Describing the Circumstances of Archival Acquisition in Literary Archives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Why Are They Here?: Describing the Circumstances of Archival Acquisition in Literary Archives Christopher Long Abstract One aspect of custodial history which has not been explored in the literature is the decision-making process leading up to material arriving at a particular archival institution. I propose that the choice of institution, made by the creator or her heirs, has an effect on how the material is interpreted by future researchers. I will discuss the archives of two Canadian authors, Mordecai Richler and Sheila Watson, which illustrate how the author’s choice of archival institution for depositing their papers had meaning. I conclude by suggesting that, in certain cases, the decision-making process which led to the donor choosing a particular archives to house her materials should be captured in the archival description. Keywords: Archives, Literary Archives, Canadian Authors, Archival Description In this essay I will discuss the ability of current description standards to capture contextual information for personal archives, focusing particularly on authors’ archives. I am expanding on an element of Jennifer Douglas’s (2016) call for “a more honest descriptive practice,” which entails documenting the circumstances of material entering archival custody (p. 28). One aspect of custodial history which has not been explored in the literature is the decision-making process leading up to material arriving at a particular archival institution. I propose that the choice of institution, made by the creator or her heirs, has an effect on how the material is interpreted by future researchers. Thus, the decision-making process should be documented in the archival description. I will briefly summarize the debate among archival theorists over the nature of personal records and situate my own argument within the history of that debate. Expanding on Douglas’s arguments about the ‘constructedness’ of authors’ archives, I will discuss two Canadian authors’ archives which LONG DESCRIBING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARCHIVAL ACQUISITION illustrate how the author’s choice of archival institution for depositing their papers had meaning. First, Mordecai Richler’s personal papers were purchased by the University of Calgary in 1974, for reasons unrelated to Richler’s own cultural legacy. Second, Sheila Watson chose to deposit her archive at the University of Toronto’s St. Michael’s College, and not at the University of Alberta alongside her husband’s. Using these archive stories, I will demonstrate that the decision regarding where records are archived can have significant consequences for the future interpretation of personal records. Although it is impossible to capture all contextual information about a record in its description, archivists must carefully asses which elements of a record’s history have had an impact on its structure and meaning and do their best to document them.1 If archivists are aware of the decision-making process which led to the material’s acquisition, there should be an area in standardized descriptions which allows that information to be recorded. This discussion centres on literary archives because of the unique nature of the archival output engendered by writers. According to Jennifer Douglas (2013), creative people typically produce more documentary traces than other professions (p. 4). Catherine Hobbs (2006) argues that novelists, poets, and other writers have a mastery over the written word and, as a result, their unpublished works are likely to be more intentional than the notes of other famous people, such as musicians or community leaders (p. 111). Literary archives are also an ideal subject because they are typically donated by the living author, her heirs, or executors to the institution of the author’s choice. This differentiates their acquisition from that of organizational records, which usually arrive at archival institutions for reasons related to legal accountability or institutional mandate. 2 Part 1: Debates in Archival theory, from Jenkinson to today Personal archives are generally considered a “poor cousin” to government archives in archival theory (Fisher, 2009, p. 2). The giants of classical archival theory, Hilary Jenkinson and T.R. Schellenberg, agreed that personal records typically did not fulfill the criteria required for determining ‘archival quality.’ Jenkinson questioned the authenticity of most personal records because they could not be proven to have an ‘unblemished’ line of responsible custodians and donors were not legally bound to refrain from editing or dividing documents before archival acquisition (cited in Fisher, p. 9). Schellenberg questioned the lack of purposiveness in private records, arguing that to be considered archival, records must have been created or accumulated for some purpose and preserved for reasons other than those for which they were created or accumulated (cited in Fisher, p. 12). 1Wendy Duff and Verne Harris have discussed the political power involved in selecting what data should be captured in description (Duff and Harris, 2002, p. 275). 2This is not to suggest that organizational records do not often have multiple custodians and long, confusing journeys before reaching the archives. Tracing the provenance of organizational records can be very difficult in the cases of older records, passed between successive agencies. The iJournal (3)2, Fall 2017 2 LONG DESCRIBING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARCHIVAL ACQUISITION While most archivists today agree that personal papers are considered archival, the debate has continued over whether personal archives are the same as organizational records and can be understood using the same archival theory. The debate reignited with the article “Personal Papers and Treatment of Archival Principles” by Chris Hurley, which was written in response to Graeme Powell’s article, “Archival Principles and the Treatment of Personal Papers.” Powell (1976) argued that archival principles could not be applied to personal records because such records are innately disordered and idiosyncratic (p. 263). Hurley (1977) disagreed, arguing that the same principles which applied to organizational records, primarily the principle of original order, remained the best practice for personal papers. Other arrangements destroy the record’s evidential value, provide a standard form of presentation, and allow depositors to consult the records after archival accession (p. 354). In his defence of original order for personal records, Hurley raised the issue of ‘evidential value’ which later inspired debate among archivists Sue McKemmish, Richard J. Cox, Catherine Hobbs, and Verne Harris. McKemmish (1996) and Cox (2008) argued that personal records are no different from organizational records because they both are created to capture transactions and provide evidence of activity, or, as McKemmish describes it, “evidence of me” (p. 176). Conversely, Catherine Hobbs (2010) and Verne Harris (as cited in Hobbs) criticize how McKemmish and Cox narrowly define records as being primarily evidential. Hobbs argues that emphasizing personal records’ evidential qualities places too much value on an individual’s public life and not on her personal and introspective life. Hobbs writes, “Personal archives are formed because of the needs, desires, and predilections of their creators to create and keep documents (not for an administrative purpose or because of a legal requirement)” (p. 213). As a result, she argues, personal archives can be valued for what they can reveal about the ‘psychology’ and ‘character’ of the creator. Jennifer Douglas has responded to the assertion that archives can reveal a creator’s psychology by drawing from the literature on life-writing. According to Douglas (2013), scholars of autobiographical writing tend to be suspicious of the assumption that this writing reveals “the true self,” and accordingly, archivists also ought to be suspicious when considering personal documents (p. 42). Douglas (2015) draws attention to how archival material cannot be considered revealing of a creator’s ‘true character’ because writers who are self-conscious of the fact that they will be archived are likely to conceal their private selves from the public (p. 55). Additionally, the intentions of the creator may be obscured by the presence of what Douglas calls ‘coaxers and coercers,’ which refers to people who influence a body of records by editing, manipulating, or rearranging it before archival acquisition (2013, p. 114). My argument expands on Douglas’s criticisms of the ‘psychological trend’ in personal archive theory by taking her notion of ‘constructed archives’ a step further to consider how the choice of archival institution may be a part of the archive’s construction. Douglas herself suggests that the decision regarding ‘where to archive’ is an aspect of the archive’s ‘constructedness’ when she discusses how Aurelia Plath and Ted Hughes shaped Sylvia Plath’s archive. One of the many interventions which Aurelia and Ted Hughes inflicted on Plath’s papers was their decision to each deposit their share of the The iJournal (3)2, Fall 2017 3 LONG DESCRIBING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARCHIVAL ACQUISITION records into two different institutions, Smith College and Lilly Library (Douglas, 2013, p. 202). Making explicit the reasons why a particular institution has possession of certain records demonstrates what Douglas referred to as “focusing on the archival aggregation itself as referent, rather than interpreting the archive primarily as a referent to something else” (p. 254).