|
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.
| 
