Postby davidross » Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:37 pm
Hi Oel,
Thanks for reposting these fine photos.
It is difficult to say, looking at the photos of the cocktail shaker, if there isn't a fourth claw hidden behind the body or leg of the dragon. If I squint, I can swear I see the tip of a fourth claw peeking out.
The distinction Gould made in 1896 between Japanese three-clawed dragons and Chinese four- and five-clawed dragons probably had its greatest relevance at the time he was writing, shortly after the conclusion of the First Sino-Japanese War, when the Qing Dynasty was waning.
I only have a layman's understanding of these distinctions about dragons, and frankly I know of no rule that holds true for every period and in all cases. I should also qualify my opinion by stating that I am coming from a Japanese perspective in which all dragons (and all codifications of dragon iconography) are tacitly understood to be Chinese in origin, just as an English or Dutch artist who paints a satyr or nymph is, consciously or not is referring to Greco-Roman mythology. The problems are at least twofold. First, Chinese dragons were depicted differently over time, yet newer styles of depiction did not necessarily completely replace older ones. Second, Japanese access to Chinese civilization was at times quite free and at other times quite restricted, so the Japanese in any given period may not have had great awareness of how dragon iconography was changing in China.
Ceramics and textiles, rather than silver, give a most complete (and confusing) picture of how Chinese and Japanese portrayed dragons over the centuries. Export silver appears on the scene rather late.
I do think that the rule of five-clawed dragons for the Chinese emperor versus four for all other Chinese had its most rigid application during the first two centuries of the Qing Dynasty (roughly speaking, 1650-1850). The implication is that non-Chinese deserved only three-clawed dragons. Clearly, this notion would find more favour in China than in Japan. I should stress that this is only an impression and someone else may supply a more satisfactory answer.
So in brief, yes, the 5 and 4 = Chinese, 3 = Japanese rule seems to be true for most CES and JES of the late 19th century, but much less so after the demise of the Qing Dynasty (1911). As with any rule, of course, there may be exceptions.
