<Why perserve it if there are no visitors?

History should be preserved simply because it exists.  I'm one of those wacky,
overly-idealist folks who thinks historical artifacts, documents, works of art,
etc. are inherently valuable and should be preserved, regardless of who sees or
does not see them.  I've gone days and days and days without archives patrons,
but I still am determined that everything under my control be well-preserved.
Should we, or any museum/archives/institution close down and get rid of our
holdings simply because of low attendance?  I stand by my argument that our
institutions exist to preserve.  Yes, we preserve to make available to
researchers/visitors, but we also preserve regardless of who, if anyone,
visits.  Entertaining the visitor should not come before preservation on a
priority list.  It is both a means and and end.

-Andrew


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew S. Richmond | Proj. Dir. | Editor | The Papers of Philander Chase |
Kenyon College | P.O. Box 141 | Gambier, OH 43022 | Phone: (740)427-5689 |
Email: [log in to unmask]

Please visit!    http://www.kenyon.edu/khistory/chase/

********************************************************************************

"His grave will be precious to us.  It will be honored by all generations in
this College and neighborhood."
                                -Bp. Charles P. McIlvaine
                                 upon the death of Lorin Andrews

********************************************************************************