APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY GSA EXPENDITURES OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS FOR HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS OF A DOCUMENTARY NATURE The amounts spent by foreign governments in support of documentary publication and in other aids to the historian, such as guides to and calendars of historical manuscripts, are difficult to ascertain because the expenditures are not only directly by governmental offices, bureaus, archival agencies, and libraries, but through various royal academies and institutes and through state-supported universities. Frequently, also, sums are made available as subsidies to private institutions and societies. No summary review or survey in print of such documentary publication programs and their cost has been found. In Great Britain expenditures from public funds for documentary publication have been chiefly through two agencies of the Central Government, the Public Record Office, the equivalent of our National Archives, and the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. The Public Record Office began publishing its famous "Calendars of State Papers" in 1856 and its equally famous "Rolls Series" in 1857. Both activities have been continued steadily since then, and each is now represented by several hundred volumes. In using the term "Rolls Series" the word "series" is to be understood in the plural, for a number of different series have been published such as the "Patent Rolls," the "Close Rolls," the "Charter Rolls," the "Liberate Rolls," the "Fine Rolls," the "Curia Regis Rolls," the "Memoranda Rolls," the "Treaty Rolls," the "Roman Rolls, Acts of the Privy Council, and Diplomatic Documents," each consisting of a series of published volumes. Another good example is the "Letters and Papers of Henry VIII," published in 37 volumes between 1864 and 1932, and not limited in its contents to public records. In all these series the original text is reproduced verbatim in its entirety. In the numerous series of calendars, on the other hand, the documents are summarized, though certain sentences or phrases within quotation marks will be direct quotations from the original texts. The calendars are more than just a finding aid; they are intended to make it less necessary to consult the originals even though the texts are not fully reproduced. Probably the best known of the calendar series are the "Calendar of State Papers, Foreign"; the "Calendar of State Papers, Domestic"; and the "Calendar of State Papers, Colonial"; the last 2 numbering some 50 volumes each. Examples of other many-volume published calendars are the "Calendar of Close Rolls," the "Calendar of Fine Rolls," the "Calendar of Treasury Books," the "Calendar of State Papers Relating to Ireland," the "Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain," and the "Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers Relating to the Negotiations Between England and Spain." The "Calendar of State Papers Relating to Scotland," begun in 1858, was later taken over by the General Register House in Edinburgh, the official archival agency for Scotland. In summary, the number of volumes published by the Public Records Office since 1856 now number over a thousand, representing an average of almost 10 a year. Increasingly, editors from outside the regular staff, who are experts in the period, have been brought in on contract for this editorial work. A restudy of the publication program of the Public Record Office in 1962, resulted in a 5-year program that will continue the publication of nine different series of calendars and of five different series of rolls and other documents published in full, this decision being made despite criticism of the costs. Each volume is estimated to represent the equivalent "of at least 2 years of full-time editorial effort" (1962 "Report of Keeper," p. 4). The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts has functions that more nearly parallel those of the National Historical Publicatiions Commission. Its 99 first report was published in 1870. Its 24th appeared in 1962. It has concerned itself chiefly with privately owned papers that are complementary to the state papers in the Public Record Office, and has published many volumes of calendars to the more important private holdings, some of which have since come into public record repositories. The 24th report, for instance, chronicles the publication of the 5th and last volume of the calendar of the "Polwarth Manuscripts," a body of papers in the Scottish Record Office, the sending to the press of the 5th and last volume of the calendar of the "De L'Isle and Dudley Manuscripts" and the 4th volume of the calendar of the papers of Daniel Finch, 2d Earl of Nottingham. The fifth and last volume of the Finch calendar was in preparation as was the fourth volume of the calendar of the "Bath Papers," also calendars of the "Salisbury Papers" (four more volumes intended), the "Stuart Papers" (two more volumes intended) and the "Devonshire Papers" (two more volumes intended). Many hundreds of volumes of historical documents have been published in England by special records societies, some private membership societies, but nearly all aided with public funds. One of the oldest is the Camden Society (1836 ff.) the publications of which since 1897 have been carried on under the sponsorship of the Royal Historical Society. The Royal Historical Society's "Transactions" (1869 ff.) contains many edited documents. Other well-known record society series are the Hakluyt Society publications (1846 ff.), comprising chiefly travel diaries, logbooks, and journals of explorations; the Scottish History Society publications (1887 ff.); the Seldon Society publications (1887 ff.) emphasizing source material for the study of English legal history; the Navy Records Society publications (1894 ff.), and the Pipe Roll Society (1884 ff.), the latter's publications alone numbering over 70 volumes. By a joint publication plan with the record societies, initiated in 1959, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts selects for publication each year by Her Majesty's Stationery Office three volumes from those proposed by the various records societies, choosing those of sufficient general interest and highest standard of editing. Actually published under this program in 1962 were the following: Felix Hull, editor, "The Black and White Books of the Cinque Ports" (with the records branch of the Kent Archaeological Society). Peter Gouldesbrough, editor, "The Erroll Charters" (with the Scottish Record Society). Mrs. J. Vanes, editor, "The Ledger of John Smyth" (with the Bristol Record Society). Selected in 1962 for publication subsequently were: "The Cartulary of Missenden Abbey" (with the Buckinghamshire Record Society). The Cartulary of Tutbury Priory (with the Staffordshire Record Society). John Constable's Letters: the Family at East Bergholt (with the Suffolk Record Society). Other volumes were in press or in the hands of the editors, but the above illustrate the nature of this joint program. The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts also has published a List of Record Repositories in Great Britain, publishes a List of Accessions to Depositories each year and, periodically (since 1948) a Bulletin of the National Register of Archives. It has given grants-in-aid to the British Records Association of £2,000 per annum to aid in the association's program "of examining and transferring to repositories records from the strongrooms of London solicitors." It assists the Business Archives Council with a smaller grant for the preparation of reports upon important collections of business records. It has shared with the National Trust the cost of arranging and listing the Disraeli Manuscripts at Hughenden, and it filmed the Berkeley Castle Manuscripts with the consent of the trustees of the late Earl of Berkeley and deposited the films in the Cambridge University Library, with which it shared the cost. These are examples of Commission activities supported with public funds in a 2-year period. The Irish Free State supports an Irish Manuscripts Commission, which since 1930 has published a series of documentary volumes known as the Analecta Hibernia. In France the Documents relatifs a l'histoire de France, begun in 1835, now numbers over 300 volumes. This series was projected by Guizot as Minister of Public Instruction in 1834; it has been carried on since 1881 by the Comité des Trauvaux Historiques et Scientifiques, an official body similar in nature to the National Historical Publications Commission. There are at present six separate series included within the above general title, covering (1) chronicles, memoirs, and journals; (2) charters; (3) correspondence, political and administrative; (4) docu ments of the revolutionary period; (5) documents relating to philology, philosophy, etc.; and (6) archeology. The correspondence series especially has been divided into many subseries, examples of which are Pierre Clement, editor, Lettres, instructions, et memoires de Colbert (8 vols. in 10) and A. M. de Boislisle and Pierre de Brotonne, editors, Correspondence des contrôleurs generaux des finances aver les intendants des provinces, 1683-1715, in numerous volumes. In Belgium the central Government supports an extensive program of documentary publication through the Commission Royale d'Histoire. Its notable series, begun in 1836, was patterned after the French and includes subseries of chronicles, chartularies, correspondence, and the like. The Queen of the Netherlands in 1902 appointed an Advisory Commission for Historical Publications, which has been often praised for its influential planning activities in the area of documentary publication. The publications themselves are carried on in a number of Government agencies and at various levels of Government. Well known at this time are two series respecting the early history of Dutch power in the East Indies being supervised by the Ministry of the Colonies. Turning to the Scandinavian countries, the Swedish Government began in 1816 to make available a wide variety of source materials in its Handlingar rorande Skandinaviens historia, continued since 1861 as Historiska Handlingar. Norway has the publications of the Norsk Historisk Kajeldeskrift-Institutt, begun in 1858 and now numbering more than 60 volumes. Denmark has since 1852 through its National Archives (Rigsarkiv) been publishing its important source documents in a series entitled Aarsleretniger fra det Kongelige Geheimearchiv. One of the best known of all the great series of government support documentary publications is the Monumenta Germaniae Historica in which has been collected the source documents for the history of Germany in the Middle Ages. This series, although initiated earlier, began to be subsidized by the German Confederation in 1853, was later supported by the Empire, and is now carried on by the West German Republic. The number of volumes published is now well over 400. Most of the constituent states of modern Germany have had their own state-supported documentary publication programs, the most famous being those of Prussia and Bavaria. At the instance of the famous German historians and archivists, Ranke and von Sybel, the Bavarian king in 1858 established Die Historische Commission bei der koniglich bayerschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. To this Commission we owe over a hundred volumes of the best-edited historical material that Europe has produced. A series of like character and similar standards for the history of Prussia and her provinces, published by the Prussian State Archives, had reached 94 volumes by the eve of the Second World War. In Spain under the present regime there has been considerable subsidizing of historical research and publication under the auspices of a Government agency known as the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cinetificas in which a number of national, regional, and provincial universities, congresses, and other learned bodies and institutions are represented. Published by these bodies, with the help of Government funds, are books, journals, and reports, many of which contain original texts and documents. The great 19th-century series, the Colección de documentos ineditos para la historia de Espana, which had reached 113 volumes by 1895, has been subdivided into many series in the 20th century. The Italian Government has through various agencies also supported an enormous amount of documentary publication. Through the Istituto Storico Italiano the most important single collection of source materials for the modern period, the Fonti per la storia d'Italia, is constantly being enlarged by new publications. The most recent major undertaking, of interest to all historians of modern Europe, is the publishing of the previously closed files of the Italian Foreign Office from 1861 to 1943 under the editorship of a distinguished group of Italian historians. Publication began in 1952 and is planned to include about 80 volumes in 9 different series. Although some good work in the editing and publishing of historical documents was carried on in certain Eastern European countries in the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century, two World Wars have so confused the picture that no simple review is at present possible. Standards, methods, and models developed in Western Europe, especially England, France, and Germany, are those which have most influenced American practices in the editing and publishing of documents. The Federal Government of the United States has, since the establishment of the National Archives in 1934, moved rapidly to the front in its support for the care of its official records, but it lags behind seriously in supporting efforts to bring important bodies of private papers under control and in helping through publication put both public and private documentary materials of national importance within the reach of our scholars and all educated citizens. [From the Kansas City Star, Nov. 13, 1963] THE NEED TO PRESERVE THE PAPERS OF HISTORY The vote in the House was 157 yeas and 154 nays with 121 Representatives not voting. By so small a margin did one House of Congress approve the principle that the significant records of history ought to be preserved and published. The measure provides $500,000 a year to be used for this purpose. Frankly, we would have thought that any plan to increase the public's knowledge and understanding of the past would have been more favorably received. But you can't knock success. The bill did carry and a football game won by a single point is still a victory. Nevertheless, we hope that the Senate can be more dispassionate and less partisan on this matter. The debate in the House, recorded in some 20 pages of the Congressional Record, was not exactly impressive. It seems to have degenerated into a partisan issue with Republicans, or some Republicans at least, fearing that the majority party was about to rewrite history. The meanings of the terms "editing" and "copy editing" were discussed with all the profoundness of a kindergarten class in journalism. The tone of the discussion revealed a peevish attitude toward historians and scholars. Perhaps it just irritates politicians that historians always have the last word. The legislation grew out of a report by the National Historical Publications Commission, which recommended a national program for the collection, preservation and publication of documentary sources of American history. At present, five major historical projects are underway, involving the publication of the papers of Jefferson, the two Adamses, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton. These projects will be completed with the income from endowment funds. Presumably, too, the $500,000 a year in Federal money would be seed money for additional private gifts. We have, by the standards of nations, a comparatively brief history. It is not too late to put our house of records in order and provide for the future a rich and reliable source of knowledge on the past. The bill now in Senate committee would do this. It is a worthy purpose and we cannot share the fear of some lawmakers that it is simply another budget-breaking boondoggle. On the contrary, it is a reasonable investment in history, which is one of the Nation's most prized possessions. ASHEVILLE, N.C., November 8, 1963. OLIVER W. HOLMES, Executive Director, National Historical Publications Commission, Be it resolved, That the Southern Historical Association enthusiastically endorses the work of the Historical Publications Commission and the various projects which have under way preparation for publication the papers of several major American statesmen; and Be it resolved, That we endorse House bill 6237 which provides material Federal financial support to these several projects. THOMAS D. CLARK. RESOLUTION, SOUTH CAROLINA ARCHIVES DEpartment Whereas H.R. 6237 authorizes the National Historical Publications Commission to make grants-in-aid for the collection, reproduction, and publication of documentary source materials significant to the history of the United States, said grants being intended to consist of Federal funds and of private funds to be received from philanthropic foundations and no such grant being intended to underwrite the whole of the expense of collecting and publishing any group of significant documents; and Whereas benevolent grants of private funds and non-Federal governmental appropriations will be stimulated by the proposed token appropriation of $500,000 annually by the United States for assembling and publishing these basic documents upon which the truth of the public's understanding of our democracy's development depends; and Whereas the plan embodied in H.R. 6237 will make possible a balanced development in a movement that is at present resulting in the publication of scholarly editions of the "Papers" of only about eight national leaders of the stature of John Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison and will help to insure the completion of even these distinguished publication projects, not one of which is assured of attaining its ultimate completion: Be it Resolved by the South Carolina Archives Commission, That members of the House of Representatives from South Carolina shall be informed of the belief of the commission that H.R. 6237 is worthy of their study and, if it passes that test, of their support. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES SUBCOMMITTEE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Dr. OLIVER W. HOLMES, Executive Director, National Historical Publications Commission, DEAR DR. HOLMES: Enclosed is the letter the Modern Language Association of America addressed to me incident to our consideration of H.R. 6237. As you suggest, this letter urging approval of this legislation was not included in the record of the House hearings. In line with your recommendations, I believe that it would be appropriate that it be placed in the record of the Senate hearings. Sincerely, Hon. JACK BROOKS, JACK BROOKS, Chairman. THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BROOKS: On behalf of the officers and members of the Modern Language Association I write to support in every way your proposed amendment to subsections 503 (d), (e), and (f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (44 U.S.C. 393) as reported in the Congressional Record, House, page 7867, for May 13, 1963. The Modern Language Association, certainly the largest, is one of the oldest of the learned societies in humanistic studies in the United States-founded as it was in 1883 and now embracing a membership of over 15,000 college and university professors of English and modern foreign languages. It has long been concerned with the intimate relationship between historical and literary studies. At present, and in the national interest, it is about to establish a center for scholarly editions of American men and women of letters. It does this in full realization of the fact, reported constantly by those returning from Fulbright fellowships abroad, that American studies embracing in particular American history and American literature are being avidly pursued in many Western, Hispanic-American, Middle-Eastern and Far Eastern countries. Without the works of American statesmen so ably undertaken in complete editions by the National Historical Publications Commission, and without parallel editions of major American authors, we can never take our position of quiet and effective intellectual leadership in the cultural field which we occupy in a number of other areas whose significance, though prominent now, may prove to be of less duration in the long view of history as it develops. Each generation secretes from its inherited tradition what suits its present needs and characterizes its modern spirit-and this is as it should be. But the tradition itself and the inheritance upon which it depends will fade unless the able scholars of our time are supported in their efforts to preserve, elucidate, and document the historical writings of the Washingtons, Adamses, Jeffersons, Websters, Clays, Calhouns, Lincolns, and the like of our Nation-writings which created the tradition. Herein we have expression of the national mind and, in many of the writings of the statesmen, a thin partition divides the strictly historical from the literary and philosophical. To support historical scholarship of this sort is to provide for ourselves the clear text of the origins of our institutions. It will also supply sound text in authentic form as a vitalizing force for the serious studies and interests now cropping up all over the free world and behind many an iron curtain. We support the legislation you propose and the fine work which the National Historical Publications Commission continues to do in our sister field of American history. Sincerely, GEO. WINCHESTER STONE, Jr. |