Sir William Flower

Much of the substance of this chapter has been already alluded to in the earlier portions of the present volume; but it has been found convenient to give Sir William’s views on the objects and arrangement of museums somewhat more fully in this place, while reference is also made to various items of miscellaneous work which do not fall within the scope of either of the three previous chapters.

Of Flower’s hereditary interest in the crusade against tight bearing-reins, and his official connection with the Anti-Bearing-Rein Association, sufficient mention has been already made in the first chapter. It will likewise be unnecessary in this place to do more than mention his Diagrams of the Nerves of the Human Body published in 1861, to his “Supplement to the Catalogue of the Pathological Series in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons,” issued in 1863, and to certain articles on surgical subjects contributed by him at an early portion of his career. All these, coupled with the practical experience he gained during his Crimean service, indicate, however, that had Sir William decided to devote his energies and talents to surgery as a permanent occupation, there is little doubt he would have risen to high eminence in that profession.

The little work entitled Fashion in Deformity, is based on a Friday Evening lecture at the Royal Institution, delivered on 7th May 1880, and first published in the Proceedings of the Institution for the same year. In its separate, and more fully illustrated form, it was issued in 1881. This is certainly one of Flower’s most original efforts, touching upon ground much of which has received but little notice from either earlier or later writers. The subjects discussed include the origin of fashion; mutilations of domesticated animals by man for the sake of fashion; fashion in hair and in finger-nails; tattooing; fashion in noses, ears, lips, teeth, and head, the latter being illustrated by the curious custom prevalent among certain widely sundered races of forcibly compressing the cranium in infancy by means of bandages, so as to permanently modify and alter its contour to a greater or less degree. Analogous to this compression of the head is the crippling by bandages of the feet of Chinese female infants, which is described in some detail. But the author is of opinion that European nations are scarcely less to blame in the matter of distorting the feet for the sake of fashion; and pointed-toed and high-heeled boots and shoes come in for his most severe condemnation. Neither, as mentioned in the first chapter, was he less scathing in his diatribes against the corset and tight-lacing. That the last-mentioned article of female attire is likewise charged in certain instances with being the inducing cause of cancer was however probably unknown to him.

That these strictures against the prevalent fashions of our own days had little or no practical result (certainly none in the case of the female sex), may be taken for granted. The work has, however, a very considerable amount of interest as illustrating a number of instances of the manner in which uncivilised nations modify and mutilate various parts of the body for the sake of what they are pleased to regard as ornament, or fashion; and is therefore a valuable contribution to ethnology.

The address delivered by Flower at the meeting of the Church Congress, held at Reading in 1883, on the bearing of recent scientific advances on the Christian faith, has likewise been alluded to in the first chapter. It will therefore suffice here to quote a portion of the concluding paragraph, which demonstrates that nothing among modern discoveries had served to shake in the very slightest degree the author’s profound belief in all the essential truths of the faith of his forefathers.

“Science,” he observes, “has thrown some light, little enough at present, but ever increasing, and for which we should all be thankful, upon the processes or methods by which the world in which we dwell has been brought into its present condition. The wonder and mystery of Creation remain as wonderful and mysterious as before. Of the origin of the whole, science tells us nothing. It is still as impossible as ever to conceive that such a world, governed by laws, the operations of which have led to such mighty results, and are attended by such future promise, could have originated without the intervention of some power external to itself. If the succession of small miracles, supposed to regulate the operations of nature, no longer satisfies us, have we not substituted for them one of immeasurable greatness and grandeur?”

Although he does not say so in so many words, there is little doubt (reading between the lines) that Flower regarded the evolution of animated Nature as part of a preordained divine plan, and that he had little, if any, faith in such theories as “survival of the fittest,” as the true explanation of Nature’s riddle.

This address, like most of the other addresses and papers discussed in this chapter, is reprinted in Essays on Museums.

We pass now to the concluding portion of our subject, namely Flower’s influence and example in modifying and advancing previous conceptions as to the functions and objects of museums, and the mode and manner in which their contents should be arranged and distributed: on the one hand for the purpose of instructing and interesting the public, and on the other for advancing the study of biological science. In many respects this was perhaps the most important item in Flower’s life-work; and he may be said to have created the art of museum development and display.

In regard to the value and importance of his labours in this respect, no better testimony can be adduced than that given by such a distinguished adept in this kind of work as Professor E. Ray Lankester, the present Director of the Natural History Departments of the British Museum.

“The arrangement and exhibition of specimens designed and carried out by Flower in both instances,” writes Professor Lankester, after alluding to his predecessor’s labours first at the Royal College of Surgeons, and afterwards at the British Museum, “was so definite an improvement on previous methods, that he deserves to be considered as an originator and inventor in museum work. His methods have not only met with general approval, and their application with admiration, but they have been largely adapted and copied by other Curators and Directors of public museums both at home and abroad.”

Much has been said with regard to Flower’s views on museum arrangement in the chapter devoted to his official connection with the British Museum. It may, however, be permissible to repeat that in his epoch-making address on museum organisation, delivered before the British Association in 1889, he insisted, in the case of large central public museums, on the absolute necessity of separating the study from the exhibition series; and likewise on the limited number and careful selection of the specimens which should be shown to the public in the latter, and the prime importance of carefully-written and simply-worded descriptive labels for each group of specimens, if not, indeed, for each individual specimen. His idea was, in fact, that the specimens should illustrate the labels rather than the labels the specimens. A limited number, rather than an extensive series, of exhibited specimens, and ample room for each, were also features in his progress of reform. Not less emphatic was Sir William on the importance of combining the extinct with the living forms in our museums; but this, as stated elsewhere, he was unable to carry out in the national collection.

It was, however, by no means only in our great national museums that Flower took so much interest, and advocated (and to a great extent succeeded in carrying out) such sweeping and beneficial changes. He was equally convinced of the supreme importance and value, as educating media, of school and county museums, if organised and kept up on proper and rational lines; and he did all that lay in his power to promote the establishment, extension, or development of institutions of this nature.

At the request of the Head-Master, in 1889, Flower furnished some written advice as to the best method of arranging a museum at Eton College, and these were published as an article in Nature for that year, under the title of “School Museums.” The writer observed that the subjects best adapted for such a museum are zoology, botany, mineralogy, and geology; adding that “everything in the museum should have some distinct object, coming under one or other of the above subjects, and under one or other of the series defined below, and everything else should be rigorously excluded. The Curator’s business will be quite as much to keep useless specimens out of the museum as to acquire those that are useful.” It was further urged that the “Index Museum,” in the Natural History Museum, furnished the best guide to the lines on which a school museum should be furnished and arranged, but that the exhibits should be restricted to a simpler and less detailed series.

Under the title of “Natural History as a Vocation,” Sir William published in Chambers’ Journal for April 1897 an article dealing with biology as a profession, and also discussing the best means of encouraging and directing the “collecting instinct,” which is so marked a feature in some boys. This article is reprinted in Essays on Museums, under the title of “Boys’ Museums.” It serves to show that Flower considered the aforesaid “collecting instinct” worthy, under certain restrictions, of every encouragement.

Since the appearance of Flower’s article pointing out their value and importance, natural history museums have been established at many, if not most, of our public schools besides Eton. Those at Marlborough, Rugby, and Haileybury may be specially noticed as being, to a great extent, arranged on the lines advocated by Sir William.

As regards county and other local museums, Flower in the article under the latter title, published in Essays on Museums, advocated that these, in addition to natural history specimens, should likewise illustrate the archæology, and indeed the general history of the district; obsolete implements, such as flint-and-steel and candle-snuffers, if of local origin, legitimately finding a place within its walls. The natural history of the locality, needless to say, should be well illustrated, and so arranged and named that any visitor can easily identify every creature and plant he may have met with during his rambles in the district.

The subject of administration is next discussed, when after fully admitting the value of volunteer assistance, the writer lays it down as imperative that a competent paid Curator must be engaged if the museum is to be really useful and to properly fulfil its purpose.

Now that so many institutions of this nature are under the control of the County Councils, and their expenses defrayed out of the rates, the following passage has a most important bearing on the management of local museums:—

“The scope of the museum,” observes Sir William, “should be strictly defined and limited; there must be nothing like the general miscellaneous collection of ‘curiosities,’ thrown indiscriminately together, which constituted the old-fashioned country museum. I think we are all agreed as to the local character predominating. One section should contain antiquities and illustrations of local manners and customs; another section, local natural history, zoology, botany, and geology. The boundaries of the county will afford a good limit for both. Everything not occurring in a state of nature within that boundary should be rigorously excluded. In addition to this, it may be desirable to have a small general collection designed and arranged specially for elementary instruction in science.”

These words of warning deserve, in the present writer’s opinion, more attention than they have yet received at the hands of those responsible for the administration of not a few local museums.

It may be added that Flower was of opinion that ordinary local museums should not undertake original research work, which should be reserved for the larger establishments in our chief cities and the metropolis. With the means at their disposal—often insufficient even for the proper functions—local museums should have quite enough to do in illustrating local products.

Not that Sir William Flower was of opinion that, in our larger cities, museums of a totally different nature from the local museum on the one hand and from the general museum on the other, may not have a justifiable locus standi. This is amply demonstrated by his remarks (republished in Essays on Museums) on the occasion of the opening of the Booth Museum at Brighton, in November 1890, which contains one of the finest and best mounted collection of British birds in the kingdom.