Large Kangxi vase in exceptional Louis XVI goût grec bronze doré mounts with original gilding. The swelling Chinese porcelain vase (probably cut) is decorated with well painted old cherry or peach trees with vivid salmon-colored blossoms, bamboo, flowers and butterflies in a rocky landscape painted in an unusual all-over design. The square ormoulu plinth, with heavily chased rectangular reserves supports an incurvated pedestal composed of alternating plain lozenges and stylized laurel leaves headed by a rounded ring. A large ormoulu cup, decorated with engraved and chased reserves supports the vase from the bottom. The rim is decorated with burnished and matte tabs. Elaborately chased and beautifully modeled lion masks, each biting a ring in its square-toothed muzzle, serve as handles.

Several of the mounts are seemingly identical to those on an ormoulu mounted Ming dynasty garden seat of similar scale which was nº 160 in the duc d’Aumont sale (1782) and is now at Versailles. They share a nearly identical incurvated pedestal (differing at the tops since the Versailles porcelain has a flat base), an identically chased square plinth, and rim. Both have similarly modeled, but differing lion masks holding rings (of differing form) in their muzzles as important decorative elements. Both pieces are probably by the same bronzier, commissioned by a marchand-mercier who had access to very fine and unusual Chinese porcelain and an important clientele. The d’Aumont vase baril was bought for Louis XVI and is exhibited at Versailles. It was recently shown in the exhibition La Chine à Versailles: Art et Diplomatie au XVIIIe Siècle (May-October 2014.)

Very similar lion masks are found on the famous “vases Dulac” and on the goût grec clock that sat on what was essentially the first piece of Louis XVI furniture, the desk made for Lalive de Jully, now at Chantilly; both of these models’ lions are similarly formed, similarly chased and have the same odd square teeth as on the Kangxi vase. All the pieces share a very similarly formed pedestal and other compositional elements. The clock is known to have been made by the bronzier Robert Osmond. All these pieces therefore could be attributed to this bronzier probably through the marchand-mercier Jean Dulac. [Vase repaired.]

Provenance: 

Claude-Pierre-Maximilien Radix de Sainte-Foy (1736-1810), his sale in Paris, April 22, 1782; lot 134. (490 livres to Langlier.) A drawing attributed Saint-Aubin exists in the margin of a catalogue recently discovered in Paris (Christie’s Paris, April 22, 2016. Lot 46)

Jacques Langlier (or Lenglier) (1730?-1814), his sale in Paris, April 24, 1786; lot 192, (400 livres to Dulac.)

Collection of Antoine-Charles Dulac (1729-1811), marchand-mercier and dealer in Paris.

The porcelain Kangxi (1662-1722)
The ormoulu French, 18th century                   

The vase also was possibly in the collection of Jean de Jullienne (1686-1766) who was one of the most important collectors of his time. His collection was dispersed in two auctions held in 1767. The sale, important enough to be the only sale ever held in the Louvre, was one of the great artistic events of the period. The first sale was of his drawings, paintings and sculpture – many of which are in now the most important museums in the world; the second was of his porcelains, lacquers and furniture.

Lot 1461 is described as follows: [Translation] “A large vase of Chinese porcelain of an agreeable nature, as much by its form, & the beautiful varied coloration of the leafage (bocages) as by the composition of its bronze mounts in the antique taste; it measures 19 pouces in height by 17 pouces in diameter.” It sold for the price of 450 livres to the famous dealer Julliot. “Antique taste” refers to the goût grec style, the earliest manifestation of the neoclassical style in France. The large size and unusual proportions correspond almost exactly to the present vase, as does the description of the unusual decoration. (The difference in width [2 pouces] in the 18th century catalogues could be accounted for if the lion masks were not added to the width of the porcelain in the later catalogues.) Also, the prices in the three sales are quite similar. Since the composition of the bronzes is not described, this provenance cannot be proven at present.