权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Furniture in the Dock: The Shrager-Dighton Trial of 1923.

被告席上的家具：1923 年的施雷格-戴顿审判。

基本信息

批准号：
AH/H004548/1
负责人：
Abigail Harrison Moore
金额：
$ 3.51万
依托单位：
University of Leeds
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2009
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2009 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FH004548%2F1
关键词：
Furniture Dock Shrager Dighton Trial

项目摘要

This application seeks to secure research leave in order to complete a monograph on a piece of research that I have been working on since early 2007. This research focuses on a 1044 page manuscript produced after the 1923 Shrager-Dighton trial which is currently on long-loan to David Beevers at Brighton Museum and Art Gallery. There was only ever one copy of the trial manuscript produced, on the orders of Percy Macquoid after the trial was complete and no significant work has ever been completed on it to either map its contents or explore its significance for furniture history and for the development of the market in furniture in the early twentieth century.In 1922, Adolphe Shrager, having made significant sums of money during the First World War, decided to furnish a house he had bought in Westgate on Sea. Not being an expert on furniture himself, he was directed to the London dealer Basil Dighton, who sold him about five hundred items. On obtaining a valuation of one of these pieces shortly afterwards, Shrager was horrified to find that, having been purchased as an antique, it was judged of recent construction. On consultation, Herbert Cescinsky, a furniture maker and the author of a number of key texts on furniture history, endorsed this view, declaring the objects as both fake and grossly over-priced, leading to a writ being issued against Dighton and his company, citing the furniture as 'altered and made up and spurious'. The trial, heard at the Official Referee's Court in January and February 1923, and the subsequent appeal in July, has become a cause celebre in furniture history, featuring, on one side, Shrager and Cescinsky and on the other, Dighton and his expert, Percy Macquoid. Macquoid and Cescinsky were two of the founding fathers of the discipline of furniture history, which was beginning to blossom in the early twentieth century from its roots in the pattern books of the late eighteenth century. The case demands that we ask questions about the writing of furniture history and its links to the sale rooms, where objects provided with provenance by the history books began to fetch huge prices in the auction house in the 1920s. The fact that Shrager lost both the first trial and the appeal, despite demonstrating on numerous occasions that he had a clear case against Dighton also raises questions about issues of race and class, where the establishment, in the form of the English gentleman dealer of 'seemingly impeccable social credentials', backed up by the Marlborough educated, well-married Macquoid, closed ranks against Shrager, a Jew, presented by the opposition as a war profiteer, supported by Cescinsky, the journeyman cabinet maker.

这份申请旨在获得研究假，以完成我自2007年初以来一直从事的一项研究的专著。这项研究的重点是1044页的手稿后，1923年Shrager-Dighton审判，目前长期贷款给大卫Beevers在布莱顿博物馆和艺术画廊。在审判结束后，珀西·麦奎德（Percy Macquoid）下令只制作了一份审判手稿，但没有完成任何重要的工作，无论是绘制其内容还是探索其对家具历史的意义，以及对世纪早期家具市场的发展。1922年，阿道夫·施拉格（Adolphe Shrager）在第一次世界大战期间赚了一大笔钱，他决定给他在海边的韦斯特盖特买的一所房子装家具。他自己并不是家具专家，他被指引到伦敦经销商巴兹尔·迪顿那里，他卖给了他大约500件物品。不久之后，在对其中一件作品进行估价时，Shrager惊恐地发现，作为古董购买，它被认为是最近建造的。经过咨询，家具制造商、多部关于家具历史的重要著作的作者赫伯特·切辛斯基（Herbert Cescinsky）赞同这一观点，宣称这些物品都是假的，而且价格过高，导致针对Dighton和他的公司发出了一份令状，称这些家具是“修改、编造和伪造的”。1923年1月和2月在官方裁判法院审理的审判，以及随后在7月的上诉，已经成为家具史上的一个名人，一方是Shrager和Cescinsky，另一方是Dighton和他的专家珀西Macquoid。麦奎德和切辛斯基是家具史学科的两位创始人，家具史学科从18世纪晚期的图案书中开始，在20世纪早期开始开花。这个案子要求我们对家具历史的书写及其与销售室的联系提出问题，在20世纪20年代，历史书提供的物品在拍卖行开始卖出高价。施拉格在一审和上诉中都败诉了，尽管他在许多场合证明他对Dighton有明确的指控，但这一事实也引发了关于种族和阶级问题的问题，在那里，以英国绅士商人的形式，“看似无可挑剔的社会凭证”，由马尔伯勒受过教育，已婚的Macquoid支持，对犹太人施拉格关闭了队伍，被反对派称为战争奸商，由熟练的内阁制造者Cescinsky支持。