In the conclusion to this ambitious, and timely, attempt to develop an integrated interpretation of the charitable and improving agenda that was a defining feature of 18th-century Irish society, Karen Sonnelitter observes that the 18th century witnessed a shift from ‘a close traditional philanthropy motivated solely by social or religious obligation ... towards rational and constructive charity’ that was actuated by the wish to ‘address and correct the roots of social problems’ (p. 176). Previously, having acknowledged the endurance of ‘Anglo-Irish anxieties over security’, she avers that the belief of ‘those who ... work[ed] for improvement reflected an Enlightenment-era optimism about the perfectibility of society. Philanthropists and improvers believed that by addressing the roots of social problems they could eradicate them’ (p. 170). Guided by these perceptions, which are more contestable than she maintains, Dr Sonnelitter engages with the religious, educational, voluntary hospital, associational, governmental (‘national and local’) and genderised worlds of philanthropy as they operated in 18th-century Ireland, identifying commonalities, establishing connections and affirming, by reason of the fact that each sought in their own way to improve the society in which they functioned, that one can describe ‘improvement’ and ‘philanthropy’ as expressions of ‘a shared sense of Enlightenment values’ (p. 19) that, she contends, was no less a feature of Ireland than it was of elsewhere in western Europe. The fact that no attempt has previously been made to portray philanthropy and improvement as manifestations of the Enlightenment or, even to link philanthropy to improvement points to the order of the task that Dr Sonnelitter has set herself, and if she falls short it does not diminish the value of the attempt. Indeed, she has done 18th-century Irish studies a signal service, since it will hardly be possible in the wake of this volume for historians of religion, intellectual activity, education, philanthropy, associationalism, improvement, government and gendered philanthropy to ignore the activities of other (related) strands of activity or to overlook the extent to which they were engaged individually and collectively in a common enterprise.

中文翻译：

---

18世纪爱尔兰的慈善运动：慈善与进步。卡伦·桑内里特（Karen Sonnelitter）。Pp218。萨福克：Boydell Press，2016年。65英镑。（爱尔兰历史专论丛书）

在对这个雄心勃勃且及时的尝试进行总结的尝试中，卡伦·桑内里特（Karen Sonnelitter）总结了对18世纪爱尔兰社会的特征即慈善和不断完善的议程的综合解释，并指出18世纪见证了从“封闭的传统慈善事业”的转变纯粹是出于对理性和建设性慈善事业的社会或宗教义务……，这一愿望是由“解决和纠正社会问题的根源”的愿望驱动的（第176页）。此前，她承认“英爱对安全的忧虑”的持久性，因此避免了“为改善而努力工作的人们”的信念，这反映了启蒙时代对社会完美性的乐观态度。慈善家和改良者认为，通过解决社会问题的根源，他们可以根除社会问题”（第170页）。在这些观念的指导下（比她保持的更具争议性），Sonnelitter博士与18世纪爱尔兰开展业务的宗教，教育，志愿医院，协会，政府（“国家和地方”）以及性别平等的慈善世界互动，共同点，建立联系并确认，因为每个人都以自己的方式寻求改善其工作所在的社会的事实，即人们可以将“改善”和“慈善事业”描述为“共同的启蒙价值观念”的表达。 （p。19），她认为，爱尔兰的特点不亚于西欧其他地方。以前没有尝试将慈善事业和改善描绘为启蒙运动的体现，或者 甚至将慈善事业与改善联系起来，也指向了Sonnelitter博士设定的任务顺序，如果她不履行职责，那也不会降低尝试的价值。确实，她已经完成了18世纪爱尔兰人对信号服务的研究，因为在此卷之后，宗教，智力活动，教育，慈善，联合主义，进步，政府和性别慈善史学家几乎不可能忽略这些活动。其他（相关）活动类别，或忽略它们在共同企业中单独或集体参与的程度。