BARS Blog

BARS Blog

News and Commentary from the British Association for Romantic Studies

Research Fellowship Opportunity: The Armstrong Browning Library

An opportunity for those researching nineteenth-century literature and history, via Holly Spofford:

The Armstrong Browning Library (ABL), located on the campus of Baylor University, is a world-renowned research center and rare-collections library devoted to nineteenth-century studies.

The ABL has established a Three-Month Research Fellowship for leading scholars from outside Baylor. Prof. Dino Felluga (English, Purdue University) served as the inaugural fellow during fall 2017, and Prof. Clare Simmons (English, Ohio State University) will serve as the fall 2018 fellow.

Applications are being accepted for fall 2019, and are due by Sept. 7, 2018. $28,000 will be transferred directly to the Fellow’s home institution in three equal installments to help cover expenses incurred by this Research Fellowship. In addition, the Fellow’s initial travel to, and final return journey from, Baylor will be covered, as will lodging in well-furnished, high-quality apartments. Finalists will be notified by Oct. 10, 2018, and will be interviewed before the end of October.

Inaugural BARS Chawton House Travel Bursary Awarded

The executive committee of the British Association for Romantic Studies (BARS) and the trustees of Chawton House are delighted to announce the winner of the inaugural BARS Chawton House Travel Bursary: Francesca Kavanagh, who is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. Her research project examines the production of spaces of intimacy in practices of letter-writing, annotation, and commonplacing.

All scholars working on Romantic-Period women’s writing are eligible to apply for this scheme.  The BARS Executive Committee has established this award in order to help fund expenses incurred through travel to, and accommodation near, Chawton House Library in Hampshire, up to a maximum of £500.

Recipients are asked to submit a short report to the BARS Executive Committee, for publication on its website, and to acknowledge BARS and Chawton House in their doctoral thesis and/or any publication arising from the research trip. Please join us in congratulating Francesca on her award.

– Daniel Cook, University of Dundee

Stephen Copley Research Awards 2018 – the winners

The BARS Executive Committee has established these bursaries in order to support postgraduate and early-career research within the UK. They are intended to help fund expenses incurred through travel to libraries and archives necessary to the student’s research. As anticipated, this year we received a large number of applications, many of which were of a very high quality indeed. Please do join us in congratulating the very worthy winners. Romanticism is alive and kicking, we’re pleased to say!

  • Eleanor Bryan (University of Lincoln)
  • Mary Chadwick (University of Huddersfield)
  • Lauren Christie (University of Dundee)
  • Octavia Cox (University of Oxford)
  • Valerie Derbyshire (University of Sheffield)
  • Eva-Charlotta Mebius (University College London)
  • Hannah Moss (University of Sheffield)
  • Harrie Neal (University of York)
  • Emma Probett (University of Leicester)
  • Lieke van Deinsen (Radboud University Nijmegen)

Once they have completed their research trips each winner will write a brief report on their projects. These will be published on the website and circulated through our social media. For more information about the bursaries, including reports from past winners, please visit our website.

– Daniel Cook
Bursaries Officer, BARS
University of Dundee

Five Questions: David Stewart on The Form of Poetry in the 1820s and 1830s

David Stewart is Senior Lecturer in Romanticism at Northumbria University.  He has published widely on figures including Lord Byron, William Hazlitt, Leigh Hunt, Robert Southey and Charles Lamb and on topics including short fiction, ephemerality, paradox, commerce, mass culture and the politics of style.  His first monograph, Romantic Magazines and Metropolitan Literary Culture, was published in 2011 and considered the qualities of the extraordinary wave of periodicals that burgeoned in the period after the Napoleonic wars.  His new book, The Form of Poetry in the 1820s and 1830s: A Period of Doubt, which we discuss below, has just been published by Palgrave.

1) When do you first remember encountering the poetry of the 1820s and 1830s, and what led you to want to write a monograph about it?

For a long time I didn’t know that I was writing a book about it.  I’d been teaching Leigh Hunt’s Story of Rimini for a few years and kept having fascinating discussions with students who loved it, and yet found it oddly unstable, almost, but not quite, laughable.  There are some kinds of poetry that we don’t quite know how to read: do we look for a deep and serious philosophy or a buried political context beneath the surface, or do we delight in its seemingly superficial charms?  I found some other poets who provoked the same reaction in me, and I realised what linked them was that they fell somewhere between ‘Romantic’ and ‘Victorian’ poetry.  A poem like Rimini might be the beginning of a poetic history that never quite took shape.  The usual story is that the poetry market collapsed in the mid-1820s, and the few poets who did produce poetry were not very good.  The fact that neither part of this is true (the market did not collapse, and these poets are just joyous to read) was something I wanted to correct.  Equally, though, I kept coming back to my own unstable reactions to these poets: the wavering uncertainty with which we view this hinterland might be its most valuable feature.  I wanted to bring the period’s poetic scene to a fuller attention, but without giving it the firm outlines of a clearly demarcated ‘literary period’.

2) Your subtitle characterises the two decades as ‘a period of doubt’, a doubt manifested both in poets’ responses to their contexts and in later critics’ attempts to frame their achievements.  How can working to understand the doubts that poets struggled with help us to gain a better understanding of their cultural moment?

I find doubt a fascinating state of mind.  Doubt can be active, even aggressive, but it can also be comic, a matter of being baffled; it might even produce wonder.  It is not a fixed state; instead, when we are in doubt we can test things out, we can speculate on what things are, or how things might be.  Byron writes so well about doubt in Don Juan, and I like especially these lines in Canto 1: ‘What is the end of Fame? ‘tis but to fill / A certain portion of uncertain paper: / Some liken it to climbing up a hill, / Whose summit, like all hills, is lost in vapour’.  The poets of this period are remarkable partly because they thought so often, and so playfully, about the possibility that critics like me might come along and sift and sort them into a period.  The form that that writing takes – the fact that it is on ‘uncertain paper’ – is the means by which it can be transmitted to future readers, but equally is itself a matter that prompts doubts.  Are some ways of ‘filling’ that paper (some metrical techniques) more ‘certain’ of Fame than others?  Are some kinds of paper (some methods of publishing) more ephemeral, more ‘uncertain’, than others?  The lesson that I hope I’ve taken from these poets is that doubt can be a pleasure.  To ‘gain a better understanding’ of this ‘cultural moment’ means, I think, accepting that we’ll always be groping around in vapour.

3) Introducing the book, you stress the divide between emergent formalist and commercial aesthetics, and also discuss the prominence of light verse during the period, but you stress that these three strands have more in common than the discourses surrounding them often admitted.  How would you characterise the defining qualities of these three modes, and what are the main things that unite them?

One of the real pleasures of writing this book has been getting back to reading poetry attentively.  We tend to associate this kind of ‘formalist’ close reading with a detached idealism, and also with only particular kinds of poet.  One group of poets might seem to fit that model.  I discuss the young Browning and Tennyson, but also poets like Hartley Coleridge, George Darley, and Thomas Lovell Beddoes who have always found ‘fit audience, though few’, admirers who pride themselves on hearing the delicate modulations of their metre.  We can place these poets as the first buds of a Victorian aestheticism that comes into full bloom with Walter Pater.  They are opposed to another group associated especially with the material form of their commercial books: the poets of the literary annuals, Felicia Hemans, and Letitia Landon.  These poets use metres, of course, but metre is deemed an irrelevance in books that are merely objects for display in the drawing room.  A final group – Thomas Hood, Winthrop Mackworth Praed, John Hamilton Reynolds, for example – provide something like what Kingsley Amis calls ‘light verse’: punning, bright-eyed wit that skims over the surface of society, valuable for the very perfection of the metrical surface they create and polish.  The attempt to create oppositions between kinds of poet is important, most particularly the role that gender plays in that process.  But they all share a curiously enabling doubt about categorisation.  Landon, for example, plays brilliantly with verse form and its relation to the books in which she appears; that tactic is mirrored by George Darley who, when he was not writing poems about fairies, was busy writing abusive articles about Landon.  The fact that Darley, Hood, and Hemans are all bound up in the green silk covers of the annual The Amulet in 1828 suggests some of the possibilities and perplexities this culture presents.  All of them think carefully, and with a disarming self-consciousness, about the place their poetry might have in culture, and how their poetry might form itself (metrically and materially) for readers in their own time and in an unguessable future.  It’s a conversation that is worth tuning in to, particularly in our own critical moment as we attempt to rethink critical methods like ‘formalism’, ‘historicism’ and ‘book history’.

4) If you were selecting a few key poems as standard-bearers for the poetry of this period (for a MA seminar, say), which would these be?

This feels like a slightly mischievous question: I feel uncomfortable with the idea of ‘standard bearers’, poets marching under the banner of a territory that I would prefer to remain bewitchingly vague!  But no MA seminar can try to cover everything.  Some of these poets are well known: Hemans, Landon and Clare need no introduction for Romanticists.  There’s been excellent recent work on poets I look at like Hartley Coleridge and Thomas Lovell Beddoes.  Others will, I hope, prove more interesting than they have hitherto: George Darley and Winthrop Mackworth Praed especially.  I end with a section on the young Tennyson, who hardly needs my help to find fame, and consider how his work starts to change when we place him alongside Clare, Landon, Praed, Hood, Hunt and others.  I think we might learn the lesson from the editors of annuals like The Amulet and Friendship’s Offering: place a diverse selection of poems together, and see what chance lights are thrown out.  If I had to choose one poem, though, that gives a glimpse of what I love about this period, it’d be Praed’s ‘The Fancy Ball’ from the New Monthly Magazine of 1828.

5) What new projects are you currently at work on?

I’m working on place and fiction in the Romantic period.  My focus is on the Anglo-Scottish borderlands, and on writers including Walter Scott, Allan Cunningham and James Hogg.  There’s a relationship between humour, lies, fiction, and the experience of movement that I want to track.  I’ve been approaching it from a longstanding interest in this ‘region’ and these writers, but also via theories of place and mobility in geography and anthropology.  The anthropologist Tim Ingold’s work has been a revelation for me, as has work that sits between the creative and the critical by Rebecca Solnit and Kapka Kassabova.  I have an article on James Hogg that is the first fruit of this work: it should be coming out in The Yearbook of English Studies in a special issue on the 1830s.  I’ve also got a piece about Wordsworth and parody coming out this year in European Romantic Review.  I secretly want to write something about V. S. Naipaul’s The Enigma of Arrival, but don’t tell anybody, least of all my research lead.

Report from the BARS/Wordsworth Trust Early Career Fellow 2018

Dr Lucy Linforth arrived at Dove Cottage just a few days ago to take up her position as the BARS/Wordsworth Trust Early Career Fellow. She will spend the next month living, researching and collaborating with others in Grasmere. Here’s an initial report from Lucy: 

I am visiting Dove Cottage in Grasmere for the month of February, for the BARS and Wordsworth Trust Fellowship, during which time I will be exploring Wordsworth’s material world, including his home and the objects housed there, as well as the collections held by The Wordsworth Trust in both the Wordsworth Museum and at the Jerwood Centre. Though Wordsworth is most often admired as a poet of the mind, my research will focus upon Wordsworth’s poetry and the material world: his fascination with ‘the life / In common things’, a fascination which appears so often in his poetry (The Prelude 1.117-8). Over the coming weeks, it is my hope that I will be able to suggest opportunities for connections between poems and objects at Dove Cottage, and which may ultimately result in an invitation to visitors to engage with both objects and poetry in new ways. For my first two days here, I’ve been enjoying a thorough exploration of Dove Cottage, a visit to the Wordsworth Museum and exhibitions, and I have also spent time at the Jerwood Centre, which contains a vast repository of letters, books, paintings, and artefacts. Owing to the thick layer of snow which has fallen since I’ve arrived here at Grasmere, the smoke curling upwards from the chimneys at Dove Cottage only adds to the welcoming feel of the cottage, warm and homely amidst the cold but beautiful snow-covered hills all around.

 

Lucy standing with Senior Guide Hazel Clarke overlooking Dove Cottage on the first day of her fellowship

 

A bit more about Lucy and her research background:

I have recently completed my PhD at the University of Edinburgh. My doctoral thesis, titled ‘Fragments of the Past: Walter Scott, Material Antiquarianism, and Writing as Preservation’, explored the antiquarian materiality of Scott’s fiction. Working closely with the material collections exhibited at Abbotsford, I explored Scott’s participation in contemporary antiquarian practices such as collection and conservation, and suggested that Scott’s fictions frequently acted as textual extensions of his material practices to offer spaces in which the material past could to be preserved and exhibited. My research interests lie in the material culture of late eighteenth and nineteenth-century literature, including Gothic literature, antiquarianism, graveyard poetry, and ballads. I currently work as an Education Assistant at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and also as a Heritage Engagement Assistant at Abbotsford, the Home of Sir Walter Scott in the Scottish Borders.

– Lucy Linforth

Report from ‘Romantic Novels 1818’ – Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Here is a report by Merrilees Roberts from the first ‘Romantic Novels 1818‘ seminar. This series is sponsored by BARS and seminars are held at the University of Greenwich. 

BARS also provides bursaries to support postgraduates and early career researchers who wish to attend. You can find more information on the application process and see details of upcoming seminars in the series here.

 

 

A Discussion of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) with Dr James Grande

Romantic Novels 1818 Seminar January 2018

 

James Grande delivered a fascinating paper on Frankenstein intended to spark ideas about how to capture the neglected ‘1818’ context of the novel’s first edition, which comprised only 500 copies sold mostly to circulating libraries. Grande took James Chandler’s England in 1819: The Politics of Literary Culture and the Case of Romantic Historicism as an inspiration for thinking through a microhistory of 1818 which would capture the novel’s historical – rather than literary – context. Resisting the critical orthodoxy of readings focused on biographical and ‘family romance’ narratives about the Shelley-Godwin family, Grande suggested possible ways of thinking through Frankenstein’s reception in 1818. These included setting the dedication to Godwin in the context of the repressive measures enforced by a government wishing to quash continuing debates fostered by 1790s radicalism, and research which shows that in this decade the fiction market was actually dominated by female authorship. This perhaps throws an interesting light on Percy Shelley’s support of and collaboration in the project. Another important consideration was the articles appearing in the same periodicals containing reviews of Frankenstein – those which express anxiety about the melting of the polar ice-caps, and which provide an unwittingly significant frame narrative to the novel.

 

University of Greenwich campus

 

Particularly interesting to me was the idea that the death of Princess Charlotte in November 1817 provides a more compelling analogue for the novel’s implicit preoccupation with the dangers of childbirth than Mary Wollstonecraft’s death in 1797. The idea that the changes in the weather throughout Europe following the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, which created the so-called ‘year without a summer’ in 1816, was in some sense a causal factor of both the composition of Frankenstein and the continuing apocalyptic mood of this post-revolutionary period also offers an interesting point of relation to the burgeoning scholarly interest in eco-criticism and philosophies of matter.

– Merrilees Roberts

Five Questions: Tom Mole on What the Victorians Made of Romanticism

Tom Mole is Reader in English Literature and Director of the Centre for the History of the Book at the University of Edinburgh.  He has published extensively on Byron, Romantic-period celebrity, periodicals and print culture.  His recent books include The Broadview Introduction to Book History and The Broadview Reader in Book History (both with Michelle Levy); he is also a member of the Multigraph Collective, which authored the recently-released Interacting with Print: Elements of Reading in the Era of Print Saturation.  His new book, What the Victorians Made of Romanticism: Material Artifacts, Cultural Practices, and Reception History, which we discuss below, was published by Princeton University Press.

1) How did you come to realise that you wanted to write a book about what the Victorians made of Romanticism?

This project grew out of my previous work on Romanticism and celebrity culture.  One of the things I discovered in that research was that people at the beginning of the nineteenth century often talked about celebrity as a second-rate kind of fame.  Celebrity was a kind of fleeting recognition you received in your own lifetime; true fame was usually posthumous, but it lasted much longer.  Once the idea was established that these two kinds of fame were mutually exclusive, it became easy to assume that people who had been famous in their lifetimes – Byron, Scott – would be forgotten after their deaths.  Lots of people actually said that these poets would be forgotten.  And yet they weren’t.  So my starting question was – why?  What kinds of cultural work were necessary to keep those writers in the public eye?  That question, in turn, led me to others, as I started to uncover what I’ve come to call the web of reception – all the material artefacts and cultural practices that shaped the reception of Romantic writers and their works.

2) In your second chapter, you set what you’re doing in the book against a tradition of ‘punctual historicism’ that privileges moments of composition, first publication and initial reception.  What are the principal kinds of insight that you believe we can gain by turning to longer and more diverse reception histories?

The trouble with punctual historicism, as I see it, is that it focuses on one context to the exclusion of all others.  This can make literature seem like something that’s tied to a particular historical moment – the moment of its production – and that cannot operate outside of that moment.  But one of the things that makes literature special is that it outlives its moment of production.  I don’t want to go back to the old idea that great literature transcends its historical moment and becomes timeless because it appeals to some kind of universal humanity.  Instead, I want a kind of criticism that recognises that works of literature can be reactivated in historical moments beyond the imaginations of their authors, and even that they might make their most important impacts when they are redeployed in new historical, social, political and media contexts.

3) After an initial section on the web of reception, your book mainly focuses on four media through which Victorian culture remade Romantic-period authors and texts: illustrations, sermons, statues and anthologies.  How did you come to select these four media to make your case, and were there others that you explored during the process of composition?

These four strands of the web of reception give me a broad range to explore.  They allow me to take in artefacts and practices, verbal and visual responses to Romanticism, mass-produced books and one-off sculptures.  They allow me to tell stories of remediation, as works produced in one medium were mediated through another to new audiences.  These strands of the web also constitute their own self-aware traditions, so that, for example, anthologies refer back to earlier anthologies and sustain an ongoing debate about what a good anthology should be like.  But I could certainly have divided my material along other lines.  Photography is discussed in relation to both illustrations and statues, but it could have had a section of its own.  There are other strands of the web, and I hope I’ve identified enough that other people will be able to unpick them, taking up where I’ve left off.

4) You argue convincingly that ‘complex acts of selective forgetting’ were as crucial as acts of memory for Victorians making use of Romantic poets and their works.  What, for you, are the most telling things that the Victorians sought to forget, either about the individual poets you examine (Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, Scott and Hemans), or about the Romantic-period generations more generally?

It wasn’t surprising to learn that the Victorians found Shelley’s atheism to be a problem. But I was surprised to discover the lengths they went to in their effort to forget it. First, they claimed that his atheism wasn’t important for his poetry.  Second, they went so far as to argue that his poetry carried a Christian message, even if Shelley the man would have denied it.  More generally, commemorating the Romantics meant forgetting many of their political commitments.  This wasn’t just true for radicals like Byron and Shelley, but also for a Tory like Scott – the problem wasn’t a particular set of political views, it was politics per se.  Romantic poets had to leave political commitments behind them as they were absorbed into the canon of English Literature.  Some critics have approached reception history through the lens of cultural memory – but I think that cultural memory studies are only helpful up to point.  We need to grasp that this process is as much about motivated forgetting as it is about remembering.

5) What new projects are you currently working on?

I have a number of articles coming out: one about the connections between celebrity and anonymity in the Romantic period; one about John ‘Walking’ Stewart, the Romantic pedestrian traveller and philosopher; and two about Byron – ‘Byron and the Good Death’ and ‘Byron and the Difficulty of Beginning’.  After that I have some ideas for another book, but it’s really too early to talk about them at the moment.

Applications welcome for new BARS Secretary

The ​Executive Committee of the British Association for Romantic Studies is recruiting a new Secretary.

The Secretary is responsible for the organisation and minuting of face to face and on-line Executive meetings, and serving as the first contact point for the Association. They circulate funding applications to the Executive Committee and liaise with applicants. Members of the Executive Committee are expected to attend three meetings (one at the biennial conference) and contribute to one ‘virtual’ meeting in a two-year cycle.

The post does not carry remuneration but it is an excellent opportunity for an early-career Romanticist to gain valuable experience and skills. 

Informal enquiries about the role should be directed to the outgoing Secretary, Helen Stark (h.stark@ucl.ac.uk). Applications should be made to the President, Ian Haywood (I.Haywood@roehampton.ac.uk) and comprise a CV and a statement (up to 300 words) detailing the applicant’s qualification for the role. The start date is negotiable but no later than June 2018. Deadline for applications: 19 Feb 2018.

Call for Papers: Romantic Exchanges, 1760-1840 – 2018 BARS Early Career and Postgraduate Conference

Call for Papers

Romantic Exchanges, 1760-1840

British Association for Romantic Studies Early Career and Postgraduate Conference

University of Glasgow, 15–16 June 2018

 

Keynote Speakers: Professor Gerard Carruthers (University of Glasgow) and Dr Susan Manly (University of St Andrews)

 

The BARS Early Career and Postgraduate Conference will explore the concept of exchange in Romantic-period literature and thought. It will bring together postgraduate and early-career researchers whose work addresses this idea from a wide range of perspectives: from the economic exchange of objects and commodities, to the transnational circulation of books and ideas, to neglected connections between writers, texts and contexts.

We invite proposals for themed panels, as well as proposals for the traditional individual twenty-minute paper. Applicants might choose to address some of the following, though we also encourage you to interpret the theme more widely:

  • Commercial exchange: trade, commodities, the literary marketplace, economic value.
  • Epistolary exchange: letters, correspondence, bills of exchange, legal documents.
  • Financial exchange: money, gifts, credit, indebtedness, political economy.
  • Historical exchange: transmission and reception of writers and works across generations.
  • Intellectual exchange: literary networks and coteries, periodicals and print culture, public opinion.
  • International exchange: travel, intercultural encounters, translation, transnational circulation.
  • Interpersonal exchange: influence, collaboration and conversation between writers.

Please send abstracts of up to 250 words for individual papers or 750 words for themed three-person panels (including name and institutional affiliation of all proposed speakers) to bars.postgrads@gmail.com by 9 March 2018.

Follow us on Twitter @BARS_PGs

Organisers: Honor Rieley (Glasgow) and Paul Stephens (Oxford)

Download this CfP here.

Call for Papers: Frankenstein – Parable of the Modern Age

Please see below for a Call for Papers from the Inklings Society for Literature and Aesthetics for a September 2018 conference on Frankenstein in Ingolstadt, close to the very building in which Frankenstein – if he had existed – would have attended his medical studies and worked on his creation.

CALL FOR PAPERS
Deadline February 15 2018
Please submit proposals of up to 500 words, along with a short CV to: karl.kegler@hm.edu

 FRANKENSTEIN — PARABLE OF THE MODERN AGE
1818 · 2018
International Symposium of the Inklings-Society
Ingolstadt, 28th – 29th September 2018

 

The year 2018 marks the 200th anniversary of a novel that has had a lasting impact on literary fantasy, but also on thinking about ethics and science. The fact that Mary Shelley thought of more than a mere scary story when she anonymously published her novel Frankenstein in 1818 is illustrated by the alternative title: The Modern Prometheus. By referring to the ancient myth of Prometheus, it implies the relationship between creator and creature. One of Shelley’s fundamental literary innovations is to tell the story from the creature’s own point of view over substantial parts of the book. Coming into existence, Frankenstein’s creature at first desires nothing more than to be accepted as a human being in the community of humans. He becomes a danger, because even his own creator refuses to acknowledge him. Shelley deals with an existential question that can be extended from Frankenstein’s fictional laboratory in Ingolstadt to the phantasms and the real sceneries of contemporary history. If This Is a Man one might ask with the title of Primo Levi’s autobiographical report. Is fictional Frankenstein a myth standing for imagination creating monsters and then being afraid of them?

For our conference we are looking for contributions that deal with Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, its adaptations to the present day, and their potential as a model of interpretation for the modern age. The organizers encourage comparative studies that may – among others – reflect upon following topics:

– Battlegrounds: Shelley and Frankenstein between revolution and restoration
– Gods: literary perspectives on and of creators and creatures
– Enlightenment at its limits: abysses between sensibility, rationality and horror
– Poles and laboratories: Topographies of progress between the slaughterhouse and the permafrost
– Vivisections: Interpretations of the Frankenstein parable in later adaptations
– The Last Man: Images of the future between zombie and superhuman

The symposium will take place on September 28 and 29 2018 at the very place where Frankenstein – if he had existed – would have attended his anatomical and medical studies in Ingolstadt around 1800. The building complex now houses the German Medical History Museum.

A limited number of travel allowances might be available for successful applicants.
Lectures should not exceed 25 minutes. Conference languages are English or German.
Contributions will be published in the next issue of the Inklings Yearbook for Literature and Aesthetics.

Please send your abstract of up to 500 words and a short CV until Thursday 15 February  2018.

Entries should be submitted to:
Inklings Society for Literature and Aesthetics
c/o Prof. Dr. Karl R. Kegler
karl.kegler@hm.edu