ENGLISH
MEN OF SCIENCE
EDITED BY
J. REYNOLDS GREEN, Sc.D.
SIR WILLIAM FLOWER
_All Rights Reserved_
[Illustration]
SIR WILLIAM FLOWER
BY
R. LYDEKKER
[Illustration]
PUBLISHED IN LONDON BY
J. M. DENT & CO., AND IN NEW
YORK BY E. P. DUTTON & CO.
1906
PREFACE
Although the complete manuscript of this volume was placed in the hands
of the editor before the publication of the late Mr. C. J. Cornish’s
_Life of Sir William Flower_ (in 1904), yet the present writer was aware
that such a work was in progress, and that it would deal with the social
and personal rather than with the scientific side of Sir William’s
career. Consequently it was decided at an early period of the work to
concentrate attention in the present volume on the latter aspect of the
subject; as indeed is only fitting in the case of a biography belonging
to a series specially devoted to men of science. An incidental advantage
of this arrangement is that the writer has been able in the main to
confine himself to the discussion of topics with which he is more or less
familiar, rather than to attempt to chronicle events and episodes to
which he must of necessity be a stranger, and to attempt an appreciation
of a fine character for which he is in no wise qualified.
It will be obvious from the above, that any references in the text to
earlier biographies do not relate to Mr. Cornish’s volume.
In the course of the text, it has been necessary to make certain
allusions to the condition and the mode of exhibition of the specimens in
the public galleries of the Zoological Department of the Natural History
Museum previous to the new _régime_ inaugurated by Sir William Flower.
The writer may take this opportunity of stating that these are in no wise
intended to convey the slightest reflection on those who had charge of
the galleries previous to the new era. Technical museum-installation and
display is a comparatively new thing; and the old plan of arrangement had
become obsolete, not for want of attention, but because a more advanced
scheme had been developed by gradual evolution, and the adoption of this
involved a clean sweep.
In conclusion, the writer has to express his best thanks to Mr. C. E.
Fagan, of the Secretariat of the Natural History Museum, for kindly
reading and revising the proof sheets.
HARPENDEN LODGE, HERTS,
_July 1906_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I
GENERAL SKETCH OF FLOWER’S LIFE 1
CHAPTER II
AS CONSERVATOR OF THE MUSEUM OF THE COLLEGE
OF SURGEONS, AND HUNTERIAN PROFESSOR 31
CHAPTER III
AS DIRECTOR OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM 57
CHAPTER IV
AS PRESIDENT OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY 89
CHAPTER V
GENERAL ZOOLOGICAL WORK 95
CHAPTER VI
WORK ON THE CETACEA 139
CHAPTER VII
ANTHROPOLOGICAL WORK 153
CHAPTER VIII
MUSEUM AND MISCELLANEOUS WORK 169
APPENDIX (LIST OF BOOKS AND MEMOIRS) 179
Life of Flower
CHAPTER I
GENERAL SKETCH OF FLOWER’S LIFE
Born on 30th November 1831 at his father’s house, “The Hill,”
Stratford-on-Avon, William Henry Flower was a man who had the rare
good fortune not only to make a profession of the pursuit he loved
best, but likewise to attain the highest possible success in, and to
be appointed to the most important and influential post connected with
that profession. As he tells us in that delightful book, _Essays on
Museums_, he was pleased to designate as a “museum” when a boy at home
a miscellaneous collection of natural history objects, kept at first in
a cardboard box, but subsequently housed in a cupboard. And as a man
he became the respected head of the greatest Natural History Museum in
the British Empire, if not indeed in the whole world. Very significant
of his future attention to details and of the importance he attached to
recording the history of every specimen received in a museum, is the
fact that he compiled a carefully drawn-up catalogue of his first boyish
collection.
This early and persistent taste for natural history was not, as we
learn from the same collection of essays, inherited from any member of
either his father’s or his mother’s family, but appears to have been
an “idiopathic” development. His isolated position in this respect may,
perhaps, have caused Flower in later life to notice more specially
than might otherwise have been the case, how comparatively rare is the
development of an ingrained taste for natural history among the adult
members of the British nation. This idea was exemplified by his remarking
on one occasion to the present writer that he often wondered how many
persons out of every thousand he passed casually in the street, or met
in social intercourse, had the slightest sympathy with, or took any real
interest in the subjects which formed his own favourite pursuits and
lines of thought.
As regards his parentage, his father was the late Edward Fordham Flower,
who was a Justice of the Peace for his county, and from whom the son
inherited his tall and stately figure and dignified bearing. Edward
Flower, who was a partner in the well-known brewery at Stratford-on-Avon,
was the eldest son of Richard Flower, of Marden Hill, Hertfordshire,
who married Elizabeth, daughter of John Fordham, of Sandon Bury, in the
same county. In 1827 Edward married Celina, daughter of John Greaves, of
Radford Semele, Warwickshire, by whom he had, with other issue, Charles
Edward, late of Glencassly, Sutherlandshire, and William Henry, the
subject of the present memoir.
Edward Fordham Flower was noted not only for his philanthropy, but for
his efforts to abolish the bearing-rein, which in his time was neither
more nor less than an instrument of downright torture to all carriage
horses. As the result of his efforts in this direction, was founded in
1890, by Mr. C. H. Allen, of Hampstead, a small local society for that
district and Highgate, having for its object the abolition, or at all
events the mitigated use, of the bearing-rein for draught-horses of all
descriptions. That body did good work in this direction for many years in
the north of London; and by its means the Hampstead Vestry was induced
to prohibit the use of the bearing-rein on the horses in its employ—an
example subsequently followed by many large coal-owners and others
connected with horses.
From this small beginning arose in 1897 the now flourishing society known
as the Anti-Bearing Rein Association, of which, as was appropriate, Mr.
Archibald Flower, a grandson of Edward Fordham Flower, became Co.-Hon.
Secretary with Mr. Allen, while the late Duke of Westminster, and the
late Sir W. H. Flower (the subject of this biography) respectively
accepted the positions of Patron and President.
In all the obituary notices it is stated that William Henry was the
second son of Edward Fordham and Celina Flower. This, however, as I am
informed by Mr. Arthur S. Flower (the eldest son of Sir William), is not
strictly the case. As an actual fact, the eldest son of the aforesaid
Edward and Celina was really Richard, who died in infancy, so that
Charles, who was born second, grew up as the eldest son, and William
Henry as the second, whereas he was really the third.
The fair-haired and blue-eyed William not being intended to succeed his
father in the business, was permitted from his early years—fortunately
for zoological science—to pursue that innate love of natural history
which, as we have seen, developed itself in very early years and
continued unabated till the close of his career. That career naturally
divides into three epochs. Firstly, the period of boyhood and early
manhood; secondly, the long period of official life at the museum of
the Royal College of Surgeons; and thirdly, the time during which the
subject of this memoir occupied the post of Director of the Natural
History Branch of the British Museum, together with the short interval
which elapsed between his resignation of that position and his untimely
death. To each of the latter periods a separate chapter is devoted. It
has, however, been found convenient, instead of restricting the present
chapter to the first epoch, to include within its limits a general sketch
of Flower’s whole life. A fourth chapter is assigned to the period during
which he was President of the Zoological Society of London, although this
was synchronous with part of the period covered by the second, and with
the whole of that treated of in the third chapter. Finally, the full
description of his scientific work is reserved for subsequent chapters.
According to information kindly furnished by his widow, Lady Flower,
delicate health prevented William Flower from being much at school during
his boyhood, and he was thus largely dependent upon his mother—a sensible
and well-read woman—for his early education. He was also in the habit of
accompanying his father in his rides, whereby he became much interested
in all that concerns horses and their well-being. Best of all, as regards
opportunity for developing a love of animal life, he was in the habit
of taking long, solitary rambles in the country, thereby acquiring a
knowledge of Nature which could be obtained in no other manner, and
developing his powers of observation.
This innate taste for natural history appears to have been further
fostered in early life by frequent intercourse with the late Rev. P. B.
Brodie, an enthusiastic zoologist and geologist; but whether this took
place during school or college life the writer has no means of knowing.
Be this as it may, it appears that after a preliminary education, partly
at home and partly at private schools, Flower matriculated at London
University in 1849, (the year of his present biographer’s birth),
attaining honours in Zoology; and that during the same year having made
up his mind to adopt the study and practice of Medicine, or of Surgery
as a profession, he entered the Medical Classes at University College
and became a pupil at the Middlesex Hospital. It was apparently largely,
if not entirely, owing to his fondness for zoology that young Flower
selected Medicine as a profession, since at the time, as indeed for
many years subsequently, this was practically the only career open to
young naturalists devoid of sufficient private means whereby they might
hope to be able to devote a certain amount of time and attention to the
pursuits—and more especially Comparative Anatomy—towards which their
inclinations tended.
At University College Flower had a distinguished career, gaining the gold
medal in Dr. Sharpey’s class of Physiology and Anatomy, and the silver
medal in Zoology and Comparative Anatomy; the gold medal in the latter
subjects having been carried off the same year by his fellow-student,
Joseph Lister, who in after years became the distinguished surgeon, and,
as Lord Lister, was for some time President of the Royal Society of
London. In 1851—the year of the Great Exhibition—Flower passed his first
M.B. examination at London University, coming out in the first division.
In the same year he made a tour in Holland and Germany, while in 1853
visited France and the north of Spain; bringing home in both instances
numerous sketches in pencil and sepia of the scenery and people of the
countries traversed.
In all the obituary notices of Flower that have come under the present
writer’s notice, it is stated that he obtained the post of Curator of
the museum of the Middlesex Hospital after his return from the Crimea.
This is, however, proved to be incorrect by his first zoological paper,
“On the Dissection of a Species of Galago,” which was contributed to the
Zoological Society of London in 1852, and appeared in the _Proceedings_
of that body for the same year, where the author describes himself as
the holder of the post in question. As a matter of fact, he was elected
Curator in 1854, and resigned the post in 1854.[1]
Flower never took the degree of M.D., but three years after passing his
M.B. he became (on 27th March 1854) a member of the Royal College of
Surgeons of England.
A few weeks after this event a call was made for additional surgeons for
the army then serving in the Crimea, and young Flower, partly, perhaps,
from patriotic motives, and partly with a view of extending his practical
experience in surgery, promptly volunteered his services, which were
accepted. After spending a few idle months with the Depôt Battalion then
stationed at Templemore, in Ireland, he was gazetted as Assistant-Surgeon
to the 63rd (now the First Battalion of the Manchester) Regiment; and in
July 1854 embarked with his regiment at Cork for Constantinople. On its
arrival in the east the regiment was at once hurried up to join the main
army at Varna, whence it proceeded to take part in the expedition to the
Crimea, where both officers and men suffered severely from exposure to
the inclemencies of the climate and an insufficient commissariat during
the early months of the campaign. For ten weeks together, it is reported,
neither officers or men took off their clothes, either by night or by
day, and for the first three weeks all ranks were compelled to get such
sleep as they could obtain on the bare ground. Flower, who was present
at the battles of the Alma, of Inkerman, and of Balaclava, as well as at
the fall of Sebastopol, underwent many and thrilling experiences during
the campaign, alike in the field and in the hospital. The hardships and
privations which caused the strength of his regiment to be reduced by
nearly one-half within the short period of four months, could not but
tell severely on the constitution of the young surgeon, which was never
very robust; and from some of the effects of these he suffered throughout
his life. Nevertheless, in spite of all this, in the intervals of duty,
Flower, with but scant materials at his disposal, managed to find time
and energy sufficient to make a considerable number of vivid pen-and-ink,
or dashes of ink-and-water, sketches of his surroundings, including one
of his own tent overturned by the terrible snow-storm of 14th November
1854, and a second of the wrecked condition of the camp in general
at the end of the tempest. A panoramic view of Constantinople and a
sketch of the military hospital at Scutari were also among his artistic
productions at this period. In recognition of his services, Flower,
after being invalided home, received from the hands of Her Majesty,
Queen Victoria, the Crimean medal, with clasps for the Alma, Inkerman,
Balaclava, and Sebastopol; while he was also permitted to accept from
H.M., the Sultan, the Turkish war-medal.
Apparently Flower had never entertained the idea of taking up the
profession of an army surgeon as a permanency, and after his return to
London he definitely resigned military service, with the intention of
settling down to private medical practice in the Metropolis. In the
spring of 1857 he passed the examination qualifying for the Fellowship
of the Royal College of Surgeons; and about this time, or perhaps
immediately on his return to London, he joined the staff of the Middlesex
Hospital as Demonstrator in Anatomy. During the next year (1858) he was
elected to the post of Assistant-Surgeon to the same Institution, where
he resumed the Curatorship of the museum and was also appointed Lecturer
on Comparative Anatomy. Although a large portion of his time while at
the hospital was devoted to surgical and other duties connected with the
medical profession, his Lectureship and Curatorship required that he
should devote a considerable amount of attention to the more congenial
study of Comparative Anatomy.
It was during his connection with the Middlesex Hospital that his first
scientific work was published, this being the well-known and useful
little volume entitled _Diagrams of the Nerves of the Human Body_,
which appeared in 1861, and has passed through three editions. During
this period of his career he also contributed to Holmes’ _System of
Surgery_ an article on “Injuries to the Upper Extremities,” which
contained certain original observations with regard to dislocations of
the shoulder-joint; and he likewise wrote an essay on the same subject
to the Pathological Society, as well as several articles on various
surgical subjects to the medical journals of the day. But even at this
comparatively early period of his career Flower’s published scientific
work was by no means strictly confined to his ostensible profession, for
his two first papers on Comparative Anatomy—the one “On the Dissection of
a Galago”(Lemur); and the other “On the Posterior Lobes of the Cerebrum
of the Quadrumana”—appeared during the period in question. During this
period, as the writer of his obituary notice in the “Record” of the Royal
Society well remarks, there is little doubt that Flower had breathing
time, after his Crimean experiences, to collect his energies and gather
up a store of valuable information which stood him in good stead in later
years, when he had frequently less leisure to devote to pure study.
It was, moreover, during his official connection with the Middlesex
Hospital that Mr. Flower married Georgina Rosetta, the youngest daughter
of the late Admiral W. H. Smyth, C.S.I., etc., a well-known astronomer,
who was for some time Hydrographer to the Admiralty and likewise Foreign
Secretary to the Royal Society, the wedding taking place in 1858 at
the church of Stone, in Buckinghamshire, near the bride’s home. This
happy union had in many ways an important influence upon the future
career of the young surgeon, for, in addition to her father, several
of the relatives of Mrs. (now Lady) Flower were more or less intimately
connected with scientific work and scientific people; among them being
Sir Warrington Smyth (sometime Inspector-General of Mines), Professor
Piazzi Smyth, General Sir Henry Smyth, and Sir George Baden-Powell. It
was to Lady Flower that Sir William dedicated his last work, the volume
entitled _Essays on Museums_. A tour through Belgium and up the Rhine
followed the marriage.
Although it scarcely comes within the purview of this biography to allude
to the issue of this marriage, it may be mentioned that of the three sons
born to Sir William Flower, the second alone, Stanley Smyth, inherited
his father’s zoological tastes. Captain S. S. Flower (who takes his
first name from Dean Stanley, of Westminster, an intimate friend of the
family), after serving for some time in the 5th Fusileers, obtained the
appointment of Director of the Royal Museum at Bangkok, Siam, after which
he was made Director of the Khedival Zoological Gardens at Giza, near
Cairo, to which post (which he still holds) was subsequently added that
of Superintendent of Game Protection in the Sudan. Captain Flower has not
only raised the menagerie at Giza to a high state of perfection, but has
contributed several papers to the _Proceedings_ of the Zoological Society
of London on the zoology of Siam and the Malay countries.
To revert to the proper subject of this memoir, during his tenure of the
aforesaid official posts at the Middlesex Hospital it was apparent to his
intimate scientific friends—among whom were included the late Professor
T. H. Huxley and the late Mr. George Busk—that the inclinations of
Flower were all on the side of comparative anatomy rather than towards
practical surgery or medicine. Accordingly, when the appointment of
Conservator to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons became vacant
in 1861 by the death of Mr. Quekett, Flower was strongly recommended by
Huxley (then Hunterian Professor), Busk, and other friends as a suitable
successor, and was in due course elected by the Council. When, nine
years later (1870), Huxley himself felt compelled by the pressure of
other engagements and work to resign the Hunterian Professorship, the
Conservator of the Museum was appointed to the vacant chair, thus once
more bringing together two posts which had been sundered since Owen’s
resignation.
On his appointment to the Conservatorship of the Museum of the College
of Surgeons, Flower once for all definitely abandoned medicine as a
profession, and determined to devote the whole of his energies for the
future to the study of his beloved comparative anatomy and zoology.
Nevertheless, he always remained in touch with his old profession, as
he was always in sympathy with those who were actively practising the
same. Indeed, since the collections under his charge included a large
pathological series, while during his tenure of office a large display of
surgical instruments was added to the exhibits, he could not, even had
he so desired, cut himself entirely adrift from old associations and old
studies.
Since a considerable amount of space in a later chapter is devoted to
Flower’s work as Museum Curator and as Hunterian Lecturer, it will be
unnecessary to allude further to it in this place, although it will
be appropriate to quote the elogium on his efforts in this sphere,
pronounced by the President of the Royal Society, when bestowing the
Royal Gold Medal in recognition of his services to zoology.
“It is very largely due,” runs the address, “to his incessant and
well-directed labour that the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons
at present contains the most complete, the best ordered, and the most
accessible collection of materials for the study of vertebrate structures
extant.”
As regards his Hunterian lectures, it has been well remarked that few
could have any idea of the amount of labour they involved, nor would any
one be likely to guess this from the ever-ready and earnest efforts of
the lecturer to give to others that knowledge he had so laboriously, and
yet so pleasantly, acquired within the walls of the museum.
In addition to the official Hunterian lectures, Flower during this
portion of his career commenced the delivery, as opportunity occurred,
of lectures of a much more popular description, at the Royal Institution
and elsewhere, by means of which he appealed to a wider audience than
any that could be attracted to technical discourses, and at the same
time was enabled to give a wide circulation to the discussion of
subjects connected with his own special studies which had more or less
of a general interest. In one of his earlier discourses of this type he
discussed at considerable detail the deformities produced in the human
foot by badly-designed boots or other covering among both civilised and
barbarous nations. Indeed, “fashion in deformity” was at all times a
favourite theme with the Hunterian Professor; and in a lecture on this
subject he uttered, for him, a strong protest against the evils caused
by the corset among European females, illustrating his remarks with a
ghastly figure of a female skeleton distorted by the undue pressure of
that fashionable article of costume.
In 1871, and again in later years, Professor Flower acted as Examiner
in Zoology for the Natural Science Tripos at Cambridge, where his suave
and dignified manner, and innate courtliness rendered him as great a
favourite as in the Metropolis. He was during some portion of his career
Examiner in Anatomy at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Flower’s official connection with the museum of the Royal College of
Surgeons was brought to a close by Owen’s resignation of the Post of
Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum,
when it was felt by all that the efficient and successful administrator
of the smaller museum in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, was the one man specially
fitted in every way to have supreme charge of the larger establishment in
the Cromwell Road. Professor Flower was accordingly selected by the three
principal trustees—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and
the Speaker of the House of Commons—to fill this important post, into the
duties of which he entered during the same year. His administration of
the museum—which lasted until he was compelled by failing health to send
in his resignation a few months before his death—is fully discussed in
the fourth chapter, and was in every way a complete success.
During his long and successful official career Sir William was the
recipient of a number of honours (in addition to the medals he received
for his Crimean service), and he was likewise on the roll of the more
important societies connected with the branches of biological study in
which he was specially interested.
Of the Royal Society Sir William was elected a Fellow in 1864—at the
relatively early age of thirty-three—and he served on the Council of that
body for three separate periods, namely from 1868 to 1870, from 1876 to
1878, and again from 1884 to 1886, while in 1884 and 1885 he was one
of the Vice-Presidents. In 1882 his conspicuous services to zoological
science was recognised by the bestowal upon him of a Royal Gold Medal—one
of the most honourable distinctions in the gift of the Society; the other
recipient in the same year of a similar honour being Lord Rayleigh. In
handing to Professor Flower this medal, the President dwelt upon the
value of his contributions to both zoology and anthropology, referring,
in connection with the former science, to his paper on the classification
of the Carnivora, and, in respect to the latter, to the then recently
published first part of the “Catalogue of Osteological Specimens in the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” in which descriptions and
measurements of between 1300 and 1400 human skulls are recorded. The
present writer has been informed that Flower refused to be nominated
for the Presidentship of the Royal Society, owing to the fear that the
calls made upon his time by that office would interfere with his official
duties. Of the Zoological Society Professor Flower became a Fellow so
long ago as the year 1851, that is to say, three years previous to the
commencement of his Crimean service. After serving for several periods
on the Council he was elected to the honourable (and honorary) office
of President on the death of the Marquis of Tweeddale in 1879, and
in this important position he remained till his death. It should be
added that Flower never received one of the medals of the Zoological
Society, and this for the very good reason that such rewards are
bestowed in recognition of gifts to the Society’s Menagerie, and not for
contributions to zoological knowledge. Flower’s contributions to both
the _Transactions_ and the _Proceedings_ of the Society were numerous,
and, needless to say, valuable; the earliest in the former having been
published in 1866, and in the latter in 1852. With very few exceptions,
these communications relate to mammals. Fuller details with regard to Sir
William’s Presidency of the Zoological Society will be found in a later
chapter.
Of the Linnean Society, Flower was elected a Fellow in 1862, but he does
not appear to have ever taken any active part in the administration of
that body, or to have contributed to its publications, although for a
time he was a Vice-President.
To the Geological Society, on the other hand, of which he became a Fellow
in the year 1886, Sir William contributed three papers on paleontological
subjects, by far the most important of which was one on the affinities
and probable habits of the extinct Australian marsupial _Thylacoleo_.
Further allusion to this is made in the sequel. Of the other two, one
recorded the occurrence of teeth of the bear-like _Hyænarctus_ in the
Red Crag of Suffolk, and the other that of a skull of the manatee-like
_Halitherium_ in the same formation.
Of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Flower
was elected a Vice-President in 1879, while in 1883 he succeeded to
the Presidential chair, and occupied that position till 1885. Of his
numerous contributions to anthropological science, many appeared in the
journal of the Institute.
In the annual meetings of the British Association for the advancement
of science, Flower, from an early date, took a lively interest. At the
Norwich meeting, in 1868, he acted as Vice-President of the section of
Biology, while he was President of the same section at the Dublin meeting
of 1878. At York he presided over the section of Anthropology in 1881;
he was a Vice-President at the Aberdeen meeting of 1885, while for the
second time he occupied the Presidential chair of the Anthropological
section in 1894 at Oxford, when his opening address on Anthropological
progress displayed great breadth of thought and generalisation.
Finally, he was President of the Association at the meeting held in
Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1889, his address at the latter meeting forming the
first article in _Essays on Museums_.
Among other offices of a kindred nature to the above, it may be mentioned
that Sir William was President of the section of Anatomy at the
International Medical Congress held in London in August 1881. His address
on that occasion (reprinted as article 7 of the volume just cited) being
on the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. In July 1893 he acted
as President of the Museum’s Association at their London meeting, when,
after referring to the general scope of that body, and a brief survey
of some of the chief museums of Europe, he sketched out a plan for an
ideal building of this nature. This address also appears in _Essays on
Museums_. Sir William, the year before his death, had also undertaken to
preside over the meeting of the International Zoological Congress held at
Cambridge in the summer of 1898, but was prevented by failing health; his
place being filled by Lord Avebury (Sir John Lubbock). On 29th November
1895, Sir William Flower delivered an address at the opening of the Perth
Museum, in which he pointed out the special function of local museums.
Five years earlier (3rd November 1890) he had delivered another address
on a very similar occasion, namely, the opening of the Booth Museum, in
the Dyke Road, Brighton, famed for its unrivalled collection of British
birds, the great majority of which had been shot and subsequently mounted
in a most artistic manner by its founder. This splendid collection, it
may be mentioned, was bequeathed at Mr. Booth’s death to the British
Museum, but it was reluctantly declined by the Trustees, who waived their
right in favour of the Corporation of Brighton. At the end of October
1896, Sir William, then in failing health, somewhat rashly undertook a
journey to Scotland to assist Lord Reay in the inauguration of the Gatty
Marine Laboratory at St. Andrews.
Another important address delivered by Flower was one read before the
Church Congress at their meeting, held in October 1883, at Reading, on
“Recent Advances in Natural Science in Relation to the Christian Faith.”
It is reprinted in _Essays on Museums_. In this address Flower, while
proclaiming his full adherence to the doctrine of the transmutation of
species and the evolution of every organic form from a pre-existing
type, urged that this did not in the least shake his confidence in all
the essential teaching of the Christian religion. At the same time he
pointed out that the new doctrine in no wise detracted from the position
of the Divine Ruler of the world as the controller, and indeed the
originator, of animal development.
Shortly after his retirement from the post of Conservator, Professor
Flower was elected a Trustee of the Hunterian Collection of the Royal
College of Surgeons. Many years later, in 1881, he became a Trustee of
Sir John Soane’s Museum, in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
Mention has already been made of the fact that in an early stage of his
career Sir William became an M.B. of London, and that later on he was
elected to the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons. In addition
to these professional qualifications, he was also the recipient of
honorary degrees from the two elder Universities. Thus in 1891 he was
made a D.C.L. of Oxford, the public orator of the University, when the
degree was conferred, acclaiming him as a living proof of the truth of
the old saying, ἀρχή ἄνδρα δειξει, attributed to one of the seven wise
men of Greece, and as a man who had passed with increasing distinction
from one important official post to another; and he was likewise a D.Sc.
of Cambridge. But this by no means exhausts the list of his academic
honours, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and Trinity College, Dublin, claiming
him on their roll of honorary LL.D.’s, while in 1889 he received from
Durham the degree of D.C.L. The Edinburgh degree, it may be mentioned,
was conferred on the occasion of the celebration of the tercentenary of
the University. Sir William was also a Ph.D.
Nor were Flower’s conspicuous services to zoological science suffered to
remain unrecognised by the Government of his country, for he was created
a C.B. in 1887, three years after his first appointment to the British
Museum, and five years later (1892) followed the higher distinction of
the K.C.B. But this does not exhaust the list of official honours, for in
1887 Sir William received from Her Majesty, the late Queen Victoria, the
Jubilee Medal. Had he lived to the date of its foundation, it is possible
that Flower might have been admitted by his Sovereign as one of the
original members of the Order of Merit.
From His Majesty the German Emperor Sir William Flower received the
distinction of the Royal Prussian order, “Pour la Mérite,” an honour of
which he was justly very proud. As a distinguished friend pointed out in
his letter of congratulation on learning of the new distinction, “it is
the one European decoration which an Englishman may be proud to wear,
and bestowed, as I believe it to be, with the sanction of the very few
who have already got it. It is the one order which real work, apart from
rank and wealth and courtiers’ trick, alone can win.” As another eminent
friend described it on the same occasion, it is truly “the blue riband of
literary and scientific decorations.”
Numerous foreign scientific societies, it is almost unnecessary to
observe, were proud to claim the name of Sir William Flower on the list
of their honorary members or associates. It is however by no means easy
to give a complete list of these honourable distinctions, for Flower was
not one who followed the fashion of adding every possible combination of
letters to his name in every book or paper he wrote. Perhaps the most
important of these distinctions was that of Foreign Correspondent of
the Institute of France. Among other societies and academies to which he
belonged, were those of the Netherlands, Sweden, and Belgium.
Although Flower’s scientific writings are discussed at length in the
later chapters of this memoir, it may be mentioned in this place that
during the “eighties” he contributed an important series of articles to
the ninth edition of the “Encyclopædia Britannica.” At the commencement
of that great undertaking, although the article “Ape” was confided to
the competent hands of the late Professor St. George Mivart, some of the
other articles, such as the one on “Antelope,” were entrusted to writers
who, whatever their other merits may have been, had certainly no claim
to be regarded as specialists on the subject of mammals. It was not long
before this was recognised by the publishers, who forthwith engaged for
this section of the work the services of Flower, supplemented by those of
the late Dr. Dobson and Mr. O. Thomas. Among the more important articles
by Flower were those on the Horse, Kangaroo, Lemur, Lion, Mammalia (in
co-operation with Dr. Dobson), Megatherium, Otter, Platypus, Rhinoceros,
Seal, Tapir, and Whale. These and other articles, together with the one
on Ape by Professor Mivart and several on the smaller mammals by Mr.
Thomas, were subsequently combined and revised to form the basis of the
_Study of Mammals Living and Extinct_, by Sir William Flower and the
present writer, and was published by Messrs. A. & C. Black in 1891, which
long formed the standard English work on the subject, although now, owing
to the rapid progress in zoology and the great change which has taken
place in nomenclature, is somewhat out of date.
The excellent little volume on _The Horse_ in Sir John Lubbock’s (Lord
Avebury) _Modern Science Series_, published in 1891, and the _Essays on
Museums_ (1898), also appeared during this portion of Flower’s career.
Although so largely occupied in the study of mammals and other creatures
from distant parts of the world, Sir William never travelled much, and
never visited little-known regions or did any important collecting
abroad. In addition to his Crimean experiences, and the journeys in
Holland, France, and the Rhine country, to which allusion has been
already made, his foreign tours appear to have been but few. In the
winter of 1873-74 he was, however, enabled to enjoy a trip up the Nile
in company with Mrs. Flower, and he visited Biarritz in 1892. During the
former excursion he made a number of sketches which bear ample testimony
to his powers as an artist. With his great knowledge of anatomy, it may
be here mentioned, coupled with his skill with the pencil, he enjoyed
a great advantage over many contemporary zoologists in being able to
draw accurate and life-like portraits of the animals he loved so well.
Nevertheless, if only from lack of time, he never attempted to illustrate
with his own hand any of his numerous scientific contributions—at all
events in later years. Owing to need for complete rest, after a short
sojourn in the early part of 1897 at Marazion, on the south coast of
Cornwall, he spent much of the following winter abroad; and after his
resignation of the Directorship of the Museum in 1898, he spent the
following winter at San Remo, from which he returned less than two months
before his death.
As regards the closing scenes of his life, a very few words must suffice.
For the last two years of his existence he had evidently been in failing
health, largely due to his incessant exertions and from his refusal to
spare himself, even when warned of the absolute necessity of so doing by
his medical adviser. In August 1898, after a long period during which
he had been compelled to devote little or no attention to his official
duties, he placed his resignation of the Directorship of the Museum in
the hands of the Trustees. The aforesaid sojourn at San Remo during
the following winter effected some slight temporary improvement in his
health, but on his return to London, in May 1899, it was painfully
apparent that his constitution—never too robust—was shattered beyond
hope of permanent recovery. And, after a slight temporary rally, from
his malady of heart-failure, a sharp relapse occurred on Thursday, 29th
June, followed by pneumonia, and on Saturday, 1st July, Sir William
Flower passed peacefully away, at the age of sixty-seven years, at his
residence, 26 Stanhope Gardens, London.
A memorial service was held on the following Wednesday at St. Luke’s
Church, Sidney Street, Chelsea, which was attended by a large and
sympathetic congregation of friends and scientific men, including Sir
Edward Maunde Thompson, the Chief Librarian and Director of the British
Museum, and Professor E. Ray Lankester, Sir William’s successor in the
Directorship of the Natural History Branch of the same.
Sir William was undoubtedly a man of high and noble character, endeared
to all with whom he was brought into intimate relations by his unfailing
courtesy and charm of manner. To the present writer, it may be said
perhaps without undue egotism, he was a friend and counsellor such as
cannot be expected more than once in a life-time.
No better summary of Sir William’s general character and high attributes
can perhaps be given (certainly the present writer cannot attempt to
rival it) than the one drawn up by his biographer in the “Year-book” of
the Royal Society for 1901, which may accordingly be quoted _in extenso_:—
“In private life no one was more beloved and esteemed. He was in every
sense a domestic man, finding the highest joys that life brought him with
his family and children. The same courtly bearing and high tone, the same
preference for all that was good, was in private circles mingled with
the same genial smile, the fascinating account of something interesting
or novel, and the respect and deference to others, which was part of
his upright, unselfish nature. Many a young naturalist will gratefully
remember the kind encouragement and valued advice he was ever ready to
offer, and the stimulus which the sympathetic interest of a leader in the
department gave him.
“In the busy life of Sir William and in the constant calls on brain and
nervous system—strong though these were—there came times when a feeling
of lassitude with headache and spinal uneasiness, if not prostration,
showed that the indoor life and the strain of many duties had told with
severity both on the central nervous system and on the heart. His annual
holiday sufficed in many cases to recruit his energies, especially when
he visited Scotland and the charming home of his friends, Mr. and Mrs.
Drummond, of Megginch. There he met other friends, such as Dean and
Lady Augusta Stanley [after whom a son and a daughter were respectively
named] and Colonel Drummond-Hay, of Seggieden, brother of Mr. Drummond.
Moreover, he was always interested in the splendid collection of birds
made by Colonel Drummond-Hay during his wanderings with the Black Watch.”
Another passage from the same memoir of his life runs as follows:—
“One side of Sir William’s life deserves special notice, viz., his social
influence, and the endeavour to popularise the great institution with
which he was officially connected. These influences, developed at the
Museum of the College of Surgeons with great success, were brought to
bear on a much wider circle in connection with the National Museum and
as President of the Zoological Society; and no one was more fitted than
he—either for the courtly circle or the large gatherings of working men
who flocked on Saturday afternoons to the galleries of the museum. In all
his many and varied social functions in his prominent positions he was
ably seconded by one who identified herself with his every engagement,
and to whom his last volume of collected addresses was dedicated. A man
of wide sympathies, he is found at one time addressing a Civil Service
dinner, at another a Volunteer gathering, now descanting on evolution
to a Church Congress, and again speaking at a Mayoral banquet, a girls’
school, or an industrial exhibition. The strain on his physique demanded
by these efforts would have been great to an ordinary man, but it must
have been serious to one whose main energies were heavily taxed by
exhausting scientific work. His powerful constitution was thus slowly but
surely sapped, yet to an eager mind and a generous heart, such as his,
little heed was paid to himself....
“Taken all in all, we shall not soon see so talented and so accurate a
comparative anatomist, so impressive a speaker, so facile an artist, or a
public man with a higher type of character.”
The zoological and anthropological side of Sir William’s work (with which
the present writer is more competent to deal than he is with his social
relations and character) is discussed at length in later chapters of this
memoir; but a few observations may be here introduced on subjects which
scarcely come within the category of purely scientific work.
At intervals during his life-time Flower communicated a considerable
number of letters to the _Times_ and other journals on topics more or
less intimately connected with animals and animal life. His sympathy
with the crusade against the tight bearing-rein, initiated by his
father, has already received mention. Equally marked was his sympathy
with the movement against the wearing by ladies of the plumage of birds
(other than game-birds, etc.), and more especially the so-called “osprey
plumes”—really the breeding-plumes of the egrets and white herons—in
the so-called decoration of their bonnets and hats. The extreme cruelty
involved—at least in the case of the “ospreys”—in this practice, which
entails the destruction of the birds during the nesting-season, when
these nuptial plumes are alone donned, and consequently in many instances
the destruction of the helpless young by slow starvation, was painted in
forcible language by more than one letter from Flower’s pen. Happily, as
the result of these and other letters from sympathetic naturalists, and
the foundation of the Society for the Protection of Birds (whose general
aims were likewise strongly advocated by Sir William), this detestable
practice has been much diminished of late years, although very much
remains to be done in this way before there can be any pretence of saying
that birds, even in this country, are treated by man as they deserve.
On another occasion he wrote, deprecating the wholesale destruction of
bottle-nosed whales, which had been advocated on account of the enormous
quantities of fishes devoured by these cetaceans. The question of pelagic
sealing in Bering Sea, and the best way of preventing unnecessary
slaughter, and thus eventual extermination, of the sea-bears and
sea-lions which visit the Pribiloff Islands, also occupied his attention.
And to him was confided the duty of selecting the naturalists (Professor
d’Arcy Thompson and Captain Barrett-Hamilton) who represented British
interests in the International Commission despatched to those islands in
1896 and 1897, to report on the sealing generally and the habits of the
sea-bears, or fur-seals.
The best mode of disposing of the bodies of the dead was also a subject
to which Sir William devoted a share of his attention, and he was a
strong advocate for cremation, or, failing this, for burial in wicker
caskets in light sandy soil.
The effects of the weather on “Cleopatra’s Needle” a comparatively short
time after it had been set up on the Thames Embankment; the best means of
utilising and beautifying the gardens in Lincoln’s Inn Fields; and the
anomaly that while a heavy book could be sent by post for a few pence,
the charge on a heavy letter, at the time in question, was considerable,
were among many other miscellaneous topics upon which he wrote.
In conversation it was Sir William’s great delight, whenever possible,
to turn the subject to his own particular studies and pursuits; but,
as mentioned by an exalted personage on an occasion referred to in the
sequel, he never wearied his hearers. In a new or rare animal, his
delight was almost childish; and the present writer has often reflected
how intense would have been his pleasure had he been spared to see the
first specimen brought to this country of that wonderful animal, the
okapi of the Semliki Forest.
To his official subordinates Sir William was also readily
accessible—possibly almost too much so; and he had always a word of
praise for work faithfully carried out under his direction, even if, from
a slight misunderstanding of his instructions, it had not been executed
precisely on the lines he himself would have desired. He was never above
lending a hand himself at manual work; and the writer well recollects an
occasion at the museum where a large animal was, with some difficulty,
being moved, and Sir William, although at the time manifestly unfit for
severe physical effort, would insist upon aiding in the task.
As a host, Sir William Flower, ably seconded by Lady Flower, had few
rivals and no superiors; and although he absolutely detested tobacco,
such was his good-nature, that he would not deny his male friends the
luxury of an after-dinner cigarette—the idea of ladies smoking would
probably have been too much even for his good-nature and tolerance of
other people’s little weaknesses.
This chapter may be fitly brought to a close by referring to the fact
that it was largely owing to the advocacy of Sir William that a statue
of his intimate friend Huxley was placed in the Central Hall of the
Natural History Museum, in company with those of Darwin and Owen, so
that “Huxley and Owen, often divided in their lives, would come together
after death in the most appropriate place and amidst the most appropriate
surroundings.” In this Valhalla of men pre-eminent in British biological
science of the nineteenth century, Flower’s own bust has found its home;
but of this more anon.
In this connection it may be added that Sir William Flower wrote for the
_Proceedings_ of the Royal Society the obituary notice of Sir Richard
Owen, who had been his predecessor in his own two most important offices.
Despite the fact that Flower had been instrumental in overthrowing at
least one of Owen’s “pet theories,” this biographical notice is written
in the kindest and most sympathetic spirit, giving full credit to the
“immense labours and brilliant talents” of this truly remarkable man.
An earlier obituary notice from Flower’s pen which appeared in the
same journal was devoted to a sketch of the life of George Rolleston,
the brilliant Professor of Anatomy and Physiology of Oxford, whose
comparatively early death in 1881 was one of the real losses to
biological science.
Of a more varied and popular nature were Flower’s reminiscences of
his friend Huxley, which appeared in the _North American Review_ for
September 1895. A fourth biographical notice was the “eulogium” on
Charles Darwin, delivered by Sir William at the centenary meeting of the
Linnean Society, held on 24th May 1888, in which the speaker acknowledged
the incomparable importance of Darwin’s work, and incidentally avowed
his own acceptance of the doctrine of evolution. Compared to Darwin’s
achievements, he observed, “most of the work which we others do is but
irregular, guerilla warfare, attacks on isolated points, mere outpost
skirmishing, while his was the indefatigable, patient, unintermittent
toil, conducted in such a manner and on such a scale that it could
scarcely fail to secure victory in the end.”