|
It's good to be cautious when you're handling the Declaration of
Independence, a document so famous it even had a starring role in a
recent Hollywood movie. Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler and Kitty Nicholson
of the National Archives' Document Conservation Laboratory had the
heady but heavy responsibility of uncasing, examining, and treating
not only the Declaration but also the Constitution and Bill of
Rights—seven fragile pieces of parchment collectively known as
the Charters of Freedom. Here, they reflect on their nail-biting
work, reveal what's really on the back of the Declaration, and
explain why conservators today, unlike in the past, avoid
heavy-handed restoration.—Susan K. Lewis
Opening act
NOVA: You were the first people to set eyes directly on the
Declaration, not obscured by glass, since the 1950s. How did it
feel?
Nicholson: The actual moment of opening the encasement for
the Declaration was truly remarkable—kind of a magic moment. I
think neither of us would have dreamed that we would have this honor
and challenge when we started working for the National Archives
many, many years ago.
NOVA: Would you describe your emotion as more excitement or
anxiety?
Nicholson: It was more an excitement that we had reached this
point in the project. It's a little like saving the best for last.
We had a couple of years on the project at that point. We had
started with the encasements and documents that were not on
exhibit—the middle pages of the Constitution and Transmittal
Page [a letter, signed by George Washington, that accompanied the
Constitution when it was sent to Congress]. And at that point there
was more uncertainty. Is this going to work? Is this tool going to
do what we need it to do?
NOVA: Was it difficult to figure out how to just open the
cases?
Ritzenthaler: Well, the encasements did not come with any
instructions. We did have good documentation in terms of the
elements that had been put together, but we didn't really know,
except by using the diagrams, how we would go about breaking the
seal and then removing the layers.
Nicholson: If you see pictures of the way we were cutting
into this little lead ribbon that joined the front and back pieces
of glass, it might look like we were just sticking in a sharp point
and that the parchment was just on the other side. But I have to say
that we're really grateful to the people who designed that
encasement; there's actually a metal collar inside, all around the
four edges of the parchment. When we were cutting, our blade would
hit that inner metal collar, but it never went beyond that. We knew
that structure was there, so it made it much less worrisome.
NOVA: Why did you save the scraps of lead ribbon?
Ritzenthaler: People who work in conservation retain as much
physical evidence as we can for future studies. There was a great
deal of interest, for example, in knowing how well those encasements
had fared during the 50 years that they were in use.
NOVA: Could you tell whether they had leaked?
Nicholson: That was one of the exciting puzzles. People had
worried about that even early on. There was a letter in the files in
the '50s: "You're going to lose all the helium." But actually all of
them still contained helium, which is a really amazing feat of
engineering, because helium is a very small atom and can leak
through very, very small breaks, passages. It can even leak through
certain kinds of glass.
NOVA: What were conditions like in the room where you worked
on the documents? Did you have to wear surgical masks?
Ritzenthaler: There were certainly trying times when we had
to maintain a "clean room" environment—largely when we were
putting the documents into the new encasements, because we did not
want to have to open them up again to deal with small specks or
spots of dust. But in general the most important feature was the
environmental conditions, which were maintained to match the final
condition that the documents were going to be exhibited in. So we
had a temperature that was around 68 degrees, and a relative
humidity of 38, 39 percent.
Nicholson: A very, very close-controlled state. And that was
a remarkable accomplishment.
“...an old fingerprint of Napoleon on a document—would
you want to remove or alter that? You have to think about the origin
of the dirt.”
NOVA: After you opened a case, could you flip the parchment
over right away and examine it front to back?
Nicholson: Our first concern was to make sure that all of the
ink was secure before we turned any of the documents over. And so we
carefully examined, letter by letter, to see if there were any
insecure flakes of ink. We actually never saw one totally
dissociated from where it belonged. What we saw were lifting
flakes—a little bit like an old exterior paint on a house.
When we found ink like that we would use a kind of parchment gelatin
to relax the flake back into its original location.
NOVA: Must take a steady hand.
Ritzenthaler: It does take a very steady hand. It also takes
a lot of time. It was many weeks before we had the opportunity to
turn the documents over. That was another of these momentous
occasions.
Damaged by love
NOVA: When you finally turned the Declaration over, was there
a secret map on the back?
Ritzenthaler: We didn't see one. Or any secret messages.
Nicholson: There was an inscription written along the bottom
edge so that if it was stored rolled, as was the norm in the 19th
century, you could say, "Aha, here's the Declaration."
NOVA: What did it say?
Ritzenthaler: A direct quote: "Original Declaration of
Independence. Dated 4th July 1776."
NOVA: Over the centuries, what did the most damage to the
Declaration?
Ritzenthaler: Well, the Declaration clearly was one of the
most loved documents in American history. It was handled a lot. It
was displayed and exhibited. It was removed quickly from Washington
during war periods. We wouldn't say that it was mishandled, but it
was handled in ways that are different than approaches we would take
today. We wouldn't roll the document, for example. We know that it
was rolled. It was displayed under conditions of relatively
prolonged exposure to light. We wouldn't do that either.
Nicholson: It was the document that Americans first saw as
the pivotal founding document. So from the early 19th century,
people, when they visited Washington, if they had any pull, they'd
expect to go to the State Department and have it brought out for
them.
NOVA: Are there any surprising marks on the document?
Nicholson: Well, the handprint is the one that people get
fascinated by. It's at the bottom left of the front of the document.
We really don't know the history of the handprint. So it's even
mysterious. [See
The Damage Done to
examine the handprint and other details on the Declaration.]
NOVA: Did you think about attempting to remove the handprint?
Ritzenthaler: We had discussions with the archival staff. We
weren't certain that it would be feasible, but we wanted to talk
through whether or not, from an archival perspective, it would be
appropriate or ethical. For a whole lot of reasons we decided to
leave it. We felt that it really is now part of the document.
NOVA: Is the dirt on the documents even part of their
history—something to retain?
Ritzenthaler: From a conservation perspective dirt can be
abrasive. It can be acidic. On the other hand, an old fingerprint of
Napoleon on a document—would you want to remove or alter that?
You have to think about the origin of the dirt.
“Restoration implies that somehow you can wave a wand and turn
back the clock ... we know that's impossible.”
NOVA: Why were you so meticulous in examining the
documents—noting every single crease and speck of dirt?
Ritzenthaler: There is so much about the history and the
condition of these documents that really has not been reported. So
for future conservators and custodians we wanted to record as much
information as possible, something to compare against in 50 or 100
years.
NOVA: The Charters are on display to the public every day of
the year except Christmas. Has the Archives considered limiting that
time to help preserve them?
Nicholson: The Archives feels that it's really politically
necessary and philosophically necessary that Americans can always
see these founding documents. They're sealed in inert gas to protect
them from photo oxidation, which is a fancy chemical way of
describing light fading. So we have reason to believe that the
absence of oxygen will actually make them remain in very good
condition.
Ritzenthaler: Incredible steps have been taken, more so than
with any other documents that I'm aware of in the world, to make
sure that we have provided a stable preservation environment.
Temperature, relative humidity, controlling the light exposure. [To
learn more about how the ink and parchment deteriorated in the past,
see Fading Away.]
Turning back time
NOVA: At some point in the past, someone touched up the ink
on some of the Declaration's signatures, including the famous John
Hancock. Why wouldn't you consider doing this sort of restoration
work now?
Ritzenthaler: That hits on one of the most important premises
for conservators who work with archival documents. These documents
are historical evidence. We would never do what we would consider
cosmetic improvement. Our aim was to enhance visibility and the
long-term preservation, but not to cosmetically alter the document.
NOVA: You did do some repair work on the edge of the
parchment. How do you draw the line between restoration work that's
okay and tampering that distorts the document's history?
Nicholson: That's a good question. Altering the text,
altering signatures, altering anything that conveys
meaning—down to commas and periods—would be totally
inappropriate. The work we did was on a gap on the right edge where
there was no writing. It was an area that was somewhat jagged, and
it had potential for catching on the clear plastic tabs that fold
over the edge of the document and keep it in place in the new
encasement. We did try to make the color harmonious with the
adjacent parchment. But if you look at it closely, it would never be
deceptive.
Ritzenthaler: Our goal clearly was not to fool the eye or to
make the document look pristine.
NOVA: Do you think restorers of the past went too far?
Ritzenthaler: There was a period in the middle decades of the
last century when there were exquisite approaches to replicating
areas of lost text. That's not something that we would think
appropriate in an archival context.
Nicholson: There are some Old Master prints that were
restored in a way that's really too much—they went to great
lengths! It was not visible from the front or the back what had been
done. That, I think, goes in the direction of deceptive restoration.
There's one document I know of where half the document was
discovered, and the other half was missing. But it existed in
multiple copies, and a very, very good facsimile was made of the
missing portion, and it was joined together. Probably when half the
document is gone you should just say, "We only have half the
document."
NOVA: Has there been a shift in recent decades in the
philosophy of those who work on historic documents and artifacts?
Ritzenthaler: There has been a shift. Kitty used the phrase
earlier, "Do no harm." I think that people in general tend to
intervene less than they used to.
Nicholson: "Restoration" versus "preservation"—I think
that kind of sums it up. Restoration implies that somehow you can
wave a wand and turn back the clock, and it's the way it was when it
was new. And we know that's impossible. Ultimately, you can maybe do
something that's cosmetic, that suggests the way it ought to have
looked, but you just can't turn the clock back. Preservation is more
future-oriented—taking the steps today that will make
something last as long as possible. And what we were doing with the
Charters, with the Declaration in particular, was to do all the
things we need to preserve it for future generations.
Safe haven
NOVA: In the early 1950s, when the Charters were put into
their then state-of-the-art cases, how long did the conservators and
case designers expect they would stay there?
Nicholson: I think they thought they would last quite a long
time. But no one ever really made an estimate. I think they just
didn't know.
Ritzenthaler: They created encasements that were not capable
of being opened and then re-used. So maybe that spoke a little bit
to their sense of permanence.
Nicholson: Or lack of forethought.
Ritzenthaler: Yes, lack of forethought. And certainly one of
the major design ideas that we had in thinking about the [new]
encasements was that they could be opened and then re-sealed. [To
examine the new encasements, go to
Case Closed.]
Nicholson: We anticipate at some point they'll need to be
opened. But we don't think it will be in our lifetime.
NOVA: Is it unsettling to you that the cases made in the '50s
needed to be opened 50 years later?
Ritzenthaler: No, I think that the technology actually was
superb and lasted a very long time. It was very effective in
protecting and preserving the documents. I think if they had not
been encased at that point, they would have been in great jeopardy.
Nicholson: It was 50 years of a safe environment that they
had not had for many, many decades prior to that.
NOVA: Is it possible, given the sophistication of the new
cases, that the documents could suffer absolutely no deterioration
from here on out?
Ritzenthaler: I don't think that we're actually in a position
to make a definitive statement like that. I do think that the
Archives has taken every precaution that we can tap into in terms of
the current understanding, materials, methodology.
NOVA: You spent about five years on the Charters project.
That's a long time.
Nicholson: It was a good long stretch. But this was an
engineering project, a construction project. It was quite a complex
project, and the conservation was just one part of it.
Ritzenthaler: And it was an amazing collaboration. Not just
the conservators were involved, but engineers and chemists and
physicists, and people who had expertise in metal and gold plating
and glass. So it was really quite a fabulous gathering of expertise.
NOVA: The Declaration and the other Charters are seen by many
people as almost spiritual, sacred objects. Having worked on them
for so many years, do you see them that way or as material objects
made of parchment and ink?
Nicholson: Well, conservators always see things as material
objects. That's the kind of people we are! But we also see them as
incredibly significant documents.
Ritzenthaler: They're certainly awe-inspiring. I think we
both feel that it was an amazing privilege to work on them.
NOVA: What's it like when you go to the Rotunda and you see
school kids and other visitors looking at the Charters? Do you feel
a personal sense of gratification?
Ritzenthaler: I certainly do. I think we both also feel
pretty protective. A sense of maternal oversight.
Nicholson: One of the really nice things about the project
for the Charters was it included making the display more accessible.
And I get a really big satisfaction from seeing small children and
people in wheelchairs able to come right up and see these documents.
It really is very satisfying.
|
