The Bureau loaned 57 objects, most of them ancient bronzes.³³ The London exhibition marked the first time there had been such a large loan exhibition of Chinese antiquities outside mainland China and international reaction to Chinese cultural achievements was enthusiastic.

A grant from the British portion of the Boxer Indemnity Fund enabled the Chinese government to construct a properly equipped building to house the collections of the Central Museum. Although construction began in 1936, Japanese bombing of Nanjing forced an end to that work the following year. The staff and collections of the Central Museum, together with those of the Palace Museum and The Bureau, were moved to southwestern China, where they remained during the Sino-Japanese War.³⁴ When the collections were returned to Nanjing at the end of the war, staff members found that portions of the Central Museum building had been severely damaged, making it necessary to rebuild the structure during 1946 through 1948.

In 1946 the Nationalist government again proposed legislation that would transfer jurisdiction of The Bureau to the Palace Museum. That proposal was finally approved in 1948. Having achieved its goal, the government then made preparations to transfer to the Central Museum all of the objects from The Bureau that had been shipped from Beijing. The twenty-four-year history of The Bureau had ended.

The volatile political situation posed by the Communist insurgency caused the Nationalist government to move the Palace and Central Museum collections once more. During 1948 and 1949 the major portions of those collections were loaded onto ships and taken to Taiwan. Of the nearly three thousand crates shipped to Taiwan, 852 of them contained select objects from The Bureau. The Central Museum objects that were left behind are now in the Nanjing Museum. In an ironic twist of fate, the Central Museum collections taken to Taiwan eventually were joined with those of the National Palace Museum under a joint administration.³⁵

Throughout their long, frequently perilous journey throughout China during the decades following 1914—being packed and repacked, passing through one political or military crisis to another—the imperial art collections have maintained their dual role as enduring symbols of political legitimacy for changing governments and as examples, par excellence, of China’s unique cultural heritage. Once again those imperial art collections have been dispersed, with the major portions now in Beijing and Taiwan. It is impossible to know what the future has in store for those antiquities; in the meantime, however, they retain their powerful mystique, which continues to evoke both awe and admiration.

 

Notes

1. For a discussion of the 1925 opening ceremony, together with photographs of some of the speakers, see Gugong zhoukan 故宮周刊, no. 1, (10 October 1929), p. 4.
2. For an account of the looting of the mausoleums of Qianlong and the Dowager Empress Cixi huangtaihou by Nationalist troops under the command of Sun Dianying 孫殿英 in 1928, see Gao Boyu 高伯雨, Qianlong Cixi fenmu bei tao jishi 乾隆慈禧墳墓被盜紀實. Hong Kong: Dahua chubanshe 大華出版社, 1975; and Yu Shanpu 于善浦, “Cixi ling beidao shimo 慈禧陵被盜始末,” Wenwu tiandi 文物天地, 1981, no. 5, pp. 38–40.
3. Na Zhiliang 那志良, Gugong sishinian 故宮四十年, Taiwan: Shangwu yinshuguan 商務印書館, 1966, p. 22.
4.  Duan Yong 段勇, “Guwu chenliesuo de xingshuai ji qi lishi diwei shuping 古物陳列所的興衰及其地位述評,” Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊, 2004, 5, no. 115, p. 22; Wan Qingli 萬青力, “Nanfang beijian: Minguo chunian nanfang huajia zhudao de Beijing huatan (shang) 南方北漸：民國初年南方畫家主導的北京畫壇 (上), Meishu yanjiu 美術研究, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 44, 48, 52; and “Jin Gongbei xiansheng shilue 金拱北先生事略,” Hushe yuekan 湖社月刊, 1927, no. 1, pp. 1-3.
5. For a detailed discussion of the Guwu chenliesuo, see, Duan Yong, 2004, op. cit., pp. 14–39.
6. Duan Yong, 2004, op. cit., p. 14.
7. For information on Jin Cheng, see, Yun Xuemei 云雪梅, “Jin Cheng he Zhongguo huaxue yanjiu hui 金城和中國畵學研究會,” Meishu guancha 美術觀察，1999, vol. 1, pp. 59–62.
8. Duan Yong, “Wuyingdian yu Guwu chenliesuo 武英殿與古物陳列所,” Zijincheng 紫禁城, vol. 128 (January 2005), p. 56.
9. For a comprehensive study of the Jehol complex, see, Tianjin daxue jianzhuxi 天津大學建築系 and Chengdeshi wenwuju 承德市文物局, Chengde gu jianzhu—Bishu shanzhuanghe waibamiao de jianzhuyishu  承德古建筑—避暑山莊和外八廟的建築藝術. Hong Kong: Sanlian shudian 三聯書店, 1982. For an excellent color photograph of a large hanging scroll (254.8 cm. x 172.5 cm. [approximately 9 x 5 feet]), ink and color on silk, depicting the Jehol imperial summer palace, painted by Leng Mei 冷枚 (active first half 18th century), now in the Palace Museum, Beijing, see, Wan Yi 萬依, Wang Shuqing 王樹卿 and Lu Yanzhen 陸燕貞, Qingdai gongting shenghuo 慶代宮廷生活. Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1985, p. 286, pl. 449.
10. For a discussion of the Fengtian palace, see, Liu Guoyong 劉國鏞, “Shenyang gugong 瀋陽故宮,” Wenwu cankao ziliao 文物參考資料, 1958.3, pp. 59–61.
11. Reginald F. Johnston, Twilight in the Forbidden City. London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1934), p. 301.
12. Duan Yong, 2004, op. cit. p. 24.
13. The Yonghegong was built in 1694 as a residence, the Yong Qingwang fu 雍親王府, for Yinzhen 胤禎 (1678–1735; reigned 1723–36) the fourth son of Emperor Kangxi. After the prince ascended the throne in 1723 as Emperor Yongzheng 雍正, his former residence was referred to as the Yonghegong. In 1744 the Emperor Qianlong opened the complex to the public as a Tibetan Yellow-sect Lamasery. 
14. For information on the Baoyunlou, see: Li Songling 李松齡, “Baoyunlou jianzao yuanqi 寳蘊樓建造緣起,” Zijincheng 紫禁城, 35, 1986, no. 4, p. 30–31; Xu Yilin 許以林, “Baoyunlou de jianzhu tese 寳蘊樓的建築特色,” Zijincheng 紫禁城, no. 35, 1986, no. 4, p. 32.
15. John Ferguson, “Bronzes in the Government Museum,” The China Journal, vol. 11, no. 1 (July 1929), pp. 22–23.
16. For a description of the Palace Museum storage facility, see Na Zhiliang, Gugong sishinian p. 38. For photographs of the interior and exterior of the new building, see Gugong zhoukan, no. 209 (7 January 1933), p. 4; no. 210 (11 January 1933), p. 4; no. 211 (14 January 1933), p. 4; and no. 212 (18 January 1933), p. 4.
17. For additional information on the Neiwubu Guwu chenliesuo shuhua mulu, see, Hin-cheung Lovell, An Annotated Bibliography of Chinese Painting Catalogues and Related Texts, Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, The University of Michigan, 1973, pp. 94–96.
18. Translation by Charles Mason. For the complete translation, see Wen C. Fong et al., Possessing the Past (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996), p. 165.
19. Neiwubu Guwu chenliesuo shuhua mulu, juan 2, pp. 7a–b.
20. Neiwubu Guwu chenliesuo shuhua mulu, juan 6, p. 14a. The painting was discussed earlier by Jin Liang 金梁, in Shengjing gugong shuhua lu 盛京故宮書畫錄, preface dated 1913. At that time the painting was stored in the Xiangfengge 翔鳳閣 (“Soaring Phoenix Pavilion”), at the imperial summer palace in Fengtian . See, Yang Jialuo 楊家駱, ed., Yishu congbian 藝術叢編. Taipei: Shijie shuju 世界書局, 1962, vol. 21, ce 冊 5, p. 17. In his introductory comments to Shengjing gugong shuhua lu, Jin Liang states that his compilation includes only the 449 calligraphy and paintings stored in the Xiangfengge; he did not include those examples stored elsewhere in the palace complex. He also comments briefly on other important antiquities housed in the Fengtian imperial summer palace, noting that the bronzes had already been recorded in Xiqing xujian, yibian 西清續鑑乙編, and then, in regard to important books, mentions the copy of Sibu quanshu 四部全書 housed in the Wensuge 文溯閣, in addition to the volumes kept in the various palace buildings. According to Jin Liang there were 100,000 ceramics in the palace, as well as armor and various kinds of weapons.
21. For a comprehensive analysis of the Song hu inscription, see Shirakawa Shizuka 白川靜, Kinbun tsūshaku 金文通釋, Kyoto: Hakutsuru Bijutsukan, 1962–, 24:137–164.
22. For information on Ma Heng’s career, see, Zhu Jiajin 朱家溍, “Ma Heng yuanzhang baohu Gugong wenwu de gushi 馬衡院長保護故宮文物的故事,” Zijincheng 紫禁城, (February 1986), pp. ; “Huiyi Ma Heng yuanzhang 回憶馬衡院長,” Wenwu tiandi 文物天地, 1987, no. 1, pp. 2–3; Zheng Xinmiao 鄭欣淼, “Juegong shenwei  qide yongxing—jinian Ma Heng xiansheng shishi 50 zhounian 厥功甚偉其德永馨—紀念馬衡先生逝世50周年,” Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊, no. 118 (February 2005), pp. 6–23; and several articles in Zijincheng 紫禁城, no. 129 (February 2005): Gu Gongren , “Ma Heng—kuayue liangge shidai de Gugong yuanzhang 馬衡—跨越兩個時代的故宮院長, pp. 6–13; Wang Shuo 王碩, “Ma Heng juanxian wenwu shangxi 馬衡捐獻文物賞析,” pp. 14–23; Zhang Mingxin 張銘心, “Juanke yishujia Ma Heng 篆刻藝術家馬衡,” 24–28; Ma Wenzhong 馬文沖, “Mianhuai xianfu Ma Heng 緬懷先父馬衡,” pp. 29–37; Yan Zhi 閻志, “‘Wu Ma’ xingkong—hengyu xuejie de Mashi wu kunzhong 「五馬」行空—享譽學界的馬氏五昆仲,” pp. 38–45;
23. For information on Rong Geng, see, Liu Yu 劉雨, “Daonian zhuming kaogu xuejia he guwenzi xuejia Rong Geng xiansheng 悼念著名考古學家和古文字學家容庚先生,” Kaogu 考古1983, no. 8, pp. 757–758. For a discussion of one aspect of  Rong Geng’s research, see, Thomas Lawton, “Rong Geng and the Qing Imperial bronze collection: Scholarship in early twentieth-century China,” Apollo vol. 145, no. 421 (March 1997), pp. 10–16.
24. For information on John C. Ferguson, see, Thomas Lawton, The Franklin D. Murphy Lectures XII: A Time of Transition: Two Collectors of Chinese Art. Lawrence, Kansas, Spencer Art Museum: The University of Kansas, 1991, pp. 65–104.
25. In his text for the Baoyunlou yiqi tulu, Rong Geng corrected errors he found in Xiqing xujian, yibian, including questions of terminology, shape, decoration, inscriptions, size and annotation. He includes excellent rubbings of the decoration and inscriptions on each bronze. In spite of the care Rong Geng took in compiling the Baoyunlou yiqi tulu, he did not avoid including several spurious vessels, and there are some statements in the annotations that should be corrected. Rong Geng acknowledges those errors in his Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao 商周彞器通考 (Beijing: Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1941), vol. 1, p. 201. For an analysis of Baoyunlou yiqi tulu, see Shirakawa Shizuka, op. cit., vol. 5, 43:210.
26. The Tongshi gui is illustrated and discussed in Xiqing xujian, yibian, juan 12:36; and Baoyunlou yiqi tulu, no. 62.
27. In his preface to Wuyingdian yiqi tulu, Rong Geng mentions that since the bronzes from the Fengtian imperial summer palace had been catalogued during the reign of the Emperor Qianlong, some of them were displayed in the Bureau for Exhibition of Antiquities; since none of the bronzes from the Jehol summer imperial palace had been catalogued previously, they were kept in storage while in Beijing. In his preface to Wuyingdian yiqi tulu, Rong Geng stresses the importance of including rubbings of bronze decoration, as well as inscriptions. For an analysis of Wuyingdian yiqi tulu, see Shirakawa, op. cit., 43:210–211.
28. The bronze gui is illustrated and discussed in Wuyingdian yiqi tulu, no. 54.
29. Also known as the Wanshoushan 萬壽山, the Yiheyuan was reconstructed in 1886 through 1891 from an old imperial garden, Qingyiyuan 清漪園, which had been partially destroyed by British forces in 1860.
30. The Guozijian, also known as the Taixue 太學, was an institution of learning for students that included the Biyong 辟雍, where the emperor discussed the Confucian classics with eminent scholars. See Chen Yucheng 陳育丞, “Guozijian 國子監,” Wenwu 文物 1959, no. 9, pp. 37–38.
31. For a description and photographs of the storage building in Nanjing, see Na Zhiliang 1957, pp. 153–154, pl. 6.
32. For detailed information on the Central Museum, see, Tan Danqiong 譚旦冏, Zhongyang bowuyuan nianwu nian zhi jingguo 中央博物院廿五年之經過. Taiwan: Zhonghua congshu weiyuanhui 中華叢書委員會, 1960.
33. The Chinese government published a four-volume catalogue of selected objects, Canjia Lundun Zhongguo yishu guoli zhanlanhui chupin tushuo 參加倫敦國際藝術國際展覽會出品圖説 (“Illustrated Catalogue of Chinese Government Exhibits for the International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London”). Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1935. Of the 108 bronze ritual vessels illustrated and discussed in volume 1, thirty-six were from the Guwu chenliesuo (referred to as the “National Museum” in the English-language translation), eight bronzes unearthed at Xinzheng 新鄭, Henan province, were from the Henan Museum’s holdings, four bronzes unearthed at Shouxian 壽縣, Anhui province, were from the Anhui Provincial Library’s holdings.  The 314 ceramics illustrated and discussed in volume 2 were from the Palace Museum. Among the paintings illustrated and discussed in volume 3 are several portraits of early Chinese emperors and their consorts (items 61–62 and 102–103), and a painting by the Yuan dynasty artist, Wang Yuan 王淵 (item 79) from The Bureau. In volume 4, a set of jade seals (item 39), two rhinoceros horn (items 59–60) and a silver sculpture (item 61) were from The Bureau.
34. For detailed discussion of the shipment of the collections to southwestern China, see Na Zhiliang 那志良, Gugong bowuyuan sanshi nian zhi jingguo 故宮博物院三十年之經過. Taiwan: Zhonghua congshu, 1957, pp. 172–182; and Na Zhiliang, 1966, op. cit., pp. 86–105. For a brief English discussion of that shipment, see Chu-tsing Li, “Recent History of the Palace Collection,” Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America, vol. 12 (1958), pp. 61–75.
35. Some catalogues published in Taiwan identify the holdings of the Palace Museum and the Central Museum. For example see: Gugong shuhua lu 故宮書畫錄. Taipei: Zhonghua congshu 中華叢書, 1956, 4 vols., where the calligraphy and paintings from the two collections are intermixed, with those examples from the Central Museum being identified as “Zhongbo 中博.” Gugong tongqi tulu 故宮銅器圖錄. Taipei: Zhonghua congshu 中華叢書, 1958, 2 vols., where both the Palace Museum and Central Museums are listed as having edited the catalogue; the Central Museum bronzes are presented separately in the second section.

comments...