Editorial Methods

In gene­ral, the text of the ori­gi­nal let­ter is to be con­vey­ed as accu­rate­ly and pre­cise­ly as pos­si­ble in the HTML for­mat of Wor­d­Press. If the­re are tech­ni­cal opti­ons for repre­sen­ting any given pecu­lia­ri­ty of the hand­wri­ting, it will be intro­du­ced direct­ly into the text. If not, an image of that sec­tion of the let­ter may be used to illus­tra­te that pecu­lia­ri­ty. In this way, the anony­mi­ty of the fami­ly can be balan­ced with the best prac­ti­ces of “diplo­ma­tic tran­scrip­ti­on” for scho­l­ar­ly editions.

1. Work Process

Star­ting in 2012, the Pro­ject Lea­ders (Prof. Andrew Stuart Ber­ger­son and Dr. Tho­mas Mund­schick) at the time initia­ted the digi­ta­liz­a­ti­on of the ori­gi­nal let­ters. All of the indi­vi­du­al let­ter pages were scan­ned into a .pdf for­mat. The work con­ti­nues of com­bi­ning them into one pdf per let­ter and desi­gna­ting them with Signa­tures.

Sin­ce 2012, the let­ters have been tran­scri­bed and tag­ged with key words by a chan­ging inter­ge­nera­tio­nal Team of aca­de­mics and lay citi­zens in Aus­tria, Ger­ma­ny, the Nether­lands, and the United Sta­tes. This work is accom­plis­hed in pairs for mutu­al sup­port such that, for instance, older peop­le who are fami­li­ar with the older scripts col­la­bo­ra­te with youn­ger peop­le who are more fami­li­ar with tech­no­lo­gy; or nati­ve Ger­man spea­kers work with peop­le for whom Ger­man is a second language.

Team mem­bers com­ple­te the work eit­her in per­son or vir­tual­ly. All drafts of the let­ters – the pdfs and the tran­scrip­ti­ons – are stored vir­tual­ly and acces­si­ble to all mem­bers of the inter­na­tio­nal rese­arch team at all times. In 2012, we used the Lear­ning Manage­ment Sys­tem Black­board. Star­ting in 2015, we shifted to Zote­ro.

Star­ting in 2019, the initi­al tran­scrip­ti­on is being com­ple­ted by Tran­skri­bus ins­tead of human bein­gs (with 98.2% accu­ra­cy). Alt­hough the cross­che­cking and tag­ging is still done by human bein­gs, that work now takes place on Tran­skri­bus­Web.

At least 75 years after the day when they were ori­gi­nal­ly mai­led, the let­ters are pos­ted here on the Wor­d­Press blog and broad­cast on Radio Ton­kuh­le as mon­th­ly pro­grams and indi­vi­du­al letters.

In 2016, we wro­te a play that dra­ma­ti­zes the let­ters from the peri­od of Hil­de and Roland’s courtship. In 2017, we crea­ted a Ger­man ver­si­on of it as well. They are both avail­ab­le here and more infor­ma­ti­on about the work­shop in which the Ame­ri­can ver­si­on pre­mie­red in May 2016 is avail­ab­le here.

We are cur­r­ent­ly pos­ting Eng­lish trans­la­ti­ons of the let­ters asso­cia­ted with this play and crea­ting a cur­ri­cu­lum for stu­dents of Ger­man cul­tu­re, histo­ry, and lan­guage that makes use of the­se inter­me­di­al resources.

We per­ma­nent­ly archi­ve all of the mate­ri­als rela­ting to this pro­ject on UMKC Box (pass­word protected).

2. An On-Going Project

In con­trast to tra­di­tio­nal pro­jects desi­gned to publish aca­de­mic edi­ti­ons of his­to­ri­cal let­ters, the goals of T&S are not achie­ved only when the let­ters are final­ly publis­hed in their final form. Rather, the work pro­cess is a goal in its­elf inso­far as it con­ti­nues to be imple­men­ted as an inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on bet­ween aca­de­mics and mem­bers of the public. Inde­ed, T&S faci­li­ta­tes a long-term col­la­bo­ra­ti­on bet­ween mem­bers of dif­fe­rent genera­ti­ons and natio­na­li­ties inclu­ding stu­dents of Ger­man cul­tu­re, histo­ry, and lan­guage around the world.  At the same time, the public-huma­nities for­mat of this pro­ject results ine­vi­ta­b­ly in giving the let­ters that we are publi­shing here cer­tain pecu­li­ar cha­rac­te­ris­tics that are less typi­cal of scho­l­ar­ly editions.

2.1. An Uneven Format

To be sure, we try to repre­sent the let­ters in as con­sis­tent a form as pos­si­ble. Yet a num­ber of incon­sis­ten­ci­es have crept into the publis­hed ver­si­ons due to the fact that some of the par­ti­ci­pants in this pro­ject are not nati­ve spea­kers of Ger­man or pro­fes­sio­nal aca­de­mics trai­ned in the art and sci­ence of tran­scrip­ti­on for edi­ted edi­ti­ons. More to the point, our team mem­bers adjus­ted our gui­de­li­nes for tran­scrib­ing and blog­ging, for instance, in respon­se to chan­ges in the let­ters in later years, as new peop­le joi­ned our team, and as new tech­no­lo­gies beca­me avail­ab­le. Only when the pro­ject is com­ple­ted and all of the let­ters have been publis­hed will we go back and revi­se the older let­ters in order to crea­te a unita­ry for­mat. Unders­tood as an ongo­ing pro­ject, the pro­ject lea­ders wel­co­me sug­ges­ti­ons for impro­ve­ments in gene­ral or comments on indi­vi­du­al let­ters whe­re mista­kes have been made. 

2.2. Publication Pace and Gaps

Bet­ween 2013 and 2015 the let­ters were pos­ted to the blog pre­cise­ly 75 years after they were mai­led: T&S, Vols. I–III (2013–15) for 1938–40. With Roland’s con­scrip­ti­on into the mili­ta­ry in Fall 1940 (2015), howe­ver, the volu­me and length of the let­ters incre­a­sed to such a degree that, alrea­dy by Sep­tem­ber 1940/2015, the pace of publi­ca­ti­on could not be main­tai­ned. Almost all of the let­ters up until the end of 1941 have sin­ce been publis­hed – 1941 appeared retroac­tively as Volu­me IV (2016) – with only a few excep­ti­ons (see 2.3. Excep­ti­ons). By con­trast, the blog for 1942 is very incom­ple­te.

In 2019 we are also publi­shing selec­ted let­ters from the peri­od 1938 to 1940 in Eng­lish translation.

2.3. Exceptions

The collec­tion inclu­ded around 50 let­ters that were par­ti­al, unda­ted, dis­con­nec­ted from, or did not belong to the other pages in the ori­gi­nal let­ters. The­se items will be pla­ced in their cor­rect order once the rest of the let­ters have been publis­hed. Only then will we be able to con­si­der the collec­tion complete.

Until then, and so long as we have at least a date asso­cia­ted with the par­ti­al let­ter, we will publish them “as is”. The­se cases are exp­lai­ned in the text with an edi­to­ri­al com­ment in squa­re bra­ckets [ ] and can be sear­ched accord­ing to the fol­lowing terms: Sei­ten­ver­wir­rung/confused page order or Unvoll­stän­dig/incomplete. If the page order has been rear­ran­ged accord­ing to our logic, this edi­to­ri­al chan­ge has been noted.

3. Metadata

3.1 Signature

The Signa­tures of the let­ter (i.e. [380504–2‑1]) iden­ti­fies the let­ter in terms of the year (38), mon­th (05), and day (04) on which the aut­hor of the let­ter (-2 for Hil­de, ‑1 for Roland) mai­led the let­ter as well as whe­ther it was the first (-1), second(-2), etc. let­ter mai­led on that day. (You can learn more about our sys­tem for citing T&S mate­ri­als here.)

Let­ters that were mai­led sepa­r­ate­ly recei­ve dif­fe­rent signa­tures. Some­ti­mes the aut­hors wro­te several let­ters befo­re they mai­led them. In cases whe­re more than one let­ter were sent in the same enve­lo­pe, they were all given the same signa­tu­re. The signa­tu­re should always cor­re­spond to the date in which Hil­de or Roland mai­led the let­ter. Some­ti­mes they wro­te a let­ter on one day but only sent it on the next. The signa­tu­re thus cor­re­spond to the day in which the let­ter was sent even if this requi­red eli­ci­ting that infor­ma­ti­on indi­rect­ly from the let­ter itself.

For a time, they num­be­red some of the let­ters that they recei­ved. Some­ti­mes they also noted the date on which they recei­ved the let­ter from their part­ner. This date is not to be con­fu­sed with the signa­tu­re which should always cor­re­spond to the date in which the aut­hor mai­led the letter.

Eng­lish trans­la­ti­ons of the ori­gi­nal Ger­man let­ters, should they be avail­ab­le, inclu­de a lan­guage desi­gna­ti­on “/en” in the signa­tu­re and URL.

3.2 Tags

let­ter­The let­ters on the Wor­d­Press blog are mar­ked with tags. The­se are not the same as a scho­l­ar­ly index, which is not necessa­ry sin­ce Wor­d­Press has a full text search func­tion which is far more effec­ti­ve in fin­ding let­ters. The tags are the­re­fo­re used to direct the rea­der to impli­cit con­tent or deno­ta­ti­ons of the let­ters that would other­wi­se not be found in a full text search of the let­ter text. Con­tent that can be found in many or most of the let­ters are not sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly tagged.

3.3 Categories

All of the let­ters on the blog are cate­go­ri­zed by the mon­th and year of their mai­ling so Wor­d­Press can orga­ni­ze them chro­no­lo­gi­cal­ly in the Let­ter Archi­ve on the right column of the main pages. For instance, let­ter 380504–2‑1 publis­hed on 4. May 2013 is cate­go­ri­zed as May 1938. Other cate­go­ries include:

Bekannt­ma­chung = Pro­ject announcements

Benut­zer-Bei­trag = Short essays writ­ten by users about the letters

Sei­ten­ver­wir­rung = Let­ters who­se page order is confused

Unvoll­stän­dig = let­ters that break off in the midd­le who­se mis­sing pages have not yet been identified

3.4 Avatar

All of the let­ters are mar­ked with the red T&S ava­tar at the start and the end of the let­ters to set off the text. The ava­tar befo­re the text is some­ti­mes repla­ced with an image that speaks to the con­tent of the let­ter. User-writ­ten essays and pro­ject announ­ce­ments are mar­ked with a green avatar.

4. Orthography

The blog fol­lows Hil­de and Roland’s way of wri­ting as much as pos­si­ble rather than modern rules of ortho­gra­phy. For instance, the ß is used rather than repla­cing it with ss or the beta symbol. 

5.  Punctuation

Hil­de and Roland use das­hes in various lengths. We use an n‑dash – when the­re is a pau­se in thought or the end of a sen­tence. We use an hyphen — only to con­nect two words.

Note that our blog does not main­tain the line divi­si­ons of the ori­gi­nal let­ters, as Wor­d­Press adjus­ts the width of the text to the win­dow, screen, and lan­guage of the rea­der. So we dele­te the sin­gle “-” or dou­ble “=” hyphen that Hil­de or Roland wro­te at the end of a line to demar­ca­te a divi­ded word. (The dou­ble line was more typi­cal in that era.) See the examp­le “ge=funden” above .

Mista­kes from the aut­hors are trans­la­ted into the ana­lo­gous cha­rac­ters such as when text is cros­sed out and illus­tra­ted in cases of whe­re con­fu­si­on may arise.

Hil­de and Roland use various kinds of quo­ta­ti­on marks: „…“. We use the same as the ori­gi­nal when Wor­d­Press does not auto­ma­ti­cal­ly stan­dar­di­ze them.

Words that Hil­de or Roland added after the fact are pla­ced in  super­script or sub­script in kee­ping with the original.

If the­re is some kind of inser­ti­on mark, we use a ^.

Excla­ma­ti­on marks (!) along with all other punc­tua­ti­on are always pre­cise­ly coun­ted and included.

6.  Marks

Aus­zug aus dem Brief mit Unter­strei­chun­gen bzw. Text im roten Tinte.

Text that is writ­ten in a color other than the rest of the let­ter are repro­du­ced in a simi­lar color as the ori­gi­nal. Under­li­nes and lines on the side of the text are trea­ted in the same way: regard­less whe­ther the mark was writ­ten under the text or on the side of the text (see below), in both cases the text appears as under­li­ned in the blog. Under­li­nes should not be con­fu­sed with hot­links.

If the line was writ­ten in color, the under­line will appe­ar in a simi­lar color. Note: Wor­d­Press auto­ma­ti­cal­ly chan­ges the text of the under­li­ned cha­rac­ters to the same color even though the cha­rac­ters were writ­ten in the nor­mal ink or pen­cil as the rest of the let­ter. This func­tion of Wor­d­Press can­not be changed.

If a sec­tion of text is encir­cled or boxed, this is desi­gna­ted with a [*] in the text and [* umkreist] at the end of the letter.

Par­ti­cu­lar­ly dif­fi­cult sec­tions of text that can­not be appro­pria­te­ly repre­sen­ted as they appe­ar in the ori­gi­nal are illus­tra­ted with images on Wor­d­Press. The cri­te­ria whe­ther to inclu­de an illus­tra­ti­on from the let­ter its­elf is whe­ther the paleo­gra­phic qua­li­ties of the let­ter can be trans­par­ent­ly repre­sen­ted in HTML. For instance, the tech­no­lo­gy does not allow for a clear repre­sen­ta­ti­on of situa­tions whe­re wavy lines are used under or on the side of the text, when a num­ber is encir­cled, when the let­ter pages have been numbered.

7. Spacing

In the tran­scrip­ti­on, no tabs or indents have been used even when it comes to the date, salutati­on, or author’s signa­tu­re. Simi­lar­ly, page breaks are not mar­ked – with the excep­ti­on of when a new let­ter begins that was mai­led in the same enve­lo­pe as the ear­lier let­ter, in which case a sin­gle blank like has been added. The aut­hors added page num­bers to some of the letters.

Even if the aut­hors pla­ced more space bet­ween two para­graphs, the two para­graphs are dis­tin­guis­hed only by a sin­gle para­graph break. Simi­lar­ly, the aut­hors some­ti­mes added more space bet­ween two sen­ten­ces. Such breaks is often a sub­sti­tu­te for a new para­graph in order to save paper. Based on our best jud­ge­ment, we tre­at such breaks as new para­graphs. Some­ti­mes Wor­d­Press auto­ma­ti­cal­ly adds a new para­graph break, for instance when an illus­tra­ti­on has been added to the text, even if the­re is not a para­graph break in the ori­gi­nal let­ter. The­re is no way to avoid this situa­ti­on with this soft­ware plat­form. Mar­gi­na­lia are inser­ted into the blog like ordi­na­ry text, though an edi­to­ri­al note is added to exp­lain the situa­ti­on as well as an illus­tra­ti­on (like the one on the left). 

When the aut­hors added a nota­ti­on mark* with a note else­whe­re on the page, the mark is added in super­script and the note is inser­ted whe­re it appeared on the page.

8.  Editorial Interpolations

Edi­to­ri­al inter­po­la­ti­ons that add to the text in any way are always desi­gna­ted by squa­re bra­ckets [ ].

8.1 Anonymity

Abbre­via­ti­ons for per­son or loca­ti­ons are made for the sake of anony­mi­ty without mar­king them with squa­re bra­ckets [ ]: that is, O. rather than [O.] Only one peri­od is added if an abbre­via­ti­on falls at the end of a sen­tence (as in the last sentence).

It can hap­pen that two dif­fe­rent per­sons or loca­ti­ons are given the same abbre­via­ti­on in the same or dif­fe­rent let­ters. Rea­ders should not mis­in­ter­pret the same abbre­via­ti­on as a refe­rence to the same pro­per noun! This ren­de­ring is not inap­pro­pria­te but in fact hel­pful in vei­ling the iden­ti­ties of peop­le and places.

8.1.1. People

To pro­tect the iden­ti­ties of the let­ter wri­ters and their fami­ly mem­bers “as much as pos­si­ble”, it was necessa­ry to replace their name with pseud­onyms: [Roland Nord­hoff] und [Hil­de Lau­be]. When their last names appe­ar else­whe­re in the let­ters, for instance, in asso­cia­ti­on with rela­ti­ves, the pseud­onym for the last name is used, howe­ver the first name is writ­ten as is. When it comes to unre­la­ted indi­vi­du­als, the first name is writ­ten as is and the last name is abbre­via­ted with the first character.

8.1.2. Places

The names of lar­ger loca­ti­ons (like Dres­den or Chem­nitz) and pla­ces that are far from the resi­dence of the main prot­ago­nists are not anony­mi­zed. Loca­ti­ons that refer to whe­re Hil­de and Roland lived are abbre­via­ted with the first cha­rac­ter like K. or, if the second part of the word is very com­mon, like W.berg. This is true of desi­gna­ti­ons of topo­gra­phic loca­ti­ons that might indi­ca­te their place of resi­dence, street names, or other refe­ren­ces that are spe­ci­fic to par­ti­cu­lar locations.

8.1.3. Roland Deployment Locations

The pla­ces whe­re Roland was deploy­ed or sta­tio­ned are not abbre­via­ted. When the ori­gi­nal let­ter sub­sti­tu­ted an abbre­via­ti­on, a [sic] is added; unless the loca­ti­on can be infer­red from the con­text, in which case it is cla­ri­fied for the blog rea­der, like: S.[aloniki], inclu­ding the ori­gi­nal peri­od befo­re the [ ] .

8.1.4. Public Transportation

The spe­ci­fic depar­tu­re and arri­val times of bus­ses and trains that could con­nect the rea­der to Hilde’s or Roland’s pla­ces of resi­dence are repla­ced with […].

8.1.5. Time References

When the word “o’clock” is mis­sing after the hour of time refe­rence, it is added as in: around 3 [o’clock].

8.2. Anomolies

8.2.1 Holes in the Letters

The most com­mon rea­son for mis­sing cha­rac­ters is due to the holes that Hil­de pla­ced in the let­ter paper in order to store them in ring bin­ders, which some­ti­mes dele­ted parts of a word. In this case, the cha­rac­ters befo­re and after are inclu­ded and the mis­sing let­ters, infer­red from the rest of the word, are inclu­ded inside [ ].

8.2.2 Deviations

Only devia­ti­ons from the con­tem­pora­ry rules of Ger­man ortho­gra­phy and spel­ling (based on the Reform of 1902) requi­re edi­to­ri­al nota­ti­on in order to cla­ri­fy to the blog rea­der that it is not a case of a mista­ke in the transcription.

In gene­ral, such devia­ti­ons are mar­ked with a [sic], though in most cases, [sic] does not desi­gna­te a mista­ke on the part of the aut­hors. In most cases, we use a [sic] sim­ply to mean “yes/as is”: that is, to com­mu­ni­ca­te to the rea­der that the text was actual­ly writ­ten as it has been tran­scri­bed, just in case the­re might be any con­fu­si­on. If any one given sen­tence requi­res mul­ti­ple cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons of eit­her natu­re, they are mar­ked only with one [sic] at the end for pur­po­ses of readability.

Some­ti­mes the gram­ma­ti­cal sub­ject of the sen­tence is mis­sing in the ori­gi­nal text but can be infer­red from the con­ju­ga­ti­on of the Ger­man verb. To fore­stall the mis­in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on that we are dealing in that case with a mista­ke in the tran­scrip­ti­on, we use two dif­fe­rent methods depen­ding on the gram­ma­ti­cal situation: 

  1. An iso­la­ted verb in an intro­duc­to­ry clau­se like “Weißt[,] ich habe ges­tern an Dich gedacht/Know that I thought about you yes­ter­day”: No sub­ject is added in the Ger­man ver­si­on becau­se the mea­ning of this dialect or idiolect is trans­pa­rent to the Ger­man rea­der. By con­trast, the sub­ject is gene­ral­ly added as [You] in the Eng­lish trans­la­ti­ons becau­se the mea­ning is not as clear to an Eng­lish reader.
  2. An iso­la­ted verb in com­ple­te sen­tence like “[Du] Weißt doch noch der Nach­bar…” In both the Ger­man ori­gi­nal and the Eng­lish trans­la­ti­on, the implied sub­ject is added as in: “[You] know the neighbor …”

8.2.3. Unusual Words and Word Forms

Over the cour­se of this pro­ject, the issue of out­da­ted words or words that deri­ve from dialect or the idiolect of the aut­hors have been hand­led in various ways. They inclu­de the following: 

  1. Espe­cial­ly in the ear­ly peri­od as Hil­de and Roland were get­ting to know one ano­t­her, unusu­al words were matched with the com­pa­ra­ble word in High Ger­man like: “bis­sel [biss­chen]”.
  2. Some­ti­mes the unusu­al word is cla­ri­fied with a link direct­ly to the stan­dard Ger­man Dic­tion­a­ry by Duden, the tra­di­tio­nal Ger­man dic­tion­a­ry by the Bro­thers Grimm and the asso­cia­ted dic­tio­n­a­ries of regio­nal dialects, or with Wik­tio­na­ry
  3. Some­ti­mes the unusu­al word was left as is and mar­ked with a “[sic]”, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in cases whe­re it is an idiolect of the aut­hors. If this word or phra­se appears repeated­ly in the let­ters, howe­ver, even­tual­ly they are no lon­ger even mar­ked with a “[sic]”.

Some typi­cal examp­les include:

  • sooo” (as seen in the excerpt on the right) 
  • gar­nicht” and other cases whe­re two words are writ­ten together

As much as pos­si­ble, we endea­vo­r­ed to retain the lin­gu­is­tic par­ti­cu­la­ri­ties of the aut­hors in the tran­scrip­ti­on. In order to avoid mista­kes during the tran­scrip­ti­on pro­cess and in order to make the text as legi­ble as pos­si­ble, we did make small adjus­t­ments to the punc­tua­ti­on. For instance:

  • hab ich => hab[‘] ich
  • mirs => mir[‘]s

In dialect, the vowel “e” was some­ti­mes drop­ped from wit­hin cer­tain words in kee­ping with their dialect. Here it is rein­tro­du­ced with [ e] as in:

  • uns­re => uns[e]re

In the later peri­od, the T&S Rese­arch Team pre­fer­red to used solu­ti­ons 2 and 3.

8.3. Contextualization

The blog for­mat offers a ran­ge of pos­si­bi­li­ties for expan­ding on the mea­ning of the text and pla­cing it in its his­to­ri­cal context.

Giuseppe Verdi by Giovanni Boldini
  1. Some­ti­mes a mem­ber of our Rese­arch Team is fami­li­ar with the mea­ning of a word or phra­se that was writ­ten in dialect or idiolect. Their explana­ti­ons have eit­her been inser­ted into the text as [wohl: …/probably: .…] or added as a com­men­ta­ry to the publis­hed letter.
  2. Mem­bers of the Rese­arch Team also add Hot­links and Images (like Gui­sep­pe Ver­di on the right) to the let­ters in order to exp­lain or con­tex­tua­li­ze them in terms of lan­guage, ortho­gra­phy, form, hand­wri­ting, con­tent, con­text, and so on. We stri­ve to use links from web­sites that are sta­bi­le, secu­re, and reliable.
  3. When a work of art, archi­tec­tu­re, lite­ra­tu­re, music, etc. are men­tio­ned in the let­ters or just a quo­ta­ti­on from such a work, the Rese­arch Team endea­vors to add a com­ple­te refe­rence to the names of the work and its creator in [ ].
  4. Even if the con­tent is not direct­ly dis­cus­sed in the let­ters them­sel­ves, the Rese­arch Team also insert illus­tra­ti­ons, films, music, and other mate­ri­als into the let­ters that pro­vi­de a broa­der con­text for the let­ters. The scope of what is pos­si­ble to add here as a broa­der frame­work for the let­ters is limi­ted by what is avail­ab­le on the web with appro­pria­te copy­right per­mis­si­ons, and the edi­to­ri­al decisi­on is left to the indi­vi­du­al blogger.
  5. Users may add addi­tio­nal or alter­na­ti­ve con­text to the let­ter through comments direct­ly after the let­ter or by sub­mit­ting lon­ger User Con­tri­bu­ti­ons. Send your con­tri­bu­ti­on to Prof. Dr. Andrew Stuart Ber­ger­son (ber­ger­so­na [at] umkc.edu) inclu­ding your name, the tit­le of the pie­ce, a sum­ma­ry (max 300 words), and the file its­elf (pre­fer­a­b­ly in .html with for­mat­ting or as a .doc or .docx). You must adhe­re to the T&S refe­rence sys­tem and our terms and conditions.

Image: Gio­van­ni Bol­di­ni, Por­trait von Giu­sep­pe Ver­di, 1886, Gal­le­ria Nazio­na­le d’Ar­te Moder­na, Roma, Ita­li­en, Foto: Edu­ar­do Ruíz-Hea­ly, 10 Octo­ber 2014, Lizenz­frei über Wiki­me­dia Com­mons, 07.2017

Wernigerode im 19. Jahrhundert, Theodore Hennicke, Wernigerode, aus der Sammlung Duncker, Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin, 1857-83, herunterladen Juni 2013, http://www.zlb.de/digitalesammlungen/SammlungDuncker/04/181%20Wernigerode.pdf

You can learn more about the cor­re­spon­dence here and more about the inter­di­sci­pli­na­ry con­text for the pro­ject here.

Image: Wer­ni­ge­ro­de im 19. Jahr­hun­dert, Theo­do­re Hen­ni­cke, Wer­ni­ge­ro­de, aus der Samm­lung Duncker, Zen­tral- und Lan­des­bi­blio­thek Ber­lin, 1857–83, her­un­ter­la­den 06.2013.

Scroll to top