contemporaries who became or were by instinct, primarily parliamentarians. His social radicalism here is cast in opposition to Parnell and others, but particularly to the conservative Catholic nationalism of Tim Healy who remains a counterpoint to Davitt. The sense to which Davitt represented a font of alternative possibilities remains a motif throughout the book. King suggests he was more aware of displacement from the younger generation than others in the Irish Party. Davitt’s importance for more socially progressive younger nationalists like Tom Kettle, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and Lindsay Crawford is brought into clear focus towards the end of this book. However, it was not these figures which carried through the Irish revolution and, as the author notes, these devotees of Davitt had passed away or emigrated by the end of 1916. This does not diminish the significance of Davitt or his enduring importance though. King emphasises that point with this significant contribution to scholarship; this book will interest not just scholars of Davitt but also those with interests in many of the social and political movements discussed in this wide-ranging and absorbing study.

中文翻译：

---

书评：十九世纪的休闲与爱尔兰人莱恩·墨菲威廉（编辑），十九世纪的休闲与爱尔兰人（利物浦：利物浦大学出版社，2016 年，271 页，80 英镑精装本）

成为或本能地成为或曾经是的同时代人，主要是议员。他的社会激进主义在这里反对帕内尔和其他人，尤其是蒂姆希利的保守天主教民族主义，他仍然是戴维特的对立面。戴维特代表一种替代可能性的感觉仍然是整本书的主题。金表示，与爱尔兰党内的其他人相比，他更清楚年轻一代的流离失所。戴维特对汤姆·凯特尔、弗朗西斯·希希-斯克芬顿和林赛·克劳福德等社会进步的年轻民族主义者的重要性在本书的结尾得到了明确的关注。然而，推动爱尔兰革命的并不是这些人物，正如作者所指出的，这些戴维特的信徒在 1916 年底已经去世或移居国外。但这并没有削弱戴维特的重要性或他持久的重要性。金通过对学术的重大贡献强调了这一点；这本书不仅会让戴维特的学者感兴趣，还会吸引那些对这项广泛而引人入胜的研究中讨论的许多社会和政治运动感兴趣的人。