William Wright (1830–89) was a prominent scholar in the British tradition of Oriental and in particular Semitic studies. Born in India and raised in his family's home town St. Andrews, Wright went to continental Europe for his professional training in Oriental language studies, at the universities of Halle and Leiden. Upon his return to the United Kingdom he struggled to find professional employment that would suffice to secure his livelihood. From the unsalaried position of Professor of Arabic at University College London, he moved to Trinity College, Dublin; then found employment at the British Museum, where he worked until he was appointed Sir Thomas Adams's Professor of Arabic at the University of Cambridge in 1870. Wright's career is particularly interesting since it coincided with a major shift in the field's development, namely a process of professionalization, in which Wright partook. A study of Wright's career is thus likely to shed new light not only on the individual scholar, but also on wider developments.

Bernhard Maier's book, Semitic Studies in Victorian Britain, draws mainly on Wright's correspondence with his colleagues from mid-century onward. Though hardly any of the latter's communications to Wright have been preserved, Maier was able to trace some 800 letters and postcards from Wright in various archives, some 200 of which are presented in the book. Maier chose two formats of presentation. In the first part, he provides a thematic synopsis of the information found in the letters regarding Wright's career, his research and writing, and his social environment. Wright's letters appear in chronological order in the second, larger part, with thorough annotations. The sample letter reproduced (pp. 370–71) illustrates that transcription was surely not an easy job, made even more difficult by Wright's frequent use of rather idiosyncratic abbreviations. In addition, Maier provides a list of Wright's publications, the details of the archives used and a very nice collection of photos of Wright and his colleagues.

Wright's letters and Maier's discussion provide valuable insights into what it meant to be an aspiring professional scholar in Semitic studies in the nineteenth century. The example of one individual helps the reader understand how difficult it was to make a living in the profession at a time when employment opportunities were very limited, the standards for professional credentials were in the process of being established, and academic positions were often premised on the assumption that the incumbent had independent means at his disposal. Financial considerations remained decisive, even after a scholar was able to secure his livelihood. Wright's letters illustrate that research and publication choices were not primarily based on any reasoning inherent to the academic field itself or the scholar's interest, but rather on considerations of funding and publishing opportunities. In Semitic studies funding opportunities pushed scholars toward Bible-related fields, which were quite fraught owing to the inherent potential for a clash between scholarship and (very determined) public opinion, in which scholars often did not stand a chance.

Wright's letters also illustrate the very close and intense network that scholars established among themselves. The aim was not only an exchange of information and ideas, but also – or even more so – mutual assistance. Given the financial constraints, the limited travel opportunities, and the dependence on relatively rare (re-)sources, mutual assistance was vital for any scholar at the time. As Maier rightly observes (pp. 91–2), that kind of close co-operation is remarkable for the ease with which it crossed/ignored national boundaries. This was to change as the century went on and the national framework gained in importance.

Even though the community of scholars was cosmopolitan, location may nonetheless constitute an important factor, at least for the analysis. Maier opens his conclusion to the first part by asking:

Maier's observation seems a little misleading: Wright's statement summarizing that development seems much more philologically oriented:

Moreover, while for most German scholars travel to the East became an option only in the later part of the nineteenth century, the situation was different for the British. There, travel to the East was not that rare. The statement, therefore, places Wright into the German discourse in which the conception of what constitutes proper professional training underwent change. The implications of that change for the British context are, to my mind, still a matter of investigation.

This book is published in a series titled “Arbeitsmaterialien” (study/research material) and thus addresses by definition a relatively small circle of experts. Yet I am not sure that the chosen format is the best possible. In an electronic age there might have been the option of making good scans of all of Wright's letters available on one website, together with the annotated transcripts provided by Maier. Researchers would benefit from such a website, and even the individual archives stand to gain access to material not otherwise available in their collections. Further, an expanded version of the first, thematic part would make a great book. In its current form, the potential readership seems too narrow. I enjoyed reading the thematic part, but that is probably due to that fact that I am familiar with almost every person mentioned through my own research focusing on biographies of scholars in the German tradition of Oriental studies. As the annotations of the letters in the second part show, Maier did gather information on the people mentioned, and it is possible to find that information via the index, but that makes for rather cumbersome reading. In light of the enormous amount of work and erudition invested in the book, it seems a pity that a great opportunity was missed to address a wider audience.