江源湾规划设计外文翻译资料

英语原文共 6 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

This book began with, or rather as, two questions about the ways that the man who governed the City of London and various institutions, the companies and charities, chose to spend their money in the early 1670s. The questions occurred to me in the course of writing an earlier book, about seventh- and eighteenth-century hospital building. Among these was the expansive and splendid new accommodation for Bethlem (lsquo;bedlamrsquo;) which treated the insane poor, built to the designs of Robert Hooke between 1674 and 1676 (see fig 110). For centuries the hospital had occupied relatively humble quarters at Bishopsgate, a little to the east of its new and highly visible site in Moorfields, and there occasional overcrowding seems to have been managed by ejecting some inmates on the grounds that they were cured, incurable or otherwise ineligible. This was a large proportion of Londonrsquo;s own government; anyway, charitable expenditure can never be explained purely by charitable need. Why, then, did they resolve to embark on this expensive programme in March 1674? The City had not recovered entirely from the devastating fire of 1666, which did not, however, reach the old hospital at Bishopsgate. And, while the problems of the collective were not shared by all the individuals who together financed New Bethlemrsquo;s construction, that nonetheless seemed extravagant to me.

这本书以两个问题入手，掌管伦敦市和其多种制度的人，和选择在早期16实际70年代花费资金的公司和慈善机构。我实在写早期的一本书的时候发现了这个问题，这本书是关于17和18世纪的医院建筑。其中包括伯利恒广泛而精湛的新住宿，在这里治疗了一些贫困的或者含有谨慎疾病的人。这些建筑是按照1674年至1676年之间的罗伯特·胡克（Robert Hooke）风格而设计。几个世纪以来，医院已经占据了简陋的住所在Bishopsgate里，是在Moorfields新的，视线相对高点的地方往东一点。有时会偶尔过度拥挤，这时候往往似乎会通过驱逐出一些囚犯来进行管理，理由就是他们已经被治愈好了，或者不能医治了，或者根本就没有资格。在Bethlem 的许多官员来看，（他们也得到了伦敦政府的大部分倡议）这是一个可行的制度。无论如何，慈善机构的花费怎么都不能纯粹地用在慈善需求上。为什么他们开始在在1674年的3月决定开始这个昂贵的计划呢。 这个城市还没有从1666年的毁灭性火灾中完全恢复过来，然而，那场火灾没有烧到Bishopsgate的旧医院中。虽然大家共同的钱财没有被每一个给新Bethlem建筑的经费的人所持有，但对我来说这笔资金还是很奢侈的。

Additional money problems for many in the City were the result of the suspension of rapayments on loans made to the Exchequer, announced in the first day of 1672 as part of the governmentrsquo;s preparations for war against the Dutch. Londonrsquo;s goldsmith bankers and their own creditors, of pounds frozen in the Exchequer, the goldsmith worst hit was Robert Vyner, who nonetheless assumed the expensive office of Lord Mayor n October 1674.

其他的钱财问题来自1672年的第一天，财政部被宣布，由于政府应对与荷兰发生战争的部分准备工作，许多城市都没有能力还贷了。伦敦的goldsmith bankers银行，金匠，和他们所持有的债权人（这些债权人中一些是非常普通的老百姓）都将要面临毁灭性的打击。成百上千的英镑在财政部被冻结。这对Robert Vyner也是个沉重的打击， 这个曾经被誉为是在1674年十月份的市长中最能花钱的官员。

In the later seventeenth century the City, London proper that is, was at once a distinct jurisdiction and the historic centre of an expanding metropolis over which it had only limited authority, in the form of the prerogatives individual livery companies claimed over their crafts and trades (fig. 1). It had, and still has, a complicated government whose structure is worth outlining straight away. The Lord Mayor and the two sheriffs were annually elected by the Court of Common Hall, constituted by 5000 or so freemen who had obtained their companiesrsquo; livery; they also elected the Cityrsquo;s four MPs. The new mayor was always one of the twenty-six aldermen originally nominated by their wards, and who in theory sat for life; he was almost always the most senior among them who had not yet filled the office. Together with the Court of Common Council, comprising the 234 men annually elected by wardmotes, Common Hall and the aldermanic court set the tone for the Cityrsquo;s relationships with Parliament and the Crown at any one time. The sheer complexity of these institutions, the rapidity with which their memberships changed, and their own internal disputes meant that their tempers were sometimes unpredictable as far as Charles II and his ministers were concerned. These men kept a close eye on London, but until 1681 they preferred to cultivate their friends in the City rather than challenge its historic prerogatives. What happened when they did is the subject of my conclusion.

在十七世纪后期，伦敦市正是一个独特的管辖权和一个不断发展的大都市的历史中心，它只有有限制的权力，个别公司以特权的形式要求他们的工艺和交易（图。1）。它已经并且仍然是一个复杂的政府，其结构是值得立即概括的。市长和两名治安长官每年由公共霍尔法院选举产生，法院由5000人左右的自由人组成，他们获得了公司的代理人;也选出过这个城市的四名议员。新任市长一直是由守卫最初提名的二十六个市参议员，理论上是终身任职;他几乎是那些没有坐在办公室里的人中资历最高的人。与共同理事会一起，包括每月由候选人，公共大厅和经典法院选举的234名男子，为城市与议会和官方的任何时刻的关系定了基调。这些机构的复杂程度，成员身份的快速变化以及自身的内部纠纷意味着，就查尔斯二世及其部长而言，他们的脾气有时是不可预知的。这些人密切关注伦敦，但是直到1681年，他们更愿意在城市培养他们的朋友，而不是挑战其历史特征。当他们怎么做的时候会发生什么事情，是我的结论的主题。

Vyners mayoralty was immediately distinguished by the kings and James, duke of Yorks acceptance of the freedom of the City, that is the privileges of citizenship: Charles and his heir presumptive were abdicating the convention that the monarch is the fount of all honours. Two months later, at a ceremony in Inigo Joness Banqueting House at Whitehall Palace, the Lord Mayor, aldermen and common councillors presented the king with a solid (massy) gold box, inside which was a copy of the document conferring the freedom, from which dangled another gold case set with diamonds and enclosing the civic seal (see fig.145). Now, Vyner and his colleagues had grounds for optimism beyond the royal brothers gesture of deference because negotiations towards repaying the Exchequer debt were well underway. Nonetheless, the nested gold boxes seemed to me another extravagance, and it was one scorned at the time, too: In a Golden Box / Set with Stones of both Rocks / You in Chaines offer your freedome - a poet, probably Andrew Marvell, addressed the City. Why was the gift made?

维克纳的市长立即被国王和詹姆斯区分，约克接受城市的“自由”，即公民的特权：查尔斯和他的继承人推定是放弃公约，即君主是所有荣誉的泉源。两个月后，在白宫的Inigo Jones的宴会厅举行的仪式上，市长Aldermen和共同的议员向国王展示了一个坚实的（“massy”）金盒子，里面是一份赋予自由的文件副本，从另外一个镶嵌钻石的黄金盒子中扣上公民印章（见图145）。现在，维耶纳和他的同事们比皇家兄弟的尊重态度有乐观的理由，因为偿还债务的谈判正在顺利进行。尽管如此，嵌套的金盒子对我来说似乎又是一种奢侈，这也是当时的一种蔑视：“在一个金色的盒子里，用石头在石头上镶嵌/链条里的你们提供你们的自由” - 一个诗人，可能是Andrew Marvell，在城市里。为什么礼物被制造呢？

The second question is the simplest to answer. The gold boxes form

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[140250]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word