Collectors, Collections,
and Scholarly Culture
The session on "Collectors, Collections, and Scholarly Culture"
was presented on May 6, 2000, in Washington, DC as part of the ACLS Annual Meeting.
© Neil Harris
Introduction
Neil Harris, Moderator
Preston and Sterling Morton Professor of History,
University of Chicago
Welcome to the ACLS public session on Collectors,
Collections, and Scholarly Culture. I'm Neil Harris and I will be serving
as moderator this morning.
Before introducing our speakers, I'd like to say a few words
about the larger subject of collecting, confining myself mainly to
this country. Collecting, as Tom Tanselle noted in a recent
Salmagundi essay, has become an increasingly absorbing subject for
historians, anthropologists, psychologists, and economists, not to
mention innumerable non-academics who flock to flea markets, fairs,
and shows of various kinds, subscribe to journals and newsletters,
buy and sell on e-bay and other Internet sites, and constitute
something of a scholarly subject in themselves. There is, in addition,
the considerable television audiencetens of millionsfor both
the British and American versions of Antiques Road Show, an
audience which seems to include in its ranks, as do these other categories
of collectors, some academics as well. The culture of collecting, as
an obsessive pastime, merits discussion on its own terms, and reflects
a range of attitudes and imperatives that comprehend both nature
and nurture.
But today's symposium subject appears to be somewhat
more exclusive than that, and is meant to reflect a special aspect
of collecting, not so much collecting as a scholarly subject but
collecting as a scholarly object, collecting as it has contributed to, reflected,
and even shaped the character of scholarship itself, principally, though
I suspect not entirely, through the purchase and donation of manuscripts and printed materials. There is, in some quarters, a sense
of foreboding about this relationship as we look to a future in
which books and manuscripts no longer enjoy the primacy that have
been theirs over the last five hundred years. The digitizing of records,
the increasingly electronic form of transactions and
communications, and the spread of computer usage constitute shifts of practice
that have received a great deal of attention, although not necessarily
from those concerned with the future of scholarly collecting. It might
be useful to remember that one hundred years ago the explosion
of printing which was nurtured by growing wealth and new
technologies, stimulated some private collectors to take action themselves
to allow future generations of scholars to document the character
of daily living. The best example I can cite, although it is hardly the
only one, is the John Johnson Collection at Oxford, which some of
you may know, an extraordinary miscellany of ephemera
including broadsides, bus and laundry tickets, menus, store receipts,
business cards, letterheads, bills, and public notices, that collectively give
us entry into the life of Victorian England. There have been
some counterparts to Johnson in the United States, like Belle
Landauer, whose collection of trade cards is in the New-York
Historical Society; and, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, William M.
Ivins and A. Hyatt Mayor, who headed its eclectic and capacious
Prints Department, going after printed materials and ephemera in which
no one else seemed interested. And there have been other, unsung
heroes who as collectors, librarians, or curators, recognized the need
to change generic definitions and amass the stockpiles to fuel
the observations and the research of later generations.
This spirit of openness toward scholarly possibility that
has animated a number of collectors in the past is also linked to the
very institution that has hosted us, the Library of Congress. You
have probably heard and seen a good deal in the last couple of days
about the Library's ongoing celebration of its history, but much more
can be said. The Jefferson Building, site of the Haskins Lecture
and reception last night, is simultaneously the most elaborately
decorated public building in this country and the most complex
and heroic tribute to the culture of the written word ever constructed
in the United States. Decoding the allegorical murals, mosaics, and
sculptured works, and analyzing the building's decorative
exuberance, have generated a whole series of texts in themselves. But
the origin of the Library as such, the impulse to make it something
more than a narrow reference collection for a legislative body, was
supported by a narrowly-won Congressional debate which raised
questions still relevant to policy makers today, about the
connections linking collecting, scholarship, public need, and public funds.
The second birth of the Congressional Library, as many of
you know, took place after the first, rather limited collection,
was destroyed in the fire that consumed the Capitol building in
1814. Jefferson's offer to sell his personal library to the government,
an offer reflecting both his concern that there be a great library
in Washington and his financial needs, touched off waves of
partisan bickering and fascinating reflection, well documented by
historians of the library. There had earlier been opposition to
Congress spending any money at all on a library; why did legislators have
to appropriate funds for books, when there were so many other
pressing wants, a New England newspaper had mused. But the collection
that Jefferson had assembled was, in fact, something other than just
a group of useful books, a great prize but also one of
apparently dubious value to a pragmatic Congress. A passionate
bibliophile, while Minister to France Jefferson spent his summers poring
over possible purchases, and had standing orders with booksellers
throughout the world. He had accumulated many thousands of books,
some of them extraordinarily rare. He was asking $25,000 for the
entire collection, and the ensuing debate was partly over money, partly
over politics, and partly over policy, and included considerable
contention over the uses of the humanities. By turn Congressmen
accused Jefferson's books of being arcane, subversive, useless, and
expensive, charges which sound down the corridors of time in attacks
on humanistic enterprise. One legislator declared, rather
memorably, that the books were in "languages which many cannot read, and
most ought not to." Newspaper columnists had a field day satirizing
the highly varied and specialized subjects covered by Jefferson's
collectionsomething like the title trove brought back from the
annual meeting of the MLA by journalists pretending to be shocked
and scandalized.
Naturally enough, another side put forth its own views.
Many defended the purchase as a public gesture that was both noble
and appropriate, and castigated their opponents with as much vitriol
as they had received. Ultimately, proponents of the purchase
argued, what wasn't there that the lawmakers of a democratic republic
might not need, one day, to consult, as they debated the national
welfare? Future generations would blush, warned one journal, at the
narrow-mindedness displayed in the debate.
As you all know, Congress did purchase the collection, but
the results were uncomfortably closeonly ten votes separated the
two sides, reflecting the intense political partisanship of the day.
And, alas, much of the Jefferson collection so bitterly contested
was burned to ashes in a fire some decades later. But it is reassuring
that, despite the cautionary notes and the controversy, in the end
the Congress endorsed a broad and welcoming view of scholarly
collecting, and subscribed to the notion, in practice rather than through
a clearly expressed policy, that their own library should, in
essence, become the national library. It is a national library, moreover,
that is probably unique in having more than half its holdings in
languages other than the language of its host
countryEnglishalthough not, as early objections put it, in languages that most of us should
not speak. The cosmopolitanism and international character of
the collection, and the work of the Library staff who, for more than
a century, have pioneered the development of cataloguing
procedures and copyright agreements, have proven immensely beneficial
to scholars throughout the world. From somewhat unpromising
beginnings, in a political culture that lacked sympathy for the
research needs of the scholarly community, a great collection did emerge,
to be enriched, starting in the mid-nineteenth century, by a series
of private gifts and by private collections, of extraordinary
importance, which the Congress did agree to purchase. Whatever
shortcomings many of us may feel exist in government policy toward
humanistic scholarship, the nurturing and maintenance of this great library is
a reminder that at some moments, at least, there has been
official recognition of the importance of the larger scholarly enterprise,
and a spirit of generosity about its nurturing.
Scholars in this country have reason to be thankful for a series
of private collectors as well, whose gifts to historical societies,
universities, and museums have made possible a whole range of
investigations and the training of specialists in various languages and
disciplines. Absent the archives and rare book collections in our
great university libraries, it is hard to imagine how, without
extremely expensive and time-consuming travel, humanistic studies
would have been effectively pursued in this country during the last
100 years. One can mention, at a minimum, such names as
Wilmarth Lewis, Paul Mellon, Mary Hyde, Arthur Altschul, and
Arthur Houghton. The desire to counter geographical determinism was
also a powerful argument employed by congressional supporters
of public institutions like the Library of Congress. The oceans,
they pointed out, may have been powerful insulators from foreign
attack, but they placed American scholars at a significant disadvantage in
a variety of fields. This issue, incidentally, was among those that
led to the very creation of the American Council of Learned
Societies and once supported a dedicated grants program: travel to
foreign conferences and seminars. Again, technology in our own time
has reduced some of the cost and distance, but even today the
landscape of scholarly inquiry has been shaped, to a surprisingly large extent,
by the obsessions and generosity of collectors, some of whom, to
be sure, were scholars in their own right. One thinks of
George Bancroft, Francis Parkman, William Hickling Prescott, and
George Ticknor, for example. Nearly every campus in America bears
some mark of the passion for collecting of such individuals, to say
nothing of the names of others whose libraries would become bywords
for research: Huntington, Morgan, Folger, Clark, Lenox (a basis
for today's New York Public), Crerar, and Newberrythese last
two founders of libraries rather than collectors themselves. Within
the American field itself, figures like Jared Sparks, Hubert
Howe Bancroft (who sold his library to Berkeley in 1905),
William Clements at Ann Arbor, William Robertson Coe at Yale, and
John Carter Brown of Providence (whose son bequeathed his
library), made an extraordinary impact upon scholarship. And they did so,
in part, by buying up at auction, and through other means,
collections which were not intended to go to institutions or permanently serve
scholarly purposes: those of Beverly Chew, Robert Hoe,
Frederic Halsey.
I have focussed so far on individual collectors. But the
relationship between individual and institutional scholarly collecting in
the United States is itself a fascinating if complex story. Several of
the shrewdest and most effective university faculty and administrators
of this century achieved some of their celebrity by recognizing
the significance of private collectors and channeling their energies
toward the growth of great academic librariesHarry Ransom
at Texas, Gordon Ray at Illinois, Herman Wells at Indiana,
Chauncey Brewster Tinker at Yale, Franklin Murphy at Kansas and
UCLA. Not invariably philanthropic in their broader sentiments, or
even necessarily sympathetic to the cause of education, often eccentric
in lifestyle or values, collectors have occasionally been led, by
their passions, to underwrite larger causes. Once a significant
collection has been formed, and the collector indicates some interest in its
going to an institution, the challenge is to get sufficient endowment
to support effective cataloging, research, conservation, and
maintenance. And this is a challenge that many institutions have
effectively met.
Private collectors, then, have done far more than simply
supply scholars and researchers with raw material for their work. They
have also helped fund the very institutions that employ scholars, drawn
to such a pursuit, in many cases, through a fascination with
object accumulation rather than older associations or raw enthusiasm
for the pursuit of knowledge in itself. Some students of library
history have indeed argued that collectors often forced rare book
programs onto universities, their private passions rather than careful
central planning driving these holdings forward. Emulation and envy,
as well as professionalization, were key factors in dispersing the ideal
of aggressive collecting as a university function, along with
competition for star faculty and development strategies. Motives and
techniques can be seen as mixed, and indeed some here may wish during
the discussion to address the tensions attending the pursuit of
specialized and expensive collections.
Individual collectors, like any other group, have not been
universally beneficent. Some of them have attached difficult conditions to
use of their collection. Quite a number of them have obtained
their materials unfairly or illegally. Others have driven values so high
that forgery becomes an appealing trade. And others still have
competed with educational and research institutions and, after purchase,
have occasionally broken up significant collections, in the interest
of profit or, as disappointed suitors might contend, pure mischief.
Still, the overall impact of private collecting on scholarship has
been overwhelmingly positive, with private desire and social gain
co-existing. Many collectors rescued from oblivion materials
that otherwise might have been trashed, looted, thrown away, or
that might have simply deteriorated. And again, aided by gifts
and benefactions, institutional collecting at great research libraries,
spearheaded by remarkably creative and energetic figureslike
Lyman Draper, Reuben Thwaites, Herbert Putnam, William Poole,
Justin Winsor, Ainsworth Rand Spofford, Harry Lydenberg,
Robert Vosberghcreated extraordinary opportunities for research in
almost every part of the United States. In particular, the willingness
of legislatures in states like Wisconsinnot among the
wealthiestto appropriate funds for the support of major research
librariesin effect, to buy rare and specialized materialshas been impressive.
But it is now time to let our three speakers address the subject
of collecting and scholarship themselves. We are grateful for
their presence here today.