Urban Claims and the Right to the City: Grassroots Perspectives from Salvador Da Bahia and London

IF 0.2 3区 历史学 Q4 AREA STUDIES
T. Temple
{"title":"Urban Claims and the Right to the City: Grassroots Perspectives from Salvador Da Bahia and London","authors":"T. Temple","doi":"10.1080/03058034.2021.1880126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"project, and in paying the workers we get the names of thousands of men and a few women who worked on the building as artisans, suppliers, and artists. Taken together the materials and labour open up the economics of such an ambitious project, laying out costs, works schedules, wages, types of skills employed, and something of labour conditions. In 1332, for example, the masons went out on strike in an effort to protect their wages. In some years the origins of the labourers are even included, showing that the king drew upon a wide catchment basin for workers. In many years the work was not voluntary but impressed, a practice that appears to have increase after the plague, when labour became scarce. Construction involved a wide range of artisans, with masons being the most prominent, followed by carpenters, glaziers, and metal workers. Among the masons and glaziers were also sculptors and painters. The records are detailed enough that the names and careers of some of the master artisans and artists are traceable. Similarly, the accounts provide information on the origins of materials. After wages, stone was the largest expense. Limestone from Caen, France was valued for its light colour and ease of work. Ragstone for filling the walls and piers and Purbeck marble for decoration were more locally sourced. The choice of stone depended on availability, often difficult when England and France were at war and the purpose or phase of construction. So detailed is the accounting that we learn about the image schemes and colour choices for walls, carvings, and windows, information that makes these records valuable to art historians. The fabric rolls also illustrate the growth of the royal bureaucracy and the development of administrative practices, including the careers of the bureaucrat, the clerk of the works, who oversaw both the palace of Westminster and the Tower. Over the century of the chapel’s construction, royal administration became increasingly specialized and centralized in response to the growth of royal expenditure. These changes also meant increased oversight, recourse to previous accounts when questions arose, and greater accountability. Two former clerks even went to prison for the debts they ran up. The publication of these records is a welcome addition not only to our knowledge of a lost medieval building of artistic import, but to our understanding of how such projects were financed and carried out. The decision to produce both the Latin and English translation greatly expands access to these records, making them a usable source in the classroom for students without Latin or access to the archives.","PeriodicalId":43904,"journal":{"name":"London Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03058034.2021.1880126","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03058034.2021.1880126","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

project, and in paying the workers we get the names of thousands of men and a few women who worked on the building as artisans, suppliers, and artists. Taken together the materials and labour open up the economics of such an ambitious project, laying out costs, works schedules, wages, types of skills employed, and something of labour conditions. In 1332, for example, the masons went out on strike in an effort to protect their wages. In some years the origins of the labourers are even included, showing that the king drew upon a wide catchment basin for workers. In many years the work was not voluntary but impressed, a practice that appears to have increase after the plague, when labour became scarce. Construction involved a wide range of artisans, with masons being the most prominent, followed by carpenters, glaziers, and metal workers. Among the masons and glaziers were also sculptors and painters. The records are detailed enough that the names and careers of some of the master artisans and artists are traceable. Similarly, the accounts provide information on the origins of materials. After wages, stone was the largest expense. Limestone from Caen, France was valued for its light colour and ease of work. Ragstone for filling the walls and piers and Purbeck marble for decoration were more locally sourced. The choice of stone depended on availability, often difficult when England and France were at war and the purpose or phase of construction. So detailed is the accounting that we learn about the image schemes and colour choices for walls, carvings, and windows, information that makes these records valuable to art historians. The fabric rolls also illustrate the growth of the royal bureaucracy and the development of administrative practices, including the careers of the bureaucrat, the clerk of the works, who oversaw both the palace of Westminster and the Tower. Over the century of the chapel’s construction, royal administration became increasingly specialized and centralized in response to the growth of royal expenditure. These changes also meant increased oversight, recourse to previous accounts when questions arose, and greater accountability. Two former clerks even went to prison for the debts they ran up. The publication of these records is a welcome addition not only to our knowledge of a lost medieval building of artistic import, but to our understanding of how such projects were financed and carried out. The decision to produce both the Latin and English translation greatly expands access to these records, making them a usable source in the classroom for students without Latin or access to the archives.
城市诉求与城市权利:萨尔瓦多·达巴伊亚和伦敦的草根视角
在支付工人工资的过程中,我们得到了数千名男性和少数女性的名字,他们在建筑中作为工匠、供应商和艺术家工作。材料和劳动力加在一起,揭示了这样一个雄心勃勃的项目的经济性,列出了成本、工作时间表、工资、所使用的技能类型和一些劳动力条件。例如,在1332年,为了保护他们的工资,泥瓦匠们举行了罢工。在某些年份,劳工的起源甚至被包括在内,这表明国王为工人开辟了一个广阔的集水区。在许多年里,这项工作不是自愿的,而是令人印象深刻的,在瘟疫之后,当劳动力变得稀缺时,这种做法似乎有所增加。建筑涉及广泛的工匠,泥瓦匠是最突出的,其次是木匠、玻璃匠和金属工人。泥瓦匠和玻璃匠中也有雕塑家和画家。这些记录足够详细,一些大师级工匠和艺术家的名字和职业都是可以追溯的。同样,这些账目提供了有关材料来源的信息。除工资外,石头是最大的开支。来自法国卡昂的石灰石因其浅色和易于操作而受到重视。填充墙壁和桥墩的碎石和装饰用的珀贝克大理石更多地来自当地。石头的选择取决于可用性,当英国和法国处于战争状态以及建筑的目的或阶段时,这通常很困难。账目如此详细,以至于我们了解到墙壁、雕刻和窗户的图像方案和颜色选择,这些信息使这些记录对艺术历史学家来说很有价值。织物卷还展示了皇家官僚机构的发展和行政实践的发展,包括官僚的职业生涯,即负责监督威斯敏斯特宫和塔楼的工作人员。在小教堂建造的一个世纪里,随着王室开支的增长,王室管理变得越来越专业化和集中化。这些变化还意味着加强监督,在出现问题时求助于以前的账目,并加强问责制。两名前职员甚至因欠债入狱。这些记录的出版不仅对我们了解一座具有艺术意义的失落的中世纪建筑,而且对我们了解这些项目是如何融资和实施的,都是一个可喜的补充。制作拉丁语和英语翻译的决定极大地扩大了对这些记录的访问,使它们成为没有拉丁语或档案的学生在课堂上可用的来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
London Journal
London Journal Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: The scope of The London Journal is broad, embracing all aspects of metropolitan society past and present, including comparative studies. The Journal is multi-disciplinary and is intended to interest all concerned with the understanding and enrichment of London and Londoners: historians, geographers, economists, sociologists, social workers, political scientists, planners, educationalist, archaeologists, conservationists, architects, and all those taking an interest in the fine and performing arts, the natural environment and in commentaries on metropolitan life in fiction as in fact
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信