No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records

Author(s): Leonard Rapport

Source: The American Archivist, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Spring, 1981), pp. 143-150
Published by: Society of American Archivists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40292383
Accessed: 23-12-2016 18:40 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Society of American Archivists is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Archivist

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The American Archivist / Vol. 44, No. 2 / Spring 1981 143

No Grandfather Clause:
Reappraising Accessioned
Records
LEONARD RAPPORT

Every repository of public records hasis sufficient to offset the necessary exp
on its shelves records which, if offered to- of public money. "The questio
iture
what absolute quantity should be
day, we would not accept. If we wouldn't
accept them today, why should we permittained," he wrote, "depends in the
these records to occupy shelf space? For
analysis upon how much money the Na
such records there should be no grand-is willing to pay for the purpose."
father clause. A half-dozen years later, when I cam
Why do we have such records? Why do the National Archives, there were those
we tend to hold onto them? How can we who still thought of Bauer as something of
go about getting rid of them? a records burner. I sensed that Herman
If storage, preservation, and servicingKahn,
of in his comments that followed
Bauer's paper, expressed the prevailing
records cost nothing, if everything - space,
material, energy, personnel - were free feeling.
and Bauer's theme, as Kahn under-
in limitless supply I would advocate saving
stood it, was that public value in records
a record copy of every document, however was purely utilitarian; and he disagreed.
trivial. Such complete retention would an- "I believe, on the contrary," said Kahn,
ticipate every conceivable future use, "that
in- we keep records for the same reason
cluding those we don't dream of today. that we build schools, or rear our children,
But space, material, and energy, instead orofsupport our aged parents. It is one of
being free and limitless, are becoming scar-
those things that we do without asking our-
cer and costlier; and people, if not scarcer,
selves whether or not it represents a prof-
are becoming more expensive. So, more itable investment but simply because it is
and more, we have to think of what recordsour innate assumption that civilized men
we are going to be able to afford to pre- can do nothing else. We know that because
serve.
we are not barbarians we must keep rec-
If this sounds vaguely familiar, ords.itInmay
other bewords, the keeping of rec-
that at some time you haveords read in a a 1944society is primarily an act
civilized
paper by G. Philip Bauer, one of of theWe
faith. Na-keep records because of our
tional Archives early staff members. deep emotional
Bauer and intellectual commit-
was writing about accessioning, mentnotto the values of the civilization of
inter-
nal disposal; but what he said about
which we arethea part, and to what our ances-
former, I believe applies totors the didlatter.
and to what we hope our children
Bauer proposed that an appraiser
will do should
.... We keep records because we
are civilized
in every case ask whether the public men and therefore must do
benefit
so."
to be derived from saving public records

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
144 The American Archivist / Spring 1981

As to whether I am a follower of Bauer's Board and the U.S. Railroad Administra-

pragmatism or of Kahn's response you al- tion - I found, in going through the acces-
ready have sufficient clues. sion dossiers, that evaluations of these rec-
Although what follows is based on my ord groups were the exception rather than
experience with federal records in the Na- the rule.
tional Archives, it should be applicable to
It is recognized that an intensive study
public records in general, and particularly of these records will show that a num-
to state records. But whatever the level -
ber of them have no value but this sep-
federal, state, county, or town - we should
aration of good from bad cannot ad-
keep in mind that what we are talking
equately be made under existing
about are public records, instruments cre- circumstances at the White House Ga-
ated for a purpose. The records are to
rage.
serve the citizenry, not the reverse. The
records do not belong to archivists, histo- or

rians, genealogists, or to any special group

or class of persons other than they belong It was deemed advisable to transfer
to all and to each of us as citizens. We have the entire group to the Archives even
to keep this in mind because, in addition though it was known that considerable
to our obligation as archivists to do our parts of the files had no administrative
best, as servants of the people, to preserve or historical value or were duplicated
for them records of value, we have, as in other places. This was done pri-
Bauer implied, an obligation not to make marily because space and time were
the nation pay for preserving what isn't not available for an appraisal of their
worth the cost of preserving. value.

Why do we continue to keep records of or

questionable value and how did we come
to have them in the first place? It is recommended that the entire col-
Taking the second question first: there lection be accepted by the Archivist
are several obvious ways we got such rec- and that the General Subject file of the
ords. One is that the original appraisal was General Counsel be studied ... to de-
faulty. The appraiser judged them worthy termine which claims might be elimi-
of accessioning when, in fact, by the stand- nated. This recommendation is made
ards of the time of appraisal they weren't. in view of the fact that the United
Or the appraiser judged them correctly by States Railroad Administration is clos-
the appraisal standards of the time; but the ing its office and is forced to move
standards have changed and by today's from its present quarters within a few
standards they are not worth keeping. weeks.
Also, the records may have been acces-
sioned without any real appraisal. This was More than forty years after the last was
not uncommon in the early years of the written somebody - I - got around to mak-
National Archives. In those years the vac- ing the recommended study of the 400 feet
uum of the building's hollow interior of the last-mentioned series of the General
sucked in records that, in later years, would Counsel's records. I recommended what
have gone to records centers, with perhaps I thought they deserved: total destruction.1
a small residue finding its way into the Na- When records such as these occupy for
tional Archives. Recently, in reappraising four decades the country's most expensive
the records of two agencies established archival shelf space, time inevitably bur-
during World War I- the U.S. Shippingnishes them with a patina of permanence.

1 Many hours of seeking, by systematic sampling and by use of a subject index, failed to reveal a
single file I judged worth preserving. I did find significant products of the General Counsel's office -
but they were in the subject-classified file of the Director General.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records 145

There are other reasons for having such in internal disposal, keep their areas full.
records, reasons that may apply more to And if the official line of an archival insti-
records in repositories other than the Na-tution is that it is bursting at the seams and
tional Archives. In a state capital, in a is therefore in urgent need of more space,
smaller bureaucracy, where the archivesperhaps of a new building, then internal
may be less insulated against agency pres-disposal is not apt to get top priority.
sures, the officials who created and nur- Finally, there is mystique. Consider, for
tured the records may want, and be able, example, records that have to do with
to get their creations into that archives, ships, with the sea. Trains, trucks, buses,
whether or not they meet the accessioningand airplanes haul cargo and passengers
criteria. Again, public archives that lackall over this country; but records of indi-
strong enabling legislation may feel they vidual trains, trucks, buses, or planes, or of
have to accept some records they don'ttheir crews, or of their individual trips, are
want in order to assure getting others thatgenerally not viewed as immortal docu-
they do want. (This happens more often inments. But when cargo or people move on
the private sector.) bodies of water, the carriers and their
It is easier to understand why we have crews take on a mystique, as anyone dis-
these records than it is to understand our posing of maritime records finds out. And
reluctance or inability to get rid of them. when you combine the mystique of the sea
We won't find explanations in archival with the mystique of the military, you have
theory; no theory is going to justify keep- a double mystique that can be overwhelm-
ing what clearly should not be kept. We ing. I don't know how anybody gets rid of
have to look closer to home, to human na- any records relating to a warship, whether
ture, to ourselves. These records sit peace- or not the vessel ever fired a round in an-
fully on our shelves, making no demands. ger. Perhaps it is fortunate for all con-
The dust on their containers is evidence cerned that my appraisal experience has
that the absence of disturbance is mutual. been entirely with civil records.
We seldom walk down an aisle, open at And so, for various reasons, most of us
random a box or tray, examine its contents, have accessioned records we probably
and ask ourselves, "Why are we keeping shouldn't have accessioned. And for var-
these particular records?" Their inclusion ious reasons we hold onto records we
in our published guides and inventories should get rid of. And though we do reap-
helps establish their credentials. In archival praise on an ad hoc basis, and get rid of,
institutions one isn't likely to get in trouble some accessioned records, none of us, as
by leaving on the shelves records that far as I know, reappraises holdings system-
shouldn't be there; but the persistent ar- atically and periodically. That is what I am
chival memory is not kind to the archivist proposing we do.
who misjudges and throws away what Under this proposed reappraisal proce-
should have been kept. The human mind dure we would be obliged to make a case
multiplies few things as much or as fast as for continuing to retain records rather
the value of a series of records that a than for getting rid of them.
searcher (particularly a Ph.D. candidate)The interval of reappraisal could be al-
asks for and discovers no longer exists. most any period; perhaps twenty, twenty-
It is human nature also for persons whofive, or thirty years. Such an interval would
brought in records to be touchy about hav-
allow time for the repository to publish and
ing their judgment reversed. Custodians circulate descriptions of these records, to
having a long association with particularprepare guide entries and inventories, and
records may develop possessive feelings, otherwise to serve notice of their existence
regardless of the value of the objects and of availability. It would allow time to ana-
their affections. Unit heads may have bu- lyze what uses, if any, are made of the rec-
reaucratic misgivings about emptying (and ords. Where samples or selections are pe-
possibly losing) stack areas, particularly riodically
if accessioned, this analysis would
heads of neighboring units, less interestedbe particularly useful in determining

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 146 The American Archivist/ Spring 1981

whether the actual uses ofbethese

some sort of public defender of reap-
samples
praised records, an ombudsman, who
and selections were those on which the
could,
sampling or selection schemes and per-if it seemed necessary, check the
centages were predicated.2 facts and reasoning of the reappraisal by
It usually isn't hard to identify series goingofto the records themselves. The panel
records for reappraisal. In most published could consider any protests or comments
guides and inventories are series that, from
from staff members or interested out-
their descriptions, are obvious candidates. siders.

For example, it required no particular Up per-to this point, everything I have ar-
spicacity to suspect that the item gued in the has been based on the assumption
National Archives inventory of the thatU.S.
we will reappraise accessioned records
Railroad Administration records reading in accordance with our present standards.
"Correspondence Relating to Unused Now I would like to suggest that we con-
Ticket Claims Filed Prior to the Expiration sider some rather drastic revisions in our
Date. . . ." may have been on the shelves way of thinking about what records we
too long; and indeed an examination failed should keep and how long we should keep
to reveal any redeeming values (no pun in- them. (This gets into accessioning policy;
tended). but if we avoid accessioning the wrong rec-
An objection certain to be offered to pe- ords we avoid having to get rid of them.)
riodic reappraisal of accessioned records is If these suggestions are valid, following
that no matter how often a series qualifies them would undoubtedly permit much
for continued retention, it would take only more internal disposal than is currently
a single unfavorable reappraisal to wipe it possible.
out. This is true. It makes the survival of
The first suggested revision has to do
accessioned records subject to changing
with records that we keep chiefly for their
evidential value.
standards. But most public records are de-
stroyed without ever seeing the inside ofThe guidelines I believe most public ar-
chives in this country follow derive from
an archives; and they are destroyed in ac-
cordance with whatever standards apply those
at that Theodore Schellenberg estab-
lished in 1956 in a National Archives bul-
the time of their one and only appraisal.
Archivists of the nineteenth century, ifletin, The Appraisal of Modern Public Records.
they could have foreseen what we routinelyThe 1950 Federal Records Act author-
ized the Administrator of General Services
destroy in accordance with general sched-
to accession federal records that the Ar-
ules, might have been horrified; and, sim-
chivist of the United States determined to
ilarly, archivists of the twenty-first century
may be. But unless we save, as I wish have we sufficient historical or other value to
warrant continued preservation. Since 1960
could, a record copy of every document,
the successive Archivists of the United
there is no way of appraising except ac-
cording to what we at the time believe States,
to in delegating the appraisal function,
be the correct standards. have declared this bulletin the chief au-
Since what we destroy we cannot re-
thority for determining these values. Schel-
lenberg' s discussion of evidential and in-
trieve, accessioned records that fail reap-
praisal deserve safeguards. There might beformational values, as spelled out in this
a staff review panel to consider reap- bulletin, reproduced in subsequent archi-
praised records that seem to deserve a last
val literature, and taught in archival courses,
look before they disappear forever. Suchhas become gospel throughout the land.
a panel might want to question the reap- It isn't bad gospel. I know none better.
praiser and his reappraisal. There might Schellenberg valiantly and with some suc-

2 Suggesting an initial interval of at least twenty years after accessioning doesn't mean an advocacy
of an arbitrary period of immunity. An obviously bad accession could and should be reappraised as
soon as possible, no matter how short a time it has been on the shelves.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records 147

cess spelled out what records are important

how has overtones of Sir Hilary Jenkinson
and valuable and why, and how to identify discussing the records of the Lord Steward
of the King's Household rather than of
them. There is the temptation to boil it all
down to a simple solution: save the valu- Schellenberg contemplating what to keep
of the U.S. Railroad Administration of
able and get rid of the valueless, as simple
and as surefire as the stock market axiom,World War I. In the United States in the
buy low and sell high. But determining last half century the functions of the fed-
what is important enough to accession anderal, state, and local governments have
what isn't is not as simple as determining multiplied and there have risen, flour-
ished, and died hundreds of authorities,
that it is profitable to sell for $50 a stock
that cost $25. Evidential and informational councils, boards, departments, services,
values are useful concepts. But Schellen-administrations, agencies, offices, commis-
berg did not advocate accessioning records
sions, committees, panels, corporations,
simply because they were evidential or in-
systems, missions, and whatever, adminis-
formational. He was aware that there is not tered by secretaries, under secretaries,
a record created that is totally devoid of deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries, ad-
such values, however minute. These values ministrators, directors, commissioners, and
the like.3 To look back through the last
had to be important values; and it is against
this adjective that we collide and sometimesforty years of the annual issues of the
founder. "Important" involves subjective United States Government Manual or to browse
judgments about which Schellenberg in the more than two thousand pages of
couldn't do much more than give us his the National Archives Federal Records of
own definitions and some examples. World War II will reveal how much poten-
I believe we should reexamine Schellen- tial proof of stewardship is involved. Much
berg's views, particularly on records kept of this proof we accession doubting, in
mainly for evidential values. These are val-
Schellenberg's words, "even a foreseeable
specific use," almost assured in our own
ues, said Schellenberg, "that attach to rec-
ords because of the evidence they contain minds that nobody will ever look at these
of organization and function." Such rec-
particular records. If we could audit the
ords "should be preserved regardless of
documents brought into the National Ar-
whether there is an immediate or even a chives and, probably, into other public ar-
foreseeable specific use for them." No chives,
ar- with proof of stewardship as a jus-
chivist, he believed, is likely to question tification,
that I venture to say that we would
such records should be preserved. "Dif-
find that most - probably 90 percent or
more
ferences of judgment will arise only as to - have since their arrival never been
the completeness with which such evi- looked at by a human eye. Further, I would
dence should be preserved." As in the guess
case that no matter how long we retain
these predominantly evidential records,
of "important," "completeness" involves
most are never going to be looked at by
subjective judgment. I believe Schellenberg
tended to overvalue the evidential. As a anybody. This isn't as bad as it sounds.
result, those of us who follow him tend The same can be said about the pages of
also, I believe, to keep too many records as many of the books on any library shelf. But
evidential. We accession what he describes it is troublesome to see rows of containers
as "the proof of each agency's faithful
which within our memory have never been
disturbed and which our instinct tells us
stewardship of the responsibilities dele-
gated to it and the accounting that everyaren't going to be disturbed; and assuring
important public official owes to the people
ourselves that these are proof of faithful
whom he serves." "Stewardship" some-
stewardship may not totally settle our

3 There were in 1 980 about a thousand such officials appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate (not including diplomatic and military appointees); and there were several hundred
other presidential appointees who did not require Senate confirmation.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 148 The American Archivist/ Spring 1981

unease. It is as it we have raised and are accounts for such a high-powered team
maintaining memorials to ancestors, writing
some- a book about such an obscure
agency. In the thirty years since its publi-
times of no particular distinction or accom-
cation
plishments, out of some atavistic stirring of I doubt there has been a single
conscience or from a feeling that this scholar
is awho has used the board's records.
valediction we owe them without being I am aware that a published history is not
able
to explain to ourselves exactly why. ' supposed
When to do away with the need to pre-
looking at these evidential records ofserve
some original records; but as far as the
WageisAdjustment Board is concerned, I
minor, forgotten agency or official there
a temptation to wonder if perhaps a don't
certi-anticipate revisionists.
fied statement of "well done, good A recent reexamination of the remaining
and
faithful servant" might not be enough. twenty-four feet of the board's records
As an example of the evolution by which convinces me that something less than half
we arrive at the degree of completeness thatof
amount would include whatever
such evidence, consider the Wage Adjust- worthwhile evidence and information there
ment Board of World War II. In 1946, is, and would constitute all the proof of
while the board was still in existence, a stewardship that it is worth asking the tax-
competent archivist appraised its records. payers to burden themselves with.
The appraisal, in accordance with the ar- My other main suggestion is that we take
chival thinking of the time (and perhaps a close look at our use of the term "per-
reflecting the stack space available), called manent." We in the archival profession
for the accessioning by the National Ar- like that word, and we in the National Ar-
chives of almost 700 feet of records, with chives exemplify that liking. "Permanent"
more to come. These were of enduring is the adjective that National Archives reg-
value as "the basic record of the policies, ulations, finding aids, catalogs, and other
procedures, and operations of the Board, issuances apply to accessioned records; and
and as the principal source of information we instruct federal agencies to earmark,
regarding labor-management relationships segregate, and schedule for transfer to the
and wage stabilization efforts in the key National Archives their "permanent" rec-
building and construction industry during ords. "Permanent" is a convenient term
World War II." But later there were, ap- for which no simple substitute comes to
parently, some second thoughts. By the mind. It may seem semantic hairsplitting
time the records were accessioned the to make a to-do about it. But the Federal
Records Act, as adopted in 1950, does not
quantity had been reduced to 175 feet.
include the
Thirty years ago, as a new archivist, I word. It refers instead to rec-
prepared an inventory of these records. "have sufficient historical or other
ords that
This inventory was published in value
1954.to warrant their continued preser-
Twenty years later, while a membervation." of the
Records Appraisal Staff, I asked an archi- Again, I don't want to go on about a
vist on rotation there to look at these rec- word. But for those persons involved in in-
ords and, if she thought it called for, toternal disposal, "permanent," with its
reappraise them. She did, and reduced the overtones of everlasting, to the last syllable
175 feet to 24 feet. of recorded time, is not an easy concept to
In the late 1940s, not long after the rec-get around. "Worthy of continued preser-
ords came to the National Archives, two vation," awkward though it is, implies
former public members of the board, one that some accessionable records may be less
a Harvard economics professor who was than eternal. It permits us more easily to
later to become Secretary of Labor, the entertain the thought that appraisal stand-
other a Harvard Law School graduate and ards can change, that an appraiser's eval-
labor lawyer, wrote a history of the board, uation may be less than infallible, and that
which the Harvard University Press pub- we might entertain the idea of bringing
lished in 1950. Only their service on the into an archives records we believe will
board and their intimate knowledge of it have use and value enough to justify their

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 No Grandfather Clause: Reappraising Accessioned Records 149

accessioning but not their endless reten- able expectation but not, to me, a reasonable
tion. To put it another way, we now can-expectation. And it is on reasonable, not
onize our accessioned records, a state that conceivable, expectations that appraisers
to the faithful is definitive, infallible, and
must base their decisions.
binding. If we might, instead, beatify them, Third, what if, following this reasoning,
we could, with an easier mind, periodicallywe throw away records and the conceivable
reassess them to see whether they continue indeed occurs and we or our successors
to possess enough value to warrant the costhave a request for them from a serious re-
of their continued worshipful retention. searcher? To anticipate and to allow for
Returning to the 400 feet of records of this, the best we can do, once we decide
the U.S. Railroad Administration's Gen- there is no reasonable expectation of use,
eral Counsel, I was aware that to store is to ask ourselves: if we are wrong and
them in the National Archives Building someday somebody does come along who
would involve a true cost of at least $4,000 wants these records, will the requester or
a year; to store them in the General Ar- will scholarship in general be badly hurt
chives Division at Suitland, where in fact because these particular records no longer
they were, would be less. To microfilmexist?
them at present rates would cost an esti- Appraising is at best an inexact science,
mated quarter of a million dollars.4 If they perhaps more an art; and a conscientious
were to be kept in their original form I appraiser, particularly an imaginative one
wasn't too worried; though entirely on with an awareness of research interests and
wood pulp paper, they would last, un- trends, is apt to know nights of troubled
touched as they were, longer than any of soul searching. Such an appraiser realizes
us will. If we - that is, the National Ar- that every scrap of paper has values, per-
chives - are determined to keep such rec- haps unique values. When reappraising
ords, I suggest dead-storing them in a salt records of the U.S. Shipping Board, I more
mine. We could pay air fare to the mine than once listed for disposal records con-
for any once-in-a-generation inquirer, and taining information about a particular ves-
still come out ahead. sel or a particular voyage that was unique -
Turning to more specific suggestions, Iinformation that couldn't be duplicated
offer some for reconsidering accessionedanywhere else. This has to be displeasing
records. to persons who may be interested in par-
First, let us ask ourselves the questions ticular vessels and want every iota of infor-
already mentioned: would we accession mation about them. To these persons
unique and important may be synony-
these records if they were offered today?
If we wouldn't, why should we continue mous; but they are not necessarily synon-
to keep them? ymous to an appraiser. The interests of
Second, is there a reasonable expectation these ship buffs have to be weighed against
that anybody, with a serious purpose, will the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining for
ever ask for these records? I stress, a rea- these persons these records. I could not
sonable expectation, not a conceivable ex- justify for such a reason such maintenance.
pectation (anything is conceivable). A cen- Having qualified, I imagine, in the eyes
tury from now, for reasons not now easy of at least some for a place in the pantheon
to guess, it is conceivable that somebody of archival Attilas, let me clinch that honor
will want to see the correspondence relat- with some final thoughts designed to ease
ing to the unused ticket claims that I rec- the consciences of those reappraisers who
ommended for disposal. This is a conceiv- go against the wisdom and judgment of

4 1 would, of course, oppose this microfilming. But if an agency had been so ill-advised as to have
misspent public funds to microfilm such records, I would probably be inclined to accession the film
simply because the deed had been done and the film requires a fraction of the space of the original
records.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
150 The American Archivist / Spring 1981

serve, it
their predecessors and declare is possible that 2,500 years from
disposable
now
what those venerable persons something
had declaredof Emily Dickinson and
permanently valuable. Faulkner may survive, and nothing at all -
nothing
We who reappraise should evidential, nothing informa-
consider
carefully what we are doing,tional - of the U.S.
realizing thatShipping Board, of the
what we destroy we can never U.S. recover.
Railroad Administration,
But of the Wage
having done what we believe Adjustment
we haveBoard oftoWorld War II.
If that does notas
do, as diligently and as conscientiously put a troubled appraiser
we know how, and having done in a the
more best
comfortable
we frame of mind,
can, we should be philosophical share with me two
and ofapocalyptic visions. In
good cheer. We should lift our theline
first of
it suddenly
sight becomes possible to
and view records and our decisions about keep a copy of every single document cre-
them as they fit into the sweep of time. ated,We and, for these documents, a perfect,
might think back to the Metroon, the instantaneous
city retrieval system. In the sec-
archives of ancient Athens, which Ernst ond, and less blissful, vision the upper at-
Posner tells us contained not only "records mosphere fills with reverse neutron bombs,
pertaining to budgetary and financial mat- heading toward every records repository.
ters subject to the Council's supervision" These are bombs that destroy records only,
and "contracts of the state with private in- not people. They come down and obliter-
dividuals" but also official copies of the ate every record of any sort.
dramas of the great tragedians, Aeschylus, Keeping these two events in separate
Sophocles, and Euripides. These last were parts of your mind, project forward a cen-
probably kept in the Metroon "as a result tury. How different would the two resul-
of a motion of the orator Lycurgus" (an tant worlds be? In the first would our des-
appraisal judgment that has stood the test cendants, having all the information that
of time). Of the contents of the Metroon, it is possible to derive from documents,
little more than the great dramas managed have, therefore, all knowledge? And if they
to survive. Though I do not ask that you have all knowledge would they have, there-
subscribe to the theory of that archivist fore, all wisdom?
who thought saving only the poetry of a In the second, lacking the records we
nation might perhaps be enough, through have as of this moment, would our descen-
the ages there does seem to be almost such dants wander in a world of anarchy, in a
a law of selection and survival, a law that world in which they would be doomed to
results in our inheriting from the golden repeat the errors of the past?
age of Greece, Homer and Sappho, Soc- I leave it to you to conjecture as you
rates and Plato, rather than the official rec- please. My own guess is that between these
ords. If there is such a law (which there two worlds there wouldn't be all that much
probably isn't) then no matter how care- difference.

fully and agonizingly we appraise and pre-

Leonard Rapport is an archivist with the Civil Archives Division, the National Archives. His article
was first presented on 2 October 1980, at the annual meeting of the Society of American Archivists,
in Cincinnati.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:40:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms