Jenkinson schelleberg

8/8/2019 Jenkinson schelleberg

1/11

Jenkinson and Schellenberg:A Comparison

by RICH ARD STAPLETON*In th e English-speaking archival co mm unity , Sir Hilary Jenk inson (1892-1961) an dTh eo do re R . Schellenberg (1903-1970) stand as the giants of their profession wh osoug ht to establish firm archival principles a nd techniques. As archivists co ntinu e todebate theories and practices today, it is worth pausing to compare the ideas ofJenk inson an d Sch ellenberg o n the natu re of archives, the principles of provenancean d i ts relat ion to arrangem ent a nd description, ap praisal an d selection, and theeducation of the archivist. Although it is well know n th at each was a n ou tspokencritic of the other's ideas, the purp ose here is no t to judge their ideas, but rather t oanalyze their respective approaches to archives, identify their differences andsimilarities, an d emp hasize th e consistency an d continuity oft ho ug ht tha t is evidentin all the ir writings.

To understand their ideas, it is important to appreciate the context in whichJenkinson and Schellenberg began their careers for , as Hugh Taylor has noted,"Above all, they wrote from their own very different archival traditions and thisshould always be take n into account." ' While both men took full advan tage of thearchival knowledge that had been accum ulated in their own and other countries, itwas through writing in response to their particular environments that their workachieved distinction.Sir Hilary Jenkinson's illustrious career a s an archivist spanned half a century a ndculm inated in his term as De puty Keeper, o r chief administrative officer, of thePublic Record Office (P R O ) from 1947 to 1954.2After study ing th e ancient classicsa t Pe mb roke College, Cambridge , he joined the staff of the P R O in 1906 at a t imewhen basic archival principles were still very much in their formative stages. (Theinfluential D utc h m an ua l by M uller, Feith, an d F ruin h ad only appeared a few years

* I would l ike to tha nk Terry Eastwood a nd Terry C oo k for their advice and encouragement duringthe prepara tion of this article.I Hugh A. Taylo r , The Arrangement and Description of Arc,hivul Materials (Mu nch en, 1980), p. 9.2 F o r a detailed accoun t of Jenkinson's career, see "M em oir of Sir Hilary Jenkinson" in J . Co n w a yDavies, ed., Studies Presented to Sir Hilary Jenkinson (London, 1957). pp. xiii-xxx.


2/11

earlier, in 1898.') Jenkin son's initial ex po sure to archives was thro ug h the hand lingof British medieval records, t o which he m ad e repeated reference in his ManlralofArchive Administration, first published in 1922. Special knowledge and skills arerequired in order to w ork w ith m edieval records, an d Jenk inson busily studied thesubjec ts of palaeog raphy an d diplom atic. His publications in these auxiliary sciencesar e so extensive th at they rival his writings on archival topics in both num ber an di m p ~ r t a n c e . ~t is not surprising, then , that Jenkinson's archiv al writings concentrateo n the development of rigid fun dam enta ls with an emp hasis o n the legal character ofarchives. Mo reov er, Jenkinson's first years were free fro m th e proble m of dealingwith huge masses of modern government records. Such a problem would notdevelop until later in the century when technological adv anc em ents an d the businessof fighting two major wars combined to produce a flood of administrativedocuments .

Theodore R . Schellenberg once referred to Jenkinson as an "old fo ~ s i l ," ~husstressing his opin ion tha t Jenkinson's ideas were a hindra nce t o archivists wo rkingwith m od ern records. In 1935, after studying history at K ansa s State U niversity an dth e University of Pennsylvania, Sch ellenberg secured a p osition at the newlyestablished National Archives of the United States as one of several DeputyExaminers whose task it was to undertake a survey of the records of executiveag en cie s in W a s h i n g t ~ n . ~he following year he was involved in a similar project ona national scale when he served as Assistant Director of the Survey of FederalArchives. Schellenberg entered a work environment very different from thatexperienced by Jenk inson : there were no com pac t medieval holdings up on which tobase archival theories and, upon its establishment, the National Archives hadassumed responsibility for ten million cubic feet of records that had beenacc um ulated over a period of a century an d a half.' Furth erm ore, prog ramm esinitiated durin g the Gre at D epression were resulting in the expa nsion of governm entservices an d a n increase in the volume of records. This situation forced Schellenbergan d o ther N ational Archives staff members to concen trate on reducing the volumeof records by selecting only perm anently v aluable re cord s for the Archives, in orde rto make them intelligibly available to researchers. Schellenberg carried thesecon cern s with him th rou gh ou t his career, as is evident in his ma ny articles and twomajor works , Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (1956) and TheManagement of Archives ( I 965).8

Th e firs t English transla t ion of the Dutch m anual appeared in 1940 under the t~ t l eManualfor the.4rron~emenr nd Description ofArthives. Jenk inson probably read the French transla t ion whichwas published in 1910. Recent investigation into thearchival clim ate of turn-of-t he-cent uq Europ ecan be found in Lawrence D. Geller. "Josep h C uvelier, Belgian Archival Edu cation, a nd the FirstInternational Congress of Archivists, Brussels, 1910." Arc,hiwriu 16 (S um m er 1983). pp. 26-34.A com plet e bibliograph y of Jenkinson 's publication s is provided in Davies. Stuclies Prrsenred to Sirffilarv Jenkinson, pp . 480-94.J a n e F. Sm ith , "T.R . Schellenberg: Americanizer an d Popular izer ," Americ,an Arc,hivisr 44 (Fall1981). p. 319.Schellenberg's career is docum ented in Smit h, "T.R. Schellenberg" and in the multi-authored "InM em oria m: T.R . Schellenberg, 1903-1970," Americ,an Archivist 33 (Ap ril 1970). pp. 190-202. Fo rdetailed treatm ent of the state of the National Archives during Schellenberg's time there, see H.G.Jones , TheRecords o f a Narion (New York, 1969); and Don ald R. McCoy. TheNarional,4rchiim(C hap el Hill. 1978).Jones , Rec.ord.s ?/ 'aNation, p. 18.A bibliography of Schellenberg's publications can be found in "In Mem oriam ," pp. 201-2.


3/11

S E N K IN S O N A N D S C H E L L E N B E R G 77Both Jenkinson and Schellenberg, then, were greatly influenced by the circum-stances surrou nding themselves in the imp ortan t fo rmative years of their careers; anappre ciation of this context helps in understand ing their oppo sing viewpoints. This

is not t o suggest that Jenk ins on w as unaw are of the pro blem of bulk o r insensitive t othe need s of researchers. o r tha t Schellenberg was no t interested in archivalfun dam ent als a nd th e legal significance of archives, but rather th at their differenceswere m ore often ones of emphasis. The re is, however, at least one com mo n featuretha t m ust be mentioned. Bo th archivists state tha t archives are accumulated in thecours e of regular business activity, wheth er public o r private. Implicit in thisstatem ent is the notion of natur al accu mu lation. Jenkinson stressed this point mo stemphatically:Archives are not collected: I wish the word 'Collection' could bebanished fro m the Archivist's voca bulary, if only t o establish tha timportant fact .... They came together, and reached their finalarran gem ent, by a natu ral process: are a growth; almost, you might say,as much a n organism as a t ree o r an animal .9

Schellenberg obviously agreed with Jenkinson on this point as he cited this verypassage in his Modern archive.^.'^Despite this common starting point, the ul timate defini tions of archivesformulated by the two archivists are very different. Jenkinson believed that onlymaterials preserved for the creator's ow n inform ation a nd in his own custody couldbe considered arch ival . ' ' This quali ty, comb ined with natu ral accumulation, formsth e basis for the "impartiality" an d "authenticity" of archives. Acco rding toJenkinson, impart ia li ty res ts on the fact that " the Research ends which ~ r c h i v e s aybe mad e to serve ...will not be the purpos es which were conte mp lated by the peopleby whom the Archives were drawn up and preserved."I2 Similarly, responsiblecustodianship means that the "forgery or falsification" of archives is "altogetherexcep tional," th us ensur ing their authenticity.I3 An d th e archivist's chief dut y is toserve the record by continuing the l ine of unbroke n cu stody- nly seco ndarily willthe needs of researchers be served.Jen kin son fur the r believed th at the eleme nts enum erated in his definition were

absolu tely essential, an d th at this definition was universally applicable o ver time,despite changes in physical form. This rigidity is understandable in light of thecon text of Jenkinson's career. His wor k w ith medieval legal records seems to haveaffected his concept of the nature of archives for, while impartiality may beapplicable to medieval records, i t is unrealistic to extend this characteristic tom od ern records. Yet even thou gh Jenkinson's definition can no t go unchallenged, itrem ains relevant today. While most archival institutions now possess holdings thatwould not conform to Jenkinson's ideal , he has provided archivists with a fi rmfoun dation fro m which to exam ine the disparate materials under their care. Hu gh

9 Jenk inso n, "The English Archivist: A N ew Profession" ( l947 ), in Roger H . Ellis an d P eter Walne,eds.. Selected U'ritinx.~ f Sir Hilary Jen kinso n (Gloucester. 1980), p. 238.10 Schellenberg. Mod ern Archii'es: Principles and Techniques (Chicago. 1956, 1975), p. 19.I I Se e the definition of archives in Jenk inso n, A Manual vfAr chh7e Administration (London , 1922,1965). p. 1 I . an d the defin i tion of documen t, pp. 6-7.12 Ih id . .p . 12.13 Ih i d . p. 15.


4/11

Tay lor has noted th at Jenkinson's defence of archives "is most b racing and valuabletoday in the light of what can happen to records by way of falsification ordestruction, not simply from neglect but also from malice."I4Sch ellenbe rg was very critical of Jenkinson's definition of archives. H e conte ndedtha t, in conju nction with n atural ac cum ulation , the second essential characteristic ofarchives is their preservation "for reasons other than those for which they werecreated or a c ~ u m u l a t e d . " ~ ~hus, in his definition, Schellenberg emphasizedreference an d research use. H e also discounted Jenk inson's s tand on cu stody on thegrou nds that the volume, complex origins, and haphaz ard development of modernrecords made "futile any attempt to control individual documents."Ih Finally,Schellenberg did not support an inflexible definition, insisting instead thatperceptions varied from co untry to cou ntry and from time to t ime. In part icular, he

stated that t he m odern archivist, as opposed to an archivist l ike Jenk inson whoworked with older records, "has a definite need to redefine archives in a mannermor e suited to his own requirement^."^^O n this last point, Jenk inson was especially concerned. H e feared that w idespreadacceptance of Schellenberg's idea would make international communicationbetw een arc hivists "suggestive of th e To w er of Babel,"18an d to a n extent Jenkinsonwas right. Schellenberg can certainly be criticized for failing to accept a finaldefinition of archives but, in fairness to him, his app roa ch is readily understandable.Sch ellenb erg pointed out,' in a ma nne r similar to the m etho d e mployed here, tha t allarchival concepts had been influenced by the circumstances under which they had

been developed. It is also natural that Schellenberg should have stressed theuseability of archives, considering the American attitude - nd his own strongfeeling - hat public records are, indeed, public property.I9 Perh aps his advancedtraining in history helped to increase further his concern fo r the researcher. Tod ay,useability is of crucial concern to archivists as the community of researchers hasgrown far beyond the creator of the record and a handful of historians andantiquarians. While Schellenberg's approach seems to lack the substance andpermanence of Jenkinson's towards the nature of archives. it must be seen as arealistic attempt to deal with the sometimes terrifying accumulation of moderngovernment records. Even though Schellenberg stressed useability and Jenkinsonemphasized du ty to the record, neither of them denied the importance of the othe ractivity.In considering their approach to the issue of provenance and i ts relat ion toarrangement and description, it is convenient to concentrate on the componentelements of provenance, namely respect pour les ,fo nd s an d respect pour l'ordreprimit$ The first of these elements, which refers to the grouping of holdingsacco rding t o creating o r controlling agencies, was readily ac cepted an d defended bybo th archivists. Jenk inson referred to respectpou r /es,fonds as "the fund am ental rule

Taylor. Arran,~ement nd Description, p. I I .Schellenberg, Modern Archives, p. 13. Als o see his definition of arc hives, p. 16. and the de finition ofrecord. also p. 16.Ihid., p . 14.Ihid., p. 15.Jenkinson, "Roots" (1960) in Ellis and Walne. Selec.ted Writings. p. 369.See Schellenberg, Modern Archives, pp . 122-25.


5/11

J E N K I N S O N A N D S C H E L L E N B E R G 79of arrangement," while Schellenberg observed that provenance, a term which heemployed in the capacity of respectpour les,fonds, is basic an d inflexible an d relatesto a mat ter of the highest impor tance to the archival p r o f e s ~ io n . " ~ ~

In observing respect pour les.fbnds in arra ng ing archives, they bo th recognized th enecessity of breaking down the holdings into manageable units, but there wereimportant differences in their perception of this basic unit. Jenkinson madereference to a n "Archive Group" an d defined it as "the archives resulting fro m th ework of an A dministration which was an orga nic whole, comp lete in itself, capableof dealing independently, without any a dde d o r external authority, with every side ofany business which could normally be presented to it."21This definition conveys theclosed gr ou p con cept, using as it doe s the past tense an d em phasizing administrativeindepe nden ce. It is in keeping with Jenkinson's involvement with m edieval records,but he did question whether or not there was anything in modern archives thatshould prevent a similar approach. O n this last point , perhaps Jenkinson did notcarry his observations far enough. Taylor has noted that "increasingly fluidfunctions and ministries after the second world war put a strain on his preceptsconcerning 'archive groups' which he may well have modified in the light of thise ~ p e r i e n c e . " ~ ~

Schellenberg, in referring t o th e basic u nit of arrangem ent, used the terms "recordgrou p" a nd "archival group" synonym ously. T h e "group" was based on organiza-tional origins, but it also too k int o consideratio n the fluidity of mod ern go vernmentadministrations. Accordingly, Schellenberg pointed out that at the NationalArchives "record groups were established for records of administrative units ofvarying status and au thority in the governm ent hierarchy. The administrative units... need be neither complete nor independent administrative units, as in England."Furth erm ore, concern over the volume of m ode rn records m eant that "other factorsth an prov enan ce may also have to be considered in establishing record groups." Inparticular, these other factors included concern for the size and number of thegroups.23 In today's archival world, Schellenberg's com me nts rem ain applicable tothe reality experienced by man y repositories.

O n th e issue of the second element of prov enance, respectpour I'ordreprimitif,o rthe ob servance of original order in the arrang em ent of archives within the gro up, th edifference of opinio n between Jenkin son an d Schellenberg is even move obvious an dis directly attributable to their attitudes towards the nature of archives. ForJenk inson , th e primary d uty of the archivist to the records themselves m eant that th eoriginal order had t o be respected at all costs . Where rearrangemen t appeared to benecessary, he was "in favou r of refusing to d o mo re tha n t o re-arrange o n paper."An y archivist who considered rearrangement in an y other capacity was "taking avery grave re~ po ns ib i l i ty ." ~~onv ersely, Schellenb erg, in keeping with his definitionof archives, related original orde r "mainly t o use o r convenience." He o bserved tha toriginal or der w ould usually prod uce this desired en d, but if it did not th e archivist

20 Jenkinson. Manual, p. 102; Schellenberg, The Management vfArchives(New York, 1965),p. 104.21 Jenkinson, Manual. p. 101.22 Taylor, Arrangement and Desuiption, pp . 10-1 1.23 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, pp. 182 and 188.24 Jenkinson, Manual, p. 114.


6/11

"should have n o com pun ction ab ou t disturbing the original order."25 In assessingthese opp osi ng viewpoints, it seems th at Schellenberg's advo cacy of flexibility mayhav e som e justification o n practical gr ou nd s, especially in dealing with non -textualrecord s. Jenkinson's insistence on a bsolu te observance of the rule is, however, m orefundamentally acceptable. Except when the original order is manifestly bad or issimply not discernible, that original order should be respected, for once lost it cannever be reestablished. Rearran gem ent sho uld. as expressed by Jenk inson , only becarried out o n paper.

Both felt that description should reflect arrang em ent, an d th e actual descriptiveelem ents they regard ed as essential were basically the sam e. They a lso believed in thepossibility of organizin g natio na l finding aid systems.26The ir differences, however,centre ar ou nd the mo tivation for the implem entation of descriptive programm es.Jenkinson emphasized that the f irst purpose of f inding aids was to enable thearchivist to g ain con trol of his holdings, a nd only secondly were these aids to becom eavailable to the researcher. Schellenberg agreed tha t the archivist needed t o con trolthe materials before provision could be made for the researcher, but he stronglyemph asized the sec ond ary activity: "The servicing activity is doubtless the m ostim po rtan t of all activities performed by a n archivist. It means furnishing archives,reproductions of archives, o r information fro m o r abo ut archives to the governmentan d to the Schellenberg further con tend ed tha t the principles whichguided arra nge me nt a nd description could also be applied to historical man uscripts.This issue was more ielevant to the American experience where historicalma nusc ripts, as distinct from go vernmen t records, were often housed in libraries an dhistorical societies. It was co m m on fo r British institutions to ho use b oth public an dprivate m aterials, an d Jen kin so n only becam e concerned if the private m aterials didnot conform to his identifying elements of archives.

In co ncluding this discussion o ft h e two basic archival principles a nd their relationto arra nge me nt a nd description, it must be pointed out tha t once aga in, as in the casewith the n atu re of archives, th e main differences between Je nk inso n an d Schellenbergwere largely ones of emphasis. Both observed the principle of provenance, but thedegree of this observance varied. Jenkinson, who rigidly endorsed provenance,grouped the activit ies of arrangemen t and description un der the general heading ofth ea M o ra l Defence of Archives" by which he meant the protec tion of archives fro mth e hu m an failings of the archivist.28Th is is consistent with his notio n tha t archivesexist in their own right and that the archivist 's devotion to the sanctity, theunviolated integrity, of these materials is paramount. This attitude may appearunre ason able to s om e critics, but Jenk inson has certainly provided archivists with acompelling, almost missionary sense of their professional duty. Schellenberg tooaccepted th e archivist's devotion t o the record as a prime duty , but his preoccupationwith the volum e of records and service to the research c om mu nity encouraged himto b end th e principles. His practical ap pro ac h must be reassuring to many archivists,but it should be stressed that his contention was with specific exceptions to theprinciples and not with the principles themselves.25 Schellenberg. Management of Archives, p. 105.26 See Jenkinson, M a n u a l , p. 1 19, and Schellenberg, "A Nation wide System of Contro lling HistoricalManuscripts in the United States." Americ,an Archivisr 28 (July 1965). pp. 409-12.27 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, p. 119.28 Jenkinson, M a n u a l , pp. 83-84.


7/11

J E N K I N S O N A N D S C H E L L E N B E R G 8 1The two archivists expressed opposing opinions on the subject of appraisal orselection a nd , onc e again, these differences can be trac ed to the ir views of archives ingene ral. Basically, Jen kin son felt tha t since archives were, by definition, preservedfo r th e creator's ow n use, it was the creator's responsibility t o decide which recordsshould be kept. Ideally, all records would be preserved and the archivist wouldmerely be a passive recipient. Sch ellen be rg, whose definition stressed user access, feltthat it was the archivist 's duty to scholarship to enter actively into the appraisalaren a. This was also a practical m eans of reducing record volume.Jenkinson, in his Manual, began the discussion on the question of destructionwith a n assessment of medieval records an d, not surprisingly, concluded th at therewere no ground s for destruction. F or mo dern records, s ince he did not ap prov e ofthe archivist 's involvement in appraisal , Jenkin son advoca ted treating the sym ptombefore it became a n illness, "to try t o prevent th e accum ulations o ccurring at all; to

deal with the m atter before docum ents co me t o th e Archive state an d the Archivist'scustody."29 He envisaged a cen tral registry fo r each ad ministrative office tha t wo uldcontrol "every stage of the distr ibution and transit of every official d o c ~ r n e n t , " ~ ~nd,thus, in one facet at least, he foresaw the implementation of scheduling. BecauseJenkinson related his definition of archives to the selection activity, he naturallyemphasized the primary value of the record t o the creator . With regard to the valueof the record to researchers, he wrote tha t "the final scrutiny before they pass intoArchives is the only point at which the consideration of historic interest mightpossibly intrude , an d fo r this reason is to be em ployed only with d ue precaution: inmo st cases it would prob ably be best to o mit it."" Th us , Jenk inson not only castaside the role of the archivist in selection, bu t also th e po tential role of the archivist ashistorian.

Jenkinson's s tron g stand o n appraisal can only be und erstood by relating it to hiscon cern over the impartiality of archives. F o r Jenkinso n the integrity of the recordhad to be protected above all else, al thou gh he was not averse to mak ing practicalexceptions. Early in his career, Jen kin son realized tha t som e custodians of archivalmaterials, particularly librarians, were being forced to ma ke app raisal decisions, andhe felt the need to provide advice. He suggested that selection be based on anexam ination of group s of holdings rather tha n of individual docum ents, that recordsshou ld be preserved for the value they possessed du ring their active use and not f orsentimental reasons, and that , when in d ou bt, th e advice of the previous custodian ofthe record should be sought.32La ter in his career, while comm enting o n the GriggRe port of the 1950s, Jenk inson concede d th at "this ultimate intrusion of selectionbased o n the interests of research is inevitable," but h e remained ad am an t tha t thearchivist should have little to d o with the "prunin g process."33

At the o pposite extreme, Schellenberg was not at al l reluctant to engage in theapp raisal of-archives, an d it is n o coincidenc e that the first records disposal schedules

29 Ihid.. p. 152.30 Ihid., p. 171.31 Ihid. , p. 184.32 Jenk inso n, "The Choice of Records for Preservation: Som e Practical Hints," Lihrarr. AssocialionRe co rd 41 (N ove mb er 1939). pp. 543-44.33 Jenkinson, "Roots," p. 378.


8/11

at th e Natio nal Archives were prepared in his division.34He viewed app raisal as anopp ortun ity to reduce the volume of records and to serve the needs of scholarship.Schellenberg was also concerned with the disposition of records because archivalfunctio ns are determined by the way in which records are handled while in currentuse. Accordingly, he devoted an entire section of his Modern Archives to th e topic ofrecords managem ent.Schellenberg's stance on ap praisal in Modern Archives an d in his Bulletin for theNatio nal Archives has becomejustifiably renowned. In these accounts, Schellenbergdifferentiated between the prim ary value of records, which shou ld be the concern ofthe record officer, an d th e secondary value of records, which sho uld be determinedjointly by th e archivist an d the record officer, althou gh th e former "should have finalresponsibility" and "should be empowered to review all records that governmentagencies pr op o se t o d e s t r ~ y . " ~ T h i ss the first of two m ajo r points w here he differed

from Jen kin so n, an d it is readily und erstand able in light of Schellenberg's definitionof archives. Schellenberg concentrated his discussion on the secondary value ofrecords, which he divided into evidential and informational value. Recordspossessing evidential value, which d ocu men t the organization a nd functioning of thecreating agency, are "indispensable to the government itself and to students ofgovernmen t." T he archivist "must kno w h ow records cam e into being if he is to judgeth eir value fo r a ny p u r p ~ s e . " ~nformational (or research) value pertains toinformation contained in records "about particular persons, situations, events,con ditions, problems, materials, and properties," an d records of this type ma ke upth e "greater po rtion of m od ern pub lic records" p reserved in archival institutions.''This is the second poin t of difference fro m Jenk ins on , namely Schellenberg'sconsid eration of the uses that would be ma de of archives by individuals other tha nthe creator.

Schellenberg did n ot consider evidential an d inform ational values to be mutuallyexclusive, but he did list specific criteria by which each of these values could bedeterm ined. O n a general note, Schellenberg stated th at "analysis is the essence ofarchiv al appraisal." W hen appraising the evidential value of records, this meant that"the archivist must take into account the entire documentation of the agency thatprod uced them," while fo r informatio nal value analysis it meant th at "the archivistmust take into account the entire docum entation of society o n the m atter to whichth e informatio n relates."'* Th e archivist shou ld also emp loy "m ode ration an dco m m on sense" a n d thu s keep "neither to o m uch no r to o little."39 Whileackno wled ging the possibility of som e valuable records being destroyed, Schellenbergcon tended tha t the "diverse judgments" which would be enacted by th e variousarchivists "may well assure a more adequate socia l d o c ~ m e n t a t i o n . " ~ ~fter all, "adiscriminating d estruction" of a portion of the records "is a service to s~ h o la rs h ip ." ~ '

S m i t h , "T.R. Schellenberg." p. 316.Schellenberg, M u d u n Archives, pp . 30 and 32.Schellenberg, The Appraisal of Modern Public Recordr (B ulletin No. 8 o f he National Archives,1956),p. 8.Ibid., p. 22.Ihid., p. 45 .Ihid., p. 44.Schellenberg, Modern Archives, p. 149.Schellenberg, Appraisal, p. 46 .


9/11


10/11

e mp h a s i z e d u se , n o t p ~ sse s s i o n . " ~ ~chellenberg's admiration of librarianship,however, was not completely without qualification. He expressed a fear that"librarians will become so engrossed with method that they will lose sight of thescholarly aspects of archival work. T he m ore a ny given line of work is concernedwith the m anip ulatio n of physical things as distinct fro m purely intellectual matters,the more it is possible to follow precise methods of doing things .... Archival workca nn ot be gov erne d by precise rules."49 Finally, Schellenberg believed t ha t the "bestbasic training tha t a n archivist can have ... is th or ou gh trainin g in history."50 Anyaffiliation with library science would be secondary.Neither Jenkinson 's no r Schellenberg's stan d o n the training of the archivist was,therefore, one-sided. They b oth recognized th at archivists could bor row f rom otherdisciplines but, most importantly of all , they held the conviction that archivesrepresented a profession in its own right. Jenkinson stressed the necessity of

establishing "A rchives a s a sep arate subject" of study, and Schellenberg foresaw theda y wh en "archivists will create their o wn profession" with "well defined" techniquesa n d principle^.^' Per hap s the ul timate direction th at will be taken in the area ofarch ival edu catio n w ill be determined less by individuals within the profession an dmo re by the deman ds imposed by the nature and volume of modern records, and bythe need of institutions for trained staff.T h e them e of this analysis has been a projection of the consistency a nd continuityof the ideas of two internationally renowned archivists. Je nk ins on began his careerat a time w hen th e types an d volum e of archives were relatively stable, and as a resulthe developed al l-embracing ideals. There are perhaps exceptions to some of thestatem ents m ad e by Jen kinso n, but it must be realized th at the app lication of idealsto reality is never m ad e withou t difficulty. In practice, the archivist must react to th esi tuation at hand, and Jenkinson has attempted to provide him with a set offundamentals that transcend al l si tuations. As Roger H . Ellis has noted, "thestatements of principle contained in the Manual have remained valid, andJenkinson's definition of Archives, and his exposition of the concept of Custo dy andof th e duties of the Archivist, have remained fundam ental to archive thoug ht in theE n g l i sh - sp e a k i n g c o u n t r i e ~ . " ~ ~Schellenberg entered th e archival profession at a tim e when the increasing volum e

of records was a new and major problem. While he accepted the importance ofarchival theory an d principle, Schellenberg preferred, fo r the m ost pa rt, to push o nto th e analysis of concrete pro blems. Accord ingly, his writings exhibit a practicalbent w ith a reevaluation of the definition of archives which includes m ode rn recordsan d their poten tial use for research. Pe rhap s Schellenberg's most significant andlasting contribution is his discourse on appraisal, but his insistence that privatecollections could be handled in the same m ann er as public records and his call forcoo pera tion between archivists and librarians should n ot be forg otten . All archivistsmu st ad m ire and app recia te Schellenberg's willingness t o face the prob lem of bulk inm ode rn records a nd his success in doin g so.48 Ihid., pp. 164-65.49 Ihid., DO. 162-63...50 Ihid., p. 158.51 Jenk inson . Manual. pp . 123-24; and S chellenberg, "The Fut ure of the Ar ch ~v alProfession,"

American Archivist 22 (Janu ary 1959), p . 58 .52 Roger H. Ellis, "Introduction to the Re-issue of the Sec ond Edition" of Jenkinson's Manual, p. xi.


11/11

J E N K I N S O N A N D S C H E L L E N B ER G 85It has also been n oted tha t the differences between the two archivists were oftenone s of emp hasis rather th an of principle. T he po larization of their ideas should n otbe carried t o extrem es, for tha t would m ak e it to o easy to lose sight of their positive

achievements. W hile Jen kinso n stated tha t th e primary d uty of the archivist is tothe archives themselves and only secondarily to researchers, he also referred tostud en ts as the archivist's "raison d'Ctre," a n d while Schellen berg dwelt o n researchneeds, he also stated, with regard t o app raisal, th at th e archivist 's "first o bligation isto preserve records containing information that will satisfy the needs of theGo vern me nt itself."53 Jenk inson spo ke of the archivist 's aim " to provide, withoutprejudice o r aftertho ugh t, for all who wish to kno w the M ean s of Knowledge," an dSch ellenb erg referred t o archivists as "gua rdians of the truth."54 It is comfo rting,then, to con clude on a note of funda me ntal agreement. Archival theory and practicein the English-speaking world does not begin an d end with Sir Hilary Jenk inson an dTheodore R. Schellenberg, but they ha ve contrib uted greatly to the m aturatio n ofthe profession. If fo r no oth er reason tha n this, their ideas deserve to be reviewedover and over again.

53 Jenkinson, "The English Archivist," p. 255; and Schellenberg, Appraisal, p . 25.54 Jenk inso n, "The English Archivist," p. 258; and Schellenberg, Modern Archives, p. 236.

Jenkinson schelleberg

Documents

Transcript of Jenkinson schelleberg