teeming and importunate mass of poverty. The attempt to relieve poverty while controlling begging took different forms. Individual giving is, as McCabe rightly points out, impossible to trace – let alone calculate. But it was an essential part of life in both country and town, though possibly less so in the latter than in the former, where the giving of a handful of potatoes to the wandering beggar was a universal feature in both cabin and farmhouse, such giving being seen (or at least presented) as a form of mutuality that benefitted both giver (spiritually) and receiver (materially). Beyond the level of the individual, local ad-hoc responses to mendicancy included the forcible removal of beggars, the badging of those who were allowed to remain, and the drafting by church communities of rules and recommendations enabling the support of the ‘genuine’ poor while spurning those less ‘deserving’. The same attempted combination of relief and control motivated the various organised lay groups which were typical of the associational culture of the midto later nineteenth century. Among these were various Mendicity Societies (the Dublin Mendicity Society, the longest surviving, being closely analysed by McCabe). Many of these associations not only crossed the denominational divide but also reflected wider aspects of associationalism, modelled as they were on similar bodies on the European continent and in Britain. On the other hand, the outlook and impact of these societies was narrowly local – stretching scarce resources to succour (and manage) the local poor while simultaneously discouraging ‘strangers’. This is an insightful and enlightening study, lucidly written and grounded in meticulous research in a wide range of sources, many of which have been given only cursory treatment by historians to date. The thematic approach works very well, and the issues raised – the role of the state in the relief of poverty, the differing attitudes of individuals and groups towards the poverty and mendicancy of others, and the ways in which begging was carried out – are all treated sympathetically. Indeed, while the study focuses on a time long past, most of the questions posed are perfectly relevant to our own time.

中文翻译：

---

书评：剑桥爱尔兰历史，卷。2, 1550–1730

大量和顽固的贫困。在控制乞讨的同时脱贫的尝试采取了不同的形式。正如 McCabe 正确指出的那样，个人捐赠是无法追踪的——更不用说计算了。但它是乡村和城镇生活的重要组成部分，尽管在后者中可能不如前者，在那里向流浪乞丐赠送一把土豆是小屋和农舍的普遍特征，这样的赠送被视为（或至少呈现）作为一种互惠形式，使给予者（精神上）和接受者（物质上）都受益。除了个人层面之外，当地对乞讨的特别反应包括强行驱逐乞丐，给那些被允许留下的人贴上徽章，以及教会社区起草的规则和建议，能够支持“真正的”穷人，同时拒绝那些不那么“应得”的人。同样尝试将救济和控制结合起来，激发了各种有组织的俗人团体，这些团体是 19 世纪中后期社团文化的典型代表。其中包括各种 Mendicity 协会（都柏林 Mendicity 协会，存活时间最长，由 McCabe 仔细分析）。许多这些协会不仅跨越了宗派分歧，而且还反映了协会主义的更广泛方面，以欧洲大陆和英国的类似机构为蓝本。另一方面，这些社会的前景和影响仅限于地方性——将稀缺资源用于救助（和管理）当地穷人，同时阻止“陌生人”。这是一项富有洞察力和启发性的研究，写得清晰，并以对广泛来源的细致研究为基础，其中许多来源迄今为止仅被历史学家粗略地处理过。主题方法效果很好，所提出的问题——国家在扶贫中的作用、个人和群体对他人的贫困和乞讨的不同态度以及进行乞讨的方式——都是同情地对待。事实上，虽然这项研究关注的是很久以前的时间，但提出的大多数问题都与我们自己的时代完全相关。写得很清楚，并以对广泛来源的细致研究为基础，其中许多来源迄今为止仅被历史学家粗略处理过。主题方法效果很好，提出的问题——国家在扶贫中的作用，个人和群体对他人的贫困和乞讨的不同态度，以及进行乞讨的方式——都是同情地对待。事实上，虽然这项研究关注的是很久以前的时间，但提出的大多数问题都与我们所处的时代完全相关。写得很清楚，并以对广泛来源的细致研究为基础，其中许多来源迄今为止仅被历史学家粗略处理过。主题方法效果很好，所提出的问题——国家在扶贫中的作用、个人和群体对他人的贫困和乞讨的不同态度以及进行乞讨的方式——都是同情地对待。事实上，虽然这项研究关注的是很久以前的时间，但提出的大多数问题都与我们所处的时代完全相关。个人和群体对他人的贫困和乞讨的不同态度，以及乞讨的方式——都得到了同情。事实上，虽然这项研究关注的是很久以前的时间，但提出的大多数问题都与我们自己的时代完全相关。个人和群体对他人的贫困和乞讨的不同态度，以及乞讨的方式——都得到了同情。事实上，虽然这项研究关注的是很久以前的时间，但提出的大多数问题都与我们所处的时代完全相关。