MHRA Publication

Published November 2000

‘Scholarly and lucidly written, Saint's study will appeal both to the specialist and to readers with a broader interest in word and image research.’ — Jean H. Duffy, French Studies LVI.3, 2002, 430
unsigned notice, Société Internationale d'Etudes Yourcenariennes 21, 2000, 8

Published June 2000

‘Smith is able to show convincingly how ambivalence about the role of science or scientific tendencies permeates these literary works, and he offers interesting insights into the sometimes subtle thematization of scientific ideas in literature.’ — Elizabeth Neswald, British Journal for the History of Science 35, 2002, 363-4
‘Smith's mastery of both primary and secondary sources is remarkable, and his bibliographies provide a useful guide to the (often vast) secondary literature... Demonstrates the extraordinary richness and importance of the vein of research into which Smith has tapped, and puts much other work in so-called Cultural Studies to shame.’ — Paul Bishop, Modern Language Review 97.2, 2002, 505-7 (full text online)
‘In this thorough study of the exchange between science and literature, Peter D. Smith skillfully argues that the idea of these Two Cultures existing in isolation from one another is overly simplistic... An excellent contribution to the vital research currently examining the interdisciplinary nature of scientific and literary works.’ — Heather I. Sullivan, Monatshefte 94.4, 2002, 541-2

Published July 1999

unsigned notice, Forum for Modern Language Studies 37.3, 2001, 341
‘Affirms that Virgil's 'flexibility and openness to reception' has ensured his continuing relevance for writers of widely differing persuasions.’ — Julian Cowley, The Year's Work in English Studies 80, 2002, 615
‘The fine chapters on Pierre Klossowski's controversial Aeneid translation and on the nouveau roman constitute in their grouping a genuine contribution to our understanding of Virgil's postwar reception... the coherence of traditional heroic and imperialistic readings gives way to a postmodern view of Aeneas as exile.’ — Theodore Ziolkowski, French Studies LV.2, 2001, 269-70
‘Wide-ranging and illuminating... In sum, Aeneas Takes The Metro illustrates, if proof were needed, the ability of a well-informed and scholarly comparative study to transcend linguistic, formal and temporal barriers successfully and productively.’ — Kiera Vaclavik, New Comparison 31, 2002, 202-3

Published May 1998

‘An inspiring study that is not only of interest to Hölderlin experts or eighteenth-century scholars but to anyone with a scholarly interest in the interrelation between translation and poetry.’ — Heike Bartel, New Comparison 30, 144-45
‘A closely argued critical assessment of translation... Louth's book is a good piece of work, incisive and perceptive.’ — Emery E. George, Journal of English and Germanic Philology October, 2000, 612-14
‘For those interested in translation, let alone in Hölderlin, these are arguments to read and re-read.’ — unsigned notice, Forum for Modern Language Studies 37.1, 2001, 105
notice, Etudes germaniques 4, 1999, 658
‘Hölderlin demeure un auteur difficile; ne l'aborde pas qui veut, quelle que soit la qualité de l'exposition, servie ici par une typographie particulièrement soignée.’ — Jacques Voisine, Revue de littérature comparée 1, 2000, 110-11
‘This study through the perspective of translation is a must for every Hölderlin scholar, carefully argued, well researched, and a pleasure to read.’ — Reinhilde Wiegmann, Monatshefte 93.1, 2001, 121-2
‘The writing is impressive, even inspired... The argument is invariably persuasive, the judgement remarkably sure-footed throughout... supported by readings of often stunning quality.’ — Howard Gaskill, Modern Language Review 96.3, 2001, 886-7 (full text online)

Published November 1997

‘What Thackeray did not publish Professor Prawer has done for him in this welcome addition to the Thackeray literature.’ — unsigned notice, Times Literary Supplement 1997
‘It is good to have a book of this kind that so thoroughly covers its subject. I have the distinct impression that Prawer has really hunted down and rounded up every last German reference there is in Thackeray and I am glad he has done it.’ — John R. Reed, Analytical and Enumerative Bibliography 11.4, 2000, 326-7
‘Prawer's comprehensive analysis is thoroughly researched and convincing throughout. One of the strongest features of his monograph is the skilful mastery with which the author examines the interaction between the different discourses depicted above, as well as their function in Thackeray's oeuvre as a whole. An essential study for scholars in the field of Anglo-German literary relations and the wider domain of cultural transmission.’ — Susanne Stark, Modern Language Review 96.1, 2001, 298-9 (full text online)