Chemical knowledge about paper and paper permanence is important to librarians and archivists. The major chemical studies of paper permanence are well documented and interpreted for non-specialists in the literatures of libraries and archives as well as in the chemical literature itself. Information professionals have overlooked the very existence of this knowledge when it contradicted a long-held belief. This belief holds that William James Barrow was the only person to research and discover the dynamics of rapid paper deterioration due to acid hydrolysis, and to invent a chemical method to neutralize the acidity of paper through alkalization with a basic metal carbonate, specifically calcium carbonate. He is also believed to be the sole inventor of the roller-type laminating machine used to strengthen weak paper documents by melting cellulose acetate into the paper. Although the process and equipment of lamination are little used today, the chemical research on the process of alkalization that he transferred from chemistry to document restoration in 1941 is still important today.
This transfer of technology from chemistry to restoration is his major contribution to the history of conservation, although he is best known for the work he did more than ten years later.
Under grants from the Council on Library Resources (CLR) in the 1950s and 1960s, he established a research facility in the Virginia Historical Society. There he and his staff carried out a series of tests on the natural aging characteristics of paper, a non-aqueous means of alkalization (that has since been rejected due to its toxicity), a method to accelerate the aging of paper for quick assessment of its permanence, and packaged for use by librarians a quick test for lignin and acidity in paper. Under grants from others, including the American Library Association, his laboratory tested the strength and flexibility of catalog cards, adhesives, and bookbinding structures. The W. J. Barrow Research Laboratory and the American Library Association published this well-known research. He was also a part of a team of paper manufacturers, partially supported by the paper industry, which developed a large-scale process to manufacture alkaline or permanent-durable paper from wood fiber.
These later accomplishments are, of course, still important in the fields of library and archives conservation. As important as this later work is, especially the development of permanent durable paper, non-aqueous alkalization, quick chemical tests for lignin, and tests of the natural aging of paper, all grew from the concept of prevention of deterioration through alkalization. in 1941, Barrow had already developed the concept of prevention by adapting alkalization to his restoration process to neutralize acidic paper. He had changed the way librarians, archivists, and others viewed paper by promoting alkalization for the rest of his life.
Barrow, a poorly educated crafts-person in the field of document restoration, has been credited, for the past forty years, with discovering the chemical dynamics of paper deterioration, even though he had demonstrably no training, expertise, or, for most of his career (until the 1950s), no proper research facilities or equipment.
The myth of Barrow's importance as an original chemical researcher began to appear outside Barrow's own promotional business advertisements in the 1950s and 1960s. It gained momentum with the availability of funds from external granting agencies used to promote both research and practice in library and archives conservation. His myth grew quickly to international proportions when he received grants from several such agencies, the Council on Library Resources (CLR) and the American Library Association (ALA), to set up his own research laboratory. The uniqueness and importance of his research were stressed as both a basis for and result of the grants he received in the 1950s and 1960s. Barrow died in 1967 at the height of his fame, thus guaranteeing the continuation of his myth. It has remained a part of the folklore of library and archives conservation ever since.
The Barrow myth is part of the politics of conservation in institutions, granting agencies, governmental bodies, and businesses and industries that serve the conservation community. These politics are as important to the history of the field as are science, technology, and engineering. Future studies are needed to reveal why the field of conservation needed this myth. Why the myth continues to exist and what role this myth plays in fund raising and public relations, not only for businesses, but also for libraries, archives, and funding agencies.
It is necessary that any historical study in the multidisciplinary field of conservation include the pertinent literature from all the disciplines involved. Myths can and do persist when studies are too narrow in scope and lack the perspective and context developed through proper historical technique.
My historical study does not deal with why and how the Barrow myth continues. Rather it concentrates on Barrow's early life and career in the context of existing and contemporary knowledge. This historical foundation and context within both library and archives conservation and the chemical literature demonstrates that the Barrow myth is not and could not be accurate.
We, librarians and archivists, no different from people in any other field, have shown ourselves to be ignorant of well-documented technical knowledge even when that knowledge is central to our own work. If librarians and archivists are to produce accurate histories of our own fields, we need do the multidisciplinary research required of professionals, and stop holding onto myths especially when, as in Barrow's case, the myth contradicts reason and common sense.
In examining the evidence of Barrow's life one factor stands out above the rest: he was extraordinarily gregarious. He was a talker who was extremely interested in other people as well as in his own work. He thrived upon social interactions; these were his favored milieu for learning, working, and thinking. Along with being an intensely social person, he also was adept at promoting himself, his interests, and his work. His skill at promotion was a great asset to his restoration business, and promotional skills were essential to his role in the history of conservation. His wife, Ruth, described how his characteristic sociability aided in the promotion of his work.
It was natural with him, bubbling with energy and talk like that. and he talked slow, like a real Southerner....He was just a real friendly person and he did it because he wanted to....He somehow had a way of talking to people so that they would get so interested [they would] want to write on it. He formed a lot of good friendships in that way....You could say he was a salesman in that way, but he didn't see himself as a salesman, he just liked to talk. If you talked to him about his work, he talked forever. (R. G. Barrow 1987)
Barrow's promotional ability and sociability were only part of his success story; he also had to have had access to prominent and influential people to promote his interests fully. Although document restoration was then considered a blue-collar craft, Barrow's appearance was white-collar. He wore a suit and tie at work, adding a smock or a laboratory coat for protection or image as necessary. Craft occupations do not usually give practitioners a chance to influence institutional budgets, research, or the course of entire fields, such as conservation. a lower-level occupation that would have been a handicap for most people, lowering their influence on and access to policy level decision makers, did not limit Barrow. Ruth Barrow explained that he was not limited because he and she were socially equal to anyone. "I think it was because they felt he was their social equal, and he fitted in, he belonged to a lot of [social] organizations . . . that was just his social strata....and in the library, he fitted in too....Luther Evans was Librarian of Congress....[The] Evans's came down here to see us. Bill invited them....Mrs. Evans told me what a nice time she had here . . . he just seemed to fit in with these people. I think they were interested in talking to him" (R. G. Barrow 1987).
William Barrow was a doer. He had a high level of energy and was active throughout his life. It is plain from his family's recollections that he enjoyed doing things more than reading or contemplation. He made impressive use of tutorial and hands-on learning styles for bookbinding, restoration, research, and applied chemistry. When he wanted to know something, he asked; when he needed equipment, he had it built.
Research on the early part of Barrow's career, during the 1930s, a period Crowe has termed the "long silence" (Crowe 1986, 130), indicates that the period was not silent on conservation issues at all. in the United States, the 1930s were active in the development of library and archives conservation technology (Abt 1987, 27-28). Barrow sought out and learned from the experts from National Bureau of Standards and Government Printing Office who were at the center of this activity. It can be seen that the chemical causes of rapid paper deterioration and their mitigation, which Barrow has been credited with discovering, were established by experts in paper chemistry before Barrow even entered the field of document restoration. Long celebrated as a lone researcher, Barrow, in fact, exhibited a collaborative working style. From the very beginning of his career, Barrow functioned as a link between chemistry and conservation rather than as an original researcher.
Clapp reviewed the long history of Western paper making, cited many chemical studies, and he emphasized Barrow's later research, done in the 1950s and 1960s, as definitive in answering librarians' questions about paper deterioration (Clapp 1971, 112-114 and 355-362). Clapp browsed among the early works on paper permanence, and selected for discussion a few studies that supported the external or environmental causes of deterioration, such as air pollution (Clapp 1971, 241), and the superior permanence of cotton fiber over wood fiber (Clapp 1971, 244). Clapp concentrated on economic and political conflicts within the paper industry over the superiority of cotton fibers (Clapp 1971, 353-355), and the industry's reluctance to question contemporary manufacturing practices (Clapp 1971, 244-245). Clapp explained the many political reasons why some existing research work was ignored (Clapp 1971, 233-245). in his review of this literature, however, he in turn ignored the preponderance of studies in paper chemistry that emphasized the important role of internal causes of the rapid deterioration of modern paper, such as alum rosin size, excessive bleaching, and the resulting high acidity (Clapp 1971, 233). Clapp supported his own view of the originality and creativity of Barrow's later work by ignoring the existing research on acidity. Clapp clearly demonstrates both the amount of misunderstanding of paper chemistry among librarians and archivists and the reluctance of the paper industry to change their manufacturing techniques to produce paper that is more permanent. Clapp contrasts this early period of research work (up to the 1920s especially) with Barrow's much later activity in the 1950s and 1960s (Clapp 1971, 355-362). in so doing, he denigrates the earlier periods of research work and elevates Barrow's much later activity sponsored by the CLR, the foundation Clapp headed.
Sixteen years after Clapp's article, Abt examined Barrow's 1930s work, and still echoed the prevailing, but inaccurate, view of Barrow's originality. "By 1935 he had launched a personally financed research program into the causes of deteriorating paper, and by 1955 was prepared to publish his findings from a broad range of studies....most importantly, the results of Barrow's pioneering investigations into the chemical 'deacidification' or more properly, alkalization of papers for their preservation....the breadth and character of Barrow's Council-sponsored researches were remarkable and the resulting publications continue to remain key references" (Abt 1987, 31).
Library history claims that Barrow's research work and important discoveries were done in the 1950s and 1960s. The chemical literature reveals similar research and discoveries beginning in the 1820s and continuing to the present especially in Germany, Sweden, and the United States (Shahani and Wilson 1987, 241). Research into the history of permanence studies in paper chemistry shows that all of this early work was documented, abstracted, indexed, and available to all in the literatures of both paper chemistry and to a lesser extent in the library and archives literature. Paper chemists had by 1936 reached all the basic conclusions about paper permanence credited to Barrow.
Abt concludes that Barrow's achievement was a more modest one than Clapp would have us believe:
The significance of Barrow's accomplishments lies not with the particular innovations and discoveries which arose from his more than thirty years of experimentation but with the nature and rigor of his inquiries. Barrow transcended the symptoms of the problem to reverse their source.... Under his careful direction, the study and repair of library materials passed from reading room tables and bookbinders' benches to the counters of modern science laboratories with their attendant panoply of specialized methodologies and instrumentation. (Abt 1987, 31)
Barrow was not an original creator. Initially, Barrow was a traditional paper restorer and bookbinder. He tried to improve and quicken the traditional hand paper repair processes through the application of mechanical lamination techniques and equipment then under development by the NBS that he later had modified to fit his shop's smaller scale. in addition, Barrow included an alkalization process from a prior patent by Schierholtz. Barrow applied a modified version of this alkalization process to his lamination process with the further assistance of the chemists at NBS in order to produce a chemically more stable product. in order to accomplish this, Barrow asked many questions of many individuals, thus creating and using to great effect a group of advisors who were more expert than he was in a variety of scientific and technical fields. By actively using these advisors, he selected and applied several important concepts derived from research in paper chemistry to paper conservation.
As a document restorer, Barrow used and promoted his version of the lamination process as the primary treatment for deteriorated paper. Cellulose acetate lamination, a drastic process of limited reversibility, was eventually discredited as a primary, or even a generally applicable, technique as restoration developed and evolved into the more professional field of conservation (Waters 1980, 74).
Barrow is significant in the history of library and archives conservation, not as an original researcher as both Clapp and Abt state. Barrow is significant because he changed the field of library and archives conservation by transferring and using the technical information from paper chemistry to prevent rapid paper deterioration, not merely to repair deteriorated paper.
His major contribution was achieved early in his career, between 1931, when he entered the field, and 1941, when he added the process of alkalization to his lamination process. Barrow actively promoted his version of chemical knowledge along with his restoration services to librarians and archivists through his advertising and articles thus transferring this knowledge in a form they could more easily accept and understand (see Appendix 5, Bibliography of Barrow's Publications).
Barrow's understanding of paper chemistry suffered from reductionism, because he lacked scientific sophistication. He oversimplified and over-generalized the causes of rapid paper deterioration. He held onto the concepts that had immediate practical utility for his lamination process. According to members of Barrow's family, for example, in important matters he habitually came to a decision after careful consideration, and then did not reconsider or fall sway to any other way of thinking (Davey 1990). From family members' accounts, indications are that once Barrow's mind was made up, it was closed (B. G. Barrow 1990). Thus, Barrow stubbornly ignored the many additional factors in rapid paper deterioration.
A critical distinction in paper chemistry is made between new papers and old ones. Most research is done on new paper made especially for the research project in order to control all the factors that affect paper characteristics. Barrow oversimplified this important research by over-generalizing technical information meant to apply only to new paper, applying it to both new and old paper.
Barrow's manner of working was to coordinate the work and expertise of others, usually a group of advisors, to synthesize a new and needed application. This style was consistent during his entire life, and as his work with the development of a method for manufacture of alkaline new paper shows, it brought him success and a measure of fame (Poole 1976).
Modern day mass alkalization processes are the direct descendants of both Barrow's greatest achievement and his greatest error. Barrow over-generalized the applicability of alkalization in new paper to old paper. This was an overgeneralization because at the time Barrow applied alkalization to old paper there was no research demonstrating that alkalization had similar effects on both new and old papers. Barrow's over-generalization opened the door to mass alkalization treatments of old paper. There is more research today to support the long-term positive effects of the alkalizing of old paper. But there is also conflicting research indicating negative results, for example, mass alkalization has been shown to cause an immediate decrease in the strength of paper (Porck 1996, 30).
Part of Barrow's legacy emphasizes alkaline production methods for the manufacture of new permanent paper. Barrow also oversimplified the complex causes of rapid paper deterioration, and over-generalized alkalinity that is relevant to new paper production to the treatment of all old paper some of which may be stable, flexible, and strong even though it currently exhibits a high level of acidity. Treatments always involve risk; this is especially true for mass treatments applied equally to all the paper-based materials collected in libraries and archives such as different kinds of paper, dyes and inks, and a variety of additional materials including adhesives, cloth, leather, metal, and plastics of all description. Indiscriminant alkalization treatment also destroys chemical evidence from old paper thus treated that could aid in our understanding of paper and the chemical basis and dynamics of its aging characteristics.
The decade from 1931 to 1941 was William James Barrow's most significant era of accomplishment. This decade lays the foundation for the much more public and well-documented accomplishments during his later life. The Second World War ended Barrow's most important era and caused a decade-long lull in the growth of his business. The war effort severely restricted the availability of lamination supplies such as paper imported from Japan and cellulose acetate film (De Valinger 13 October 1943, 3-4). in addition, Barrow had developed the laminator in collaboration with the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, which subsequently became involved exclusively with the military effort (Sniffen 1989).
After the war, Barrow played a more active promotional role in library and archives conservation (Darling and Ogden 1981, 12-13). During the 1950s and 1960s Barrow began to be widely, if incorrectly, credited with original scientific research and findings that were essentially confirmations of work that had been known for decades, and not new discoveries. Apparently, Barrow himself did not actively correct these misconceptions of his contributions or originality. The history of this later period of Barrow's life needs to be written. The present research is the essential foundation for an accurate understanding of that later period in the history of paper conservation.
Barrow's creative and extensive use of specialists and experts is instructive. There are more technologies and experts than ever before. Conservation is a field that must draw upon a wide range of arts, sciences, and technologies. The need for innovation and application is greater now than in Barrow's time. His consultative example can be followed profitably if we take care to avoid the ever-present dangers of reductionism, oversimplification, and acceptance of unmerited credit to which Barrow succumbed.
Historical research too narrowly defined cannot fully understand a multidisciplinary field like conservation. Research into the history of conservation that did not also look at the history of chemical research may have led to Barrow being credited for scientific research he did not do while simultaneously underestimating his impact as an aggressive promoter who popularized chemical information in conservation.
![[CoOL]](/icons/sm_cool.gif){kind=icon}