Thesis--Lund. / First part only. Bibliography: (A.) Grammatical works, etc. consulted and referred to. (B.) Editions employed: p. [viii]-xxxvii.

Inaugural-Dissertation - Leipzig. / "Vita": p. [112]. "Werkverzeichnis": p. 95-111.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (D. Mus. Arts)--University of Washington, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 301).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Germanic Languages and Literatures, 1911. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Texte remanie de: Thesis--Department of anthropology--Austin--University of Texas, 1979. / Mention parallèle de titre ou de responsabilité : The @Daniel-shpil in the Bobover Hasidic community : from a folk drama to a Hasidic ritual for Purim / Shifra Epstein. Contient la pièce "Ḥananyah, Miyšaʼel wʻAzaryah btwk kibšan haʼeš : a Pwriym špil", écrite par Shalom Kesler, et la transcription de sa musique transcrite et précédée d'une préface par Hayim Mazor. Notes bibliogr.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982. / Description based on print version record. Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 159-164).

Heidelberg, Hochsch. für Jüdische Studien, Diss., 2004. / Dateien im PDF-Format.

Diss.--Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät--Mainz--Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität, 1997. / Bibliogr. p. 342-380. Index.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University. / Samuel Daniel has never been the subject of a thorough reputation study. I have, therefore, examined the body of critical opinion directed to Daniel's works from his own day to the present. I have drawn conclusions about his over-all reputation and the reputation of the individual works. In addition, I have drawn relevant conclusions concerning the critics themselves, particularly with respect to the bases of their literary judgment. Daniel's literary reputation fluctuates over the centuries. He was highly regarded by nearly all of his contemporaries, but his reputation waned during the seventeenth century until he became almost totally neglected in the eighteenth. Certain Romantic poets expressed more admiration for Daniel than had been expressed for two centuries. His reputation maintained a fairly steady, though unexciting, level throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After 1920 Daniel gradually became the object of more intensive critical study. His reputation today is higher than at any time since his death and rests upon a more solid basis than ever before. [TRUNCATED]