JiVhen conservators disassembled the manuscript ef Thomas Jefferson'sonly book, Notes on the State of Virginia, they uncovered new clues to the evolution of his thinking. BY DO UG LAS L 'W I LS ON
•••
erson Unbound As a young lawyer
in frontier Virginia, Thomas
vulnerable documents,heconfided to Wythe: ''.All the care I can
Jefferson took it upon himself to rescue his colony'searliest
take of them, will not preserve them from the worm,from the
legal records, very few of which had ever been printed, "I observed
natural decay of the paper, [orJ from the accidents of fire," But
that many of [Vtrginia's early laws] were already lost," he wrote his former law teacher, George Wythe, in 1796, "and many more on the point of being lost,
there was,Jefferson believed, another way, "Has there ever been,"he asked, "[a precious work of antiquityJ lost since theartof printing has rendered it practicable
as existing only in single copies in the hands of
to multiply & disperse copies? Thisleads us
careful or curious individuals, on whose death
then to the only means of preserving those
they would probably be used for waste paper,"
remains of our laws now under consideration,
So the future president and author of the Dec
that is, a multiplication of printed copies."
laration of Independence, while still in his twen
Two hun dred years later, manuscriptsof his
ties, became an ardent preservationist-
own writings would be deteriorating; what
Riding the circuit of Virginia courts, he assid uously copied out such old laws as he came across and, at the same time, found refuge in his own library for a number of fugitive manuscripts from the earliest
follows is the story of how one of the libraries responsible for them would, in a surprising and unexpected way, reinventJefferson'sprescribed method of preservation
periods of Virginia's history, But having saved these ancient records from oblivion, he was eventually to be
,and in doingso, open a window onJefferson'sown creative process,
confronted with the preservationist' sdilemma, In spite of wrapping them in oiled cloth "so that neither air nor moisture can have access to them," he discovered that they could scarcely
Jtfferson'spreservation
scheme, which helped
save the early Virginia laws some years later, was not, of course, original. At the time hewas proposing hispreservation
by-publication strategy to Wythe, it was be moved or consulted, for "in turning over a leaf i t sometimes falls into powder." Admitting hisfrustrationsas a custodian of 48
P R ES E R V A TI O N
A 1788 portrait of Jefferson by John Trumbull, above; and aman uscript page with its tab, opposite
•••
actively historical
being
employed
society
in
by the America.
first The
Massachusetts His torical Society and its principal founder,
)..
ti
.
_..
,t,.
"
kj n
" '"' t "-" .,,.
-
4,.
........., £.,, •
,i,,c•( · /" ,Jc» J flu, ,i"I .Ju,:,J..
')
JJ...
,,,ri,•
I
J,"..:,,,.,,,1,,, , f.ft ;, ;{r
"j f.,_ ....,.t'J <" J{e ••,,,.,t,,;,1/ t'"'"' ,j,ru ,
"''"1P'-
<}•
,...,.J. <IJJr d.l,l ·r/ /l,,, (J,l >l..t I J, w,-p/lJ
/=
./..
{,/.
, .,_&,..:_.,.Jt./ ..I.ta
Jt, (p.:.,.,.
/I
./,,1)/,, ,,.,..,,,';(, /,.'<•'4
1
1>e,t.:,
'/,.. I f..
,.,/ ...
' 'ti;(., t,.J/ (' ,,.,J.11'1 ll,uf /..l ;/.<',, f h ""!·"'-•'i.Jq,,,1,/,,/.,, ,
)
f{?
,t..r f.m..r....,')1{;. p )tlf • ,t., {...,
;/!.,_, .. , , " / r'/"·1,,,,/.;,,. • . tJ.J. fn..lan4 ,A 1,A,J
/,u f
l'.Jlll:.,,,'"'f
/ ,'>t t,.:f..q,_,, ..- ,' •ad /' > ,
I'' ,/f,'.u., 1A
.,,,;,.,,,(4, />• ,oJJ.,,
) ""','
t.,.•. fl {;,.,"'f><Q "'1
.u, .1
If
J<u,
f ll,·
«-r_ v r;J.: J,l,; a ,.,,,,.._.,...N h,t• • ,.J./.
;;, J..Q.ul. /,..: Jl
•// ''11,.<.,J ?Vil ,1;d /, ..,, /J w'rr:J,4 J._, .., ., ,
,v:
,,._,L ,,,.,
u,
,-c..ltI /,
r,
'.,.,c
II
I liz.n,
,
,1. 1;.,.,,c_; =J,
I
.dI
,:ur_ CA.N' •
'.i{ :, ><A.L,t
1
1/.u/'
,.
t
JI!.,I Jl I
"Po:-.
ll f'J'Hfl
(,)
I
""f Q tJ[
.f;.:r:....
J' ,
lk
4'AJ/_,,., 'j Ht nA
(!C-,<.r,tAJ (l, L.-..
t "' '"' "'f
'l
/£:., ",:;J,.,,.uJ.,".,.,,, J,•"
,A,, ,.... ·7.,.,'
h .u..d,
XI
1 , >,/v,..µ_
t.£ , f"o/"··),.,,,- 1112 /,,.,'
=,fl "'f• t'L,: /.., •
J-£
•
Ir,; 1
i"N
• w.'',J •
a,,. .,...;}( ,. ,
1
t"'
J "'
r,,. ,,..
e,
,
,N,,
,,,., 0<L"4Y>
p
-.of
f
I
t
I
,
I
h 41>'-
.:.,,.. ./,
N OVEMBERt D6CEMBER
200I
49
,,. k,/,..,(t,I' b, t!, =-:t,, <ti- ,.,.,,_ { '
N OVEMBERt D6CEMBER
200I
49
•• Jeremy Belknap (1744-1798), made preservation by publica • Douglas L. Wilson tion a key part of the society'searly mission. By seeking out and transcribing historical documents to be printed weekly in a Boston newspaper, Belknap and his colleagues successfully preserved the contents of countlesshistorical manuscripts that have since been lost to the natural enemies of paper noted by Jefferson, or that have simply disappeared. Predictably, Belknap'ssociety soon became the depository of historical documents deemed too important or precious or frag ile to remain in private keeping. Once the society assumed
this responsibility, preservation of theartifacts themselves became a prime consideration .Eventually, the group would be responsible forsome of the great foundation stones of American history, such asJohn Winthrop'sjournal, the record of the earliest days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony kept by its first governor. Because of the society's location in Boston, many of its most prized posses sions relate co the history of New England. Thepapers of the illus trious Adams family make up its largest and mostimportant col lection, but by a curious twist of fate, the Massachusetts Historical Society alsobecame the custodian of many of ThomasJefferson's mostvaluable personal manuscripts. His Farm Book, his Garden Book, two handwritten catalogs of hisfamous library; the bulk of his architectural drawings, as well as copies of more than 3,000 of his own let ters are all part of the society's Coolidge Collection, named for the Boston family of Jefferson descendants that donated these priceless papers. The crownjewel of the Coolidge Collection is themanuscript of Jefferson's Notes onthe State of Virginia. The only bookJefferson ever wrote, the Notes began as a series of answers to a questionnaire circulated by the French government in 1780, during the Revolu tionary War. Jefferson later expanded his response and paid to have it printed in Paris in 1785 for pri vate distribution. Published two years later in London, it resem bles no ocher book ever written, being a distinctively Jefferson ian compilation of information and opinion, covering everything from Virginia's geography and natural resources to its history and politicalstructure, from its architecture (or lack thereof) to its social customs and mores. Thebook's most famous passages describe natural phenomena, such as Natural Bridge, and include an unbuttoned paean to the superiority of farmingand rural life, a timely and eloquent condemnation of slavery; and a painfully time-bound discussion of racial differences. Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia occupies a high station in American history: le is arguably the most important book by an American in the 18thcentury.That in itself makes the man-
is theeditor
of Jefferson's Literary Commonplace Book
and coeditor of Jefferson Abroad. He hasfollowed the project described in tliis articlefrom its inception and is nowatwork ona swdy of Jefferson 's manuscript.
50
P R E SB R V A TI O N
â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘ artifact. But as the historical society's Drummey,points out, its value isâ&#x20AC;˘
uscript a notable librarian, Peter "compounded by the fact chat manuscripts of 18th-century books are almost unknown." Thus the manuscript of Jefferson's Notes presents an almost unique opportunity to lookbehind the scenes and observe a lit erary masterpiece of that era in the making. The original draft of 88 closely written pages was heavily revised and amended until it reached 140 pages with appen dices. Much of the new or revised text was incorporated into the manuscript by attachingsmaller sheets, or tabs, onto the original pages. The tabs, which Jefferson attached to his primary pages with sealing wax, were sometimes pasted over existing text and sometimes hinged onto the page as a flap,so thatadditional text could be written (and read) onboth sides. For example, in answer to a query about the state of manufacturing during wartime,Jef ferson had originally written a very brief description,emphasiz ing, to an ally and prospective trade partner, the likelihood that Vuginia would return to a dependence on foreign "manufactures" after the war.In the revised manuscript. Jefferson emphasized his own aversion to domestic manufacturing by adding,on a tab, his famous apostrophe to rural life, with its much-quoted line: "those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of god,
if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial & genuine virtue." Needless to say, the manuscript' s unusual construction is yet another
testi mony toJeffersonian ingenuity. His use of tabs saved labor and paper, both impor tant considerations. Its distinctiveness, as well as its distinction, suggests that the manuscript would be among the most popular and frequently consulted itemsin the historical society's library. But, asJef ferson himself learned in collecting old manuscripts, the deterioration of such an artifact is inevitable, and measures to mitigate deterioration usually inhibit or even forbid use. Here, the increasingly fragile condition of the manuscript's binding and paper did indeed call for protective measures, and access to the manuscript had to be severely restricted. Scholars were generally referred to the microfilm version. In 1996, the society decided on a major conservation effort to address the physical deterioration of the manuscript. But what began as a preservation project eventually became much more, opening the door to many of the manuscript 's mysteries and providing meaningful access to an exciting document for a vast audience.
The manuscript
of Jefferson's Notes had been on librar ian Peter Drummey's mindfor sometime. Hewas aware that the brittle pages of one of his library's most important documents were crumbling at the edges and shedding tiny bits of paper each ti.me they were handled.He also knew that the manuscript
•
o,/ F
it.
1' fwr' V
I
()hi.o u
07n
.r . ?7\.
l'. ( 'l u,,ru1l te.
i/U,
i- IL,.
Jri:af · - ;J J
'Yl.lH/T .:4,
I
e&w.-.,V
•
wll
had never received the kind of carefulscrutiny At work on the manuscript, oppo- the historical society's conservation staff was it deserved.No published edition of the site; the Ohio River and long, slow, and painstaking. commen- tary,showing sealing Notes had been based on a thorough study of First,each page and tabwas numbered in wax residue the manuscript, because for that to happen, pencil. The constrictive leather binding, a asthe greatJefferson editorJulian P. Boyd had well-intentioned modern conservation effort pointed out 50 years earlier, the manuscript would have tobe taken had ever seen whatJefferson had originally written."But the task apart. Boyd's own plans to produce such an edition after before editingJeffer son'scorrespondence and other papers had proved hopelessly opti mistic, and the manuscript'smysteries remained unsolved. What Jefferson had first written, and when, as well as how and why he revised that text ashe did, were some of the intrigu ing questions waiting to be answered. For manuscripts curator Brenda Lawson, the most compelling reason to give priority to this manuscript was the opportunity to recover portions of the original text (estimated at 2,000 words) that had been blocked from view when Jefferson added the tabs.She confessed that she was "astonished at the thought that no one
•••
NO VEMBER OECEM8 ER 2 00 I
5}
that conservator Anne E. Bentley regarded as misguided ("The binding was destroying the manuscript"), was taken off. The stitches and glue that held the pages together were carefully removed, and the tabs thatJefferson had fastened to his manu- script with sealing wax were detached. Along the way; photo graphs recorded in detail the original state of the manuscript,as well as each step in the disassembly
process. Next, all the indi vidual leaves and tabs that made up the manuscript, some 133 separate items, were washed and deacidified by immersion. After drying, the edges of the pages were reinforced with a tis sue paper to prevent further deterioration andpaper loss. Finally; the pages and tabs were placed in dear Mylar sleeves, where they can now be examined without being touched.
NO VEMBER OECEM8 ER 2 00 I
5}
• manuscript provides the answer. The account of •• assembled Indian mounds in the original draft,written in the summer of
As expected, the disassembly of the manuscript quickly shed light on such things aswhen and howJefferson drafted and then revised his text. Now we are able to see that many of Jef ferson'sremarks about the Notes, particularly those concerning the research that went into the work and the time it took topro duce, are seriously misleading, casualties of his habitual and excessive modesty. To use a word that first appeared in print in the Notes.Jefferson tended to belittle his own efforts, but the evi dence of the manuscript, plus relevant correspondence and memorandums, help to correct these understatements. For example.Jefferson described hiswork in the subtitle of his pri vately printed Paris edition as "written in the year 1781, some what corrected and enlarged in thewinter of 1782,"but the evi dence of the manuscript tells adifferent story. Its text, which was dearly the product of much revision, was written out fair in
1783, and it is dear from the evidence that he was still gathering information and making substantial revisions to it in 1784. Scholars will be poring over the disas sembled manuscript and gaining further
1783, can now be reconstructed with accuracy:
"... two of these [mounds]I have seen. the one in the low grounds of the South branch of Shenando where it is crossed by the road leading from the Rockfish gap to Staunton: the other on the lowground of the Rivanna near its principal fork above the mountains. these as well as I recollect them are spherical hillocks ormounds of about 10. feet height & 40 feet diameter atthe base ..." HereJefferson offers from memory avague and generalized description of two separate mounds. The excavation of the mound near the Rivanna River isdescribed in great detail in the revised version, which was written on atab in 1784.The digmust have been performed sometime after he had written the origi-
nal draft in the summer of 1783and before he left Virginia in October of that year. Perhaps no section of Jefferson'sNotes on the State of Virginia has received more atten- tion in our time than hisdiscussion of racial but they have never been able to dis cover whenJefferson conducted his famous excavation.The dis-
Jefferson's note, above, on Virginia'sNatural Bridge,opposite; and the bound manuscript
• ••
insights for years to come, but some things have already become apparent. One question that can only now be answered relates to the description of Jefferson's excavation of an Indian mound. Because he was curious about the contents and purposes of Indian mounds, about which there were opposing theories.Jef ferson conducted what hasbeen called the first scientificarchae- ological digin America. His biographers and others interested in his archaeological work have longknown where the mound in question was located,
52
P R E S E R V A T I O N
differences in Query (or Chapter) 14, a discussion that is pro foundJy unflattering to blacks. The manuscript shows that the account in the original draft, which Jefferson seems to have regarded as an attempt atempirical,or "scientific,"observation, comes across as even harsher and more insensitive than the fmal result. Other documents
• make it dear that hewas persuaded to moderate this passage by •• his closest adviser in the project, Charles Thomson, who read and commented on Jefferson's draft. Thomson sharedJefferson'sviews onracial differences, but he feared that such frank opinions "might seem tojustify slav-
•• •
ery,"which both of them opposed. In his revisions, Jefferson responded to Thomson's criticisms by attempting to balance his unfa vorable findings with something more positive. Tohis negative assess ment of the black poet Phillis Wheatley; headded a tab containing a more favorable assessment of another black writer, Ignatius Sancho. To offset his invidious comparison of American slaves with those of the Romans, who were white, he wrote on another tab: "Whether further obser vation will or willnot verify the conjecture that Nature hasbeen less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head,I beleive that in those of the heart shewillbefound cohave done themjus-
tice." On this tabhe also tried to put into perspective the issue of theft: "that disposition to theft with which they [American slavesJ havebeen branded, must be ascribed to their situation, & not to any depravity of the moral sense ... and it is a problem which Igive to the master to solve Whether thereligious precepts against the violation of property were not fran1ed for him as well as his slave?"Bue moderated ornot,Jefferson's 18th-century views are painfulreading in 2001.
In away that could hardly have been anticipated, the Massachusetts Historical Society project to conserve the man uscript of Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia promises topro duce far-reaching results. The project ended up, with the press of other work, taking more than fouryears, which meant
it was expensive. But in 1999, the effort came to the attention of Save
â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘
America's Treasures, the U.S. mil lennium project, which made itpos sible to finish the conservation work on the Notes and to produce full color digitized images of this and some of Jefferson's other important manuscripts. These electronic images have several advantages over their microfilm counterparts. They canbe displayed on any computer anywhere in the world; they can appear not only in black and white or gray scale but with great fidelity in full color; and the images can be enlarged and manipulated in other ways to make them more readable and to aid in deciphering obscured text. The availability of these color scans gave impetusto a plan already under discussion to create a site on the Web dedicated toJefferson'sNotes .Nowunder development by the Massachusetts Historical Societyin cooperation with the International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, the plan callsfor a site that will someday give users linked access to images and transcrip tions of the manuscript, ofJefferson's related correspondence and memorandums, and of allauthoritative printed editions of the Notes. The sitewill be an unprecedented tool for the comprehensive study of a major work. William M. Fowler, the society'sdirector, knows that viewing historical documents has a
special power to stimulate interest and con vey a feeling of historical immediacy. 'i\.s a teacher of American history," he says, "I lec tured foryears aboutJefferson as a slaveholder. But corning to the MRS and encountering the actual manuscript of the Farm Book was arev elation. Reading the names of Jefferson'sslaves listed there, inhis own handwriting, alongside the mundane details of his farming operation gave me a much morevivid and concrete sense of what it meant to run a plantation with human property."Fowler and the soci ety'sstaff believe that putting such manuscripts on the Internet willfulfill thelibrarian's fondest wish: to make the rarest and most exhilarating materials accessible to anyone who wants to see them. In a curious but fitting way, the project recalls Jefferson's efforts to saveVirginia laws and the pioneering efforts of the his torical society's founders, who practiced preservation by pub lication. Conscious as they are that they have had to undo Jef ferson'sunique construction to preserve itsindividual parts, the successors of Jeremy Belknap have the compensation of know ing that millions of Internet users willone day be ableto print out all theparts of the manuscript in realistic color and,byjudi cious use of sealing wax, put them back together. l:l
N O V EM B ll R
DEC BM BER
2 0 0 I
53