forensic examination of the subject. Oddly, Murray’s presence on Whately’s commission goes unmentioned by Morrissey, and more could have been made of the Catholic archbishop’s views on poverty and welfare through the sources that the author does engage with – Murray’s personal papers, his published sermons and newspaper articles of his public utterances, typically delivered at annual meetings of charitable societies. Perhaps the chronological structure to Morrissey’s book does not lend itself to an exploration of certain themes, whereas, for instance, Boylan’s thematic structure allows her to devote two of her fourteen chapters to her subject’s chairmanship of the Poor Inquiry and his wider views on poverty. Boylan makes good use of Whately’s 1835 sermon Christ’s Example, delivered in aid of Dr Steevens’s Hospital in Dublin, which captures his application of principles of political economy to matters of social concern. Whately loathed – as did his intellectual guide, Thomas Malthus – indiscriminate almsgiving and found legitimation for his opposition to the relief of the able-bodied poor in scripture: Christ relieved the hungry multitudes only twice and refused a third time because, in Whately’s words, indiscriminately and continually relieving the poor would ‘have been the means of drawing off the greater part of the population in those countries from their ordinary employments by which they gained their bread, when they found bread provided for them, by miracle, without any labour on their part’ (Boylan, p. 161). The Church of Scotland minister and social commentator Thomas Chalmers also drew on the parable of the Loaves and Fishes to suggest that two millennia before the writings of Thomas Malthus, Christ imposed principles of political economy in the Galilea! A joint reading of these two excellent biographies reveals moderation and steadfastness – both in their personal relationships and in their wider public roles – as being key themes in the lives of Daniel Murray and Richard Whately. The approach taken by these two important nineteenth-century prelates in their dealings with more zealous and radical internal opponents was aptly captured by Whately: ‘to me it appears that true Christianity is a very quiet and deliberate religion. It keeps the steam acting on the wheels, instead of noisily whizzing out at the safety valve’ (Boylan, p. 83).

中文翻译：

---

书评：早期现代爱尔兰：新来源、方法和观点

对象的法医检查。奇怪的是，莫里西没有提到穆雷在 Whately 的委员会中的存在，而更多可以通过作者确实接触的来源来了解天主教大主教对贫困和福利的看法——穆雷的个人论文、他发表的讲道和他的公众的报纸文章话语，通常在慈善团体的年会上发表。也许莫里西这本书的时间顺序结构不适合探索某些主题，而例如，博伊兰的主题结构允许她将她的十四章中的两章用于她的主题对贫困调查的主席和他对贫困的更广泛的看法。博伊兰很好地利用了沃特利 1835 年在都柏林史蒂文斯医生医院的帮助下讲道的基督的榜样，这体现了他将政治经济学原理应用于社会关注的问题。Whately 厌恶——正如他的知识导师 Thomas Malthus 一样——不分青红皂白地施舍，并为他在圣经中反对身体健全的穷人的救济找到了合法性：基督只救济饥饿的群众两次，第三次拒绝，因为，用 Whately 的话说，不分青红皂白地持续救济穷人本可以“使这些国家的大部分人口脱离他们赖以谋生的日常工作，当他们奇迹般地发现为他们提供面包时，无需任何劳动他们的部分”（博伊兰，第 161 页）。苏格兰教会的牧师和社会评论员托马斯·查尔默斯也借鉴了面包和鱼的比喻，表明在托马斯·马尔萨斯的著作之前两千年，基督在加利利亚强加了政治经济学的原则！对这两本优秀传记的共同阅读揭示了中庸和坚定——无论是在他们的个人关系还是在更广泛的公共角色中——都是丹尼尔·默里和理查德·沃特利生活中的关键主题。这两位重要的 19 世纪主教在与更热心和激进的内部反对者打交道时所采取的方法被 Whately 恰当地捕捉到：“在我看来，真正的基督教似乎是一种非常安静和深思熟虑的宗教。它保持蒸汽作用在车轮上，而不是在安全阀处发出嘈杂的呼啸声（Boylan，第 83 页）。