# Admonitions of the Instructress to the Court Ladies
> Attributed to Gu Kaizhi - 5th-8th century AD (probably Tang dynasty, 7th-8th century); composition traditionally ascribed to Gu Kaizhi, c. 344-406
> Canonical HTML: https://iconotheca.com/artworks/gu-kaizhi/admonitions-scroll-british-museum/
> Published by Servola Systems GmbH. Last verified: 2026-09-25
## Tombstone
- **Artist:** Attributed to Gu Kaizhi
- **Date:** 5th-8th century AD (probably Tang dynasty, 7th-8th century); composition traditionally ascribed to Gu Kaizhi, c. 344-406
- **Medium:** Handscroll; ink and colour on silk, cut and mounted on panels with paper backing
- **Dimensions:** Height 24.37 cm; length 343.75 cm (whole mount); painting section approximately 25 cm high
- **Object type:** Painting
- **Period:** Chinese, Six Dynasties to Tang (traditional attribution: Eastern Jin)
- **Current location:** British Museum, London, Room 91a
- **Attribution:** disputed
## Summary
A painted silk handscroll illustrating a 3rd-century Confucian text of moral instruction for palace women, traditionally ascribed to the 4th-century master Gu Kaizhi but almost certainly a Tang-dynasty copy of a lost original. It left the Qing imperial collection in 1900, during the international occupation of Beijing that followed the Boxer Rebellion, in the possession of a British Indian Army officer who sold it to the British Museum in 1903 for 25 pounds.Conservators then cut the silk into flat panels and remounted it in a Japanese album format, a decision now treated by British Museum conservators themselves, working with Chinese specialists in a five-year study completed in 2014, as a documented conservation error. The object is displayed six weeks a year and kept in total darkness the rest of the time. It sits at the centre of China's ongoing case for the return of art removed from the country during the century of foreign military intervention, a case the British Museum's director has publicly declined to act on.
## Provenance
Every link carries a grade. `documented` means a cited source supports it, `disputed` means the identification is argued but not established, `unknown` means we have no owner for that span and have not bridged it.
- **c. 5th-8th century-1075 or earlier** Unrecorded `[unknown]` (creation and early transmission)
No owner or location is documented for the painting between its execution and its first securely datable mention. The date of the physical object is itself contested: the British Museum catalogues it to the 5th-7th century; Shane McCausland describes it as a Tang tracing copy; Kohara Hironobu has argued the accompanying calligraphy was not added until after 1075, in a deliberately archaised Tang-style hand, which would place at least the text later than the painting; Wen Fong instead reads the calligraphy as consistent with the style of the monk Zhiyong, active in the late 6th and early 7th century. See the attribution scholarship in the narrative for the full range of positions and the named scholars who hold them.
- **by 1103-1127** Liu Youfang (Northern Song court eunuch), then imperial collection of Emperor Huizong of Song `[documented]` (first documented sighting; imperial acquisition)
The painter-connoisseur Mi Fu records the scroll in the possession of the eunuch Liu Youfang in his Hua shi (History of Painting), c. 1103. By 1120 it is catalogued as a work of Gu Kaizhi in the Xuanhe huapu, the painting catalogue of Emperor Huizong's imperial collection, meaning it had entered the Song court by that date.
- **1127-12th century** Uncertain: Jin-dynasty court or Southern Song territory `[unknown]` (gap following the fall of Kaifeng)
Kaifeng fell to the Jurchen Jin in 1127 and Huizong's collection was dispersed. Whether the scroll passed into Jin court hands or remained in Song territory is not established; one end section carries seals associated with the Jin Emperor Zhangzong (r. 1189-1208), but scholars note these may have been added later, from a different source, rather than proving Jin custody at the time.
- **16th century-1590** Wang Ao; Yan Song; the Ming court (after Yan Song's 1562 disgrace); Gu Congyi; Xiang Yuanbian `[documented]` (Ming-dynasty ownership chain)
Recorded successively with the official Wang Ao (1450-1524), the disgraced minister Yan Song (1481-1568) whose confiscated property (including, it is inferred, this scroll) reverted to the Ming court in 1562, the official Gu Congyi (noted in possession by the 1560s), and finally the great Ming collector Xiang Yuanbian (1525-1590), who added roughly 50 of his own seals and a colophon, among the most extensive documented interventions any owner made on the object before Qianlong.
- **1590-early 18th century** Unrecorded `[unknown]` (gap after Xiang Yuanbian)
No owner is documented between Xiang Yuanbian's death in 1590 and the scroll's later appearance in the collection of the Tianjin salt merchant An Qi.
- **early 18th century-1746** The merchant An Qi (1683-c. 1746) `[documented]` (re-emergence in a merchant collection, acquired by the Qianlong Emperor)
No owner is documented between Xiang Yuanbian's death in 1590 and the scroll's appearance in the collection of the Tianjin salt merchant An Qi, from whom the Qianlong Emperor acquired it.
- **1746-1900** Qianlong Emperor and the Qing imperial collection `[documented]` (imperial remounting and long custody)
Qianlong remounted the scroll in 1746, added a title inscription, an orchid painting, a long colophon and, over his 60-year reign, 37 personal seal impressions; he also commissioned the court painter Zou Yigui to add a closing painting. He kept it among the 'Four Beauties' in his private Pavilion of Tranquil Ease. It remained in the Qing imperial collection, latterly stored at the Summer Palace (Yuanmingyuan/Yiheyuan complex west of Beijing) under Empress Dowager Cixi, until 1900.
- **1900** Removed by Captain Clarence A. K. Johnson, 1st Bengal Lancers `[documented]` (removal during the international occupation of Beijing)
Beijing was occupied from mid-August 1900 by the Eight-Nation Alliance force suppressing the Boxer Rebellion; the Summer Palace was burned and looted by allied troops between mid-August and October 1900. Captain Clarence Arnold Keatinge Johnson (1870-1937), an officer of British Indian cavalry stationed in the area, acquired the scroll in this period. His family later claimed he received it as a reward for escorting a Chinese noblewoman and her household to safety; this claim is undocumented and unverifiable, and the scroll's removal cannot be separated from the wider, officially tolerated looting of the palace by occupying forces of eight nations, Britain among them.
- **1900-1903** Captain Clarence A. K. Johnson, private possession in Britain `[documented]` (transport to London and appraisal)
Johnson returned to London and in 1902 brought the scroll to the British Museum seeking an appraisal of the jade toggle fitted to it, apparently unaware of the painting's significance. Sidney Colvin, Keeper of Prints and Drawings, and his assistant Laurence Binyon recognised the work's importance.
- **1903-present** British Museum, London `[documented]` (purchase)
The British Museum purchased the scroll from Johnson in 1903 for 25 pounds sterling, a sum this record's editor could not find superseded or corrected in any museum or scholarly source consulted; it is treated below as confirmed rather than merely commonly cited. Colvin's contemporary condition note recorded the silk as 'much worn and rotted, and bears many traces of ancient repair,' damage compounded, according to later British Museum conservation research, by rough handling in transit.
## Exhibitions
- Redisplay following five-year conservation and rehousing project, British Museum, London, Room 91a, 2014
## Open questions
- How, precisely, did Captain Johnson acquire the scroll in 1900? The family account of a reward for escorting a noblewoman to safety is undocumented and cannot be verified against any independent record.
- Where was the scroll, and in whose hands, between Xiang Yuanbian's death in 1590 and its appearance in the merchant An Qi's collection in the 18th century? No owner is documented for roughly a century and a half.
- Are the seals associated with Jin Emperor Zhangzong on the scroll evidence that it passed through Jin imperial hands after 1127, or were they added later from a different source? Scholars are divided and this record found no resolution in the literature consulted.
- When was the accompanying calligraphy actually written relative to the painting: is it contemporary with the images, as Wen Fong's comparison to the calligrapher Zhiyong implies, or added after 1075 in a deliberately archaised hand, as Kohara Hironobu argues? The dating of the object as a whole turns partly on this unresolved question.
- Were the scroll's first three scenes, missing from the British Museum object, already lost by the time the 12th-century Palace Museum paper copy was made, or were they lost later? The completeness of that copy's opening scenes is itself disputed as faithful transmission versus reconstruction.
- Has the British Museum made any statement addressing the Admonitions Scroll specifically in response to China's 2023 restitution demands, as distinct from its general public statements on restitution policy covering the collection as a whole? None was located in the sources consulted for this record.
- What became of the other three of Qianlong's 'Four Beauties' group, and did any of them leave China by the same route in 1900? This record did not attempt to trace them and flags the question as unresolved.
## Sources
- [1] 100 Histories of 100 Worlds in One Object, 'The Traumatic Past of the Admonitions of the Instructress to the Court Ladies' (by Si Xiao), covering the 1900 removal, Johnson's acquisition, the 1903 sale price and Colvin's condition note, and the 1910s Japanese-technique remounting.
- [2] British Museum, collection object record for 1903,0408,0.1 (Admonitions Scroll), giving the museum's own dimensions, dating, acquisition note on Captain C. Johnson, and inscription details.
- [3] Wikipedia, 'Admonitions Scroll,' consolidating the imperial collection history, the Boxer Rebellion removal, the 1903 purchase, the 1914-1915 remounting, and the Southern Song Palace Museum copy. Flagged for replacement with McCausland's edited scholarly volume and the British Museum's own published catalogue where a claim needs primary confirmation.
- [4] Search-derived summary of Chen Pao-chen, 'The Admonitions Scroll in the British Museum: New Light on the Text-Image Relationships, Painting Style and Dating Problem,' in Shane McCausland (ed.), Gu Kaizhi and the Admonitions Scroll (British Museum Press, 2003), for the case that the painting carries genuine early pictorial content; and of Yang Xin's Northern Wei commission theory. The full essay was not directly accessible during this research pass and should be read in the original before further reliance.
- [5] Search-derived summary of Shane McCausland's Tang-copy attribution, Kohara Hironobu's post-1075 calligraphy dating argument and Wen Fong's Zhiyong comparison, and the Southern Song/Ming provenance chain (Mi Fu, Huizong's Xuanhe huapu, Wang Ao, Yan Song, Gu Congyi, Xiang Yuanbian, An Qi). Drawn from secondary aggregation of the scholarship rather than direct access to McCausland's edited volume or Kohara's and Fong's original essays; flagged for verification against the primary publications before further reliance.
- [6] Institute of Conservation (Icon), 'The Art of Preventive Conservation: Ensuring the Longevity of the Admonitions Scroll,' on the 2013 expert meeting, the 2014 redisplay case, passive humidity buffering, Oddy testing and the light-exposure regime.
- [7] British Museum, collection object record for 1913,0708,0.1 (woodblock facsimile of the Admonitions Scroll), giving the makers Sugizaki Hideaki and Urushibara Mokuchu, Laurence Binyon's text, the 1911 commission, the 1912-1913 production, edition size and price, and named recipients.
- [8] British Museum, 'Admonitions of the instructress to the court ladies' exhibition/display page, for the current (2026) six-week display schedule (13 July - 24 August) and the conservation rationale for the light-exposure regime.
- [9] Wikipedia, 'Gu Kaizhi,' for biographical dates, career, the Huan Xuan anecdote, the three theoretical texts, the attributed corpus (Nymph of the Luo River, Wise and Benevolent Women) and their own copy histories. Tertiary source; flagged for replacement with Zhang Yanyuan's Lidai Minghua Ji in a scholarly edition/translation (e.g. Bush and Shih, Early Chinese Texts on Painting) and with McCausland's published scholarship.
- [10] Search-derived summary on the Waguan Temple Vimalakirti mural (c. 363-365) and Zhang Yanyuan's Lidai Minghua Ji (9th century) as the primary source preserving Gu Kaizhi's painting theory and the eyes/spirit anecdote. Tertiary aggregation; flagged for replacement with a direct scholarly translation of Zhang Yanyuan.
- [11] Museums Association, 'BM director rules out restitution as he outlines plans to foster collaboration' (May 2025), for Director Nicholas Cullinan's public position on deaccessioning, loans versus permanent return, and the parliamentary constraint on the museum's governing statute.
- [12] Artnet News, 'China Joins a Growing Number of Nations Demanding the British Museum Restitute Artifacts From Its Collection in the Wake of Widespread Thefts' (2023), for the August 2023 Global Times editorial demand, the context of the British Museum theft scandal, and the cited UNESCO figure of roughly 23,000 Chinese objects in the collection.
- [13] China Daily, coverage of conservator Qiu Jinxian, the British Museum's first Chinese-trained senior conservator of East Asian painting (in post since 1988), her 2013-2014 work on the Admonitions Scroll, and her assessment that the 1910s Japanese remounting technique was not suited to a Chinese silk painting of this date.
- [14] UK inflation calculator (in2013dollars.com / ONS composite consumer price index), used to derive the approximate 2026 equivalent value of 25 pounds sterling in 1903 (approximately 3,900-4,000 pounds), cited for context on what the British Museum's purchase price meant at the time. A modern equivalent figure, not a claim about market value.
---
Images on this record are public domain or CC0 and are hosted by us. No image on this site is generated or simulated. If you quote this record, quote the provenance grades with it.