University of Virginia Library

First Annual Report of the Archivist, Library of the
University of Virginia, for the Year 1930-31

A YEAR ago, as a preliminary step to beginning the inventory of
manuscript materials in Virginia, the newly appointed archivist
interviewed a number of historians and librarians in the State to
discuss the general situation regarding depositories, public and semipublic,
and the possibility of gaining access to private collections. An
outline of the various sources of historical materials was subsequently
drawn up[1] and submitted to these same individuals and others within
and outside the State for criticism. Their comments were helpful and
encouraging and it is gratifying to find that, at the end of the year's
work, the outline, with a few additions, has measured up to actual conditions
as found in widely separated counties in the State.

The general plan of the first year's work and some account of progress
during the first few months were presented in a paper[2] which the
archivist read at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association,
in Boston, Dec. 31, 1930. The substance of that paper may be
used as the starting point for the present discussion. Emphasis is
placed upon the survey rather than upon the collection of materials,
since the former is more fundamental to the promotion of research in
its larger aspects and the latter follows logically from the inventory.
The collection of materials for the University Library, treated at the
end of the report, is not to be minimized in importance, but it is believed
that manuscript collecting, carried on in Santa Claus fashion
without any direction of activity except accumulation, is neither scientific
nor productive of the most beneficial results in promoting research.

To carry on the survey by counties seemed to offer certain advantages
of approach, and it was decided "to choose from each [geographic]
section of the State . . . a county whose history, being
of considerable note, has prompted some preservation of sources and
some historical writing."[3] In pursuance of this plan the following
counties were visited:[4]

• In the Piedmont—Albemarle County.

• In the Shenandoah Valley—Frederick County

• In Tidewater—Essex County.

• In Southside Virginia—Pittsylvania County.

• In Southwestern Virginia—Wythe County.

• On the Eastern Shore—Northampton.

Two advantages were gained from this procedure: first, the satisfaction
of sampling, as it were, the historical sources in various localities
far removed and comparing their condition from the viewpoint of
availability for research; second (equally important), the acquaintance
of interested people in all sections of the State with this project of the
University. Indeed, contacts with leading citizens in the counties have
been of untold assistance in getting the desired information with a
minimum of delay in dispersing the news of the work to neighboring
communities.

Inventories, in more or less detail, have already been made of material
in county archives in a number of states, but in no case, it may be
asserted, was the survey carried beyond the official government records.
The present survey includes, in addition to county, city, and
state archives, the manuscript records of such widely divergent organizations
as business houses, lodges, hospitals, banks, social clubs,
churches, etc.—representing every phase of economic and social life.
In the first paper written on the project no limit was set to the historical
period to be covered, but as the immense scope and complexity of
the task have become more apparent, it has seemed advisable to restrict
the survey, so far as private and unofficial public records are concerned,
to the period before 1900. It is evident, however, that such a line
should not be so arbitrary as to exclude manuscripts of especial significance on the 20th century. For recent records the problem is, in
large measure, one of accessibility or of preservation by new organizations
which seldom project their existence into the future with a view
of appreciating what will some day be an interesting historical background
worthy of authenticating by their original papers.

The diversity of activities recorded in the files of the inventory is
revealed in the list of Danville, Va. (excluding the city archives):

In almost every instance the records are kept at the headquarters of
the organization, although frequently the secretary or a similar officer
may have custody of the papers and neglect to take proper care of
them. Of this, more will be said later in connection with the collection
of manuscripts. In rural sections, which predominate in Virginia, the
records are less diversified in character than those listed above, but
the time required to locate them is considerably greater in amount.

It happens that the counties visited this year include three cities with
rather extensive records, viz., Charlottesville. Winchester, and Danville,
which have added considerable detail to the compilation and have
required more time than was originally expected. Similarly, the work
in the State Archives Department, the bulk of which is completed, was
retarded by crowded conditions, lack of any satisfactory catalogue, and
want of a systematic arrangement of the manuscripts. Even with the
aid of the Calendar[5] published in 1905, it is doubtful whether a wholly
accurate list of this valuable material can be compiled. The same difficulty
must be met when, at some later time, the manuscripts in the
Virginia Historical Society and in the Confederate Museum are listed.

Newspapers were, of course, included in the original plan of the
survey and, as the excerpt from the Danville material implies, they are
being listed under the city or town where they were published. To facilitate
this phase of the work a questionnaire[6] was sent to every newspaper
editor in Virginia, to ascertain how complete are the files of each
paper (and of any antedating the present journals) in the publisher's
office. Enquiry was also made concerning old or duplicate files which
the editor might be willing to place in the University or a similar depository,
for research work. This questionnaire yielded about a thirty

per cent return in replies, which, though none too large, was more than
we expected. This information has reduced somewhat the task as a
whole. Since our ultimate aim is to publish the entire inventory, we
are considering the advisability of issuing, as a separate volume, the
list of newspapers, indicating the location of the files and of single
copies or scattered numbers. This volume could be prepared for publication
long before the rest of the survey.

In the course of the archivist's travels throughout the State he made
a point of visiting the colleges en route in order to list their records
and, at the same time, to interest the officials in the University's project.
The additional publicity gained thereby will, it is hoped, instill
into an increasing body of citizens a new appreciation for historical
records. In a few cases, in fact, the custodians of school records have
taken steps to put their own collections in such shape that they will be
available for research as well as merely safe from destruction.

As indicated above, the collection of manuscripts for the University
Library goes hand in hand with the inventory and can be more satisfactorily
accomplished thereby. The beginning of a systematic effort
to build up a collection of original historical materials was described in
the archivist's printed paper,[7] and there is every reason to expect that
research in the social sciences will be stimulated by this accumulation
of manuscripts, more especially since they are catalogued and scientifically
classified in the Virginia Room of the Library. In a sense this
work gathers momentum as it proceeds, for the acquisition of one body
of material frequently provides a clue to another, and some individuals
who contribute their manuscripts find themselves interested in turning
up others and acting as voluntary agents for the University. This situation
is the more encouraging since the Library, with almost no funds
for purchase, has depended largely upon the good will and generous
support of the people. Some owners of manuscripts have been attracted
by the proposal of placing their papers on deposit in the Library
where they are safe and subject to recall by the owners at any
time.

Among the original materials acquired this year are several groups
of farm account books, from both the ante bellum period and the latter
decades of the nineteenth century. One set of these, for example,
from Albemarle County, throws light upon the raising of thoroughbred
horses after the Civil War. From several counties have come the record
books of general country stores, one series of which covers most

of the period since 1900 and is of special interest because this type of
mercantile business is rapidly disappearing before the chain store and
the large city establishments now serving the rural communities by
truck. Records of business houses include also some scattered ledgers
of a Danville hardware company, a Charlottesville newspaper, a Wytheville
wagon and machinery repair shop, and the entire records (books,
letter files, vouchers, etc.), of a wholesale produce company of southwestern
Virginia, 1901-26. The John L. Hurt Papers from Pittsylvania
County, consisting of several hundred letters, treat of some aspects
of political and social life in the State since 1880, and contain
several autographed letters of Virginia governors.

Eighteenth century manuscript material still on the market or obtainable
for the asking is quite rare, and the same may be said for early
nineteenth century papers, a few of which have been collected. The
only item of importance before 1800 acquired by the Library is a doctor's
account book from Essex County for the year 1787. Even Civil
War letters have ceased to be plentiful, except where a hitherto untouched
collection of manuscripts may be brought to light. Ante
bellum and Civil War newspapers are likewise at a premium. The
questionnaire to newspaper editors[8] resulted in the presentation of a
few miscellaneous numbers to the Library; and gifts from other individuals
have built up a fairly unbroken file of Richmond papers since
the 'seventies.[9]

Parenthetically it may be remarked that the opportunity to gather
original published material, incident to the manuscripts, has not been
overlooked. Annual reports of corporations and associations, catalogues
of schools and colleges, city and county directories, are among
the most valuable of these sources, nor have rare books and pamphlets,
memoirs and historical sketches, been regarded as unimportant.

When the initial steps of the project were taken and the suggestions
of librarians in other institutions were sought, the desire of the University
to promote a co-operative spirit in the collection of manuscripts
was clearly expressed. With other libraries active in this work, the
necessity of guarding against any harsh competition was strongly felt.
The University has shown its good will by stressing first the preservation
of historical materials regardless of where they are to be deposited.
We have co-operated with the Virginia Baptist Historical Society

by informing the librarian of the location of early minute books
of Baptist congregations, while he in turn has facilitated the work of
the archivist. The discovery that most of the Methodist congregations
have neglected their records and that the church has no uniform policy
regarding them, has prompted the archivist to discuss the question with
a number of ministers and with Dr. Blackwell, President of Randolph-Macon
College at Ashland, Va., with the hope that the church at its
next annual conference may provide a depository (Randolph-Macon
has been proposed) for the old records of Methodism in Virginia.
During the time spent in Frederick County, several items discovered
concerning the county and Winchester, the county seat, were directed
into the collections of the new Winchester Historical Society. We are
confident that in the long run this attitude of co-operation in collecting
will encourage a wholesome atmosphere in the preservation of materials
and will promote very decidedly our survey throughout the State.

Obviously a year's work constitutes only a beginning in the development
of this project, but we believe that the programme for the future
is fairly definite. Enough has been done to justify in the minds of the
University administration the support of the survey; and upon the
recommendation of the late President Alderman and with the concurrence
of Dr. Wilson Gee, Director of the Institute for Research in
the Social Sciences, the Institute will finance the major part of the
project during 1931-32, with the balance made up from the budget of
the Library. It is hoped that in another year a regular appropriation
can be secured to see the work to completion. Estimating that twelve
counties can be completed per year (now that the work is well started)
we are figuring on seven years more to finish. Of course, if the archivist
can be given assistance, the time required will be shortened considerably.
Questions of this nature, however, have not yet been discussed
in detail.

In conclusion, the archivist desires to express, on behalf of the University
of Virginia, and particularly of the University Library and the
Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, their appreciation for the
grant from the Carnegie Corporation, made upon the recommendation
of the joint committee of the American Council of Learned Societies
and the Social Science Research Council. It is sincerely hoped that
the present survey will be a real factor in furthering research in the
social sciences in Virginia and in suggesting, perhaps, activity of a
similar sort in other states.