Transformation and specialization in London and its topography

Sangster, M. (2017) Transformation and specialization in London and its topography. Journal of Victorian Culture, 22(3), pp. 317-328. (doi: 10.1080/13555502.2017.1329971)

141756.pdf - Accepted Version



This article puts John Tallis’s London Street Views (1838–40) into conversation with some of the major topographical projects that preceded them. By examining how London was represented in works including Richard Horwood’s PLAN of the Cities of LONDON and WESTMINSTER the Borough of SOUTHWARK, and PARTS adjoining Shewing every HOUSE (1792–9), Richard Phillips’s Modern London (1804) and Rudolph Ackermann’s Microcosm of London (1808–10), it considers the extent to which the form, content, price and organizing principles of the Street Views iterated on prior traditions while drawing out aspects of Tallis’s work that should be read as representing innovative new directions. The Street Views were more specialized and more explicitly focused on business than the relatively genteel works of the earlier nineteenth century, but topography had long been a commercial prospect, often publisher-led rather than author-driven. As the century progressed, changes in the city and in technologies of representation modified the ways in which visions of London were assembled and sold, allowing for significant expansions in their potential audiences. However, there were also considerable continuities in what was depicted, in the reliance on part-publication and in the areas that were seen as being crucial to the experience of the metropolis. This article traces these continuities and discontinuities qualitatively, quantitatively and spatially.

Item Type:Articles
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Sangster, Professor Matthew
Authors: Sangster, M.
College/School:College of Arts > School of Critical Studies > English Literature
Journal Name:Journal of Victorian Culture
Publisher:Taylor & Francis
ISSN (Online):1750-0133
Published Online:24 May 2017
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2017 Leeds Trinity University
First Published:First published in Journal of Victorian Culture 22(3):317-328
Publisher Policy:Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record