Ahura

洪武をすぎて永楽画院になると、このような元代絵画の延長としての諸形式は少なくなってゆき、明代絵画様式として位置づけのできる作家達が現われてくるようである。永楽時禁中三絶と呼ばれた辺文進、趙廉、蔣子成のうち趙廉の画虎、蔣子成の人物山水仏像画等については具体的にその画風を明らかにすることはできないが、辺文進に関してはほぼ誤りないと思われる二三の作品によってもその画風を知ることができる。
遺品中、山鳩図はその構図法においてかなり伝李安忠筆鶉図に近似し、花葉の勾勒線、土坡の墨彩等、南宋画院の写生画風を祖述したことを物語っているが、鶉図が土坡の右方を空白として自然景の拡がりを暗示するのにたいして、山鳩図にあっては淡墨々彩で二箇の土坡を描いており、山鳩とそれがおかれた自然景観をかなり説明 的に描写しようとする意図を示している。また山鳩の下辺の土坡の表現も鶉図とは比較にならないほど具体性を 示すが、この土坡の形体感覚やその陰影法には、元代浙江画と近似する点のあることも見逃しえない。この作品はむしろ擬古的な作風を示すものと解されるが、他の一幅、柏樹に鷹、犬、雉子の描かれた一幅ではより辺文進的な様式がみられるようである。柏の老木にとまる鷹が大写しにされ、画幅の中央には岩かげに頭部だけをみ せる黒色の犬、下辺の岩かげには雉子が配されている。一見画幅は切りつめられたかと思われるほど余白は少な いが、「隴西辺景昭画」と読まれる款記の位置は山鳩図の同文の款記のそれとさしてかわるところはなく、おそらくは原初の画面はさして縮小されてはいないようである。勾勒線の肥瘦も激しく、皺法には焦墨の粗い筆致が目立っており、これらの点では明代花鳥画の典型である呂紀の画風に類似する。羅列的に配置された諸景物は、前後関係も明瞭でないほど平板であり、画面は幾つかのブロックの対比によってだけ階調が保たれている。山鳩図にあっては山鳩と花樹は自然景の中にある種の落着きと調和をもって配置されているが、この図では自然景と鷹の画面上に占める意味も差がない。筆者は再現された自然景象の中に動物をおくのではなくて、岩や柏樹、大写しの笹、雉子、犬そして鷹も同じ意味で、同様の強さで画面を支えている。平板な画面がもつ装飾的効果は、色彩と墨色と幾つかの景象の塊りで醸成されているといってよい。したがって岩魏にしても立体感の強調、暗部 の描出法という意味はなく、奇縦な筆づかいが齎す装飾的な効果だけが意図されているようである。そしてこれらの描写形式上の特色は、辺文進花鳥画が明代絵画様式の範疇に入れられることを明示している。
辺文進の出身地については両幅の款記にみるように隴西説も行なわれたが、「閩画記」は辺姓がもと隴西に出たため款署に故郡の名を記したものと考えており、現在通行する画史類には延平志の沙県説をとるものもある。彼の出身地に拘泥する意味は、後述するように福建、広東の地方画家と浙江派の関係を考察する上にも重要な手掛かりを与えてくれるからである。ここでは、辺文進が著色花鳥画家として呂紀とともに論じられるべきであるのに、水墨花鳥画家林良とともに語られている点も併せ考えて、延平志の記述により信を置きたい。邊文進，柏鷹圖ただ辺文進の永楽画院奉職説は信ずるにしても、活躍の下限をどこにおくかの問題がのこされている。「明実録」によれば少なくとも宣徳元年には七〇才余で画院にあったことが明らかであり、彼とほぼ時代を接した張寧が、「（辺）景昭は宣徳中にあって写生の第一手であった」とのべているので、その活躍期は明代浙派画風の形成期と交叉するとみてよいわけである。したがって註二〇九で紹介した邱濬の「瓊台詩文会稿重編」の二詩にみる辺文進父子の画が林良の声価のあがるのに逆比例して衰えていったという批評は、単に福建出身の画院画家二人を俎上において論じただけではないようであり、両者の画風に類似性があったことを想像させる。このような推測に立って辺文進筆柏鷹図を考察すれば、この図の皺法や平板な構図法、主題の扱い方等はやや林良画に共通するものが あり、しかも林良画の方がより大きな空間表現と巧みな自然描写が行なわれている。また現存辺文進画二幅は、山鳩図が習作的な擬古作品であり、鷹図が款署の体からみても老年の制作と推定されるので、宣徳画院における 戴文進画風の成立以前において、すでに明代浙派的な様式、描法に近いものが行なわれていたと考えることは不可能ではない。しかもそれが福建出身である点に、浙江画風の伝播の問題が大きく関係してくるわけである。しかしながら、このような推論にやや支障をきたす辺文進画が存在する。支那名家書画集が収戴する寒林鴉陣図が それである。この作品には他の作例とはやや異なった落款「待詔隴西辺景昭製」がみられ、他幅にはみられない題記が書かれている。未見の作品ではあるが、款記の書体も他作のそれと著しく異なるものではなく、書そのものには模作にみる筆力の弱さや律動感の欠除がなく、画そのものにも渋滞した筆づかいも看取されない。したがってまずは正筆とすべきものと考えられる。この鴉陣図は前二図と筆致の上で余りに差異がある。肥瘦のある堺線もほとんどみられず、荒い法もない。丹念に施された胡椒点のほかに、尖のちびた筆と焦墨で擦過された土坡が他幅と似通っているにすぎないが、題記に「梅翁の筆意に倣う」とあるように、この図は製作のはじめか 元末文人画風を基本形式とすることが意図されていたわけであって、職業画家が往々にして自己の画技の幅広さを誇示する意図に出たものと解すべきであろう。いわば辺文進の余技的な画法であり、辺文進本来の個人的形 式ではないと考えるべきであろう。
永楽画院の画家は、洪武のそれに比べてややその画法や経歴を明らかにできる。例えば郭純は盛懋系の画家で あるが、このことは元代以降、職業画工の中には南宋院体画風の一変形としての盛子昭画風が伝えられていたこ とを物語るものでもある。辺文進と同じように郭純もまた永楽から宣徳画院に復職したとみられる。「画史会要」は「山水は盛子昭（懋）を学ぶ」とのべ、「水東日記」はその画に「山水布置茂密」の評のあったことを記しているが、このような構図や配景のほかに、盛懋師法説を裏付けるものとして胡儼の七絶二首をみることができる。そしてこれらは永楽画院に盛懋の粗荒な筆描形式がもちこまれたことを物語るものでもある。元代山水画風を継承したものは郭純にとどまるわけではない。茹洪も当然それに数えられるが、「無錫志」に「窠石竹木を作る。郭熙を法として山水をつくり、気韻奇古である」とあるだけであって、その画法については知ることができない。
戴文進画評の項でふれた謝環は永楽中、推薦によって禁中に呼ばれ、宣徳朝では錦衣衛百戸より千戸に陞り、景泰中ではさらに錦衣衛指揮僉事に昇進している。謝環自身の軼事について記すものは多いが、その画風について記すものは極めて少なく、「明画録」、「無聲詩史」、「東里続集」等をあげるだけである。「明画録」は謝環の荊関二米師法説、「無聲詩史」は陳歩起師承説、「東里続集」は張起師事説を伝えている。このうち「無聲詩史」の陳歩起師承説は「東里続集」の記述を訛伝したものと考えてよいであろう。詩史は歩起に註して、元の張師夔の高弟とし、洪武のはじめに両に盛名があったとするが、陳歩起なる人物については明らかではなく、「東里続集」の「張歩起、善画、元張師夔高弟、洪武初有盛名両浙、清介凛然、不苟接人」という一文を引用したことが容易に推測されるわけである。しかしながら張歩起が師承したという張師（羲上）についてもあまり詳かではない。「図絵宝鑑」が「張羲上、浙人、字師夔、善山水」と記すほか、明の凌雲翰が数詩をその作品に題しているだけであって、その画系すら明確ではない。しかしながら張羲上、張叔起ともに浙人であり、謝環もまた浙江永嘉の出身であることを思えば、画家としての謝環の生長は浙江に限られていたとみてよいであろう。「明画録」の荊関二米師法説の根 拠を具体的に実証しえない現在、この記述に全幅の信をおくことはできないまでも、謝環の山水画が、浙江水墨 画形式の加味された北宗系の地方様式であったという推測が可能になる。このような推測に立てば、画風の上ではかなり戴文進山水画に近いものであったと考えることもできるし、広義の浙江絵画の範疇に組み入れて不可ないかもしれない。伝える如き戴文進と謝環の不和確執も、出身地を同じくし、画風が近似し、画院における地位をもひとしくする二人の画人の間では当然おこりうるものと推測できるし、文人的教養においてはるかにまさる謝環が職人階級の出身である戴文進の優位に立ったことも至極当然と考えてよい。ことに戴文進失脚の因をなしたという秋江独釣図の紅袍事件については、後の文人達が文人画家の職業画家にたいする優越性を例示するものとして作られた説話と考えても不可ないであろう。
謝環の作品については著録されるものもきわめて少なく、図録等を通じて知りうるものもわずかに杏園雅集図巻があるだけである。この横巻については陶九皐氏が文物（一九六三年第四期）誌上に紹介されているが、図版も鮮明さを欠き、その真偽については言及すべくもない。その描写形式を推測すれば盛懋流ということができるかとも思われ、時代を下げてほゞ類似する作家を求めれば清朝の宮廷画家禹之鼎に近いものがある。

鈴木敬，《明代絵画史研究・浙派》，東京：木耳社，1968。すでにやや冗漫にすぎるほど元代絵画について、ことに浙江地方の元代絵画について考察を加え、戴文進画には元代絵画様式が複雑に集成されていることを述べた。本稿に入るにさきだって、戴文進画風の成立と関連するものとして戴進以前の画院絵画について、洪武より宣徳にいたる画院絵画に一瞥をあたえ、さらに少しく触れておいた元代絵画と戴進画の間におくべきものとしての浙派の先行様式、前浙派の形成にも簡単な考察を加えることとする。
画史類にあらわれた画家の師承関係、その専科等をみると、明初の画家の取上げた山水画では元末の四大家もしくは董源、巨然、米家山形式等を継承するものが多く、馬遠、夏珪派、盛懋系に属するものがそれに次ぎ、道釈人物画、三友、四君子等のうちの一科を専門にするものも入りまじっている。このことは明初の画家達の画風 が元末画壇一般の傾向をうけついでいることを示すが、これら明初の画家達の作品は、一部をのぞいて現存するものはきわめて少なく、その画風を具体的に検討することは不可能に近い。したがって、例えば元初の馬夏系画人の画風と、浙派の基本的描写形式の一つとなった地方化され形式化された馬遠、夏珪様式との間にどのような差異があるのか的確には指摘できないうらみがある。したがって本稿では、明初画人のうちでも画史類を通じてややその画風を窺知できる画院関係の画家をとりあげ、その筆墨法や画風上の系譜を辿ることとした。
明初の洪武画院の画家として第一にあげなければならないのは趙原（元）である。趙原は字を善長、号を丹林といい、その原籍については「無聲詩史」の姑蘇説、夏文彦の山東説等があるが、王逢の「梧溪集」にみる「題趙善長爲李原復所画山水」の詩の一部に「斉東趙原呉下客」とあることや合谿草堂図の自題に「営城（山東臨溜）趙元爲玉山主人作合谿草堂図」とあることからみても、図絵宝鑑の記述に信をおくべきであろう。その山水画は董源を私淑したものであり、したがって南宗画系に属するものと考えられる。「無聲詩史」は「画は王右丞、北苑を師とする」というが、姜紹書の論画家としての立場を考えればこの場合の王維私淑説はとるにたりないし、むしろ明末の李日華が「恬致堂詩話」の中でその山水が王蒙と雁行すると述べている点を重視し、趙原を王蒙画派の画人と考えて不可ないであろう。李日華にやや遅れる惲南田も黄鶴山樵一派の中に王豪とともに趙元を配している。趙原 合谿草堂圖趙元を南宗画系の人物とする見解は同時代の王行の詩文によってもかなり広く行なわれていたとみることがで きるが、たんにこのような王蒙流の山水画風を得意としただけでなく北宗的画法を取入れたものであったことは既出の「梧渓集」ほか二三の詩文によっても明らかとなる。これらの詩文より推測される趙原山水画は、王蒙風、すなわち、通常われわれが目にする所謂王蒙画風とは異なって奇峰、秀崖の連るものであり、明らかに北方系山水画の自然景が取入れられている。趙原画の遺例の図録類に収載されるものは数点あるが、実査したものには故宮博物院の渓亭秋色図一軸しかなく、この図の真偽に関してもなお幾つかの問題がのこされている。私見では後世の模作と考えられ、しかも模写者の個人的筆描がかなり加味されていると推測されるが、原本では明らかに王蒙風の法のほかに元代絵画に共通する粗な水墨画法が多分に加味されていたことは疑いえない。肥瘦のはげしい炎のように曲折して流れる濃墨線がそれを代表する。このような筆描形式を示すもう一つの遺例としては、蕭寿民氏の中国古画集第一冊に収められている山中茅屋図があり、他の諸図は少しく形式を異にしているが、斯る筆描形式の存在は、高房山画を臨した鍾觀図についての王行の長詩によっても推察することができる。とすれば趙原もまた元末南宗画風継承者の中におくことができると同時に、李郭様式の折衷化が明初にまで及んでいた 一証左ともなるわけである。
洪武画院の周位については「明画録」、「無聲詩史」ともに画院における逸話を伝えるだけであって、その画風を窺知できる一片の材料をも与えてくれない。また著録される画跡も「佩文斎書画譜」の美人剖瓜図一軸あるのみである。しかしながら「宮掖の画壁は多くその手に出ず」という「明画録」の記述を拡大解釈すれば、元代壁画山水と同じく郭系の構図とやや粗い水墨技法を得意とした画人という推測もできる。彼の作品としては九華印室旧蔵の漁翁対話図一軸が喧伝されたが、元来、款印のないこの作品について伝称の当否を判断することはかなりの困難がともなう。樹葉にみる非常に早い筆速や、遠山、懸崖の界線、人物の衣褶線等には狂態派の張平山の筆致と共通するものが多く、呉小仙以降の浙派画人の制作と考えた方がよいようではあるが、この種の縦逸な水墨画作品 に周位筆の伝称を与えたことは、周位の画風を推定する手掛かりとなるかもしれない。
洪武期には、このほか孫文宗、沈希遠、陳遇、陳遠、朱芾、王仲玉、盛著、相禮等の画家が活躍していた。これらの画家達を永楽期以降の所謂"画院"の画工とすることにはなお未解決の点ものこされているが、沈希遠についてはわずかに馬遠を宗としたことが分かるにすぎず、孫文宗については写真に工であったこと、王仲玉に関しては能画をもって召されたと記されているにすぎない。また相禮は黄子久流の山水画を得意とした文人画家、朱芾も同様、詩、四体書行草にも巧みであった文人画家であるが、その画の描写形式については明らかでない。俞剣華氏の記述に従って、洪武画院の画家について記せば、この画院の特異な性格としてこのような文人画家の出現が特筆されるが、士大夫出身でありながら写貌にすぐれていたため召されたものに陳遇、陳遠の兄弟がある。写真および風俗人物画家を国初の宮廷が必要としたのは各王朝に共通する現象であり、当時適当な職業画家がなかったため起用されたものであろうか。洪武画院においては文人系の画人と職業画師が並立していたとみるべきである。以上あげた画院画家に比べてやや画家としての閲歴の明らかなものは盛著である。元の院体系の一派に属する盛懋の従子であり、その画には盛子昭の影響が強かったと伝える。
このように洪武画院の画人達を列挙し、乏しい資料を通して考察すると、明確な指導理念の下で画院に画家達が集められたとする推定は成立しない。画院ではいわば元時代末期の画壇の諸形式が雑然と行なわれていたようであって浙派の先行形式と考えられるものも現われず、画院の体として抽出すべき様式的特色もなかったように思われる。

肆、明代內府管理書畫的機構內官署宦官十二監之一─司禮監明代宦官供職大內，在宮中侍奉皇帝、后妃起居，與皇室接近，多為逢迎阿諛之徒。若是皇帝寵愛之人則能收受各種好處，在宮中聚斂自充囊橐。宦官組織龐大，計有十二監、四司、八局，共分二十四衙門，統領皇室事務。內官署十二監中以司禮監為最為尊貴，其他依次為內官、御用、司設、御馬等監。司禮監控制東廠、錦衣衛，為宦官的總管所，位於皇城內新房北。
按明制文華殿屬內府司禮監管轄，武英、仁智殿則由御用監管。《萬曆野獲編》〈仁智等殿官〉「若文武兩殿本自有別，文華為司禮監提調，與提督本殿大璫（宦官）相見，但用師生禮。武英殿中書官，先朝本不曾設，其在今日，則屬御用監管轄。一應本監刊刻書篆，并屏幛根桷，以及鞭扇、陳設、繪畫之事，悉以委之。」
明代宮廷裏管理內府書畫的主要機構為司禮監，此監每年成造上用筆墨、書籍、紙箋、畫軸、紙扇、糊飾宮殿屏風、窗格綾紗。每日奏文書自御筆親批數本外，皆由眾太監分批職掌。「凡頒賜文武官扇，從司禮監辦完送寫」、「凡寫誥敕，合用紙劄筆墨，具奏，於司禮監關支。」內官署宦官十二監之二─御用監武英殿西南一里處，為御用裏監，是專門負責帝王日用器物的部門。洪武年間此監乃供奉司，初建為行在作房，後改作御用司，宣德朝稱為御用監。明代內廷供奉畫家皆隸屬於此監管轄，其活動地點、內容亦由此監負責安排。
《明宮史》卷二載：「御用監掌印太監一員、裏外監把總二員、典簿、掌司寫字監工，無定員。凡御前所用圍屏、床榻諸木器，及紫壇、象牙、烏木、螺鈿諸玩器，皆造辦之。」此監主要負責承造皇帝使用的筆墨、書籍、紙箋、畫軸、紙扇，並供應內廷陳設之龍床、壁櫃、寶椅、書架、插屏、香几等御用物品。

《故宮學術季刊》第13卷第1期林莉娜壹、明代初期的宮廷繪畫活動元末至正年間朱元璋平定陳友諒、張士誠二敵，徐達北伐，攻下元朝京城大都（今北京），是年（一三六八），太祖始建元洪武，正式建立統一之大明帝國。洪武皇帝登基之後，百廢待舉，時當開創，天下百姓各守其業，以樸實節儉為準，禁奢侈華靡。建廟社，立宮室，典營繕者以宮室圖進，見雕琢奇麗則命去之。新內（金陵，今南京市）三殿、六宮完成，太祖令熊鼎類編古人行事可為鑑誡者，書於新殿廂壁；又命侍臣書《大學衍義》於廳堂走廊，並曰：「前代宮室，多施繪畫；予書此備朝夕觀覽，豈不踰於丹青乎？」
洪武之初由各地廣徵善畫之士入京，畫家除負責傳寫御容及功臣圖像外，也繪製古代孝行或開國創業偉大事蹟之壁畫。 當時長期供事於內府之畫士，有沈希遠、趙原、王仲玉、盛著、周位、陳遇、陳遠等人。其中少數幾位畫家因為皇帝寫真稱旨，而被授予官職，供奉於翰林；如中書舍人沈希遠，文淵閣待詔陳遠。
明初宮廷畫家受旨為皇帝作畫需先呈上畫稿，若遵旨投合皇帝之所好，必有重賞，否則就會受到干預，甚至遭殺身之 禍。明太祖好用峻法，約束勳貴官吏甚嚴，加上他猜疑心重，臣子動輒得咎，經常有因違背其旨意而被誅死籍沒者。清姜紹書撰《無聲詩史》記載：洪武中徵召畫史集中書，令趙原圖畫歷代先賢功臣像，應對不稱旨被賜死。又如盛著（其叔為元代名畫家盛懋）供事於內府，因裱褙技術高明受到洪武帝之勉勵；後奉命裝飾天界寺影壁，繪水母乘龍背，因題材不稱旨，而被處死。
明成祖朱棣即位後，因華北是其權力發源所在地，而南京的地勢不盡理想，故遷都北京，興建新宮殿就成為他登基後的首要工程。永樂皇帝命大臣宋禮、陳珪負責北京一切御用建築工程，並徵調天下諸色工匠和各地民丁軍衛參與。經過長期的建材準備與完善的營造計劃，於永樂十五年（一四一七）開始營建北京。建設宮殿、寺觀，需要大量負責裝飾佈置殿門、室內畫屏、窗櫺之藝匠，當時因皇室任命而被召入宮者，除善書者之外，尚有畫匠、裱工、木工、漆工等技藝之士。永樂十八年（一四二〇）十月二十八日，三殿工畢，正式定北京為帝國都城。

邊文進の作品邱濬（永樂十八年〈一四二〇〉~弘治八年〈一四九五〉）（『綜表』）の『瓊臺詩文會稿重編』卷二（天啓刊本）には「題林以善畫迭王琚」と題する七言排律があり、その中で邱濬は言う「近代翎毛、誰か最も工なる、邊家の父子獨歩を誇る、羊城の林氏晩く出ると雖も、筆勢飄飄として天趣有り（略）」。これは林良を稱賛した詩の一節であるが、近代──邱濬にとっての近代、おそらく明初──において最も翎毛の巧者として邊文進、邊楚芳が獨歩していたことを物語っている。
邊文進が永樂畫院に入ったことを暗示するただ一つの資料になり得る作品は臺北國立故宮博物院の 《三友百禽圖》軸である。「永樂癸巳（十一年〈一四一三〉）秋七月、隴西の邊景昭、三友百禽圖を長安官舍に寫す」の款記がそれを示している。しかしその樣な資料的價値のほか、作品その物は充分な出来栄えとはいいえない。畫面一杯に散らされた 禽鳥の描寫は一種のステレオタイプによっており、躍動感も生氣もなく、畫面に騷がしさのみを與えている。三友を足進成了死面的降物 形成する竹の描寫は鉤勒線も頼りなく、梅樹は表現をなしていない。北宋以来の傳統にしたがって外面的な形態のみを寫した物ということが出来る。 竹葉と松の葉には元代の傳統が看取されるものの、禽鳥と同じく生動の趣に乏しく、僅かに岩の描寫のみに浙派形成期の畫家の苦心が認められる。簡潔な皺法とオドオドした筆使いにそれは現われている。
橋本家の〈栢鷹圖〉の機知的畫面構成と描線の美しさ、寫生的要素と適度の装飾性の結合狀態は寧ろ三友百禽圖に 優るということが出来る。この事は作品成立の時期の問題であるかもしれない。三友百禽圖が比較的若年の制作であり、後者が宣德期になってからの作品という推測も成りたつであろう。〈鳩圖〉（泉屋博古館）についてもこの種の議論は成立つと思われる。そしてこの繪と傳李安忠筆鶉圖との構圖、筆法の近似點は注目しても良いのではないか。この圖には鶉圖ほどの沒骨使用法の卓抜さはないが。花樹──枸杞か？──の描法の近似、邊文進が求めた物が南宋であったのか、明の花鳥畫の一體に影響された物なのか分からないが、花樹の下と、左端には浙派らしい黒ぐろとした突起が有り、右端には沒骨の土坡が二個左方に突き出ている。この土坡は日本に現存する南宋畫という物に屢々見られるものであり、日本現存南宋畫の鑑識に重要な手がかりを與えてくれる。そして邊文進が求めた物が究極に於て南宋院體であったことをも知らせてくれる。邊文進と浙派の關係、或いは浙と閩との關係については邵經邦の『弘藝錄』卷十九の「明處士樸菴張公孺人劉氏合葬墓碣銘」に「浙と閩とは圻、相い屬き、物、相埒しく、山川、相比ぶ。故に人、恆に限りを為らず（略）」。このように浙江と幅建は地理的にも文化的にも或いは人間關係においても密接な ものがあった。従って浙江の繪畫は時間的に餘り餘裕を置かないで相互に傳播するのが普通であったと思われる。
藪本家の〈雙鶴圖〉は南宋花鳥畫の直模とも思われるが、土坡の描法には浙派と共通するもの──宣德期の──が見られるが、鶴は唐朝、北宋以来の形式に従っており寫生家──張寧（景泰五年の進士）が『方洲集』で言う寫生邊姓としての邊文進の實力の現われた作品と言うことが出来る。而も明代花鳥畫の特色である自然景觀のなかの花鳥を自然もろとも寫すことに彼の畫風の大きな特色を示すものでもある。
邊文進畫蹟を概觀すると、一般的に「武英殿待詔」の款記をもつ作品のほうが優れており、その點、日本に傳存する作品には畫家の身分、地位を示す肩書の見える物はない。隴西と言うのは邊文進の本貫をしめしたもので、大した意味を持つものとはいえない。彼は福建、沙縣の出身であり、後の閩習と呼ばれたような地方畫風を繼承していたと 思われる。
既述したように、『明實錄』の始めての畫家に就いての記述は邊文進が賄賂を受けて不適當な二人の人物を推薦したと言うものである。當然、罪せられるのを、七十餘という高齢であったため許されている。
邊文進の作品と言われるものは非常に多い。乾隆の『延平府志』によれば鄧文明、羅績、劉琦、盧朝陽等は工巧の處は景昭に似るといわれ、文進の子、楚芳、善のほか同邑の邊孟屯は山水人物を善くしたというが、これまた邊文進の一族であるかもしれない。邊文進の後世に残した影響は大きく、それが邊文進の偽物を横行させた主な原因でもあろう。『延平府志』はまた「婿の兪存勝が粉墨の法門を得て、遂に沙陽畫家の宗祖と為った」という。地方志、雜書、別集類を検索すれば膨大な福建畫家の傳歴を知ることが出来るが、その中のかなりの部分に邊文進の影響を讀取ることが出来る。尹臺（嘉靖十四年〈一五三五〉進士）の『洞麓堂集』（文淵閣四庫全書收）には邊文進の花鳥畫をうたった七古が有り、その中で邊畫に贋物の多いことを述べている。「（略）茲の幅　抹染　先後同じく、側に邊の名を記するも、筆縦異なる。論畫豈に必ずしも真贋を窮めんや、爾の為に墨を灑ぎ愁春工みなり。」
拙稿「明代畫院制について」（『美術史』第六〇號、昭和四十一年〈一九六六〉三月）において既に概説したが、今新たに加える物は多くはない。Vanderstappen君の前揭論文の批判から始めた拙稿は當然、明代頻出する中書舍人の問題から論じている。欽定『歴代職官表』（光緒二十二年廣雅書局校刊本影印）卷四、內閣下は梁清遠（順治の進士）の『雕邱雜錄』を引き、次のように言う、

鈴木敬，《中国繪畫史 下》，東京：吉川弘文館，1995
官の職業畫家に就いては「明初畫壇の一般的傾向」でふれ、明確に畫院畫家あるいは職業畫家の作品といわれるも のの存在に對しても否定的であることを記した。また恐らく日本及び中國の繪畫調査が進む過程で發見されることが 有るかもしれないと言う希望的考察をもしている。ことに日本の調査の進展は意外な結果を齎すかもしれない。
たとえば『明通鑑』卷十にはつぎのような記事が見える。「二月、丁酉、國子祭酒、文淵閣大學士宋訥卒す。宋訥嘗て病む、上、其の壽骨有りて、憂い無きを以て、己に畫工をして訥をせしめ、其の像を圖がしむるに、危坐、怒色有り。上、以て訥に問う、訥驚き對えて曰く「諸生の趨路者茶器を砕く者有り、臣、教を失せるを愧じ、故に自ら 訟う耳。陛下何によってか之をしれる。上、圖を出す、訥頓首して謝す」。洪武二十三年（一三九〇）二月丁酉は宮廷畫院の草創期であった。宮廷畫家の必要は有ったにせよ、未だ官制化されてはいなかったのではないか。永樂期の畫家達永樂期になると事情は大分違ってくる。款記の上でも文獻の點でも畫院の存在は明らかになっている。ただ後世のように畫家の身分がはっきりしていない部分が多少、存在する。「直仁智殿」とか「仁智殿待詔」といった後世普遍 化する職能も成立してはいない。花鳥畫の名手、邊文進は「官武英殿」で有ったし、翎毛を得意とした殷善の官は武官では有るものの錦衣衛の官ではなく「府軍衛千戶」（『英宗實錄』）であり、山水、人物、釋道を善くした上官伯達は「直仁智殿」であった（『福縣通史』卷六十一、技術）（文淵閣四庫全書收）。武英、仁知の雨殿と宮廷畫家の關係に就いては拙考「明の畫院制について」（『美術史』第六〇號所載）において少しく想像を交えて論じているが、本書に於ても項を改めて記したいと思う。永樂期を代表する畫家を擧げれば、邊文進、子供の邊楚芳、楚善。吳士英、夏昶（『妮古錄』）である。

Bian apparently chose the Song theme of depicting the eagle with its prey, yet the captured bird occupied a much less significant role than those in the Song works. At the same time, the enlarged eagle clearly possessed the same symbolic qualities of the eagles of the Yuan dynasty. The eyes of the eagle are no longer keenly focused on its prey, like those in the Song works but are looking triumphantly and calmly at the world below. The effective use of the few carefully selected landscape elements once more demonstrate Bian's unique decorative sense.Bian's innovative approach and his breakthrough from the past tradition seem best represented in some of his small scale sketches. In Li-xi tu (Chestnut and Magpie), Bian depicts a magpie on top of a chestnut stem. The bird, standing straight with its beak slightly open, appears to be chirping happily. It indeed evokes the Chinese image of xi-que (magpie), the bird that brings the good news, which in this case is the chestnut harvest. The work carries Bian's signature, which appears convincing when compared with those on his San-you bai-qin and Bo-ying tu. The magpie, drawn in Bian's typical fine brushwork, displays the same vitality as those in his 1413 work. Also comparable are the brush strokes for the husk of the chestnut and those for the pine needles of the 1413 work. Yet the unique design and the playful manner with which Bian portrayed the curled rims of the chestnut leaves, which are covered with occasional shading and wavy veins, indicate his awareness of his own role in transforming absorbed traditions into a personal style.Bian's effort to create new expressions from traditional themes and techniques is also shown in his Qiu-tang ji-ling (Wagtails in an Autumn Pond), a small album leaf in the Shanghai Museum depicting two wagtails playing in a lotus pond. The lotus and feed indicate the seasonal colours of autumn. According to Bian's own inscription, it was painted for his colleague Xin-zhong: as mentioned earlier, a pair of wagtails symbolize brotherly love, a theme frequently depicted by Bian for his friends. Here the wagtail on the right, turning around and looking at his companion, indeed shows a feeling of deep concern. Although the birds are still drawn in the meticulous manner of his early works, the lotus leaf on the lower right corner, its texture defined by the “nail-head” lines and transparent colour and ink washes, shows a playfulness in the rhythmic movement of the lines and dabs which is clearly an individual expression by Bian. Once more, we find his interest in portraying the broken leaves and the decorative placement of his motifs; yet the most outstanding aspect here is Bian's conscious play of the ink washes and the “boneless” technique as seen in the depiction of the lotus leaf, the lily pads and the reed. This aspect, which appeared only in his later works, is often ignored in discussions of Bian's style.Further evidence of Bian's fascination with the boneless technique and “ink play” is provided by Han-mei shui-que (Sleeping Bird on a Prunus Branch), a small album leaf in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The faded yet convincing signature of Bian on the upper left provides us with an important clue to the date of the work. Bian signed himself here as a Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao. As discussed earlier, this is the last official title Bian held, and it was very likely offered to him at the beginning of the Xuan-de era. Therefore the Cleveland album leaf can be placed at the very late stage of Bian's career and life. Unlike the album painting of wagtails, the boneless method is now no longer limited to land- scape elements. The small sparrow, resting on a bare branch of prunus tree, is painted completely in monochrome ink with the boneless technique. The simplicity of vision and the high quality of the ink washes may remind us of similar techniques used by Mu Xi. Yet, Bian's approach here is actually quite different from the spontaneous brushwork of Mu Xi. Bian's abbreviated style in the boneless method is achieved through long discipline in the traditions of Huang Quan, Zhao Chang and the others. By replacing colours with ink, Bian did not discard this discipline, rather, he carried it to a more intensive level. As with all Bian's masterpieces, one is drawn into the intimate world of the bird and invited to share its tranquil state on a wintry night. The subtle shades and smooth textures of the bird's features, the softness of its belly, were all achieved by various brush strokes and intricate ink washes without any outlines. The claws are represented only by a simple hook stroke, which yet convincingly provides the illusion of the tactile quality of the rest of its body. The prunus branch, painted in the same boneless method, shows freer and swifter movements of the brush. This small painting demonstrated that Bian had finally achieved his ultimate goal of not only forming a unique style of his own, but of offering new ways of portraying the flower-and-bird subject by mastering techniques and themes of past traditions and by transcending them through his own brush and ink. Considering what Bian had achieved, it is then easy to see how the following generations of painters of this subject, Lin Liang, Lu Ji, Yin Hong, Wang Qian and many others, followed his lead and continued to develop the various themes and approaches he first employed.Bian's historical significance lies in his success in bringing the revived Song flower-and-bird tradition from the Min-Zhe region to the early Ming court and developing it further into the new decorative trend. His career and his painting both reflected the unique political and artistic background of the transition of the late 14th century. As a major figure of the first generation of the Ming court painters, Bian's early service in the Wen-si-yuan, the patronage he received from the Grand Secretaries, and the termination of his career, provide us with further information of the status and activities of the early Ming court painters. Although Bian's career span preceded the formal establishment of the Ming Painting Academy, his accomplishment in flower-and-bird painting had the most enduring influence on Academician painters of this subject throughout the Ming era. Furthermore, the influence of Bian's decorative style had reached beyond China and extended to the Japanese flower-and-bird painters of the 16th century, as the flower-and-bird screens by Sesshu and many of the Kano school masters aptly demonstrate.

A third painting attributed to Bian that shares the same theme with the 1413 work is in the Cleveland Museum of Art. This work, also entitled San-you bai-qin, was painted on a wider hanging scroll. As in the Palace Museum work, the painting begins with a more concentrated left half and counterbalances it with the centralized rock and skilfully placed magpies. The plumage and plants are depicted in a similar manner as that of the Palace Museum work. However, on closer examination, the two paintings reveal quite different qualities in brushwork. Comparing the two, one finds that all the trees and rocks in the Palace Museum San-you are painted with tighter structures and steadier outlines than those in the Cleveland work. The spontaneous movement and descriptive values seen in the Palace Museum work have been reduced to schematic patterns, as seen in the textures of the rocks and tree trunks A sharper contrast is found in the way the birds are treated. While the birds in the Palace Museum work are full of lively expression and movement, the Cleveland birds appear heavy, awk- ward and somewhat lifeless. Furthermore, the colouring techniques of the two paintings are also different. The Palace Museum work uses soft tones applied in a subtle and varied manner, while the Cleveland work has richer tones and harsher application. In addition to these stylistic discrepancies is the unfamiliarity of the three seals of Bian on the Cleveland work, none of which are comparable to those on his established works. All this suggests that the Cleveland work was most likely painted by a follower of Bian.In connection with the same theme and style of Bian discussed above is the hanging scroll, Si-xi tu (Four Magpies) in the Palace Museum in Taipei. Although it has been attributed to Zhao Chang, this work reveals such strong stylistic features associated with Bian's style that it deserves consideration here. Both the theme and composition of Si-xi tu are similar to those of the Cleveland painting. As in the Cleveland work, the four magpies are the major birds, but the smaller birds are reduced greatly in number and species. Also, “the three friends of winter” in the Cleveland work are now replaced by plum blossoms, bamboo and camelia. A particularly striking similarity is found between the magpie at the bottom of Si-xi and that of the Cleveland scroll, but a closer inspection reveals that the similarity is limited to the formal structure and poses of the bird. The brushwork of detailed textures of the features and the overall expression of the bird are not the same. Bian's characteristics are also found in the smaller birds, which are especially comparable to those in his 1413 San-you and Mei-zhu shuang-he (Two Cranes with Bamboo and Plum Blossoms). The bamboo, plum blossoms and camelia can also be compared with those in Bian's Xue-mei shua-ng-he (Two Cranes with Snowy Prunus) and Mei-zhu shuang-he. Therefore this work is probably -painted by a follower of Bian.A group of Bian's extant works are devoted to the depiction of his favourite bird, the crane. The tradition of this theme can be traced to Huang Quan, who, in 944, painted the famous “Six Cranes” on the walls of the imperial palace of the Shu State. Even though none of the original works of Huang survive today, a replica of Emperor Hui-zong's copy of this work of Huang can still provide us with some idea of this tradition. Bian's Zhu-he shuang-qing, a collaborative work with Wang Fu, which can be dated to the two years of 1414 and 1415, is the earliest datable work on this subject. The two cranes depicted here by Bian indicate clearly a close relationship with Huang's prototype both their poses and style of painting. Yet Bian's ingenuity and his further development of this theme is better seen. in four other works of this subject: Mei-zhu shuang-he, Xue-mei shuang-he, Shuang-he tu (Two Cranes) and Zhu-he tu (Cranes and Bamboo). In all four paintings, one finds the enlarged cranes to be the principal forms against a minimum background of bamboo or plum blossoms. This device of arbitrarily enlarging and focusing on a certain theme and reducing the landscape elements to a framing background is typical of the early Ming, as often seen in Wang Fu's ink bamboo handscrolls, where the exaggerated ink bamboo was placed in a changing riverbank setting. Also marking Bian's further departure from the earlier tradition of this theme, is his stronger interest in creating the decorative effect produced by the complementary poses, as well as the contrasting colours and textures of the birds' features. Among the four paintings of cranes, Xue-mei shuang-he is the only one that Bian signed himself as a dai-zhao (painter-in-attendance). Although it is still not clear whether this title refers to the Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao or Jin-shen-dian dai- zhao, it is possible to place the work in the later stage of Bian's career, since both these dai-zhao titles were offered to him at that time. Judging from the common characteristics shared by Xue-mei shuang-he and Mei-zhu shuang-he, both were probably painted around the same time. The bold and further simplified designs found in Zhu-he tu and Shuang-he tu jam demonstrate how Bian had finally succeeded in for- ming a new decorative style of his own with this theme.What Bian achieved in his crane paintings can be also seen in the late works of his other subjects. One that best represents Bian's mature style is his Bo-ying tu (Eagle on an Oak Tree). This work in the Hashimoto collection is a large hanging scroll painted with both colour and ink on silk. A fierce-looking eagle, perched on an oak branch, dominates. the upper half of the painting. The solid forms of the large bird are carefully balanced by the two layers of rocks on the lower right, a lower branch of the oak and some bamboo leaves on the right. Half hidden behind the bottom rock lies a dead pheasant.The depiction of an eagle with its prey is a typical theme in the Song dynasty, as seen in the hanging scroll, Hawk Stalking a Pheasant by Zhao Zi-hou. Yet in spite of the common motifs, a great deal has changed in the depiction of this theme, as is shown in Bian's work. In the Song paintings, interest focuses on the eagle's natural habitat and activity. Although, the landscape in Zhao's work is presented in a frontal view, that the hawk's attention is on the pheasant below is portrayed here by the tense twisting of the former's neck and its keen vision toward its victim. This relationship is further enhanced by the S-curved tree trunk, creating a constant movement between the two. In Bian's work however, the greatly enlarged eagle, framed by cut branches of the oak and bamboo leaves, becomes the main focus. The composition is further compressed so that all motifs appear as stacked surface patterns. Although there is still the suggested relationship between the eagle and the pheasant below, the emphasis is no longer on the tension between the two, but on the eagle as the symbol of strength and courage. This stress on the symbolic significance of the eagle theme is clearly related to the new developments in flower-and-bird painting of the Yuan era. For instance, on Wang Yuan's Ying-zhu hua-mei (A Hawk Chasing a Thrush), the inscriptions written by four 14th century scholars all referred to the eagle as a hu-ying or a barbarian bird and the thrush as the jun-qin or the talented bird, which was smart enough to escape the attack. The implied message here that wise Chinese scholars should be cautious and avoid serving the Mongolian government was especially explicit in the second inscription by Du Yun-cheng. It is interesting to note that this image of the eagle as a vicious bird of prey is easily reversed in other eagle paintings of the same period. In Zhang Shun-zi's Wu-zhu cang-ying (Eagle with Fermiana and Bamboo), he portrayed an eagle perched on the tallest branch of a fermiana tree. There is no longer any depiction of the tense moment of an eagle chasing its prey, instead, the bird appears to be enjoying the solitude and peace which surround him. The reduced size of the eagle, the setting of the symbolic plants of bamboo and fermiana tree, all lay stress on the bird's lofty and untrammelled spirit, the same spirit that was often attributed to an ideal Yuan scholar. Zhang's poem inscription evokes the same image of a lofty eagle, that despises the regular eagles (fan-ying), that had only appetite for the flesh of their prey. Related to Zhang's work is an anonymous eagle painting in the Palace Museum in Taipei. It has been considered a Song work. Yet both the style of painting and the five early Ming inscriptions indicate that it is more likely a 14th century work. Here, a large eagle is perched on a cypress branch. Although its prey is not visible, all the inscriptions refer to the eagle as a courageous guard against sly foxes or tricky rabbits. In one poem, the eagle was compared to a righteous Yu-shi (Censor), whose duty was to maintain disciplinary surveillance over corrupt officials. The Cypress, with an overhanging branch above the eagle and a forked one on which the bird perches, resembles the similar structure of the juniper in Ying-kuai tu (An Eagle on a Juniper Tree), a collaborative work by Zhang Shun- zi and Xue-jie. Yet the enlarged eagle and the decorative arrangement of the cypress branches reveal the characteristic features of the 14th century.

Bian's painting had also won the approval of many scholar officials in court, including Yang Rong, Zhang Ning, Lin Huan, and Xie Jin. This reflects the unique political background of the Yong-le era, when the Grand Secretaries gained political power and acted as artistic patrons in court. Under such patronage, Bian produced a collaborative work with the scholar painter, Wang Fu, who served as a Zhong-shu she-ren (Secretariat Drafter) and was also under the supervision of Huang. Unfortunately, the patronage of Huang and other scholar officials for the Yong-le court painters did not last long. They were soon replaced by the eunuchs at the end of the Yong-le era. Huang Huai suffered a severe blow to his career in 1413, when he was charged with misconduct and jailed for ten years. In 1414, one year after Huang left the court, Guo Chun, the first court painter recommended by Huang was transferred to the eunuch controlled Yu-yong-jian (Directorate (Directorate for Imperial for Imperial Accoutre- ments). This changed dramatically the court painters' status. Bian must have also been affected by the change. In fact, it may not be coincidental that Bian's career ended in 1427, when the eunuchs gained total control of the court painters. The disgraceful ending of Bian's career may also have contributed to the lack of information about Bian's biography and the underestimation of his painting.Although mainly known as a flower-and-bird painter, Bian also painted horses, cats, architecture and landscape; as the first, Bian was considered the last great painter in the Song flower-and-bird tradition. Indeed, compared with the Yuan masters of this subject, Bian superseded them in the technical disciplines of a wide variety of specialized subjects and thus linked his style closer to the Song or earlier traditions, so it is not surprising that many of Bian's works were often intentionally or mistakenly attributed to Song masters. In general, Bian's success lies in his ability to combine the revived Song tradition of flower-and-bird with the late Yuan trend of the Min-Zhe region and thus enormously extend the pictorial scope of this subject. At the same time, Bian continued to develop increasingly complex and decorative representational techniques. His achievement was carried on by the following generations of flower-and-bird painters at court: Lin Liang, Lu Ji and Yin Hong Although each pursued a different aspect of Bian's styles, they reflected the same decorative trend he initiated.One of Bian's favourite themes is various birds against the background of the “three friends of winter” (Pine, Bamboo and Plum blossom). This apparently relates to the Yuan tradition which favours depiction of such themes, as seen in many works by Wang Yuan (ca. 1280-1349). Yet Bian's themes often carried even richer symbolic or moral meanings when the symbolic plants were combined with symbolic birds, such as cranes, eagles, wagtails and magpies. While magpies as auspicious signs and cranes as the symbol of immortality were long established themes in the past, paintings of wagtails symbolizing brotherly love between friends, or eagles symbolizing the courage of a military official or censor were themes made more popular by Bian, since he frequently depicted such themes and presented them to his friends with such specific references.Bian's earliest dated extant work is San-you bai gin (The “Three Friends” and a Hundred Birds) in the National Palace Museum, Taipei. According to Bian's inscription, it was painted in 1413 at Chang-an guan-she (the official residence of Chang-an), which the writer believes was located in Beijing. The painting shows ninety birds surrounded by the “three friends of winter”. Here, Bian placed the “three friends” on the left side and then balanced the composition by arranging the larger and darker birds on the right. The numerous birds, with great varieties of species and poses, are skilfully arranged so that they do not appear crowded. Each bird was vividly depicted with painstakingly fine brush strokes and subtle shades of colour washes. The technique demonstrates Bian's discipline in the tradition of Huang Quan. All landscape elements are painted in a sketchy and linear manner. While the bamboo and plum blossoms can be traced to the Yuan tradition of Zhao Meng-fu and Wang Yuan, the axe-cut texture strokes indicate influences of the Southern Song tradition. Both traditions had a strong hold in the Min-Zhe region in the 14th century. The successful integration of the Song and Yuan traditions and the calculated placement of the forms in a decorative manner formed the typical style of Bian.Another painting on the same theme as San-you bai-qin is Bai-xi-tu (Hundreds of Birds), which belongs to the same museum collection. The inscription attributed to Bian dated 1427. The composition is only a variant of the 1413 painting, but compared with San-you of 1413, both the painting and the inscription are in inferior quality. Bai-xi showed the tendency to compress further the various motifs into surface patterns. Furthermore, the lively individual expressions of the different birds, seen in the 1413 work, are lost here. The lack of vigour and variation in brushwork indicates that it is probably a later copy.

« Oriental Art » Vol. 38 no. 3, 1992 FallBIAN WEN-JIN AND HIS FLOWER AND BIRD PAINTINGHou-mei SungFlower-and-bird painting was of great importance in the Ming dynasty. Renewed interest in this subject in the early Ming period had set many new trends for the following decades. Bian Wen-jin was the first great master of this art and his discipline in the traditions of Huang Quan and the Song masters and his success in combining these traditions with the late Yuan dynasty Min-Zhe (Fujian and Zhejiang) regional style, had set a new trend in the Ming court. Furthermore, as a member of the first generation of Ming court painters, Bian was a crucial figure for our understanding of the status of the early Ming court painters and their organization. Thus, this paper will focus on Bian Wen-jin and his painting activities from the Yong-le (1403-1424), to the Xuan-de (1426-1434) era.
As with most early Ming painters, little is known of Bian's biography. Bian Wen-jin (zi: jing-zhao) was a painter of Sha-xian, Fujian. Yet his family must have come from Long-xi, Gansu, because Bian often signed his works as a native of Long-xi. He was also remembered as a man with a good education who could write poems. There is a good deal of uncertainty surrounding his dates and titles when he served in the court. Most of his biographical sources, including Ming-hua-lu. Wu-sheng-shi-shi, Min-shu, and Yan-ping fu-zhit recorded that Bian entered the court in the Xuan-de reign and received the title of Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao. Yet through evidence provided by other sources and some surviving paintings, it is clear that Bian first served in the court in the early Yong-le era. This is documented by the recorded San-you-xue-he tu (The "Three Friends" and Cranes), painted in 1410 (the eighth year of Yong-le). Bian inscribed on this painting that it was painted in the official residence of Jin-ling (Nanjing). Two extant works are also datable to the Yong-le era, when Bian was attending the imperial trip to Beijing. They are: San-you-Bai-qin (The "Three Friends" and a Hundred Birds) of 1413 and Zhu-he-shuang-qing (Bamboo and Cranes), a collaborative work with Wang Fu (1362-1416), which can be considered as painted between 1414 and 1415, based on Wang Fu's dates and biography.
In fact, Bian's career as a court painter ended in the first year of the Xuan-de era. According to Xuan-de shih-lu (The Veritable Records of the Xuan- de Reign), at the end of the first year of this era (January 1427), Bian was stripped of his official title, Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao and made a commoner for having accepted bribes in recommending two of his friends to the court. The title, Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao, was recorded in most of Bian's biographies. Yet none of them mentioned Bian's status in the early stage of his career. The first indication that Bian had a different earlier title was found by the writer in Sha-xian-zhi of the Dao-guang era (1821-1850). According to this late Qing dynasty. gazetteer, Bian was summoned to the court in the Xuan-de era to serve in the Wen-si-yuan (Crafts Institute) and received the title of Jin-shen-dian dai-zhao. This information obviously contains some error, because, as mentioned earlier, Bian was confirmed as serving as Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao in the early Xuan-de era until he was stripped of this title on 10th January 1427. Fortunately, the puzzling problem was solved with the discovery of some new information found by the writer in an earlier version of the same gazetteer, Sha-xian-zhi of the Jia-jing era (1522-1566). According to this Ming dynasty gazet- teer, Bian first entered the court in the Yong-le era and was offered a position in the Wen-si-yuan. The title, Jin-shen-dian dai-zhao was not mentioned in the Ming version of Sha-xian-zhi, and therefore could be a title offered to Bian either at the same time of the Wen-si-yuan assignment or later in the Hong-xi era (1424-1425). Yet judging from the fact the Guo Chun, the first court painter recruited in the Yong-le era, was not given an official title as Xi-hua dai-zhao until 1424, the beginning of the Hong-xi reign, it is more likely that Bian also received his Jin-shen-dian dai-zhao around the same time. In this case, Bian's last title, Wu-ying-dian dai-zhao, would be a title offered to him at the beginning of the Xuan-de era. Information concerning Bian's career as a court painter is extremely significant, because it provides crucial information concerning the early organization and status of the Ming court painters before the Painting Academy was officially formed.Bian's dates can be estimated as approximately between 1356 and 1428. This is based on the fact that Bian was over seventy when he was left the court in 1427. An extant painting in Japan, An-le deng-feng (Peace and Prosperity), dated 1428, provides us with the latest date known of Bian's activities. During Bian's service in the Yong-le court, his talent and skill were fully recognized. In fact, Bian's depiction of plumage, together with the human figures of Jiang Zi-cheng and the tigers of Zhao Lian, were known as the three wonders of the Yong-le court. Bian owed his success partly to the support of the Grand Secretary, Huang Huai. Most of the Yong-le court painters were recruited by Huang Huai, who was ordered by the emperor to supervise the establishment of the Ming Painting Academy in the early Yong-le era. Two of Bian's contemporaries, Xie Huan and Guo Chun, both court painters from Huang's home town of Yong-jia, entered the court through the Grand Secretary's recommendation. Bian's close association with Huang was also reflected in the farewell poem Huang wrote for Bian on his retirement. Although the Painting Academy was postponed because of the emperor's campaign. to the North, the painters recruited by Huang stayed and played an important role in the formation of the Painting Academy.