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

这份申请寻求获得研究假，以便完成一篇关于我自2007年初以来一直从事的研究的专著。这项研究的重点是1923年Shrager-Dighton审判后产生的一份1044页的手稿，目前长期借给布莱顿博物馆和美术馆的大卫·比弗斯。审判完成后，在珀西·麦奎德的命令下，只制作了一份审判手稿，但从未完成过任何重大工作，以绘制其内容图，或探索其对家具历史和20世纪初家具市场发展的意义。1922年，阿道夫·施拉格在第一次世界大战期间赚了一大笔钱，决定装修他在海上韦斯特盖特买的一所房子。他本人并不是家具专家，于是他被介绍给了伦敦经销商巴兹尔·戴顿，后者卖给了他大约500件家具。不久之后，当获得其中一件艺术品的估价时，施拉格震惊地发现，它是作为古董购买的，却被认为是最近建造的。在咨询后，家具制造商赫伯特·切辛斯基(Herbert Cescinsky)支持这一观点，他声称这些家具既是假的，也是严重高价的，导致针对德顿和他的公司的逮捕令被签发，理由是这些家具“被篡改、捏造和伪造”。切辛斯基是一位家具制造商，也是许多家具历史关键文本的作者。这场审判于1923年1月和2月在官方裁判法院开庭审理，随后于7月提起上诉，成为家具史上的名人，一方是施拉格和切辛斯基，另一方是德顿和他的专家珀西·麦奎德。麦奎德和切辛斯基是家具史学科的两位奠基人，这门学科在20世纪初开始蓬勃发展，起源于18世纪末的纸样书籍。该案要求我们就家具历史的书写及其与拍卖室的联系提出问题，20世纪20年代，历史书上提供的出处物品在拍卖行开始卖出高价。施拉格在初审和上诉中都败诉了，尽管他在许多场合证明了自己对德顿有明确的理由，这一事实也引发了种族和阶级问题，在马尔伯勒受过教育、婚姻状况良好的麦奎德的支持下，以英国绅士商人的形式，在马尔伯勒受过教育、已婚的麦奎德的支持下，施拉格团结起来反对犹太人施拉格，后者被反对派描述为战争奸商，得到了熟练的内阁制造商切辛斯基的支持。

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.