KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

The Gardens of the Zoological Society of London during the Nineteenth Century

Sofia Åkerberg

KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

The Gardens of the Zoological Society of London during the Nineteenth Century

Akademisk avhandling som med tillstånd av rektorsämbetet vid Umeå universitet för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen

offentligen försvaras i Humanisthuset, hörsal F

tisdagen den 4 december 2001, klockan 10.15

av

Sofia Åkerberg Sofia Åkerberg, Knowledge and Pleasure at Regent's Park: The Gardens of the Zoobgical Society of London during the Nineteenth Century English text Department of Historical Studies, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden Monograph 2001. 254 pages Idéhistoriska skrifter nr 36 ISBN: 91-7305-147-0 ISSN: 0280-7646

Abstract The subject of this dissertation is the Zoological Gardens of the Zoological Society of London (f. 1826) in the nineteenth century. Located in Regent s Park, it was the express purpose of the Gardens (f. 1828) to function as a testing-ground for acclimatisation and to demonstrate the scientific impor­ tance of various animal species. The aim is t o analyse what the Gardens signified as a recreational, educational and scientific institution in nineteenth-century London by considering them from four different perspectives: as a pan of a newly-founded society, as a part of the leisure culture of mid-Victorian London, as a medi­ ator of popular zoology and as a constituent of the Zoological Society's scientific ambitions. After an introduction which describes the devlopment of European zoos, Chapter two recapitu­ lates the early years of the Society and the Gardens. The original aims of the Society—science and acclimatisation located in a museum and zoological garden—as stated in various prospectuses, are examined. The implications of acclimatisation, it being a problematic practice, are outlined and the connections between acclimatisation, the Society, the Gardens and the British Empire are also briefly considered. The founding of the Gardens is extensively described as well as how the animals were obtained and how exhibits were arranged. Chapter three is based primarily on the popular response to the Gardens in the 1850s when, after a period of decline, the institution once again became a common London visiting-place. The most important questions of this chapter concern the public and how it reacted to the Gardens of this period. The financial problems preceding the five years between 1850 and 1855 ^ described as well as how the Society managed to regain its popularity. This process was closely linked to the decision in 1847to let non-members of the Society enter the Gardens, and the implications of this resolution are discussed. As a background to the Gardens' popularity, two other London recreations are also described: the Colosseum Panorama and the Surrey Zoological Garden. The Surrey Zoological Gar­ den especially is interesting, as it was a rival of the Society's Gardens, and the different attractions of these establishments are considered. Chapter four focuses on the official and non-official guidebooks to the Gardens and the implica­ tions of these as mediators of popular zoology. The historical and cultural connection between the guidebooks and travel handbooks is oudined and also how the genre as a whole is constructed. The progress and development of the Society's guidebooks during the nineteenth century is described and the differences between these guidebooks and the non-official ones are examined. Finally, with the aid of Victorian children's books, I argue that the guidebooks can literally be considered as travel handbooks since a visit to the Gardens may be regarded as a journey of knowledge. Chapter five is an in-depth study of the zoological science of the Gardens. The scientific work of the Society is briefly described, starting with the Committee of Science and Correspondence, and the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. The Proceedings rep orts that base their findings on animals in the Gardens are then described together with minor detours into the history of taxonomy and morphology.

Keywords: Zoological Gardens, Zoological Society of London, zoo, London, nineteenth century, acclimatisation, imperialism, leisure, public, guidebook, zoology, natural history, popular science. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK Sofia Åkerberg, Knowledge and Pleasure at Regents Park: The Gardens of the Zoological Society of London during the Nineteenth Century English text Department of Historical Studies, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden Monograph 2001. 254 pages Idéhistoriska skrifter nr 36 ISBN: 91-7305-147-0 ISSN: 0280-7646

Abstract The subject of this dissertation is the Zoological Gardens of the Zoological Society of London (f. 1826) in the nineteenth century. Located in Regent s Park, it was the express purpose of the Gardens (£ 1828) to function as a testing-ground for acclimatisation and to demonstrate the scientific impor­ tance of various animal species. The aim is t o analyse what the Gardens signified as a recreational, educational and scientific institution in London by considering them from four different perspectives: as a part of a newly- founded society, as a part of the leisure culture of mid-Victorian London, as a mediator of popular zoology and as a constituent of the Zoological Society's scientific ambitions. After an introduction which describes the history of European zoos, Chapter two recapitulates the early years of the Society and the Gardens. The original aims of the Society—science and accli­ matisation located in a museum and zoological garden—as stated in various prospectuses, are exam­ ined. The implications of acclimatisation, it being a problematic practice, are outlined and the connections between acclimatisation, the Society, the Gardens and the British Empire are also briefly considered. The founding of the Gardens is extensively described as well as how the animals were obtained and how exhibits were arranged. Chapter three is based primarily on the popular response to the Gardens in the 1850s when, after a period of decline, the institution once again became a common London visiting-place. The most important questions of this chapter concern the public and how it reacted to the Gardens of this period. The financial problems preceding the five years between 1850 and 1855 are described as well as how the Society managed to regain its popularity. This process was closely linked to the decision in 1847 to let non-members of the Society enter the Gardens, and the implications of this resolution are discussed. As a background to the Gardens' popularity, two other London recreations are also described: the Colosseum Panorama and the Surrey Zoological Garden. The Surrey Zoological Gar­ den especially is interesting, as it was a rival of the Society's Gardens, and the different attractions of these establishments are considered. Chapter four focuses on the official and non-official guidebooks to the Gardens and the implica­ tions of these as mediators of popular zoology. The historical and cultural connection between the guidebooks and travel handbooks is oudined and also how the genre as a whole is constructed. The progress and development of the Society's guidebooks during the nineteenth century is described and the differences between these guidebooks and the non-official ones are examined. Finally, with the aid of Victorian children's books, it is argued that the guidebooks can literally be considered as travel handbooks since a visit to the Gardens may be regarded as a journey of knowledge. Chapter five is an in-depth study of the zoological science of the Gardens. The scientific work of the Society is briefly described, starting with the Committee of Science and Correspondence, and the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. The Proceedings reports th at base their findings on animals in the Gardens are then described together with minor detours into the history of taxonomy and morphology.

Keywords: Zoological Gardens, Zoological Society of London, zoo, London, nineteenth century, acclimatisation, imperialism, leisure, public, guidebook, zoology, natural history, popular science. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

The Gardens of the Zoological Society of London during the Nineteenth Century

Sofia Åkerberg Department of Historical Studies Umeå University SE-901 87 Umeå Sweden Fax +46-90-786 76 67 www.umu.se/histstud/index_eng.html

© Sofia Åkerberg and the Department of Historical Studies, Umeå University Printed in Sweden by Umeå universitets tryckeri Cover illustration: Punch, 19 November 1849 Cover and typeset by Anders Kjellberg ISBN 91-7305-147-0 ISSN 0280-7646 CONTENTS

Preface ç

Abbreviations 12

I KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE An Introduction 13

The Zoological Society and the Zoological Gardens 15 Zoo History—Past and Present 17 Reconstructing the Ark 20 Jardin des Plantes 23 Menageries in Britain 24 Followers and Disciples 25 Principle Themes and Issues 28 The Founding of a Society 28 Zoo and the City 30 Zoo and Science 32 Zoo and the Public 34 Education of the Public 37 Disposition of the Dissertation 39 Notes on Definitions 41 Zoological Garden or Menagerie? 42 Periods of Zoo History 43 Sources and Previous Research 45 NOTES 49

II ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE The Origin and Early Years of the Zoological Society of London and its Gardens, 1826-1830 56

Introduction 57 The Beginning 58 The Formation 61 The Aims 63 The Zoological Society 68 Imperial Science 71 The Zoological Gardens 74 The Farm 84 The Museum 87 Concluding Remarks 89 NOTES 95 III ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE The Zoological Gardens in Victorian Leisure Culture 1850—55 103

Introduction 104 The "High Noon" of Victorianism 105 Periodicals 106 The Rational Victorian Recreation 107 The Century of Children no A Royal Society 113 Financial Troubles 114 Letting the Public in 115 Who was Admitted? 117 Rival Entertainments 120 The Panorama 121 The Surrey Zoological and Botanical Institution 123 The New Secretary 125 The Lion of the Day 127 The Aquatic Vivarium 130 Concluding Remarks 131 NOTES 133

IV DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES Guidebooks and the Public at the Zoological Gardens, 1828-1907 140

Introduction 140 Guides of Popular Zoology 141 The Literature of Travel 145 The Modern Travel Handbook 147 The Guidebooks of the Zoological Gardens 149 Character and Language in Four Different Guides 152 Non-official Guidebooks 158 Enter: Mr. Weston 161 Concluding Remarks 164 NOTES 166

V FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY The Zoological Gardens and Zoological Science, 1830-1900 170

Introduction 170 The Committee of Science and Correspondence 171 Terminology 172 Reports from the Gardens 174 Science of the Living 175 Classification and Taxonomy 175 "Monograph of the Hollowhorned Ruminants" 179 Tommy the Chimp 181 Animal Reproduction 182 "Experiments in animal physiology" 184 Science of the Dead 186 Morphology 186 Morphological Reports 188 Pathological Anatomy ipi Concluding Remarks 193 NOTES 197

VI EPILOGUE 202 NOTES 212

Appendix I: Zoological Club 213

Appendix II: Officers 214

Appendix III: Zoological Taxa 215

Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams 216

Appendix V: Maps 222

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archives 227 Periodicals 227 Internet 228 Published Primary Sources: Articles 228 Published Primary Sources: Books 230 Published Secondary Sources: Articles 234 Published Secondary Sources: Books 240

INDEX OF NAMES 250

Preface

Read like a butterfly, write like a bee - Philip Pullman -

THE PREFACE TO ANY ACADEMIC dissertation is by tradition the place where the author extends his or her gratitude towards those who made the work possible. I will not break this tradition, although a complete list of valuable contributors would most likely take up more pages than I can afford. I would initially like to state that these years have been some of the best of my life. The former Department of History of Science and Ideas at Umeå University, now merged into the Department of Historical Studies, seems to me to be the ideal of how a department is supposed to function. It is not only a place of work but also a place of enjoyment and fun. This aspect is very important, as in my view the very core of good academic work is basically to have a really good time. Even when you are at your low­ est and your sources are not at all behaving as they should there are always people there to listen (perhaps not willingly) while you moan about it. However, moaning is never done in complete isolation and I have received a lot of help from a lot of people and institutions during these years. This work has mainly been funded by the former Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSFR), now part of the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), and the Swedish National Board of Student Aid (CSN). Additional funds have also been granted by the Swedish Institute (SI). I owe my basic survival to you. I would like to thank Ann Sylph, Michael Palmer and the other staff at the Zoological Society of Londons library; the staff at the Humanities, Rare Books and Music and OIOC (Oriental and India Office Collections) Reading Rooms at the British Library, and the staff at Umeå University Library. You have made my life a great deal easier. IO KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

For being kind enough to answer my questions and make suggestions I would like to thank Adrian Desmond, James Secord, Lynn K Nyhart, Michael Osborne, Harriet Ritvo, Cornelius Holthorf, Terry Dennett, Örjan Åkerberg and John Edwards. In a very early stage Torbjörn Eben- hard supported my first stumbling steps as a zoo-historian. Michael Palmer kindly read the manuscript at a late stage to make sure that my references to the Zoological Society were correct. Christine Kenyon-Jones, Matthew Senior and Michelle Hanning all generously shared their interesting papers presented at the conference "Millenial Animals" in July 2000 with me. I particularly thank Jonathan Burt for making me see the importance of Peter Chalmers Mitchell. This dissertation has become a lot richer because of you. I would also like to thank my supervisors over the years: first and fore­ most Sverker Sörlin who from the very start has had the overall responsibil­ ity as supervisor; Kjell Jonsson who in the beginning took on the task as assistant supervisor and also thoroughly read the manuscript for my final seminar; David Arnold who very helpfully acted as supervisor during my stay in London in the autumn of 1999 and Pär Eliasson who did not hesi­ tate to take on the task as assistant supervisor during my last and most tax­ ing years. Without you this would not have been possible. Very special thanks go to my proof-reader, Jan Robbins, and Anders Kjellberg who gave the dissertation its physical form and designed a great cover. You took my raw material and turned it into a real book But all work and no play makes the student dull and I would thus like to thank those who have turned these years into something more than sim­ ply a job. My mother and father, Kerstin and Örjan, and little brother, Kalle, have always been very encouraging and backed me up with long phone calls. Of the Department of History of Science and Ideas I would especially like to thank what was once called the "northern fraction" and of those particularly Christer Nordlund, Stefan Gelfgren, Gunnela Ivanov and Henrik Lång who have all had the doubtful pleasure of sharing rooms with me over the years. Last but not least I want to thank Anders and Huxley, the men of my life. I dedicate this dissertation to you. Anders repeatedly goes above and beyond the call of partner duty and supplies me with endless cups of tea and love. Without you this dissertation would probably have been written but I would have hated every minute of it. Huxley has, equally repeatedly, gone above and beyond the call of canine duty and for almost a year made sure that I did not become too involved in my work by eating my shoes during the day and warming my toes at night. Preface ii

Parts of Chapter four have been previously published in Swedish as "Inhägnad kunskap: Guideboken i London Zoo," in Reseberättelser: Idéhis­ toriska resor i sociala och geografiska rum, eds. Lena Eskilsson and Moham­ mad Fazlhashemi (Stockholm: Carlssons, 2001).

Readers note: The notes and bibliography are set according to The Chicago Manicai of Style, 14th ed.

Sofia Åkerberg Umeå October 2001 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Abbreviations

In citing works in the notes, short titles have generally been used. Works frequently cited have been identified by the following abbreviations:

BJHS British Journal for the History of Science.

DHS Dictionary of the History of Science, eds. William Bynum, E.J. Browne, and Roy Porter (London: Macmillan, 1981).

JHB Journal of the History of Biology.

J. Soc. Bibi Nat. Hist. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History.

MC Minutes of Council.

Mitchell Peter Chalmers Mitchell, Centenary History of the Zoological Society of London (London: Zoological Society of London, 1929).

PZS Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London.

Scherren Henry Scherren, The Zoological Society of London: A Sketch of its Foundation and Development and the Story of its Farm, Museum, Gardens, Menagerie and Library (London: Cassell and Company, 1906). I

KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE An Introduction

IN i8n, A LONDON THEATRE company rented a young circus elephant by the name of Chunee to appear in their play "Harlequin and Padmanaba".1 The public came in droves in the hope of seeing the elephant doing some­ thing extraordinary and they were not disappointed. When Chunee was ordered to kneel at the centre of the stage so that the "sultan" could climb down he panicked and ran off the stage with the actor and his Indian keeper holding on for dear life. After Chunee s theatrical failure the circus did not want him back and he was instead sold to the Exeter 'Change menagerie in the centre of Lon­ don. When he came to the menagerie he was only six years old and hence not fully grown. In 1820 the proprietor, Edward Cross, could thus proudly state that Chunee with his five tonnes was the largest elephant in the whole of Europe and he was an extremely popular exhibit in London. But prob­ lems arose when it became clear that Chunee was not always good-natured. He wounded his first keeper, Alfred Cops, so badly that Cops resigned. After Cops there were many keepers who tried to deal with the elephant but the only thing that seemed to work was to give Chunee enemas until he almost passed out. Sometimes, not even that was enough and Chunee once (accidentally) killed his German keeper and was subsequendy fined one shilling.2 The climax came in 1826 when Chunee flew into a tantrum and rushed straight into the wall of his enclosure, with such impact that a beam broke and parts of the roof collapsed. Since the elephant was not housed on the ground floor there was considerable worry that if the elephant broke loose on the streets of London he would do so in the company of several bloodthirsty lions, tigers and leopards and it was decided that he must be killed. Poisoning was attempted, but by that time Chunee was refusing to *4 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK eat and more attacks further weakened both the roof and floors of the building. There was only one thing left to do: police and military forces were summoned and 90 minutes and 152 bullets later the Londoners' dar­ ling was dead. The post mortem performed by surgeon Joshua Brookes revealed that Chunee had probably been suffering from a long-lasting and painful tooth­ ache and many claimed that it was this that had caused his bad temper. The elephant's death was commemorated with odes and engravings, and Brookes himself was even accused of staging the "murder" with the purpose of obtaining the animal for the post mortem.

This dissertation is about the Zoological Gardens of the Zoological Society of London located in Regent's Park. So why begin a study of this superior establishment, devoted to science and rational amusement, with the grue­ some tale of Chunee? Because Chunee's fate illustrates all the aspects of ani­ mal trade, management and exhibition that the Zoological Society wanted to avoid in its Gardens. The animals at the Gardens were not to be gawped at because they performed clever tricks; they were supposed to be admired for their illustration of nature's adaptation and their importance within the science of zoology. The Gardens should provide more appropriate housing than a stable in a busy building in central London. And the management of the Gardens should know enough about animals to prevent a course of events such as those that led to Chunee's death. It is the comprehensive purpose of this dissertation to place the Gar­ dens and, to some extent, the Society, in the cultural and scientific context of nineteenth-century London. Why did the Society want to have a zoolog­ ical garden? What did the members expect to achieve by establishing it? And when the Gardens became a popular resort for the London public, how did the Society react? What kind of public frequented the Gardens? As will be shown in the following chapters, some of the mistakes Chunee was made to suffer were indeed avoided in the Gardens but whether it became an institution completely and exclusively devoted to science and rationality remains to be seen. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE IS

The Zoological Society and the Zoological Gardens This study deals with the Zoological Gardens of the Zoological Society of London during the nineteenth century but its various parts are quite differ­ ent in character. They were originally intended as more or less independent studies of the Gardens but as they progressed, the links between them became all the more apparent. It is hence the results that tie these parts together, rather than the initial questions at issue. The studies begin with the founding and early years of the Society andGard ens, from 1826 to 1830, focusing on the Society's aims for the Gardens. The language of the first prospectuses of the Society is examined, as well as h ow the Society organ­ ised itself after the founding. This is continued with the very successful years from 1850 to 1855 and an investigation of the public view of the Gar­ dens, as expressed in contemporary newspapers and magazines. Particularly interesting are the efforts of opening the Gardens to the general public and how, in this process, the Gardens were made more attractive to this public. This is followed by studies that are more longitudinal in order to detect nineteenth-century development and changes in the Society's at ti­ tudes towards science and popular zoology as communicated through the Gardens. The character of the various editions of the Society's guidebook is investigated together with so-called non-official guidebooks, i.e. guide­ books published without the Society's consent. Particular emphasis is placed upon the possible differences between these guides. Finally, the sci­ entific quality of the Gardens is studied, whether the Gardens were used as a scientific tool and how investigations of for example marsupial reproduc­ tion were carried out. Hence, this is not an institutional history of the Zoological Society (or the Gardens for that matter). It is neither a study completely devoted to applied zoology in the British Empire, nor a total account of the state of zoological science in nineteenth-century London. It is a work that synthe- sises four different perspectives—the circumstances of the founding of a society, the leisure culture of mid-Victorian London, guidebooks and pop­ ular zoology and the Gardens' role in zoological science—and through these tries to see what the Gardens meant as a recreational, educational and scientific institution in nineteenth-century London. However, because of i6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

these four main perspectives, each of which in its own right deserves at least a dissertation, the sketching of the context and background to each chapter can only be of a general character. A look at the over-all progress of the Society and the Gardens, as described in these chapters, reveals that there is no decisive change during the nineteenth century. A change of a more specific character came instead early in the twentieth century, and during the 1910s the Society went through a host of transformations. Many of these—the building of the modern exhibit Mappin Terraces for example—were however the result of a change in secretaries that had occurred already in 1903. It is therefore con­ venient to use the less exact period of the "nineteenth century" (in practice 1826 to the 1910s) in this dissertation. East India Company employee Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles and Royal Society president Humphry Davy founded the Zoological Society of London in 1826. The founding can, in retrospect, be seen as an important step for Londons zoologists who for years had wanted a body that would see to their needs in ways that the Linnean Society of London could not. According to prospects sent out to presumptive members the principal aims of the new Society were to found a museum, a zoological garden and a library. The main purpose of the museum was to collect natural specimens and offer type references to naturalists consulting the collections. The gar­ den was initially supposed to be used for acclimatisation, but the Society soon realised that it was too small for such purposes and would be better used as a public attraction. After an initial period of collecting and purchasing the Zoological Gar­ den of the Zoological Society opened in the Regent s Park in late April 1828, and both the Garden and the museum became popular resorts for the dis­ tinguished London public. Quite soon the area allotted to the Society was overcrowded and more ground was leased in Regent s Park. In this manner the Zoological Garden became Zoological Gardens, all in all three different gardens separated by a road and the Regent s Canal, forcing the Society to build tunnels as well as bridges.3 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE J7

Zoo History—Past and Present Many contemporary studies of zoological gardens try to answer the seem­ ingly eternal question: "What is the zoo really about?" It is fairly obvious that some zoos want to be looked upon solely as places of education, ratio­ nality and science while others focus on entertainment, incorporating rides and merry-go-rounds in their exhibits. But most zoos try to walk the fine line between the two, between science and entertainment. Zoos want to play their part for the wildlife on this planet but they have to attract a pay­ ing audience at the same time. There is thus at modern zoos a continuous struggle between what's best for the animals and what's best for the public. There are plenty of works that deal with this problem for present-day zoos.4 But what about the zoos of the past? What was their purpose? By looking at the Zoological Gardens at Regent's Park from four different per­ spectives—social, popular scientific, cultural and scientific—it is my hope that a picture will emerge of what the Gardens were about or at least what they were meant to be about. This meaning of the Gardens will also be related to the culture of London: What part did the Gardens play in the capital scene? Historical research into zoological gardens has in recent years become more and more common and there are now quite a few studies of American and European zoos. The two most recent anthologies, New Worlds, New Animals (1996) edited by RJ. Hoage and William Deiss and Vernon Kisling's ZJOO and Aquarium History (2001) even attempt a global perspec­ tive.5 Donna Mehos has written "Science displayed: Nation and nature at the Amsterdam Zoo, 'Artis'" (1997), a dissertation on the Dutch zoological society and zoological garden, Natura Artis Magistra.6 Mehos explores the garden's importance to the Amsterdam burghers as a recreational resort, fashionable music-centre and scientific institution. She also describes how the garden sometimes had to fight the city council of Amsterdam for land and privileges while at the same time being seen as a significant national asset, demonstrating Dutch science and colonial power. Rather than focus­ ing on a glorious past, the garden showed how science could elevate a coun­ try's status in the present. Emphasising applied science on the other hand, Michael Osborne has examined the French acclimatisation society and their garden, Jardin i8 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK d'Acclimatation, in Nature, the Exotic and the Science of French Colonialism (1993) 7 He shows how the society tried to solve agricultural problems of acclimatisation in the colonies as well as in France. Through the garden, the society also became an important mediator of popular zoology, botany and ethnology. Much like Artis, but in a more palpable way, the society and its garden became important for the colonial development of France. However, the only scholars who have looked closely at the Zoological Gardens in Regents Park in the nineteenth century and attempted to answer the question "What was the zoo?" are Harriet Ritvo in her book The Animal Estate (1987) and Robert W Jones with his article '"The sight of creatures strange to our clime'" (1997).8 More than anything, according to Ritvo, the Zoological Gardens were a powerful symbol. Principally, they were a symbol of man's mastery over nature, for what can be more powerful than to put wild animals in cages and perhaps even tame them? Since many of the animals came from English colonies the Gardens also became a sym­ bol of imperial and colonial possessions and, in consequence, a symbol of the mastery of colonial nature.9 Last, but not least, because of restrictions in membership to the Society and admission to the Gardens, they became a symbol of social hegemony. Jones mostly agrees with Ritvo; in his view, the animals in the Gardens were primarily not seen as animals by the Victorian public but as symbols and signs of imperialism and commodities. He does however admit that while it was possible for the public to look at the animals in this way, the relationship between the observer and the zoo animal was complex and very individual and that other reasons, like Natural Theology, could moti­ vate the public to go to the Gardens. The Gardens can undeniably be interpreted in all these ways but in my opinion these symbolic values are perhaps more unconscious than prima­ rily Ritvo claims and other characteristics of the Gardens more tangible. It is important to keep in mind that zoological gardens and the animals they contain are not only symbols, which they are repeatedly interpreted as, but also material entities that arouse curiosity, awe and fascination. It is one of the aims of this dissertation to find out how the public and the Society itself conceived the Zoological Gardens as part of a cultural and scientific institution. It is indisputable that most relationships between humans and animals can be seen as an expression of man's mastery of nature, albeit perhaps not KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 19 as forcefully as in the Zoological Gardens where animals were put in cages. It must also be noted, as can be seen in the zoo history below, that the zoo­ logical garden is a time-tested symbol of power. But to explain the zoologi­ cal garden of the nineteenth century merely in terms of power and control is somewhat one-sided and, in my opinion, the mastery demonstrated in the zoological garden is o ften more of a side-effect. As I interpret it, the Zoological Society's k eeping of animals does not primarily stem from an explicit intent to demonstrate mastery over nature but that other reasons, for example scientific curiosity, are more fundamental. The Gardens serve as a more evident symbol of the British Empire, as described in Chapter two, since this is stated in the Society's prospectuses. However, one can wonder if these statements were not primarily due to the influence of Raffles, who, as a colonial employee, was very much aware of the cut-throat race for valuable colonies. I also believe that even though the Gardens indeed became a symbol of the British Empire, it was primarily not in the sense of Ritvos interpretation. The Zoological Gardens made use of the established imperial networks by begging for favours from employees of the East India Company, Hud- sons Bay Company and the Admiralty. As described in Chapter two, the Society even received official support from the Foreign Office in its early years. The imperial infrastructure provided unlimited resources on a global scale for those who were able to use it.10 Hence, the Gardens became a symbol of various colonies. But in this sense, the animals of the Gardens were more of a physical embodiment of the nature of the colonies than symbols of colonial repression. This imperial interpretation of the Zoologi­ cal Gardens is also closer to Jones'. Coupled with the context of written descriptions of the animals' original habitat a single lion or orang-utan could be used to invoke feelings of awe, exoticism and otherness. In this instance, according to Jones, the Gardens can be seen as having an impor­ tant "hegemonic function within the colonial culture".11 The Gardens were also a symbol of social hegemony, but so were most scientific societies in the early nineteenth century, and it would almost have been more remarkable if the Society had exercised no restriction in admis­ sion at all. When the Gardens became more firmly established within the public mind in the 1850s, they were opened to the general public with a reduced admission fee once a week to further increase the influx of public. But, as will be described in the third chapter, even when the Gardens were 20 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK supposed to be closed to the public prior to this it was not hard to gain admission if one was prepared to pay a shilling. It is my view that the Gardens were not so much an expression of either mastery or hegemony, as of science. And by this I mean science in a broad definition, not the 'hard-core' science that needs an institutional framework and social recognition, but rather knowledge on a more general level. The Gardens were founded as an integral part of a scientific society and their initial purpose was scientific more than anything else. Here, the Zoological Society would provide Britons with new kinds of meat through acclimatisation and all kinds of zoological knowledge. The possibilities seemed endless. But, as the dissertation shows, these hopes were not to be fulfilled and thus the Gardens became rather a symbol of'hard-core' science and as such a symbol, a vehicle of popular natural history. Even if this was not the Soci­ ety's initial purpose for the Gardens, I believe that the most important part that they came to play was to mediate zoological knowledge, to a greater or smaller degree of course, to their general public. This would naturally not have been possible had the Gardens not been so popular. The public came in enormous numbers in the 1850s and thus the scientific character of the Gardens had a reciprocal effect. As will be seen below, it was important for nineteenth-century Britons that their entertainments were not only enjoyable but elevating as well. Because of their scientific character, the Gardens could be seen as a guiltless pleasure since they were instructive in their very nature.

Reconstructing the Ark For some reason, man always seems to have kept animals for purposes other than food and clothing.12 It is believed that animals in prehistoric time were kept for religious purposes, that the animal was revered as the incarna­ tion of a god before being ritually killed. But soon the reasons for keeping animals captive became more profane. Records of menageries owned by kings and queens in the ancient cultures of Assyria, Egypt, India and China strongly suggest that the animals were in several ways seen as symbols of power and strength. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 21

The animals were themselves powerful (especially predators such as big cats) which made the rulers even more powerful for being able to control them. The predators could also be used as executioners for more direct demonstrations of power. When the animals were gifts from foreigners they became an example of the political power of the ruler, thus seen to be wor­ thy of such exquisite gifts. And when the ruler had collected them they became symbols of his economic power since he could afford to perform such expensive operations. Animals also had the advantage of reproduction, thus enhancing their own value. A more scientific interest in animals seems to have been evinced by the Greeks, and by the fourth century B.C. every large Greek city was equipped with a sizeable collection of animals. The animals had thus begun to move away from the tradition of the spectacle of power, and were now scientific objects; this practice was followed in Alexandria where Ptolemy I founded what would become the worlds largest menagerie to date.13 These two elements, science and spectacle, were strangely united dur­ ing the Roman Empire. On the one hand there was great interest in collec­ tions of animals, mainly birds, and Varro's aviary is especially famous, but on the other there were also the circuses. The Roman emperors all tried to outdo one another at the arenas to please the public and demonstrate their power. This resulted in vast animal collections and considerable knowledge of how to care for them, but the ultimate purpose was to kill them in the most spectacular way possible. Caligula for example celebrated his acces­ sion to the throne by pitting 400 bears against 400 African predators. During a great deal of the history of Western Europe exotic animals were used as status symbols, entertainment and commodities. Even if the purposes of animal collections might vary there were a surprising number of exotic animals in Europe by the end of the fifteenth century and there were still more to come. The exploration of the New World brought immense riches to Spain and Portugal, not the least through the diplomatic and scientific importance of Caribbean and South American birds and beasts.14 When Cortés arrived at the city of Tenochtidàn in 1519, his troops found more than precious metals. Behind Montezuma's palace there was a menagerie with bronze cages containing pumas and jaguars; a myriad of monkeys, sloths and armadillos appeared before their eyes. Artificial ponds contained fish and birds and there were keepers whose only job was to col­ lect feathers for ceremonial robes. However, the splendour was not to last: 22 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Cortes besieged the city and the hungry inhabitants had to resort to eating the menagerie animals. The few that were left when the conqueror finally invaded the city were killed and the aviaries torched. By destroying the menagerie, Cortes not only destroyed a significant symbol of Montezuma's power but also laid waste an important part of the Aztec royal and aristo­ cratic culture. A change in the purpose of menageries emerged with Louis XIV who started a collection of animals at Versailles in 1663. The animals were still symbols of power but this was something more than a power to subdue cit­ izens or subjects. The menagerie had become part of a show of power, which would prove that Louis was the ruler of Nature itself. With the aid of greenhouses and orangeries, the king was able to serve choice vegetables, berries and fruit out of season, thus making himself king of the climate as well.15 Louis loved architecture and planned large parts of the park at Ver­ sailles. For some time it had been common practice to have cages placed about the parks so that the animals or birds they contained provided a pleasant surprise during a walk, but Louis had greater architectural ambi­ tions. He designed a menagerie that would harmonise with the layout of the park and it was here that a circular shape was used for the first time in a menagerie. Fan-shaped enclosures radiated from a central octagonal pavil­ ion and it became possible to order nature in a way previously unat- tempted.16 And even though the primary aim of the menagerie was entertainment and visual pleasure, the Académie de Sciences, through Claude Perrault, made it a project to dissect and study every animal that died.17 This scientific exchange between the Versailles menagerie and the Académie seems to have been the first time there was organised co-opera- tion between a menagerie and the scientific community. Other menageries throughout Europe were certainly used by both anatomists and painters but the supply of animals was then more unreliable; you had to take what was handed to you. But this was about to change at the turn of the eigh­ teenth century, at least in theory. Another other royal m enagerie, besides Versailles, that would have a long-lasting effect on European zoos was the Austrian Schönbrunn. There had been animal collections at that location since 1573 and in the eigh­ teenth century quite a few collection expeditions were aimed at stocking KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 23 the menagerie. Apart from being unusually well stocked, Schönbrunn was also open to the public who did not have to pay admission, which was quite rare for royal menageries.18

Jardin des Plantes The menagerie at Versailles deteriorated under the rule of Louis XV and Louis XVI who were not interested in animals, since menageries were no longer fashionable. However, the remains of the collection still managed to upset the citizens of the revolution, mainly because of its royal connection but also because it was rumoured that the animals were better-fed than the Parisians themselves. The menagerie was stormed in 1789 by an angry mob demanding that the animals be slaughtered to feed the hungry masses. In this way, the menagerie ceased to be solely a symbol of royal power. As in the case of Cortes and Montezuma's menagerie the zoological garden had shown that it could assume political dimensions as well. Some of the Versailles animals were killed, some set free, but the pred­ ators and the rhinoceros could not be dealt with in any of these ways. They were instead transferred to the well-known botanical garden Jardin des Plantes, previously named Jardin du Roi, and this became the beginning of the famous zoological garden at that location. Confiscated animals owned by aristocrats and street-performers further increased the zoological collec­ tions. Perhaps because the animals were relocated to an institution already devoted to science they came to serve a mainly scientific purpose at the Jar- din as well. Eventually the establishment at the Jardin came to resemble the Alexandrine Museion equipped with dissection-rooms, a museum of natu­ ral history, a botanical garden, a zoological garden and living quarters for the employed naturalists. Quite deliberately the purpose of the garden was to envision a sort of natural Utopia, to portray the order of things in the French capital and facilitate the moral growth of the Parisians.19 By the 1820s the Jardin was at the peak of its fame and an example to all other European menageries and zoological gardens. A contemporary work on the institution thus proclaimed:

Of all our institutions for public instruction the Museum of natural history is, without doubt, one of the most useful and the most worthy of admiration. All the natural sciences are there taught, and illustrated 24 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

by extensive collections, so disposed as to facilitate study and afford the means of immediate comparison.20

Jardin des Plantes was the only serious model for Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles when he envisioned the Zoological Gardens.

Menageries in Britain The first menageries in England belonged to the king, as was customary in the rest of Europe. Henry I founded a menagerie at Woodstock in Oxford­ shire in the twelvth century and when it was eventually passed on to Henry III in the thirteenth century, he moved it to London and the Tower. As usual it was royal gifts that stocked the menagerie. Henry III received for example three leopards from Frederick II of Worms (his brother-in-law) and a famous elephant, the first to ever be seen in England, from Louis IX (his son-in-law). The citizens of London were burdened with paying for the upkeep of the animals, but since it seems that the menagerie was open to the public very early no one appears to have complained. By 1800 the menagerie, continually restocked by means of gifts, included no less th an seven lions, one elephant, a leopard and a large number of monkeys.21 There were also royal menageries located at St James's Park, Kew, Rich­ mond, Osterley and Windsor at various times. The animals in the menag­ erie at Windsor were eventually donated to the Zoological Society. The menagerie at the Tower thus seems to have been open to the pub­ lic but this was not the case with most royal menageries. They were closely locked up, for only a select few to see, and the general public had to con­ tent themselves for a long time with travelling menageries. These were often of very poor quality and as residents, the animals were not safe from being pitted against each other or forced to perform a variety of tricks. These menageries were often combined with other performances by acro­ bats, foreign "savages" or "freaks". Another paradise for someone interested in animals could be a shop that dealt with "curious animals" where the pro­ prietor might be persuaded to show his collections for a small fee.22 However, this was about to change, at least in London. The Tower menagerie could already be viewed by the public for sixpence and in the eighteenth century Pidcock's Exhibition of Wild Beasts opened at the Exeter 'Change at the Strand.23 This would eventually evolve into Edward KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE

Cross' Royal Grand National Menagerie and be hailed as "the most exten­ sive and curious in the world".24 Cross' menagerie would come to include many famous animals, of which Chunee was the most famous, and it was frequented by artists and the nobility alike. Still, even though these stationary menageries were popular, especially Cross', they were in no way ideal when it came to animal management as the story of Chunee shows. A contemporary London guidebook reported in 1828 that the menagerie at Exeter 'Change was:

about to be removed to the Regent's Park, where it is hoped, the wretched subjects will enjoy more room and better air; and be viewed without the pain which their present confinement inflicts on every beholder.25

But, as discussed in Chapter two, this collaboration between Cross and the Zoological Society did not work out and Cross eventually moved the menagerie to a location south of the Thames and opened the Surrey Zoo­ logical Garden, as described in Chapter three. As can be seen from the descriptions above, the Zoological Society did have plenty of examples of encouragement such as the Jardin des Plantes and of discouragement such as the Exeter 'Change menagerie. The Zoolog­ ical Gardens at Regent's Park may not have been quite the alternative to Exeter 'Change that was intended by the Council, but at least the original aims of the Gardens were designed to make it radically different from any­ thing else of its kind in London by the end of the 1820s.

Followers and Disciples Despite humble beginnings of only two birds and a deer, the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London soon became a model for many Euro­ pean gardens. When zoological gardens were founded on the European continent in the 1840s and later, the Zoological Gardens had already super­ seded their prototype, Jardin des Plantes, and so these gardens probably took their cue from London rather than Paris. There seems to have been some kind of English zoological garden- boom following the establishment of the Zoological Society's Gardens. As described in Chapter three, menagerie-owner Edward Cross founded the Surrey Zoological Gardens in 1831 (closed in 1856). In Liverpool Thomas 26 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Atkins, a showman like Cross, created the Liverpool Zoological Garden in 1832 (closed in 1863). Manchester had for a time not one, but two, zoologi­ cal gardens: Manchester Zoological Garden (1838-1842) and Belle Vue Zoo (1836-1977). Additional gardens were opened in Edinburgh (1839—1855), Bristol (1835-) and Hull (1840-1860). As can be seen, most of these gardens did not survive the nineteenth century, but during their lifetime some of them co-operated closely with the Zoological Society in London. The Manchester garden seems to have had high-flying scientific aims but because of poor finances had to close after just four years. On the other hand, its rival, Belle Vue Zoo, drew suffi­ cient crowds with not just animals but dance halls, race tracks, boxing and flower shows as well. So, mirroring the competition between the Zoological Gardens and Surrey Zoological Gardens (discussed in Chapter three) it was the more lowbrow institution that got the upper hand in Manchester.26 The Edinburgh Zoological Garden attracted the attention of the Scot­ tish community and was soon supported by not only the aristocracy but well-known naturalists like Sir William Jardine as well. After only a few years t he garden was p roudly reported to have the same success with the rearing of animals as the zoological gardens of London and Paris. The Zoo­ logical Society presented Edinburgh with an Arabian camel among other animals, but the main attraction was the skeleton of a blue whale captured outside Dunbar. However, despite good revenues the garden was sold in 1857. The new owners were apparendy not particularly interested in caring for the animals but built a hall for entertainments and concerts instead. This caused the highbrow public to withdraw their support and the garden soon had to close.27 Apart from the Gardens of the Zoological Society, the most long-lived European zoo is the Dublin Zoological Garden, founded in 1831. It also seems to be the zoological garden that has had the most intense co-opera- tion with the Zoological Society. Like the Zoological Society, one of its ini­ tial aims was that the collection of animals would be devoted to acclimatisation. Early on, the Dublin Society also received the aid of Nicholas Vigors, secretary of the Zoological Society, being Irish himself. He attended quite a few of the early meetings of the Managing Committee and also recommended the services of Decimus Burton, the architect of the Zoological Society in London. Dublin's early collections were mainly based on a donation from the London Society, c onsisting primarily of animals KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 27 from the Windsor Menagerie originally donated to the Zoological Society by William IV. Eight years after the founding of the Dublin society, Queen Victoria consented to become patron and it thus became the Royal Zoolog­ ical Society of Ireland.28 Why public zoological gardens flourished in Britain but took a while longer to establish themselves on the continent is difficult to ascertain. There were quite a few royal institutions containing animals but the British tradition of creating societies and thus supporting gardens with members' fees was not common. Biologist Harro Strehlow is of the opinion that this can be explained by the early and rapid industrialisation in Britain that both distanced people from nature and at the same time gave them the means to remedy this.29 The first continental successor of the Zoological Society was the Amsterdam Natura Artis Magistra, founded ten years after the London Society. This society founded the zoological garden with the same name and, following the London pattern, restricted admission to members of the society. A scientific periodical was started as well as a library. But even though the popular aspect of the Amsterdam garden was very similar to that in London—Artis was located in a recreation area called the Plantage and frequented by the bourgeois—the successor eventually superseded the precursor when it came to science and, perhaps more important, educa­ tion. In 1876 Artis became largely responsible for providing teaching pre­ mises and collections for the Municipal University of Amsterdam. This co­ operation meant that students of zoology at the University had access to the society's museum collections, library, garden and aquarium.30 The second continental garden was undoubtedly inspired by the Zoo­ logical Gardens but was founded by a stockholding company and not a society. Professor Martin Lichtenstein, stimulated by a visit to the Zoologi­ cal Gardens in 1832, created the Berlin Zoological Garden in 1844 financed by donations from Wilhelm IV. Initially the garden contained very few buildings and though such were subsequently added the garden kept its original character of a country walk with wooded areas, hills and narrow foot paths. As in the case of Amsterdam, the Berlin garden closely co-oper­ ated with Berlin's university and museum.31 28 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Principle Themes and Issues As stated earlier this is a study where four different perspectives of the Zoo­ logical Gardens are synthesised to display a sort of big picture of the Gar­ dens. The chapters do have many common denominators, not least in the public of the Gardens, but since they all have different points of origin it is necessary to sketch a variety of contexts and backgrounds. What characters must be fixed for an establishment such as this?

The Founding of a Society As seen above, there was no shortage of animal exhibits in London at the beginning of the nineteenth century. However, Sir Stamford Raffles an d Humphry Davy did not aim at a commercial menagerie but a society devoted to science in the tradition of the Royal and Linnean societies. But, as Chapter two shows, the establishment of a new society was not always easy. What was the Zoological Society's relation to its immediate forerun­ ners, the Linnean Society and the its Zoological Club? How did the founders, Raffles and Davy, affect the shape of the Zoological Society? In connection with the founding of a scientific society in early nine­ teenth-century London it becomes necessary to attempt a discussion about the problematic concepts of "amateur" and "professional". These notions are particularly difficult in the early zoological nineteenth-century context and Adrian Desmond states: "Even getting an embedded, localised defini­ tion of professional' in Victorian times is itself b ecoming the problematic in the history of biology."32 Paid zoological professions did not exist in London during the 1820s and '30s and not even the most famous of the Society's "scientific" members, Richard Owen and Robert Grant, were edu­ cated zoologists, but originally physicians.33 Hence, one cannot speak about professional zoologists and by this mean people who were paid to do zoological work—the sole exception to this being those hired by the British Museum to work with the natural his­ tory collections.34 Nor was it the aim of the Society to offer salaried posi­ tions. A professional zoologist or naturalist was instead formed of various components of which perhaps the most important one was the social and scientific network of which he (very seldom a she) was part. This, in turn, KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE also meant that there was a difference in the approach towards and knowl­ edge about natural history between amateurs and professionals. Raffles started out as an amateur naturalist, which means that he was interested but not very knowledgeable and without a scientific network. When his knowledge increased via contact with persons like Joseph Banks and his "empire" of natural history, Raffles' approach towards natural his­ tory consequendy changed and he slowly developed a more professional attitude coupled with a place in Banks' empire. This also means that many of those involved in the early work of the Society—N.A. Vigors, Thomas Horsfield, Edward Bennett and William Broderip—could in this respect be called professional naturalists. But the Society also wanted to attract persons who were not necessarily accomplished naturalists but who could prove useful in other respects, mainly by bringing money and status to the Society—persons such as Raf­ fles' friend the Duke of Somerset and the Marquis of Lansdowne, cousin of William IV. This was a strategy successfully carried out years before in the Royal Society by Joseph Banks, and there were other traditions that both the Zoological and other societies inherited from this mother of all English scientific societies.35 In the first place, the Royal Society (f. 1660) was a private society, pri­ marily funded by subscriptions and donations from its members, and the Zoological Society adopted the exact same method of funding in addition to the admissions from the Gardens. A London-based society centralised scientific work and information, thereby effectively p reventing everyone who could not come to the capital at regular intervals from exerting any real influence. The Royal Society moreover early demonstrated the impor­ tance of being able to publish a scientific periodical.36 Through a periodi­ cal, corresponding members could communicate with the centre and it was possible to control the information that was transmitted from the society. This was implemented fairly early in the Zoological Society through both Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London and Transactions of the Zoolog­ ical Society of London. Through the Royal and Linnean (f. 1788) societies, the Zoological thus had two excellent models where the organisation of societies was concerned. 30 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Zoo and the City The early Society was founded in a London that was Regency in character but by the 1850s th e Victorian setting was firmly in place. What was the importance of this urban location to the Gardens? By being placed in the royal Regent s Park, the Zoological Gardens were not too far away from the London centre, yet secluded enough to offer recreation from the capital's hurly-burly. Throughout the nineteenth century Regent s Park, as primarily described in Chapter three, acquired the character of a pleasure garden popular among the London public. Here one could find the Colosseum filled with various delights—among them a panorama—Daugerre's diorama, the botanical gardens of the Botanic Society (f. 1838) and the grounds of the Toxophilite Society.37 The Regency London where the Zoological Society was established was a city well aware of its specifically urban qualities. It was hence impor­ tant that London became a city which could make its inhabitants proud and its visitors dazzled.38 A contemporary London guidebook puts it like this:

it is resorted to by persons from every civilized country under Heaven, and the abiding-place of him who wishes to enjoy life, advance his for­ tune, or further his progress in Arts, Sciences, Literature, or any other pursuit that ennobles man, and dignifies his nature. In architectural grandeur, London, is the most magnificent and beautiful city in the world.39

The importance of London as an imperial metropolis became evident dur­ ing the beginning of the nineteenth century, and many changes were initi­ ated within the city to prove this. According to John Summerson in his Georgian London (1962) this was the only time that a grand plan had been devised for the whole city and for the most part realised.40 The persons who made this possible were the Prince Regent, the future George IV, and the architect John Nash. The contemporary book Metropol­ itan Improvements (1828) says enthusiastically:

The reign and regency of George the Fourth have scarcely done less, for the vast and increasing Metropolis of the British Empire: by increasing its magnificence and its comforts, by forming healthy streets and elegant buildings, instead of pestilential alleys and squalid hovels; by substituting rich and varied architecture and park-like seen- KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 5'

ery, for paltry cabins and monotonous cow-lairs, by making solid roads and public ways.. .4l

This was however not an act of philanthropy but one of the princes attempts to satisfy his taste for beauty and it was Nash who fulfilled it. Regent Street and Regent s Park became central parts of this London makeover. The area, with Regent s Park in the north and St. James's in the south, was cleaned up and was considered a change of sanitary and social, as well as aesthetic, conditions.42 Thus, as was Nashs specific intention, Regent Street became a "social barrier":

a complete separation between the streets and squares occupied by the Nobility and Gentry, and the narrow Streets and meaner Houses occupied by mechanics and the trading parts of the community.43

Like rational recreation, as discussed in the third chapter, parks were seen as something beneficial for the working class.44 When urban development progressed, the urbanités needed these "lungs of London" but as was the case w ith rational recreation it was not primarily the working class that profited from Londons early parks. Victoria Park, opened in 1846, was the first London park to be completely public from the start. Regent s Park was instead to be the perfect garden city, including within its bounds a church, a "Valhalla" and a Royal pavilion. But not even the royal coffers were bot­ tomless and Nash was ordered to limit his ambitions somewhat, which he grudgingly agreed to do.45 The opinions on the result were nonetheless positive and the Park was seen as a "rural city of almost eastern magnificence".46 One of the persons who moved in to the Park was John Burton, father of architect Decimus Burton. Decimus came to design several buildings within the Park, for example the Colosseum and the Botanic Gardens, and later became the official architect of the Society as described in Chapter two.47 It is therefore likely that the location of the newly established Zoologi­ cal Society's Gardens in the Park was a step in the right direction. Not only would there now be an establishment, the menagerie, that fulfilled the Park's purpose "to contribute to the healthfulness, beauty and advantage of that quarter of the Metropolis", but also something that would hopefully rival France's Jardin des Plantes, Paris being the only European city to seri­ ously compete with London at the time.48 32 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

Zoo and Science Since most of the historical accounts of zoological gardens denote the Soci­ ety's Gardens as one of the first zoos with an expressed scientific purpose, and in this case alluding to 'hard-core science, it is particularly interesting that Adrian Desmond dismisses the concept of the Society's Gardens being scientific.49 The fifth chapter focuses on the place of the Gardens in the Society's scientific activities. Did the Society acquire a scientific advantage through the Gardens and if so, how was this advantage utilised? What kinds of animals were used in scientific investigations and were all members equally interested in using the animals in the Gardens for scientific pur­ poses? However, the science of the Zoological Society was zoology, a part of natural history, and in the history of science it has been common to view natural history as something primitive, medieval and amateurish, which during the nineteenth century was slowly being engulfed by the more pro­ fessional "biology".50 Biology was a more experimentally oriented science, concerned mosdy with the modern discipline of physiology. Biologists were interested in the functional processes within an organism, for example nutrition, while the naturalists still wanted to classify and organise the living world. Natural history was thus the subject of more descriptive sciences, in the first place taxonomy (the science of the classification of the animal and plant king­ dom) and morphology (the outer and inner anatomy of an animal). Both of these sciences, taxonomy and morphology, were based prima­ rily on dissections and the investigation of museum specimens. The accusa­ tions of Joshua Brookes in connection with the death of Chunee and the survey of the Proceedings in Chapter five further points to the enormous importance of post mortems in nineteenth-century zoology. Still, this did not mean that natural history was devoid of more complex and philosophi­ cal issues but since biology established itself as a more exact science, in line with physics and chemistry, its scientific status was heightened compared to that of natural history. In spite of this, it is a gross over-simplification to contrast 'amateurish' natural history with 'professional' biology during the nineteenth century. As Paul Färber has shown in Discovering Birds (1997) with ornithology as a case study and in Finding Order in Nature (2000), natural history went KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 33 through a series of transformations and fragmentations and these disci­ plines and sub-disciplines constitute what today is termed biology. The first breach occurred between geology, botany and zoology, which, as the second half of the eighteenth century progressed, became more and more separated into autonomous areas of investigation. During the nineteenth century these areas were further diversified; ornithology and entomology were for example some of the first zoological sub-disciplines to develop, and finally natural history was thought an altogether too unspecific term and biology was applied instead. Thus, natural history and biology existed alongside each other for a large part of the nineteenth century, and even though they were often on opposing sides they could also be made to co-operate, as this quotation by T. Spencer Cobbold, M.D. from the Proceedings of the Zoolog­ ical Society of London suggests:

zoological science should not be allowed to resemble an eviscerated carcass, but its proportions should be shaped and its constituent parts welded together by data gathered from every phase of biological inquiry, though this may occasionally involve a prominent recognition of deep-seated anatomical appearances, and sometimes even extend to purely chemico-vital manifestations.51

However, natural history too had its internal arguments. The field natural­ ists had slowly been moving away from naturalists who sought the ordering principles of life or did extensive comparative research.52 While the field naturalist wanted to study nature in all its grandeur, the laboratory natural­ ist wanted to isolate separate factors of this grandeur. The field naturalist needed everything within its context, the laboratory naturalist wanted to study things outside their context.53 Georges Cuvier was of the opinion that it was more worthwhile to get an overview of nature, only possible in a museum such as the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle at the Parisian Jardin des Plantes.54 Richard Owen was on the other hand very much aware that laboratory naturalists like himself and Cuvier depended on the field naturalist, without whom there would be no specimens to examine.55 However, this did not mean that Owen was any more appreciative of the conditions in the field than Cuvier. He emphasised the importance of cor­ rect preservation and labelling, something that was not always possible, and seems only to have been interested in the procuring of specimens that could be examined in England by himself or other naturalists.56 34 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

This attitude is echoed by naturalist William Swainson who stated: "It is not necessary that a zoological collector should be a scientific naturalist; or that he should understand any other than the practical or mechanical parts of the science."57 A more generous approach towards fieldwork and fieldworkers was shown in the New World. At the Smithsonian, Spencer Fullerton Baird, assistant secretary in charge of natural history, fully appre­ ciated the importance of meticulous fieldwork and hence managed to sub­ stantially increase the Smithsonian's collections during the 1850s and '60s.58

Zoo and the Public Even though periodicals have not been utilised to any great extent as histor­ ical sources in attempts to fix the character of a specific period in the past, their use is especially motivated in regard to the Victorian age. For a variety of reasons, for example more advanced technology and distribution and lower prices, periodicals became very important and widely read in Victo­ rian England. A close reading of Victorian periodicals reveals not only the interdisciplinary quality of the period but also an increasing professional­ ism as the nineteenth century continues.59 It can be safely assumed that an institution repeatedly mentioned in Victorian periodicals and newspapers was also an institution that people talked about. It is these sources that make the supposedly beneficial character of the Zoological Gardens most visible and there are many articles pointing out that the Gardens were not only amusing but instructive as well. The fifth chapter shows, with Chapter four in the background, that even though the Gardens were not actively used for scientific research to any large degree, they were regarded as a source of knowledge by the public. This, coupled with the notion of "rational recreation" which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter three, made the Gardens a very well-liked resort in mid-Victo­ rian London. The public of the Gardens has a significant part to play in this disserta­ tion. As the discussion of the Society's initial aim for the Gardens in Chap­ ter two shows, the Society wanted to attract a very particular audience. Who comprised this early public and what measures did the Society take to attract it? When the Society's admission policy for the Gardens became more liberal in the late 1840s, as described in Chapter three, what was the reaction and did the Society's initial purpose regarding the Gardens change KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 35 because of this? This chapter also describes the rival institution of the Sur­ rey Zoological Garden, which included many other popular exhibits besides the animals such as fireworks and balloon ascents. How did the Society view this establishment and were any efforts made to compete with it? By publishing guidebooks, the Society made a concession to the non- specialist public of the Gardens. But what did these guidebooks reveal about the Society's attitude towards their public? This aspect of the Gar­ dens and their public is examined in detail in Chapter four. During the Victorian period, a large part of the Gardens' public came from the middle class and it was principally the middle class that enjoyed rational recreation. This was especially a pparent in the popular notion of natural history.60 Within this type of natural history one would find an emphasis on not the scientific, but rather the aesthetic (or even monetary) value of, for example, a collection of natural objects. This interest often expressed itself as a series of "crazes" for aquariums or ferns, but the under­ lying enthusiasm was constant, or even gaining momentum well into the second half of the nineteenth century. The British Consul of Fiji and Tonga in the 1870s, Edgar Lyard, states:

No one but he who has experienced it can appreciate the relief to turn from official squabbles and the pettiness, heartburnings, and jealousies of a small community to the tranquil study of Nature.61

But why was natural history so popular outside the scientific community? Paul Färber answers this question by pointing to three important character­ istics of natural history: "religious significance, economic importance, and aesthetic value".62 For the general public, the economic aspect of natural history was probably not as important as the religious one, but it was pri­ marily the economy that made governments interested in the subject as well. As described in Chapter two natural history, mainly botany, played a large part in the colonial pursuits of most European governments but per­ haps most of all the British. The discovery and growing of plants on a com­ mercial level could engender large returns, which could fund further explorations. Two prime examples were rubber and quinine and mosdy because of this the British were very eager t o establish colonial botanical gardens.63 3^ KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

The general popularity of natural history rested instead on its religious implications and this was all thanks to Natural Theology This notion claimed that nature was very consciously designed and that God was the one who had designed it. Thus, by studying nature one studied God at the same time and natural history hence became a religious duty which sparked "feelings of devotion towards the Almighty".64 Also, natural history was something that everyone could study and was considered as especially beneficial for the working class since no special training in, for instance, mathematics was required:

The study of nature, on the other hand, is capable of no such perver­ sion; because its basis is simple truth. The eyes of the young student of nature of nature are directed to objects exposed to his immediate observation, and no deception can be practised.65

But natural history was so much more. The student enjoyed healthy walks, he became fit and active in body as well as in mind, he never lacked occu­ pation and he became less inclined to mistreat animals. Since the study of natural history could be considered as not only educational but morally uplifting as well, it fitted the bill perfectly for the nineteenth-century con­ cept of "rational recreation" and the British middle class. This simply meant that recreation had to be elevating as well as enjoyable, or, as Sketch Book of a Young Naturalist (1831) puts it: "The study of Nature is a source of innocent enjoyment that can never be exhausted."66 The Zoological Gar­ dens fitted snugly into this concept of rational recreation since, as discussed in Chapters three and four, a visit to the Gardens could be seen as instruc­ tive. However, the study of natural history could pose difficulties if one did not have immediate access to nature and as cities grew larger so did this problem. But there was a solution at hand:

It is therefore desirable, if possible, to bring the country into the city, and to form a collection of natural objects in the library or drawing- room, or other convenient place at home.67

But not all collections could be kept in the home, because of lack of space and funds, and it is here we find zoological gardens coming into their own. However, the problematic nature of the zoological garden makes it hard to KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 37 fit it squarely in either of the two trends of natural history. The Society's Zoological Gardens were popular among the public because they offered elevating recreation but popular natural history, as described by Lynn Bar­ ber and David Allen, seems to have been generally more concerned with field studies that could be carried out in the British landscape, i.e. botany, ornithology and entomology rather than exotic mammalology. Hence, the Zoological Gardens neither fitted into the more popular tradition of natural history, nor into the scientific. The Society's original intention was most likely that the Gardens would be of a scientific charac­ ter, but when it came to it, the Gardens were largely treated as a collection of museum specimens and the potential of a collection of living animals was not taken full advantage of. As with many of the local natural history societies that emerged after 1820, the Gardens' prime function became not research but education.68

Education of the Public The natural instructiveness of the Gardens made them an excellent place for conveying popular natural history. But just displaying animals is not enough and this is why visitors were provided with a guidebook. As dis­ cussed in the fourth chapter, the guidebook explains to the public the Soci­ ety's intentions regarding the collections and how they were viewed by the Society. As a vehicle of popular zoology the guidebooks once again make it relevant to pose the question: for whom were the Gardens intended? A great many people have engaged in the discussion of the pros and cons of popular science and its historical development and impact, where a real shift has taken place during the last ten or fifteen years.69 For a long time, popularisation of science was treated in a condescending way, or at least seen as something less th an 'real' or 'true' science, and the need for these popularisations increased as science became more and more special­ ised and therefore harder for the layman to understand. Popular science was disseminated to a uniform public via diffusion, where knowledge seeped or trickled down from a similarly uniform scientific community. This process also meant that the knowledge lost something on its way from the scientists to the public and that popular science was less 'p ure' than 'real' science. The public had no part in this diffusion, other than accepting the information as something derived from a greater scientific 38 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK and absolute truth. And even if popularisations in some way could be seen as beneficial, the public was not deemed competent enough to distinguish between good popularisations and bad ones. Both contemporary and his­ torical popularisations were considered in this way. The early guidebooks and other popular works on the Gardens made sure that there was no ques­ tion of their popular approach and that this approach was different from 'real' science. However, over the last fifteen years the negative views s tated above have been successfully contested. Scholars like Richard Whitley, Steven Shapin, Roger Cooter and Stephen Pumfrey have pointed out that the pro­ cess of popularising science is far more dynamic and reciprocal than the dif­ fusion model suggests. The central point of this criticism is that both scientists and the potential public exist in a society where one inevitably influences the other. Within popular culture, knowledge can be generated that differs from, or indeed contradicts, the work of professional scientists. This includes the kind of knowledge for example described by Anne Secord in her article "Science in the Pub".70 The "independent" knowledge described by Secord is similar to Susan Sheets-Pyensons concept of low sci­ ence (see below), both illuminating how non-scientists develop a canon of their own. Many of todays discussions revolve around the subject of current "public understanding of science" and the subject of historical popular sci­ ence seems to be on hold at the moment, which means that sources in this area are limited. The most useful authority still seems to be Susan Sheets- Pyensons Ph.D.-dissertation from 1976, "Low scientific culture in London and Paris, 1820—1875" and her corresponding article in Annals of Science from 1985. Here, Sheets-Pyenson defines the concepts of high and low sci­ ence which she also links with the different traditions of science in two countries, England and France.71 The English tradition of numerous popular science periodicals resting on the shoulders of enthusiastic editors, mentioned in Chapter five, can be termed low science, instead of popular science. The term low science signi­ fies that it is something more than a mere popularisation of science and it often developes its own scientific canon. The encouragement of the ama­ teur spirit, and indeed an idea of complete scientific equality, was a primary goal for the English periodicals and it was proudly stated: "there is no rea­ son why a hedger and ditcher, or a scavenger, should not have as correct KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 39 opinions and knowledge as a prince or a nobleman."72 The concept of high science was instead fostered in France where popular science periodicals existed but not to the same extent as in England and were written more exclusively within the scientific community. There was greater emphasis that only scientists who were part of a scientific community could engage in scientific activity. However, authors who describe the popular natural history genre, albeit without Sheets-Pyenson's theoretic oudook, during the Victorian period are more numerous. As st ated above, Lynn Barber, Lynn Merrill, David Allen and Bernard Lightman are some of those who place the genre of natural history within the early Victorian ideal of rational recreation.73 Still, both Barber and Merrill focus on more or less professional naturalists such as T.H. Huxley or P.H. Gosse and only Lightman emphasises the importance of professional popularisers, mosdy journalists. He also hints as to why these popularisers may not have been recognised before:

Their success as popularizers was partially due to their ability to present the huge mass of scientific fact in the form of compelling sto­ ries, parables, and lessons, fraught with cosmic significance.74

The guidebooks of the Zoological Gardens are not stories in this sense but have been treated in a similarly unkind manner. Just as children's books have been deemed too simple to be bothered with by many historians out­ side the field of literature, so has the guides been judged as uninteresting and uncomplicated. In view of this discussion, I would like to suggest that the guidebooks are books of popular science, since they are aimed at visi­ tors in the Gardens, a lay audience, but bearing in mind that this populari­ sation is not part of a simple process of diffusion.

Disposition of the Dissertation After the Introduction, the second chapter thus recapitulates the early years of the Society and the Gardens. The original aims of the Society—science and acclimatisation located in a museum and garden—as stated in various prospectuses, are examined. The implications of acclimatisation, it being a problematic practice, are oudined and the connections between acclimati­ sation, the Society, the Gardens and the British Empire are also briefly con­ 40 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK sidered. The founding of the Gardens is described at some length as well as how the animals were obtained and how exhibits were arranged. Apart from the Gardens, the other main establishments of the Society, a museum and a farm, are investigated and discussed. The third chapter is primarily based on the popular response to the Gardens in the 1850s when, after a period of decline, the institution once again became a common London resort. The most important questions of this chapter concern the public and how it reacted to the Gardens during this period. The financial problems preceding the five years between 1850 and 1855 are described, as well as how the Society managed to regain its popularity. This process was closely linked to the decision in 1847 to let non-members of the Society enter the Gardens and the implications of this resolution are discussed. As a background to the Gardens' popularity, two other London recreations are also described: the Colosseum Panorama and the Surrey Zoological Garden. The Surrey Zoological Garden is especially interesting, being a rival of the Society's Gardens, and the different attrac­ tions of these establishments are considered. The fourth chapter focuses on the official and non-official guidebooks to the Gardens and the implications of these as mediators of popular zool­ ogy. The historical and cultural connection between the guidebook and the travel handbooks is o utlined and also how the genre as a whole is con­ structed. The progress and development of the Society's guidebooks during the nineteenth century is described and the differences between these guidebooks and the non-official ones are examined. Finally, with the aid of Victorian children's books, the guidebook is literally considered as a travel handbook since a visit to the Gardens can be seen as a journey of knowl­ edge through these stories. The fifth chapter is an in-depth study of the zoological science of the Gardens. The scientific work of the Society is briefly described, starting with the Committee of Science and Correspondence, and the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. The Proceedings reports that base their findings on animals in the Gardens are then described together with small detours into the history of taxonomy and morphology. The results of the fifth chapter reinforce those in Chapter three and can in fact be said to underline the entire dissertation. The Gardens did not get nearly as much print-space in the scientific community as they did in popular and general magazines and newspapers. Even though the initial KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 41 purpose of the Gardens may well have been 'hard-core' science, the purpose that they eventually came to serve was more popular but no less important. One may even talk about the internal and external purposes of the Gar­ dens. The internal purposes were the ones that served the Society and in the beginning of the Gardens' history they were predominant, mainly owing to the acclimatisation efforts. But when these efforts did not achieve the expected results the external, or perhaps public, purposes began to take over. By the time of the Gardens' heyday in the 1850s th ey served almost entirely external purposes, their sole internal use being the revenues from admissions together with providing an excellent public front for the Soci­ ety.

Notes on Definitions The third chapter revolves around the "High Noon of Victorianism", the years between the 1840s and late 1870s.75 But when exacdy does the Victo­ rian period occur?76 There have been many attempts to clarify this concept in a variety of ways. The most simple and straightforward explanation is that the Victorian period extends from Victoria's accession to the throne in 1837 to her death in 1901. Some want it to begin in 1832 with the Reform Bill while others see the end of the Napoleonic ^JCàrs in 1815 as a fitting start. Still others think the concept should apply loosely to the whole of the nineteenth century. Since exact dates are not quite so important in a study that is more interested in the culture and character of a period, I use "Victorian" in the first sense, i.e. as corresponding to the length of Victoria's reign. Another concept, equally problematic and complex, that is regularly used in this dis­ sertation and in most works concerning the Victorian period, is "middle class". In this case as well, I am better served by a simpler definition since I am not writing a dissertation focused on class o r social conditions. The middle class is a notoriously heterogeneous group, consisting of "clerical workers, those engaged in technical and professional occupations, supervi­ sors and managers, and self-employed workers, such as small shopkeep­ ers".77 Income may vary widely between the different middle-class groups, but when I refer to middle or upper middle class I principally mean people 42 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK with an income that makes it possible for the family to visit the Gardens regularly on one shilling-days, i.e. somewhere between £200 and £300 per annum.78

Zoological Garden or Menagerie? Even though historical accounts of zoological gardens have become more and more common, they are still scarce. With the exception of the above- mentioned works, they are often rather narrowly concerned with individual gardens and thus become a sort of institutional history, with little regard for the cultural impact of the zoological garden, like Let the Lions Roar! The Evolution ofBrookfield Zoo (1997) and Zoo Without Bars: The Story of Ches­ ter Zoo (1974).79 Most books on zoos contain one or more historical chap­ ters, for example Vicki Croke s The Modern Ark: The Story of Zoos: Past, Present and Future (1997) and A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future (2001) by David Hancocks. However, since pre-nineteenth-century source material on this subject is limited, these chapters are often quite alike in character and seldom mediate infor­ mation than cannot be found in the classical French work by Gustave Loisel, Histoire des ménageries de Vantiqui a nos jours (1912).80 The most comprehensive works in this area are the recent anthologies New Worlds, New Animals: From Menageries to Zoological Park in the Nine­ teenth Century (1996), edited by R.J. Hoage and William Deiss, and Vernon Kisling s Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens (2001). Both books contain a number of chapters that describe the progress of not only European and American zoos but Australian and Asian ones as well. Of these two anthologies, only Kisling tries to oudine the dif­ ference between a "menagerie" and "zoological garden". Menagerie is an appropriate word for older collections where:

as many species as possible are exhibited, animals are exhibited in tax- onomically arranged rows of barred cages, staff is somewhat knowl­ edgeable about animals, and there are limited education and science programs; the main emphasis is on recreation or entertainment.81

On the other hand, zoological gardens are more developed institutions since they have: KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 43

more naturalistic animal exhibits arranged ecologically or zoogeo- graphically, staff that is increasingly knowledgeable about animals, and improved education, research, and conservation programs.82

In my opinion, however, this is a somewhat idealised view since for exam­ ple not even in the twentyfirst century does London Zoo exhibit only eco­ logically or zoogeographically arranged displays. This is a problem for most urban zoos built in the nineteenth century since they often have a very lim­ ited area to work with and ecological exhibits are quite space-demanding. Moreover, since the Zoological Gardens, together with Jardin des Plantes (Paris) and Schönbrunn (Vienna), are said to have initiated the development from menagerie to zoological garden these definitions are not ideal. For most of the nineteenth century, the Zoological Gardens kept their animals in cages, aimed at displaying as many species as possible a nd arranged their animals taxonomically. Still, as previously stated, the Gar­ dens had an educational intention that, conscious or not, was relatively new and this was probably what separated these zoological gardens, starting with Jardin des Plantes, from the previous menageries. Most other works dealing in part with zoo history do not try to define a difference between menageries and zoological gardens and it is quite com­ mon to call even the earliest collections of animals "zoos". It is similarly common to designate animal collections as old-fashioned or brutal by call­ ing them "menageries". There does however seem to be a consensus that, in accordance with Kisling, London Zoo, Schönbrunn and Versailles signalled a decisive change in the history of zoos.

Periods of Zoo History However, besides this change there have been a few attempts to distinguish veritable periods in the history of zoos. Lord Solly Zuckerman, secretary of the Zoological Society 1955—77, identifies five phases in the history of zoos, stretching from prehistory up until today, which are characterised by the attitudes towards animals and animal collections throughout history.83 The first phase is marked by "reverence and brutality" and reaches from the dawn of humanity up to the Middle Ages. The second phase is called "the mark of splendour" and covers the time between the Renaissance and roughly the second half of the seventeenth century. The third phase is mainly characterised by "science and education" and is rather short, from 44 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK the beginning of the nineteenth century to 1918. The fourth phase, "decay", is shorter still and only lasts from 1918 to 1939. The fifth phase is marked by "conservation and commerce" and this, according to Zuckerman, still char­ acterises the zoos of today. It is however debatable whether the first and second phase did not exist very much alongside each other until the eighteenth century. Just because gladiatorial games went out of fashion, exotic animals were not safe from being brutally killed by their human masters or other animals in fights. Still, it must be admitted that Zuckerman himself is aware of this complication. The third phase of "science and education" is also problematic. Zuck­ erman states:

there is little sign that zoos were regarded as institutions which had a part to play in the advancement of science and the spread of education before the Versailles menagerie was established in 1665.84

It is true that, by the eighteenth century, menageries and later zoological gardens were being utilised to a greater extent than before by artists and naturalists but it is doubtful whether this was done in the organised fashion that Zuckerman suggests, and everything depends on how one defines sci­ ence and education. As will be described in Chapter five, the London Zoo­ logical Gardens were not used to any great extent in the Society's scientific endeavours. And even though schools were admitted free of charge or for a reduced admission fee I would not say that these visits were the main way in which the Gardens educated their public. One of the conclusions of this dissertation is that the Gardens certainly disseminated popular zoological knowledge, albeit not via the traditional channels. However, and this is an important alteration from earlier animal col­ lections, the expressed intentions regarding the Zoological Gardens and most of the zoological gardens that were established in Europe during the nine­ teenth century were science and education. At least when it came to rheto­ ric, the gardens of the third phase were completely devoted to these admirable ideals. The other periodisation is made by Gustave Loisel, the nestor of zoo history.85 He also uses five periods, but his classification differs slighdy from Zuckermans. First, there is the "prehistoric" period that, as the name KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 45 suggests, covers the prehistoric period up to the ancient cultures. The ani­ mals present in this period were animals caught in the wild but used for purposes other than food. The second period, "paradeisos", includes the ancient cultures in for example Egypt, Assyria and China and it was the walled animal parks of these cultures that were called paradeisos. These parks had been abandoned in Europe by the Middle Ages and thus began the period of the "menageries" where the collections of animals were seen primarily as symbols of the ruler s wealth and power. The fourth period is the one of the "classical zoo", which largely coin­ cides with Zuckerman's third period and begins with the establishment of the zoological garden at Jardin des Plantes. These zoological gardens are dedicated to "public education and recreation". This period is followed by the period of the "modern zoological park" and is initiated by Carl Hagen- beck's zoological garden at Stellingen. Hagenbeck constructed the "pan­ orama", an enclosure without cages or bars, which allowed the animals to behave more naturally. To the delight of the public, Hagenbeck was able to make it look as if predator and prey were in the same enclosure with the aid of moats and other 'invisible' barriers. Still, these two periodisations, even though they are slighdy different, firmly place the Zoological Society's G ardens in a period when the con­ struction of zoological gardens was highly fashionable in western Europe. The fact that most of these gardens may not have been the scientific land­ marks that they were supposed to be, but instead evolved into something else, does not make them less interesting to study.

Sources and Previous Research The most recent academic work on the Society and Gardens, apart from that of Harriet Ritvo and Robert Jones, are the articles by historian of sci­ ence Adrian Desmond and historian John Bastin.86 Desmond's two articles, published in History of Science in 1985, are primarily concerned with how the views of the most influential members shaped the Society and how this, in effect, caused the exclusion of Robert Grant and the subsequent support of Richard Owen. Desmond's articles are the most exhaustive study of the Society's early years to date. The articles by John Bastin were both pub­ 46 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK lished in the Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, in 1970 and 1973 respectively. The first article deals with the various editions of the Society's prospectus that were written and the confusion that has arisen concerning their date of origin. The second article simply sheds light on some previously unpublished letters to and from Raffles concerning the founding of the Society. When the Society celebrated its 150th anniversary in 1976, a number of books were published about the history of the Society and the Gardens, such as Wilfrid Blunt s The Ark in the Park and London's Zoo, compiled by Gwynne Wevers.87 The most ambitious of these was The Zoological Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond, edited by the secretary Lord Solly Zucker- man.88 This book is informative in many ways but unfortunately not very useful where the Gardens are concerned. Many essays focus exclusiv ely on the Society and references to the Gardens in the nineteenth century are brief, the sole exception being an essay by architect J.W Toovey, "150 years of building at London Zoo".89 Thus, apart from the articles and books mentioned above, works that deal with the history of the Society and the Gardens in an academic way are scarce. Books that provide ample detail or amusing anecdotes are on the other hand quite common. The two most thorough of these works are the early The Zoological Society of London (1906) by Henry Scherren and Cente­ nary History of the Zoological Society of London (1929) by the then secretary, Peter Chalmers Mitchell.90 However, the trouble with both of these books is that they do not always refer to the original source, and now and then refer to documents that have apparently disappeared or give other kinds of information that cannot be verified. This makes their use in an academic context somewhat difficult and they have to be handled with a certain care. The second chapter relies on material located at the library of the Zoo­ logical Society, primarily the Minutes and Reports of Council.91 Minutes of these meetings have been transferred to microfiche, and I have mainly used the Minutes of Council (1826—1830), Minutes of General Meetings (1826- 1830) and Minutes of Annual General Meetings (1826-1830). The Reports were published annually and also contained the report of the auditors. The library contains a few newspaper articles from the earliest years of the Soci­ ety as well, together with other original documents such as the prospects. The superintendent of the Gardens reported to the Council through a sheet of Daily Occurrences where the number of visitors, particular visitors, KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 47 animal arrivals and other items of information were recorded. In order to find out who visited the Gardens, I have consulted the Occurrences between the years of 1828 and 1830.1 have furthermore studied the personal archives of Sir Stamford Raffles (British Library: Mss.Eur.D742), located in the Oriental and India Office Reading Room at the British Library. Chapter three is mosdy concerned with periodicals and newspapers. Only one newspaper, The Times, has been consulted regularly for the years 1825—1855 through the aid of Palmer's Index to the Times Newspaper?1 Some periodicals, i.e. Bentleys Miscellany; Quarterly Review; London Quar­ terly Review and Fraser's Magazine of Town and Country; have been checked for articles through the Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824—1900.93 Periodicals not in the Wellesley Index , but renowned for their popularity, have also been taken into consideration.94 These periodicals have all been investigated with the aid of the periodicals' own indexes. Furthermore, I have used the press-cuttings archive (started in 1849) m t^ie Zoological Society's Library. The articles contained in the archive are mainly from newspapers such as The Times, Herald and Morning Chronicle, but are taken from periodicals such as Illustrated London News, Athenaeum and The Leisure Hour as well. In Chapter four, I have used guidebooks from the years w hen they have changed the most. The first Guide to the Gardens is from 1829 and written by Nicholas Vigors, the secretary, and natural history writer Will­ iam Broderip. After 1829, no new Guide was written until 1852.95 However, the guides changed radically already in 1858 after the Society resolved t o make the production of their guides more organised and streamlined. The interesting thing is that although the 1852 Guide was very different in style and character from the 1858 one, they were both written by the secretary David William Mitchell. After 1858 the guides did not change much until the Society acquired a new secretary, Peter Chalmers Mitchell. Thus it is justifiable to include a guide from 1907 even though this slighdy exceeds the dissertation's period of time since Chalmers Mitchell was not appointed until 1904. In addition to these guidebooks published by the Society, I will also discuss what one might call "non-official" guidebooks, meaning books that describe the Gardens and the animals but were not published and sold by the Society. In Chapter five, I examine the scientific character of the Gardens through a zoological periodical, the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 48 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

London, published by the Society. These Proceedings consist simply of the papers read at the meetings of the Society's Committee of Science and Cor­ respondence. In order to acheive both a detailed and longitudinal survey of the periodical s contents, I have used every volume between 1830 and 1850 and from thereon every five years until 1900. To distinguish the role of the Gardens in the reports, I have only used reports where it is clearly stated that the animals used were from that establishment. The Proceedings included reports written by Fellows and letters from corresponding mem­ bers, read at the scientific meetings.96 The length of the reports varied gready over the years; some were fifty pages long while others were no more that short announcements. However, in order to verify the results obtained from the survey of the Proceedings, I have also studied twelve additional periodicals for the same years as the Proceedings. The choice of these periodicals was primarily guided by the list of popular natural history periodicals in Susan Sheets- Pyensons article "Popular science periodicals" (1985).97 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 49

NOTES

1. For the story of Chunee, see Richard Altick, The Shows of London (Cambridge, Mass. and London: The Belknap Press, 1978), 310-316. 2. See also Edward Evans, The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals: The Lost History of Europe's Animal Trials (1906; facsimile, London: Faber, 1987). 3. To lessen the confusion I have, slightly anachronistically, throughout the dissertation used the plural form, i.e. Gardens, even though this is not entirely correct for the early years when there was only one garden. In some cases, I will refer to the "menagerie", meaning only the collection of living animals within the Gardens. Since the abbrevia­ tion "zoo" was not used extensively until the late 1860s I have chosen not to use it when the Zoological Society's Gardens in the nineteenth century are concerned. Still, it may be noted that the abbreviation popularly referred specifically to the Society's Zoological Gardens but has come to be applied to zoological gardens in general ( Oxford English Dictionary, 2™^ ed., s.v. "zoo"). Hence, when I discuss zoological gardens of the twenti­ eth century, "zoo" is regularly used. 4. See for example Bill Jordan and Stefan Ormrod, The Last Great Wild Beast Show: A Dis­ cussion on th e Failure of British Animal Collections (London: Constable, 1978); Jeremy Cherfas, Zoo 2000: A Look Beyond the Bars (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1984); Bob Mullan and Gary Marvin, Zoo Culture (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987); Colin Tudge, Last Animals at the Zoo: How Mass Extinction can be Stopped (Lon­ don: Hutchinson Radius, 1991); Vicki Croke, The Modern Ark: The Story of Zoos: Past, Present a nd Future (New York: Scribner, 1997), and David Hancocks, A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001). 5. R.J. Hoage and William Deiss, eds., New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoo­ logical Park in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hop­ kins University Press, 1996), and Vernon Kisling, Jr., ed. Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001). 6. Donna Mehos, "Science displayed: Nation and nature at the Amsterdam Zoo, 'Artis'," (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1997). 7. Michael Osborne, Nature, the Exotic and the Science of French Co lonialism (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1994). 8. Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: T he English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), 205-242, and Robert Jones, '"The sight of creatures strange to our clime': London Zoo and the consumption of the exotic," Journal of Victorian Culture 2, no. 1 (1997): 1-26. Ritvo's chapter is also pub­ lished in a shorter version as the essay "The order of nature: Constructing the collec­ tions of Victorian zoos," in New Worlds, New Animals, eds. Hoage and Deiss, 43-50. 9. On the animals' place of origin, see for example List of Vertebrated Animals Living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London (London, 1862), or, for a list of an earlier date, Report of the Council, 1831,16-23. 10. The works that mention this connection between the British Empire and science are numerous. See for example Janet Browne, "Biogeography and empire," in Cultures of Natural History, eds. Nicholas Jardine, James Secord, and Emma Spary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 305-321; Jane Camerini, "Remains of the day: Early Victorians in the field," in Victorian Science in Context, ed. Bernard Lightman (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), 354-377; Richard Drayton, KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Natures Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the 'Improvement' of the World (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale U niversity Press, 2000), and Felix Driver, Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration in the Age of Empire (Oxford and Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 37-48. 11. Jones, "'Sight of creatures'," 5. 12. Unless stated otherwise, this section is b ased on James Fisher, Världens djurparker (Zoos of the World), trans, from English by Nils Jacobsson (Stockholm: Gebers, 1966), 18-56; David Hancocks, Animals and Architecture (London: Hugh Evelyn, 1971), 105-129; Lord Solly Zuckerman, "The rise of zoos and zoological societies," in Great Zoos of the World: Their Origins and Significance, ed. Lord Solly Zuckerman (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979), 3-26; Cherfas, Zoo 2000, 15-40; Mullan and Marvin, Zoo Culture, 89-115; Emily Hahn, Animal Gardens or Zoos Around the World, new ed. (New York: Begos &c Rosenb erg, 1990), 41-74; Jake Page, Zoo: The Modern Ark (Toronto: Key Por­ ter, 1990), 11-24; R.J. Hoage, Anne Roskell, and Jane Mansour, "Menageries and zoos to 1900," in New Worlds, New Animals, eds. Hoage and Deiss, 8-16; Croke, Modern Ark, 127-164; Hancocks, Different Nature, 1-85, and Vernon Kisling, Jr., "Ancient col­ lections and menageries," in Zoo and Aquarium History, ed. Kisling, Jr., 1—47. 13. Kisling, "Ancient collections," 18; Croke, Modern Ark, 131, and Hoage, Roskell, and Man- sour, "Zoos to 1900," 10. 14. For a description of New World specimens in seventeenth-century natural history collec­ tions, see Wilma George, "Alive or dead: Zoological collections in the seventeenth cen­ tury," in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe, eds. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 179-187. 15. Pierre-André Lablaude, The Gardens of Versailles, trans, by Fiona Biddulph (London: Zwemmer, 1995), 67-72. 16. Ibid., 67-72. See also Matthew Senior, "The Versailles menagerie, 1662-1792," in Renais­ sance Beasts: Of Animals, Humans, and Other Wonderful Creatures in the Early Modern Period, ed. Erica Fudge (Forthcoming). 17. Madeleine Pinault, The Painter as Naturalist: From Dürer to Redouté, trans, by Philip Stur- gess (Paris: Flammarion, 1991), 31-33. 18. Harro Strehlow, "Zoological gardens of Western Europe," in Zoo and Aquarium History, ed. Kisling, Jr., 83-87. 19. Dorinda Outram, "New spaces in natural history," in Cultures of Natural History, eds. Jar- dine, Secord, and Spary, 255-257, and idem, Georges C uvier: Vocation, Science and Authority in Post-Revolutionary France (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 161-188. 20. Joseph Deleuze, History and Description of the Royal Museum of Natural History, 2 vols., trans, by A. Royer (Paris: A. Royer, 1823), 1:2. 21. Clinton Keeling, Where the Lion Trod: A Record of Forgotten Zoological Gardens (Shalford, Great Britain: Clam Publications, 1984), 5-14. This text also appears almost without change in idem, "Zoological gardens of Great Britain," in Zoo and Aquarium History, ed. Kisling, Jr., 50-56. 22. The Picture of London for 1820, 21st ed. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1820), 256. 23. Wilfrid Blunt, The Ark in the Park: T he Zoo in the Nineteenth Century (London: Book Club Associates, 1976), 18; Altick, Shows of London, 307-316; Keeling, Where the Lion Trod, 15-18, and idem, "Zoological gardens of Great Britain," 58—59. 24. The Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved, 24th ed. (London: Longmans & Co., 1826), 331. 25. The Stranger's Guide through London and its Environs (London, 1828), 97. 26. Keeling, Where the Lion Trod, 43-48, and idem, "Zoological gardens of Great Britain," 65-66. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE SI

ir/. Thomas Gillespie, The Story of the Edinburgh Zoo, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and the Scottish National Zoological Park: An Account of their Origin and Progress (Slains, Great Britain: Michael Slains Publishers, 1964), 115—121. The current zoological garden in Edinburgh was established in 1913. 28. D.J. Cunningham, The Origin and Early History o f the Royal Zoological Society of Ireland (Dublin: Royal Zoological Society of Ireland, 1901), 4-20. 29. Strehlow, "Zoological gardens of Western Europe," 90—91. 30. Ibid., 91-92, and Mehos, "Science displayed". 31. Strehlow, "Zoological gardens of Western Europe," 94-95, and idem, "Zoos and aquari­ ums of Berlin," in New Worlds, New Animals, eds. Hoage and Deiss, 64-69. 32. Adrian Desmond, "Redefining the X Axis: 'Professionals,' 'amateurs' and the making of mid-Victorian biology—A progress report," JHB 34, no. 1 (2001): 4. The whole of this JHB issue (34, no. 1 [2001]) is devoted to this question. See also Ruth Barton, "'Huxley, Lubbock, and half a dozen others': Professionals and gentlemen in the formation of the X Club, 1851-1864," Isis 89, no. 3 (1998): 410 -/1^. 33. Adrian Desmond, "The making of institutional zoology in London, 1822—1836," 2 pts., History of Science 23 (1985): 1:156. 34. Some money could also be made by publishers and editors of natural history books and periodicals such as William Lizars and Edward Newman. See Susan Sheets-Pyenson, "War and peace in natural history publishing: The Naturalist's Library, 1833-1843," Isis 72, no. i (1981): 50 -72, and idem, "Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: The emergence of a low scientific culture, 1820-1875," Annals of Science 42 (1985): 549- 572' 35. On the Royal Society, see for example Dorothy Stimson, Scientists and Amateurs: A His­ tory of the Royal Society (1947; reprint, New York: Greenwood Press, 1968); Michael Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Marie Boas Hall, All Scientists Now: The Royal Society in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), and Michael Hunter, "First steps of institutionalization: The role of the Royal Society of London," in Solomons House Revisited: The Organization and Institutionalization of Science, ed. Tore Frängsmyr (Canton, Mass.: Science History Publications, 1990), 13—30. On London societies in general, see for example Ian Cameron, To the Farthest Ends of the Earth: The History of the Royal Geographical Society, 1830-1900 (London: Macdonald, 1980); Jack Morrell and Arnold Thackray, Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981); David Allen, The Bota­ nists: A History of the Botanical Society of th e British Isles through a Hundred and Fifty Years (Win chester, Great Britain: St Paul's Bibliographies, 1986); Iwan Morus, Simon Schaffer, and Jim Secord, "Scientific London," in London — World City, 1800—1840, ed. Celina Fox (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale Un iversity Press, 1992), 129-142, and Driver, Geography Militant, 24-67. 36. For the early history of the Philosophical Transactions, see for example Adrian Johns, "Mis­ cellaneous methods: Authors, societies and journals in early modern England," BJHS 33, no. 17 (2000): 159-186. 37. The zoological garden of Amsterdam, Natura Artis Magistra, was placed in a similar loca­ tion, the Plantage. See Mehos, "Science displayed." 38. Donald Olsen, The Growth of Victorian London (London: B.T. Batsford, 1976), 37-40. 39. George Cooke, Walks Through London (London: Sherwwod, Gilbert & Piper, 1833), v. 40. John Summerson, Georgian London, rev. ed. (London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1962), 177. The term "grand plan" may however be somewhat of an exaggeration, see J. Mordaunt Crook, "Metropolitan improvements: John Nash and the picturesque," in London - World City, 1800-1840, ed. Fox, 77-96. 41. James Elmes, Metropolitan Improvements; or, Londo n in the Nineteenth Century (London: Jones & Co., 1828), 1-2. $2 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

42. See for example Summerson, Georgian Lon don, 177-185; Stella Margetson, Regency Lon ­ don (London: Cassell, 1971), 44-48; Donald Low, That Sunny Dome: A Portrait of Regency Britain (London: Dent, 1977), 10; Roy Porter, London: A Social History, new ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1996), 126-130, and Christopher Hibbert, London: The Biog­ raphy of a City, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1980), 127-130. 43. John Nash quoted in Margetson, Regency London, 48. 44. See for example Susan Lasdun, The English Park: Royal, Private and Public (London: Andre Deutsch, 1991); H azel Conway, People's Parks: The Design a nd Development of Victorian Parks in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), a nd Hazel Thurston, Royal Parks for the People: London's Ten (Lo ndon: David & Charles, 1974). 45. Crook, "Nash and the picturesque," 80-81. 46. Elmes, Metropolitan Improvements, 7. 47. Ann Saunders, Regent's Park: A Study of the Development ofthe Area from 1086 to the Present Day, 2nd ed. (London: Bedford College, 1981), 93-95. 48. John Nash quoted in Margetson, Regency London, 46. 49. See esp. Zuckerman, "Rise of zoos," 3-26; Kisling, Jr., "Ancient collections and menager­ ies," 37-39; Keeling, "Zoological gardens of Great Britain," 68-72, and Hancocks, Dif­ ferent Nature, 42-50. 50. On the history of natural history and its relationship to biology, see for example William Coleman, Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function and Transfor­ mation (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), 1-3; DHS, s.v. "natural history;" Paul Färber, "Discussion paper: The transformation of natural history in the nineteenth cen­ tury," JHB 15, no. i (1982): 145-152; Peter Bowler, The Fontana History of the Environ­ mental Sciences (London: Fontana Press, 1992), 248-305; Lynn Nyhart, "Natural history and the new' biology," in Cultures of Natural History, eds. Jardine, Secord, and Spary, 426-443; Paul Färber, Discovering Birds: The Emergence of Ornithology as a Scientific Discipline, 1760—1850, new ed. (Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins Uni­ versity Press, 1997), xvi-xvii, 121-158, and idem, Finding Order in Nature: The Natural­ ist Tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson (Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). 51. PZS, 14/2 (i860), 105. 52. Outram, "New spaces in natural history," 259. See also Driver, Geography Militant, 11-23. 53. Garland Allen, "Naturalists and experimentalists: The genotype and the phenotype," Studies in History of Biology 3 (1979): 181-182. 54. Outram, "New spaces," 261-262, and idem, Georges Cuvier, 62—63. 55. Nicholaas Rupke, Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 80-81. 56. Rupke, Richard Owen, 76-77, and Camerini, "Remains of the day," 359-360. 57. William Swainson, Taxidermy; Bibliography and Biography; The Cabinet Cyclopaedia (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1840), 1-2. 58. See Debra Lindsay, Science in the Subarctic: Trappers, Traders, and the Smithsonian Institu­ tion (Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993). 59. Donn Vann and Rosemary VanArdsel, "Introduction," in Victorian Periodicals and Victo­ rian Society, eds. Donn Vann and Rosemary VanArdsel (Aldershot, Great Britain: Scholar Press, 1994), 3-8. 60. For this popular aspect of natural history, see for example Lynn Barber, The Heyday of Natural History, 1820—18/0 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1980); Lynn Merrill, The Romance of Victorian Natural History (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989); David Allen, The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History (1976; reprint, Princeton: Prin­ ceton University Press, 1994); idem, "Tastes and crazes," in Cultures of Natural History, eds. Jardine, Secord, and Spary, 394-407, and Färber, Finding Order in Nature, 22-36, 87-99. 61. PZS, 1/6 (1875), 423- KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE 53

62. Färber, Finding Order in Nature, 55. 63. See for example Lucille Brockway, Science and Colonial Expansion: The Role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens (New York: Academic Press, 1979); Donai McCracken, Gardens ofEmpire: Botanical Institutions of the Victorian British Empire (London: Leicester Uni­ versity Press, 1997), and Drayton, Nature's Government. 64. Sketch Book of a Young Naturalist; or, Hints to the Students of Nature (London: Harvey & Darton, 1831), viii. 65. Ibid., vi. 66. Ibid., viii. 67. Harland Coultas, The Home Naturalist; With Practical Instructions for Collecting, Arrang­ ing, and Preserving Natural Objects (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1877), 197. 68. Färber, Discovering Birds, 155. 69. For a particularly useful account of the emergence of the criticism of the historiographical treatment of popular science, see Johan Kärnfelt, Mellan nytta och nöje: Ett bidrag till populärvetenskapens historia i Sverige (Eslöv, Sweden: Brutus Östling Bokförlag Sympo­ sion, 2000). Apart from this, unless otherwise stated, I have primarily used Sally Gre­ gory Kohlstedt, "On nineteenth-century amateur tradition: The case of the Boston Society of Natural History," in Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, eds. Gerald Hoi ton and William Blanpied (Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1976), 173-190; Susan Sheets-Pyenson, "Low scientific culture in London and Paris, 1820-1875" (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1976); Everett Mendhel- son, "The social construction of scientific knowledge," in The Social Production of Sci­ entific Knowledge, eds. Peter Weingart and Richard Whitley (Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977), 3-26; Frank Turner, "Public science in Britain, 1880-1919," Isis 71, no. 259 (1980): 58 9-608; Sheets-Pyenson, "Popular science periodi­ cals," 549-572; Richard Whitley, "Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Pop­ ularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics," in Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, eds. Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley (Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985), 3 -28; Steven Shapin, "Science and the public," in Companion to the History of Modern Science, ed. R.C. Olby (London: Routledge, 1990), 990—1007; Roger Cooter and Stephen Pumfrey, "Separate spheres and public places: Reflections on the history of science popularization and sci­ ence in popular culture," History of Science 32 (1994): 23 7-267; Jean-Marc Drouin and Bernadette Bensuade-Vincent, "Nature for the people," in Cultures of Natural History, eds. Jardine, Secord, and Spary, 408-425; Bernard Lightman, "'The voices of nature': Popularizing Victorian science," in Victorian Science in Context, ed. Lightman, 187-211, and Reiner Grundmann and Jean-Pierre Cavaillé, "Simplicity in science and its pub­ lics," Science as Culture 3, no. 9 (2000): 353-389. 70. Anne Secord, "Science in the pub: Artisan botanists in early nineteenth-century Lancash­ ire," History of Science, 32 (1994): 269-315. 71. Sheets-Pyenson, "Low scientific culture," and idem, "Popular science periodicals," 549- 572 72. Workin' g Mans Friend and Family Instructor (1 [1850]: 33) quoted in Sheets-Pyenson, "Pop­ ular science periodicals," 553. 73. See Barber, Heyday of Natural History, Merrill, Victorian Natural History, Allen, Naturalist in Britain, and Lightman, "'Voices of nature'," 187-211. 74. Lightman, "'Voices of nature'," 188. 75. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England (1962; reprint, London: Methuen & Co., I975^'31' 76. On the Victorian period and Victorianism, see for example G.M. Young, Portrait of an Age, new ed. (1936; reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1964); Asa Briggs, The Age of Improvement, 1783-1867, new imp. (London: Longmans, 1967), 446-488; Clark, Making of Victorian England; J.F.C. Harrison, Early Victorian Britain, 1832—51, new ed. 54 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

(London: Fontana, 1979); Geoffrey Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-/5, 3rd imp. (Lon­ don: Fontana Press, 1985); Walter Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830-1870, new ed. (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1985); F.M.L. Thomp­ son, The Rise of Respectable Society: A Social History of Victorian Britain, 1830-1900 (Lon­ don: Fontana Press, 1988); W.D. Rubinstein, Britain's Century: A Political and Social History, 1815-1905 (London: Arnold, 1998), 279-297, and David Newsome, The Victo­ rian World Picture: Perceptions and Introspections in an Age of Change, new ed. (London: Fontana Press, 1998). 77. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., s.v. "social differentiation." 78. Leonore Davidoff and Cathrine Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850 (1987; reprint, London: Routledge, 1994), 23. See also Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 93-111; Harrison, Early Victorian Britain, 113-149, an d Rubin­ stein, Britain's Century, 279—297. 79. Andrea Frederici Ross, Let The Lions Roar! The Evolution of Brookfield Zoo (Brookfield, 111.: Chicago Zoolo gical Society, 1997), and June Johns, Zoo Without Bars: The Story of Chester Zoo and its Founder George Saul Mottershead, new ed. (London: Carousel Books, 1974). 80. Gustave Loisel, Histoire des ménageries de l'antiqué a nos jours, 3 vols. (Paris, 1912). 81. Vernon Kisling, Jr., "Preface," in Zoo and Aquarium History, ed. Kisling, Jr. 82. Idem, "Preface". 83. Zuckerman, "Rise of zoos," 3-26. 84. Ibid., 7-8. 85. Gustave Loisel's periodisation is translated and referred to in Thomas Veltre, "Menager­ ies, metaphors , and meanings," in New Worlds, N ew Animals, eds. Hoage and Deiss, 20-22. 86. Desmond, "Institutional zoology," 1:153—185 and 2:223—250; John Bastin, "The first pro­ spectus of the Zoological Society of London: New light on the Society's origin," J. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 5, no. 5 (1970): 369-388, and idem, "A further note on the origins of the Zoological Society of London,"/. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 6, no. 4 (1973): 236-241. 87. Gwynne Vevers, comp., London's Zoo: An Anthology to Celebrate 150 Years of the Zoological Society of London with its Zoos at Regent's Park in London and Whipsnade in Bedfordshire (London: The Bodley Head, 1976). 88. Lord Solly Zuckerman, ed. The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond, Sym­ posia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 40 (London: Academic Press, 1976). 89. J.W. Toovey, "150 years of building at London Zoo," in Zoological Society of London 1826- 1976, ed. Zuckerman, 179-202. 90. Henry Scherren, The Zoological Society of London: A Sketch of its Foundation and Develop­ ment and the Story of its Farm, Museum, Gardens, Menagerie and Library (London: Cas- sell and Company, 1906), and Peter Chalmers Mitchell, Centenary History of the Zoological Society of London (London: Zoological Society of London, 1929). 91. Due to the Library Policy of the Zoological Society of London, the only nineteenth-cen­ tury archives currently available are documents either bound in volumes or photo­ graphed on microfiche. 92. Palmer's Index to the Times Newspaper, London, 1790-95(—1905) (1868-1925; reprint, Lo n­ don, 1965), s.v. "zoological gardens" and "zoological society." 93. Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900, ed. Walter Houghton, 5 vols. (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1966-1989). 94. These include Illustrated London News, Household Words, Punch, or the London Charivari, Ladies' Companion of Home and Abroad, Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruc­ tion, and Athenaeum: Journal of English and Foreign Literature, Science and the Fine Arts. 95. I have not been able to locate the original 1852 edition and therefore use a somewhat later edition from 1853. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE SS

96. It seems like the reports, letters and announcements (or, in some cases, extracts of these) were actually read aloud at the scientific meetings during the nineteenth century. 97. These consist of Zoological Journal (1824-35); Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy.; Geology and Meteorology (1829-40); Zoological Magazine, or Journal of Natural History (1833); The Field Naturalist (1833-34); The Naturalist (1837- 58); The Zoologist (1843-49); Magazine of Zoology and Botany (1837-38), later Annals of Natural History; or, Magazine of Zoology, Botany and Geology (1838-40), later Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Including Zoology, Botany and Geology (1841-1900); Maga­ zine of Natural History and Naturalist (i860); The Naturalist's Note Book (1867-69); Hardwicke's Science-Gossip (1865-90); Nature: A Weekly Illustrated Journal of Science (1870-1900), and Science-Gossip: An Illustrated Monthly Record of Nature and Country- Lore a nd Applied Science (1894-1900). The years in parenthesis after the periodical's titles are the years investigated for that particular journal. II

ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE The Origin and Early Years of the Zoological Society of London and its Gardens, 1826-1830

I love the brave old British flag, of it my boys, I'll Always brag, And You must clearly understand, I do not care for yankee land.

THE FICTITIOUS QUOTATION ABOVE is attributed to a patriotic British emigrant, namely London Zoo s famous elephant Jumbo. In late March of 1882 he was taken in a procession through the streets of London to board the Assyrian Mona rchy destined for New York and Barnum and Baileys "Greatest Show on Earth". Even though it was early in the morning, hun­ dreds, maybe thousands, of Londoners had gathered to see the pachyderm depart. London had during these spring months caught "Jumbo fever". When it was announced in January that Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American self-made entertainer, was about to purchase Jumbo from the Zoological Society of London, which owned London Zoo (and hence also Jumbo), people refused to believe it. Queen Victoria herself offered to pay whatever Barnum was paying in order to keep the elephant in the country, and both Barnum and the Zoological Society were swamped by letters from children and adults who had enjoyed many happy afternoons at the Zoo, riding on the elephant's back. In a country where the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) was a force to be reckoned with rumours circulated that Jumbo would be severely mistreated at the vulgar circus. But all these protests came to nothing. Jumbo was shipped to New York and created almost as much hoopla "over there" since the New Yorkers were about as liable to spread rumours as the Londoners. It was said that the British had fed him with poisoned buns in order to make sure that he'd ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE never reach American soil alive. Judging by this, Jumbo may have been the closest that Britain and its ex-colony came to war after 1813. In this Jumbo affair, Barnum became hated by Londoners, something that he doubtless had already become used to. On the other hand people who were not accustomed to receiving letters calling them "hyenas" and "dirty jackals" were the Council of the Zoological Society Both the Soci­ ety's secretary, Philip Ludey Sclater, and especially the Zoo's superinten­ dent, Abraham Dee Bartlett, were prior to this business generally well liked. The Zoo was a most popular place for Londoners to visit and the impact of the institution and its inhabitants, is clearly illustrated by the case of Jumbo.2 But in the 1880s the Zoo had already existed for more than fifty years and one can ask oneself if it had aroused as much emotions at the beginning of its history. How did it all begin?

Introduction This is a study of the origin and early years of the Zoological Society of London, focusing on the Society's Zoological Gardens, between the years of 1826 and 1830. The Society was founded in 1826 and the Gardens offi­ cially opened two years later, on April 27, 1828. I have included two addi­ tional years into the study's period in order to investigate how the Gardens, along with other projects, developed. The main thing that distinguished this Society from other natural history societies, natural history collections and universities, was that they intended their Gardens to host a scientific collection of living animals. But, as we shall see, the Society also formed institutions that could be found in other societies as well, like a museum and a library. Since the London Zoological Gardens are considered to be one of the first so-called modern or scientific zoos in Europe, i.e. zoos especially founded for a scientific purpose, the main intention of this study is to investigate how the Gardens came into being and what discussions pre­ ceded this. What were the forerunners of the Gardens? What was its initial function within the Society and did that function change over the years? One of the Society's fo unders was the well-known East India Company employee, Sir Stamford Raffles, which makes the Society's colonial connec­ KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK tions important. How were the resources of the British Empire utilised and did the mere existence of the empire affect the shape of the Society? The chapter also deals with the other parts of the Society, principally its farm and museum. The social and scientific context of the early Society is described through its closest relatives within the family of London societ­ ies, particularly the Linnean Society and its Zoological Club. The social context is also set against the background of the development of London in general and Regent s Park in particular during the first decades of the nine­ teenth century as described in the Introduction.

The Beginning Thomas Stamford Raffles, the presumptive founder of the Zoological Soci­ ety, was born in 1781 and started working as a clerk for the mighty East India Company in 1795.3 Ten years later he arrived in Penang, Malaysia, and came to devote most of his life to Southeast Asia, primarily Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. He is renowned as a successful colonial employee who was eventually knighted for his achievements, but his interest in natu­ ral history is less well-known despite the words of his widow, Sophia:

As a school-boy, his garden was his delight: to this was added a love of animals, which was perhaps unequalled. [—] ...a mountain scene could bring tears into his eyes; a flower would call forth a burst of favourite poetry.. .4

He seems to have been an enthusiastic amateur naturalist who became more and more knowledgeable with the help of the various professional' naturalists that he met. Joseph Banks asked for, and received, flowers and seeds for the Kew collections from Raffles, he sent specimens to the museum of the East India Company and entertained naturalists like Tho­ mas Horsfield, Joseph Arnold, William Jack and Nathaniel Wallich in his Asian homes. Besides his botanical collections he also had an extensive menagerie and employed people to make natural history drawings.5 When Raffles came back to England in 1815 his interest received a sub­ stantial boost through meeting people like Joseph Banks, Robert Brown and Sir Everard Home.6 He was knighted by the Prince Regent and seems to have regularly met with Prince Leopold who, according to Raffles, was ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 59 quite interested in natural history.7 Thanks to these encouraging meetings, he returned to Sumatra in 1817 more determined than ever to make a con­ tribution to British natural history. He brought with him Joseph Arnold who spent the long voyage teaching Raffles and his wife about botany, which seems to have resulted in a more professional approach from Raffles during his second period as a colonial employee.8 Raffles also invited two French naturalists, M. Diard and M. Duvaucel, to work with him at Sumatra but the collaboration soon turned sour. There seem to have been disagreements as to which country should be given credit for the collections assembled by the Frenchmen. Raffles was worried that results of the investigations would be published in France first, thereby losing "to our Country the credit which it deserves".9 The problem was solved by firing the two Frenchmen and Raffles took it upon himself to make the necessary investigations into Sumatras flora and fauna. This work resulted in papers read to the Linnean and the Royal Society, an d Raffles acheived even greater fame when together with Arnold he discovered the enormous flower that was later named Rafßesia arnoldi.10 While Raffles had been in England he had also gone on a European tour and visited the French Jardin des Plantes. The garden made a great impression on the party and Raffles' cousin, Thomas Raffles, said:

The extent of the collections—the rarity and richness of many of the specimens—the high state of preservation in which they all appear to be—and the perfect classification and skilful arrangement of the whole, as they surpass conception, so they are beyond all praise.11

It is claimed by Raffles' widow that it was this particular visit that inspired him to establish what was later to become the Zoological Gardens and it is also said that he communicated with Joseph Banks concerning the French institution.12 But before Raffles returned to England for good in 1824, Banks had died and his role had been taken over by Humphry Davy. If this was a natural consequence of Davy's accession to the presidency of the Royal Society, o r whether he would have taken on the task out of pure interest even if he had not been elected president, is not clear. Still, a national institution devoted to the study of natural history, and particularly zoology, was precisely what Britain needed according to both Davy and Raffles.13 6o KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

However, some people were of the opinion that such an institution already existed. The Linnean Society of London, founded in 1788, was, according to Andrew Gage and William Stearn in their A Bicentenary His­ tory of The Linnean Society of London (1988),

For about the first 40 years of its existence [...] the main channel for the communication and publication of biological investigations apart from those more particularly concerned with anatomy and physiol­ ogy; had the Society possessed sufficient funds it might have retained that position.14

But in the beginning of the 1820s, dissatisfaction within the Linnean was growing. The Society was not completely ignoring the field of zoology but the subject was at the time expanding faster than the Society could man­ age.15 Various kinds of independent entomological societies had existed but were stagnating through the 1810s.16 Nicholas Alyward Vigors was one of the Linnean fellows (elected in 1819) who wanted another forum for his interest in insects and birds and so contacted Rev. William Kirby, England's leading entomologist at the time. Kirby was seen as essential in the forming of a new society as he was a respected naturalist and a man of the church. This was badly needed since one of the other zoologists was William MacLeay, w ho opposed linnean taxonomy in favour of his own system, quinarianism, based on five groups where the animals in each group were connected by physical traits as further explained in Chapter five. This sys­ tem was also s upported by Vigors. Hence, the zoologists wanted to break free from the Linnean Society not only in space, but scientifically as well.17 During the presidency of Joseph Banks it had been difficult to found new societies if they met with his disapproval, as in the case of the Geolog­ ical Society, and although Banks was now gone these problems were proba­ bly clearly remembered by anyone wanting to found a new society. As with the Geological Society, the presumptive members of this proposed zoologi­ cal society could be suspected of dangerous opinions, i.e. quinarianism, which could be interpreted as a form of French materialism. Because of these circumstances, Kirby s support was essential.18 However, Kirby was not co-operative but remained cautious and pro­ posed that a committee be formed instead. His advice was followed and the Zoological Club was born.19 Although it was still attached to the Linnean Society, as a sort of committee, the discussions often concerned the quinar- ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 61 ian system all the same.20 The general goals of the Club were expressed by Kirby, the elected chairman, in the following manner:

There is one of these provinces that I think ought to stand high in the esteem of every patriot Zoologist—I mean the study of the animals that are natives or periodical visitants in his own country. An indige­ nous Fauna is the first desideratum in our science... [—] I must not pass without notice another branch of our science, of the deepest interest and highest importance, and more particularly as we have to lament that hitherto it has been very imperfectly cultivated, especially with regard to invertebrate animals, in these islands,—I mean the Comparative Anatomy of animals.21

Apart from these goals, the most important objective according to Kirby was t o let natural history, in the tradition of Natural Theology, celebrate the glory of God.22 As can also be seen in the quotation below by Sir Rob­ ert Peel, the nationalistic aspect of natural history was important at this time. Not only was it a duty for British naturalists to survey the indigenous flora and fauna, but they should also turn towards a field within natural history, the anatomy of invertebrate animals, where in particular the French had previously excelled. But even if the Club provided a zoological forum, its activities were severely hampered by the maternal Society. A desired system of scientific transactions was never realised which meant that the only way of expression was through the transactions of the Linnean.23 In 1823 the Council of the Linnean demanded that the name be changed to the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society of London. After this, the Club struggled on for a few more years b ut was soon overshadowed by the Zoological Society and in 1829 it was dissolved.24 Raffles a nd Davy may be identified as the main driving forces in forming the new Zoological Society, but the problems that the Club faced within the Linnean must surely have paved the way in Lon­ dons zoological community.

The Formation While Raffles was collecting specimens in Sumatra, Davy went into action at home. He was a good friend of Sir Robert Peel who on one occasion wrote quite encouragingly: "Britain affords no means of studying Natural 62 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

History."25 Davy came to Peel with a scheme on how to assist the emer­ gence of British naturalists such as the celebrated John Ray, and Peel answered in December 1824:

Considering the riches of our country—its vast Colonial Possessions, including almost every variety of climate and every species of natural production—our means and our habits of exploring those parts of the globe which offer no temptation to fixed settlement—but still abound with much that is curious and valuable to the lovers of Natural His­ tory—we ought to be ashamed of the beggarly account of Boxes— almost worse than empty, which comprise our specimens of animal life... I should feel proud of contributing my humble efforts to rescue this country from what I think is a just imputation of indifference and neglect.26

Exactly what form this support of Peel's to ok is not entirely known, apart from putting his name on a list of promoters of Raffles' and Davy's vision. But when Raffles returned in 1824, he joined forces with Davy and things began to happen. Raffles wrote to his cousin, Rev. T homas Raffles, in March 1825, that a prospectus had been written and that he was now searching for subscribers, or potential members, who would pay £2 each.27 By June 1825 there were enough subscribers to hold a first meeting of "The Friends of the Proposed Zoological Society". This prospectus has a rather interesting history attached to it, thor­ oughly described by John Bastin in his article "The first prospectus of the Zoological Society of London" (1970). The original prospectus was written and published in March 1825 as stated above and a simplified version (not so much a prospectus as a few statements) was published only two months later in order to put forward more powerfully the declarations of the Soci­ ety A somewhat altered version of the prospectus was issued in March 1826 but this has been mistaken for the original one (issued in March 1825), with some interesting consequences. Because of this confusion—that the prospectus issued in 1826 was thought to have been issued in 1825—and the fact that the second prospec­ tus speaks of a first one "having been circulated privately last year", this was thought to refer to February/March 1824.28 This, in turn, caused some bewilderment concerning who took the original initiative to found the Society Since Raffles did not return to England until August of that year it was hard to understand why, in his absence, he was voted president and ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 63 regarded as an original founder.29 Because of this, it has been assumed, especially in biographies of Davy, that Davy was solely responsible for writ­ ing the prospectus and thus for the Society altogether.30 Bastin, however, holds it probable that Davy and Raffles co-wrote it. Besides the communi­ cation with Peel it is hard to find anything concerning the Society that Davy wrote himself. By pointing to this error, Bastin convincingly shows that Raffles was very active during the formative years of 1825 and 1826 and that litde or no initiative was taken during 1824. This opinion is further supported by an article in the Zoological Journal: "We understand the plan [for the Zoological Society] to have been originally suggested by Sir Stam­ ford Raffles."31 Bastin claims that the overall style of the prospectus is recognisably Raffles' and particularly that the more strongly nationalistic sentences bear his mark.32 In the original prospectus it was lamented that Britons inter­ ested in natural history were forced to visit "the magnificent institutions of a neighbouring and rival country", but in 1826 the word "rival" had been removed. The choice of words in the first prospectus was perhaps tinted by Raffles' experience with the French naturalists in Sumatra. A remark on the savagery of ancient Rome (appearing in both prospectuses) also indicates Raffles' pen, since according to Bastin he was convinced of the enlightened nature of the British Empire:

It would well become Britain to offer another, and very different series of exhibitions to the population of her Metropolis;- animals brought from every part of the globe to be applied to some useful purpose as objects of scientific research, not of vulgar admiration.. .33

It is however worth noticing that the strongly imperialistic or, perhaps, nationalistic language used by Peel in his letter, by Raffles in the prospects and, to some extent, by Kirby in his address was not repeated once the Society was formed.34 The usefulness of the Society and its institutions were said to serve no other cause but that of zoological science.

The Aims At this point one can ask oneself: what were the aims and goals of this bud­ ding Society? What did Raffles and Davy want to accomplish that they did 64 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK not think was possible within for example the Linnean Society? Both men frequently name two principal forerunners of the Zoological Society: Lon­ don's Royal Horticultural Society and Jardin des Plantes.35 The Horticul­ tural Society had been founded in 1804 with the expressed aim to "collect every information respecting the culture and treatment of all plants and trees, as well culinary as ornamental".36 Jardin des Plantes was on the other hand a result of the French Revolution. Thanks to large sums of money from the French government and a general climate of institutionalisation, the Jardin bloomed. Both the zoological garden and museum of natural history were used to convey the order of nature to the French public—a sort of Eden or Utopia—and would thus enhance the moral transforma­ tion of the visitors.37 The one thing that was always emphasised in connection with the new Society, and that can be said to separate it radically from the Linnean, was that it was meant for the introduction of living animals. The forming of a zoological garden can hence be said to constitute the very backbone of the Zoological Society.38 Where opinions may have clashed was instead on how these animals should be used. Raffles wrote in a letter to his cousin: "while he [Davy] looks more to the practical and immediate utility to the country gendemen, my attention is more directed to the scientific department."39 That Davy understood the importance of support from the "country gendemen" and that it was therefore also necessary t o direct the Society towards acclimatisation, but that Raffles was more interested in 'hard-core' science, i.e. museum science, is a common opinion.40 It also seems that Raffles assembled his enormous collections with a museum exhibit in mind, whether it be the East India Company's museum or the Zoological Society's. However, there are several indications that Raffles was also v ery interested in agriculture and saw it as a way of making a country prosper. In letters he even mentions an Agricultural Society in Sumatra of which he seems to be president and in one of his memoirs he is quoted as saying: "I confess I have a great desire to turn farmer."41 It might also be noted that agrarian "improvement", i.e. new and better plants and animals, was seen as an important path to prosperity for the British nation in the late eigh­ teenth century.42 Furthermore, the aims of science and acclimatisation might not have been so incompatible. If one follows the argument of conservationist ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 6$

Christopher Lever, acclimatisation became highly interesting because of an ongoing failure of crops.43 The years 1821—1823 were particularly hard, owing to deflation.44 Introducing foreign animals to a British climate in order to create a healthy stock could therefore have been seen as a most suf­ ficient science and a highly important and patriotic one as well. This view is supported by Michael Osborne, who calls acclimatisation "the essential science of colonization".45 Acclimatisation also included questions of repro­ duction and biological transformism and when it came to keeping animals in a zoological garden, reproduction was a vital concern.46 Furthermore, some of the most intense scientific debates during the first half of the nine­ teenth century concerned the reproduction of marsupials and monotrem- ates, and an experiment was conducted for example by Richard Owen on the Zoological Society's kangaroos.47 A more detailed account of this exper­ iment can be found in Chapter five. However, Osborne bases his description on the French Société d'Accli­ matation, established in the 1860s and as historian Warwick Anderson describes, there were decisive differences between French and English accli­ matisation. In his article "Climates of opinion" (1992), Anderson shows that the pursuit of acclimatisation was very different in the two countries: "In France during the 1830s, the investigation of a process called acclimati­ zation became both intellectually legitimate and, by virtue of its apparent utility, politically rewarding", while "[t]he chief British acclimatizers' were more often wealthy landowners with an interest in stocking their game parks than they were professional scientists engaged in research."48 There were thus clear social differences between the acclimatisation practitioners in France and England. James Secord further contradicts the assumption that acclimatisation and, in consequence, breeding was an accepted scientific practice in England in the essay "Darwin and the Breeders". He shows that even though Darwin made good use of breeding knowledge among farmers and gentry this was not a common feature of his fellow naturalists. Actually both sides eyed each other with great suspicion; breeders did not want their family secrets dispersed as universal scientific knowledge while scientists thought the breeding business to be commercial and dealing with "mon­ strosities".49 It also seems as if the agricultural breeding community was not particularly interested in introducing new and fancy species, (with the 66 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK exception of pigeons and in some respects poultry) but rather looked to how they could fatten farm-animals as quickly as possible.50 One must not forget that they had an economic interest in breeding and wanted it to be as efficient as possible. Even the experiments with the fairly un-exotic Merino sheep were no success, although supported by George III and Joseph Banks.51 These kinds of experiments were instead, as Anderson says above, the territory of the landed aristocracy, since the richest people in England at this time were usually landowners. Agriculture was still the business from which most of these men got their money and farming was seen as both respectable and wholesome.52 But while farming was business, hunting was a popular leisure activity and large sums of money were frequendy spent on game preservation and other hunting-related objects such as horses and hounds. While farming experiments like breeding or agricultural chemistry could eventually also benefit the tenant farmers, hunting was more of a problem since game preservation was thought to influence agricultural progress negatively. This means that the gentry who busied themselves with the Zoological Society were interested in animals that would be of use as meat producers and game animals.53 The foremost of these men seems to have been Lord Stanley, later 13th Earl of Derby. He had started to build up a menagerie at his estate Knowsley Hall near Liverpool already in 1806, and was one of the Society's most enthusiastic promoters. Until his death in 1851 the exchanges between Knowsley and Regents Park were numerous, at least 128 species of birds and 75 species of mammals being moved between Lon­ don and Knowsley. The Earl was a prominent breeder of mammals; he bred 38 species on his estate and most of these seem to have been animals that could be used in agriculture, for example Zebus and Brahmins. He was also the first Briton to rear and breed successfully the African Eland antelopes, a species deemed most interesting within the field of acclimatisation.54 Thus, help from the professional agricultural community was not to be expected for the new Society. Still, was Raffles himself completely unin­ terested in acclimatisation? It may sound that way in a letter he wrote to Sir Robert Inglis in 1825:

In the first instance, we look mainly to the country gentlemen for sup­ port [...] but the character of the institution must of course depend ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 67

on the proportion of men of science and sound principles which it contains.55

Nicholas Alyward Vigors wrote in a letter to Kirby that these "representa­ tives of the working men of science" were himself, Kirby, MacLeay and Horsfield. By looking at the list of the founding men of the Society, t he Earl of Egremont and Lord Stanley most clearly represent the country gen­ tlemen and amateur agriculturists.56 On the other hand, Raffles had written to his cousin about a month earlier: "I am much interested at present in establishing a grand Zoological collection in the metropolis, with a Society for the introduction of living animals."57 Later that same year Raffles com plained: "I am a litde at issue with Sir Humphrey [sic] Davy, as t o the share which science is to have in the project."58 It is unfortunately not clear what he meant by the word "sci­ ence" in this context. This disagreement between Raffles an d Davy may however explain the different formulations in the first and second prospec­ tus in this respect. The first claims that the animals should "be applied to some useful purpose as objects of scientific research" while the second wants the animals "to be applied either to some useful purpose, or as objects of scientific research".59 This might signify that Raffles and Davy discov­ ered that acclimatisation and science, for some reason, were not compati­ ble. To supply any definitive answer on where Raffles stood in this question does not however seem possible. Another reason why acclimatisation was propsed with such emphasis may be connected with the Linnean Society. Even though the Linnean in the beginning claimed to attend to a science, natural history, previously covered by the Royal Society, it was not equally generous on its own behalf. This atmosphere within the Linnean may have been the reason why the Zoological Club did not become autonomous. When the Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland applied for a royal charter in1823-24 many mem­ bers of the Linnean Council opposed this. The motivation was that the Linnean Society had been founded "for the cultivation of Natural History in all its branches". It was recommended that the Asiatic Society specifically rule out natural history from its purview.60 Although this was not consid­ ered when the Asiatic finally got their charter it might have posed some sort of warning for Raffles and Davy, even more so since the Linnean had not protested at the founding of the Horticultural Society. A n emphasis on 68 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK acclimatisation might have been considered wise, since the Zoological Soci­ ety had many Fellows o f the Linnean Society (F.L.S.) as members at first. Nor did the Zoological in the beginning claim to want to start a series of transactions that would have rivalled the Linneans own.61 In order to avoid such competition it was important to co-operate with the other scientific societies in London. Many of their presidents became ex officio Honorary members when the Zoological Society got started, and when the Gardens were established the Horticultural donated plants and trees and offered to sell fruits and vegetables.62 The first General meeting was held at the rooms of the Horticultural Society and before this meeting, future members could sign up with a Mr. Griffiths at the Royal Institution.63 How, then, would the Society accomplish these aims of reproduction and science? Two primary goals were m entioned in the first prospectus: a piece of ground to establish a menagerie and a museum. In the 1826 pro­ spectus a library had been added. The ground would be used for "introduc­ tion of new varieties, breeds, and races of animals, for the purpose of domestication", and the museum "consisting of prepared specimens in the different classes and orders, so as to afford a correct view of the animal kingdom".64 In this perspective, the Zoological Society might have tried to find a balance between its two forerunners; a menagerie serving useful pur­ poses and a museum in the likeness of Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. How­ ever, after a few years the scientific importance of having long series of living animals in the Gardens was also pointed out.65 In 1827 it was decided that the Society would apply for a royal charter and this was granted two years later. I n this, the original aims of the pro­ spectuses were restated, but with a different formulation: "a Society for the advancement of Zoology and Animal Physiology, and the introduction of new and curious subjects of the Animal Kingdom."66 The use of the word "physiology" is further discussed in Chapter five.

The Zoological Society After a number of meetings with the "friends", the Zoological Society was formed at a general meeting on April 29 1826 and the annual general meet­ ings were hereafter always held on this date.67 A majority of the men ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE present were F.L.S. and additionally members of the Zoological Club. Raf­ fles, as president in the Chair, was only an F.L.S. and not a member of the Club but he had nevertheless visited a number of meetings.68 The Club had gathered persons with an interest in zoology and constituted an excel­ lent platform for the Society but was eventually dissolved on November 29, 1829, with the words:

On the eve of the dissolution of this club, it is a theme not merely of consolation but of triumph, that we have been the embryo of that higher body which has now sprung into the perfect form.69

A piece of land had already been considered and requested by the Zoologi­ cal Society from the crown. The Society was granted a plot in Regents Park, which is remarkable considering that the Royal park was not made fully public until 1845.70 The plot initially asked for, a piece of ground in the centre, near the Park's picturesque lake, was not granted. Still, access to the lake was almost immediately asked for after the constitution of the Society, for the purpose of breeding water-fowl. Instead, a plot at the north end of the Park was granted on April 28, 1826.71 There were some com­ plaints concerning the muddy nature of the ground and there was worry that the animals would fall sick.72 However, nothing better turned up, and work commenced. A second meeting, the first of Council, was held on May 5 and several committees were formed: one for framing Bye Laws, one for consideration of the proposed establishment for fish etc., one for management of the grounds and buildings in Regent s Park, one for the business of the menag­ erie, one for the business of the museum and one for the library.73 Com­ mittees proved to be an important part of the Society's work and they were constandy being formed for different purposes. They consisted primarily of different members of Council and were often of a more or less temporary character with a few exceptions, such as the Committee for Science and Correspondence, set up in 1830. The work of this committee and the scien­ tific character of the Gardens are further discussed in Chapter five. When it came to members, the Society, like many others dependent on members' fees, had problems with non-paying members. In 1826 it was estimated that the Society had 350 members, but that only 70 of them had paid their admission fee of £3.74 Membership was highly restrictive, but not 70 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK necessarily based on scientific merit. Members were instead elected on the recommendation of three other members. Corresponding members were British citizens who lived elsewhere, often employees within the British Empire or travelling naturalists, while Foreign members were non-British. In particular corresponding members could be asked to look out for the Society's interests in the part of the world where they were staying (see below).75 Honorary members were persons who could either be considered as helpful to the Society in any way or who had done great favours for zool­ ogy (i.e. the Zoological Society), primarily through donations. Ex officio Honorary members were from the beginning the presidents of the Royal Society, the Linnean Society, the Geographical Society, the Royal Horticul­ tural Society, the Royal Institution and the College of Physicians and Sur­ geons.76 As described earlier, it was wise to be courteous to those who could be of assistance to the Society At a Council meeting in 1827 it was resolved that women would be accepted as members on the same terms as men but reasons for this resolu­ tion are not given in the Minutes.77 The women were not many, but it can be seen from a list of members from 1829 that they constitute at least 3% of the total number of members.78 (This did however not mean that natural history as such was a more equal science than others; the Royal Microscop­ ical Society admitted women in 1884, the Royal Geographical Society in 1892 and the Linnean in 1900. But apart from the Zoological Society, the Royal Entomological Society also admitted women quite early (in 1833) ,)79 But since there does not appear to have been any great discussion about this resolution and since women did not become members of Council dur­ ing the nineteenth century this particular decision probably did not influ­ ence the Society or its reputation in any major way (or the status of women within science, for that matter). Despite the influx of members crisis struck the Society soon enough. On July 5,1826, Raffles died as a result of life-long disease, perhaps caused by too much intense work for and arguments with the East India Com­ pany. It is hard to detect any feelings within the Society but those of loss, although General Thomas Hardwicke as one of the original members and a member of Council in 1827 wrote:

As a man of Science, and promoter of useful knowledge, his loss to the Public is great: and, I fear, the important Project of a Zoological Soci- ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 71

ety and Establishment, upon an Extensive scale, of which He must be considered the Founder has received a check by the loss of its best Patron of which it will slowly recover if it does not [?] altogether fall to the ground [?].80

However, as history turned out, Hardwicke was overly pessimistic. There were other persons ready to take on Raffles' vision. Even though Davy con­ tinued to be viewed as one of the original members, founder of the Society and member of the first Council, he never became influential, probably owing to other obligations within Royal Society and illness. It was instead members of the old Zoological Club who started to lead the development and, of those, principally Nicholas Alyward Vigors and Joseph Sabine, Vig­ ors being secretary of the Club as well as the new Society and Sabine being chairman of the Club and treasurer of the Society. At the Council meeting in May 1826 the Duke of Somerset, Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl of Derby and Lord Auckland were elected vice-presidents.81 The Marquis of Lansd­ owne was elected president in Raffles' place b ut if one looks at who signed most of the minutes of Council (and thus was chairman of the meeting) throughout the 1820s, he was not overly visible. It was instead mainly Auckland, but also Somerset and Lord Stanley (later 13th Earl of Derby and president of the Society), who seem to have been most active. It may be asked whether the direction of the Zoological Society would have been different if Davy had been more forceful, or Raffles lived longer. This is of course impossible to answer definitely, but I dont believe that the development would have looked radically different. The connections with the British Empire did not vanish at Raffles' death, support continued to be given by employees within the empire and various private persons in the form of donations of animals, both dead and alive. The menagerie, along with the museum, continued to be rated of primary importance to the original aims of the Society (with the complementary farm as described below).

Imperial Science Colonisation can be carried out with national, religious, cultural and mili­ tary motives, but when Britain's colonisation is considered it must be rea­ lised that science was taken for granted in the process.82 Or, as Deepak 72 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Kumar has put it: "Natural resources were the star attraction and this brought the practitioners of natural history into the limelight/'83 Commer­ cial venture and imperial dictum, but also scientific enterprise, co-operated closely in the expansion of the British Empire.84 Mainly two forms of sci­ ence were important: science that could be used "on the spot" and science that had to be brought home in order to be powerful. Agriculture is a n example of the former, zoogeography and classification examples of the lat­ ter. Agricultural science could help the coloniser to transform and domesti­ cate the colonised, but zoogeography and not least classification put greater emphasis on the importance of bringing specimens back home. The Society received aid from both private interests and the state within the empire. The East India Company and the Hudsons Bay Com­ pany regularly brought home specimens, dead and alive, to the Society and the Foreign Office sent a letter to all the general-consuls of the British Empire in 1829, asking them to send to the Society "any rare animals".85 It is mainly through these channels (and private donors, of course) that the Society built up the collections of both the Menagerie and the Museum. But as a science, useful in the work of the empire, botany was more firmly established. The Royal Botanic Gardens of Kew collected specimens from all over the world and took a very active part in the British agricul­ tural use of rubber and quinine—a process which made Britain good money and further emphasised the empire's rule of the world but also stressed the botanical, and not the zoological, use of acclimatisation.86 Cor­ nelius Loudon writes, almost as if he knew what was about to happen in Regent's Park, in his An Encyclopaedia of Agriculture (1825):

Were as much attention paid to introducing alive, and acclimating foreign animals, as there is directed of the same branch of culture in plants, we should soon possess a rich Fauna, and the public taste may in time take this direction.87

Deepak Kumar supports this opinion:

Another important feature of this early phase is the relative neglect of medical and zoological sciences and this is in sharp contrast to larger investments in botanical, geological and geographical surveys from which the British hoped to get direct and substantial economic and military advantages, while medical or zoological sciences did not hold such promises.88 ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 73

Animal acclimatisation and naturalisation was thus not the thundering suc­ cess that its botanic counterpart had been. The establishment of breeding herds or flocks within England or out in the empire was not accomplished by the Society, unlike for example the acclimatisation of rubber. The Soci­ ety had collectors but I have not been able to find any specific instructions regarding what was required of them, perhaps because the collecting seems to have been on a primarily voluntary basis.89 The corresponding members were on the other hand asked in a letter from 1827 to:

send to us [...] specimens of subjects in Zoology of much curiosity and interest. Living specimens of all rare animals, and particularly of such as may possibly be domesticated and become useful here, will be much valued by us; and above all varieties of the Deer kind, and of gallinaceous Birds; but beyond this preserved insects, reptiles, birds, mammalia, fishes, eggs and shells...9

Hence there was little communication directed outwards from the Society in the form of animals but if one looks instead at how the Society organised its scientific meetings and Proceedings, it is possible to look upon it as a cen­ tre of calculation à la Latour.91 However, as pointed out by David Philip Miller for example, it is important to note that the collectors on the periph­ ery are no less important or knowledgeable than the persons at the centre. With the example of Sir Joseph Banks he shows how the centre can be seen as more of a "spectrum of activity" rather than there being opposition or even antagonism between the collector and the centre.92 This is equally clear when one looks at the Zoological Society, where there would not have been any centre at all without the voluntary efforts of corresponding mem­ bers and other travelling naturalists. By going a little outside the scope of the period of this chapter, it is easy to see how the Society's scientific proceedings (also discussed in Chap­ ter five) reflected a sort of zoological empire. The incoming results were shaped in mainly two ways. Either a corresponding member wrote a letter that was published in the Proceedings, telling how a certain animal behaved or how the indigenous people handled animals, or a collection of preserved animals was sent to the Society's Museum where one of the stationary zool­ ogists classified and named them. Living animals were of course also sent to the Gardens, but not in such vast numbers as the preserved ones. But it is 74 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK obvious that the Proceedings were a most important part of the whole machinery and that the people making this possible were those out in the empire, together with those in the centre. Without this publication it would be impossible to communicate that the Society's zoologists had iden­ tified a new bird of Madagascar and its complete external features, thus making it possible for everyone who visited Madagascar to identify the bird in question and its place in zoological classification. Furthermore, as the case of Raffles and the two French naturalists shows, it was not unimportant that this bird had been identified in English by a British scientific society. Science was supposed to create a brotherhood of likeminded men all over the world and this also happened to a certain extent as the work of the Zoological Society, its p ublications and Gardens shows. But at the same time science contained nationalistic ambitions to a greater or lesser extent, which meant that on a more abstract level all results published in the Proceedings could be regarded as British discoveries even if the author was German.93

The Zoological Gardens But it was not primarily a scientific periodical, but a zoological garden that was considered, along with the Museum, as the original aim of the Society. It was to be used for the introduction of animals as well as exhibiting series of animals for scientific use. But even if a piece of land had been granted before the first meeting, it took some time before the menagerie was fit to host any inhabitants. Therefore, at the first Council meeting, it was resolved that:

an arrangement be made with the Keepers of the Menageries of the Tower and Exeter Change, for taking charge of such Animals as may be presented to the Society, until their own Establishment is com­ pleted.94

This co-operation with the other two stationary menageries in London continued during these first years until the Tower menagerie was presented to the Zoological Society by the Royal Family in 1831 and Edward Cross had to move his menagerie from Exeter 'Change in 1829. ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE

Also, at this first Council meeting, the Society's first animals were pre­ sented: a vulture and an eagle from surgeon Joshua Brookes and a deer "from the Island of Sangoor" from Captain Pearl of the Lady Flora,95 Apart from the two menageries, animals were also kept in the rooms at Bruton Street, and the collection of living animals grew continuously during 1826 and 1827 until the Gardens were opened in 1828.96

Figure 2.1 Gothic for llamas, constructed by Decimus Burton, the Gardens' first resident architect. This is the oldest surviving building in the Gardens today. "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's-park," Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, no. 330 ( 6 September 1828): 149.

To be able to house the Gardens in Regent s Park was of course a great advantage, though there was one problem: the Commissioners of his Maj­ esty's Woods and Forests had constant opinions on the nature of the build­ ings erected in the Gardens. They consented to the erection of "a Shed for Indian Cows, an Aviary and a Dove Cote", but when the Society wanted to build winter residences for animals not used to the British winter this was not approved.97 Upon the acquisition of the ground the Society had prom­ ised that "our buildings would for the most part be low and in no case offensive", and some of the residents living in the Park had probably com­ plained over the nature of the new buildings.98 The animals spent the win­ ter of 1828-1829 in a stable in Park Street instead.99 Even though the Gardens were later criticised for their first animal enclosures, likened to "some roving Menagerie", it seems as if the Society 76 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

early on was aware of the importance of designers.100 The previously men­ tioned architect Decimus Burton was already in 1830 appointed resident architect of the Society. Burton, having built the Colosseum, was well aware of what kind of buildings would agree with the overall design of Regents Park: "Follies set in an elegant garden for entertainment and curi­ osity."101 He designed his houses in the picturesque tradition with a blend of "gothick and classical" as can be seen in for example the Brahmin Bull House, the Llama House (see Figure 2.1) and the Elephant and Deer Sta­ bles, and made the walks crooked and irregular.102 His buildings however owed more to his eye for outer design than to the actual requirements of the animals.103 That exotic animals would perish in the relatively harsh climate was a constant worry. All kinds of heating were used: hot air, water and lamps. Curtains were designed to cover the dens at night.104 But losses occurred nonetheless, and though these could be avoided by keeping hardier animals it was resolved that:

in endeavouring to gratify the curiosity of the Fellows and the Public, if this consideration was to be attended to, many of the most curious and interesting objects would not be procured.105

In order to avoid these deaths a medical attendant, Charles Spooner, was hired. However, it is not recorded how many animals he was able to cure and in September 1830 Council demanded to know why mortality had been unusually high in the Gardens. This demand was not answered; instead there came a plea from Spooner for an increase in salary (£60 p.a.) since the number of animals had increased radically since he was initially hired. The Council refused and Spooner resigned from his position in 1833.106 The Society's use of veterinarians is discussed further in Chapter five. The collection in the Gardens grew quickly and though they were offi­ cially opened on April 27, 1828, it was resolved at a meeting in May that five more acres would be requested.107 Besides this, the Society also came into possession of the lake in Regents Park and stocked it with various kinds of birds for the "purpose of breeding".108 Despite the more open, and thus unsafe, character of the lake, it seems as if its stock of birds were the only ones to breed satisfactorily during the first year.109 The Society even­ ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 77 tually acquired the extra piece of land, north of Park Road, the previous northern boundary of the Gardens and a tunnel was built so that it would not be necessary to cross the road.110 At first, it seems as though non-members were freely admitted to the Gardens as well as t o the Museum. In 1827 it was resolved that: "the Gar­ dens be opened to the Public every Wednesday and Saturday, on the pay­ ment of is./each person."111 Members were however admitted at all times and they had the opportunity to introduce a non-member.112 But less than a year later it was decided that strangers could only be admitted to the Gar­ dens by written orders from a member.113 There also existed a system of different tickets, with different privileges a ttaching to them. This meant that the Society had total control of who visited the Gardens, since the Council issued the tickets. The purpose of this system was explained as fol­ lows:

It is evidently proper, that in the admission of Strangers, some degree of system should be observed, especially at the Garden, for the sake, both of preventing mischief and injury to the Animals, and to the Garden itself, and of contributing, in some degree, to save the visitors themselves from the accidents that sometimes attend exhibitions of wild beasts of prey. The vulgar are too fond of irritating the fiercer ani­ mals, and of teazing and hurting those which are gentle; and both vul­ gar and others are often exceedingly rash, in introducing their hands into the dens and enclosures, or careless in placing themselves so near the bars, as to defeat the effect of every precaution for their safety. [—] The necessity for orders almost prevents young people from coming without some superintendence.114

This system was continued throughout the 1820s and 1830s but eventually changed at the end of the 1840s as described in the following chapter. How­ ever, t he system did not offer any protection from the vulgarity of those admitted, as a "constant reader" complained to the Tatler about several young men whom he had observed teasing the animals.115 The superinten­ dent of the Society's F arm, a Mr. Papps, also complained to the assistant secretary that a certain party which had visited the Farm one Sunday after­ noon had chased the zebras and the kangaroos and had been "carrying the ducks about in their arms, and afterwards pouring Punch or something similar in their pans".116 7* KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

That visitors were pestering the animals seems to have been fairly com­ mon. Already in one of the first articles about the Gardens from 1829 it had to be stated:

The public are very properly cautioned by the Society against irritat­ ing any of the animals, or imprudently venturing on their docility. Sticks, umbrellas, or whips run along the gratings of the dens or cages are constant sources of annoyance to animals in confinement... [...] The imprudence of caressing wild animals often carries the punish­ ment with it, and few adults need be cautioned against the danger. Children, however, should be closely attended in their walk through the grounds.117

Still, the animals could from time to time defend themselves rather vio­ lently, but since they were kept behind bars the ones most likely to get hurt were the keepers. A Mr. Cocksedge was severely bitten by one of the bears and was offered a gratuity of £5 in 1829.118 In 1830 a Josiah Graver was also seriously injured by the "large arctic bear" and probably because of this, the Council ordered that "no Keeper nor servant of the Society should expose himself unnecessarily to danger from any of the animals".119 It was however not stated what unnecessary exposure would be, and only about a month later a keeper attempting to hang a name sign in the coati mundis' cage was bitten quite badly by the "furious little creature".120 I have not been able discover how many employees the Gardens required in the very beginning but a variety of keepers were needed: Head- Keeper, Under-Keepers and keepers' boys. However, a publication from 1835 accounts for one Head-Keeper, two assistant Head-Keepers, one stew­ ard, ten Under-Keepers and one groom, all in all fifteen people to care for about 1000 mammals, birds and reptiles.121 A superintendent was responsi­ ble for the management of the Gardens as a whole and the Head-Keeper for the Menagerie. They reported to the Council by means of a Daily Occurrence sheet, which stated the condition of the Menagerie, work in the Gardens being currently carried out, numbers of general and particular visitors and miscellaneous reports. These employees were something that occupied the Council to quite some degree; it was for example forced to fire the Head-Keeper, James Cops, for "several acts of misconduct" in the very beginning of 1828.122 Keepers were fined by the police for assault in an intoxicated state and they ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 79 insulted visitors.123 The Council was also concerned for the keepers' souls and on suggestions from the Dean of Carlisle it was resolved that keepers should have the opportunity to attend Sunday mass. They should further­ more only be allowed to introduce visitors to the Gardens before ten in the morning and between one and three in the afternoon on Sundays.124 So, how did the Society obtain animals for its Zoological Gardens? In pretty much the same way as the museum: primarily through donations and purchases. There were continual references i n the Minutes to people offering animals as a gift or for purchase. From these offers it is hard to see any definite trend followed by the Society in obtaining animals for the Gar­ dens and the only thing Council expressly wished for during these years was a completion of their collection of ducks and British birds.125 Other­ wise, the Society mosdy asked for what it wanted in vague phrasing such as "rare animals".126 A large offer came twice from Edward Cross, owner of the menagerie at Exeter 'Change. As early as June 1826 he offered to manage the Society's menagerie and at the same time the whole of his own. The Council did not at the time feel prepared to deal with this generous offer and it seems as if they did not consider it at all.127 Cross came back two and a half years later, this time with the anatomist Sir Everard Home as agent. Home was proba­ bly a logical choice since he undoubtedly from had required animals time to time for dissection from Cross before the Society opened their menag­ erie, and because he was a member of the Council. This time the Council began a discussion with Cross but there was no agreeing on the price.128 The Council was generally cautious when it came to animal prices, except in some cases when really desirable animals were up for sale. They once claimed to be ready to pay £300 for one giraffe, while a young healthy male lion would fetch a mere £100.129 Since the Society's Farm was established primarily to fulfil what the Gardens were originally intended for, namely the "introduction of new varieties, breeds, and races of animals, for the purpose of domestication", what was the purpose of the Gardens? In the Report of 1829, the Gardens are mentioned as "the principal source of attraction and of expense".130 It is also revealed through other sources that the Society's main income, apart from members' fees, was admission fees from the Gardens.131 But although the acclimatisation measures had been moved to the Farm, this did not So KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK mean that the Society was giving up on the scientific character of the Gar­ dens altogether. The mere exhibit of a "series of living animals" could be seen as beneficial to science and it is happily reported in 1831:

The Council feel great satisfaction in referring not merely to the num­ ber but to the value and rarity of the species brought by them before the public... [...] many of them having never before been seen in Europe, and several being altogether new to science.132

However, the most common requests to the Society, as shown in the Min­ utes, were for use of the animals as objects of art. Very soon after the open­ ing in 1828, artists began to ask permission to make sketches of animals and buildings. This was generally approved of, on condition that sketches or engravings were submitted to the Council before publication.133 Another request that became very common in 1830 and onwards was for the admis­ sion of schools, and this was never refused. At least ten schools asked for, and got, permission to visit the Gardens during 1830, among them Clergy Orphane School and St. Merylbone Girls School.134 Perhaps the Council, by admitting schools and artists, hoped to acheive one of their original aims: to promote a "taste for Natural History in general and Zoology in particular".135 If the Society was to have Zoological Gardens, it was necessary to let potential visitors know that they existed. Two very detailed guide-like descriptions of the Gardens were published early in the Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction (1828) and A Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park (1829).136 Both descriptions are written in almost exacdy the same lan­ guage, with some changes in the 1829 version, and they praise the Gardens with great enthusiasm. The Gardens are not only a zoological attraction, but also "a delightful promenade, laid out with great taste". It is however pointed out that the purpose of the collections is not simply the "mere exhibition of animals", but also scientific.137 The later publication is more detailed and lists regulations regarding admissions and who the members of Council were.138 In 1828, William Broderip was requested by the Council to complete a "Catalogue of the animals at the park", i.e. a guidebook to be published by the Society, and the Council further ordered that labels with names of animals be put up.139 Requests from publishers to sell or publish ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 81 other guides but with the sanction of the Council were refused during these early years.140 These and other guides are further discussed in Chapter four. But descriptions concerning the Gardens did not necessarily have to be short articles in other publications. Edward Bennett published, together with Vigors, Broderip and William Yarrell, The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated in 1830, where the menagerie s quadrupeds and birds were treated in two volumes.141 Since the volumes were also gen­ erously illustrated they were said to be "one of the most enchanting books that a lover of nature and art can desire" and it was considered an advantage that the books did not contain any of the noises or smells that were unavoidable in the real Gardens.142 All this work with guidebooks, labels, articles and visits from school and artist was most likely done inorde r to promote popular zoology among the public. But who were the public? The Council uses this word quite often in different contexts but never defines it. A likely assumption is that they simply meant the public to which the Gardens were devoted. This was in turn, as described above, dependent on the system of admission to the Gardens. In the beginning it seems as if the public was anyone who cared to pay the admission fee, but soon the public was restricted to the people introduced by the Fellows, which in reality probably meant the educated upper middle and upper classes. It is also reasonable to believe that these were also the intended public for a publication like The Zoological Society Delineated since it was a fairly expensive work (24 shillings). What, then, did the public see when it entered the Gardens? Enclo­ sures and dens were constructed at a rapid pace and it seems as if the Gar­ dens changed appearance from day to day. Hence, pictures of the Gardens are not always completely reliable. In the "Gardens of the Zoological Soci­ ety" from 1829, the numbered picture (Map 2.1, Appendix V: Maps) does not agree with the numbers in the text and the picture is radically different from the Society's ma p from 1829 (Map 2.2, Appendix V: Maps) and also from the one appearing in the book The Zoological Keepsake from 1830 (Map 2.3, Appendix V: Maps). However, the plans from "Gardens of the Zoological Society" and The Zoological Keepsake are so similar in style if not in detail, that the former probably served as a prototype for the latter. But if the 1829 picture from "Gardens of the Zoological Society" is compared with the numbers in the text of the "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regents Park" from 1828, then it makes more sense. Maybe there was no 82 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK time for a proper engraving to be finished before the publication of the pic­ turesque guide which is signed May 1829? According then to the 1828 text and the 1829 picture, the entrance is marked [1]. Following the Central Walk [4] the house and grounds for emus [3] come first on the left. Further down is the bear pit [7], bordered by kangaroos [8, 9 ], and dens containing predators [10] such as leopards and wolves together with racoons and porcupines. Turning right by the bear pit the gothic house for llamas [11] is straight ahead (the oldest house in the Gardens still standing) and next to it a circular aviary for birds of prey [12] containing vultures, eagles and condors. To the right of the aviary is a hut for beavers [13] and next to that a hut for foreign goats [14]. Going back, past the gothic house, an area and fountain for aquatic birds appear [15] and to the right of that, a semicircular aviary [16] with cranes, spoon­ bills and storks. Passing the llama house on the left huts for esquimaux dogs [17] come into view followed by a fountain for water fowl [18] on the left and enclosures for zebras and Indian cows (Zebus) [19] on the right. The long poles have houses for monkeys on the top [20; see also Figure 2.2] and are bordered by an "intended aviary" for eagles and vultures [21] (prob­ ably not built yet, even though it is in the picture). Further down, towards the Park, there is a house for monkeys [23], but also ocelot, puma and lynx, for example, are housed here. To the right, another intended aviary [24] and to the left enclosures for Mexican hogs [25] and Jackalls [sic] [26]. More houses are planned towards the edge of the Park [27].143 Can the tour tell us anything about the preferences of the Society con­ cerning the animals of the menagerie? The mammals generally had more space, but the birds were in a majority and hence the aviaries seem to have been rather crowded. The Report of 1829 lists 69 species and 152 individual mammals, and 125 species and 475 individual birds.144 Birds were more cost effective and seem also to have been the prime target for the early acclima­ tisation measures. Still, since the Society worked with a limited budget these first years it did not have the ability to choose its animals but proba­ bly accepted what donations it could get and bought what animals it could afford. It seems that it was not until the middle of the 1830s that the Society had enough financial backing to specifically order such expensive animals as giraffes.145 ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE S3

Figure 2.2 Initially the monkeys of the Gardens were chained to these so called "monkey-poles", later replaced by more proper (and functional) buildings. "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's-park," Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, no. 330 ( 6 September 1828): 149.

Lastly, it was important for the Gardens to distiguish themselves from regu­ lar menageries where the public inevitably sold itself short by "vulgar admi­ ration" and where the animals were not shown from their best side.146 The Oriental Herald reported thus:

Removed from the confined and unpleasant situation into which they are now crammed [regular menageries], these animals will no longer 84 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

produce, in the more ample and well ventilated space which will be allotted to them, those disgusting sensations occasionally experienced by the casual visitor; the advocates of humanity towards the brute cre­ ation will rejoice in the comfort afforded by their superior accommo­ dation; while the student of nature will feel assured, that their movements and their instincts are less fettered, and that his deduc­ tions from them are consequently entitled to be received with less hes­ itation.147

Compared to the Exeter 'Change for example it was probably a radical change in exotic animal husbandry, but everyone was not as easily con­ vinced about the excellence of the Gardens and their enclosures. The keep­ ing of predatory birds was especially sensitive since it seemed as if these birds lost all their meaning when they did not soar through the skies.148 But in general, the Society did not receive much criticism from the RSPCA or others concerning the enclosures but rather for example about the feed­ ing of live mice to snakes.149

The Farm Because of the rapid success of the Gardens it was soon realised that they were not sufficient for the purpose of acclimatisation; the area in Regent's Park was too small for successful breeding and with many visitors it was not quiet enough.150 In the Report of the Council from 1829 the purposes of an additional Farm are set out:

1st. In affording a convenient relief and assistance to the Menagerie in the Park, by removing from it such Quadrupeds and Birds as may require a quiet place to bring forth and rear their young... [...] 2nd. The rearing various domesticated Quadrupeds and Birds, both of ornamental as well as useful varieties, with a view of having their kinds true and free from mixture... [...] 3rd. The conducting experiments in all matters relating to breeding and points if animal physiology connected therewith... [—] In the objects of attention at the Farm, the breeding and trying experiments with fish are of course included.151

It was decided at a Council meeting in 1828 to start looking for "a small farm of land in the vicinity of London to be used as a breeding place", but this search must have been initially fruidess, for only a couple of months ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE later it was resolved that an advertisement be put in the papers.152 The use of printed media seems to have paid off; after two more months the trea­ surer Joseph Sabine laid before the Council the particulars of a lot at King­ ston Hill in Surrey and this seems to have been approved of.153 Of the Farms three (or perhaps four) purposes—relief for animals from Regents Park, breeding/acclimatisation, experimenting and the breeding of fish—it seems as if it was the first two that the Society managed to implement most thoroughly. Animals that became ill i n Regent's Park were restored to health thanks to the "wholesome soil" in Surrey, and the breeding record of mammals and birds also appeared to justify the acquisi­ tion of the additional ground. Already in the Report from 1830 it is "hoped that specimens may be offered to Fellows of the Society of many of the rarer kinds of Pigeons and of Rabbits.. ."154 But when it comes to experi­ ments and the rearing of fish, the records are poorer. One of the few reported experiments was Richard Owens investigation inot the reproduc­ tion of kangaroos in 1832. However, it was not performed at the Farm but the kangaroos were relocated to the Gardens in order to be more easily observed.155 The very thing that made the Farm so attractive, its location, may thus also have been the reason why the third aim was not accom­ plished and the Society's hopes of "settling many questions of this descrip­ tion [breeding and animal physiology] in a satisfactory manner" were not realised.156 The "fourth" aim, the breeding of fish, is quite interesting. As seen pre­ viously in the formation of committees for example, the Society tried to include fish in its programme.157 But its enthusiasm never seems to have gone farther than rhetoric and in 1832 it comments: "Neither the Ponds [at the Farm], nor the supply of water, have turned out so useful or so good as was originally expected."158 The reason for this was pardy that the water was reserved primarily for the aquatic birds. But the explanation for this lack of success m ay also be found outside the Society. L oudon offers a n answer in An Encyclopaedia of Agriculture:

The cultivation of fish is carried on to a very limited extent in Britain, owing to the great superiority of the sorts obtained by fishing in rivers or the sea, and to the decline of the catholic religion, which no longer renders fish an article of importance on certain days and seasons.15 86 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Moreover, as it was the country gentlemen who were the Society's staunch- est supporters, especially when it came to breeding, it was probably not unimportant that they did not include fishing in their catalogue of out­ door sports. Like hunting, fishing was a leisure activity but not taken very seriously and seen as more fitting for boys than men.160 It appears as if it was Joseph Sabine who was most dedicated to the Farm which is not surprising since he was not only treasurer of the Zoolog­ ical Society, but secretary of the Horticultural as well. Nothing in the Min­ utes reveals anything out of the ordinary with the work of the farm and it seems to have proceeded with few glitches during its first year. In fact, the Farm was seen as:

absolutely necessary for the purpose of breeding and rearing of young animals, and giving facilities for observations on matters of physiolog­ ical interest and research, and, above all, in making attempts to natu­ ralize such species as are hitherto rare or unknown in this country.161

But at a meeting of the Council on February 12 in 1830 Sabine communi­ cated, through Lord Auckland, that although he himself had devoted both time and money to the Farm, he had a feeling that this was not sufficiently appreciated either by the Council or by the Society as a whole. The Coun­ cil hurriedly declared that "in his management of the Farm [...] Mr. Sabine possessed their entire confidence".162 Possibly because of his obligations at the Farm, Sabine resigned as treasurer of the Society in 1830 but remained as superintendent of the Farm since he agreed with the Council that the Farm was "essential to the due fulfilment of the original purposes of the Society".163 A sentence in the Report of that year may have been formulated to further smooth things over:

they [the auditors] perform but a mere act of justice in calling the attention of the Society to the diligent exertions of the Treasurer, who has devoted so much time and labour to promote the interests of the Zoological Society.164

But Sabine seems to have caused one of the first arguments within the Soci­ ety and its members, since not everyone agreed with the Council in having confidence in Sabine. He was accused of driving the Horticultural Society ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 87 into serious debt due to expenses at the Horticultural^ gardens at Chiswick and of trying to do the same with the Zoological.165 A bitter voice asked:

Of Mr. Sabine's cattle-feeding capabilities, of course, we do not pre­ tend to judge; but when it is on record that his ignorance and extrava­ gance have already brought one Society to the brink of ruin, can any thing be conceived more strange than that men of common sense should insist on his being allowed an opportunity of doing the same by another...166

However, Sabine was supported by powerful members of the Council and did not resign despite the criticism. But even though the Council declared the Farm to be vital for the Society it nonetheless cost more money than the Society could afford (it is not clear whether this was direcdy due to Sab­ ine s extravagance). When the King donated the Royal Menagerie at Wind­ sor to the Society, most of the animals were transferred to the Farm, which made it almost as crowded as the Gardens. In July 1830 it was ordered that animals not being kept for the purpose of breeding, experiment or recover­ ing from sickness, were to be removed from the Farm.167 Money did how­ ever continue to be a problem, and although a report from 1832 sounds optimistic about the Farms potential for breeding and physiological experi­ menting it closed down only two years later.168

The Museum One of the initial aims of the Society had been to create a museum in order to complete the collection of living animals in the Gardens with a collec­ tion of preserved animals. Raffles himself had probably envisioned a museum containing in the first place the collections from his many jour­ neys. This was however not realised; when Raffles departed from Singapore for the last time with all of his collections, the ship Fame caught fire just off the coast and took nearly all the collections down with her when she sank. A quantity was nonetheless salvaged and while waiting for a new ship to depart, Raffles managed to assemble a new collection, although not as extensive. He donated part of it at the founding of the Society, and Lady Sophia Raffles the rest after her husband s death, which made the Council appoint her the first female Honorary member.169 88 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

As well as with the Gardens, work with the Museum started right away. The Society obtained possession of a house in Bruton Street in July 1826, and less th an six months later members were invited to inspect the new Museum.170 Invitations were also sent out to "such members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as to such official persons, as may be likely to forward the views of the Society".171 Collections were built by means of both purchase and donations, but since all business, except for the Gardens, was to be sustained on £1000 per annum, purchases had to be cut down to a minimum.172 The exchange of specimens was a common practice among museums as well, though not mentioned specifically in connection with the Society's Museum. But even when relying on donations and exchanges, rather than purchase, the collec­ tion grew extensively. The Report of 1829 speaks already of difficulties in maintaining the whole of the collection, which had grown out of the pre­ mises of Bruton Street, a problem that was not solved until 1836.173 Dona­ tions were plentiful and the Royal Family contributed for example an ostrich as early as 1827.174 The rooms at Bruton Street were also fitted with dissection equipment, and many animals were studied here and turned up later at the Museum stuffed or as skins.175 Some donations that ended up at the Museum were animals originally intended for the Gardens which had died on the way, but most of them were already preserved in some way. The begging letter to corresponding members previously mentioned rec­ ommends brine, which would be "sufficient for preservation not quite effectual perhaps for the skin in all instances, but perfectly so for purposes of dissection and comparative anatomy'.176 Donators could vary, but those mentioned most frequendy were for example Governors of the Hudson's Bay Company, Directors of the East India Company and Asiatic Society of Calcutta. Thus, just as in the case of the Gardens, the official imperial influence on the Museum is clearly shown. But donations could also come from private sources. Hugh Cuming gave away a collection of Crustacea from the South American West Coast; 6000 species and 3—10 specimens of each species.177 With such donations it is no wonder that the Society's col­ lections soon exceeded those of the natural history department of the Brit­ ish Museum.178 As Raffles die d so soon after the Society's founding it was principally Vigors who was in charge of the Museum collection. The collection seems ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE to have become popular quite quickly, for there were many requests for its use for different purposes. Most of these were of a zoological nature, i.e. sci­ entific, and concerned either loans of specimens in order to illustrate lec­ tures, or morphological investigations.179 It is interesting to note how these requests were radically different from the requests from schools and artists who wanted to visit the Gardens. On which grounds the Council refused or approved these requests cannot always be detected in the Minutes, but it seems that members got the upper hand if there was any competition and that the Council was generally cautious in complying with requests. Both John Edward Gray and William Swainson were refused the use of Museum specimens on the respective grounds that other members were using the collections for the moment, and that only members were allowed to use them. It may however be noted that museums were generally less than gen­ erous about requests that meant specimens were to be taken from the museum itself. M any of the Society's specimens were types and therefore irreplaceable. The concept of "type" and other morphological terms are fur­ ther discussed in Chapter five.

Concluding Remarks With regard to the early history of the Zoological Society and its Gardens, there are several questions that demand answers. However, these answers are not always easy to provide and, in some cases, impossible to supply owing to a lack of material and evidence. Questions that strike me as particularly interesting are those concern­ ing acclimatisation, since they touch on almost all aspects of this study. What part did acclimatisation play in Davy's and Raffles' discussion about the primary objectives of the Society and the Gardens? Since the idea of acclimatisation depended on the existence of an empire, or at least commu­ nications on an imperial scale, questions about colonialism and imperial­ ism also become crucial. The discussion between Davy and Raffles seems to have been fairly well documented in the past and it is hard to contribute anything new. One aspect that I find interesting but that unfortunately does not supply any definitive answers is Raffles' interest in agriculture and therefore also, in my opinion, in acclimatisation or at least breeding in general. This concern 90 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK and the fact that he seemed to enjoy contact with living animals immensely, through his private menageries, suggests that he was not only focused on the part to be played by the museum in the future Society, but also had an eye to the Gardens. That Davy was singularly interested in the acclimatisation of new game and not in museum science seems to be more certain. 180 Another interesting question that unfortunately will also have to go unanswered concerns the importance of possible forerunners. Expressly mentioned, as stated previously, were the Horticultural Society and the Jar- din des Plantes. But when the aims of the Society in general and the Gar­ dens and Farm in particular are studied it is hard not to notice the obvious parallels to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. Why was Kew not men­ tioned as a forerunner? It cannot be due to any animosity between zoolo­ gists and botanists, since the Horticultural was a botanical society. Antagonism towards Banks (who more or less personified Kew) is also unlikely since Davy was his crown prince and Raffles was a part of his "learned empire" and seems to have admired him. But even if Kew seems to be the perfect prototype when one considers the expressed aims of the Society, the reality is that the Zoological did not even approach Kew's prominence. This may in part be due to the fact that they did not possess a person who could measure up to Banks and his net­ works but it also depends on the different organisms that the institutions dealt with. Plants were easier to 'breed' and preserve, the seeds were easier to transport and required less space than animals, either dead or alive. Rebecca Preston describes how the empire became both visible and civilised through the efforts of botanists who imported exotic plants that could be planted in English domestic gardens.181 But the Zoological Society's efforts were never aimed at the home but at large-scale farming, and the only par­ allel to Preston's garden plants in the animal world is perhaps aquaria. But no matter how hard the Society and the Fellows tried, they never came close to the success of plants. This divide between plants and animals is also echoed within agricul­ ture. One might perhaps believe t hat the agricultural community would have engaged themselves in the new Society but this was not the case, and James Secord tries to explain why in his essay "Darwin and the Breeders". It is mainly a question of economics; it was hard to make acclimatisation of animals as financially rewarding as that of plants. But it is also striking that ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 91 the main field of co-operation between agriculturists and scientists was established within botany through agricultural chemistry.182 All this sug­ gests s imply that animals are not as easy to manipulate and care for as plants. But even if the Society did not manage to build a "learned empire" on the model of Banks and Kew it did nonetheless take advantage of the Brit­ ish Empire as it was in the 1820s and '30s. As previously described the Soci­ ety received help from the Foreign Office, and this seems to have paid off quite quickly since the Reports spea k of donations from Tripoli, British Guyana and Tangiers. The system of corresponding members also seems to have worked satisfactorily and resulted in animals and specimens from Van Diemens Land as well as Mauritius. It is also possible to interpret in a different way the verbal interest in acclimatisation that did not lead to any substantial results. Maybe the important thing was not the acclimatisation per se, but what it represented. The British Empire was at the time significant in the lives of Britons and not least Londoners since they lived in the very heart of the empire. Dar­ win once said: "Seeing, when amongst foreigners, the strength and power of one's own nation, gives a feeling of exultation that is not felt at home."183 As with the exotic house plants, the Zoological Society and par­ ticularly its Gardens offered a tangible opportunity to feel this exultation directly at home and the emphasis on acclimatisation further strengthened this. Acclimatisation of plants and animals was the science that placed the exotic 'Other in Britain and had also made it possible, through British plants and animals, to domesticate large areas of the exotic colonies.184 In this sense, the Zoological Gardens become a symbolic emblem of the Brit­ ish Empire rather than an obvious testament to what this empire could mean to the everyday lives of Londoners. However, after a while it becomes clear that the acclimatisation (and scientific) efforts of the Society were of a primarily one-way character. Many specimens and animals poured into the Museum and the Gardens but precious little was communicated outwards from the Society other than requests for more animals and specimens. As d escribed in the context of Latours "centres" it was not until the Society started its Proceedings that the outward communication became more regular. I previously noted that it probably made litde difference that Raffles died, since there were plenty of other committed persons to continue the 92 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK work with the Society. But in this communication with the empire it may have made a difference. Normally, acclimatisation consists of two parts: animals and plants from the empire flow into the centre (in this case Lon­ don) but there are also animals and plants flowing out, into the empire from the centre. The plants and animals may either be indigenous or sim­ ply relocated from one end of the empire to the other.185 In the case of the Zoological Society there was only an inflow of material, never an outflow. Since Raffles was one of the few original members who had a clear colonial interest and who also acknowledged the importance of agriculture in build­ ing successful colonies, the outflow might have been larger had he lived. However, it must be said that there is nothing in the prospectuses to sug­ gest such an ambition, only the importation of interesting animals to Brit­ ain, i.e. what the empire could give to the Society and not what the Society could give to the empire. In view of this discussion, is it possible then, like Adrian Desmond, to say that the heart of the early Society lay within acclimatisation and that the Gardens thus became a "clearing house for aristocratic stock"?186 I believe that he does have a point and also that the interest in acclimatisa­ tion slowly faded away during the 1830s, with the Farm. It is highly likely that the members interested in acclimatisation and the breeding of game dropped out one by one when it became clear that the Society would not be able to stock the gentry's land with new types of pheasants and eland. If this were to happen, you had to do what the Earl of Derby did and invest a lot of time and money yourself. However, the interest in acclimatisation did not vanish completely from the Society. Poultry shows were held until the middle of the 1840s and as will be described in Chapter three, acclima­ tisation was still in the late 40s described as an essential, if not the essential, part of the Society.187 But, as also discussed in the following chapter, this interest in acclimatisation seems not to have progressed beyond rhetoric, since the animals the Society actually requested during the same time were not antelopes and game birds but lions and hippos. Neither is it altogether fair to say that the Gardens were of no scientific interest whatsoever. This question is more thoroughly dealt with in Chap­ ter five, and it will suffice here to point to the fact that the Society itself claimed that the Gardens were of a scientific interest. It wanted to perform experiments at the Farm and there is nothing to contradict the assumption that this means that it was thought possible to do this in the Gardens as ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 93 well, at least in the beginning. That the animals were thought to be better cared for in the Gardens and therefore more natural in their behaviour, which made them more interesting to observe, has already been described. The scientific use of having long series of animals for comparative reasons is also pointed out in several sources. In reality, this emphasis on series of species simply turns the Gardens into a living version of the Museum and it is interesting that the Society never states why it was better to have long series of living animals instead of museum specimens. The forming of the Society was obviously distinguished by internal Tights' and difference of opinions, but as a Society it was promoted within London society and it was considered important as a healthy counterpart to French morphology, both on an institutional and theoretical level. Even if later there was enthusiastical talk of the "self-relying character ofthe Anglo- Saxon race" which made a society like the Zoological flourish without any help from the state, the truth is that the Society received quite a bit of help, albeit not financial or to the same extent as the Jardin des Plantes.188 The permission to place the Gardens in Regent s Park has been previously men­ tioned, as well as the support from the Foreign Office. Apart from this, the Society also received more personal help from the Crown. The Duke of Somerset was a personal friend of Raffles who introduced him to the court and was also one of the founding members of the Society.189 The Marquis of Lansdowne was a cousin to William IV and the King both granted the Society a charter and offered to be the Society's patron, a tradition that was later upheld by Queen Victoria. Furthermore, the Society received recogni­ tion from the King in the shape of donations, the largest being the menag­ eries of Windsor and the Tower. Of all the aims and objectives mentioned in the prospectuses—Gar­ dens (and Farm), Museum and Library—only the Gardens and the Library survived the 1850s. As described in Chapter three, the Gardens experienced a new period of success during the first half of the 50s, much like their pop­ ularity in the early 30s, and became quite firmly fixed within the British (or at least the London) mind. The Farm was wound up in 1834 and the Museum type-specimens described in the Proceedings and Transactions were largely donated to the British Museum in 1855.190 In both cases the Society made an active choice and both times chose to promote the Gardens at the expense of other parts of the Society. The Gardens meant that the Society was given the opportunity to survive financially but also that it became 94 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK more public compared to other London societies and hence became more exposed to criticism, both positive and negative. Thus the possible closure of the Gardens in 1990 (discussed in the Epilogue) managed to arouse the whole British nation in much the same way as the Jumbo affair had aroused Londoners in the 1880s. One may wonder whether Raffles, Banks and Davy ever dreamed of such double-edged success. ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 95

NOTES

1. Jumbo "quoted" in Jan Bondeson, Lärda grisar och falska sjöjungfrur (Kivik, Sweden: Kiviksgårdens förlag, 1994), 86. 2. See for example W.P. Jolly, Jumbo (London: Constable, 1976); Neil Harris, Humbug The Art ofP.T. Barnum, new ed. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 25 6-266, and A.H. Saxon, P.T. Barnum: The Legend and the Man (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 274-302. 3. There are many artides and biographies on Raffles and unless stated otherwise I have foremost used Lady Sophia Raffles, Memoir of the Life and Public Services ofSir Thomas Stamford Raffles (London: John Murray, 1830); Demetrius Boulger, The Life of Sir Stam­ ford Raffles (London: H. Marshall & Son, 1897); Bethune Cook, Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles: Founder of Singapore (London: Arthur H. Stockwell, 1918), and C.E. Wurtzburg, Rajfles of the Eastern Isles (Lon don: Hodder and Stoughton, 1954). See for example also Gentlemans Magazine: An Historical Chronicle, Jul-Dec 1826, 78-86; E.W. Brayley, "Some account of the life and writings, and contributions to science of the late Sir T. Stamford Raffles, Knt. F.R.S. S.A. &: C.," Zoological Journal3, no. 9 (1827): 1-48, and idem, "Some account of the life and writings, and contributions to science of the late Sir T. Stamford Raffles, Knt. F.R.S. S.A. & C.," Zoological Journal 3, no. 11 (1827): 382-400. 4. Raffles, Life and Public Services, 4. 5. See John Bastin, "Sir Stamford Raffles and the study of natural history in Penang, Sin­ gapore and Indonesia," Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society63 (pt. 2), no. 259 (1990): 1-25, and idem, "Raffles the naturalist," The Straits Time Annual 1971, 59-63. 6. Bastin, "Raffles and the study of natural history," 10-11, 11 n. 47. 7. John Bastin, "Dr. Joseph Arnold and the discovery of Rafflesia arnoldi in West Sumatra in 1818,"/ Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 6, no. 5 (197 3): 322. 8. Ibid., 325. 9. Letter from Raffles to Thomas Horsfield, Bencoolen, March 18, 1820. "Copies of 17 let­ ters, June 1813-April 1823, from Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles to Dr. Thomas Horsfield" (British Library: Mss.Eur.Ph0t0.Eur.70). 10. This parasitic plant produces the world s largest flower which also smells foul, reportedly like rotting flesh. 11. Thomas Raffles, Letters, During a Tour Th rough Some Parts of France, Savoy, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands, in the Summer of 1817 (Liverpool, 1818), 40. 12. Raffles, Life and Public Services, 290; Sir Harold Hartley, Humphry Davy (London: Tho­ mas Nelson & Sons, 1966), 129, and Scherren, 7. 13. See for example Raffles, Life and Public Services, 590-591. 14. Andrew Gage and William Stearn, A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London (London: Academic Press, 1988), 30. 15. The few zoological contributions accepted by the Philosophical Transactions a nd the Transactions of the Linnean Society during the early nineteenth century can be seen as a measure of the poor interest in zoology. Lord Solly Zuckerman, "The Zoological Soci­ ety: Evolution of a constitution," in The Zoological Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond, Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, ed. Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40 (London: Academic Press, 1976), 4. 16. Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society, 30. 17. Ibid., 30-31; Harriet Ritvo, The Platypus and the Mermaid and Other Figments of the Clas­ sifying Imagination (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 31-35, and Adrian Desmond, "The making of institutional zoology in London, 1822- 1836," 2 pts., History of Science 23 (1985): 1:161-164. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

18. David Miller, "Between hostile camps: Sir Humphry Davy's presidency of the Royal Society of London, 1820-1827," BJHS16 (1983): 7-19. 19. See for example John Freeman, Life of the Rev. William Kirby (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1852), 372-374. For the original members of the Club, see Appendix I: Zoological Club. 20. See for example the Zoological Journal (1824-35) where the minutes from the Club's meet­ ings are published. See also Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society, 31; Des­ mond, "Institutional zoology," 1:159-160, and Scherren, 3. 21. William Kirby, "Introductory address, explanatory of the views of the Zoological Club, delivered at its foundation, November 29, 1823," Zoological Journal 2, no. 5 (1826): 1, 7. Zoology is said to contain several of these "provinces", which might thus be regarded as subdisciplines. 22. Ibid., 8. 23. Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society, 31-32, and Desmond, "Institutional zool­ ogy," 1:164-168. However, the Zoological Journal (1824-1834) was in reality the transac­ tions of the Zoological Club since its contributors consisted almost exclusively of members of the Club. 24. See for example Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society; 39. Apart from the com­ petition from the Zoological Society, the Linnean Society was generally low on funds since having to purchase the Linnean collections from James Edward Smith, the soci­ ety's founder, and could not fully support the Club. R. Fish, "The library and scientific publications of the Zoological Society of London: Part I," in Zoological Society of Lon­ don 1826—1976, ed. Zuckerman, 236. 25. Sir Robert Peel quoted in Hartley, Humphry Davy, 129. 26. Sir Robert Peel quoted in Hartley, Humphry Davy\ 129-130. See also Miller, "Between hostile camps," 36-37. 27. John Bastin, "The first prospectus of the Zoological Society of London: New light on the Society's origin,"/. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 5, no. 5 (1970): 370, and Scherren, 16. 28. Ibid., 383. 29. Ibid., 369-375. 30. Hartley, Humphry Davy; 130, and Miller, "Between hostile camps," 36-37. 31. "The new zoological institution," Zoological Journal 2, no. 6 (1826): 285. 32. Bastin, "First prospectus," 376. 33. Ibid., 382. 34. On scientific nationalism, see for example Sverker Sörlin, "Ordering the world for Europe: Science as intelligence and information as seen from the northern periphery," in Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise, ed. Roy MacLeod, Osiris, vol. 15 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 51-69. 35. Another possible forerunner, although not specifically mentioned by Raffles, might be the Barrackpore Zoological Garden (1801) loca ted in Calcutta. The garden was a very popular resort during the first 20 years of the nineteenth century and also tried to carry out a systematic study of Indian zoology. See Sally Walker, "Zoological gardens of India," in Zoo and Aquarium History; Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens, ed. Vernon Kisling, Jr. (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001), 257-265. 36. Harold Fletcher, The Story of the Royal Horticultural Society, 1804-1968 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 20. 37. Dorinda Outram, "New spaces in natural history," in Cultures of Natural History, eds. Nicholas Jardine, James Secord, and Emma Spary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 249-265, and idem, Georges Cuvier: Vocation, Science and Authority in Post- Revolutionary France (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), 161-188. 38. The Horticultural did not acquire its own garden until 1819, but on the other hand many members were gardeners and could hence grow their own experiments'. Fletcher, Hor­ ticultural Society, 72-73. 39. Bastin, "First prospectus," 370 and Scherren, 16. ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 97

40. Raffles, Life and Public Services, 590-593; Scherren, 16-17; R- Fish and I. Montagu, "The Zoological Society and the British overseas," in Zoological Society of London 1826—1976, ed. Zuckerman, 27; Fish, "Library and scientific publications," 233, and Desmond, "Institutional zoology," 2:224-226. 41. William Jardine, "Memoir of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles," in The Natural History of Game Birds, The Naturalist's Library, vol. 21; Ornithology, vol. 4, ed. William Jardine (London, 1834), 53' 61, and letter to the Duchess of Somerset, Bencoolen 27th June 1820. "Letters from Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles to the Duke and Duchess of Somer­ set" (British Library: Mss.Eur.D742/24-25). 42. Sara Wilmot, 'The Business of Improvement': Agriculture and Scientific Culture in Britain, c.iyoo-c.iS/o, Historical Geography Research Series, no. 24 (Bristol, 1990), and Richard Drayton, Nature's Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the Improvement' of the World (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 2000), 85-128. 43. Christopher Lever, They Dined on Eland: The Story of the Acclimatisation Societies (Lon­ don: Quiller Press, 1992), 24-25. 44. F.M.L. Thompson, English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century (1963; reprint, Lon­ don: Roudedge and Kegan Paul, 1971), 231. 45. Michael Osborne, Nature, the Exotic and the Science of French Colonialism (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1994), xiv. 46. Osborne, French Colonialism, 62-97. 47. PZS, 26/11 (1833), 128-132. 48. Warwick Anderson, "Climates of opinion: Acclimatization in nineteenth-century France and England," Victorian Studies 35, no. 2 (1992): 143,147. 49. James Secord, "Darwin and the breeders: A social history," in The Darwinian Heritage, ed. David Kohn (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 519—542. 50. See for example G.E. Mingay, "The agricultural revolution," in The Agricultural Revolu­ tion: Changes in Agriculture, 1650—1880, ed. G.E. Mingay (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1977), 1-68; R.J. Moore-Coyler, "Sheep," in The Agrarian History of England and Wales, ed. G.E. Mingay, vol. 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 313-335; R.J. Moore-Coyler, "Cattle," in Agrarian History, ed. Mingay, 335-351; Catherine Breeze, "Pigs," in Agrarian History, ed. Mingay, 353-358; Harriet Ritvo, "Possessing Mother Nature: Genetic capital in eighteenth-century Britain," Man and Nature: Working Paper 63, Humanities Research Center, Odense University (Odense, Den­ mark, 1995), and Harriet Ritvo, Platypus and the Mermaid, 68-84. 51. See for example Harold Carter, His Majesty's Spanish Flock: Sir Joseph Banks and the Meri­ nos of George III of England (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1964); idem, ed., The Sheep and Wool Correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks, 1/81-1820 (n.p.: The Library Council of New South Wales in association with the British Museum [Natural History], 1979), and idem, Sir Joseph Banks, 1743—1820 (London: British Museum [Natural History], 1988), 427-438. 52. John Robinson, Georgian Model Farms: A Study of Decorative and Model Farm Buildings in the Age of Improvement, 1700—1846 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 6. 53. Thompson, English Landed Society,, 97,137-138. 54. S.J. Woolfall, "History of the 13th Earl of Derby's menagerie and aviary at Knowsley Hall, Liverpool (1806-1851)," Archives of Natural History 17, no. 1 (1990): 1-47. See also Will­ iam Pollard, The Stanleys ofKnowsley: A History of that Noble Family Including a Sketch of the Political and Public Lives of the Right Hon. The Earl of Derby, K G. and the Right Hon. Lord Stanley, M.P. (Liverpool, 1868). 55. Letter from Raffles to Sir Robert Inglis, April 28,1825, in Raffles, Life and Public Services, 59°- 56. Letter from N.A. Vigors to Kirby, June 30, 1825, in Freeman, William Kirby; 373-374. Cornelius Loudon calls the Earl of Egremont an "amateur agriculturist". John Corne­ lius Loudon, An Encyclopaedia of Agriculture (London, 1825), 977. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

57. Letter from Raffles to the Rev. Thomas Raffles, March 9, 1825 in Raffles, Life and Public Services, 592. It might also be noted that Raffles co-operated with Nathaniel Wallich (superintendent of the Calcutta Botanic garden) in planning a botanical garden in Sin­ gapore. The plans were however not executed until i860. R. Hanitsch, "Letters of Nathaniel Wallich relating to the establishment of botanical gardens in Singapore," Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society no. 65 (1913): 39-48. 58. Letter from Raffles to the Rev. Thomas Raffles, May 18, 1826, in Raffles, Life and Public Services, 593. According to Bastin, Sophia Raffles got the year wrong and Raffles sent the letter in 1825. Bastin, "First prospectus," 387, n. 17. 59. Bastin, "First prospectus," 382, 386. Emphasis added. 60. Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society,; 31-32 and Fish, "Library and scientific publications," 234. 61. This was on the other hand an expressed goal by the Horticultural, so maybe this impli­ cation should not be taken too seriously. Fletcher, Horticultural Society\ 20. 62. MC, 7/i (1829). 63. Minutes of General Meeting, 29/4 (1826). See also Bastin, "First prospectus," 384. 64. Bastin, "First prospectus," 381, 383, 385. 65. Report of the Council, 1831,15. 66. Mitchell, 38. Note that the division between acclimatisation and science is the same as in the second prospectus. 67. Minutes of General Meeting, 29/4 (1826). 68. Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society; 33-34. 69. Nicholas Vigors, An Address Delivered at the Sixth and Last Anniversary Meeting of the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society of London, on the 29th of November, 182p (London, 1830), 30. Also published in the Magazine of Natural History 3, no. 13 (1830): 201-226. 70. A.D. Webster, The Regent's Park and Primrose Hill: History and Antiquities (London: Gre- aning & Co., 1911), 26; Hazel Thurston, Royal Parks for the People: London's Ten (L on­ don: David & Charles, 1974), 49-59; Ann Saunders, Regent's Park: A Study of the Development of the Area from 1086 to the Present Day, 2nc* ed. (London: Bedford College, 1981), 119-121, a nd The Regent's Park and Primrose Hill (London: The Royal Parks, 1993), [5]. See Figure 3.1 in Appendix V: Maps. 71. Scherren, 18-19, Mitchell, 18. 72. Scherren, 35. 73. MC, 5/5 (1826). 74. MC, 30/6 (1826). 75. See for example Fish and Montagu, "British overseas," 18. 76. Minutes of General Meeting, 29/4 (1826). 77. MC, 3/4 (1827). 78. List of the Members of the Zoological SocietyJanuary 1829, London (London, 1829). 79. Gage and Stearn, History of the Linnean Society\ 88, 93. 80. Letter from General Thomas Hardwicke to Peter Auber [?], July 20, 1826. "Letters received on the death of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles in 1826" (British Library: Mss.Eur.D742/9). Bastin also quotes the pessimistic Hardwicke in Bastin, "First pro­ spectus," 375. 81. MC, 5/5 (1826). 82. Osborne, French Colonialism, xii-xiii, and Felix Driver, Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration in the Age of Empire (Oxford and Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 37-46. 83. Deepak Kumar, "The evolution of colonial science in India: Natural history and the East India Company," in Imperialism and the Natural World, ed. John MacKenzie (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1990), 51. 84. John MacKenzie, "Introduction," in Imperialism and the Natural World, ed. John MacKenzie, 1-14. 85. Mitchell, 33-34. ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 99

86. See for example Lucille Brockway, Science and Colonial Expansion: The Role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens (New York: Academic Press, 1979); Donai McCracken, Gardens of Empire: Botanical Institutions of the Victorian British Empire (London: Leicester Uni­ versity Press, 1997); Ray Desmond, Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens, new ed. (London: Harvill Press, 1998), and Drayton, Nature's Government. 87. Loudon, Encyclopaedia of Agriculture, 1028. 88. Deepak Kumar, Science and the Raj, 1857-1905, new ed. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, i997)> 68-69. 89. The collectors, at least the early ones, were all i ndependent persons who contacted the Council, offering their services. Sometimes they were granted a small sum of money for dispenses. 90. Letter in Fish and Montagu, "British overseas," 20—21. 91. Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists a nd Engineers Thro ugh Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987). 92. David Miller, "Joseph Banks, empire and 'centres of calculation' in late Hanoverian Lon­ don," in Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany, and Representations of Nature, eds. David Miller and Hans Reill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 24 93. This paradox is for example discussed in Sverker Sörlin, "National and international aspects of cross-boundary science: Scientific travel in the 18th century," in Denational­ izing Science: The Contexts of International Scientific Practice, eds. Elisabeth Crawford, Terry Shinn, and Sverker Sörlin (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), 43- 72. 94. MC, 5/5 (1826). 95. Identified by Clinton Keeling as a Sambur deer {Rusa unicolor) in Clinton Keeling, In the Beginning (Shalford, Great Britain: Clam Publications, 1991), 5-5. 96. William Broderip writes for example about a Wanderoo Monkey that was housed at Bru- ton Street, see William Broderip, Zoological Recreations, 3rd ed. (London, 1857), 2 39- 240. 97. MC, 17/9 (1828); 22/10 (1828), and 19/11 (1828). 98. Letter to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests concerning the plot in Regent's Park in Mitchell, 18-20. The Amsterdam zoological garden, Natura Artis Magistra, suffered the very same problems. It was located in a recreation area of Amsterdam, the Plantage, and the city council was very cautious in granting land and building permits. Donna Mehos, "Science displayed: Nation and nature at the Amsterdam Zoo, Artis'" (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1997), 42-46. 99. Keeling, In the Beginning, 30, and Scherren, 32. Keeling identifies this road as Parkway, the road between Gloucester Gate and Camden Town underground. 100. Quarterly Review 98, no. 195 (1856): 222. 101. J.W. Toovey, "150 years of building at London Zoo," in Zoobgical Society of London18 26— 1976, ed. Zuckerman, 180. 102. Peter Guillery, The Buildings of London Zoo (London: Royal Commission on the Histor­ ical Monuments of England, 1993), 2-7. Some of Burton's buildings, especially the sta­ bles, can be compared with the rural architecture of the eighteenth century. These designs had by the nineteenth century become very popular with the middle class as can be seen in for example John Cornelius Loudon's An Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, 1833). Loudon reference to be found in Robinson, Georgian M odel Farms, 26-40. 103. As the collection expanded, most of Burton's buildings were replaced. The Zoological Gardens however never included the heavily ornamented animal houses that became very popular mainly in German zoological gardens, mimicking Hindu temples and Egyptian palaces. 104. MC, 20/8 (1828), and 27/10 (1828). 105. Report of the Council, 182 p, 18. See below for a discussion of the Society's use of the word public. 100 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

106. MC, 8/9 (1830); 15/9 (1830), and 3/11 (1830). 107. MC, 21/5 (1828). 108. MC, 29/9 (1827); 1/2 (1828), and 17/4 (1828). 109. Report of the Council182p, 18. HO. This new land was granted in 1831. in. MC, 3/7 (1827). 112. It seems as if the employees of the Society also were allowed to introduce their own guests. See MC, 3/7 (1827), and 16/6 (1830). 113. MC, 21/5 (1828). 114. The Zoological Keepsake; or Zoology, and the Garden and Museum of the Zoological Society; For the year 1830 (London: Marsh & Miller, 1830), 39. 115. Tatler (n.d.), in the Society's library. 116. Mr. Papps quoted in Scherren, 72. 117. "Gardens of the Zoological Society," in A Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park (London, 1829), 56. 118. MC, 4/2 (1829). 119. MC, 1616 (1830). According to the Minutes of July 7 the keeper died of his injuries and the Council paid for both the funeral and the father's journey from Norfolk to London. 120. The Times, 24 July 1830. 121. Statement by the President and Certain Members of the Council of the Zoological Society (London, 1835), 17- Numbers of animals according to Scherren, 79. In comparison it can be mentioned that A Record ofthe Progress of the Zoological Society of London During the Nineteenth Century (1901), en umerates 32 employees of the Gardens that were in charge of approximately 3000 animals. Philip Sclater, ed., A Record of the Progress of the Zoological Society of London during the Nineteenth Century (London, 1901). 122. MC, 1/2 (1828). 123. MC, 3/3 (1830). 124. MC, 17/2 (1830), and 28/4 (1830). 125. MC, 4/2 (1829). 126. Letter from the Foreign Office to British Consuls in Mitchell, 33-34, and letter to the Corresponding Members in Fish and Montagu, "British overseas," 20-21. 127. MC, 3016 (1826). 128. MC, 18/2 (1829); 18/3 (1829), and 13/4 (1829). After the Zoological Society's decline Cross also o ffered his collections to the Zoological Society of Ireland before he opened the Surrey Zoological Garden. 129. MC, 25/4 (1829), and MC, 7/7 (1830). 130. Report of the Council, 182 p, 15. 131. See for example Scherren, and Mitchell. 132. Report of the Council, 1831, 15. 133. MC, 4/11 (1828), and 20/1 (1829). 134. MC, 21/4 (1830); 8/9 (1830), and 15/9 (1830). 135. Mitchell, 15. The quotation is from the minutes of a meeting of the "proposers" of the Zoological Society held on February 26 1826. Bastin claims that the manuscript of this meeting no longer can be found in the Society's library. Bastin, "First prospetcus," 373, 388 n. 34. 136. "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's Park," The Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, no. 330 ( 6 September 1828): 148-150 and "Gardens of the Zoological Society," 42-56. 137. "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's Park," 148, and "Gardens of the Zoological Society," 42. 138. If it is true that there were no limitations to admission in the beginning, it is quite logical that this information was not included in the first guide. 139. MC, 22/19 (1828). 140. MC, 3/12 (1828), and 4/2 (1829). ANIMALS APPLIED TO SOME USEFUL PURPOSE 101

141. Edward Bennett, The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated, pub­ lished with the sanction of the Council under the superintendence of the Secretary and Vice-Secretary of the Society, 2 vols. (London: Thomas Tegg & N. Hailes, 1830—31). On opinions and reviews of the books, see for example William Hone, The Year Book of Daily Recreation and Information (1832; facsimile, Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1967), 1037, and "The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated," Athe­ naeum, no. 156 (23 October 1830): 662. 142. "The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated," Athenaeum, no. 156 (23 October 1830): 662. 143. "The Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's Park," 148-149. 144. Report of the Council\ 182p, 18. 145. MC, 7/7 (1830), and Report of the Coundl, 1836,13-15. See also Scherren, 61-65. 146. Bastin, "First prospectus," 382. 147. "Origin, object, and beneficial prospects of the new Zoological Society," Oriental Herald and Journal of General Literature10, no. 32 (1826): 314. 148. Leigh Hunt, "A visit to the Zoological Gardens," New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 2nc* series (1836): 488-489. 149. A d'A. Bellairs and D.J. Ball, "Reptiles," in Zoological Society of London 1826—1976, ed. Zuckerman, 126, and Peter Chalmers Mitchell, Ofßcial Guide to the Gardens of the Zoo­ logical Society of London (London: Zoological Society of London, 1920), 70. 150. Report of the Council, 182p, 18. 151. Ibid., 20. 152. MC, 19/11 (1828), and MC 7/1 (1829). 153. MC, 18/3 (1829). 154. Report of the Council, 1830,15. 155. PZS, 16I11 (1833), 128-132; PZS, 12/2 (1833), 15-16, and PZS, 23/7 (1833), 91-96. 156. Report of the Council, 182 p, 20 157. Humphry Davy was very interested in fishing and presumably also in the acclimatisation of fish, see P.H. Greenwood, "The Zoological Society and ichthyology, 1826-1930," in Zoological Society of London 1826—ipy6, ed. Zuckerman, 88. 158. Report on the Farm of the Zoological Society at Kingston Hill, March 1832 (London, 1832), 14- 159. Loudon, Encyclopaedia of Agriculture, 1055. 160. Thompson, English Landed Society, 144. 161. Report of the Council, 1830,14. 162. MC, 12/2 (1830). 163. MC, 3/3 (1830). 164. Report of the Council, 1830, 6. 165. The Times, 8 August 1829; The Times, 22 January 1830; The Times, 15 March 1830; The Times, 8 March 1830; The Times, 29 March 1830; The Times 2 April 1830; The Times, 3 May 1830); "Natural History in London: The Zoological Society," Magazine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 153; "Natural History in London: The Zoological Society," Maga­ zine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 292- 293, and "Natural History in London: The Zoological Farm," Magazine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 433- 434. See also Des­ mond, "Institutional zoology," 2:237, and Fletcher, Horticultural Society, 108, 113. 166. "Natural History in London: The Zoological Society," Magazine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 292. 167. MC, 31/7 (1830). 168. Report on the Farm. The acclimatisation work was however continued by enthusiastic persons like Frank Buckland and they found a new forum for their ideas in the Accli­ matisation Society of the United Kingdom (f. i860). See Lever, They Dined on Eland, 20-98. 169. MC, 24/4 (1827). 170. MC, 8/7 (1826), and 27/2 (1827). 171. MC, 27/2 (1827). 102 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

172. MC, 30/6 (1826). 173. Report of the Council, 1829, 13-14, and Report of the Council1836, 20. 174. The Times, 27 April 1827, and William Hone, The Table Book (1827; facsimile, Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1966), 618. 175. William Yarrell, "Notes on the internal appearance of several animals examined after death, in the collection of the Zoological Society," Zoological Journal 4, no. 15 (1829): 3I5- 176. Fish and Montagu, "British overseas," 20-21. 177. Report of the Council, 1836, 1 8-20. On Hugh Cuming, see for example Peter Dance, "Hugh Cuming (1791-1865): Prince of collectors," J. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 9, no. 4 (1980): 477-501. 178. Scherren, 74. 179. MC, 29/9 (1827); 17/9 (1828); 8/10 (1828); 4/11 (1828), and 19/11 (1828). 180. Miller, "Between hostile camps," 36-37. 181. Rebecca Preston, "'The scenery of the torrid zone': Imagined travels and the culture of exotics in nineteenth-century British gardens," in Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity, eds. Felix Driver and David Gilbert (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999), 194-211. See also Kumar, Science and the Raj\ Brockway, Science and Colonial Expansion; McCracken, Gardens of Empire; Desmond, Kew, and Drayton, Natures Government. 182. See David Miller, "Sir Joseph Banks: An historiographical perspective," History of Science 19, no. 46 (1981): 287. 183. Charles Darwin, quoted in MacKenzie, "Introduction," 6. 184. See for example Richard Grove, Green Im perialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600—i860 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1995); Libby Robin, "Ecology: A science of empire?" in Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies, eds. Tom Griffiths and Libby Robin, new ed. (Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997), 63-75, and Alfred Crosby, Ecological Imperi­ alism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900—1900 (1986; reprint, Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 1998). 185. Joseph Banks was especially fond of this kind of relocation of species, through Kew. See for example Drayton, Nature's Government, 85-128. 186. Desmond, "Institutional zoology," 2:225. 187. Scherren, 95, 193. See also biologist R.V. Short who states "Zoos [...] could make a most valuable contribution at the present time to the improvement of domestic livestock." RV. Short, " The introduction of new species of animals for the purpose of domestica­ tion," in Zoological Society of London 1826—1976, ed. Zuckerman, 332. 188. "The hippopotamus in his new bath," Illustrated London News 18, no. 493 (14 June 1851): 558. 189. Mitchell, 3. 190. Scherren, 123. III

ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE The Zoological Gardens in Victorian Leisure Culture 1850-55

We all go to the British Museum for instructions sake; but we visit the Zoological Gardens for amusement as well as for instruction.1

IN THE SPRING OF 1850, the thing to do was to visit the Zoological Gardens in Regent s Park Morphologist Richard Owen and his wife Caroline were regular visitors and, according to Carolines diary, this was the sight that met them one morning in May:

There was an immense crowd of visitors to the Gardens. R. and I got through the crowd to the giraffe paddock, in the hope of getting some friends in the house, but soon found it out of the question. There was a dense mass of people waiting their turn to get inside the house, and the whole road leading to that part of the Gardens was full of a con­ tinuous stream of people. Mr. Mitchell [the Society's secretary] said that there were more than 6,000 last Saturday, and that there were about 10,000 to-day.2

The object of all this commotion could be seen beside, or more often in, his tank for he was none other than the Society's hippopotamus Obaysh. Since he was the first hippo to tread British soil since Roman times (or so it was said) he made a great impression on Londoners. Silver models were on sale at the Strand and for a time, the Hippopotamus Polka was the height of fashion in London's drawing-rooms. After being on the brink bankruptcy towards the middle of the 1840s, the Zoological Gardens slowly regained some of the popularity and pros­ perity they had enjoyed during the late 1820s and the early 1830s. T his development peaked in 1851, when, helped by Obaysh and the Great Exhi­ 104 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK bition, the number of admissions reached an immense 600.000 (one-tenth of the total number of visitors to the Exhibition). The Zoological Gardens had never before experienced such popularity. This chapter will primarily focus on this affluent five-year period, 1850 to 1855, of the Society's Zoolog­ ical Gardens, and consider their importance for the Victorian need for edu­ cation and recreation.

Introduction The popularity of the Gardens naturally spawned a great host of represen­ tations of what this establishment was or should be. The purpose of the chapter is to investigate the Gardens as a mid-Victorian phenomenon dur­ ing the first five years of the 1850s, and to explore and expose the contem­ porary representations of the Zoological Gardens as they were articulated in newspapers and periodicals. I shall also try to answer the question: Why did people go to the Gardens? Wherein lay the attraction? It is possible to look upon this chapter as a panorama with the Gardens as the central platform. This centre is e ncirculed with a number of phe­ nomena that are often viewed as the epitomisation of the Victorian era. The most obvious of these are perhaps leisure culture and rational recre­ ation, but also the popular press and the prominence of children in Victo­ rian culture. By using the Gardens and their representations as a starting- point it is possible to investigate all of these. The use of periodicals is also interesting because although the Gardens received much support from magazines and newspapers during the mid- Victorian period, as described in this chapter, this had not always been the case. When the Society started its activities it met its fair share of journalis­ tic doubt. The Literary Gazette wondered how the inhabitants of Regent s Park would like "lions, leopards, and linxes [sic]" at close range.3 Another article in the same paper declared in 1825 that even if this project was a wor­ thy cause is was "altogether visionary". This article also questioned a sen­ tence in the first prospectus, stating that the Society would "offer a collection of living animals, such as never yet existed in ancient or modern times" and asked with feigned innocence if this meant that the Society was to "have animals that never existed before"?4 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE

The "High Noon" of Victorianism There are few periods in any specific country that have been more investi­ gated and written about than English Victorianism. This particular study of the Zoological Society of London's Gardens in Regent's Park emanates from historian Kitson Clark's expression "the High Noon of Victorianism". In his book, The Making of Victorian England (1975), Clark identifies a period of "interlude, an era of peace, relative contentment and well-being" between 1850 and 1875.5 Most historians seem to agree that the Victorian spirit and mentality reached its zenith during the middle of the nineteenth century, partly, if not mosdy, because of the remarkable economic develop­ ment. Nineteenth-century historian and politician Thomas Macaulay recalled 1851 as a year "long to be remembered as a singularly happy year of peace, plenty, good feeling, innocent pleasure and national glory".6 The hardships of the "radical" 30s a nd the "hungry" 40s were over, and the Crimean war was still a few years away, as was the economic depression of the 70s. One could almost say that this was the period of carefree adoles­ cence of Victorian England.7 Clark remarks that: "Greater wealth brings a man greater self-reliance, and a greater capacity to stand up for his rights, or to join with others for that purpose."8 It is also true that it often brings him spare time, when he can do whatever he pleases. As the largest city in the Western world with more than two million inhabitants, London offered plenty of things to do in this spare time. Here one could find recreation in boxing, bull baitings, exhibitions, museums, wax works, panoramas and much more. One place of entertainment that enjoyed a reawakened success during the second half of the nineteenth cen­ tury, with more than half a million visitors in 1851, was the Zoological Gar­ dens in Regent's Park, containing "animals brought from every part of the globe".9 Two factors can largely explain this: better access to the Gardens for the public and new and exciting exhibits. Media interest was lively and articles appeared in many of the popular newspapers and periodicals of this time: The Times, IllwtratedLondon News, Household Words, Athenaeum and Quarterly Review}® M ost works on London or the Gardens, for example Roy Porter's London (1996), state that the Gardens were popular in the mid­ dle of the nineteenth century. However, the conclusion often seems to be based merely on the escalating number of visitors and a further explanation for, or investigation of, this popularity has seldom been attempted.11 io6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Periodicals In the first volume of the Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals (1988) the editor ^X/alter E. Houghton declares that the "importance of Victorian peri­ odicals to modern scholars can scarcely be exaggerated" and for a study such as this, periodicals can be a very useful source.12 The different articles present an image of the Gardens that is not always accessible through the Society's own material, and the importance of these articles depends on the ubiquity of periodicals in Victorian life.13 This was in part due to the sheer number of periodicals and their sometimes enormous editions which in turn were a result of the demands of a new mass r eading audience. This mass production came about through a series of shifts. Technological advances, such as steam printing and more efficient means of inland trans­ port, were important but perhaps not so important as tax reductions, espe­ cially in the case of newspapers.14 Since the beginning of the eighteenth century there had existed some sort of newspaper taxation and in the beginning of the nineteenth it hit the papers in three ways. There were taxes on each sheet of paper used for news (stamp tax), on each advertise­ ment, irrespective of size, and on paper in general. This meant for example that The Times had to be sold at yd, far beyond the means of most people as a daily expense in 1815.15 More indirect than these so-called "taxes on knowledge", but just as inhibiting, was the window tax.16 In practice, the taxes limited the circulation of papers that were not backed with a lot of capital or where the readers were not wealthy. However, the first half of the nineteenth century saw reductions in these taxes until their complete aboli­ tion in 1855, and perhaps the most important one was a lowering of stamp tax from 4// to a penny in 1836.17 However, in spite of paper and window tax, books were abundant and the number of periodicals greater still.18 Between 1830 and 1880,100 to 170 new periodicals were brought out in each decade.19 Many of them did not survive for very long, although some turned out to be more persistent than others. In this case, Punch was probably one of the big surprises of the cen­ tury. Its goal was satire and comedy but it came in time to be taken very seriously, and it was started with very little capital at a time when various taxes made this kind of venture difficult.20 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF TH E GLOBE

Punch became a mirror of Victorian England in all its glory and trivial­ ity and this is why Richard Altick thinks it appropriate to call it "a weekly illustrated comic supplement of The Times'}1 This is high praise indeed, since The Times was the ruling London daily newspaper of the period. While other London dailies had a circulation of 5000—6000, The Times reached 40,000—50,ooo.22 Since Punch tried to make fun of almost every­ thing that The Times wrote about, it is not surprising that they sought read­ ers in the same ranks; both papers were mostly read by the middle to upper classes. As a matter of fact, most of the papers investigated in this chapter seem to be aimed at the educated middle to upper classes, while the papers' political leanings were somewhat more widespread.23

The Rational Victorian Recreation One of the things that Punch ridiculed was the Victorian inclination to make the ethics of work and working into something close to a religion. However, the paradoxical reality was that there had never before been as much free time and financial means to pursue leisure.24 And leisure was not something to take lightly; George Romanes, a student of Darwins, wrote in 1879 that recreation was not:

a pastime entered upon for the sake of the pleasure which it affords, but an act of duty undertaken for the sake of the subsequent power which it generates, and the subsequent profit which it insures.25

One way for the social reformers and humanitarians to tackle the social problems of the 1830s and '40s was to promote more healthy forms of recre­ ation for the working class than the popular drinking, copulation and fighting. The reformers were however insightful enough to realise that the main reason the lower classes did not have any useful forms of recreation was that the simpler pleasures of life, such as social meetings and traditional holidays, had slowly been legislated away. By 1834, only four holidays were left—Good Friday, Christmas Day, the first of May and the first of Novem­ ber.26 The first step was thus to ensure that the working classes had enough spare time to fill with leisure activities and the second to provide these activities. This soon became something of a reciprocal movement, where instructive recreation was made a reason for the employers to give their io8 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK workers a little free time so that they would be able to educate themselves and hence become better employees. The lack of meaningful recreation to occupy the non-working hours of the working-class day was lamented, and various measures were taken to remedy this. Furthermore, education was seen as the one thing that could enlighten the working class and thus the concept of rational recreation was born: recreation that at the same time was educational and uplifting—plain fun was not enough. But this was not only motivated by humanitarian principles. Experiences from France and social unrest in London had taught Englishmen to fear "the mob", which could riot any time if not pro­ vided with sufficient diversion. But in order for the lower classes to realise how beneficial this rational recreation was, it was n ot enough simply to offer them the possibility of engaging in it. Someone had to take the lead and this role was often assumed by the growing ranks of the middle classes. These recreational pursuits were not to harm the body, but uplift the mind. However, the mind was not to be too well-educated, lest the objects of these reforms learn about new and dangerous ideas. But even though the middle classes meant to be good role models for the lower classes when it came to recre­ ation, the reality was that the concept of rational recreation rarely crossed the middle class barriers. The class hostility that had sparked the efforts to promote rational recreation in the first place also made sure that the work­ ing classes were not very interested in what the middle classes were doing in their spare time. Many of the recreational enterprises instituted also had a number of restrictions (concerning behaviour, dress, etc.) attached to them, which made it difficult for workers to take full advantage of them. The concept of rational recreation was thus firmly established within the middle classes and did not extend much further. For the middle classes rational recreation also offered a much-needed solution to the problem of work versus leisure. Even though working was considered one of the most important aspects of bourgeois life, it was mainly directed towards one goal: to be able to retire into idleness. It was therefore a great relief to find in the concept of didactic leisure an occupation that was neither idle, nor plain excessive.27 But what, then, did the concept of rational recreation imply? As stated earlier, a key-word in its pursuit was education, so everything that could be said to be instructive for the mind and/or the body was included. Libraries, ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE sports, museums and art galleries are just some examples of what this cul­ ture could offer. Widely popular, but attracting less attention in many modern leisure studies, was the study of natural history. For all classes, this was the perfect recreation since it fulfilled physical, psychological and social needs. As a contemporary source put it:

The study of Zoology is unquestionably one of the most important that has ever engaged the attention of Society. In all ages it has been a fruitful source of interesting enquiry; in the present it has become the popular medium of diffusing information previously confined, in this country, to the natural philosopher and the enthusiast in scientific speculations. Unlike many other studies, it has charms alike for all ages and conditions of persons; for the old and the young; for the cur­ sory observer of nature, and the profound explorer of its purposes and its mysteries. To the young, especially, this study is the most delightful that can possibly be imagined; and the beneficial effects of Societies instituted for the purposes of its advancement may be observed, not only in the various sources of amusement and interest which they present to these youthful students, but with reference to the higher objects of rational knowledge, and useful instruction, which may thus be opened to the mind.28

Natures wonders were endless and so was the Victorians' fascination with them. Focus shifted between birds, bugs, ferns, sea-weeds and shells. Every­ thing connected with natural history was popular, not least books. For example, Common Objects of the Country (1858) by Rev. J.G. Wood sold 100,000 copies within a single week.29 This interest naturally spilled over to the Zoological Gardens which were mentioned in terms of "useful purposes and rational enjoyment".30 A trip to the Gardens excellently combined fresh air (except when you entered the animal houses, which more often than not were hot, stuffy and evil-smelling), fun and learning.31 But even though the intense attention bestowed on rational recreation started to diminish by the end of the 1840s and it became more and more acceptable to have fun without necessarily learning anything from it, the Zoological Gardens were still a popular place to visit. It might also be worth noting that many of the articles concerned with the Gardens from the 1850s apparently felt a very strong urge to not only point out the recreational value of the Gardens but their instructive nature as well. This double-edged nature of the Gardens can be compared with Chloe Chard's book Pleasure and Guilt on the Grand Tour (1999) where no KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK she describes how the curiosity expressed during the Grand Tours became "entangled in this tension between pleasure and guilt".32 The Council of the Zoological Society exemplifies this when in 1852 it comments:

this great increase of Visitors shows that a taste for Natural History- has been thoroughly awakened amongst the people, and that the Gar­ dens of the Society, if not the sole cause of this improvement, must still be regarded as affording the most available means of gratifying this taste, and of supplying all classes of the people with an orderly, innocent and elevating recreation.33

This quotation is interesting in several other aspects. By talking about the "taste for Natural History" that is transferred to "all classes", the Society, in my opinion, expresses a popular intention. This intention had also been stated before, the first time as early as 1826 and will be further discussed in the following chapter. If a visit to the Zoological Gardens is said to be the best way to satisfy this taste, the Society also thus dismisses the rational value of its rival, the Surrey Zoological and Botanical Institution, which is described below. But perhaps the most significant statement for this chap­ ter is nevertheless that it is important to the Council that the Gardens can be seen as not only amusing, but "orderly, innocent and elevating". As will be shown, this was not only the Councils view of the Gardens but was har­ moniously echoed in the contemporary press as well.

The Century of Children Probably because of its supposedly beneficial character, the Gardens had by the middle of the nineteenth century become known as an entertainment much more specifically aimed at children. This was probably in part due to the half-price admission for children and the fact that someone who was not necessarily a Fellow of the society could now accompany them (see below). In 1850, the number of visiting school children was more than 6,500, most of them during the summer months.34 Eliza Cook's J ournal described a Monday visit in 1850 like this:

There are innumerable small boys before us in fancy dresses, like those of the Viennese children; lots of little girls, too, in polkas, spencers ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE III

and visites, short frocks, and pretty lace-fringed leggings, allowing a display of healthful, brawny little legs.35

Somewhat later, The Leisure Hour testified in 1859: "A famous place for chil­ dren this is, and much they enjoy their usual Saturday half holiday in these gardens."36 It was however important that children did not visit the Gar­ dens unsupervised since they were apt to engage in the "imprudence of caressing wild animals".37 How, then, were the children and other visitors supposed to look at the ant-eater or the hippopotamus? In order for a visit to the Zoological Gardens to be an "orderly, innocent and elevating recreation" the ideal was probably to treat it as a journey of knowledge. As described inthe following chapter, it was important to control the visit via a guidebook (this control also made it important that children did not roam the Gardens unsuper­ vised) and the descriptions in books like James Bishop's Stories and Tales of Animated Nature (1854) show how such a visit should be carried out.38 Through oral information, visual contact with the animals and eager ques­ tions, the visitors hopefully leave the Gardens enlightened about the pecu­ liar manners and habits of the many animals that they have seen.39 However, the main characters of Stories and Tales, Charles and Emma, appear to appreciate the funny, inquisitive little monkeys infinitely more than their fathers orations and who can blame them? Hence, even if the father tries to make the visit to the Gardens a highbrow entertainment it seems as if his children are drawn to a more lowbrow (or at least purely lei­ surely) aspect. Stories and Tales presumably depicts an ideal visit to the Gar­ dens but even the ideal appears to have trouble being pure rational recreation. In reality, a tour of the Zoological Gardens probably contained more monkey antics and bear feedings than lectures.40 As shown in Stories and Tales, the presumed pleasure and instruction derived from a visit to the Zoological Gardens was probably one of the main reasons why a visit soon became looked on as beneficial for children. Though the Gardens had started out as a scientific institution directed spe­ cifically at the Society's Fellows and others scientifically inclined, they were soon frequented by other visitors. As described in Chapter two, several London schools asked for permission to visit the Gardens from 1830 and onwards. That children were among the visitors can also be seen in the early guidebooks, where parents are cautioned not to let the children come 112 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK too close to the animals: "one of the Wblves [...] bit the arm of a little boy that had taken much pains to introduce it through the bars."41 Still, although naturalist Frank Buckland heard a little girl ask if the ant-eater's long tongue was a worm and Charles and Emma liked the mon­ keys best, it was nonetheless a general opinion that a visit to the Zoological Gardens was instructive for children.42 Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper asked:

Now, how many of these thousands, numbering husbands and fathers with their wives and children, were attracted from the public-house, and tea-gardens, and skittle-grounds, by the higher beauties, the nobler refinements of that most beautiful and most instructive resort, the menagerie in the Park? Peaceful, happy, instructed thousands for hours walked amongst the wonders of creation, considering the mani­ fold works of God. Who shall estimate at the full, the beneficial les­ sons that the young and the mature almost unconsciously received?43

Likewise, Bentley s Miscellany thought: "By them [zoological collections], laudable curiosity is awakened, and the impression, especially on the fer­ vent and plastic minds of young people, is deep and lasting."44 However, taking children to the Gardens did not necessarily have to be a walk in the park. "A Parent" lamented to The Times that the refreshment rooms only served cherry brandy soda or soda water, both drinks quite unfit for children. He suggested that the Society should let women sell milk in the Gardens and thought it:

cruel to force parents either to supply their children with what is to most children quite harmful, or to endure their earnest applications for "something to drink," without the hope of being able to supply the want.45

The nineteenth century made children present as never before but there were different opinions on how to handle this presence. Locke and Rous­ seau were the two conflicting expert pedagogues; discipline and order was set against original innocence and the importance of childhood freedom.46 This made the Zoological Gardens particularly suited for children since they were flexible enough to satisfy both inclinations. The presence of Charles and Emmas knowledgeable father in Stories a nd Tales described above ensured that the visit was not only educative but disciplined as ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE 113 well.47 But as the quotation from Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper sug­ gests, it was also possible to go to the Gardens and receive instruction almost automatically, without preaching guides.48 It probably suited both sides that the Gardens moreover could be considered an "innocent" amuse­ ment, especially if one concentrated on the "decent" animals.49 The presence of children in the Victorian press can be explained partly by an increasing sentimentalisation of them and partly by the fact that a large proportion of the population were children. Children also began to receive attention with different articles aimed specifically at them: clothes, furniture, toys, games and books. The new focus on upbringing, parenting, education and the generally distinct needs of children meant that the child assumed a radically different position in the family. 50

A Royal Society The most well known of these families was the royal one. When Queen Victoria came to the British throne in 1837 the publics opinion of the Crown was at an all-time low. The Hanoverian Georges had done their best to turn the people against the monarchy and one can wonder what might have happened if the gay and vivacious Queen had not married the sterner Albert.51 The problems of a disliked monarchy and a female monarch were handled thus: "By presenting herself as a wife, Queen Victoria offered the perfect solution to Britain's fears of female rule and of excessive monarchic power."52 This might have made her power somewhat limited, but on the other hand it increased her influence hugely.53 In the form of a 'typical' middle-class wife, Victoria gained popularity and so did her large family. The company of family members seems to have been preferred by both Victoria and Albert when time allowed it, especially at Osborne or Balmoral.54 The family was typically large, with the atypical exception that all children survived their childhood. By 1850, there were Victoria (10), Albert (9), Alice (7), Alfred, (6), Helena (4), Louise (2) and Arthur (born in 1850).55 The family's entertainments were simple and domestic, including gardening and various sports.56 They visited the Zoo­ logical Gardens at least once a year and sometimes more often (in the sum­ mer of 1853, the children visited at least once a week) if there was something especially interesting exhibited:57 114 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Her Majesty's attention was principally directed to the hippopotamus, whose interest with the public of all classes continues unabated. Before leaving the garden Her Majesty also witnessed the singular feats performed by the Arab boy with his serpents.. .58

The Queen repaid the delight of these visits by donating quite a few ani­ mals to the Gardens, a gesture which was all the more appropriate since she also was the Society's patron.59 The 1850s were indeed a royal decade for the Society; the Queen donated frequendy and generously and when the current president, the Earl of Derby, died in 1851, the Council managed to persuade Albert to replace him. Not long before he died, Albert also accepted the presidency of the Royal Agricultural Society. The expectations of what Albert's presi­ dency would mean for the Zoological Society were probably similar to those of RAS':

we all looked forward to the recruited membership, the cordial coop­ eration, and the redoubled spirit and activity, which, during the cur­ rent year, were certain to ensue under the influence of his Name.. .60

This would surely have been a feather in the Society's cap and a measure of its stability, but it seems as though Albert did not engage himself in the Society's affairs as much as t he previous president had done since he only participated in the General Annual Meetings.61 However, Albert's possible commitment to the Society is hard to judge since few biographies even mention the fact that he was president of this fairly large London society.62

Financial Troubles But the Society had worked hard to deserve this general and royal popular­ ity. Five years earlier, it had been in deep financial crisis and the popularity of Obaysh the hippo and the aquarium lay in the future. The number of visitors had gone down steadily since 1836, a record-breaking year when more than a quarter of a million people passed through the gates. Radical measures had to be taken if the Zoological Society were not to go the same way as the Leeds Zoological and Botanical Gardens (opened in 1840) towards bankruptcy.63 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE

However, this situation did not take the Council by complete surprise. At a special meeting in 1845 the Council tried to find out whether the wages paid to officers and servants in the various establishments of the Society, i.e. general, museum, menagerie and carpentry and engineering, could be reduced. The Committee of Receipts and Expenditure could not however see where these reductions were to be made. The only section of the Society that could perhaps be slimmed was the menagerie, but there had already been layoffs d uring the previous four years. Five people had had to go, including the medical superintendent (a measure not altogether beneficial for the collection in general) and three keepers. Therefore, the Committee could not see that any further reductions would be realistic.64 Unfortunately, the situation did not improve over the next few years, but instead it grew worse. Why the Society became caught in this down­ ward spiral is not easy to explain. It seems for example as if finances were strained because of uncollected members' fees. It is possible that the Society in the beginning of its existence thought it more important to have a long and impressive list of members, even if some of these did not pay their fees on time, and that this laxity had by the late 1840s become a problem instead of a strategy.65 General cutbacks had affected the Gardens (less money for flower ornaments, for example) and this most likely made them less attractive to the audience with fewer admission fees as a consequence.66 It might also be that the Council had not remained on its toes since the opening of the Gardens and that the novelty was now definitely wearing off for Londoners. The popularity of the rival garden in London, the Surrey Zoological and Botanical Institution, could be seen as a possible threat to the Society's economy as well (see below). It is also important to remember that the 1830s and '40s were hard times in Britain generally and this most probably affected the entertainment industry as a whole with decreasing attendance at museums, panoramas and the like.

Letting the Public in Since the economy had not improved and it had not helped to cut expenses, only one thing remained for the Society to do: let the general public into the Gardens. The system with signed Fellows' tickets had per­ sisted until now, but it had to go. There were no discussions about this in ii6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK the Minutes, but the fact that the Council had waited as long as possible with this reform suggests that it was carried out with the utmost reluctance. However, since it ultimately proved to be the Society's salvation an assort­ ment of voices take credit for it afterwards. Abraham Dee Bardett, later popular superintendent of the Gardens, claims that not only was he the one who introduced the secretary David William Mitchell to the Society but that after being appointed, Mitchell "did not fail [...] to consult me upon the subject of the future prosperity of the Society, and this led to the open­ ing of the Gardens to the public".67 Peter Chalmers Mitchell gives credit to Mitchell alone, as did much of the contemporary press.68 However, judging by the Minutes of Council it looks as though the credit belongs to the Committee of Auditors who at a special meeting sug­ gested that the public should be admitted to the Gardens.69 In their annual report they also stated:

if active and energetic measures are ta ken for affording greater facili­ ties to the Public of participating in that enjoyment, and for keeping constantly before the eyes of the Public, not only in London but throughout the kingdom, the collection of Quadrupeds, Birds and Reptiles [...] the Society will rapidly recover its ground and be again restored to its former gratifying and prosperous position...70

To concentrate on the animal collection as the prime attraction for the public may of course have been the suggestion of Mitchell, but I have not been able to find evidence that this was the case since he was not on the Committee. Though unwilling in the past, the Council relented and resolved that the public should be admitted into the Gardens on Mondays and Tuesdays for payment of a shilling. This admission should furthermore be extended to Easter and Whitsuntide.71 Just as the auditors had done, the Council continued to emphasise the Gardens. In July the Committee of Receipts and Expenditure suggested that the Society's museum collections should be sold to the government and the assistant secretary be laid off. This could be done without impair­ ing the Society's affairs or depriving the country of valuable sources of zoo­ logical knowledge. With the museum gone, the Society should instead focus on: ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE U7

the Garden and Living Collection as their primary and almost sole object: by the proposed abandonment of the Museum Department, the Committee feel convinced that it will be possible to accumulate a far larger, and more interesting Collection of Animals than has ever existed in the Regent's Park or in any other Menagerie in the World.72

In view of the discussions concerning acclimatisation in the previous chap­ ter it is particularly interesting that the Committee not only suggested an abandonment of the museum collections but also that the collections in the menagerie should be enhanced with the importation of "Ruminants, Raso- rial Birds, and other Animals most likely to be acclimatized in England".73 However, a month later, in spite of a resolution to follow the earlier pro­ posal, the Council thought that it should try to procure a hippopotamus, a rhinoceros, an elephant and a giraffe, which: "would be of the greatest ser­ vice to the Society in an attraction and financial point of view, as well as of the first scientific importance."74 It is also clear that the animals which dur­ ing the 1850s and onwards proved to be most popular did not belong to the acclimatisation group.

Who was Admitted? In 1848 the Council decided to attract even larger crowds by reducing the admission fee on Mondays to sixpence, and admitting children at all times, except for Promenade days (Sundays), for this sum. It was further ordered that this would be announced by posting bills at railway stations and other places.75 In the tradition of St. Monday, and because of the sixpenny admission, Monday afternoons at the Gardens soon became extremely pop­ ular. But since it was quite common to see the admission price as a marker of respectability, not everybody looked favourably on this alteration.76 When John Gould exhibited his humming-birds (see Figure 3.1) in the Gar­ dens the admission to this particular display was a further sixpence in order to restrict the number of visitors to the exhibit. The Council was convinced that the:

low charge which Mr. Gould has fixed will be cheerfully paid by the public, and will yet be sufficient to check the overwhelming crowd which might be attracted to the room if it was open without any restriction.77 ii8 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

The same fears were expressed in connection with the Great Exhibition: that London in general and Hyde Park in particular would be swamped with uneducated masses. To keep these out, the admission price was ini­ tially set at five shillings, but when it became clear that the common people would cause no problems it was lowered to one shilling, Monday-Thurs­ day.78 The British Museum tried at first, in much the same way, t o gain control of who was admitted by means of tickets and personal requests.79 When the Amsterdam zoological garden, Natura Artis Magistra, faced financial problems by the end of the nineteenth century its owners tried to solve them as the Zoological Society had, by making the garden more avail­ able to the public. The Artis lost quite a few members as a consequence of this and during the early 1850s th e Society lost Fellows as well . However, the number of Fellows had already been declining since the beginning of the 1840s, i.e. well b efore the change of policy. Their numbers then rose again in 18 54.80 Not everyone treated the question of admission with such apprehen­ sion. Bentley s Miscellany for example applauded the popularising effort of the Zoological Society:

The love of natural history is inherent in the human mind, and now for the first time the humbler classes are enabled to see to advantage, and to appreciate the beauties of animals of whose existence they were in utter ignorance, or if known, so tinctured with the marvellous, as to cause them to be regarded mainly as objects of wonder and of dread.81

Historian Lawrence Levine describes similar tensions between American popular and élite culture in his book Highbrow!Lowbrow (1990).82 Some recreations were sacralised at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century which meant that the gap between popular and élite was widened. The expressions "highbrow" and "lowbrow" were also coined at the turn of the century, alluding to phrenological terms. Before this, attending both Shakespearean drama and the opera were recreations enjoyed by high and low together.83 Just like the opera in North America, the Zoological Gardens had by the 1850s become a place of recreation enjoyed by all. Whether the Gardens provided a highbrow or lowbrow occupation thus depended on how they were used. i» f • .

TzFt-J 1 A 120 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

With an educated cicerone, a visit became a highly élite amusement, but when you cracked jokes with the keepers about the ant-eater's need for a dentist (an ant-eater has no teeth), the Gardens were not primarily a place for rational recreation.84 But as the demand for a Fellows ticket in order to be admitted was relaxed and finally abandoned, a new type of crowd gained access to the Gardens. However, this crowd probably benefited more by the sixpenny Monday than the ban on tickets in 1847.85 In reality, all you had to do to be admitted to the Gardens before 1847 was to Pay a shilling at the gates. Signed tickets could be obtained from the gate-keeper or at a nearby tavern.86 As d escribed above, the new crowd was something to fear for those who were used to pure highbrow recreations. When Frederick Law Olm­ sted designed New York's Central Park he wanted it to be something more than a "pleasure-ground" and was appalled by how a "certain class" of visi­ tors were using it.87 They behaved as if "all trees, shrubs, fruit and flowers are common property" and allowed their animals to graze.88 It also meant that when this "class" actually behaved as desired it was viewed with an air of slight surprise. The Quarterly Review happily reported from the Zoologi­ cal Gardens in late 1855:

Here, then, we have an increase of 135,712 persons [between 1848 and 1854], many of whom were, no doubt, rescued, on those days at least, from the fascinations of the public-house. With all this flood of life, the greater portion of it undoubtedly belonging to the labouring classes, not the slightest injury has been done to the Gardens. A flower or two may have been picked, but not by that class of Englishmen who were once thought too brutal to be allowed access unwatched to any public exhibition.89

Rival Entertainments There were, of course, other things to do and see in a metropolis like Lon­ don and many of them are described in Richard Altick's The Shows of Lon­ don (1978). Though starting to disintegrate, the shows and exhibitions of the early nineteenth century largely remained during the 1850s.90 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE 121

The Panorama Particularly popular was the panorama, invented and patented by the Irish artist Robert Barker in the late eighteenth century. The panorama was basi­ cally a circular painting, most often depicting views of landscapes or bat- des, with the spectator placed on an elevated platform in the middle. Barkers innovation was the discovery that regular paintings could not be displayed on a circular surface, but had to be curved in order to make them look realistic to a viewer in the middle of the circle.91 In 1788 Robert Barker moved to London and 1793 he was able to erect the worlds first permanent panorama in Leicester Square. The exhibit Grand Fleet at Spithead in 1791 was a big hit and kept its enormous popular­ ity for almost a year. His invention successively increased in popularity and various technological improvements were added. Apart from Barkers in Leicester Square, another permanent panorama was built in the Strand in 1802. Both buildings could display two panoramas at the same time in two different rotundas. It also seems as if Barker continued with the battle theme while the Strand gradually started to exhibit picturesque views o f foreign cities like Rome and Athens. But London was not large enough to host more than two permanent panorama rotundas and subsequent paint­ ings were often displayed in museums or together with other attractions. One of these panoramas was placed in the Regents Park Colosseum, designed to resemble an indoor pleasure garden.92 Although the Colosseum offered various diversions, as described below, t he big attraction was the London panorama painted by Thomas Hornor and Edmund Parris. In 1823, a renovation of the dome and cross of the St. Paul s Cathedral was begun and Thomas Hornor, artist and land­ scape architect, soon realised the possibilities that this project could har­ bour. The summer was accordingly spent perched on the scaffolding and by the time he finished Hornor had managed to make more than two thou­ sand drawings picturing views of London as seen from the Cathedral. At first he planned to publish and sell the drawings as a series of engravings, but, perhaps due to the elevated enterprise, his ambitions grew and he started to transfer the drawings to a circular canvas, measuring 46,000 sq.ft, together with the painter Edmund Parris. Designed by Decimus Burton, young and promising at the time, the Colosseum was opened in 1829, con­ taining Hornor s Panorama of London. In order to reach the observation 122 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK platform comprising the original cross and ball of St. Paul's Cathedral (they had been replaced during the renovation), the visitors could ride a steam- powered elevator which was an attraction in itself. But the Colosseum was intended to be so much more than just the panorama. Until its popularity began to waver in the second half of the 1850s and its final demolition in 1875 it contained a wide variety of enter­ tainments. These included for example the "Gallery of Natural Magic", the Saloon of Mirrors, the African Glen and the Glaciarium (a rink of artificial ice). 93 Still, the long-lasting attraction was the panorama, which in 1845 changed into London by Night. Like the Zoological Gardens, the panorama could be seen as a rational recreation especially from a geographical point of view:

The moving Panoramas are among the most striking novelties of the day; and they are not only entertaining, but really useful in an educa­ tional point of view, as certainly nothing can give a better idea of the appearance of a country than a succession of moving pictures of it.94

Ruskin declared that the panoramas were "very truly a school both in phys­ ical geography and in art" and their educational aspect was often enhanced by sixpenny booklets.95 They functioned in exacdy the same way as the Society's guidebooks, first as a help when one was looking at the panorama and afterwards as a souvenir. But the panoramas were not without rivals themselves. Another popu­ lar visual entertainment was the diorama that had its roots within panora­ mas but involved lighting. The important novelty of both these features was that they enabled the viewer to be totally immersed within the illusion. Daugerre's Diorama opened in Paris in 1822 and moved to London in 1823, where the first building was in Regent s Park. The diorama thus preceded the panorama at this location. Both "panorama" and "diorama" soon became household words that could mean almost anything.96 The pan­ orama was eventually transferred to the world of zoological gardens when Carl Hagenbeck patented an invention called by that name in the late nine­ teenth century. It consisted of enclosures laid out in stages and with the help of hidden barriers (often moats) between the animals he created the appearance that predator and prey shared the enclosure.97 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE 123

The Surrey Zoological and Botanical Institution Another, and probably more serious, rival to the Zoological Gardens was the Surrey Zoological Garden.98 When the Zoological Society, as described in the previous chapter, declined to purchase the animals previously kept at the Exeter 'Change in 1830, the proprietor, Edward Cross, decided to start a zoological garden of his own." The creation of societies was a time-tested strategy if you wanted something done and hence Cross initiated the founding of the Surrey Literary, Scientific and Zoological Institution in 1831. The list of patrons was impressive and included both Queen Adelaide and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a prospectus of the zoological gar­ den promised that the collection of animals would be:

displayed in the most tasteful and novel manner, on a plan perfectly new, having the advantage of presenting at all seasons, a romantic promenade, where the varieties of animated nature may be viewed in retreats secured from the weather, surrounded with aromatic and other plants.100

However, the Surrey Society did not constitute such a stable basis as the Zoological Society with its Fellows and the Surrey garden therefore faced the challenge of luring a fee-paying audience to the garden year after year.101 Thus, the Surrey Zoological and Botanical Institution became something more than just a zoological garden, making it similar to the old eighteenth-century pleasure garden, the Vauxhall, which was located nearby (see Map 3.1 in Appendix V: Maps).102 But it was the zoological gar­ den that gave Surrey the advantage over Vauxhall which was purely a plea­ sure garden. Surreys other attractions included an annual flower show, "morning fêtes", fireworks, balloon ascents and model dioramas.103 Sometimes they could be combined, as in the case of the Vesuvius show, which constituted of painted canvases, free-standing topographical and architectural models and by night an eruption of fireworks. Another popular display was the re- enactment of the Great Fire of London. But more current affairs also found their place in the Surrey garden and during the Crimean War a "grand pic­ torial model" of Sebastopol was exhibited.104 Although some complained that the fireworks caused accidents by frightening passing horses, most statements were more than positive:105 124 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

It is, beyond comparison, the best entertainment of its class yet pro­ duced in this country; it has none of the flaunting, ad captandum vul­ garity, by which our outdoor exhibitions are too often made attractive for the mental gratification of the public. [...] It is, per se, an intellec­ tual amusement, and with the attractions of the Establishment, zoo­ logical and botanical, conjoins to render the whole scene a treat of a very superior order.106

But despite Surreys popular attractions the Zoological Society never attempted to compete in that department. Competition was instead reserved for the zoological exhibits. Cross was aware that he was continu­ ously being compared with his precursor in Regent s Park and did his best to constandy stay ahead. When the Zoologica1 Society managed to obtain four giraffes in 1836, he asked if he could buy one and when the answer was no, he instructed his agent to "procure some at all risks".107 On the other hand, it seems that Cross was first, if only by a few months, with the intro­ duction of an Indian rhinoceros in 1834.108 This race f°r popular animals suggests perhaps that the statement by "Observatör" in Magazine of Natu­ ral History might be a little idealistic: "Where the genuine love of science prevails, and where there is an earnest desire to direct the public taste to healthful sources of recreation, there can be no jealous rivalry.. ."109 The competition for print-space was just as fierce. The Mirror of Liter­ ature, Amusement, and Instruction reported in 1832:

Mr. Cross has not only proceeded more rapidly than they [the Zoo­ logical Society] have done, but has erected more suitable and more imposing structures than are yet to be found in the gardens in the Regent's Park. Wh at is there, for example, in the latter garden which can at all be compared with the circular glass building of 300 ft. in diameter, combining series of examples of tropical quadrupeds and birds and of exotic plants.110

Surreys glass building was a great attraction, especially since a canal con­ taining fish flowed through it.111 The Surrey garden was also equipped with a lake which heightened the picturesque atmosphere and was often used in the dioramas. In the winter it was sometimes used for skating.112 The animals were fed twice a day and at feeding-time a bell was rung and music commenced, which reportedly had a "striking effect on the ani­ mals".113 Most London guidebooks recommended both gardens and while ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE the one in Regent s Park was said to have a larger collection altogether, Sur­ rey had a better collection of carnivora and the animals seemed to be better taken care of.114 Only Tussaud's Economical Guide to London, Paris and Brussels (1852) judged the Surrey garden as superior to the Zoological in all aspects: "the best shillings worth of amusement of all the metropolitan attractions".115

The New Secretary Apart from the competition from the Surrey garden, a factor that might have played a large role in the Society's dwindling finances was the secretar­ ies, a most important position in an institution like this. Traditionally, the position was a n honorary one and unpaid. The consequence of this was probably that the secretaries were prone to look to their own business rather than the Society's if they felt the need.116 In the beginning of 1847 the current secretary, William Ogilby, sent a letter to the Council where he asked to be relieved of his duties. As an Irish magistrate and landlord his duties lay elsewhere:

I am myself giving daily employment to from 30 to 40 heads of fami­ lies to keep them from actual starvation: the distress is daily increas­ ing, and though this part of the Country has been hitherto free from outrage no man can tell how long it will continue so...117

The Council now decided that the position must carry a salary but it is not clear whether this was a consequence of poor commitment from previous secretaries or a way of finding applicants fast.118 Hitherto, all the secretaries had been appointed from within the closest circle of the Society but now the net was cast wider. At a special meeting on February 10 the same year, David William Mitchell was appointed a member of the Council and secre­ tary with a salary of £250 per annum.119 There are no reasons given for Mitchell's selection, but he was well-known by the persons in the Council as a member of the Linnean Society and a zoological artist. While living in Penzance, he had contributed information to the third edition of William Yarrell's British Birds (1843), and he had also illustrated George Grays Gen­ era of Birds (1844).120 Judging by contemporary sources, Mitchell was the single most important person during this period in the Society's and the 126 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

Gardens' history. Albert Günther, later foreign member of the Society and curator of the Natural History Museum in London, wrote in his diary after a visit in 1854: "Wednesday to the zoological gardens; grandiose, excellendy arranged and the animals happy. The Secretary, D.W Mitchell, must be something of a genius."121 The Athenaeum, although not as enthusiastic as Günther, was still impressed:

The Zoological Society—started under the most favourable aus­ pices—had fallen a few years ago into the condition of its older breth­ ren. The gardens drooped,—the museum was closed, the meetings were dull, prosy and thinly attended. When things were at the worst, a new officer was appointed,—and 'hey, presto!' all was changed. The gardens grew into the most fashionable, as well as the most popular, of resorts,—the museum again courted the light of day,—the meetings of the Society were well attended.. .122

Mitchell seems to have been the necessary driving force that enabled the Society to rise to its former glory and above. Very little is known about him, since he has left few written traces of himself, except for a couple of short papers in the Proceedings. He seems however to have been interested in the original aim of the Society, acclimatisation, and was a member of the French Société Zoologique d'Acclimatation. A letter is preserved in the Society's archives where Mitchell communicates with an unknown person (he addresses t he recipient as "Your highness") residing in Paris.123 In the letter, Mitchell specifies 28 species of deer and 38 species of antelope that would be suitable for acclimatisation in England and France and states in the end:

I am confident that the acclimatisation of exotic animals in Europe may be carried out to a much greater extent than has yet been sup­ posed possible—and I am happy to be able to acquaint you with the interesting fact, that the Council of the Zoological Society have at my earnest request within the last year applied themselves seriously to this object.124

These attempts however do not seem to have been as successful as his mea­ sures to popularise the Gardens, and in April 1859 he resigned in order to oversee the building of the Jardin d'Acclimatation in Bois de Boulogne.125 This Jardin was the brain-child of Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire who based it on the descriptions in Bacon's New Atlantis and it was to be devoted to ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE 127

"applied natural history" rather than theoretical science.126 The aim was to "acclimatize, domesticate, breed, and sell new exotic animals that would meet the needs of industry, agriculture, and animal amateurs"}27 Unfortu­ nately, Mitchell died under mysterious circumstances in November 1859 and the work on the Jardin continued without him.128 Mitchell also appears to have been the one to invent the so-called star­ ring system, which proved to be a long-lasting success at the Gardens. The condition of the system was that there should always be a "star" at the Zoo­ logical Gardens—an animal or an attraction that would be the primary rea­ son for the public to visit the Gardens. Once there, they would be encouraged to feast their eyes upon the rest of the collection as well. This star was furthermore generously promoted in the press by articles and advertisements. The 1850s started, as described below, with the hippo Obaysh and other animals would soon follow; a female elephant and her calf, an ant-eater, a female companion to Obaysh and so on. Quarterly Review thought that Mitchell:

has shown by his system of 'starring' how alive he is to the fact that it is to the sixpenny and shilling visitors who flock to the gardens by tens of thousands on holidays that he must look to support the wise and liberal expenditure he has lately adopted.129

The Lion of the Day One of the big sights in London during the summer and fall of 1850 was the pachyderm Obaysh. He was t he hippopotamus of the Zoological Society and the first one to tread British soil since Roman times. The Times had had regular reports throughout the spring of the capture and transport of this gargantuan creature, a gift to the Society from the Viceroy of Egypt, Abbas Pasha. Readers were told that although the hippo was but 18 months old, he already drank about 80 pints of milk each day.130 When the animal finally arrived in London by the end of May, the excitement was enormous. The Illustrated London News rushed a sketch to the printers and also made their readers aware that:

The beautiful adaptation of structure to peculiar habits is in no animal more beautifully conspicuous than in the Hippopotamus; and it is dif­ 128 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

ficult to suppose a more convenient and complete opportunity to observe both, than in this last and greatest acquisition of the Zoologi­ cal Society. The subject is interesting, and the desire of the Council to afford rational amusement as well as instruction to the public so praise-worthy, that we shall revert to it in our next Number. 31

The hippo soon became the lion of the day and it was estimated that about two thousand people came to visit him each day.132 Even the Queen, together with three of the Royal children, came to see this new and exciting animal and the Council decided that it would have to build the hippo a tank where more people could watch him taking his daily baths.133 Some clearly thought that all the attention lavished upon the hippo was unnecessary. The Society had a large and beautiful collection of other animals as well, which was pointed out by both the Athenaeum and the Council itself.134 Household Words reported that the other animals had had a hearing where both the elephant and the lion complained about the favouritism showed towards the hippo. They demanded an apology from the Council as well as the visitors.135 Naturally, such a golden opportunity could not be ignored by Punch, which published at least six articles/car­ toons during 1850 alone (see Figure 3.2). The periodical made fun of the hippo-craze that swept through London, where a hideous hippopotamus breast-pin or a hippopotamus-shaped sponge-cake could be the latest fash­ ion, and the fact that the animal mosdy spent its days in the very non- exciting states of sleeping or bathing.136 That Obaysh eventually was replaced by a South American ant-eater as the Gardens' reigning star did not go unnoticed either:

As the theatres have gradually become more empty, the Zoological Gardens have perceptibly become more crowded. What actor, recently, has had anything like the success that for a whole season ran panting, pushing and squeezing after the Hippopotamus? It was a fight of parasols to get near him—it was a joy greater than that of a new gown to have seen him! What is the reason of this strange prefer­ ence? Is it because the public prefer Nature to Art?—or is it because the actors speak, and the animals do not? [—] Like BYRON, we sup­ pose he [the ant-eater] awoke one morning, and found himself famous. Let him not be too conceited, for "Stars" rise an d fall at the Zoological, just as quickly as at other places.137 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE I2Ç

Figure 3.2 The hippopotamus together with another popular attraction, the hot-air balloon. "The next balloon ascent," Punch 19 (1850): 162. 130 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

The Aquatic Vivarium The Society's aquarium was another of these stars and became a big success at the Zoological Gardens in 1853. As always, the Illustrated London News was ecstatic:

we foresee in this fact, as well as in the extreme beauty of the objects themselves, a power of attraction which no previous work of the Soci­ ety has ever yet attained; and we heartily congratulate them upon the success which cannot fail to attend so spirited, so interesting, and so instructive an attempt to carry out the most elevated principles of the science which they are associated to render popular.13

The Council was pleased as well that it now had an opportunity to show the public not only large mammals and birds but also the "minute beings".139 According to Frasers Magazine, it was Philip Henry Gosse who had contacted the Society about the possibilities of such a construction. He was also supposed to have contributed to the aquarium with a small collec­ tion of zoophytes and annelids.140 However, the idea of keeping sea ani­ mals at the Gardens was not completely new, Athenaeum had suggested it in 1850, saying that if the Society could procure a hippopotamus, then why not a whale?141 But the invention of the aquarium was necessary to realise the idea, which took London by storm when it was presented. Through all these stars and the other animals in the collection the Gar­ dens became one of the biggest sights of their time, demonstrated by the enormous interest from the press. The Society got the attention it had craved for so long and the Gardens were repeatedly and generously compli­ mented with statements like these:

In the collection itself we found so vast an accumulation of new and beautiful objects that it seemed to us impossible to spend a summer afternoon more delightfully than to wander through the green shades of this 'Atlantis realised,' as Mr. Warren calls it, among the living won­ ders of all lands which have been so skilfully and industriously gath­ ered together in this place, to refresh and to instruct the toil-worn minds of the inhabitants of London.142 ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE

Concluding Remarks I have in this chapter indicated some of the reasons why the Gardens were so popular between 1850 and 1855, reasons that may not be obvious when looking at the Daily Occurrences, Minutes of Council and the Society's Reports. In many works on London or the Victorian period, the Gardens are often glimpsed, but they have never been the main focus of a study sit­ uated in this period. The aim of this chapter has been to reveal the various representations and opinions of the Zoological Gardens in a high-noon Victorian context by relating to a source material consisting of newspapers and periodicals. Mainly, opinions of the Gardens are unanimous. Most of the articles and books look upon the Gardens as a place of recreation that is not only instructive but also refreshing for body and soul. This is also a belief that is voiced in the Society's own material, primarily in the reports. It seems therefore that the Society's opinion of what the Gardens should be, paral­ leled those of how the public perceived the Gardens. The few critics that were heard often complained about specific prob­ lems within the Gardens, such as for example the lack of drinks for chil­ dren, but I have not found any proof that the idea of the Gardens was contested. Not even Punch seems to have had anything against the Gardens per se, but rather objected to the enormous attention, sometimes bordering on hysteria, that the Gardens and the animals received. No one seems to have thought that a visit to the Gardens was simply mindless amusement and not instructive or elevating. On the contrary, the Society and its Gar­ dens were constandy showered with positive and encouraging comments during this period. It should by now be obvious that the Gardens were a popular London resort during the 1850s. However, one can ask if it was the Society's wish that the Gardens should be popular or whether it would have preferred to keep the Zoological Gardens as an elitist pleasure? I do not think that the Society's Council objected to the principal idea that others than the Fellows should come to the Gardens and learn about zoology and natural history. As described in Chapters two and four, the Society wanted to encourage a "taste for Natural History". What the Society objected to, on the other hand, was the "vulgar admiration" that could be found in other, less scien­ tific, menageries.143 It is likely that the Council did not trust the common I32 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK public to use the Gardens in a correct way, th at it inevitably would turn them into a seat of lowbrow leisure. But as the reports from the Exhibition and the article in Quarterly Review show, this was a needless worry. There is also plenty of evidence that the visitors belonging to the "higher" classes did not always regard the Gardens as the highbrow entertainment the Council wanted them to be. Just because it was said to be as hard to get good seats at the opera as to obtain a ticket to the Gardens on Sundays in the early days, does not unfortunately mean that the people who gained admission behaved accordingly.144 Despite its idealistic intention, I am inclined to believe that the description of Charles and Emma's visit in Stories and Tales is perhaps the one closest to a real tour of the Gardens. It was convenient that the Gar­ dens officially had a respectable reputation because a visit was always a proper thing to do. But once you were there, education and discipline was most likely not the prime objective. On the other hand this does not mean that you did not learn anything on a visit, since, as Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper writes, in a zoological garden knowledge is practically oozing from the cages.145 People kept on coming to the Gardens because they were an entertainment that nobody questioned, no matter what the intention (amusement or instruction) of the visit was. A visit to the Zoological Gar­ dens meant freedom to do what you thought was entertaining, whether this included learning about animals, laughing at their antics or spending time with your friends. ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE 133

NOTES

1. Daily Telegraph (4 January 1870), quoted in Gwynne Vevers, comp., Londons Zoo: An Anthology to Celebrate i$o Years of the Zoological Society of London, with its Zoos at Regent's Park in London and Whipsnade in Bedfordshire (London: The Bodley Head, 1976), 59- 2. Richard Owen, The Life of Richard Owen, 2 vols. (1894; reprint, Farnborough, Great Britain: Gregg International Publishers, 1970), 1:358. 3. Literary Gazette, May 26, 1826, kept at the Zoological Society's library. 4. Literary Gazette, 1825, kept at the Zoological Society's library. 5. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England (1962; reprint, London: Methuen & Co., I975)> 31- These years are however not absolute—Clark tends for example to sometimes choose 1848 for the beginning (Clark, Making of Victorian England, 31-64). Adrian Desmond reasons along similar lines in Archetypes and Ancestors: Palaeontology in Victo­ rian London, 1850-1875 (London: Blond & Briggs, 1982). 6. Thomas Babington Macaulay quoted in Geoffrey Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-75, 3rd imp. (London: Fontana Press, 1985), 250. 7. Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 19-21, 250-255. 8. Clark, Making of Victorian England, 279. 9. John Bastin, "The first prospectus of the Zoological Society of London: New light on the Society's origin,"/. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 5, no. 5 (1970): 382. See also Table 3.1 in Appen­ dix IV: Tables and Diagrams. 10. Robert Jones does however point out that a probable reason for this attention from the press was that the Gardens could continually be seen as a novelty and that in striving for this novelty the Gardens turned the animals into commodities rather than animals. Robert Jones, "'The sight of creatures strange to our clime': London Zoo and the con­ sumption of the exotic " Journal of Victorian Culture 2, no. 1 (1997): 10-22. 11. Roy Porter, London: A Social History\ new ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1996), 289. 12. Walter Houghton, "Introduction," in The Wellesley Lndex to Victo rian Periodicals, 1824- 1900, ed. Walter Houghton, vol. 1 (1966; reprint, London: Routledge, 1988), xv. 13. Donn Vann and Rosemary VanArdsel, "Introduction," in Victorian Periodicals and Victo­ rian Society, eds. Donn Vann and Rosemary VanArdsel (Aldershot, Great Britain: Scholar Press, 1994), 3-8. 14. See for example Colin Clair, A History of Printing in Britain (London: Cassell, 1965); idem, A History of European Printing (London: Academic Publishing, 1976); Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Revolution in Early M odern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); idem, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1983), and Michael Twyman, Printing 1770—1970: An Illustrated History of its Development and Uses in England (London: British Library, 1998). For a description of how these advances could affect the publication of works in natural history, see Susan Sheets-Pyenson, "War and peace in natural history publishing: The Naturalist's Library, 1833-1843," Isis 72, no. i (1981): 50-72. 15. Lucy Brown, "The British Press, 1800-1860," in The Encyclopaedia of the British Press, 1422—1992, ed. Dennis Griffiths (Basinstoke, Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 1992), 24, and Richard Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900, 3rd imp. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), 328. 16. Altick, English Common Reader, 92. 17. Brown, "British Press," 25. 18. Altick, English Common Reader, 92, 318. m KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

19. Alvar Eliegård, "The readership of the periodical press in Mid-Victorian Britain," Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis 63 (1957): 4. 20. Richard Altick, Punch: The Lively Youth of a British Institution, 1841-1851 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1997), xvii. 21. Ibid., xix. 22. Brown, "British Press," 27. 23. Altick, Punch, xvii-xviii, xxii; Ellegård, "Readership of the periodical press," 18, 22, 28, 33' 37' 3^j and Altick, English Common Reader, 347. See also for example R.G.G. Price, A History of Punch (London: Collins, 1957), and Frank Huggett, Victorian England as Seen by Punch (London: Book Club Associates, 1978). 24. The idea that recreation should also be instructive was of course not born during the Victorian era; it was for example articulated in the Grand Tours. Unless stated other­ wise, the following paragraphs are based on James Walvin, Leisure and Society, 1830-19$0 (London and New York: Longman, 1978); Lynn Barber, The Heyday of Natural History, 1820-1870 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1980); Hugh Cunningham, Leisure in the Indus­ trial Revolution, c.iy8o-c.i88o (London: Croom Helm, 1980); Peter Bailey, Leisure a nd Class in Victorian England: Rational Recreation and the Contest for Control, 1830—188y, new ed. (London and New York: Methuen, 1987), and Pamela Horn, Pleasures and Pas­ times in Victorian Britain (Stroud, Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 1999). See also Robert Storch, "Introduction," in Popular C ulture and Custom in Nineteenth-Century England, ed. Robert Storch (London and Canberra: Croom Helm, 1982), 1-8. 25. George Romanes quoted in Horn, Pleasures and Pastimes, 2. 26. It is however worth noting that the tradition of work-free Mondays without the employ­ ers' consent, St. Monday, prevailed for a long time in many parts of the country. 27. Walter Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830—18/0, new ed. (New Haven, Conn. and London: Yale University Press, 1985), 189-190. 28. "Prospect of the Surrey Zoological Gardens, July 1831," in A Collection of programmes, plates, cuttings from newspapers and magazines, pamphlets, etc., relating to the Surrey Zoo­ logical Gardens from 1831-1861, vol. 1 (British Library: Th.Cts. 51-58). 29. David Allen, The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History (1976; reprint, Princeton: Prince­ ton University Press, 1994), 124. 30. "A Visit to the Surrey Zoological Gardens," The Magazine of Natural History 5, no. 27 (1832): 401. 31. When the Queen and the Royal Children visited the gardens, Princess Helena was for example very disturbed by the smell in the big cat house. Elizabeth Longford, Victoria RI. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964), 216. 32. Chloe Chard, Pleasure and Guilt on the Grand Tour: Travel Writing and Imaginative Geog­ raphy, 1600—1830 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999), 30. 33. Report of the Council, 1852, 31. 34. Daily Occurrences, 1850. 35. "A day at the Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park," Eliza Cook's fournal , no. 65 (2 7 July 1850): 203. 36. "Saturday afternoon at the Zoological gardens," Leisure Hour, September 1859, 550. 37. "Gardens of the Zoological Society," in A Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park (London, 1829), 56. 38. James Bishop, Stories and Tales of Animated Nature, or A Visit to the Zoological Gardens (London: Dean & Son, [1854]). 39. Robert Jones points to the interesting fact that many guidebooks seem to work through the "trope of the child's gaze". The animals were rendered domesticated and harmless by being connected with children and childhood. Thus the zebra can be described as one of the "cherished favourites of our childhood". Jones, "'Sight of creatures'," 6-7. ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE

40. This recapitulation can be compared with A.A. Milne's later poem "At the Zoo": "There are badgers and bidgers and bodgers, and a Super-in-tendent s House,/There are masses of goats, and a Polar, and different kinds of mouse,/And I think there's a sort of a some­ thing which is called a wallaboo—/But / gave buns to the elephant when / went down to the Zoo!" A.A. Milne, When We Were Very Young (1924; reprint, London: Mam­ moth, 1991), 46-47. 41. The Zoological Keepsake; or Zoology, and the Garden and Museum of the Zoological Society; For the year 1830 (London: Marsh & Miller, 1830), 39. 42. "The great ant-eater," Frasers Magazine 49, no. 290 (1854): 157-158. 43. "A glass too litde and a glass too much," Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, 22 May 1853. 44. "Zoological notes and anecdotes, Bears (no. II)," Bentley s Miscellany 29 (1851): 31-32. 45. The Times, 24 July 1853. 46. Victorian Britain: An Encyclopedia, ed. Sally Mitchell (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1988), s.v. "childhood," and Christine Kenyon-Jones, Kindred Brutes: Ani­ mals in Romantic-period Writing (Aldershot, Great Britain: Ashgate, 2001), 51-78. 47. Bishop, Stories and Tales. 48. "A glass too little". 49. Report of the Council, 1852, 31 and Letter from Sophy Horsley to Fanny Calcott (1832- 1834) quoted in L.T.C. Rolt, Isambard Kingdom Brunei, new ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1970), 128. 50. Penny Kane, Victorian Families in Fact and Fiction (1995; reprint, Basinstoke and Lon­ don, Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 1997), 37-56; Leonore DavidofF and Cathrine Hall, Family Fortunes: Me n and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850 (1987; reprint, London: Routledge, 1994), 343-348, and Victorian Britain, s.v. "childhood," "children," and "toys and games". 51. Robert Rhodes James, Albert, Prince Consort: A Biography (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1983), 49. 52. Margaret Homans, "'To the Queens private apartments': Royal Family portraiture and the construction of Victoria's sovereign obedience," Victorian Studies 37, no. 1 (1993): 3. 53. Eugene Black, "Prologue: The Victorian frame of reference," in Victorian Culture and Society, ed. Eugene Black (New York: Harper &C Row, 1973), xv. 54. Cecil Woodham-Smith, Queen Victoria: Her Life and Times, 1819-1861, new ed. (London: Cardinal, 1975), 344, and Dorothy Marshall, The Life and Times of Victoria (London: Book Club Associates, 1972), 123-124, 129. See also Longford, Victoria R.I. 55. Marshall, Life and Times, 122. Although children during the nineteenth century formed a third of the population in England and Wales and infant mortality was lower than in the rest of Europe, it was still high by twentieth century standards (15%). Victorian Britain, s.v. "children," and "infant mortality." 56. Marshall, The Life and Times, 78-79. 57. Longford, Victoria RI., 216 and Daily Occurrences, 1850-55. Victoria had also been fond of visiting before she became Queen, see for example Owen, Life of Richard Owen, 1:93-94. 58. The Times, 19 July 1850. 59. The Times, 26 July 1850; The Times, 20 April 1850, and The Times, 14 June 1851. See for example also Report of the Council, i8$i, 20; Report of the Council, i8$$, 18, and Report of the Council, 1854,18 60. John Chalmers Morton, The Prince Consort's Farms: A n Agricultural Memoir (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1863), 4. Still, it must be noted that the RAS may have had better cause for their expectations since the Prince's staunch dedica­ tion to agriculture was well-known. 61. Just before Albert died, he appointed T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce as Vice-Pres­ idents. It is however difficult to know whether this was a result of poor insight in the scientific community at the time or the complete opposite. Scherren, 126. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

62. See for example Theodore Martin, The Life ofH.R.H. the Prince Consort, 5 vols. (Lon­ don, 1875-1880); Prince Consort (Albert), Letters of the Prince Consort, 1831-1861, ed. Kurt Jagow, trans, by E.T.S. Dugdale (London: John Murray, 1938); Frank Eyck, The Prince Consort: A Political Biography (London: Chatto and Windus, 1959); J.G. Crowther, Statesmen of Science (London: The Cresset Press, 1965), 175-209; Charles Grey, The Early Years of the Prince Consort (London: William Kimber, 1967); Daphne Bennett, King Without a Crown: Albert, Prince Consort of England, 1819-1861 (London: Heinemann, 1977); John Phillips, ed., Prince Albert and the Victorian Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), and Stanley Weintraub, Uncrowned King: The Life of Prince Albert (New York: The Free Press, 1997). 63. Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), 214. Like the Zoological Society, Leeds attempted to restrict admission to the "higher classes" and had to close after less than ten years. 64. MC, 26/2 (1845). 65. Already in 1826 it was estimated that the Society had 350 members but that only 70 of these had paid their annual subscription. See MC, 30/6 (1826). 66. MC, 5/8 (1846). 67. Abraham Dee Bartlett, Wild Animals in Captivity: Being an Account of the Habits, Food, Management and Treatment of the Beasts and Birds at the 'Zoo\ 2nd imp. (London: Chap­ man & Hall, 1899), 2. 68. Mitchell, 68-69. 69. MC, 24/3 (1847). 70. Report of the Council, 1847, 25-26. 71. MC 24/3 (1847), and Report of the Council, 1847, 4. 72. MC, 14/7 (1847). 73. MC, 14/7 (1847). 74. MC, 4/8 (1847). 75. MC, 15/3 (1848) and MC, 5/4 (1848). 76. See for example Zoological Keepsake, 39. 77. Report of the Council, 1851,13. 78. Jeffrey Auerbach, The Great Exhibition ofi8$i: A Nation on Display (New Haven, Conn. and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 146 and Altick, Punch, 621-629. 79. Richard Altick, The Shows of London (Cambridge, Mass. and London: The Belknap Press, 1978), 26. 80. Donna Mehos, "Science displayed: Nation and nature at the Amsterdam Zoo, Artis'," (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1997), 147 and Scherren, 102,125. 81. "Zoological notes and anecdotes," 32. 82. Lawrence Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of C ultural Hierarchy in America, new ed. (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1990). 83. Ibid., 86,139-145, 221-222. 84. "Great ant-eater," 158, and James Bishop, Stories and Tales. 85. Quarterly Review 98, no. 195 (1856): 248. 86. The Times, 26 April 1832; A New Pocket Guide to London and its Environs (London: J.W. Parker, 1838), 487, and Charles Knight, London (London, 1843), 258. 87. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow, 183-186, 202-203. 88. Ibid., 183. 89. Quarterly Review 98, no. 195 (1856): 248. 90. Altick, Shows of London, 470. 91. Unless stated otherwise, the following paragraphs are based on Stephan Oettermann, The Panorama: History of a Mass Medium, trans, by Deborah Schneider (New York: Zone Books, 1997), 5-140; Bernard Comment, The Panorama, trans, by Anne-Marie Glasheen (London: Reaktion, 1999), passim; Altick, Shows of London, 128-162,173-210, ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE J57

and Ann Saunders, Regent's Park: A Study of the Development of the Area from 1086 to the Present, 2nd ed. (London: Bedford College, 1981), 105-106, 122-124. For a further dis­ cussion on the panorama's scientific implications, see Michael Bravo "Panoramic visions of Spitsbergen: The aesthetics of representing the Arctic environment in early nineteenth century British exploration," unpublished paper. For a description of the panoramas importance to the leisure culture of late nineteenth-century Paris, see Van­ essa Schwartz, Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin-de-Siècle Paris, new ed. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999), 149-176. 92. Pleasure gardens were well-known places of recreation in London and the most famous of these were the Vauxhall, located south of the river. Vauxhall Gardens had begun in 1660, designed for enjoyable promenades much like a public garden. In the beginning of the eighteenth and throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century the Gardens could offer elaborate architecture, artificial ruins, drinking, dancing, music, ballooning and fireworks. The popularity of the Gardens diminished towards the middle of the nineteenth century and they were closed in 1859. Altick, Shows of London, 94-96, 319, and Porter, London, 172-175. 93. See for example The African Glen, Colosseum, Regent' s Park (London: Clowes and Sons, 1836). 94. Ladies' Companion 1, no. 14 (1850): 208 . The article probably refers to a development of the circular panorama, where a large rectangular canvas was rolled up on two cylinders. While the spectator was standing still, the canvas was transferred from one cylinder to the other thus giving the impression of movement through a landscape much like the railway. (Oettermann, Panorama, 63-66.) 95. John Ruskin quoted in Altick, Shows of London, 174. 96. Altick, Shows of London, 163—172. For a discussion on dioramas whithin museums, see for example Karen Wonders, Habitat Dioramas: Illusions of Wilderness in Museums of Natu­ ral History; Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 1993, Figura Nova Series 25 (Uppsala, Swe­ den, 1993). 97. See for example Carl Hagenbeck, Beasts and Men: Being Carl Hagenbeck's Experiences for Haifa Century Among Wild Animals, trans, by Hugh Elliot and A.G. Thacker (London: Longman & Co., 1909); Herman Reichenbach, "Carl Hagenbeck's Tierpark and mod­ ern zoological gardens," / Soc. Bib l. Nat. Hist. 9, no. 4 (1980): 573-585, and idem, "A tale of two zoos: The Hamburg Zoological Garden and Carl Hagenbeck's Tierpark," in New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century, eds. R.J. Hoage and William Deiss (Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 54—62. 98. Unless stated otherwise, the following paragraphs are based on Altick, Shows of London, 322-331; Clinton Keeling, Where the Lion Trod: A Record of Forgotten Zoological Gardens (Shalford, Great Britain: Clam Publications, 1984), 15-22, and idem, "Zoological gar­ dens in Great Britain," in Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoo­ logical Gardens, ed. Vernon Kisling, Jr. (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001), 61-62. 99. Cross had also offered his collection to the Dublin Zoological Society but they too, prob­ ably due to financial reasons, declined. 100. "Prospect of the Surrey Zoological Gardens." 101. The Zoological Society's system of admission-based Fellows' tickets was not adopted and anyone who paid a shilling was admitted. 102. The Surrey garden was located south of the river, between Kennington Park and Wal­ worth Road. 103. Cruchley's Picture of London, 11th ed. (London: G.F. Cruchley, 1846), 169. 104. A Description of the Grand Pictorial Model of Sebastopol Exhibiting at the Royal Surrey Zoo­ logical Gardens, 2nd ed. (London, 1855). 105. The Times, 31 July 1830. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

IO6. Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction (37 [1841]: 370) quoted in Al tick, Shows of London, 325. 107. The Times, 9 June 1836. See also Scherren, 62—64. 108. The Times, 5 April 1834. See also Scherren, 59. 109. "A Visit to the Surrey Zoological Gardens," 401-402. no. Charles (Cornelius) Loudon {Gardener s Magazine, Dec. 1831) quoted in Mirror of Litera­ ture, Amusement and Instruction 19, no. 528 (1832): 2. in. George Cooke, Walks Through London (London: Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper, 1833), 393. 112. The Times, 10 December 1844. 113. Cooke, Walks Through London, 114. See for example The Strangers Intellectual Guide to London for 1859—40 (London: Henry Hooper, 1839), *4-6; Mogg's New Picture of London, and Visitor's Guide to its Sights, 11 ed. (London, 1848), 196, 200; A Handbook for London, Past and Present, new ed. (Lon­ don: John Murray, 1850), 480, 562, and Murray's Handbook for Modern London; or, Lon­ don as it is (London: John Murray, 1851), 181. 115. Tussaud's Economical Guide to London, Paris and Brussels (London, 1852), 11. 116. Mitchell, 68. 117. Letter from William Ogilby to the Zoological Society's Council, December 20, 1846, in MC, 611 (1847). 118. MC, 21/1 (1847). 119. MC, 10/2 (1847). 120. Modern English Biography\ s.v. "Mitchell, David William". 121. Albert Günther, A Century of Zoology at the British Museum: Through the Lives of Two Keepers, 1815-1914 (London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1975), 248. 122. "Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park," Athenaeum, no. 1197 (5 October, 1850): 1041. 123. This person could either be Napoléon III who expressed interest in French acclimatisa­ tion or, more likely, Prince Jérôme Napoléon, the emperor's cousin, who was appointed honorary president for the Sociétés Jardin d'Acclimatation. 124. Letter from David William Mitchell to Anonymous, April 29, 1857, in the Zoological Society's letter archive, s.v. "Mitchell, D.W." 125. Michael Osborne, Nature, the Exotic, and the Science of French Colonialism (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1994), 105 and Mitchell, 69. 126. Michael Osborne, "Zoos in the family: The Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire clan and the three zoos of Paris," in New Worlds, New Animals, eds. Hoage and Deiss, 38-42. For a more detailed discussion on the Société and French acclimatisation, see Michael Osborne, French Colonialism. ITJ. Osborne, "Zoos in the family," 40. 128. There seems to have been some discussion as to whether Mitchell committed suicide and/or became insane and if this might be connected to a possible embezzlement of the Zoological Society's funds. Unidentified newspaper cuttings, 5 December 1859 and 2 January i860, in the Fillinham Collection, vol. 8 (British Library: i889.b.io/i-8); Letter from G. North Peal to the Secretary of the Zoological Society (?), dated Paris Novem­ ber 4, 1859 in the Zoological Society's letter archive, s.v. "Mitchell, D.W.," and Mitch­ ell, 69. 129. Quarterly Review 98, no. 195 (1856): 223. 130. The Times, 20 May 1850. 131. "The hippopotamus in the Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's-park," Illustrated London News 16, no. 429 (1 June 1850): 378. 132. "The hippopotamus in the Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's-park," Illustrated London News 16, no. 430 (8 June 1850): 413—414. Two thousand visitors may be a low estimate, judging by the quotation by Caroline Owen in the beginning of the present chapter. ANIMALS BROUGHT FROM EVERY PART OF THE GLOBE 139

133. The Times, 19 July 1850, 5; Wilfrid Blunt, The Ark in the Park: T he Zoo in the Nineteenth Century (London: Book Club Associates, 1976), 112-113, and Report of the Council\ 1851, II. 134. Report of the Council, 1851, 14 and "Zoological Gardens, Regent s Park," Athenaeum, no. 1225 (19 April 1851): 431. 135. "Zoological sessions," Household Words 2 (28 September 1850): 4-10. 136. "News for the horse marines," Punch 18 (1850): 242; "The diary of the hippopotamus," Punch 19 (1850): 20; "The Sea-side season," Punch 19 (1850): 50; "Brown, Jones, and Robinson go to the Zoological Gardens," Punch 19 (1850): 64; "The hippopotamus in a new character," Punch 19 (1850): 92, "The next balloon ascent," Punch 19 (1850): 162, and "The English hippopotamus, at the Zoological gardens to the French ditto, at the 'Jardin des Plantes'," Punch 25 (1853): 116. 137. "The fashionable zoological star," Punch 25 (1853): 257. 138. "The aquatic vivarium at the Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park," Illustrated London News 22, no. 624 (28 May 1853): 420. 139. Report of the Council, 1854,14. 140. "The aquarium," Frasers Magazine 50, no. 296 (1854): 192, and H.G. Vevers, "Manage­ ment of a public aquarium," in The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond, Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, ed. Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40 (London: Academic Press, 1976), 105-109. David Allen does on the other hand give the credit to secretary D.W. Mitchell in Naturalist in Britain, 121. 141. "Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park," Athenaeum, no. 1197 (5 September 1850): 1041. 142. "The snow-bird at the Zoological Society's Gardens, in the Regent's Park," Illustrated London News 21, no. 571 (31 July 1852): 69. "Mr. Warren" may have been novelist Sam­ uel Warren (1807-1877). Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. "Warren, Samuel." 143. Bastin, "First prospectus," 382. 144. Altick, Shows of London, 317. 145. "A glass too much." IV

DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES Guidebooks and the Public at the Zoological Gardens, 1828-1907

ON A BEAUTIFUL MAY MORNING in 1854 a father visits the Zoological Gar­ dens with his two children, Charles and Emma. The children consider the trip to be a great treat and ask their father many eager questions about the animals and the Gardens. Charles finds it curious that the Gardens not only harbour strange and exotic animals like lions and elephants but also common animals that he can find in their own garden at home, like Field­ fares. His father replies that if one gathers as many animals as possible in one place it is feasible to observe what the animals are really like, hence "dispelling the idle fables and tales of invention and hearsay'.1

Introduction As described in the previous chapter, what this story tells us is that the Gar­ dens were meant to serve a purpose so simple and yet so fundamental that it was important enough to tell children about it. The Gardens were con­ structed in order to spread an interest in natural history among the public and at the same time to supply the means whereby this interest could be satisfied. And in order to supplement the information that the Gardens could supply, the Zoological Society had its guidebook The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the guidebooks of the Zoological Society of Lon­ don and its Zoological Gardens as tools of popular science; they bring knowledge to the visitors, who are not experienced zoologists. However, some of these non-official guidebooks deliver something more than a mere description of the animals. Like the story in the begin­ ning, some books tell the readers about a fictitious visit to the Gardens, thus making it possible to investigate how the contemporary audience con­ ceived a visit. As described in the previous chapter, it is obvious that a visit DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 141 to the Gardens can be treated as a journey, albeit not a geographical one but one of knowledge. The pedagogue Alan Rogers says in his introduction to the book Guide Books and Historic Buildings (1981) that learning is often regarded as the opposite to pleasure but that pleasure in fact can be height­ ened by understanding. When a person visits a historic monument or a zoological garden and understands what he or she is seeing, when every­ thing falls into place, the visitor feels not only intellectual pleasure, but aes­ thetic and emotional satisfaction as well.2 The purpose of the journey of knowledge within the Zoological Gar­ dens aims at nothing less than the transcendental vision of the Grail quests. Its is not the travelling itself that is important, but the spiritual revelations you find at its end. By the end of the journey through the Gardens, at enclosure no. 68 for antelopes, the visitor has hopefully reached an under­ standing of at least one of the mysteries of nature—the complete composi­ tion of the animal kingdom—aided by the authority and expertise of the guidebook.3

Guides of Popular Zoology John Betts puts forward the idea of American entrepreneur P.T. Barnum as an important populariser of natural history in his article "P.T. Barnum and the popularization of natural history" (1959).4 I think it is quite useful, not to mention significant, to look at a person like Barnum, previously regarded as too popular to excite the interest of historians of science, as helping in the dissemination of knowledge. In his essay '"The voices o f nature': Popularizing Victorian science" (1997) Bernard Lightman points to a similar neglect of the impact of the journalists who wrote popular articles about science in Victorian periodicals. In Lightman s opinion, these profes­ sional' popularisers may have been more important for the spread of popu­ lar science than scientists who wrote popular books, for example T.H. Huxley.5 However, Betts primarily focuses his attention on Barnum's displays, meaning museums, aquariums and circuses, and I feel it is doubtful whether displays alone can be regarded as popularisation of natural history. According to Betts, Barnum had: "simplified for ordinary minds the Dar­ winian controversy by bringing all the animals concerned together and leaving them to speak for themselves."6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 143

But it is not popularisation simply to let the animals "speak for them­ selves"; a mere display of animals without any human or printed guides to the animal kingdom does not popularise this kingdom, it simply exhibits it. Thus, informative guides play an essential part in the popularisation of science in displays of any kind. From this it follows that it is difficult to look on guidebooks to the Zoological Gardens as anything other than pop­ ular scientific books if one takes the simplest definition (ignoring the fact that the simplicity may be deceptive as described in the Introduction) of popular science—science intended for a public of non-experts. I see the Zoological Society's Guide as crucial in its endeavours to extend an interest in natural history to the larger public. This aim of popularisation may per­ haps be regarded as an original one within the Society, since it was quite early on hoped that the establishing of a zoological society would be "pro­ moting a taste for Natural History in general and Zoology in particular".7 This hope was reaffirmed in 1847 at the Annual General Meeting and in the Councils Report that same year with the expectation that the admission of the general public, as described in the previous chapter, to the Gardens would "assist in diffusing more widely a taste for Natural Science among the people of this country".8 A brief introduction in one of the first guidebooks from 1829 also alludes to this. Certainly, the main object of the Guide was to give an account of the animals currently in the collection. But it was also the writ­ ers' wish to "make their subject in some degree popular by a brief reference to the habits and localities of some of the more interesting of these ani­ mals".9 One may wonder whether the animals became decontextualised when they were removed from their natural habitat and thus had to be recontextualised in text in order to be of service to the Zoological Gardens and their public. As described below, the guidebook enabled the animals to be placed within a scientific context. Now, this may have been the purpose of the writers themselves and not the Society since the introduction is not repeated in any of the other Guides. I find it however probable that it was also the ambition of the Soci­ ety, which is not least expressed in the mere publication of the guidebooks. The lack of introduction in the subsequent Guides may be due to their general authoritative and less personal approach compared to the very first one. 144 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

There were also other popular efforts emanating from the Society, but none as recurrent as the Guides. The Society tried a couple of times to launch different series of lectures, but these often lacked public support.10 Schools were welcome, but I have not been able to find any evidence that the children were specifically guided by for example the superintendent or any of the keepers. It was not until 1910 that the secretary, Peter Chalmers Mitchell, started a more organised collaboration with the Education Com­ mittee of the London County Council in order to educate schoolteachers on the subject of zoology.11 A lengthy celebration of the advantages of promoting popular natural history through the means of a zoological garden is however presented in the introduction to The Zoological Society Delineated (1829) by Edward Bennett:

It cannot be a matter of surprise that under such circumstances there should have arisen in the public mind a taste for zoological pursuits, and a desire for correct zoological information. To promote that taste and to gratify that wholesome desire are the objects of the recent pub­ lication. One great aim of the Society is to diffuse as widely as possible a practical acquaintance with living animals in order to eradicate those vulgar prejudices which have in too many instances usurped the place of truth, and to substitute just ideas drawn from actual observation, instead of false deductions from distorted facts, or wild speculations built upon erroneous foundations. [...] Popular works on Zoology have too long been left to the mercy of writers little if at all conversant with the science of which they are professed to treat; and the natural consequence has been the growth and repetition of errors of the gross­ est kind. [—] Such [technical] expressions the Editor has studiously endeavoured to avoid; and in the few instances in which he has been compelled for the sake of perspicuity, to have recourse to them, he has either added an explanation of their meaning, or so modelled the con­ text as to render explanation unnecessary to any person of even mod­ erate education.12

This quotation is revealing in a number of ways. Since Bennett later became secretary of the Society and the book was written in close co-opera­ tion with many of the members, I would judge it fairly safe to say that the opinions expressed here are opinions shared by the Society though not stated in any official publication. First of all, the interest in natural history and zoology is said to be "wholesome", which was a belief shared by many others as described in the previous chapter. Secondly it is said that only per­ sonal observation can teach a person about the true facts of the animal DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES HS kingdom, that most popular books are often less than truthful and at best only recapitulate what others have already said. It is particularly interesting that Bennett specifically criticises popular works of zoology, since this means that already at this time, the late 1820s, a clear difference had been established between works intended for a specialist and for a lay audience. Thirdly, the author makes it even more evident that 'real' science has to be simplified before it can reach a lay public by the avoidance of "unin­ telligible" scientific words. He also indirecdy says that he directs his work to a public of at least "moderate education'. This contradicts in part his earlier statement that the Society aims to "diffuse as widely as possible" the interest for natural history, but is on the other hand in line with the Soci­ ety's principles of admission to the Gardens. As described in Chapter two, the Society repeatedly speaks about its public without specifying who that public might be. It is likely that when Bennett says "as widely as possible" he really means as far as admission to the Gardens will extend, which in reality means that his book was specifically intended for the educated mid­ dle and upper classes. Because of their many-faceted nature, guidebooks are not easy to deal with. A close cousin of the Gardens' guidebook is, in my opinion, the travel handbook and it might therefore be useful to look at the history and utility of the travel handbook in order to throw some light on the guidebook As will be shown later, the guidebook and the travel handbook work with the same tools of expectation and confirmation and the travel handbook also often contributes to the spread of popular science, most commonly history, art and architecture.

The Literature of Travel Although the initial purpose of the travel guides was to make it easier for the traveller to see the world and its strange sights, their development throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries towards more systematised handbooks had the opposite effect. A whole industry developed in connection with the most popular guides since readers faith­ fully appeared and re-appeared at the same sights and ruins. Samuel Johnson enjoyed travelling and thought, like many others, that the point of travelling was to form an idea on the basis of reality and not the other way 146 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK around. However, it was more common for the traveller to be more or less controlled by the growing industry of tourism which instead made it cru­ cial that reality matched the ideas. In every new town you had the opportu­ nity to hire a human guide who could show you the most interesting sights and find painters who would sell you pictures of this sight.13 When the nineteenth century began and travelling was further facili­ tated through the building of hotels and railways, E urope was gradually inundated with people who wanted to see the world.14 But who was this new traveller? Historian Edward Gibbon confessed that he imagined an ideal traveller but stated nonetheless:

He should be endowed with an active, indefatigable vigour of mind and body, which can size every mode of conveyance, and support with a careless smile every hardship of the road, the weather or the inn. I must simulate him with a restless curiosity, impatient of ease, covetous of time and fearless of danger; which drives him forth at any hour of the day or night, to brave the flood, to climb the mountain, or to fathom the mine, on the most doubtful promise of entertainment or instruction. [—] I have reserved for the last a virtue which borders on a vice: the flexible temper which can assimilate itself to every tone of society, from the court to the cottage; the happy flow of spirits which can amuse and be amused in every company and situation.15

But few, if any, managed to live up to this ideal, maybe not even Gibbon himself. It was instead those with a poor opinion of tourists, among others Wordsworth and Anthony Trollope, who came closer to the truth. Trollope described "the tourist in search of knowledge" (who is different from the traveller for knowledge, one may assume) contemptuously:

[He] is resolved to bring back with him when he returns from his trav­ els information that shall be at any rate an equivalent to him for the money and time expended.16 The getter-up of quotations from books which he has never read...17 He is no great frequenter of galleries, pre­ ferring the useful to the ornamental in his inquiries; but he makes his little tour of inspection to any art collections that are of especial note, so that he may be able to satisfy himself and his admirers that he has seen everything.18

The criticism of Wordsworth was no less sour, but more concerned with the tourists' passiveness: DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES H7

pilgrims of fashion hurried along in their carriages, not a few of them perhaps discussing the merits of the 'last new Novel', or poring over their Guide-books, or fast asleep.19

Wordsworth touches a sore spot when he mentions the guidebook. If the guidebooks had controlled travelling in the eighteenth century, it was noth­ ing compared to the development during the nineteenth century. When the guidebook assumed a more dominant role towards the traveller, the Victorians, who had made rational recreation into something like a reli­ gion, cheerfully accepted this. As described in the previous chapter, rational recreation became an important principle for the early Victorians and the key-word was instruction. Travelling was wholesome, but only if it was done the right way and did not become too entertaining. The guidebooks could gready contribute in this respect by leading the traveller away from areas and pleasures that could be harmful and instead direct his or her attention towards good and elevating things. And since it was mainly the middle class that followed the doctrine of rational recreation, it was also the middle class who bought guidebooks.20 The penetrating power of people like John Murray, Thomas Cook and Karl Baedeker shows beyond doubt the deeply felt need for a reliable guide.

The Modern Travel Handbook It was John Murray who created the "hand-book" concept, which became so popular that all travel guides soon were called handbooks. Murray was the son of the famous publisher of the same name, who naturally published all his sons handbooks.21 Murray the younger describes how he felt com­ pletely abandoned when on a trip through Europe he arrived in Hamburg and thus realised t he importance of always being able to have a reliable guide to turn to. He started to collect information that could be of interest to Englishmen about every town he visited, what to see and how to see it. However, at the same time it was important not to include too much infor­ mation which would only confuse the new arrival. The language was to be simple and concise and it was important to point out what was unique about the place in question and what might be better seen somewhere else. Murray's first guide was published in 1836 and covered Holland, Belgium and Northern Germany. Others would soon follow.22 148 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Karl Baedeker founded a publishing empire on his handbooks and remained during the nineteenth century Murray's foremost competitor on the guidebook market. His first guide was published in 1839, which enabled Murray to point out gleefully that Baedeker had probably used the Murray handbook as a prototype and only added information that could be of interest to Germans, such as the way to the nearest Bierstube, but in what ways these two more exacdy affected one another still seems to be an unre­ solved question.23 Thomas Cook, who not only wrote his own guidebooks, but also founded a tourism empire to go with them, followed Murray and Baedeker. Cook used the newly-built railways of Great Britain, negotiated discounts and was th us able to take Englishmen on weekend excursions that previ­ ously had been beyond their reach. This ingenious plan meant that Cook did not have to compete with either Murray or Baedeker since his hand­ books were tailor-made for the journeys he was selling. One of his biggest triumphs was probably in 1851 when 165,000 persons of the six millions who visited the Great Exhibition made their travel arrangements through Cook (at least according to the man himself).24 It is the se three, together with other writers, who continue what was started by the humanists of the Renaissance and finally becomes what we now call a travel handbook or guidebook, which is radically distinct from other kinds of travel literature.25 Baedeker and Murray established the handbook as a reliable and precise companion and they were always mak­ ing it further standardised and updated. The authority of numbers and facts replaced the authority of the travel narrative.26 This period also coin­ cided, at least in England, with a revitalisation of cartography and the map became an increasingly vital part of the guidebook.27 In these mens hands the handbook turned into not only a description of a journey, but also a description of expectations.28 Cook said that the handbook fulfilled three distinct purposes: it enhanced tourists expectations before the journey began, it was useful during the journey and after the journey was over it was a guide for the memory.29 The book became a ubiquitous authority that would fit in your pocket, which guided your eyes and told you what to see.30 Murray even included poems in his handbooks, preferably by Byron, so that when the tourist had reached a certain sight guided by Murray he or she could also experience what Byron had experienced when he stood on the exact same spot.31 However, Baedeker stated somewhat paradoxically DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 149

(and Murray probably agreed) that despite this regulation of the tourist's movements the purpose of the handbook was to liberate the tourist:

Its principal object [...] [is] to keep the traveler at as great a distance as possible from the unpleasant, and often wholly invisible, tutelage of hired servants and guides (and in part from the aid of coachmen and hotelkeepers), to assist him in standing on his own feet, to render him independent, and to place him in a position from which he may receive his own impressions with clear eyes and lively heart.32

But the obvious strength of the handbook was not that it gave the tourist freedom and independence, but rather that it made the journey secure. The book travels (textually) often both before and alongside the traveller which gives rise to a sort of "objective geography"; the system is built on expecta­ tion and confirmation.33 Elizabeth Buder, a traveller in Egypt, asks inno­ cently:

is there not a charm in knowing that some city, some temple, some natural feature you have tried to realize in your mind is about to appear in very truth just around the bend of road or river?34

However, this kind of travelling becomes at the same time a further affir­ mation of the individualism of the eighteenth century since everyone who journeys along the Nile has the possibility of seeing Luxor and Thebes "cre­ ated" anew before their eyes with the help of the handbook.35

The Guidebooks of the Zoological Gardens Even if Murray and Baedeker helped to make the travel handbook what it is today they were naturally not the first to publish written guides, and the guide seems to have been an indispensable part of English life during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Within a culture that encouraged self- help and self-education, one could find guides covering every topic from how to find the perfect life partner to reading the stars and how to become your own brewer.36 There was therefore nothing exceptional about a Zoo­ logical Gardens equipped with a Guide. At the Council meeting of October 22,1828 it was "[o]rdered that Mr. Broderip be requested to expedite the completion of the Catalogue of Ani­ mals at the Park which he had undertaken to prepare". It was further KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

"[o]rdered that labels be fixed up at the various places in the Gardens with the names of the Quadrupeds and Birds inhabiting them".37 In doing this, the Society had already surpassed Barnum in the promotion of popular natural history by not just displaying animals but also supplying written information about them. William Broderip wrote a Guide together with the secretary NA. Vigors that was published less than six months after the initial meeting, but one can wonder if this was indeed the "Catalogue" mentioned. According to the Oxford Dictionary; a catalogue is the same thing as a list and since a List of the animals in the Gardens was also pub­ lished, the quotation may have referred to this presumptive List and not the Guide.38 However, as can be seen below, the Guide was again referred to as a "Catalogue" in 1857 so the most likely answer is probably that even if the Council wrote "Catalogue" in the minutes, they still meant a guide and not a list. In addition to this, Broderip was an avid naturalist writer and it would make little sense to ask him to complete a simple list without any descriptions of the animals whatsoever. Interest in a guide to the Gardens does, however, seem to have gone beyond the Council since permits for publishing and selling guides outside the Society were requested but refused.39 This interest suggests that the sell­ ing of guides could be a lucrative business and, according to Scherren, the Society's receipts from the selling of the Guide in 1829 was £288, a sum which rose to £369 in 1831. After this year, however, the amount slowly declined until 1847 (see below).40 The Guides were published rather infrequendy but in many editions. The first one seems to be from March of 1829, but Peter Chalmers Mitchell refers to a second edition issued already in July and one may wonder why the Council published so many editions during only one year. N everthe­ less, a comparison of the map that accompanied a List published in Octo­ ber 1829 with the one from March, shows that the changes in the Gardens' disposition are radical enough to motivate several publications during a sin­ gle year in order for the Guide to be up-to-date.41 The Guides seem to have been equipped with maps from the very beginning and since the enclosures on these maps were numbered and corresponding numbers appeared in the Guides there was also a clearly marked route to follow. According to both Scherren and Mitchell, Vigors' and Broderip's Guide was published at "irregular intervals" until 1847 when the produc­ tion came to a complete halt, perhaps as a consequence of the financial dif- DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES

Acuities described in the previous chapter.42 I have not been able to find any further Guides than the one from March 1829 for any of the years between 1829 and 1852. There seems to have been no special guide pub­ lished in 1851, connecting the Gardens with the Great Exhibition. Quite a few London handbooks were naturally published especially for 1851, but their accounts of the Gardens do not distinguish themselves from hand­ books published in other years. In 1852 the secretary D.W Mitchell thought that the Gardens were in dire need of a comprehensive Guide and promptly wrote one, this time with pictures of some of the animals. Since the flow of visitors had increased gready during the early 1850s this can probably be seen as another of Mitchells efforts to promote the Gardens and make them as accessible as possible. However, the publication of this Guide was also irregular and not until 1858 was the publication organised into a more routine system, gov­ erned by the secretary. At a Council meeting in December 1857 Philip Lut- ley Sclater (as a member of Council) suggested that the secretary should be responsible for the preparation of a Catalogue.43 The first Guide using this system appeared in 1858, written by Mitchell. One can however wonder whether Sclater had a hidden agenda behind his suggestion; he was voted secretary in 1859 and as author of the Guide, all profits from the sales went into his own pocket until 1903 when he resigned his position. As the nineteenth century proceeded, this system of profits was a mat­ ter for discussion and it seems as if it was considered a good time to change it at the same time as the secretaries were changed. When Peter Chalmers Mitchell assumed his duties as secretary in 1903, the copyright of the Guide was transferred to the Society and has stayed there ever since. The proce­ dure of letting the secretary take advantage of the profits from one of the Society's publications could perhaps be seen as a bonus, since the salary was quite low.44 As a consequence of this system, the Guides from 1858 to 1903 and 1904 onwards are extremely similar in character. The descriptions reappear with few alterations and it is often merely the arrangement of the animals and the enclosures that have changed. The Guides and Lists from the 1820s and 1830s are small leaflets of about 20 or 30 pages. Mitchells Guide from 1853 contains about twice as many pages, with pictures, and seems to be in an octavo format. The more streamlined Guides from 1858 and onwards are also about 70 pages thick, with pictures that sometimes change from year KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

to year and in octavo. Chalmers Mitchell seems to have had greater ambi­ tions; his Guides are more than 100 pages thick and contain photographs of the actual animals living in the Gardens, but still in octavo format. All the Guides are equipped with maps of the Gardens, but only the ones from 1904 onwards have an index as well.

Character and Language in Four Different Guides The first Guide from 1829 has a rather learned appearance since all animals are supplied with at least two different binomial names apart from their common ones, and because of numerous footnotes. The footnotes contain mainly information about the different orders (Linnean) of the animal kingdom that the animal in question might belong to, unless this informa­ tion is given in the text. Learned works are referred to both in the text and in the footnotes, among others Thomas Pennant s Arctic Zoology (1784—85). The text undoubtedly has the character of interdisciplinary natural history since more than just zoological i nformation about the animals is given in the descriptions. Not only is the brown bears current habitat accounted for, but also its history in the British Isles where it is now extinct. The Kamtschatkas uses of the black bear (teeth, skin, bones, etc.) are considered as well as the racoons inclination to get "excessively drunk", all according to Pennant.45 If the entries of the different Guides are compared, the leopard is described thus in the 1829 Guide:

LEOPARD Felis Leopardus, Gmel. Le Leopard, Buffon. Male presented by Capt. Dalrymple; female by Wm. Osborne Esq. Inhabits Africa. Graceful in form and action, beautiful in colour, and cruel in disposition. It is however capable of being tamed. In Lou­ don's Magazine of Natural History is a very pretty account by Mrs. Bowdish of a Leopard which she rendered entirely familiar, and which was very much attached to her. The female before us is very fond of those who have made her acquaintance and treated her kindly. But the reception which she gives to them, should not embolden a stranger to take the same liberties. She knows how to change "the velvet of her paws" to a fearful instru­ ment of destruction.46 DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES

Several things are worth noting in this quotation. A scientific name is given, but also the common name in French, suggesting that France, or rather Buffon, at this time still is considered significant factor in natural history/zoology. Since the Society largely depended on generous donations it is perhaps not surprising that donors' names are considered as a most important fact, next to the animals common and scientific ones. That the leopard is described as "cruel" also hints at a fairly early text, since these opinions about the character of various animals became less and less com­ mon during the nineteenth century A tendency towards a more culturally inclined zoology can also be detected in the fact that the leopard is said to be tameable. The phrase "the female before us" ties the Guide tighdy to the placement of the individual leopard and thus requires rewriting every time the arrangement of the Gardens is changed or the leopard dies. In the earli­ est Guides, it is actually hard to tell which of these causes was the common­ est for changes in the Guides. By 1853 the numerous references to Pennant are gone and D.W Mitch­ ell relies instead on the more contemporary writings of Humboldt (con­ cerning the jaguar), Darwin (the capybara) and Captain Cornwallis Harris (the wart hog).47 It is worth noting that these men were not only respected naturalists at the time, but also public figures of great popularity, not least the African explorer Harris. Perhaps Mitchell wanted to make the text more accessible b y referring to authorities well known to the presumptive readers of the Guide. Probably less familiar were the references to the Soci­ ety's own Proceedings (described in the next chapter), where in many cases fresh knowledge about e.g. gorillas and wombats was presented.48

A fine group of LEOPARDS will be found on the north side of the Ter­ race, which have been brought up together in perfect amity, from the early age at which they were sent to this country. They present exam­ ples of three varieties of this species,—from Ceylon, Western India, and the Punjab. The latter, a massive light colored male, is the gift of Brigadier General Hersey, C.B. A slender and delicate female Leopard, a native of Marocco, which was presented by the late Col. Warrington, lived here from 1845 to 1851. She afforded a singular contrast to an enormous and deeply-col­ ored male from the same country, which was included in the collec­ tion transmitted to Her Majesty by the Emperor of Marocco. This Leopardess bore a close resemblance in size and color to the fine mature male, from Angola, the gift of Theodore Pinto, Esq., F.Z.S., with which she was associated, and which still survives.49 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

The style is quite chatty, which makes it difficult to orient oneself within the text, an orientation that is not facilitated by the fact that the description has no heading, only the animals' common name in capitals. It is also inter­ esting to note that the scientific names are now gone. Perhaps Mitchell shared Edward Bennett s conviction about the problems in using "technical expressions". Since there are now several leopards, the description is not as centred around individuals and their respective characteristics. However, it is still important to inform the reader about who has donated the animals. As seen in the example above, the text does not exclusively deal with ani­ mals living in the Gardens at the time in question, something that also makes the description less than clear. Mitchell not only describes animals that are or have recently been liv­ ing in the Gardens; rare and interesting species that the Society has not had the chance to procure yet are also mentioned, as a thinly veiled hint to the benefactors of the Society. The presumptive donor is left with little doubt that he would do great service not just to the Society but to the science of zoology. The use of Latin in this instance may also be directed at donors, making them feel the connection with science more strongly:

The HOWLING M ONKEYS (Mycetes) are very seldom brought alive to Europe, and I mention them in this place with the hope that some friend of the Institution, in South America, may be induced, by learn­ ing how desirable an addition they would be, to obtain for us some specimens of this group, which would then maintain the gradual tran­ sition to form the next great division, in which the prehensile power of the tail is much more considerably reduced, and, although still a powerful aid in grasping, ceases to be the delicate organ of touch which we notice in the Spider Monkeys.50

Although Mitchell still stands as author, the text of 1858 is more disciplined and considerably less chatty, perhaps suggesting that more control was exer­ cised by the Council over this edition. The concentration on specific indi­ viduals living in the Gardens is even less than in the edition from 1853. It is now the species that is in focus. However, there are still the references to and quotations from other works, both Humboldt and the Proceedings.

The Leopard. (Felis leopardus.)—The Leopard is subject to greater variation than the Lion, but it is possible that further research and bet­ ter means of comparison may establish the existence of a large species DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES ISS

in North-West Africa, and a more slender and differently-marked spe­ cies in the centre of India, in addition to the F leopardus or common Leopard which is undoubtedly common to both Africa and Asia. The Leopard breeds occasionally in confinement: the female now in the collection reared two whelps in 1856. Those of the following year were unfortunately born at a late period of the season, and lived for a few days only.51

The scientific name has returned and the human connection is now non­ existent since the donors have been removed from the text. Since the text changed very little when Sclater started to manage the Guide as secretary only one year later, one may even wonder whether he and not Mitchell wrote the Guide. The last guidebook more closely studied is written by Peter Chalmers Mitchell, secretary since 1903, and originated in 1907. The style is even more concise, and not concerned with individual animals (this can however vary slighdy from animal to animal). The references to other works are now completely gone; these are Chalmers Mitchells own words.

The Leopard (Felis pardus) inhabits Asia and Africa, from Japan to Cape Colony. It is the third in size of the Old-World Cats, and distinguished by its coloration of spots and rosettes, similar to, but smaller in size than those of the New-World JAGUAR Th e Leopard preys chiefly on small and young animals. The PANTHER is anoth er name for it. The BLACK LEOPARD is a variety which is especially common in South-Eastern Asia, and notable for its extremely savage temper.52

A different scientific name suggests a change in classification theory, but this is not explained in any way A minor retreat to an older tradition can be noticed since the Black Leopard is said to be especially "savage". This might however be a remnant from the reference to Humboldt in David Mitchells edition from 1853, where the black jaguar is said to be the "largest and most blood-thirsty variety".53 This is the first time that the species, and not just the occupants of the enclosure at present, is properly described with general size, colour and habits. Can the reader thus follow a development through these four Guides? They are of course very much characterised by their individual authors, but I do not think it is too much to say that it is possible to detect some general tendencies in them. From the language, character and information in these different texts, I would say that they describe rather well the development i$6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK of popular biology/zoology books from natural history books. The text from 1829, not least with all its names, depicts the interdisciplinary charac­ ter that still held natural history in a firm grip. How was zoology to be sep­ arated from anthropology or palaeontology? The connection between the species in question and man was still important, while this is less apparent in the later Guides and has disappeared altogether in the edition from 1907. The focus on humans is diminished since donors are not mentioned to the same extent in the later Guides. However, particularly prominent persons and royalty are of course excluded from this rule. If, on the other hand, one follows zoologist William Morton Wheeler s later and somewhat exaggerated definition of the difference between natu­ ral history and biology, presented at the Boston Society of Natural History in April 1931, all of the Guides must be categorised as natural history and not biology. The naturalist is namely "mentally oriented toward and con­ trolled by objective, concrete reality", while the biologist "is oriented toward and dominated by ideas".54 The gap between these two characters is of course overstated, but it is nonetheless clear that the Guides are descrip­ tive and not gready concerned with theories. The Guides may refer to, and perhaps even quote, the Society's Proceedings but the texts are very different in character. It is always the facts in the Proceedings that are used, never the theories. Another marker of natural history is the use of the particular word "singular" which is common in all the Guides and also used to a great extent in natural history books of the Victorian period.55 But even if the Guides are not concerned with lofty ideas and theories, it is obvious that scientific facts were communicated through them. In the 1829 edition it is for example stated that the leopard inhabits only Africa, but 24 years later it has been 'discovered' that leopards live in both Africa and Asia. I believe that the Guides, through the communication of infor­ mation about the animals, not only disseminated popular zoology but also helped to give the animals some context. In popular natural history it was often considered crucial to observe the organisms in their natural environ­ ment, and naturalistically inclined Englishmen went to the seashore and into the fields. This environmental framing was hard to accomplish in the Gardens and the Guides provided the visitors with the means to examine the animals as if watching them in the wild. Furthermore, it is also evident that the different Guides could be used in different ways. In particular the first and second Guides are written in a DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES IS7 way that enable the reader to bring them home and still find them amusing and interesting. In this way they resemble some of the non-official guides (see below) in that they are almost prose-like in their character. But these two Guides and also the third (from 1858) are nevertheless closley co n­ nected to the Gardens and the animals living there, by virtue of mention­ ing the character or appearance of individual animals. The last Guide (from 1907) is however arranged according to the Gardens but is otherwise no different from any other book on popular zoology. If one wished, one might as well take a dictionary of mammals, birds, etc. to the Gardens instead of the Guide. This might be concession to increasing demands on these kind of books (i.e. guides) from public and Society alike, but may also be a simple convenience since it is a way of avoiding making major changes in the Guides from one year to another. One of my initial intentions was to examine whether there was a ny difference between the Guides written before and after 1847. As described in the previous chapter, the Council decided in that year that the gates of the Gardens should be opened to the general public. One would thus expect the Guides written before and after 1847 to perhaps be different in both character and intent, owing to the larger influx of a lay public. How­ ever, as seen above, th is is not the case which inclines one to ask why. Two explanations appear plausible. It was not overwhelmingly difficult to become a Fellow of the Society if you had the right connections even if you lacked the proper zoological knowledge. The guidebooks could therefore direct themselves to the Fellows who were not professional zoologists. But a more likely answer is that the Guides before 1847 were aimed at the Fellow's friends and families who could be admitted on a Fellows order. The most visible change is however how the Gardens are presented in these Guides. Great changes in the arrangement of the animals appear in each and every one of the Guides and the orderliness is clearly improved during these years. In 1829, the Gardens still seem quite unorganised and non-permanent. Many of the enclosures are termed "temporary" and the whole south-east area of the Gardens is not ready for visitors. The animals are assembled in rough taxonomic groups but there is no obvious taxo- nomic or zoo-geographic order between the cages. The leopards and the jackals are ne xt to the racoons; the pelicans are next to the emus. Judging by the two earliest Guides at least, it seems as if they had to be supple­ mented with fairly comprehensive labels on each enclosure since the ani- KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK mals were moved quite often and thus their arrangement did not always agree with the Guides. However, the assembling of taxonomic groups improved over the years, and from the 1850s onwards the groups were at least homogeneously described in the Guides, as in this presentation from 1858:

8. Small Carnivora House. The collection of Carnivora is very extensive, and is by far the finest in Europe. The animals are unfortunately separated in various buildings; but they can be visited successively if desired. These buildings are numbered 8, 12, 13, 1 4, 27, 31, 32, 50 [numbers corresponding with the map].56

The Society's wish, previously mentioned in Chapter two, to present com­ plete collections of every taxonomic group can clearly be seen in this quota­ tion. Thus, if the Gardens can be said to have had any particular order, or at least a desired order, it was definitely taxonomic and not for example zoo-geographic.

Non-official Guidebooks Although there are great variations between the different Guides of the Society, this is nothing compared to the ones I have chosen to call non-offi- cial guides. Even though the Council, as previously described, appears to have been rather restrictive about giving publishing permission to other authors, other guides to the Gardens do nonetheless exist.57 One may spec­ ulate whether they were published without the Society's knowledge, at least the ones written by non-members of the Society, since I have found only one guide that is not the Society's but said to be "sold by permission", pub­ lished by H.G. Clarke.58 However, since most of these non-official guides are to be found in the Society's own library and were often apparendy acquired within a year of their publication it would probably have been easy for the Society to stop them if they wanted to. Thus, one may assume that most of these guides to which I refer were published without the Soci­ ety's expressed permission but with its knowledge. In the case of two of the very earliest guides, or at least descriptions of a guide-like character, also discussed in Chapter two, it is difficult to deter­ mine whether they were official or not. From 1828 and 1829, they are rather DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 159 short and published in the Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction and as a part of a Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park, respectively.59 The Guide from 1828 might have had the Councils blessing since it had proba­ bly not had the time to produce a guide of its own. It might have been sim­ ilarly hard for the Council to say no to the Regent s Park guide since it was a big advantage for the Society to have its Gardens there and the guide offered free publicity. Among the other non-official guides, I have primarily focused on the ones that have the appearance of books, rather than leaflets, since the books seem to be more explicit about their purpose.60 The editor of Popular Zool­ ogy (1832) proudly states that "he has by no means restricted himself to the compilation of a mere descriptive catalogue" and this also seems to be the case with the other non-official guides.61 They can be viewed as a sort of intermediary between for example Bewicks History of Quadrupeds and the Society's guides—probably due to the fact that they could not be sold in connection with the Gardens but had to tempt the presumptive buyer with something more than a "descriptive catalogue". These non-official guides go about their subject in different ways. The Gardens and Menagerie of theZoolo gical Society Delineated (1830-31) by Ben­ nett follows th e pattern that he established in his work about the Tower Menagerie some years earlier.62 It is mainly a description of various mam­ mals and birds, but based on the specimens that reside in the Gardens. The pictures in the books have also been made from specific individuals in the Gardens. Popular Zoology is really a two-part book, the first being a regular guide to the Gardens of about 32 pages, the second resembling Bennetts book with lengthy descriptions of various mammals and birds. The Zoolog­ ical Gardens; A Hand-Book for Visitors (1841) is a fusion between the two parts of the former volume, the book following the pattern of the Gardens with voluminous descriptions of every animal as their enclosures appear. Another category of 'guides' has been referred to previously, na mely books that seem to be intended for children and describe a visit to the Gar­ dens in prose. The stories are fictitious which makes it problematic to call them guides but at the same time the text is more often than not of a guide-like character, laced with lengthy descriptions. One of these is called The Zoological Keepsake (1830).63 In prose and lyrics, the reader is invited to follow Mrs. Aston and three of her children, George, Jane and Charlotte, on an early-morning walk in the Gardens. Mrs. Astons brother, Mr. Dart­ i6o KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK mouth, who is also a Fellow of the Society, soon joins them and becomes their cicerone. He instructs the children on a variety of subjects, from the meaning of the word "zoology" to the use of bears in ancient England. The only problem is that Mr. Dartmouth has difficulty keeping his explanations on a short leash and this mistake is repeated by the accompanying father in the books by James Bishop. Bishop seems at some time to have been a member of the Society and published three books that describe a visit to the Gardens: Henry and Emmas Visit to the Zoological Gardens (1829), A Visit to the Zoological Gardens, in the Regent's Park (1850) and Stories and Tales of Animated Nature (1854).64 All these books are so similar that they might even be labelled three different editions of the same book, and tell the story of a brother and sister who, together with their father, visit the Zoological Gardens. What, then, distinguish these guides from the Society's own products? The 1829 Guide claims to be "in some degree popular" and the 1853 Guide is called A Popular Guide... However, I have not been able to find a more elaborate discussion of the virtues of popular natural history other than the vague expression of "diffusing more widely a taste for Natural Sciences".65 The resolutions to publish guides at the Council meetings in 1828 and 1857 were not preceded by lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of popularis­ ing zoology. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that it was not seen as impossible to popularise zoology without losing in truth and con­ tent. This is probably the case with the non-official guides as well, though some of them do state a popular intent, for example Popular Zoology and The Zoological Gardens. However, since the guides, official and non-official alike, were sold to a large lay public it is not surprising that they are all popular to a greater or lesser extent. It is thus not in popular intent or language that the greatest difference between the official and non-official guides resides. This differ­ ence can instead be found in the sphere of religion, which constituted a large part of British nineteenth-century everyday life, as described in the Introduction.66 All scientific discoveries and theories were adopted in the broader context of Natural Theology, and the popularity of the famous Bridgewater Treatises is an illustration of this phenomenon.67 However, apart from the Society's d eclaration in the prospectus that zoology is "a most important branch of Natural Theology", this is not particularly DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 161 noticeable in the Society's later works and publications and non-existent in the official Guides.68 Yet this is not the case with many of the non-official guides. Mr. Butler tells Henry and Emma: "you see t he goodness of Providence, which fur­ nishes every creature with the best means of enjoying the life granted to it by a wise and all-bountiful Creator."69 The Zoological Gardens finds that "[observation and admiration of his creatures is indirect praise to Him who made them"70 and Mr. Dartmouth points to:

the continual incitements with which the study [of zoology] is filled, to admire from day to day, an d daily to admire more and more, the wisdom, the goodness, and the power, which is and has been displayed in their production; the continual appeal which it proffers to our most holy meditations.. .71 Why this difference is so clearly visible is difficult to explain but one reason may perhaps be found with Bernard Lightman and the middle-class popu­ larises. He describes how this group continued to spread biological knowl­ edge through the medium of moral stories and lessons well into the second half of the nineteenth century while scientists became increasingly natural­ istic. The authors of non-official guides are by this categorisation probably more correcdy to be regarded as belonging to a group of professional' pop­ ularises rather than scientists or naturalists.72

Enter: Mr. Weston Many of these authors regarded the aesthetic and moral qualities of nature as especially beneficial for children.73 Animals were often anthropomor- phised and used to point out certain human characteristics in a more undi­ luted way: the dog represented fidelity, the mule patience and the lark cheerfulness.74 Children's books also became more and more common as children became more and more visible as consumers. In this way, ch il­ dren's books become interesting for the historian since they often portray contemporary problems and questions in a more simple manner.75 How­ ever, they do not only portray problems but also descriptions of everyday life. To find a detailed account of a visit to the Zoological Gardens, the guides are not enough and it is more rewarding to turn to children's books. Bishop's Stories and Tales is particularly interesting for several reasons. Like other books that deal with a visit to the Gardens it describes what a visit was suppos ed to be like, if somewhat idealised, as we soon shall see. IÓ2 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

What makes Stories and Tales worth extra attention is t hat it makes refer­ ences to the official guidebook of the Society. The enclosure-numbers of the Guide and the map of 1853 (see Map 4.1 in Appendix V: Maps) also appear in Stories and Tales. One would therefore think that this book was intended to be used as a regular guidebook but since Stories and Tales does not have an enclosed map, it is more likely that it was meant as a comple­ ment to the official guidebook or at least to be used with the Society's map. But since it contains more prose than the official guidebook it was probably also designed for reading at other times, before and after a visit. Stories and Tales is a fairly expensive little book with many pictures that seem to have been taken from a host of other books. It cost one shilling, which makes it as expensive as the Society's own Guide. The main charac­ ters of the book are the siblings Charles and Emma Weston. As a reward for good behaviour on Charles' behalf the father takes the children to the Zoo­ logical Gardens on Charles' birthday. It is clear that the children regard the visit as something special, perhaps not least since they are accompanied by Mr. Weston himself and not a nanny. The father is a businessman and hence belongs to the middle or upper middle class that supported the Gar­ dens and also believed in rational recreation.76 In the beginning it is t he narrator who conveys the information, but Mr. Weston soon takes over:

"I would here direct your attention to some circumstances," said Mr. Weston, "which will enable you to make a far better use of your visit here, than the mere gratification afforded by a view of the gardens and inhabitants they contain, elegant and interesting as they are. The great family of Animated Nature, is subdivided into classes,—each class or family contains many varieties; but each individual animal of the same family has some peculiarity, which is also possessed by the others of the same class...'

The children's father thus starts by describing how the animal kingdom is constructed and takes his immediate examples from the waders, whose enclosure they are facing. He points out how wisely nature is arranged, since these birds live in marshes which are infested with reptiles. If the birds were not designed to eat them, the reptiles would soon flood the earth, and for this purpose the birds are equipped with long legs a nd jagged beaks. The party continue past the ungulates, felines and bears where Mr. Weston gets several opportunities to describe the inhabitants of the animal king­ dom. And it is not only knowledge about natural history that he conveys to DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 163 the children; Charles and Emma learn for example that polar bears were brought to the Gardens thanks to Arctic explorers such as James Clark Ross and John Franklin.78 When Charles asks his father why the Gardens also contain plain birds like Robin-redbreasts Mr. Weston gets an opportunity to express the opin­ ions voiced by the Society in its first prospectus:

"My dear boy," replied Mr. Weston, "one of the principal intentions of the founders of these gardens, was, to provide as complete a collection of animated nature, as possible, to enable the enquirer to become bet­ ter acquainted with the habits and disposition of the several varieties into which the great family of animated creation is divided. It was the want of proper opportunities added to a love of the marvellous, which induced travellers, in former days, to give the most exaggerated accounts of what they beheld, and the credulity of the curious and uninformed was thus gratified and encouraged at the expense of truth, as well as by the spread of the marvellous and the wonderful. But when actual observation gave the opportunity of ascertaining the truth, many a received opinion was found to be founded in error, and mankind became better informed. [—] A collection like this, there­ fore, which includes almost every known variety, gives an excellent opportunity of studying what is the real disposition of each, and thus dispelling the idle fables and tales of invention and hearsay."79

These statements make it perfecdy clear that Mr. Weston seems to be a walking encyclopaedia of natural history: he is familiar with all the litde nooks and crannies of the animal kingdom and he does not hesitate to share his wisdom. The ideal Gardens visit is thus equally obvious: the chil­ dren are supposed to learn from their fathers lectures and then use this knowledge through observations of the animals and through questions, as in the case of the Robin-redbreast.80 Parallels can be drawn with natural history excursions, as they were carried out by for instance Linneaus. Still, Bishop allows the reader to wonder whether Charles and Emma can live up to the ideal; after arriving at the bears' enclosure the children are indeed "pleased and somewhat interested" by what their father has to say but it is far more fun to give buns to the bears.81 164 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

Concluding Remarks The purpose of Charles and Emma's visit was thus rather knowledge than pleasure, which is clarified by Mr. Weston in the first quotation. He also points out that it is the context of the Gardens that is important. The only place where exotic animals could be observed before had been menageries where the effect could be confusing, but now art and science had enabled the animals to be viewed in a context. A better appreciation of the con- struction of nature is thereby given.82 A children's book of a later date, The Childs Zoological Garden (18 81), states that the zoological garden, like the travel handbook, gives us an idea of animals in foreign lands which makes them even more interesting if (or rather when) you see them in their natu­ ral habitat.83 Charles also says that he is glad to have seen a lynx since it is an animal that he has read and heard about but never seen in real life. 84 Like the handbooks of Murray and Baedeker, the Gardens' guidebook also falls back on the combination of expectation and confirmation. The matching numbers in the guidebook and on the map also help to make a visit to the Gardens a highly disciplined pleasure. Entering through the north entrance the Westons have the opportunity to look at the peli­ cans (enclosure no. 16) or go straight ahead until they reach the predators (enclosure no. 10). But instead they turn right in order to find enclosure no. I, which is the new aviary and then faithfully follow the route of the guidebook which is marked in red on the map. Even the text of the guide­ book informs the visitor of his or her movements: "The Visitor is supposed to leave the Monkey House by its Western Entrance."85 The use of the word "suppose" makes the message even more forceful: a certain freedom of choice is indicated but also t hat it would be extremely rude not to do as suggested. This also conveys an attitude towards the visitor that corresponds to Locke's tabula rasa. The guidebook contains a wealth of information, which suggests that the visitor is assumed only to be knowledgeable about the very basics of zoology. The text turns into an authority that cannot be questioned and whose power becomes all the more evident since it controls the visitor's movement in space as well. But the guidebook not only controls spatial movement but also intel­ lectual movement. Mr. Weston claims that animals in menageries are incomprehensible; there, they are only animals without context. The pur­ pose of the Gardens was to place the animals within a continuity where DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES they could be properly understood, i.e. a scientific context. Without this scientific context the visitor had no other choice but to escape into "vulgar admiration'.86 It is the purpose of the guidebook to mediate the context and make sure that the visitor understands it. The Zoological Gardens exist to inform the visitor of the true arrangement of nature or, as Mr. Weston puts it: "dispelling] the idle fables and tales of invention and hearsay".87 As with the travel handbook and other guidebooks it becomes the mission of the Gardens' guidebook to explain to the visitor what is to be observed and how. It is important that visitors do not linger outside the cage of so com­ mon an animal as the chinchilla when they have the opportunity to look at the unique kiwi bird or the famous hippo Obaysh.88 The guidebook also facilitated the domestication of this myriad strange and wonderful animals by carefully pointing out who had donated the animals to the Gardens: in this way the animals became a part of England. The numbers and carefully marked route of the guidebook enhanced the feeling of being on familiar ground. When everybody walks in the same direction there is order, even in the otherwise overwhelming nature.89 l66 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

NOTES

1. James Bishop, Stories and Tales of Animated Nature, or A Visit to the Zoological Gardens (London: Dean & Son, [1854]), 36. 2. Alan Rogers, foreword to Guide Books an d Historic Buildings, by Adrian Tinniswood, Dept. of Adult Education, Univ. of Nottingham (Nottingham: Univ. of Nottingham, 1981), v. 3. David Mitchell, A Popular Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London (Lon­ don, 1853), 61-62. 4. John Betts, "P.T. Barnum and the popularization of natural history," Journal of the His­ tory of Ideas 20, no. 3 (1959): 353-368. 5. Bernard Lightman, '"The voices of nature': Popularizing Victorian science," in Victorian Science in Context, ed. Bernard Lightman (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), 188. 6. Betts, "Popularization of natural history," 360. 7. Mitchell, 15. The quotation is from the minutes of a meeting of the 'proposers' of the Zoological Society held on February 26, 1826. Bastin claims that the manuscript of this meeting can no longer be found in the Society's library. John Bastin, "The first prospec­ tus of the Zoological Society of London: New light on the Society's origin,"/. Soc. Bibl. Nat. Hist. 5, no. 5 (1970): 373, 388 n. 34. 8. Report of the Council, 1847, 4 and Minutes of Annual General Meeting 29/4 (1847). 9. Nicholas Vigors and William Broderip, Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society (London: Richard Taylor, 1829), 2. 10. Gwynne Vevers, comp., London's Zoo: An Anthology to Celebrate 150 Years of the Zoological Society of London, with its Zoos at Regent'sPark in London and Whipsnade in Bedfordshire (London: The Bodley Head, 1976), 124-125; W.S. Bullough and Feona Hamilton, "The role of education," in The Zoological Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond, Symposia of the Zoological Society of London ed. Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40 (London: Aca­ demic Press, 1976), 225, and The Zoological Gardens; A Hand-Book for Visitors (London: Robert Tyas, 1841), 2. 11. Bullough and Hamilton, "Role of education," 225. 12. Edward Bennett, The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated, pub­ lished with the sanction of the Council under the superintendence of the Secretary and Vice-Secretary of the Society, vol. 1, Quadrupeds (London: Thomas Tegg &C N. Hailes, 1830), vi-vii. 13. Melissa Calaresu, "Looking for Virgil's tomb: The end of the Grand Tour and the cos­ mopolitan ideal in Europe," in Voyages and Visions: Towards a Cultural History of Travel, eds. Jas Eisner and Joan-Pau Rubiés (London: Reaktion Books, 1999), 141-142, and Thomas Curley, Samuel Johnson and the Age of Travel (Athens, Ga.: The University of Georgia Press, 1976), 49. For a more general description of the development of travel literature, see for example Justin Stagi, A History of Curiosity: The Theory of Travel, i$$o- 1800 (Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995), 1-94, and Esmond de Beer, "The development of the guide-book until the early nineteenth century," Journal of the British Archaeological Association 15 (1952): 35-46. 14. See for example Roger Hudson, "Introduction: Milordos and bear leaders," in The Grand Tour, 1592-1796, ed. Roger Hudson (London: The Folio Society, 1993), passim; John Sears, Sacred Places: Ame rican Tourist A ttractions in the Nineteenth Century, new ed. (Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998), 3, and Ian Ousby, The Englishman's England: Taste, Travel and the Rise o f Tourism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), passim. 15. Edward Gibbon quoted in Hudson, "Introduction," 17. DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES 167

16. Anthony Trollope, Travelling Sketches (London: Chapman & Hall, 1866), 71. 17. Ibid., 74. 18. Ibid., 78-79. 19. Wordsworth quoted in James Buzard, The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature, and the Ways to Culture, 1800-1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 29. 20. John Vaughan, The English Guide Book, c. 1/80—18/0: An Illustrated History (London and Vancouver: David and Charles, 1974), 85. 21. Buzard, Beaten Track, 66. 22. John Murray, "The origin and history of Murray's Handbooks for travellers," Murray's Magazine 6 (1889): 623-629 and Buzard, The Beaten Track, 175. For a more specific description on London handbooks, see David Webb, "For inns a hint, for routes a chart: The nineteenth-century London guidebook," London Journal: A Review of Met­ ropolitan Society Past and Present 6 (1980): 207-214, and David Gilbert, "'London in all its glory—or how to enjoy London': Guidebook representations of imperial London," Journal of Historical Geography 25, no. 3 (1999): 2 79-297. 23. Murray, "Murray's Handbooks," 628. 24. Piers Brendon, Thomas Cook: i$o Years of Popular Tourism (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1991)' 36-37. 57- 25. Buzard, Beaten Track, 67. 26. Ali Behdad, Belated Travelers: Orientalism in the Age of Colonial Dissolution (Durham, N.C. and London: Duke University Press, 1994), 45-46. 27. Vaughan, English Guide Book, 81. 28. Buzard, Beaten Track, 65, and Edward Mendelson, "Baedekers universe," Yale Review 74 (spring 1984-85): 386. 29. Brendon, Thomas Cook, 37. 30. John Urry calls this way of seeing, in accordance with Foucault, "tourist gaze" where everything you see on your journey in the end is diminished to tourist clichés. See John Urry, The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies (L ondon: SAGE Publications, 1990). 31. Buzard, Beaten Track, 75,125. 32. Karl Baedeker quoted in Mendelson, "Baedekers universe," 387-388. 33. Derek Gregory, "Scripting Egypt: Orientalism and the cultures of travel," in Writes of Passage: Reading Travel Writing, , eds. James Duncan and Derek Gregory (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 134-135, and Behdad, Belated Travelers, 42. 34. Elizabeth Butler, From Sketch-Book and Diary (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1909), 56- 35. Judith Adler, "Origins of sightseeing," Annals of Tourism Research 16, no. 1 (1989), 11. 36. See for example A Guide in the Choice of a Partner for Life and the Selection of Friends (London, [1820]); A Guide to the Stars (London: Taylor and Hessey, 1820), and A Prac­ tical Brewer, A Guide to Young Brewers: Also Complete Instructions for Country Victuallers Who Brew at Home (London, 1820). 37. MC, 22/10 (1828). 38. Oxford English Dictionary\ 2™* ed., s.v. "catalogue," "guide," and "list." 39. MC, 3/12 (1828) and 4/2 (1829). 40. Scherren, 41. 41. Scherren, 36-41, and Mitchell, 126-130. 42. Mitchell, 127, and Scherren, 41. 43. MC, 16/12 (1857). 44. Scherren, 225-226, 230, 244, and Mitchell, 74. 45. Vigors and Broderip, Guide to the Gardens, 4, 7. 46. Ibid., 6. 47. Mitchell, Popular Guide, 6-7,17, 26-27. 48. Ibid., 27, 39. i68 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

49. Ibid., 7-8. 50. Ibid., 36. 51. David Mitchell, Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London (London: Brad­ bury and Evans, 1858), 20-21. 52. Peter Chalmers Mitchell, Official Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London (London: Zoological Society of London, 1907), 35-36. 53. Mitchell, Popular Guide, 7. 54. William Morton Wheeler quoted in Lynn Merrill, The Romance of Victorian Natural His­ tory (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 12. 55. Merrill, Victorian Natural History, 60-61. 56. Mitchell, Guide to the Gardens, 16-17. 57. MC, 3/12 (1828) and 4/2 (1829). 58. The Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park: A Hand-Book Guide for Visitors (London: H.G. Clarke & Son, [1868]). Clarke did publish numerous editions of this guide. 59. "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regents Park," Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, no. 330 (6 September 1828): 148-150, and "Gardens of the Zoological Soci­ ety," in A Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park (London, 1829), 42-56. 60. With regard to non-official smaller guides, see for example Thomas Allen, A Guide to the Zoological Gardens and Museum; With a Brief Account of the Rise and Progress of the Zoo­ logical Society (London: Cowie and Strange, 1829); A Stroll in the Gardens of the London Zoological Society; Describing the Various A nimals in that Interesting Collection, By A Member of the University of Dublin, & c. (London: E. Wallis, [1828]); C . Williams, The Zoological Gardens, Regent's park (London: C. Tilt, [1840]), and the various editions of Clarke's The Zoological Gardens; A Description of the Gardens and Menageries of the Zoological Society. 61. Popular Zoology: Comprising Memoirs and Anecdotes of the Quadrupeds, Birds and Reptiles, in the Zoological Societys Menagerie; With Engravings of the More Important and Interest­ ing (London, 1832). 62. Edward Bennett, Zoological Society Delineated, and idem, The Tower Menagerie: Compris­ ing The Natural History of the Animals Contained in that Establishment; with Anecdotes of their Character and History (London: Robert Jennings, 1828). 63. The Zoological Keepsake; or Zoology, and the Garden and Museum of the Zoological Society; For the year 1830 (London: Marsh & Miller, 1830). 64. James Bishop, Henry and Emmas Visit to the Zoological Gardens, in the Regent's Park (Lon­ don, [donated to the Society's library in 1832, published in 1829 acc. to Blunt, The Ark in the Park, 44]); James Bishop, A Visit to the Zoological Gardens, in the Regent's Park: Interspersed with A Familiar Description of the Nature and Habits of the Many Rare and Interesting Animals Exhibited Therein, 6th ed. (London: Dean & Co., 1850), and Bishop, Stories and Tales. 65. Report of the Council, 184/, 4, and Minutes of Annual General Meeting 29/4 (1847). 66. See for example Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England (1962; reprint, London; Methuen and Co., 1975), 20-25, 147-205; J.EC. Harrison, Early Victorian Britain, 1832-51, new ed. (London: Fontana, 1979), 150-162; Lynn Barber, The Heyday of Natu­ ral History, 1820-1870 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1980), and Geoffrey Best, Mid-Victo- rian Britain, 1851-75, 3rd imp. (London: Fontana Press, 1985). See also Robert Young, "Natural theology, Victorian periodicals and the fragmentation of a common context," in Darwin to Einstein: Historical Studies on Science and Belief eds. Colin Chant and John Fauvel (Essex and New York: Longman Group, 1980), 69-70, and Susan Cannon, Science in Culture: The Early Victorian period (New York: Dawson and Science History Publications, 1978), 2-3. 67. Jonathan Topham, "Science and popular education in the 1830s: The role of the Bridge- water TreatisesBJHS 25, no. 87 (1992): 397-430. DISPELLING THE IDLE FABLES AND TALES

68. Mitchell, 15. It can however be found, or at least hinted at, in some instances. See for example the quotation by William Ogilby in Chapter five concerning the hol- lowhorned ruminants, PZS, 28/1 (1840), 9-10. 69. Bishop, Henry and Emmas Visit to the Zoological Gardens, 12. 70. Zoological Gardens; A Hand-Book, 3. 71. Zoological Keepsake, 33. 72. Lightman, '"Voices of nature'," 188-192. 73. See Christine Kenyon-Jones, Kindred Brutes: Animals in Romantic-period Writing (Alder- shot, Great Britain: Ashgate, 2001), 51-78. 74. Charles Tomlinson and Sarah Tomlinson, Lessons Derived from the Animal World, first series (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1851). 75. Merrill, Victorian Natural History, 39. 76. Bishop, Stories and Tales, 3-4. 77. Ibid., 8. 78. Ibid., 8-9,19. 79. Ibid., 35-36. 80. It is however worth noting that it is nearly always Charles who asks his father questions. 81. Bishop, Stories and Tales, 21-22. 82. Ibid., 35-36. 83. Beata Francis, The Child's Zoological Garden (London: Strahan &C Co., 1881), 261. 84. Bishop, Stories and Tales, 39. 85. Mitchell, Popular Guide, 39. 86. Bastin, "First prospectus," 382. 87. Bishop, Stories and Tales, 36. 88. Mitchell, Popular Guide, 50, 53-55, 58 n. 1. 89. The argument is based upon a similar one concerning the guidebooks of the British Museum in Inderpal Grewal, Home and Harem: Nation, Gender; Empire and the Cul­ tures of Travel (London: Leicester University Press, 1996), 90-130. v

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY The Zoological Gardens and Zoological Science, 1830-1900

WHENEVER HE WAS STAYING in London, Charles Darwin was very fond of visiting the Zoological Gardens. One of the Gardens' first orang-utans, Jenny, reinforced his belief that mankind had evolved, just like all other species. He watched her as she "threw herself on her back, kicked & cried, precisely like a naughty child" and he compared her reactions with those of his first son, Charles, hence making observations that would be of impor­ tance in his The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animal (1872).1 He also used the Gardens for his breeding experiments, preferably with rabbits, and befriended the superintendent, Abraham Dee Bardett.2 This is a well-known story and a number of Darwin-biographies sum­ mon up the image of the great naturalist walking among cages and exotic animals while meditating on his renowned theory. From this, it might be easy to assume that Victorian naturalists frequendy used the Gardens, and to agree with natural history editor Edward Newman when in 1850 he said:

It has always appeared to me that one of the chief advantages of an extensive Vivarium like that possessed by our [Zoological] Society is the opportunity it affords for studying animated nature in an ani­ mated state, for ascertaining physiological as well as physical charac­ ters.3

Introduction As described in the previous chapters and the Introduction, the Gardens were undoubtedly a place of knowledge as well as entertainment. But since the original aims for the Gardens, stated in the prospectuses, seem to point to a more 'hard-core' (or perhaps professional) type of science, this study FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY will examine the scientific work carried out in the Gardens by the members of the Society during the nineteenth century, through the reports published in the Proceedings of the /Zoological Society of London between 1830 and 1900. Many later works also state that along with the Jardin des Plantes, the Zoo­ logical Gardens were the foremost scientific zoological gardens in nine­ teenth-century Europe.4 This assumption that the Gardens were of a scientific character is however queried by Adrian Desmond in his article about the early development of the Society Here he claims that it was the Society's Museum, and not the Gardens, that played the part of a scientific pinnacle and that many members regarded the Gardens as a mere "raree show".5 However, because of the lofty wishes in the Society's prospectuses and early Reports as d escribed in Chapter two I was rather surprised, despite Desmonds reservations, when it became evident that less th an eight per­ cent of the reports in the Proceedings b etween 1830 and 1900 were con­ cerned with animals from the Gardens.6 Still, I felt that even these few reports had a right to presentation. Not because they presented any partic­ ularly unusual aspect of nineteenth-century zoological science, but because of where this science was pursued. What kind of reports, and hence sci­ ence, did the animals of the Zoological Gardens give rise to? Ho w did one go about examining an animal such as the chimpanzee or the quirks of marsupial reproduction? Was the classification of animals carried out dif­ ferently in the Gardens and what was the purpose of post mortems? I will also to some degree try to verify the poor results of the Proceedings. Is it per­ haps possible to find the science of the Zoological Gardens in publications other than the Society's own?

The Committee of Science and Correspondence Chapter two told the story of how the Society founded not only Gardens, but a Farm as well, to advance the Society's acclimatisation efforts. Prima­ rily because the management of Joseph Sabine, the Farm was heavily criti­ cised in Magazine of Natural History and The Times7 But critics could also be heard within the Society, as not everyone was happy about a develop­ ment that included farms and zoological gardens. In 1830 the Council had received so much reproach for its neglect of the "zoological sciences" th at they decided to do something about it.8 They proposed the founding of a 172 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK new committee, called "Committee for Science and Correspondence", that would have a four-fold purpose: (i) "suggesting and discussing questions and experiments in animal physiology", (2) "exchanging communications with the Corresponding Members", (3) "promoting the importation of rare and useful Animals" and (4) "receiving and preparing reports upon matters connected with Zoology".9 These reports would then be published "in the cheapest form", and this became the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 10 The use of the word "physiology" echoes the charter received only a year before where the Society is stated to be devoted to the "advancement of Zoology and Animal Physiology".11 It is however my belief that it was not the more modern and strict discipline of physiology or biology that was intended by this, as described in the Introduction, but a more general application of the word.12 In this sense physiology becomes more of a counter-part to anatomy, where anatomy studies the form and physiology the function of animals and is thus, in consequence, a part of morphology. But as described by Adrian Desmond in "The making of institutional zoology in London, 1822—1836" the status of'hard-core' science within the Society was problematic, despite the Committee. The Museum, Farm, and Gardens all provided platforms for various groups to exert their influence. At first, radicals with Robert Grant in the lead hoped that the Society would be a zoological refuge in much the same way as the Zoological Club had been. But the attempts to promote their own views and criticise the Council for favouring the Gardens and Farm over the Museum were soon quenched. In 1835 the Council, after much argument, managed to exclude Grant and four others on a technicality. With the most radical elements out of the way the Society could further develop under peelite domination. This exclusion also effectively set up Richard Owen as the leading natural­ ist of the Society since he and Grant had been rivals in this respect.13

Terminology Within zoological natural history and its two large sub-disciplines, mor­ phology and taxonomy, there were quite a few specific concepts that need explaining and, since morphology became of increasing importance to tax­ FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY onomy during the nineteenth century, many of these expressions were used within both morphology and taxonomy. First, the different notions of the word "type" were of the utmost importance to both taxonomy and morphology.14 Historian of science Paul Färber has identified three different uses of the word type during the first half of the nineteenth century, where the first one, the "collection type-con- cept", was used principally within collections of natural history. This con­ cept employs a "type-specimen", a particular specimen that was used as reference material in order to identify other specimens of the same species. The specimens were thus used as tools—a method that avoided many of the more philosophical discussions connected to the other two concepts, as we shall later see. It is however important to remember that this type-speci- men only exhibited external characters. The main problem with the collec­ tion type-concept was that it was dependent on good taxidermy and a permanent and extensive museum collection. The second concept is called the "classification type-concept". In order to make the description of characters within closely related taxonomic groups easier, a model was used and one could choose a species to be the type for a genus, a genus for a family, etc. This model was often based on the most common taxon, the most perfect taxon or the taxon that at the time was best known and the usage could be both implicit and explicit.15 The third notion of type was the "morphological type-concept". Com­ parative anatomists were extremely interested in the possibility of a basic plan or type of bodily arrangement that could be applied within the whole of the animal or plant kingdom. Cuvier, for instance, identified four basic patterns within the animal kingdom, four basic body plans of arrange­ ment—his embranchements. These could be separated on the basis of their nervous systems; there were the vertebrata (vertebrates), the mollusca (snails, octopus, etc.), the articulata (segmented invertebrates, insects, worms and crustaceans) and the radiata (invertebrates with a circular body plan).16 In this morphological notion, it is clear th at embryology becomes of vital importance. Men like Karl Ernst von Baer thought that the type could be found by a close study of the development of embryos.17 The other expression, or rather expressions, were "analogy" and "homology". It was Richard Owen who in 1843 gave them the meaning they carry today; analogy is "a part or organ in one animal which has the same function as another part or organ in a different animal". Homology m KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK is, on the other hand, "the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function".18 This difference can be described with the example of limbs. Both birds and flies have wings, but these wings are anal­ ogies to one another since the bird's wing is a limb, made of bones, and the flys wing is in fact a piece of folded skin. The front leg of a horse and a bat s wing are on the other hand homologies. In order to complicate things a little, the word analogy was often used in a somewhat different sense before Owen produced his definition. Analo­ gies could mean different things to different people. Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire used it in the meaning of Owens homology and the inventor of the quinarian system of classification, William Sharpe MacLeay, used analogy as something existing between species t hat in form bound them together.19

Reports from the Gardens In order to make this survey more manageable, I have divided the reports into different subgroups (all diagrams and tables referred to in this chapter can be found in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams). Gardens-reports (see Table 5.1) are mainly divided between the use of dead and living animals, where the reports that deal with living animals contain the subgroups observation, reproduction, classification of living specimens, and experi­ ments on living animals, while the reports that deal with dead animals include primarily anatomical and pathological reports.20 However, these divisions are only used in the tables and diagrams in order to make them more comprehensible. In reality, the differences between the groups are not large enough to motivate a similar division in the text, except for the largest groups of morphology and taxonomy. Since the table describing the grand total of reports found in the Pro­ ceedings (see Table 5.2) has been drawn from the indexes and not a close reading of all the reports, a similar division cannot be used. It is often hard to tell whether the animal (s) con cerned in the report is/are dead or alive, since the indexes only states the report's title. Instead, here the subgroups are: observation, reproduction, classification, experiments, hybrids, micros­ copy, anatomy, pathology and parasites.21 As can be seen in the two tables, not even eight percent of the total amount of reports is m ade up of Gardens-reports. Comparing individual FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY subgroups might be a little more difficult, since the division between the use of dead and living animals within the subgroups is only done with the Gardens-reports. Some groups however do stand out in the overall mate­ rial. The most interesting distribution is obviously between the largest groups in each table. It becomes evident that while 40% of the zoo-reports comprise anatomical reports, the classification of new species dominates among the regular reports (45%), even though anatomical reports make one of the larger groups here as well.22 It must however be noted that this clas­ sification was most often made on the basis of dead specimens and consid­ ering the enormous amounts of specimens that were donated to the Society's Museum (see for example the description of the museum in Chap­ ter two) it is not surprising that this group predominates. The yearly distribution of reports within Table 5.2 is rather even, with a peak in 1865.23 This result changes drastically when looking at Table 5.1 where nearly 20% of the reports are assembled in the first year (1830—31) and almost half of all the reports are written during the first ten years (1830—40). It might also be worth noting that 35% of all the reports written in 1830-31 were Gardens-reports.24 These different distributions will be discussed fur­ ther below.

Science of the Living Classification and Taxonomy The Gardens offered a rare opportunity to study animals more closely than in the wild and thus determine new species more accurately on the basis of a live animal. Birds and certain invertebrates often lost their original colour in mere hours after death. Yet it is stated in the Proceedings: "The difficulty of determining living animals accurately, especially where the species is of rare occurrence or belongs to a genus imperfectly known, must be obvious to every naturalist."25 The presence of animals within the Gardens made it easier to determine the external characters with greater exactness. But para­ doxically enough, it also made classification harder, since all animals are individuals with individual characters. It was thus not unusual that an ani­ mal was considered to constitute a new species, based on individual pecu­ liarities. Hence, there could exist a number of described species that actually were just one, and much of the classifier's work consisted of reduc- 176 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK ing the number of species. The only way to be sure what species the indi­ vidual animal belonged to was often to examine it post-mortem and there are numerous quotations in the Gardens-reports that indicate this:

An examination of the dead body, and especially of the mouth, which it was impossible to observe in the living animal, made it evident that the species could not be rightly included in the genus Macropus or Halmaturus.26

Even British Museum-man John Gray himself admits: "At first sight I thought that it might be a melanism of some other species" when reporting on a new species of monkey.27 Before we continue with the classification reports it is necessary t o make a small detour into the history of taxonomy and classification. The Enlightenment marked the beginning of an ordering of the world that was based on internal and external characteristics instead of for example human utility, like draught animals. The enormous number of plants and animals that poured in over Europe from exotic countries demanded a classification that was scientifically reliable and the most obvious basis for such a classifi­ cation were internal and external physical characters. The desire to create the ultimate system of classification was during the eighteenth and nine­ teenth century a mixture of a firm belief that the world was orderly and at the same time a vague suspicion that its complexity was far too vast to com­ prehend.28 The aim of these efforts was to design a "natural system" of classifica­ tion. Such a system would arrange the organisms, mirroring a supposed objective order of nature. This natural system was often seen as being opposed to an arbitrary system that did not show this natural order, but to some extent was founded upon traits that reflected human convenience, for example Linnaeus' binomial system. However, how this objective order was to be revealed was a nother question. Affinities thus became an important factor in the creation of a natural system, i.e. traits of such essential charac­ ter that resemblance between the affinities would obviously indicate some sort of relation.29 The most common way of revealing such a natural sys­ tem was to take into account organs or systems of organs that were consid­ ered to be of primary physiological importance, such as the reproductive system, a decision leading back to Aristotle's principle that generation was the transfer of a specific essence from parent to offspring.30 FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY Ijy

This was the most popular way of creating a natural system up to the 1860S, when a more philosophical and morphological method began to gain followers. The morphologists preferred to believe that the affinities between different animals were based on the fact that they were modifica­ tions of the same basic type. This was in turn replaced by an embryological view of the order of nature, declaring that it was the embryological devel­ opment that showed the real relationships between organisms. An evolu­ tionary aspect of classification later replaced the embryological view.31 Many of these early systems of classification relied heavily on religion. The natural system was believed by many to be God s system, which he of course had made very logical. It was extremely easy to explain the diversity and complexity of life with the kindness and genius of God, and hence Natural Theology gained a lot of ground and lingered for a long time in many of the branches of natural history, especially in England. The renowned English naturalist John Ray was one of those who tried to prove that nature functions beautifully only because God created it that way.32 Two of the biggest names in this branch during the eighteenth century were of course Linnaeus and Buffon, but their approaches to the subject were very different and clearly demonstrate the two main ways of looking at classification problems. Linnaeus tried to reduce the chaos in nature and fit it neatly into a basically artificial and man-made system. Buffon, on the other hand, was a firm believer in a complete description of the animal kingdom and considered the idea that one trait could be more important than another as an essentially human invention. The clash between Buffon and Linnaeus is important because they represent two ways of viewing the natural world that would survive into the nineteenth century.33 The Great Chain of Being began to fade away as a classification con­ cept by the nineteenth century, partly because of Cuviers embranche­ ments.34 It now became popular to design your very own classification system and nomenclature if the prevailing ones did not suit your purposes. Because the general form of a chain or a ladder had been abandoned, the system could take any form imaginable. The tree quickly became popular, but more complex systems also flourished. One of those was the quinarian system by William Sharpe MacLeay (see Figure 5.1). The quinarian system is interesting because of its prominent position within the Zoological Society in the early years, as one of the systems staunchest allies was NA. Vigors, secretary between 1826 and 1833. 178 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Denti- Coni-

INSESSORES Fissi- Scan-

Colum- Phasia- Tenui- Falco- Stri- bida nida nida RASORES RAPTORES Cra- Tetrao- Vultu- cida nida AVES rida Struthio- nida

Peleca- La- Chara- Gru- nida rida driada NATATORES GRALLATORES

Alcada Anatida Rallida Ardeida Scolo- pacida

Figure 5.1 The Quinerian system for birds in Vigor's interpretation (1824). Note the question- marks indicating taxa predicted to exist by the system but not yet discovered. After Robert J. O'Hara, "Diagrammatic classifications of birds, 1819—1901: Views of the natural system in 19-th century British ornithology," Acta XIX Congressus Interna- tionalis Omith o logici, Ottawa, Canada, 22—29. VI. 1986, ed. Henri Ouellet (Ottawa: National Museum of Natural Sciences, 1986), 2748.

MacLeay used his system mainly on insects, Vigors on birds. The quinarian system was based upon circles; MacLeay believed that the animal kingdom could be separated into five types, the types into five orders and so on. He was secure in the conviction that God was a sound mathematician and thus his creation would rely completely upon rules of mathematical clarity and logic. And since everything could be understood through the number five, it was also possible to predict what direction creation would take or at least envision taxa yet to be discovered. The quinarian classification was based upon two sorts of relationships: affinity and analogy. The connections that placed different animals within the same species (for example) were built upon affinities, close structural relationships that exhibited a natural rela­ tion. But all species was also paralleled with one another by means of anal­ ogies, more superficial similarities that bound the different type-circles together. A certain species of insect might have the affinity of biting mouthparts and this it has in common with the other five species of insects FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY 179 within the circle. But this insect corresponds in turn with another species of insect that instead has sucking mouthparts in that they both have larvae that resemble the adult; this is t he analogy.35 William Swainson, another proselyte of the quinarian system explained:

we shall consider that to be a natural system which endeavours to explain the multifarious relations which one object bears t o another, not simply in their direct affinity, by which they follow each other like the links of a vast chain, but in their more remote relations [analo­ gies], whereby they typify or represent other objects totally distinct in structure and organization from themselves.36

The quinarian system was an attempt to combine the continuity of Lama­ rck with the idealism of the German Naturphilosophie thought up by those who believed that the French systematics of Lamarck was far toomaterialis­ tic. However, partly because of the systems complexity and partly because of its ideological notions, it never spread far from the small circle of believ­ ers although it was used to some degree in more remote colonies.37

"Monograph of the Hollowhorned Ruminants" Now, if we turn back to the Proceedings, there were many reports that dealt with the subject of taxonomy more or less explicidy, but certain reports examined exclusively different systems of taxonomy, or at least suggested changes and improvements to existing systems. In some of these cases it was clearly stated that the animals of the Gardens were used in the attempts to create a new system. In others it was not, but one can suspect that the animals in the Gardens were used in this way more often than the reports revealed since the Society probably possessed one of the most extensive col­ lections in the country. It is in these reports that the Society's emphasis on the importance of being able to exhibit long series o f living animals, as expressed in Chapter two, is perhaps most obvious. Four reports explicidy stating that the authors have used the animals in the Gardens when dealing with taxonomic systems do however exist. It is significant that they only look to specific groups of animals, such as the hollowhorned ruminants, in their criticism; the reports do not aim at a re­ classification of the whole of the animal kingdom.38 i8o KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Even if it was not possible to create a new system, one could always criticise an already existing one. In "Monograph of the Hollowhorned Ruminants" from 1840, it was not secretary William Ogilby s intention to create a new classification of ruminants, he simply wanted to discuss which affinities a system of classification should rely on and what impact these affinities could have on the animals' way of life.39 He starts with an historical account of this order and refers t o Lin- neaus, Buffon and De Blainville. He admits that the genera bos, ovis and capra are well defined, but that antelope is something of a trash' genus. He then proceeds by discussing which characters are important in the classifi­ cation of a ruminant. Ogilby quickly dismiss external features, such as the curvature of the horns, the beard and the dewlap. These are all superficial characters that in no way correspond to the true affinities of the animals:

He [Ogilby] insists, upon the law of classification, that no generic characters should be admitted but such as are founded upon the nec­ essary relations that subsist between the organic structure of animals and their habits and economy.40

The horns themselves are on the other hand an important attribute that could render the observer more information than just the animal's age and species, and the presence or absence of horns is moreover vital in the effect they might have on the habits of the animal. Species with hornless females are said to be striking in their "gendeness and timidity", chiefly monoga­ mous and lifelong companions because of the defencelessness of the female. On the other hand, species that reside in large herds and where the females are equipped with horns exhibit a promiscuous behaviour and "rarely attach themselves to particular individuals". Beside the horns, the form of the upper lip and its degree of hairiness are of critical importance, probably because of what it can say about the animal's diet. Also, the lachrymal sinus is brought up as an important part of animals' economy, though Ogilby is not sure which part:

But whatever it [the function] may be, the principles of sound philos­ ophy and the great doctrine of design forbid us to entertain the notion that so remarkable an organ has been formed without some special and appropriate function in animal oeconomy.41 FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY l8l

The distribution of reports concerning the classification of new species between the two tables is hardly surprising. As stated earlier, since the Soci­ ety accepted donations on behalf of the Museum, it is these that boost the distribution of the classification group in Table 5.2. An illustration of this comes from 1835, when collector Hugh Cuming donated his accumulated South American crustaceans. The donation contained 6000 species w ith three to ten specimens of each species.42 The classifications of collections like these were often published in the Proceedings.

Tommy the Chimp One would assume that observations of living animals would be a group that benefited the most from a place such as the Zoological Gardens, since observations in the field could be problematic. But curiously enough it does not seem as if the Gardens were used to any great degree in this respect. Only a few reports of this nature exist, of which the most interest­ ing concerns the Society's first chimpanzee, Tommy.43 Tommy was brought to England from Gambia in the autumn of 1835 and lived in the home of one of the keepers.44 Both the character of the report and the facts reported suggest that Tommy was looked upon, and treated like, a human child. The observations, made by natural history writer and judge William Broderip, could also be called experiments, though fairly rudimentary. He offered Tommy different things, like a mir­ ror or a glass of sherry, and observed the ape's reaction. These were clearly observations that would not have been possible with an ape in the wild, albeit they were not designed to find out anything about Tommy's true' nature, or his supposed behaviour in the wild, but seemed more inclined to answer the question of his humanity. The only observation/experiment that can be said to examine the ape 'as is' is the one where Broderip exposed Tommy to a python. Broderip was certain that Tommy could not have been in contact with a snake in his home country and therefore, this was an experiment to test his instincts. Tommy's reaction was satisfying:

with a gesture of horror and aversion, and the cry of Hoo! hoo! [he] recoiled from the detested object, jumped back as far as he could, and then sprang to his keeper for protection.45 i82 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

It was of course tempting to compare the anthropoid apes to human beings and Tommy was no exception. There were numerous accounts of his simi­ larity to humans, especially those of more primitive civilisations. Tommys reaction when given a mirror induced Broderip to remark: "A savage would have acted much the same way, ju dging from the accounts given of such experiments with the untutored natives of a wild and newly discovered land."46 He compared Tommy with the orang-utans he had seen and drew the conclusion that the African ape was of superior intellect, and that Tommy's mind was more resembling that of a human being than, for example, a dog.47 As can be seen in Table 5.2, the observations were actually more com­ mon in the regular reports than in the zoo-reports. This is mainly due to the fact that corresponding members would send letters from their distant fields, telling the Society at home about everything from mammals in the Philippines to Cetaceans killed in the north of Kent. It might also be the case that even though it was considered important to observe not only the distinctive characters of an animal, but also its habits, this was not feasible in a zoological garden. Naturalist William Swainson seems to hint at this in the introduction to his Animals in Menageries from 1838. He says that there is a difference between animals in a "state of nature" and animals in menag­ eries and that confined animals are like dead men; none tell any tales 48 However, objections like Swainson's were not stated in the Society's own material since it primarily emphasised the taxonomic and morphological uses of the animals in the Gardens.49

Animal Reproduction The processes of animal reproduction were probably a branch of science that was considered most important within the work of the Society. Not only because one of the primary goals was to reproduce and breed new spe­ cies of animals and it was cheaper to breed exotic animals in the Gardens than to buy them, but also because mysteries of animal (and human) repro­ duction had puzzled naturalists from Aristotle onwards. Because of this necessary focus upon the animals' reproduction within the Zoological Gardens, every piece of information became essential. When concerning birds, it may simply be stated in the Proceedings that they FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY had laid eggs. The mammal gestation period was vital and was hence set for puma, kangaroo and giraffe, among other animals. The major problem with the interest in this particular group was that the observations of preg­ nant females and those in labour, or newborn young, could be very trou­ blesome. The female often rejected her young if she was not left alone, and it seems as if this mistake was often made in the beginning, for example with the first giraffe calf born in the Gardens.50 Besides mere observations of reproductive behaviour, the most likely path for this group should have been that of embryology because of what it could mean to the research into development in both individuals and spe­ cies. Despite this, the only example of a really close study of a developing embryo in the Gardens is from 1895 and the studied embryo was that of a toad.51 The species was m ost likely not a choice, since the possibilities of examining, for example, a mammal embryo, were probably limited. But even here, mans curiosity proved fatal to animal life. The observations got as far as seeing the heart beating but after this, the embryo fell out of the egg, because of the the way it was handled. It was later preserved in spirit. One would assume that the Society's results from acclimatisation would be present in this group and the Report of the Council from 1830 promises that:

it may be stated that some attempts to ascertain facts interesting to Naturalists are already in progress, and the results will from time to time be communicated to the Society.52

However, these attempts are not reported in the Proceedings and there are no reports of any experiments conducted at the farm that speak of acclima­ tisation. The reports of reproduction are seldom more than short announcements, and the few reports that are concerned with hybrids seem more interested in their morphological characters than their ability to serve as food or the reproductive knowledge gained through the hybridisation. For a long time, however, there are scattered remarks in some reports con­ cerning the suitability of some species for acclimatisation. As late as 1880, there is a report concerning the distribution of Anatidae in European zoo­ logical gardens, since "there is certainly no group in the class of birds that offers such excellent subjects for acclimatization ",53 It might also be worth noting that the Society seldom or never seems to have used studies in 184 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK reproduction in the same manner as Charles Darwin, i.e. for solving evolu­ tionary and hereditary problems.

"Experiments in animal physiology"

As far as I can see, during the period investigated (1830—1900) there were only two planned experiments on living animals reported in the Proceed­ ings, experiments that were designed to provide answers to specific ques­ tions. I have already mentioned Broderip's experiment with Tommy and the python, but it must be viewed as an improvised and not planned exper­ iment. The first experiment concerned feeding of the carnivores and was initi­ ated in 1831 when the medical attendant Charles Spooner observed during a post mortem on a leopard that the animal was very bloated and excessively fat.54 He therefore suggested that an experiment should be performed in order to examine how often the carnivores ought to be fed. With regard to dogs, he proposed that carnivores would become healthier with regular but sparing meals compared to more infrequent periods of feeding when the animals ate comparatively much. It was therefore ordered that two leopards and two hyenas should participate in the experiment, one of each receiving one meal a day, the others two. All four animals were given the same amount of food. After approximately three months the result was presented. The ani­ mals that were given two meals a day had lost weight, the cat had become more ferocious and the hyena duller. It was therefore decided that from then on, the carnivores should be fed once a day; partly because the animals seemed to be healthier with one meal a day and partly because it could be dangerous to make the felines more ferocious than they already were. The other experiment was a rather complicated one concerning the reproduction of marsupials, namely kangaroos.55 Morphologist Richard Owen was the main interested participant and performed the experiment during the summer of 1832. All the kangaroos, two males and six females, were transferred from the Farm to the Gardens, in order to be more easily observed. Since four of the females had young ones at different develop­ mental stages, Owen drew the conclusion that the kangaroo did not have a specific breeding-season, at least in captivity. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY

One female was judged ready to receive a male and after that was accomplished, the gestation period was estimated. However, the birth took place without anyone noticing and when the keeper checked on the female, the foetus was already attached to the mother s nipple. In order to examine it, it was removed from the pouch, measured and then reattached to the nipple. Since the female that first received a male gave birth to her young with no one noticing, a second female was paired with a male and closely watched as the pregnancy proceeded, with the intention of estimating the exact number of days of gestation. On the 39th day a foetus was observed attached to the nipple and Owen stated that it very much resembled an earthworm in size and semitransparency. It was now time to examine the foetus more closely Owen wanted pri­ marily to investigate the connection between the foetus and the nipple and the nature of the secretion from the nipple; this was the subject of a rather lively debate during this period, involving, among others, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.56 Dissections by the English anatomist John Hunter had sug­ gested that there was no vascularity involved in the connection between the foetus and the mother, but Owen wanted to make sure for himself. He was pleased to see that there was no bloodshed at the detachment of the young one, and that only milk came from the mother s nipple. After all this handling the foetus was returned to the mother, but it would not adhere to the nipple and fell to the bottom of the pouch. The mother was left alone and the next day the foetus was gone. Owen con­ cluded that it had died and been eaten by the mother. Owen seems slighdy annoyed that, despite the carefully arranged experiment, no one had actually seen a baby kangaroo being born. He was convinced that the foetus was not able to crawl to the pouch by itself and that the mothers paws were too rough to handle the newborn kangaroo. There is no internal passage from the vagina to the pouch and no way the vagina could come into contact with the pouch. He thus comes to the con­ clusion that the birth takes place in an upright position and that the mother transfers the foetus from the vagina to the pouch with her mouth. However, he wishes that "every endeavour will be made to clear up this part of the problem ex visu P KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Science of the Dead Prior to a closer study of the morphological reports, it is necessary to undertake another deviation into the history of natural history, this time concerning the character of morphology and its development in Germany and France during the nineteenth century, in order to put the English mor­ phology of the nineteenth century into an international perspective.

Morphology Morphology was a science that to a very large degree was linked to medi­ cine, not least during the nineteenth century.58 Morphology is in fact a nineteenth-century word coined by Goethe; previously, anatomy was more commonly used. However, anatomy is the study of structure, and morphol­ ogy is the study of structure and organic form.59 The common perception is that morphology is connected with the outer form of an organism and anatomy with the inner, but the words were (and are) often used with great similarity. My own opinion is that morphology is more of an umbrella term, and I prefer to divide it into descriptive and comparative anatomy, which were the two most common uses of anatomy. Morphology is also often understood as something more philosophical than anatomy.60 The history of morphology has been treated as a neglected part of the history of biology, especially nineteenth-century morphology. Many histo­ rians see it as old-fashioned, a scientific cul-desac (it may not even be con­ sidered a science) and a representative of an idealised and metaphysical view of nature, more suitable as a philosophical concept. This is n ot only an anachronistic view of the history of science, but it also denies morphol­ ogy the great importance it had during the nineteenth century. Morphol­ ogy included many branches that now are separate scientific disciplines: cytology, embry ology, palaeontology and so on, and the development of morphology actually largely corresponds to that of natural history/biology as a whole during the nineteenth century.61 The development of European morphology took rather similar direc­ tions in different countries during the last half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, only not at the same time.62 Various countries had different concepts, which however indicated much the same thoughts. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY

In Germany, there was the notion of Naturphilosophie, which was rep­ resented by among others Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Lorenz Oken and Carl Gustav Carus. This was a movement that wanted to raise natural his­ tory above the utilitarian level and make it a true science and the Naturphi­ losophen had a set of common goals:

interpretation of the diversity of living beings as an unfolding or enactment of original ideas and forces; to the specification of morpho­ logical types and morphological laws; and to the tracing of parallels between individual development and the ideal succession of living beings.63

The form of an animal, its structure, was the determinant of its function. These men thought that an organism could be traced back to a uniform anatomical plan. A larger taxonomic group, like a family, expressed the same idea or type. There was also a belief that all organs were represented by a primordial part, as for instance the vertebrae that basically look the same, whether it is a lumbar or a neck vertebra. This idea was taken to its extreme when both Goethe and Oken thought that the skull consisted of four or five modified vertebrae. This in turn suggested that segmentation was an important part of the development of vertebrate animals and Carus made a sketch of what was later to become Richard Owens vertebrate archetype.64 Cuvier, like Aristotle, was a functionalist in the sense that he thought that functional need determined structure, and he thus put function before form.65 The Frenchman suggested that every part of an animal contributed to the functional wholeness or was designed (by a Creator) to adapt an ani­ mal to its habitat. The foundation was function, which meant that the environment determined the form and structure of an animal. This corre­ spondence between habitat, type and body structure and function is some­ times called "correlation of parts" and was very useful when reconstructing fossil species, a trade in which Cuvier was the master. In addition, this had consequences for Cuviers systematics. Since adaptation was the determi­ nant it was impossible to have a system based upon the Great Chain of Being, since it was a closed system. Cuvier's functionalism thus relied on an unpredictable system, since the possibilities of change caused by the envi­ ronment were unlimited.66 It was partly this unpredictability that MacLeay wanted to avoid within the quinarian system. i88 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Against Cuvier stood Saint-Hilaire with his "philosophical anatomy". Saint-Hilaire assumed that all animals could be assigned to a single type and not only vertebrate animals as in the model by Carus. The inverte­ brates simply represented certain embryological stages of the vertebrates. Unity was more important than adaptation.67 Since every animal corre­ sponded with all others it was important to detect similarities between them, and thus homology (or rather Owens analogy) was an important concept. This 'fight' is excellently recapitulated by Toby Appel in The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin (1987). He suggests that both Cuvier and Saint-Hilaire defended very extreme positions and that the result was some sort of compromise between the two. Saint-Hilaire's unity of plan was rejected, but the philosophical anat­ omy has on the other hand been largely incorporated into the biological science.68

Morphological Reports Cuvier and his functionalism became the principal object of study during the first half of the nineteenth century in England and the most well- known advocate of this functionalism was Richard Owen. A few years after Robert Grant s exclusion, Owen was granted the privilege of having first choice of every animal that died in the Gardens.69 This was a valuable vote of confidence for Owen since it was imperative for an anatomist to have access to a wide variety of animals. The death rates were tragically high dur­ ing these early years and hence the anatomical reports are by far the most common among the Gardens-reports. But what were the dead animals used for? After reading only a few of these reports it becomes evident that the most important tool in the taxonomic work was the anatomical and mor­ phological attributes of the animals. Even the cells that could be seen in the microscope were used as a character; anatomist George Gulliver con­ structed tables where the sizes o f red blood cells f rom different animals were used as a means of classifying larger animals groups.70 Which system of classification to adhere to when discussing the affini­ ties of the dissected animals seems not to have been much of a problem; there are not many discussions about systematics in connection with these anatomical reports. One exception is from 1831, when William Yarrell after discussing the characteristics of an Australian bird, brings up the subject of FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY

"Mr. Vigors's systematic arrangement".71 But not even here is there much discussion of whether the system is correct or not, but rather where the bird in question could be fitted in. One possible answer to this question may be that it was so well known which system the author of the report adhered to, that an explanation of it was not necessary. The anatomy within the Society naturally served the purpose of gain­ ing new information about the animals dissected, but alongside this use of anatomy there were sometimes endeavours to predict the animals' habits or diet. Perhaps due to Owens influence, Cuvierian functionalism was strong in the beginning of the investigation period, but declined in the 1840s. The exterior of the flamingo's beak was coupled with its mode of feeding and also compared with the baleens of a whale.72 The shape of a monkeys stomach inclined Owen to suspect that the animal's diet was primarily based on vegetables, since the stomach had the appearance of being able to ruminate.73 If the anatomy of an animal did not agree with contemporary knowledge or assumptions, new solutions were sometimes suggested. The pyloric duct of a sealseemed to be too small to allow the passage of fish ver­ tebrae and Owen speculated whether the seal r egurgitated the fish bones like an owl.74 A report of a somewhat later date that nonetheless hints at Cuvierian functionalism, was written by physician George Mivart and pro­ sector James Murie and concerned a slow lori:

All these peculiarities of muscular structure must be considered in connexion with the singular movements which this animal is capable of making, and which it habitually employs in its arboreal manner of life.75

From the 1830s onward, this functionalism was however not replaced by a transcendental direction as one might perhaps assume, but the anatomy was simply no longer coupled with the animals' modes of life. From now on the reports were used only to describe the animals' internal organs and osteology and utilised in comparison to other animals' anatomy. One can perhaps see a slight tendency towards dissections of the more unusual animals, like those who fell between classificational chairs or other­ wise were of systematic importance. Such an animal was the kinkajou, one of two, at the time presumed, carnivores with a prehensile tail: iço KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

The anatomy of an animal which is the sole representative of its genus [the kinkajou], and which, in its external form and habits, manifests a relationship with genera belonging to two different orders of its class, must always be a desirable addition to zoological science.76

Dissections of more common animals were sometimes more briefly reported but this seems also to depend largely on who wrote the report. In 1833, the current superintendent of the museum, William Martin, com­ pared only the voice organs of the felidae, since he felt that the animals of the family were quite alike and already well known.77 Nonetheless, only one year later, there was a careful recapitulation by another author of the anatomy of the tiger.78 A large number of anatomists were closely linked to the Society, which at times seems to have caused some trouble. Now and again, an anatomist would ask for a specific organ from as many animals as possible for com­ parative purposes. If this request was granted, the person dissecting the remaining parts of the animal would have to be satisfied with perhaps a drawing of the missing organ and the other persons notes when presenting the report at the scientific meeting. One would imagine that this hampered the possibility of getting an overall picture of the animal in question, but on the other hand it does not seem to have happened on a regular basis. The possibility of granting access to dissections of animals fairly new to zoological science was advantageous to the Society, since the grateful zoolo­ gists then felt obliged to contribute to the Proceedings. A Mr. H.N. Turner thus writes in 1849:

Having received, through the liberality of the Society, a few of the ani­ mals that have died in the menagerie in the course of the present win­ ter, I fe el bound to lay before them, as well as I m ay be able, whatever details of structure I o bserve which may be new, or may give rise to ideas calculated to assist in the advancement of the science. Physiological studies in the modern sense were not performed; there seems to be no experimenting to study the chemical grounds for the vital pro­ cesses. The physical grounds were investigated somewhat more, but were usually mixed in with the common anatomical report; the experiments with dead animals were usually of this character. In the case of a slender lori, the course of blood-vessels were followed with the aid of mercury for comparative reasons since the physician Sir Anthony Carlisle had made cer­ tain discoveries concerning the distribution of arteries in the limbs of other slow-moving mammals.80 The air-cells of bird bones and beaks were FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY 191 equally interesting objects, particularly if the beak was of an unusual size, as in the hornbill, the pelican and the toucan.81 The cells were filled with air in order to study how and where they were connected. It must nevertheless be remembered that these examinations were only parts of larger anatomi­ cal reports and not independent investigations.

Pathological Anatomy There was also another kind of anatomical report, which I have called pathological anatomy, mainly because the term veterinary medicine would be too advanced for this particular group. Some anatomical reports attempted nevertheless to determine the cause of death and it was often found to be the harsh British weather or the long voyage the animal had to endure in order to reach the zoo. There were never any recommendations about what to do if this situation (i.e. disease) o ccurred again, probably because the keepers seldom got any warning before the animal died. The animals are often said to have died "suddenly" or "unexpectedly". These pathological remarks are often short or part of an ordinary ana­ tomical report, with one exception. In i860, physician Edwards Crisp wrote a lengthy, two-part report called "On the causes of Death of the Animals in the Society's Gardens from 1851 to the present time, i860".82 As far as he knew, and I am inclined to agree, this was the first report of its kind, con­ cerning the health of wild and exotic animals in captivity. Why he did this, being a medical doctor and not a veterinary, is explained thus:

I may express my belief that the nature of the diseases of man will not be thoroughly understood, nor appropriately treated, until the deviations from normal structure are fully investigated in plants and in the lowest grade of animals.. .83

He states that he will treat the methods of preserving the health of animals in confinement and cures for various diseases, but this part was never dealt with, at least not during i860. Instead, the report becomes a tragic enumer­ ation of all the animals that have died during this nine-year period. The most common causes of death are diagnosed as inflammation in the lungs and tuberculosis in various organs of the body, this also being the over all most prevalent disease during all the years considered in my own survey In all, probably more than 400 mammals are examined by Dr. Crisp, plus Ip2 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK countless numbers of birds and reptiles. The only prescription for avoiding deaths like these is suggestions for general sanitary improvements. However, despite the unsuitable conditions for the animals it is indis­ putable that those in charge cared about them:

Again and again he [the director of a zoological garden] is compelled to devise new means of relief and expedients to preserve the feeble health and the so-easily-destroyed life of the poor creatures that come to his hands, often heavily damaged by conveyance.84

Books that discuss the progress of science in relation to zoological gardens most often refer to veterinary medicine with this word.85 Unfortunately, the veterinary situation at the Gardens did not drastically change with the dawning of the twentieth century. In 1970, the veterinary science of exotic animals was still in its cradle and Dr. Max Schmidt, former director of, among others, the Frankfurt Zoo noted:

The characteristic and course of diseases described indicates that med­ ication will seldom be successful, since we do not know the effect of drugs in these animals, nor do we know the required dose, and appli­ cation of drugs is physically impossible due to the timidity, voracity or unusual strength of wild animals.86

The book where Dr. Schmidt is quoted, Handbook of Zoo Medicine (1976), also states that one of the first attempts at medical attention for exotic ani­ mals came about at no other place than the Society's Zoological Gardens with the appointment of a prosector in 1865. This is however not entirely correct since the prosector was not primarily a medical attendant and the endeavours to care for the animals' health started much earlier. As described in Chapter two, the Council appointed Charles Spooner as medical attendant already in 1829 with a salary of £60 per annum.87 He resigned in 1833 and the well-known veterinary William Youatt replaced him until 1847. Spooner's services were dispensed of for no apparent reason, but it seems as though he thought that £60 was too small an amount in view of the relatively large quantity of work that the Gardens generated. It is unclear whether the medical attendant was required to submit any reports to the Proceedings but as seen earlier , Spooner initiated the experi­ ment concerning the feeding of the carnivores which of course did not decrease the workload. Youatt was therefore paid £100 per annum and held the position until he died.88 For some reason, probably financial, nothing FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY ipj was done about the lack of a medical attendant for about ten years, but in 1865 a "Zootomical Committe" was appointed to: "consider the mode by which the animals dying in the Gardens may be disposed of with most ben­ efit to Zoological Science."89 Here, the purpose of the employee was slighdy different since there was no longer any talk about curing the ani­ mals. The prosector was instead responsible for the pathological routine and the anatomical research; the Society needed a person to supervise and regulate the disposal of dead animal material.90 First up was James Mûrie, a physician-gone-naturalist just like Owen. Murie however was hard to get along with, he insinuated that the animals were not adequately taken care of and that far too many of them died from injuries, dirt, absence of sunlight or wrong feeding. Although this was probably absolutely true, his manner made it impossible for him to stay on at the job. He was replaced and the prosectorial duties were carried out into the twentieth century.91 The veterinary duties were instead performed by Abraham Dee Bartlett, the superintendent of the Gardens between 1859 and 1897, aided by occasional consultation with the Veterinary College located in Camden Town. However, when Bardett died it became obvious that a veterinary was needed and a sanatorium was built in 1907 where two trained keepers were put in charge. Two Consulting Veterinary Surgeons were also appointed.92

Concluding Remarks These reports are thus the kind of zoology that the Zoological Gardens gave rise to, all in all 221 of them. When compared with the regular reports, there is not much difference in either style or information. The largest group, the anatomical reports, are identical with reports from dissections of animals that had not died in the Gardens. It is only when the reports are concerned with extremely rare specimens, or many animals at the same time, such as for example the experiment with the kangaroos or the attempts to construct new systems of classification, that it is unlikely that the author was using any other institution than the Gardens. Wealthy gen­ tlemen may perhaps have had sufficient funds to care for large stocks of animals at their own estates, like the Earl of Derby, but many of the authors were men of small means, like Richard Owen, who probably depended on the Gardens for these kinds of material. 194 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

But since the majority of the observations (taxonomical for example) of a living animal had to be verified after the death of the animal and no special equipment had to be used in order to perform the dissection, it is problematic to claim that the Gardens produced any zoological results that definitely could not have been reached anywhere else. The only exception might be the comparisons of many species at once, such as for example Ogilby's report on the hollowhorned ruminants. It is quite curious to observe how the collection in the Gardens was used no differently from that of any museum: the collection was named, classified and ordered. The animals seem to only have reached scientific maturity when they had been dissected, their classification verified and then placed in the museum of the Society.93 Thus, it seems as if the "chief advantages of an extensive Vivarium" that Edward Newman was talking about in the introductory quotation, were not utilised to any great extent but mainly gave enhanced access to the animals. By living in the Gardens the animals' scientific status was not enhanced, they only became more available. In view of this, it is interesting to note that the scientific uses of the Museum and the Gardens are said to be quite similar; the Museum offers "prepared specimens in the different classes and orders, so as to afford a correct view of the animal kingdom"94 and one of the principa aims of the Gardens was to "exhibit a series of liv­ ing animals [...] for the advancement of science".95 As stated in Chapter two, the only apparent difference between the two establishments is that the specimens in the Museum were dead while those in the Gardens were alive. However, despite this illusively small gap between the Gardens and the Museum, it is the Museum that, according to the Council, is the "cen­ tre of the Society's scientific usefulness".96 Since most of the Gardens- reports were of an anatomical character, it thus seems as if the Gardens, to put it blundy, mosdy played the part of a dissection warehouse and Sunday resort for the scientifically inclined Fellows during the nineteenth century. Finally, why were there relatively many reports between 1830 and 1840, but decreasing numbers after these first ten years? One might be tempted to suggest that a certain branch of zoology perhaps became more popular after 1840 that was not suitable for the use of the Gardens' animals. How­ ever, when comparing Tables 5.1 and 5.2, no subgroup that is absent from Table 5.1 increases after 1840 in Table 5.2. Furthermore, as said above, there is no difference between the Gardens-reports and the regular reports that FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY IpS would explain such a contrast. Table 5.2 does show an overall increase of reports after i860, which I think can be attributed to Philip Ludey Sclater who became secretary in 1859.97 He was an avid ornithologist and took a great interest in the Proceedings. Nevertheless, a highly prosaic explanation as to why the reports from the Gardens dwindle after 1840 (and to my mind the most probable) may be derived from the authors. There are four writers who are unparalleled when it comes to writing Gardens-reports during these first ten years: Rich­ ard Owen (29 reports), museum superintendent William Martin (16 reports), and naturalists William Yarrell (13 reports) and Edward Bennett (11 reports). Owen published his Odontography between 1840 and 1845, became president of the Microscopical Society in 1840 and was elected both Hunterian and Fullerian (which he had to decline) professor in 1837. All this suggests that he simply did not have time to write as many reports as he had done before.98 Martin was superintendent of the Society's museum between 1830 and 1838 and probably lost his access to the material after this. Yarrell started working on his A History of British Birds (1836) and^l History of British Fishes (1843) in the middle of the 1830s and Bennett died in 1836. When these writers stopped supplying reports, apparently no one else was interested in using the material that the animals in the Gardens could sup­ ply. Unfortunately, this still does not explain why nearly 20% of all the Gar­ dens-reports were written during the very first year. Perhaps it was simply a case of the charm of novelty. As I said in the Introduction, I was initially surprised by the fact that the Gardens were so invisible in the Proceedings. Thus, in order to verify this conclusion, I have also investigated other scientific publications to see if they contain reports from the Gardens. Charles Darwin made several important observations, gathered information and performed experiments in connection with the Gardens but his contributions to the Proceedings are sparse and one might wonder whether this was the case with other natural­ ists. Perhaps it was more common to make observations in the Gardens and then publish the results elsewhere? But an investigation of the twelve popular scientific periodicals men­ tioned in the Introduction reveals the same picture and reports from the Gardens are few or non-existent.99 Brief notes may be published and some periodicals, for example the Annals and Magazine of Natural History; print KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK the reports from the Proceedings. Brief records from scientific meetings were also published in periodicals like the Athenaeum. On the other hand, the Gardens seem to a greater extent to have found their way into popular books and articles. William Broderip wrote two books, Zoological Recreations (1847) and Leaves from the Note Book of a Nat­ uralist (1852), which were packed with observations and anecdotes about different animals in the Gardens. The chapters in the naturalists note book were also published in Frasers Magazine for Town and Country during 1850 and Zoological Recreations in the New Monthly Magazine between 1837 ^d 1845. In very much the same manner, Frank Buckland published popular articles in Fraser's Magazine and related funny anecdotes in his Curiosities of Natural History (1858). This impression is confirmed in Chapter three where the popularity of the Gardens in the 1850s is clearly shown in the number of articles pub­ lished about them. These articles are not published in scientific publica­ tions however, but rather newspapers and periodicals like Frasers Magazine and Quarterly Review, The official and non-official guidebooks described in Chapter four are also obvious evidence of the popularity of the Gardens and as I show in that chapter, the Gardens can easily be seen as an institu­ tion for the mediation of popular natural history My intention in this chapter has been to examine in some detail the scientific production of the Gardens. In spite of the hopes that Raffles and the other founding members of the Society might have had for the scien­ tific character of the establishment this production is scant, at best. The picture presented in the three former chapters, of the Gardens as a place of popular zoological knowledge and entertainment rather than professional hard-core science, is thus also confirmed by the Society's own publication as well as other scientific periodicals. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY 197

NOTES

1. Darwin quotation to be found in Frederick Burkhardt and Sydney Smith, eds., The Cor­ respondence of Charles Darwin, 12 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985— 2001), 2:80. See also Burkhardt and Smith, eds., The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, 1:76, 1:121, 2:300, and Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, new ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1992), 243-244. 2. See Gwynne Vevers, comp., London's Zoo: An Anthology to Celebrate 150 Years of the Zoo­ logical Society of London, with its Zoos at Regents Park in London and Whipsnade in Bed­ fordshire (London: The Bodley Head, 1976), 111-114, and Paul Barrett et al, eds., Charles Darwins Notebooks, 1836-1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries (Cambridge: British Museum [Natural History] /Cambridge University Press, 1987), 551» 553-554, 5^7- 3. PZS, 12/3 (1850), 46-47. 4. That the Gardens were scientific in nature is stated in many histories of zoos, see esp. Lord Solly Zuckerman, "The rise of zoos and zoological societies," in Great Zoos of the World: Their Origins and Significance, ed. Lord Solly Zuckerman (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979), 3-26; Vernon Kisling, Jr., "Ancient collections and menageries," in Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens, ed. Vernon Kisling, Jr. (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001), 37-39; Clinton Keeling, "Zoological gardens of Great Britain," in Zoo and Aquarium History, ed. Kisling, Jr., 68-72, and David Hancocks, A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncer­ tain Future (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), 42—50. 5. Adrian Desmond, "The making of institutional zoology in London, 1822-1836," 2 pts., History of Science 23 (1985): 1:153-185 and 2:223-250. 6. However, although not explicitly stating this, an additional number of reports probably also used animals from the Gardens, especially the ones written by employees of the Society. 7. The Times, 8 August 1829; The Times, 22 January 1830; The Times, 15 March 1830; The Times, 8 March 1830; The Times, 29 March 1830; The Times 2 April 1830; The Times, 3 May 1830; "Natural History in London: The Zoological Soicety," Magazine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 153; "Natural History in London: The Zoological Soicety," Maga­ zine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 292 -293, and "Natural History in London: The Zoological Farm," Magazine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 433-434. 8. Extract from the Report of the Council, 4/11 (1830). Microfiche in the Zoological Society's archive. The use of the term "science" is probably in line with Whewell's later defini­ tion of the term as a kind of knowledge. See for example Richard Yeo, Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 9. Extract from the Minutes of Council, 21/7 (1830), printed in PZS, 9/11 (1830), 1. 10. Extract from the Report of the Council, 4/11 (1830). Microfiche in the Zoological Society's archive. 11. Mitchell, 38. 12. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. "physiology" and DHS, s.v. "physiology." See also A.J.E. Cave, "The Zoological Society and nineteenth century comparative anatomy," in The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond, Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, ed. Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40 (London: Academic Press, 1976), 51- 13. Desmond, "Institutional zoology," 2: 223-243. See also Adrian Desmond, The Politics of Evolution: Morphology; Medicine, and Reform in Radical London (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 134-144. ip8 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

14. Paul Färber, "The type-concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth cen­ tury,"/^® 9> no- 1 (1976): 93-119. 15. For an explanation of the words genus, family, and so on, see Appendix III: Zoological Taxa. 16. See for example Peter Bowler, The Fontana History of the Environmental Sciences (Lon­ don: Fontana Press, 1992), 259-268. For a more thorough discussion on Cuvier's types, see for example Edward Eigen, "Overcoming first impressions: Georges Cuvier's types," JHB 30, no. 2 (1997): 179-209. 17. Färber "Type-concept in zoology," 104-105. 18. Toby Appel, The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Darwin (New York a nd Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 70-71, and Edward Russell, Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology (1916; reprint, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 108. 19. Appel, Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate, 70-71, and Mary Winsor, Starfish, Jellyfish, and the Oreier of Life: Issues in N ineteenth Century Science, Yale Studies in the History of Science and Medicine 10 (New Haven, Conn, and London Yale University Press, 1976), 83-84. 20. See Table 5.1 in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams. 21. See Table 5.2 in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams. 22. See Table 5.1, 5.2 and Diagram 5.1, 5.1.2 in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams. A fact that would be interesting to discuss, but is outside the scope of this article, is that this conclusion suggests that, according to Paul Farber in his "Discussion paper: The trans­ formation of natural history in the nineteenth century," JHB 15, no. 1 (1982): 145-152, the work within the Gardens is in line with the natural history of the nineteenth cen­ tury, while the work within the Society as a whole would have the character of the eigh­ teenth century. 23. See also Diagram 5.2 in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams. 24. See also Diagram 5.3 in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams. For a comparison between the Gardens and the Society, see Diagram 5.4 in Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams. 25. PZS, 116 (1875), 4X7-

26 . PZS y 2/2 (1875), 4-8- 27. PZS, 9/5 (1848), 56. 28. Bowler, Environmental Sciences, 139-162. 29. DHS, s.v. "natural system." 30. AC. Crombie, Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argu­ ment and Explanation Especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts, vol. 2 (London: Duckworth, 1994), 1267, and DHS, s.v. "affinity." 31. DHS, s.v. "natural system," "natural order," and "affinity." 32. Bowler, Environmental Sciences, 151-15 5. 33. Ibid., 162-166, 180-184, and Paul Färber, Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradi­ tion from Linnaeus to E. O. Wilson (Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 6-21. 34. Bowler, Environmental Sciences, 261. 35. Ibid., 262-264; Mario Di Gregorio, "In search of the natural system: Problems of zoolog­ ical classification in Victorian Britain," History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 4, no. 2 (1982): 235 ; Robert O'Hara, "Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century," in Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Co ncerning the Use of A rt in Science, ed. Brian Baigrie (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 166-169; Desmond, "Institutional zoology," 1:161-164; Harriet Ritvo, The Platypus and the Mermaid and Other Figments of the Classifying Imagination (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 26-50; Muriel Blaisdell, "Natural theology and natures disguises," JHB 15, no. 2 (1982): 169-173, and Winsor, Starfish, Jellyfish, 84. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY 199

36. William Swainson quoted in O'Hara, "Representations of the natural system," 168. For more information respecting William Swainson and his beliefs about classification, see for example David Knight, "William Swainson: Types, circles, and affinities," in The Light of Nature: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science Presented to A.C. Crombie, eds. J.D. North and J J. Roche (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985), 83-94. 37. Desmond, "Institutional zoology," 164, and Di Gregorio, "Search of the natural system," 234-2.35. 38. See PZS, 22/3 (1836), 34-40; PZS, 22/1 (1839), 5-13; PZS, 28/1 (1840), 4-10, and PZS, 12/3 (1850), 46-48. 39. PZS, 28/1 (1840), 4-10. 40. PZS, 28/1 (1840), 6. As the quotation shows, some reports were written in third person. 41. PZS, 28/1 (1840), 9-10. 42. Report of the Council, 1836,18-20. 43. Other reports include observations of the hippo Obaysh, PZS, 2516 (1850), 160-162. 44. PZS, 27/10 (1835), 160-168. 45. PZS, 27/10 (1835), I^3- Peter Chalmers Mitchell recapitulates in his Centenary History (1929) a similar experiment with a young orang in the Gardens' monkey house. Unlike Tommy, the orang did not seem the least alarmed when exposed to a tame snake, but played with it (p. 171). Desmond Morris on the other hand did the same experiment, during his time on the TV show Zootime, with both orangs and chimpanzees who exhibited the same reaction as Tommy. It is t oday quite accepted that apes and mon­ keys have an instinctive fear of snakes. Desmond Morris, Animal Days (London: Jonathan Cape, 1979), 135-138. 46. PZS, 27/10 (1835), 161-162. 47. PZS, 27/10 (1835), I<>4- 48. William Swainson, Animals in Menageries, The Cabinet Cyclopaedia (London, 1838), 1. 49. This is however not a trait exclusively found at the Society's Zoological Gardens. Although professor Willem Vrolik at the Amterdam zoological garden emphasised the advantages of being able to observe the habits of living animals, he based most of his scientific work on dissections of dead animals. Donna Mehos, "Science displayed: Nation and nature at the Amsterdam Zoo, Artis'" (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsyl­ vania, 1997), 65-118. 50. PZS, 2916 (1839), 108-109. 51. PZS, 15/1 (1895), 86-88. 52. Report of the Council, 1830,14-15. 53. PZS, 15/6, (1880), 496. 54. PZS, 7/12 (1831), 164; PZS 27/12 (1831), 165, and PZS 27/3 (1832), 49-50. 55. PZS, 26/11 (1833), 128-132. 56. PZS, 12/2 (1833), and PZS, 23/7 (1833), 91-96. 57. PZS, 26/11 (1833), 132. 58. I use the past tense here, since the word still exists but in a more narrow meaning than during the nineteenth century. 59. Hendersons Dictionary of Biological Terms, Eleanor Lawrence, 10th ed. (Harlow, Great Britain: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1989), s.v. "morphology," and "anatomy." 60. DHS, s.v. "morphology," and "anatomy." 61. Lynn Nyhart, Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800- 1900 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995), 1-32. 62. Nicholaas Rupke, Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist (New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 106. 63. Nicholas Jardine, "Naturphilosophie and the kingdoms of nature," in Cultures of Natural History\ eds. Nicholas Jardine, James Secord, and Emma Spary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 242. 200 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

64. Charles Singer, A History of Biology to About the Year ipoo: A General Introduction to the Study of Living Things, 3rd ed. (London and New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1962), 215- 227. 65. Crombie, Styles of Scientific Thinking, 1247. 66. Bowler, Environmental Sciences, 164. 67. Ibid., 261. 68. Appel, Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate, 3. 69. MC, 3/6 (1840), related in Scherren, 77n. 70. PZS, 916 (1840), 42-45 ; PZS, 22/7 (1845), 80-82; PZS, 14/10 (1845), 93-I02, and ^25» 10/ 2 (1870), 92-99. 71. PZS, 25/1 (1831), 25. The systematic arrangement referred to was probably the quinarian system. 72. PZS, 28/8 (1832), 141-144. 73. pzs, n/6 (1833), 74-76- 74. PZS, 22/11 (1831), 151-154. 75. PZS", 28/2 (1865), 256. 76. PZS, 25/8 (1835), n9- 77. PZS, 12/11 (1833), 120-121. 78. PZS, 24/6 (1834), 55-56. 79. PZS, 27/2 (1849), 24. 80. PZS, 12/2 (1833), 2 2-24. 81. PZS, 27/1 (1835), 9~I2- 82. PZS, 28/2 (i860), 175-183, and PZS, 13/3 (i860), 190-193. 83. PZS, 28/2 (i860), 175. 84. PZS, 20/4 (1880), 299. 85. See for example Philip Street, The London Zoo (London: Odhams Press, 1956), 195-206. 86. Max Schmidt quoted in Heinz-Georg Klös and Ernst Lang, eds., Handbook of Zoo Medi­ ane: Diseases and Treatment of Wild Animals in Zoos, Game Parks, Circuses and Private Collections (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982), 4. 87. D.M. Jones, "The maintenance of animal health in the collections," in Zoological Society of London 1826—1976, ed. Zuckerman, 203. 88. Mitchell, 265-266. 89. Mitchell, 268—272, and Cave, "Nineteenth century comparative anatomy," 61. 90. Cave, "Nineteenth century comparative anatomy," 60. 91. Mitchell, 270-271. See also the books by Oliver Graham-Jones, employed as the Gar­ dens' first resident veterinary in 1951: First Catch Your Tiger: Inside London Zoo's Animal Hospital (London: Collins, 1970), 2nd Zoo Tails (London: Bantham, 2001). 92. Mitchell, 265-266. 93. It would be interesting to find out whether this was due to simple unfamiliarity with a collection of living animals or if it was thought appropriate to handle the living collec­ tion in the Gardens as any other museum collection. 94. Bastin, "First prospectus," 381. 95. Report of the Council, 1831, 15. 96. Report of the Council, 1837, 7. 97. See also diagram 5.2 and 5.4 in Appendix IV:Tables and Diagrams. 98. It is however interesting to note that Owen contributed fewer reports to the Proceedings after he had been given permission to dissect any animal that died in the Gardens. 99. Zoological Journal (1824—35); Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, Geology and Meteorology (1829-40); Zoological Magazine, or Journal of Nat­ ural History (1833); The Field Naturalist (1833-34); The Naturalist (1837-58); The Zoolo­ gist (1843-49); Magazine of Zoology and Botany (1837-38), later Annals of Natural History; or, Magazine of Zoology, Botany and Geology (1838-40), later Annals and Maga­ zine of Natural History, Including Zoology, Botany and Geology (1841-1900); Magazine of FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND ANIMAL PHYSIOLOGY 201

Natural History and Naturalist (i860); The Naturalist's Note Book (1867-69); Hardwicke's Science-Gossip (1865-90); Nature: A Weekly Illustrated Journal of Science (1870-1900), and Science-Gossip: An Illustrated Monthly Record of Nature and Country-Lore and Applied Science (1894-1900). VI

EPILOGUE

Nevertheless, were the [Zoological] Society and its unique knowledge base to be dissipated or lost, Man's understanding of the natural world would be diminished, so too would be his capacity to save what is endangered. [—] .. .London itself, as a community, also needs a live animal collection... 1

THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS not the result of some heated nineteenth-cen­ tury discussion about the pros and cons of zoological gardens, but was made in the late twentieth century. In the early 1990s the London Zoo faced the very real threat of closure and while it was being decided what to do, feelings ran high. The Gardens had really been in decline since the 1970s and now matters had been brought to a head: was the Society going to close the Gardens and shoot those animals that could not be relocated or turn the whole thing into a theme park? Coincidental with the Zoological Society's 150th anniversary in 1976 there was a growing critique of urban zoos. Books like The Last Great Wild Beast Show (1978), Zoo Culture (1987) and Beyond the Bars (1987) and organisations like Zoo Check Trust (f. 1984) made the general public increasingly aware of the fact that zoo animals were captives of humans and that zoos were barbaric relics of the Victorian era. This coupled with the fact that the rest of the entertainment industry had made substantial progress in terms of attracting children, the zoos' prime public in the twen­ tieth century, resulted in a depressing downturn for zoos. Just as in the 1840s, diminishing numbers of visitors led the Gardens into a downward spiral since less money could be spent on managing the exterior of the insti­ tution, making it even more unattractive to the public. And, as in the 1840s, the only solution for the Zoological Society was to increase its revenue by attracting larger numbers of visitors. But the option of simply giving the general public admission to the Gardens was not available 150 years later, and thus one had to make a radical change in the Gardens themselves to make them more tempting. But how was this to be accomplished? The more traditionally inclined thought that the prob- EPILOGUE 203 lem was that the Gardens had got rid of too many species belonging to the so-called "charismatic megafauna", i.e. wellknown and popular animals such as hippopotami, orang-utans and sea lions. In this instance, it is quite interesting to note that this megafauna is almost identical with the animals that were used to draw the Victorian crowds in the 1850s. This depletion of the collections together with the building of many new "soulless" enclo­ sures during the late twentieth century had driven the public away.2 So the question was, should the Society go back, so to speak, to a more Victorian and picturesque zoo (or rather a twentieth-century version of such a zoo) or turn the Gardens into an American-style conservation theme park? The solution became a sort of compromise where the Gardens have come to acquire "Conservation in Action" as their motto and incorporate a large exhibit called "The Web of Life" that is intended to:

introduce you to the amazing range of animals found in the earth's major habitats. Using a combination of 65 live animal exhibits, inter­ active displays and on-show breeding facilities, the exhibition will challenge your perceptions of life on earth and how we can conserve it.3

So while the Gardens are still a zoological garden they have at the same time become a conservation centre, if not theme park, where much empha­ sis is placed on the education of the public in conservation and biodiversity matters.

The reason for starting this epilogue with a brief survey of the major finan­ cial crisis of the Gardens is that this crisis, and the way the Society chose to deal with it, can ultimately be seen as an answer to the question "What is a zoological garden?", or, perhaps more specifically, "What is the London Zoo and what has it been?" The introductory quotation is in itself reveal­ ing. Not least, London Zoo is described as important for London as a com­ munity—the Gardens have now become an integral part of the capital and it would be as unthinkable to exclude London Zoo as M adam Tussauds or Big Ben from the tourist itinerary. But London Zoo is also something more than just another tourist entertainment and rests it s legitimacy on more powerful grounds. By losing the London Zoo the whole of mankind, it is hinted, will lose valuable knowledge about the "natural world". In conse­ 204 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK quence, without this knowledge we will not be able to 'read' nature well enough to see what we are in danger of losing. This in turn endangers the whole existence of mankind for whom biological diversity is a necessary condition of life. In this way, L ondon Zoo becomes an essential part of London, as well as the world community, rather than an outmoded nine- teenth-century tourist attraction. As illustrated above and in Chapter three, the Zoological Society has thus had to formulate an answer to the question "What are the Zoological Gardens?" during at least two periods of its history—in the 1840s and the 1990s. These answers, regardless of how explicit or implicit they were, have made London Zoo into what it is today. The question of what the zoologi­ cal garden really is has also been a guiding question for this dissertation. Although not the most prominent, it has nevertheless aided me in distilling the material into one, over-arching issue, namely the zoological garden as a mediator of popular zoology. The role of mediator was not a chosen one, nor was it a role that the Society openly expressed. As a matter of fact, the initial purpose of the Gardens was very far from the area of popular zool­ ogy- As shown in Chapter two, the Society needed the Gardens for display­ ing new and rare animals. Inspired by the Parisian Jardin des Plantes these animals were to be used as tools of not only acclimatisation but to serve the science of morphology as well. The third chapter describes a shift from these practices to a more popular one. The displaying of animals became highly important for the Society, n ot least financially, and although accli­ matisation and science were needed to gain initial patronage from the gen­ try in the 1820s, it was the publics patronage that was needed by the 1850s. Hence, the Society transformed itself from a closed scientific community with strong utilitarian aspects to a popular mediator of science. The fourth chapter further emphasises this popular approach by dis­ cussing the role of the Gardens' guidebooks and I would here like to restate my conviction in that the guidebooks are evidence of at least some kind of popular ambition within the Society. However, as Chapter five reveals, even if the Gardens could be seen as useful and educative for the general public, this was not the case for the Society's more professional zoologists such as Richard Owen. It was only in the beginning of the Gardens' history that the animals were used to any great extent as scientific objects and then in most cases only for dissection. The dissertation thus shows how the Society's Gardens always, in vari­ ous aspects, have been directed towards a fee-paying audience in order to fund other activities of the Society such as the museum and the Proceedings. EPILOGUE 20$

When it was decided in 1847 to open the Gardens to the general public and not just the Society's Fellows a nd their friends, this fee-paying audience simply increased in size. It also meant that the Society felt the need for a guidebook, explaining where to find each animal and—not least—what they were called. The mere existence of a zoological garden, open to the public and equipped with a popular guidebook makes the Gardens into a powerful mediator of popular zoology regardless of the Society's initial intentions. In my opinion, this is a most, if not the most, important charac­ teristic of the Gardens in the nineteenth century. This role of the Gardens is significant not least since they, and other zoological gardens as well, are often dismissed as being simply a place of entertainment and therefore not worthy of academic research. The Gar­ dens have thus had to balance a fine line between being an institution of pleasure and an institution of knowledge. Strangely enough it seems as if this dichotomy was seen as less of an issue in the nineteenth century than during the twentieth. As related in Chapter three, many contemporary arti­ cles that were describing the Gardens in the 1850s apparently saw no prob­ lem in the fact that the Gardens were both an instructive as well as amusing institution, but during the course of the twentieth century zoological gar­ dens as a whole were progressively seen as being more specifically a place of entertainment. Nevertheless, much remains to be said about the Zoological Gardens and the Society. It is particularly thought-provoking that this is a disserta­ tion about a zoological garden that is almost completely devoid of animals. Although the Zoological Society is less w ritten about than many other London societies I would especially like to voice the need for historical works concentrating more on the zoological garden as communicating per­ ceptions of the relationship between humans and animals. Zoological gar­ dens have previously largely been dealt with by historians of literature and, in some small degree, science but what would their role be in the field of environmental history? Zoological gardens are undoubtedly a cultural insti­ tution but an institution that nonetheless contains varying degrees of nature. Humanity might have treated itself as master of menagerie animals during large periods of history but that does not necessarily mean that this is an objective truth and that zoo animals are nothing but cultural entities. For example, the conservation strategies applied by zoos today are very much part of environmental history as well as the larger issue of biodiver­ sity. A few works have indeed looked at zoos as mediators of human per­ ceptions of animals but many of them have then simply used zoos to show 206 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK that the relationship between humans and animals is in many instances worse than that between guards and prisoners. For example, Bill Jordan and Stefan Ormrod wrote in The Last Great W ild Beast Show. "How can the incarceration of wild creatures for the mere amusement of human spec­ tators be justified?"4 As mentioned previously, the 1970s marked the begin­ ning of these critical books and also various organisations that were explicitly anti-zoo. However, while many critics of the 1970s and 1980s thought that zoos were ripe for improvement the criticism of the 1990s fre- quendy questions the very existence of zoos. Often voiced from the ranks of animal rights-ethicists and -activists there are claims that humans have no right to keep animals captive when we can learn about them in books and on TV. It is however my belief that zoological gardens express m ore compli­ cated human-animal relationships than only those of captor-captive. What if one could use the ideas and perceptions of a zoological garden in a broader perspective? It is for example quite peculiar that the reactions of anthropoid apes in zoos have not been thought worthy of a study of their own in an evolutionary perspective. Why are Darwin's observations of Jenny, as discussed in Chapter five, only found in works on the man him­ self and then almost exclusively as an amusing anecdote? The ape-satires that appeared in Punch in the early 1860s and how "Mr. Gorilla" became a satirical icon have been studied, but how was this important cultural issue influenced by the fact that the Zoological Gardens housed numerous chim­ panzees, orang-utans and gorillas almost in the centre of London? Various perceptions of human-animal relationships are particularly distinct within the anti-vivisection and -cruelty organisation. Has the reac­ tion to zoos from these movements changed during history? In the instances they have not—the Scandinavian Society Against Vivisection (Nordiska samfundet till bekämpande af det vetenskapliga djurplågeriet) was already in the early twentieth century against holding animals captive in menageries—are the reactions then perhaps founded on different condi­ tions such as Christianity or environmental awareness? Are the reactions nationally different? How have the zoos in turn reacted to the criticism from these organisations? When the Zoological Society was criticised for feeding live mice to their snakes the countermeasure was simply to stop the public from attending the feedings. Is it possible to notice more dialogue and positive exchange of knowledge between zoological gardens and animal rights organisations as the twentieth century progresses? Quite a few nineteenth-century sources mentioned in this work claim that the major improvement of zoological gardens on menageries can EPILOGUE largely be described as twofold: the animals have more freedom and conse­ quently are able to behave more naturally. This statement contains two cru­ cial notions of zoological gardens and the animals therein: freedom and natural behaviour. These notions are not once and for all given but have varied over time; freedom for a seventeenth-century baboon is not the same as for its twentieth-century descendent. The notion of freedom also con­ tains the interesting paradox of how an animal in captivity can be regarded as being free at all, as pointed out by the animal rights organisations and zoo critics mentioned above. The concept of "natural behaviour" is equally intriguing. What has, during the course of history, been deemed as natural behaviour on the part of animals? When did people begin to differentiate between natural and unnatural behaviour and on what basis did this differentiation rest? Is thi s related in any way to broader views of unnatural behaviour in humans and, if this is the case, in what way? It is often said to be a good thing that ani­ mals have the ability to behave naturally in zoological gardens as compared to menageries, but why is this desirable and how should it be achieved? This of course raises the question of whether all natural behaviour is indeed desirable in the zoological garden—violence, explicit sexual behaviour and fecal play are all aspects of natural behaviour among animals but how will the public react? It was for example important that in particular women and children were only exposed to "decent" animals (herein lies another, less evolutionary, danger with monkeys and apes) but how would this restriction change over the years? Has it indeed changed at all? Moreover, during the late twentieth century zoos have received a great deal of criti­ cism for the so-called stereotypical stress-behaviour of their animals—for example repetitive movements around the enclosure, touching the exact same spots over and over agin or excessive ma sturbating. When was this behaviour first recognised as abnormal in animals and when did the public start to feel bad about it? These last questions will inevitably lead to a wider study of human attitudes not only towards animals per se but also how society at large han­ dles these issues. There is no doubt that the mid-Victorian lady visiting the Zoological Gardens would react quite differendy when confronted with an act of mating than would a female visitor today. I firmly believe that by studying zoos and their animals one can cast light on not only society's atti­ tudes towards animals and zoos but also towards issues such as sexuality, violence and morality. This is especially ap parent during the nineteenth century through the Gardens' connection with Natural Theology. Animals were used as vehicles to teach people all kinds of lessons about humility, 2o8 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK diligence and duty but how were the animals of the zoological garden used in this respect? The question of freedom and natural behaviour also calls for studies that more closely examine the external design and architecture of zoos. Quite a number of such studies do exist but they are often small unofficial reports and like The Buildings of London ZjOo (1993), interesting as it undoubtedly is, they focus mainly on buildings in current use and seldom on historical buildings that have been demolished. If the animals are encouraged to display natural behaviour, how is this reflected in their immediate surroundings? As has been (briefly) noted in this dissertation, the architecture of the Zoological Gardens has very often had a more archi­ tectural than habitat value, i.e. the buildings did not primarily reflect the animals' need for shelter and free space. Decimus Burtons cages were designed to fit into the picturesque tradition of the English park and although charming they were not always a ppropriate for animals. Natu­ rally, this is not only the case with the Zoological Gardens but a problem of most nineteenth-century zoos. The question of heating and animal enclo­ sures has also been discussed in Chapter two. When it began to be realised that exotic animals did not necessarily need to be locked up to be protected from British weather, how did this affect zoo architecture? It would also be interesting to trace Hagenbecks influence in more detail over the world. If there was great resistance to the panorama idea, what was it based on: that it was space-demanding, unsanitary or simply not attractive to the public? An extremely interesting problem that neatly highlights a conflicting relationship between culture and nature that zoological gardens demon­ strate is also closely connected with zoo architecture and design. A report on the London Zoo from the House of Commons Environment Commit­ tee often returns to the buildings in the Gardens that are protected as cul­ tural heritages, e.g. Berthold Lubetkins gorilla house (1932—33) and penguin pool (1934) and the Hagenbeckian Mappin Terraces (1913-14). These are all buildings that have been heavily criticised as being unfit for animals but nonetheless are protected because of their value as architectural monuments. This is a problem shared by many old zoos but how has it been dealt with in the late twentieth century? When the problem is dis­ cussed, if it is discussed at all, which arguments are used as pros and cons and by whom? Is it possible to detect whether zoos are at all interested in preserving these kinds of buildings or is the pressure only coming from for example cultural heritage groups? The position of the zoo (animal) in the history of biology is also weak and in many ways connected with the abnormal behaviour of zoo animals EPILOGUE 20p as mentioned above. A common story is how Solly Zuckerman (before he became secretary of the Zoological Society) studied baboons at the Zoolog­ ical Gardens' "Monkey Hill" in the early twentieth century. What he apparendy failed to realise was that the baboons were unable to behave in the exhibit as they behaved in the wild (they did not behave "naturally") and thus his scientific conclusions on baboon and primate behaviour are today seen as archaic. Hence, since early studies on zoological gardens are frequendy seen as scientific cul-de-sacs, they are seldom deemed worthy of interest. Even examples of the maintenance of exotic animals in the nine­ teenth century are most often simply used to point out how much things have improved. The contribution of the living zoo animal to zoological sci­ ence needs to be studied more closely, and how scientists like Richard Owen who worked in close contact with a zoological garden benefited from such proximity. But, as emphasised by this dissertation, the zoological garden is espe­ cially interesting when it comes to studies about the relationship between popular and professional or 'hard-core' science and the importance of pop­ ular science. This would be particularly exciting if one were to compare the role of the Gardens as mediator of popular science in the nineteenth cen­ tury to their corresponding role in the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century the Gardens were first and foremost used to make their audience see how the animal kingdom could be used as a confirmation of Natural Theology. Animals were used to teach moral and aesthetic lessons and the Gardens were basically a school that delivered natural history knowledge to an inquisitive public. Although the educative qualities of the Gardens are even stronger in the late twentieth century this role has undergone some major changes. Instead of merely portioning out litde bits of zoological k nowledge, the Gardens are now intended to interact and co-operate with their public in order to preserve the biodiversity of the planet. The zoos o f today must convey to their audience the "sustainable relationships of humankind and nature, explain the values of ecosystems and the necessity of conserving biological diversity"5. The nineteenth-century zoological garden could cer­ tainly communicate feelings of moral necessity and duty, such as not judg­ ing an animal's usefulness by its appearance, but the twentieth-century zoo, as the introductory quotation suggests, must communicate a feeling that its activities are crucial for the survival of the planet. In this way the zoos of the world have become their own best friends. They legitimise their activi­ ties with the aid of conservation biology but none is more eager than they 210 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK are to emphasise the importance of conservation and biodiversity for the human community. This aspect of the modern zoo, very distant from the purpose and legitimation of the nineteenth-century zoological gardens, is most intrigu­ ing. When did zoological gardens first claim that their business was not just exhibiting but protecting and conserving as well? How was this claim man­ ifested? The concept of species extinction was no novelty in the nineteenth century and when the Zoological Society was given the possibility of obtaining a Great Auk in 1859 (then believed to be extinct) the excitement was great:

Surely no more fitting repository for the very last of the Great Auks could be found than the gardens of the Zoological Society of London, where, living, they would be immortalised by Mr. Wolf's pencil, and, dead, be embalmed in a memoir by Professor Owen's pen.

Reactions like these were probably not uncommon and lead one to wonder when zoological gardens started to turn toward in situ conservation which today form a major part of the conservation efforts of many zoos? Which animals have been judged worthy of conservation within the context of the zoological garden: the exotic megafauna that have always be en its forte or animals from the national habitat? Is it possible in this manner to detect a difference between for example European and American or indeed colonial zoological gardens? How important is, and was, the zoological garden for general awareness of biodiverity issues? However, it is important to notice that the twentyfirst-century message of biodiversity and conservation, though based in science, is no less abstract and constructed than the nine- teenth-century one of Natural Theology.

(A?

As mentioned in the beginning of this epilogue, many of the decisive changes in zoological gardens came with the dawning of a general environ­ mental awareness in the 1960s and 1970s. Especially the zoos of Western Europe and North America came under heavy pressure, from activists in particular but also the general public. It was this movement that accelerated the evolution of the kind of zoos that are demanded today, with immersion EPILOGUE 211 displays, natural material in the displays and zoos specialising in a only a few species or species from a specific climate zone. The future of zoos is of course impossible to predict, but it hangs in the balance. More and more people feel that zoos are unnecessary institu­ tions that in fact do more harm than good to the wildlife of the planet, thus undermining the zoos' very raison d'être. The zoological gardens of the nineteenth century had to grapple with a lot of hard decisions and struggle for survival, but I dare say that they came nowhere near the precarious situ­ ation that zoos have to face 250 years later. Nevertheless, there are many exciting questions to ask such a produc­ tive institution as the Zoological Gardens of the Zoological Society of Lon­ don. Hopefully this dissertation has been able to lay some of these questions to rest, but, as is always the case, many more have arisen to take their place. 212 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

NOTES

1. London Zoo: Report, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, the Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, House of Commons, Environment Committee, fifth report, session 1990-91, HC 427 (London, 1991), 6,17. 2. See for example Clinton Keeling, In the Beginning (Shalford, Great Britain: Clam Publi­ cations, 1991), 43—46; idem, "Zoological gardens of Great Britain" in Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens, ed. Vernon Kisling, Jr. (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001), 72, and David Hancocks, A Different Nature: The Para­ doxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), 50-54. 3. About Web of Life, Zoological Society of London, 1 October 2001 . 4. Bill Jordan and Stefan Ormrod, The Last Great Wild Beast Show: A Discussion on the Fail­ ure of British Animal Collections (London: Constable, 1978), 13. 5. IUDZG—The World Zoo Organization and The Captive Breeding Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC, The World Zoo Conservation Strategy: The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria of the World in Global Conservation (Brookfield, 111.: The Zoological Society of Chicago, 1993). 5- 6. Scherren, 120. Appendix I: Zoological Club 213

Appendix I: Zoological Club

Original members of the Zoological Club, • denotes names that appeared on the first printed list of members of the Zoological Society (Scherren, 3).

• Thomas Bell • Edward Turner Bennett Edward Blunt Thomas Swift Booth • John Curtis James Charles Dale • Edward Donovan Charles DuBois John Hatchett John Hatchett, Jun. Adrian Hardy Haworth John Stevens Henslow • Thomas Horsfield, M.D. • Leonard Jenyns, Rev. • William Kirby, Rev. • Lord George Lovaine • Alexander MacLeay • William Sharpe MacLeay George Milne • Hon. William Henry Percy • Joseph Sabine Revett Sheppard, Rev. Edmund Sheppard • George Brettingham Sowerby Joseph Sparshall William Spence • James Francis Stephens • Nicholas Alyward Vigors 214 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Appendix II: Officers

Presidents, secretaries and treasurers of the Zoological Society of London during the nineteenth century.

Presidents 1826. Sir Stamford Raffles, LL.D., F.R.S. 1827. The Marquis of Lansdowne, D.C.L., F.R.S. 1831. The Lord Stanley, K.G., D.C.L. (Earl of Derby) 1851. H.R.H. The Prince Consort, K.G. 1862. The Rt. Hon. Sir George Clerk, Bt., F.R.S. 1868. The Viscount 'Waiden, F.R.S. (Marquis of Tweeddale) 1879. Professor WH. Flower, F.R.S. (Sir William H. Flower, K.C.B.) 1899. His Grace the Duke of Bedford, K.G., F.R.S.

Secretaries 1826. Nicholas Alyward Vigors, Esq., F.R.S. 1833. Edward T. Bennett, Esq. 1836. William Yarrell, Esq. 1838. The Rev. John Barlow, F.R.S. 1840. William Ogilby, Esq. 1847. David William Mitchell, Esq., B A., F.L.S. 1859. Philip Lutley Sclater, Esq., D.Sc., F.R.S. 1903. William Ludey Sclater, Esq., M.A 1903. Peter Chalmers Mitchell, Esq., C.B.E., M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S.

Treasurers 1826. Joseph Sabine, Esq., F.R.S. 1830. James Morrison, Esq. 1831. Charles Drummond, Esq. 1858. Robert Drummond, Esq. 1881. Charles Drummond, Esq. Appendix III: Zoological Taxa

Appendix III: Zoological Taxa

Explanation of the different zoological taxa. Note that the three tigers all belong to the same species, while the African and Indian elephant are two separate species.

Bengal tiger South China Caspian tiger tiger (extinct)

Taxa

Phylum Chordata Chordata Chordata

Subphylum Verterbrata Verterbrata Verterbrata

Class Mammalia Mammalia Mammalia

Order Carnivora Carnivora Carnivora

Family Felidae Felidae Felidae

Genus Panthera Panthera Panthera

Species Panthern tigris Panthera tigris Panthera tigris

Subspecies Panthera tigris Panthera tigris Panthera tigris tigris amoyensis virgata

African elephant Indian elephant

Taxa

Phylum Chordata Chordata

Subphylum Verterbrata Verterbrata

Class Mammalia Mammalia

Order Proboscidea Proboscidea

Family Elephantidae Elephantidae

Genus Elephantinae Elephantinae

Species Loxodonta africana Elephas maximus 2i6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams

Table 3.1 Number of visistors to the Zoological Gardens, 1828—1900.

i Year i No. of visitors 1828 ! 98.605 i 1865 H 525.176 1829 ! 189.913 i 1866 527.349 1830 ! 224.745 ! Ì1867 556.214 1 1831 ! 258.936 ! i 1868 573.186 1832 ; 218.585 ! i 1869 572.848 1833 1211.343 i i 1870 573.004 1834 i 208.583 1 Ï871 595.917 1835 210.068 i 11872 648.088 1836 263.392 i i 1873 713.046 1837 173.778 1874 706.907 1838 179.197 i 11875 699.918 1839 158.432 i i 1876 915.764 1840 141.009 i ; 1877 1781.377 1841 ! 132-616 ! 11878 706.713 1842 ! 107.459 ! i 1879 643.000 1843 ! 98.280 ! 11880 i 675.979 1844 i 101.52 7 lì 881 ~~ 1648.684 ! 1845 i 104.90 8 i 1882 i 849.776 ! 1846 i 94.049 ! 1883 ~ ' 1 743!485 ! 1847 i 88.589 i 1884 i 745.460 1848 1 143.630 1885 i 659.896 1849 i 168.89 5 11886 ! 639.674 1850 ! 360.402 I 1887 ! 562.898 1851 "1667.243 i i 1888 ! 608.402 1852 i 305.203 ! i 1889 644.579 1853 i 409.076 ! 11890 640.987 "i 1854 i 407.676 ! : 1891 598.730 1855 i 315.002 ! 11892 i 605.718 1856 1344.184 1 1893 i 662.649 1857 339.217 I 11894 i 625.538 1858 333.980 ~ I 11895 ! 665.326 1859 364.356 ! ! 1896 ! 665.004 i 1860 394.906 ! 1897 i 717.755 ! 1861 1381.837 ! 11898 1710.948 i 1862 ! 682.205 ! ! 1899 1696.707 ! 1863 468 700 ! i 1900 ! 697.178 ! 1864 1507.169 Appendix TV: Tables and Diagrams

Table $.i The science of the Gardens, as seen in the Proceedings, 1830—1900.

r-r-icN: ïcOiTj-imiC;DiN-iooïOïoiT-icNJiCOT;tiinic1oir^ioooïioimiOfiniOiO: iO;iiOiOimiOïc:: ;Ì'iC(OX:C>OsjoCoOs}oCo0i o5Co0;o 5oo?ì0o>o?iO0:) S:3i":

i vp : vp :: s^p ;• vO $ vp ; >0 ï vOs j vP j vO i vp i vO i vps } \P > vO » vPs i Sps - \Ps1 ? ssP < Sp :i Np :i Vsp i v© i vps \ >p ? vps : vps • vps ? «sP j vsp ; sPs : iO: o**ìi : lO^ ìOSCi NiS O^lO s i^iO? 0SCi O^SOi Jt-ìOiC' 0NJii OiCÏ NiiC 0N: 0JiT- -i0 Ti -S0 *C i Oi^Mr-0ìO* *• OìC5 0OSlÏ OiTì 0j-:iT 0 ri; T0l-i iT0 *-ì > cO0 - iiT 0-::

iCTfO lT't--CÎTN-Ji Tj-ïCs rM- iOîlOiCDîCOiT-iCMîOî'^-S'r-iTrîmiCNiCOiÇDïOilCOir^îNT-- iCN,TiO-O lOî-OOiCNiâCDfCOlCTN- ; CM

îOiOÏOî SlO SMiOi iO; iT-iT? -iOâO: lOiOSOiOiOiOiOïOSiC OlO;iT -ï; OiCMiT-IC: MifMîOi iT-fT:T-i"S:ico^

"I ra iTj-;CNJïT-SOiOiT-:OSOÏOiO>0:Oï'«-iOiO:0:OâO)0!0:0--«-ST-S"«-iO;o:OiOiOîO;CN:s05

iOOîCOî^iOi^-iT-iOi' OäOiOlOi' !OiT-

tCOiCOSOOïCOSN-iTl-iOi"^ OÎT-;C\l;OîT-SOi"*-iCOiOi'r-iT-ïT-;cO;^J-ÏCMâCOilO;cO;(NÎOjTîiCM;'«-:vP; M;§: CT) ^ ì "wO | O<0 l £>ra

i0;T-iT-i0i0;0:0i0|0i0t0:0S0S0i0:0:0i0!0S0:0i0i0S0!0i0i0i0j0i0;cM;i6

:ä l0:! Oä: inSî OSï T-i it-!; O?i OiTï -|Oî !O: iO: äT5 -SOi iO: :O: iOiTi -i! Oit! -;O• :C: \IS: CMi iCi NiOi iO: iOi !Oï !O!iO iCf M: •: gO- î •i m

'!: T-i: oiO: ir5 -s;o io: :oso: so: !Tî -;:O iO: !O: ìo: sT-;o: ;M: iT: -|C: Mï iT:-: c:o iC: M: iT•-s o: io:o: fN!vl : 99^ :: n \o\

s iOiCNjicoi^imicDir^-^ooJOiäOi^-cMicoiTi-imicDiN-iooiOiOfiOfOiirjjoiioio^iniOiiOiOic: ;i 0c0o i= cCoO s• 0c0O i î0C0 OSCïOC : OGOî :c 0o0i c' 0o0ï c\ 0O0ï *C 00O i i0^0i T= 0t0iT > 0j-0i T\ 0j0- i' T00j -:i CTOr :^ 0i0T ' r0î0T i t0ï0T Ïj 0-î0m '• 0im0 '• iGCO D•• 0i0c 'D 00ih i -0i0h :- GiOo o: 0i0o O' 0i0O i CisOo î Oîi)O : i3:S: e : 2i8 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

Table 5.2 The science of the Zoological Society, as seen in the indexes of the Proceedings, 1830—1900.

iCl::coMicoco;co:cTto;ciooïctoo^csooicooriTJ•oo^^l•^i" «CMi• ;•c^or: '^•*}•^• uv•*^eo•^^ ^s•! ^œl•:^ oiî•:^ or:lO L:uO ,O5;^ olo^tDö^^->io^»o-:ouo;o^oo:05io^o>o^O îEc !,-

ÏCMÏI^iCNfT-i^-îOiOSÏCDÏOOiCDÎirîlOOitD-U'îîU'JiCOi^rflOICOiCDim^jOîir^iCDi^^lCSiîT-i-r-i^: : C i i*-i i T- : T- : t- : i i r- i t- i •*- ! t- | t-: t- i t- ; t- i t- \ 00 ? cIn

; t-ï tj-; co : Gì ; h-: co i co ; cm Î o i •-i cm T to ; Tt; t-( oÎ -*i->: r-> co T oj :o o : co : (o ?c n ; tb ; T oi co ; o> ; t-î ir> s oj f;P : i t-i ;*-! Î T- i Î CM i t— î i iCMSCOÏCM>CO;«N:CM!COâCOï"*tiirjf«J;i o ^ $5

'iOiOiO!fOiT-!OiOiOiOiO;o:o;oiO!OiOio;o:o;0!0!iOiT-ion-:o;o;OiO!Niso;

sfOfCM!N!o;o;oiOiO!OiOiO!OiT-:^!0!OjOiO!CM!0;OiT-!^-îO!T-;r-;o;oiOiOiinivÇ;

ÏCOitDiOîiCOîCOICOiOiilOiCMiUîtCOiOîll^^iCOiirîj^-fCOitOlh-rCOiT-îOJÏCOiT-îlfîiCOiT-ïT-iCOiOOi^P: EO ÌTJ-?T-ÌCN;CM:CM!CMÌ ÎT-ÏT-Ï ! S CM < CM 5 CO i CO : CM : CO : CO ! CM ,i 1CM0 î? S

!OïOiO:oio;oi*-;oâOi"*tiCM:co;T-ico;T-icNiCM!T-:T-;oiO!i-îOiT-!CMio;0:0!OiOiOO!vÇi

^COâCMiOli-iT-îCOiT-îOiOlT-ïOiOîOiOsOÏOi-'-îOiCMlOiOiCOiOSOfT-iCMîCMiCMiCOiOSOOivÇ!

ìOii-i(M:i-!0:OiOiO!0!0(0!0:0;OiO!OìOiO!0:0!OìOiOiOtO;0:0;OiOiOiti;

s O O C O o • ;o;oïW5ioh I - N CO CM CM CM 05 sÇ

iCMitDiOlT-^ICOiCMi^-imfOOfO^i^iCMiOOiT-iM-iOJiCMlT-iOO^iiniCMSlfJiOJIOOIOOiOiOOjh-ivP: S T-S ;COÌCM:CMIT-ÌCMìt-ST-> > T-: :T-: SCMSCM^ÌCMÌT-ÌT-ÌT-ÌT-: if-igy: o.Q

soic\iico;^:io;coïr^iooiOîïOiT-:CM;co:-*tïU5i(Oii^-ioo:—Oî ;o-J:SirC5O!OïCiiOnihi-O il ii r5:Oiir>iOiir5ioici icoicoicoicorcoicocoicoicoi'^j-i'^ti'^tiTti. 'sti'^-J'^—i^ ^ri'^. -O^i :m 00ii :o OOs c' CoOs Ìc 00oi h00-i :h O-Oio : 00oio: 00o:i OCOJ OiOO :J 0)iO . j—S ; J, Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams

Diagram 5.1 Division of the total number of subgroups of the Gardens-reports, 1830—1845 (the number of subgroups is limited to tne most important ones for comprehensive reasons).

Reproduction New species (living) — Anatomy Pathology

25

20

15

10

5

0 1830-31 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845

Diagram 5.1.2 Division of the total number of subgroups of the Gardens-reports, 1845—1900 (the number of subgroups is limited to the most important ones for comprehensive reasons).

Reproduction New species (living) •— Anatomy Pathology

1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 220 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Diagram 5.2, Total. sum of reports in the Proceedings, based on Proceedings indexes, 1830—1900.

200

180

160

140 120

80

60

40

20

0 — ^ ^ f ^ ^ ^ ^ f f f f f f f f f f f f f f

Diagram 5.3 Total sum of Gardens-reports, as seen in the Proceedings, 1830—1900.

60

40

20 0 N* Appendix IV: Tables and Diagrams

Diagram 5.4 Division of report percentage, as seen in the Proceedings, 1830—1900.

-Soc -— Zoo

^ ^ & é" &é & & & £ & & & 4* &4 ^ ^ & é" é' &é" && & & & 222 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Appendix V: Maps Appendix V: Maps 223 224 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

"tS» Oor , -S£0 OMO S KU

ß.* -A; _-c *s jS

-£»* fC . ? o Tc3 -2 o je, N]

OF -*wj ai' O SU <ü ~ •s i jr ui Oc/3 s*tjJD

§i s «*"§ '§§ O KJ A to ^ • ~ oq 11 83

lH ìTS U.t i"5 îS o G JS t! u ^ ri "5^ & v_ tì C • ^ _'9 «£-§ ^ c o •- o N ej ~CÖ . ^toß rt AV-gi^v&' j ËJ "3^ Jd : \- w %m Sü*-

BIBLIOGRAPHY 227

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archives British Library: Oriental and India Office Reading Room

"Copies of 17 letters, June 1813-April 1823, from Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles to Dr. Thomas Horsfield." Mss.Eur.Ph0t0.Eur.70. "Raffles Family Collection—Letters received on the death of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles in 1826." Mss.Eur.D742/9. "Raffles Family Collection—Letters from Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles to the Duke and Duchess of Somerset." Mss.Eur.D742/24-25.

British Library: Rare Books and Music Reading Room

Collection of programmes, plates, cuttings from newspapers and magazines, pamphlets, etc., relating to the Surrey Zoological Gardens from 1831—1861, A. Vol. 1. Shelfmark: Th.Cts. 51-58. Fillinham Collection: A collection of cuttings from newspapers, advertisements, playbills, etc., formed by Fillinham. Yo\. 8. [1700—1860] Shelfmark: 1889.0.10/1—8.

Library of the Zoological Society of London

Daily Occurrences, 1828-30,1850-55. Letter archive (alphabetised). Minutes of Committee of Science and Correspondence: MAAi (9/11/1830-11/12/1832). Minutes of Council: FAAi (8/7/1826-9/8/1830) FAÅ2 (18/8/1830-17/10/1832) FAA8 (16/8/1843-2/6/1847) FAA9 (16/6/1847-19/6/1850) FAA10 (3/7/1850-20/7/1853) FAA11 (3/8/1853-15/7/1857). Minutes of General and Annual General Meetings: EAAi (29/4/1826-5/3/1835) EAA2 (2/4/1835-2/7/1846) EAA3 (6/8/1846-1/4/1858) Press Cuttings (on microfiche), 1849-55.

Periodicals

Athenaeum: Journal of English and Foreign Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts, 1850- 55- Bentley s Miscellany, 1850-1855. Field Naturalist, 1833—34. 228 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENT'S PARK

Fraser s Magazine of Town and Country; 1850—55 Hardwicke's Science-Gossip, 1865-90. Household Words, 1850-55 Illustrated London News, 1850-55. Ladies' Companion of Home and Abroad, 1850-55. London Quarterly Review, 1850—55. Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany; Mineralogy; Geology and Meteorology, 1829-40. Magazine of Natural History and Naturalist, i860. Magazine of Zoology and Botany, 1837-38, later Annals of Natural History; or, Magazine of Zoology, Botany and Geology, 1838—40, later Annals and Magazine of Natural His­ tory, Including Zoology, Botany and Geology, 1841-50, 1855, i860, 1865, 1870, 1875, 1880,1885, 1890,1895,1900. Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, 1828—35. Naturalist, 1837-50,1855. Naturalist's Note Book, 1867-69. Nature: A Weekly Illustrated Journal of Science, 1870,1875,1880,1885,1890,1895,1900. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1830—50, 1855, i860, 1865, 1870, 1875, 1880,1885,1890,1895,1900. Punch, or the London Charivari, 1850-55. Quarterly Review, 1850-55. Science-Gossip: An Illustrated Monthly Record of Nature and Country-Lore and Applied Science, 1895,1900. Times, The, 1826—55. Zoological Journal, 1824-35. Zoological Magazine, or Journal of Natural History, 1833. Zoologist. 1843-49.

Internet

About Web of Life. Zoological Society of London, 1 October 2001. chttp:// www.zsl.0rg/web0flife/c0me_inside/ex_0005722.html>.

Published Primary Sources: Articles

"A day at the Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park." Eliza Cook's Journal, no. 65 (27 July 1850): 202-206. "A glass too little and a glass too much." Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, 22 May

l853' "The aquarium." Fraser's Magazine 50, no. 296 (1854): 190-203. "The aquatic vivarium at the Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park." Illustrated London News 22, no. 624 (28 May 1853): 420. "A visit to the Surrey Zoological Gardens." Magazine of Natural History 5, no. 27 (1832): 401-404. Brayley, E.W. "Some account of the life and writings, and contributions to science of the late Sir T. Stamford Rafïles, Knt. F.R.S. S.A. & C.; successively Lieutenant- Governor of Java and its dependencies, and of Fort Marlborough, Singapore, and BIBLIOGRAPHY 229

the British possession in Sumatra: Founder and President of the Zoological Soci­ ety." Zoological Journal 3, no. 9 (1827): 1—48. . "Some account of the life and writings, and contributions to science of the late Sir T. Stamford Raffles, Knt. F.R.S. S.A. & C.; successively Lieutenant-Governor of Java and its dependencies, and of Fort Marlborough, Singapore, and the British possession in Sumatra: Founder and President of the Zoological Society." Zoologi­ cal Journal 3, no. 11 (1827): 382-400. "Brown, Jones, and Robinson go to the Zoological Gardens." Punch 19 (1850): 64. "The diary of the hippopotamus." Punch 19 (1850): 20. "The English hippopotamus, at the Zoological Gardens to the French ditto, at the 'Jardin des Plantes'." Punch 25 (1853): 116. "The fashionable zoological star." Punch, 25 (1853): 257. "The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated." Athenaeum, no. 156 (23 October 1830): 662. "Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's Park." The Mirror of Literature, Amuse­ ment and Instruction, no. 330 (6 September 1828): 148-150. "Gardens of the Zoological Society." In A Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park: With Account Descriptions of the Colosseum, the Diorama and the Zoological Gardens Illus­ trated with Upwards of Thirty Engravings: Comprising a Plan of the Park; Views of the Terraces, Villas, and c.; Exterior and Interior of the Colosseum, View of the Zoolog­ ical Gardens, and Sketches of Several Animals, 42—56. London, 1829. Gentlemans Magazine: An Historical Chronicle, Jul—Dec 1826, 78—86. "The great ant-eater." Frasers Magazine 49, no. 290 (1854): 157-168. "The hippopotamus in a new character." Punch 19 (1850): 92. "The hippopotamus in his new bath." Illustrated London News 18, no. 493 (14 June 1851): 557-558. "The hippopotamus in the Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's-park." Illus­ trated London News 16, no. 429 (1 June 1850): 378. "The hippopotamus in the Gardens of the Zoological Society, Regent's-park." Illus­ trated London News 16, no. 430 (8 June 1850): 413-414. Hunt, Leigh. "A visit to the Zoological Gardens." New Monthly Magazine and Liter­ ary Journal, 2nd series (1836): 479-491. Kirby, William. "Introductory address, explanatory of the views of the Zoological Club, delivered at its foundation, November 29, 1823." Zoological Journal 2, no. 5 (1826): 1-8. Ladies' Companion 1, no. 14 (1850): 208. Literary Gazette, 1825. Literary Gazette, 26 May 1826. Murray, John. "The origin and history of Murray's Handbooks for travellers." Mur­ ray's Magazine G (1889): 623-629. "Natural History in London: The Zoological Farm." Magazine of Natural History, pt. 3 (1830): 433-434- "Natural History in London: The Zoological Society." Magazine of Natural History; pt. 3 (1830): 153. "Natural History in London: The Zoological Society." Magazine of Natural History; pt. 3 (1830): 292-294. "The new zoological institution." Zoological Journal2, no. 6 (1826): 284-288. "News for the horse marines." Punch 18 (1850): 242. 2$0 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

"The next balloon ascent, The." Punch 19 (1850): 162. "Origin, object, and beneficial prospects of the new Zoological Society." Oriental Herald and Journal of General Literature 10, no. 32 (1826): 312-320. "Prospect of the Surrey Zoological Gardens, July 1831." In A Collection of programmes, plates, cuttings from newspapers and magazines, pamphlets, etc., relating to the Surrey Zoological Gardens from 1831-1861. Vol. 1. Quarterly Review 98, no. 195 (1856): 220-248. "Saturday afternoon at the Zoological Gardens." Leisure Hour; September 1859, 550- 553- "The sea-side season." Punch 19 (1850): 50. "The snow-bird at the Zoological Society's Gardens, in the Regent's Park." Illustrated London News 21, no. 571 (31 July 1852): 69. Tatler. N.d. Vigors, Nicholas Alyward. "An address delivered at the sixth and last anniversary meeting of the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society of London, on the 29th of November, 1829." Magazine of Natural History 3, no. 13 (1830): 201—226. Yarrell, William. "Notes on the internal appearance of several animals examined after death, in the collection of the Zoological Society." Zoological Journal 4, no. 15 (1829): 314-32-2- "Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park." Athenaeum, no. 1197 (5 October 1850): 1041. "Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park." Athenaeum, no. 1225 (19 April 1851): 430-431. "Zoological notes and anecdotes, Bears (no. II)." Bentley s Miscellany 29 (1851): 30-43. "Zoological sessions." Household Words 2 (28 September 1850): 4-10.

Published Primary Sources: Books

The African Glen, Colosseum, Regent's Park. London: Clowes and Sons, 1836. A Guide in the Choice of a Partner for Life and the Selection of Friends. London, [1820]. A Guide to the Stars. London: Taylor and Hessey, 1820. A Handbook for London, Past and Present. New ed. London: John Murray, 1850. Albert, Prince Consort. Letters of the Prince Consort, 1831—1861. Edited by Kurt Jagow, translated by E. T. S. Dugdale. London: John Murray, 1938. Allen, Thomas. A Guide to the Zoological Gardens and Museum; With a Brief Account of the Rise and Progress of the Zoological Society. London: Cowie and Strange, 1829. A New Pocket Guide to London and its Environs; Containing Descriptions, from Per­ sonal Knowledge, of everything worth seeing or Knowing within twenty-five miles of the Metropolis: Enlivened with Biographical and other Anecdotes, Connected by His­ tory or Tradition, with the Places Described. London: J. W. Parker, 1838. A Picturesque Guide to the Regent's Park: With Account Descriptions of the Colosseum, the Diorama and the Zoological Gardens Illustrated with Upwards of Thirty Engrav­ ings: Comprising a Plan of the Park; Views of the Terraces, Villas, and c.; Exterior and Lnterior of the Colosseum, View of the Zoological Gardens, and Sketches of Several Animals. London, 1829. A Stroll in the Gardens of the London Zoological Society; Describing the Various Animals in that Interesting Collection. By A Member of the University of Dublin, & c. Lon­ don: E. Wallis, [1828]. BIBLIOGRAPHY 231

Bartlett, Abraham Dee. Wild Animals in Captivity: Being an Account of the Habitsy Food, Management and Treatment of the Beasts and Birds at the 'Zoo'. 2nd imp. Lon­ don: Chapman & Hall, 1899. Bennett, Edward Turner. The Tower Menagerie: Comprising The Natural History of the Animals Contained in that Establishment; with Anecdotes of their Character and His­ tory. London: Robert Jennings, 1828. . The Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society Delineated: Being Descrip­ tions and Figures in Illustration of the Natural History of the Living Animals in the Society's Collection. Published with the sanction of the Council under the superin­ tendence of the Secretary and Vice-Secretary of the Society. 2 vols. London: Tho­ mas Tegg & N. Hailes, 1830-31. Bishop, James. Henry and Emma's Visit to the Zoological Gardens, in the Regent's Park; With an Account of What They Saw There; Interspersed With a Description of the Peculiar Manners and Habits of the Various Animals Contained Therein. London, [1829]. . A Visit to the Zoological Gardens, in the Regent's Park: Interspersed with a Famil­ iar Description of the Nature and Habits of the Many Rare and Interesting Animals Exhibited Therein. 6th ed. London: Dean & Co., [1850]. . Stories and Tales of Animated Nature, or A Visit to the Zoological Gardens. Lon­ don: Dean & Son, [1854]. Broderip, William. Zoological Recreations. 3rd ed. London, 1857. Butler, Elizabeth. From Sketch-Book and Diary. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1909. Cooke, George Alexander. Walks Through London; or, a Picture of the British Metropo­ lis: Containing Architectural Descriptions of the Buildings of The Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of So uth w ark, and their environs; Full Information concerning the Public, the Trading, the Charitable, and the Literary institutions; Places of Worship and Entertainment; Being a Complete Guide to the Casual Visitor, or Constant Resident. London: Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper, 1833. Coultas, Harland. The Home Naturalist; With Practical Instructions for Collecting, Arranging, and Preserving Natural Objects. London: The Religious Tract Society,

l8j7' Cruchley's Picture of London, Comprising the History, Rise, and progress of the Metropolis to the present period; Embellished with Numerous engravings of public Buildings, ground plans of St. Pauls Cathedral and Westminster Abbey, with its chapels, aisles, etc; A description of Windsor Castle, Hampton Court, Kew Gardens, Greenwich, Woolwich, Gravesend, etc., with a route for viewing the whole in seven days: to which is annexed, a superior coloured map of London, with references to the Principal Streets. Omnibus Routes, Railway stations, & c. 11th ed. London: G.E Cruchley, 1846. Deleuze, Joseph. History and Description of the Royal Museum of Natural History. 2 vols. Translated by A. Royer. Paris: A. Royer, 1823. Description of the Grand Pictorial Model of Sebastopol Exhibiting at the Royal Surrey Zoological Gardens, A. 2nd ed. London, 1855. Elmes, James. Metropolitan Improvements; or, London in the Nineteenth Century. Lon­ don: Jones & Co, 1828. Francis, Beata. The Child's Zoological Garden. London: Strahan & Co., 1881. 232 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Hagenbeck, Carl. Beasts and Men: Being Carl Hagenbeck's Experiences for Haifa Cen­ tury Among Wild Animals. Translated by Hugh Elliot and A.G. Thacker. London: Longman & Co., 1909. Hone, William. The Table Book. 1827. Facsimile, Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1966. . The Year Book of Daily Recreation and Information. 1832. Facsimile, Detroit: Gale Research Co., 1967. IUDZG—The World Zoo Organization, and The Captive Breeding Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC. The World Zoo Conservation Strategy: The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria of the World in Global Conservation. Brookfield, 111.: The Zoological Society of Chicago, 1993. Knight, Charles. London. London, 1843. List of the Members of the Zoological Society January 182p, London. London, 1829. List of Verte brated Animals Living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London. London, 1862. London Zoo: Report, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, the Minutes of Evi­ dence and Appendices. House of Commons, Environment Committee, fifth report, session 1990-91, HC 427. London, 1991. Loudon, John Cornelius. An Encyclopaedia of Agriculture. London, 1825. . An Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture. Lon­ don: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, 1833. Milne, A.A. When We Were Very Young. 1924. Reprint, London: Mammoth, 1991. Mitchell, David William. A Popular Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London. London, 1853. . Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London. London: Bradbury and Evans, 1858. Mitchell, Peter Chalmers. Official Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London. London: Zoological Society of London, 1907. . Official Guide to the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London. London: Zoo­ logical Society of London, 1920. Mogg's New Picture of London, and Visitors Guide to its Sights. 11th ed. London, 1848. Morton, John Chalmers. The Prince Consort's Farms: An Agricultural Memoir. Lon­ don: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1863. Murray's Handbook for Modern London; or, London as it is. London: John Murray, 1851. The Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved: Being a Correct Guide for the Stranger, as well as for the Inhabitant, to the Metropolis of the British Empire; Together with a Description of the Environs. 24th ed. London: Longmans & Co., 1826. The Picture of London for 1820; Being a Correct Guide to all the Curiosities, Amuse­ ments, Exhibitions, Public Establishments, and Remarkable Objects, in and near Lon­ don. 21st ed. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, 1820. Popular Zoology: Comprising Memoirs and Anecdotes of the Quadrupeds, Birds and Rep­ tiles, in the Zoological Society's Menagerie; With Engravings of the More Important and Interesting. London, 1832. Practical Brewer. A Guide to Young Brewers: Also Complete Instructions for Country Victuallers Who Brew at Home. London, 1820. Raffles, Thomas. Letters, During a Tour Through Some Parts of France, Savoy, Switzer­ land, Germany, and the Netherlands, in the Summer of i8iy. Liverpool, 1818. BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

Report of the Council of The Zoological Society of London, Read at the Anniversary Meet­ ing, April 29, 1829. London, 1829. Reports of the Auditors of the Accounts of the Zoological Society for the year 182p and of the Council, Read at the Anniversary Meeting, May 3,1830. London, 1830. Report of the Council of The Zoological Society of London, Read at the Anniversary Meet­ ing, April 29,1831. London, 1831. Report of the Council of The Zoological Society of London, Read at the Anniversary Meet­ ing, April 29,1836. London, 1836. Report of the Council of The Zoological Society of London, Read at the Anniversary Meet­ ing, April 29,1837. London, 1837. Report of the Council of The Zoological Society of London, Read at the Anniversary Meet­ ing, April 29, 1847. London, 1847. Reports of the Council and Auditors of the Zoological Society of London, Read at the Annual General Meeting, April 29th, 1851. London, 1851. Reports of the Council and Auditors of the Zoological Society of London, Read at the Annual General Meeting, April 29th, 1852. London, 1852. Reports of the Council and Auditors of the Zoological Society of London, Read at the Annual General Meeting, April 29th, 1853. London, 1853. Reports of the Council and Auditors of the Zoological Society of London, Read at the Annual General Meeting, April 29th, 1854. London, 1854. Report on the Farm of the Zoological Society at Kingston Hill, March 1832. London, 1832. Sclater, Philip Lutley, ed. A Record of the Progress of the Zoological Society of London during the Nineteenth Century. London, 1901. Sketch Book of a Young Naturalist; or, Hints to the Students of Nature. London: Harvey & Darton, 1831. Statement by the President and Certain Members of the Council of the Zoological Society, in Reply to Observations and Charges made by Colonel Sykes and Others at the Gen­ eral Meeting of the Society, on the 29th of April Last, and at the Monthly Meeting on the 2nd of the Same Month. London, 1835. The Strangers Intellectual Guide to London for 1839-40. London: Henry Hooper, 1839. The Stranger's Guide through London, and its environs; or, a Portable Cicerone, Con­ taining every Species of Desirable Information. London, 1828. Swainson, William. Animals in Menageries. The Cabinet Cyclopaedia. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longmans, 1838. . Taxidermy, Bibliography and Biography. The Cabinet Cyclopaedia. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, & John Taylor, 1840. Tomlinson, Charles, and Sarah Tomlinson. Lessons Derived from the Animal World. First Series. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1851. Trollope, Anthony. Travelling Sketches. London: Chapman & Hall, 1866. Tuss a udi Economical Guide to London, Paris, and Brussels; Specifying the Cheapest Mode by which those Capitals may be Visited, and all their most Interesting Objects Satisfactorily Viewed. London, 1852. Vigors, Nicholas Alyward. An Address Delivered at the Sixth and Last Anniversary Meeting of the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society of London, on the 29th of November, 1829. London, 1830. Vigors, Nicholas Alyward, and William Broderip. Guide to the Gardens of the Zoologi­ cal Society. London: Richard Taylor, 1829. KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Williams, C. The Zoological Gardens, Regent's park. London: C. Tilt, [1840]. The Zoological Gardens; A Hand-Book for Visitors. London: Robert Tyas, 1841. The Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park: A Hand-Book Guide for Visitors. London: H.G. Clarke & Son, [1868]. The Zoological Keepsake; or Zoology, and the Garden and Museum of the Zoological Society; For the year 1830. London: Marsh & Miller, 1830.

Published Secondary Sources: Articles

Adler, Judith. "Origins of sightseeing." Annals of Tourism Research 16, no. 1 (1989): 9-

I3' Allen, David Elliston. "Tastes and crazes." In Cultures of Natural History\ edited by Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary, 394-407. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Allen, Garland E. "Naturalists and experimentalists: The genotype and the pheno- type." Studies in History of Biology 3 (1979): 179-209. Anderson, Warwick. "Climates of opinion: Acclimatization in nineteenth-century France and England." Victorian Studies 35, no. 2 (1992): 135-157. Barton, Ruth. "'Huxley, Lubbock, and half a dozen others': Professionals and gentle­ men in the formation of the X Club, 1851-1864." Isis 89, no. 3 (1998): 410-444. Bastin, John. "The first prospectus of the Zoological Society of London: New light on the Society's origin." Journal ofthe Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 5, no. 5 (1970): 369-388. . "Raffles the naturalist." The Straits Time Annual 1971, 59—63. . "A further note on the origins of the Zoological Society of London? Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 6, no. 4 (1973): 236-241. . "Dr. Joseph Arnold and the discovery of Rafflesia arnoldi in West Sumatra in 1818." Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 6, no. 5 (1973): 305-372. ."Sir Stamford Raffles and the study of natural history in Penang, Singapore and Indonesia." Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 63(pt. 2), no. 259 (1990): 1-25. de Beer, Esmond. "The development of the guide-book until the early nineteenth century." Journal of the British Archaeological Association 15 (1952): 35—46. Bellairs, A. d'A., and D.J. Ball. "Reptiles." In The Zoological Society of London 1826- IÇ76 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40,119-132. London: Academic Press, 1976. Betts, John. "P.T. Barnum and the popularization of natural history." Journal of the History of Ideas 20, no. 3 (1959): 353-368. Black, Eugene C. "Prologue: The Victorian frame of reference." In Victorian Culture and Society, edited by Eugene C. Black, xv-xvi. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Blaisdell, Muriel. "Natural theology and nature's disguises." Journal of the History of Biology 15, no. 2 (1982): 163-189. Bravo, Michael T. "Panoramic visions of Spitsbergen: The aesthetics of representing the Arctic environment in early nineteenth century British exploration." Unpub­ lished paper in the author's files. Breeze, Catherine. "Pigs." In The Agrarian History of England and Wales, edited by G.E. Mingay, vol. 6, 353-358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. BIBLIOGRAPHY 23S

Brown, Lucy. "The British Press, 1800-1860." In The Encyclopaedia of the British Press, 1422-1992, edited by Dennis Griffiths, 24-32. Basinstoke, Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 1992. Browne, Janet. "Biogeography and empire." In Cultures of Natural History, edited by Nicholas Jardine, James Secord, and Emma Spary, 305-321. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 1996. Bullough, W.S., and Feona Hamilton. "The role of education." In The Zoological Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 223-231. London: Academic Press, 1976. Calaresu, Melissa. "Looking for Virgil's tomb: The end of the Grand Tour and the cosmopolitan ideal in Europe." In Voyages and Visions: Towards a Cultural History of Travel, edited by Jas Eisner and Joan-Pau Rubiés, 138-161. London: Reaktion Books, 1999. Camerini, Jane. "Remains of the day: Early Victorians in the field." In Victorian Sci­ ence in Context, edited by Bernard Lightman, 354-377. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1997. Cave, A.J.E. "The Zoological Society and nineteenth century comparative anatomy." In The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoo­ logical Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 49—66. Lon­ don: Academic Press, 1976. Cooter, Roger, and Stephen Pumfrey. "Separate spheres and public places: Reflec­ tions on the history of science popularization and science in popular culture." His­ tory of Science 32 (1994): 237-267. Crook, J. Mordaunt. "Metropolitan improvements: John Nash and the picturesque." In London — World City, 1800-1840, edited by Celina Fox, 77-96. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Dance, Peter. "Hugh Cuming (1791-1865): Prince of collectors. "Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 9, no. 4 (1980): 477-501. Desmond, Adrian. "The making of institutional zoology in London, 1822-1836." 2 pts., History of Science 23 (1985): 1:153-185 and 2:223-250. . "Redefining the X Axis: 'Professionals,' 'amateurs' and the making of mid-Vic­ torian biology-A progress report.n Journal of the History of Biology 34, no. 1 (2001): 3-5°- Di Gregorio, Mario A. "In search of the natural system: Problems of zoological classi­ fication in Victorian Britain." History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 4, no. 2 (1982): 225-254. Drouin, Jean-Marc, and Bernadette Bensuade-Vincent. "Nature for the people." In Cultures of Natural History; edited by Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary, 408-425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Eigen, Edward A. "Overcoming first impressions: Georges Cuvier's types." Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 2 (1997): 179-209. Eliegård, Alvar. "The readership of the periodical press in Mid-Victorian Britain." Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis 63 (1957): 3-41. Färber, Paul L. "The type-concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth century." Journal of the History of Biology 9, no. 1 (1976): 93—119. . "Discussion paper: The transformation of natural history in the nineteenth century." Journal of the History of Biology 15, no. 1 (1982): 145—152. 2$6 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Fish, R. "The library and scientific publications of the Zoological Society of London: Part I." In The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 233-251. London: Academic Press, 1976. Fish, R., and I. Montagu. "The Zoological Society and the British overseas." In The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40,17-48. London: Aca­ demic Press, 1976. George, Wilma. "Alive or dead: Zoological collections in the seventeenth century." In The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- Century Europe, edited by Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor, 179-187. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Gilbert, David. "'London in all its glory-or how to enjoy London:' Guidebook rep­ resentations of imperial London "Journal of Historical Geography 25, no. 3 (1999): 279-297. Greenwood, P.H. "The Zoological Society and ichthyology, 1826-1930." In The Zoo­ logical Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 85-104. London: Academic Press, 1976. Gregory, Derek. "Scripting Egypt: Orientalism and the cultures of travel." In Writes of Passage: Reading Travel Writing, edited by James Duncan and Derek Gregory, 114-150. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Grundmann, Reiner, and Jean-Pierre Cavaillé. "Simplicity in science and its publics." Science as Culture 3, no. 9 (2000): 353-389. Hanitsch, R. "Letters of Nathaniel Wallich relating to the establishment of botanical gardens in Singapore." Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, no. 65 (1913): 39-48. Hoage, R.J., Anne Roskell, and Jane Mansour. "Menageries and zoos to 1900." In New Worlds, New Animals: From Menageries to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century\ edited by R.J. Hoage and William A. Deiss, 8—16. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Homans, Margaret. "'To the Queen's private apartments': Royal Family portraiture and the construction of Victoria's sovereign obedience." Victorian Studies 37, no. 1 (1993): 1-41. Houghton, Walter E. "Introduction." In The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824—1900, edited by Walter E. Houghton, xv—xxiv. Vol. 1.1966. Reprint, London: Routledge, 1988. Hudson, Roger. "Introduction: Milordos and bear leaders." In The Grand Tour, 1592- 1796, edited by Roger Hudson, 13-25. London: The Folio Society, 1993. Hunter, Michael. "First steps of institutionalization: The role of the Royal Society of London." In Solomons House Revisited: The Organization and Institutionalization of Science, edited by Tore Frängsmyr, 13-30. Canton, Mass.: Science History Pub­ lications, 1990. Jardine, Nicholas. "Naturphilosophie and the kingdoms of nature." In Cultures of Nat­ ural History, edited by Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary, 230-245. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. BIBLIOGRAPHY 237

Jardine, William. "Memoir of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles." In The Natural History of Game Birds. The Naturalist's Library, vol. 21; Ornithology, vol. 4, edited by Wil­ liam Jardine, 17-66. London, 1834. Johns, Adrian. "Miscellaneous methods: Authors, societies and journals in early modern England." British Journalfor the History of Science 33, no. 17 (2000): 159-186. Jones, D.M. "The maintenance of animal health in the collections." In The Zoologi­ cal Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 204-214. London: Academic Press, 1976. Jones, Robert W. "'The sight of creatures strange to our clime': London Zoo and the consumption of the exoti c? Journal of Victorian Culture 2, no. 1 (199 7): 1-26. Keeling, Clinton. "Zoological gardens of Great Britain." In Zoo and Aquarium His­ tory: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens, edited by Vernon Kisling, Jr., 49-74. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001. Kisling, Vernon, Jr. "Ancient collections and menageries." In Zoo and Aquarium His­ tory: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens, edited by Vernon Kisling, Jr., 1-47. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001. . "Preface." In Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoologi­ cal Gardens, edited by Vernon Kisling, Jr. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001. Knight, David. "William Swainson: Types, circles, and affinities." In The Light of Nature: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science Presented to A.C. Crombie, edited by J.D. North and J.J. Roche, 83-94. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Pub­ lishers, 1985. Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory. "On nineteenth-century amateur tradition: The case of the Boston Society of Natural History." In Science and Its Public: The Changing Rela­ tionship, edited by Gerald Holton and William A. Blanpied, 173-190. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1976. Kumar, Deepak. "The evolution of colonial science in India: Natural history and the East India Company." In Imperialism and the Natural World, edited by John M. MacKenzie, 51—66. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1990. Lightman, Bernard. "'The voices of nature:' Popularizing Victorian science." In Vic­ torian Science in Context, edited by Bernard Lightman, 187-211. Chicago and Lon­ don: The University of Chicago Press, 1997. MacKenzie, John M. "Introduction." In Imperialism and the Natural World, edited by John M. MacKenzie, 1-14. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1990. Mendelsohn, Everett. "The social construction of scientific knowledge." In The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, edited by Everett Mendelsohn, Peter Weingart, and Richard Whitley, 3-26. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publish­ ing Company, 1977. Mendelson, Edward. "Baedeker's universe." Yale Review 74 (spring 1984-85): 386- 403. Miller, David Philip. "Sir Joseph Banks: An historiographical perspective." History of Science 19, no 46 (1981): 284-292. . "Between hostile camps: Sir Humphry Davy's presidency of the Royal Society of London, 1820-1827." British Journalfor the History of Science 16 (1983): 1-47. 238 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

. "Joseph Banks, empire and 'centres of calculation' in late Hanoverian Lon­ don." In Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany, and Representations of Nature, edited by David Philip Miller and Hans Peter Reill, 21-37. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1996. Mingay, G.E. "The agricultural revolution." In The Agricultural Revolution: Changes in Agriculture, 1650—1880, edited by G.E. Mingay, 1-68. London: Adam & Charles Black, 19 77. Moore-Coyler, R.J. "Cattle." In The Agrarian History of England and Wales, edited by G.E. Mingay, vol. 6, 335-351. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. . "Sheep." In The Agrarian History of England and Wales, edited by G.E. Mingay, vol. 6, 313-335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Morus, Iwan, Simon Schaffer, and Jim Secord. "Scientific London." In London — World City, 1800—1840, edited by Celina Fox, 129-142. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Nyhart, Lynn K. "Natural history and the 'new' biology." In Cultures of Natural His­ tory; edited by Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary, 426-443. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. O'Hara, Robert J. "Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century." In Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science, edited by Brian S. Baigrie, 164-183. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Osborne, Michael A. "Zoos in the family: The Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire clan and the three zoos of Paris." In New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century,; edited by R.J. Hoage and William A. Deiss, 33-42. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Outram, Dorinda. "New spaces in natural history." In Cultures of Natural History edited by Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary, 249-265. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Preston, Rebecca. "'The scenery of the torrid zone:' Imagined travels and the culture of exotics in nineteenth-century British gardens." In Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity; edited by Felix Driver and David Gilbert, 194-211. Manches­ ter and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999. Reichenbach, Herman. "Carl Hagenbeck's Tierpark and modern zoological gardens." Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 9, no. 4 (1980): 573—585. . "A tale of two zoos: The Hamburg Zoological Garden and Carl Hagenbeck's Tierpark." In New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century, edited by R.J. Hoage and William A. Deiss, 51-62. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Ritvo, Harriet. "Possessing Mother Nature: Genetic capital in eighteenth-century Britain." Man and Nature: Working Paper 63, Humanities Research Center, Odense University. Odense, Denmark, 1995. Ritvo, Harriet. "The order of nature: Constructing the collections of Victorian zoos." In New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century, edited by R.J. Hoage and William A. Deiss, 43-50. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Robin, Libby. "Ecology: A science of empire?" In Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies, edited by Tom Griffiths and Libby Robin, 63-75. New ed. Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997. BIBLIOGRAPHY 239

Rogers, Alan. Foreword to Guide Books and Historic Buildings, by Adrian Tinnis- wood. Dept. of Adult Education, University of Nottingham. Nottingham: Uni­ versity of Nottingham, 1981. Secord, Anne. "Science in the pub: Artisan botanists in early nineteenth-century Lancashire." History of Science, 32 (1994): 269-315. Secord, James A. "Darwin and the breeders: A social history." In The Darwinian Her­ itage, edited by David Kohn, 519-542. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Senior, Matthew. "The Versailles menagerie, 1662-1792." In Renaissance Beasts: Of

Animais, Humansy and Other Wonderful Creatures in the Early Modern Period, edited by Erica Fudge. Forthcoming. Shapin, Steven. "Science and the public." In Companion to the History of Modern Sci­ ence, edited by R.C. Olby, 990-1007. London: Routledge, 1990. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. "War and peace in natural history publishing: The Naturalist's Library; 1833-1843." Isis y2, no. 1 (1981): 50-72. . "Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: The emergence of a low sci­ entific culture, 1820-1875." Annals of Science 42 (1985): 549-572. Short, R.V. "The introduction of new species of animals for the purpose of domesti­ cation." In The Zoological Society of London 1826—1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 321- 333. London: Academic Press, 1976. Sörlin, Sverker. "National and international aspects of cross-boundary science: Scien­ tific travel in the 18 th century." In Denationalizing Science: The Contexts of Interna­ tional Scientific Practice, edited by Elisabeth Crawford, Terry Shinn, and Sverker Sörlin, 43—72. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. . "Ordering the world for Europe: Science as intelligence and information as seen from the northern periphery." In Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise, edited by Roy MacLeod, 51-69. Osiris, vol. 15. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Storch, Robert D. "Introduction." In Popular Culture and Custom in Nineteenth-Cen­ tury England, edited by Robert D. Storch, 1-8. London and Canberra: Croom Helm, 1982. Strehlow, Harro. "Zoos and aquariums of Berlin." In New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century, edited by RJ. Hoage and William A. Deiss, 63—72. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. . "Zoological gardens of Western Europe." In Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections and Zoological Gardens, edited by Vernon Kisling, Jr., 75-116. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001. Toovey, J.W. "150 years of building at London Zoo." In The Zoological Society of Lon­ don 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40,179-202. London: Academic Press, 1976. Topham, Jonathan. "Science and popular education in the 1830s: The role of the Bridgewater Treatises." British fournal for the History of Science 25, no. 87 (1992): 397-430. Turner, Frank M. "Public science in Britain, 1880-1919." Isis 71, no. 259 (1980): 589— 608. 240 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Vann, Donn, and Rosemary VanArdsel. "Introduction." In Victorian Periodicals and Victorian Society, edited by Donn Vann and Rosemary VanArdsel, 3-8. Aldershot, Great Britain: Scholar Press, 1994. Veltre, Thomas. "Menageries, metaphors, and meanings." In New Worlds, New Ani­ mals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century\ edited by R.J. Hoage and William A. Deiss, 19—29. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Vevers, H.G., "Management of a public aquarium." In The Zoological Society of Lon­ don 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 105-118. London: Academic Press, 1976. Walker, Sally. "Zoological gardens of India." In Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections and Zoological Gardens, edited by Vernon Kisling, Jr., 251-294. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001. Webb, David. "For inns a hint, for routes a chart: The nineteenth-century London guidebook." The London Journal: A Review of Metropolitan Society Past and Present 6 (1980): 207-214. Whitley, Richard. "Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics." In Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, edited by Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley, 3-28. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985. Woolfall, S.J. "History of the 13th Earl of Derby's menagerie and aviary at Knowsley Hall, Liverpool (1806—1851)." Archives of Natural History 17, no. 1 (1990): 1—47. Young, Robert M. "Natural theology, Victorian periodicals and the fragmentation of a common context." In Darwin to Einstein: Historical Studies on Science and Belief edited by Colin Chant and John Fauvel, 69-107. Essex and New York: Longman Group, 1980. Zuckerman, Lord Solly. "The Zoological Society of London: Evolution of a constitu­ tion." In The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, no. 40, 1-16. London: Academic Press, 1976. . "The rise of zoos and zoological societies." In Great Zoos of the World: Their Origins and Significance, edited by Lord Solly Zuckerman, 3-26. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979.

Published Secondary Sources: Books

Allen, David Elliston. The Botanists: A History of the Botanical Society of the British Isles through a Hundred and Fifty Years. Winchester, Great Britain: St Paul's Bibli­ ographies, 1986. . The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History. 1976. Reprint, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Al tick, Richard D. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800—1900. 3rd imp. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 19 67. . The Shows of London. Cambridge, Mass. and London: The Belknap Press, 1978. . Punch: The Lively Youth of a British Institution, 1841-18'51. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1997. BIBLIOGRAPHY 241

Appel, Toby A. The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Dar­ win. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Auerbach, Jeffrey A. The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1999. Baigrie, Brian S., ed. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Con­ cerning the Use of Art in Science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Bailey, Peter. Leisure and Class in Victorian England: Rational Recreation and the Con­ test for Control, 1830-1885. New ed. London and New York: Methuen, 1987. Barber, Lynn. The Heyday of Natural History, 1820—18/0. London: Jonathan Cape, 1980. Barrett, Paul H., Peter J. Gautrey, Sandra Herbert, David Kohn, and Sydney Smith, eds. Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836—1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries. Cambridge: British Museum (Natural History)/Cam­ bridge University Press, 1987. Behdad, Ali. Belated Travelers: Orientalism in the Age of Colonial Dissolution. Durham, N.C. and London: Duke University Press, 1994. Bennett, Daphne. King Without a Crown: Albert, Prince Consort of England, i8ip— 1861. London: Heinemann, 1977. Best, Geoffrey. Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-7$. 3rd imp. London: Fontana Press, 1985. Black, Eugene C., ed. Victorian Culture and Society. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Blunt, Wilfrid. The Ark in the Park: The Zoo in the Nineteenth Century. London: Book Club Associates, 1976. Bondeson, Jan. Lärda grisar och falska sjöjungfrur. Kivik, Sweden: Kiviksgårdens för- lag, 1994. Boulger, Demetrius Charles. The Life of Sir Stamford Raffles. London: H. Marshall & Son, 1897. Bowler, Peter J. The Fontana History of the Environmental Sciences. London: Fontana Press, 1992. Brendon, Piers. Thomas Cook: 150 Years of Popular Tourism. London: Seeker and War­ burg, 1991. Briggs, Asa. The Age of Improvement, 1/83-186/. New imp. London: Longmans, 1967. Brockway, Lucille H. Science and Colonial Expansion: The Role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Burkhardt, Frederick, and Sydney Smith, eds. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. 12 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985—2001. Buzard, James. The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature, and the Ways to Cul­ ture, 1800-1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Cameron, Ian. To the Farthest Ends of the Earth: The History of the Royal Geographical Society, 1830-1900. London: Macdonald, 1980. Cannon, Susan Faye. Science in Culture: The Early Victorian period. New York: Daw­ son and Science History Publications, 1978. Carter, Harold B. His Majesty's Spanish Flock: Sir Joseph Banks and the Merinos of George III of England. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1964. ., ed. The Sheep and Wool Correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks, 1/81—1820. N.p.: The Library Council of New South Wales in association with the British Museum (Natural History), 1979. . Sir Joseph Banks, 1/43-1820. London: British Museum (Natural History), 1988. 242 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Chant, Colin, and John Fauvel. Darwin to Einstein: Historical Studies on Science and Belief. Essex and New York: Longman Group, 1980. Chard, Chloe. Pleasure and Guilt on the Grand Tour: Travel Writing and Imaginative Geography; 1600-1830. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999. Cherfas, Jeremy. Zoo 2000: A Look Beyond the Bars. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1984. Clair, Colin. A History of Printing in Britain. London: Cassell, 1965. . A History of European Printing. London: Academic Publishing, 1976. Clark, Kitson G. The Making of Victorian England. 1962. Reprint, London: Methuen & Co., 1975. Coleman, William. Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function and Transformation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971. Comment, Bernard. The Panorama. Translated by Anne-Marie Glasheen. London: Reaktion, 1999. Conway, Hazel. People's Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Brit­ ain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Cook, Bethune. Sir Thomas Stamford Rajfles: Founder of Singapore. London: Arthur H. Stockwell, 1918. Crawford, Elisabeth, Terry Shinn, and Sverker Sörlin, eds. Denationalizing Science: The Contexts of International Scientific Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub­ lishers, 1993. Croke, Vicki. The Modern Ark: The Story of Zoos: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Scribner, 1997. Crombie, A.C. Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argument and Explanation Especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts. Vol. 2. London: Duckworth, 1994. Crosby, Alfred. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, poo-ipoo. 1986. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Crowther, J.G. Statesmen of Science. London: The Cresset Press, 1965. Cunningham, D.J. The Origin and Early History of the Royal Zoological Society of Ire­ land. Dublin: Royal Zoological Society of Ireland, 1901. Cunningham, Hugh. Leisure in the Industrial Revolution, c.1780—c. 1880. London: Croom Helm, 1980. Curley, Thomas M. Samuel Johnson and the Age of Travel. Athens, Ga.: The Univer­ sity of Georgia Press, 1976. Davidoff, Leonore, and Cathrine Hall. Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850.1987. Reprint, London: Routledge, 1994. Desmond, Adrian. Archetypes and Ancestors: Palaeontology in Victorian London, 1850— 1875. London: Blond & Briggs, 1982. . The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore. Darwin. New ed. London: Penguin Books, 1992. Desmond, Ray. Kew: The History of the Royal Botanic Gardens. New ed. London: Harvill Press, 1998. Dictionary of the History of Science, edited by William E Byn um, E.J. Browne, and Roy Porter. London: Macmillan, 1981. BIBLIOGRAPHY 245

Drayton, Richard. Natures Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the 'Improve­ ment' of the World. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 2000. Driver, Felix. Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration in the Age of Empire. Oxford and Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. Driver, Felix, and David Gilbert, Imperial Cities: Landscape, Display and Identity. Manchester and New York: Manchester Univeristy Press, 1999. Duncan, James, and Derek Gregory, eds. Writes of Passage: Reading Travel Writing. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. . The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Trans­ formations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Eisner, Jas, and Joan-Pau Rubiés, eds. Voyages and Visions: Towards a Cultural History of Travel. London: Reaktion Books, 1999. Evans, Edward. The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals: The Lost History of Europe's Animal Trials. 1906 . Facsimile, London: Faber, 1987. Eyck, Frank. The Prince Consort: A Political Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, 1959- Färber, Paul L. Discovering Birds: The Emergence of Ornithology as a Scientific Disci­ pline, 1760—1850. New ed. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins Uni­ versity Press, 1997. . Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E. O. Wil­ son. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Fisher, James. Världens djurparker. Zoos of the World. Translated from English by Nils Jacobsson. Stockholm: Gebers, 1966. Fletcher, Harold R. The Story of the Royal Horticultural Society, 1804—1968. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. Fox, Celina, ed. London — World City, 1800—1840. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Frängsmyr, Tore, ed. Solomons House Revisited: The Organization and Institutionaliza­ tion of Science. Canton, Mass.: Science History Publications, 1990. Freeman, John. Life of the Rev. William Kirby. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1852. Fudge, Erica, ed. Renaissance Beasts: Of Animals, Humans, and Other Wonderful Crea­ tures in the Early Modern Period. Forthcoming. Gage, Andrew Thomas, and William Thomas Stearn. A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London. London: Academic Press, 1988. Gillespie, Thomas H. The Story of the Edinburgh Zoo, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and the Scottish National Zoological Park: An Account of their Origin and Progress. Slains, Great Britain: Michael Slains Publishers, 1964. Graham-Jones, Oliver. First Catch Your Tiger: Inside London Zoo's Animal Hospital. London: Collins, 1970. . Zoo Tails. London: Bantam, 2001. Grewal, Inderpal. Home and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire and the Cultures of Travel. London: Leicester University Press, 1996. Grey, Charles. The Early Years of the Prince Consort. London: William Kimber, 1967. Griffiths, Dennis. The Encyclopedia of the British Press, 1422—1992. Basinstoke, Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 1992. 244 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Griffiths, Tom, and Libby Robin. Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Set­ tler Societies. New ed. Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997. Grove, Richard. Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

I995* Guillery, Peter. The Buildings of London Zoo. London: Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, 1993. Günther, Albert E. A Century of Zoology at the British Museum: Through the Lives of Two Keepers, 1815-1914. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1975. Hahn, Emily. Animal Gardens or Zoos Around the World. New ed. New York: Begos & Rosenberg, 1990. Hall, Marie Boas. All Scientists Now: The Royal Society in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Hancocks, David. Animals and Architecture. London: Hugh Evelyn, 1971. . A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001. Harris, Neil. Humbug: The Art ofP.T. Barnum. New ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1981. Harrison, J.EC. Early Victorian Britain, 1832-51. New ed. London: Fontana, 1979. Hartley, Sir Harold. Humphry Davy. London: Thomas Nelson &C S ons, 1966. Hendersons Dictionary of Biological Terms, Eleanor Lawrence. 10th ed. Harlow, Great Britain: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1989. Hibbert, Christopher. London: The Biography of a City. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Books, 1980. Hoage, R.J., and William A. Deiss, eds. New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore, Md. and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Holton, Gerald, and William A. Blanpied, eds. Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1976. Horn, Pamela. Pleasures and Pastimes in Victorian Britain. Stroud, Great Britain: Sut­ ton Publishing, 1999. Houghton, Walter E. The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830—1870. New ed. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Hudson, Roger. The Grand Tour, 1592-1-796. London: The Folio Society, 1993 Huggett, Frank E. Victorian England as Seen by Punch. London: Book Club Associ­ ates, 1978. Hunter, Michael. Science and Society in Restoration England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Impey, Oliver, and Arthur MacGregor, eds. The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 1985. James, Robert Rhodes. Albert, Prince Consort: A Biography. London: Hamish Hamil­ ton, 1983. Jardine, Nicholas, James A. Secord, and Emma C. Spary, eds. Cultures of Natural His­ tory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Jardine, William, ed. The Natural History of Game Birds. The Naturalist's Library, vol. 21; Ornithology, vol. 4. London, 1834. BIBLIOGRAPHY 245

Johns, June. Zoo Without Bars: The Story of Chester Zoo and its Founder George Saul Mottershead. New ed. London: Carousel Books, 1974. Jolly, W.P. Jumbo. London: Constable, 1976. Jordan, Bill, and Stefan Ormrod. The Last Great Wild Beast Show: A Discussion on the Failure of British Animal Collections. London: Constable, 1978. Kane, Penny. Victorian Families in Fact and Fiction. 1995. Reprint, Basinstoke and London, Great Britain: Macmillan Press, 1997. Kärnfelt, Johan. Mellan nytta och nöje: Ett bidrag till populärvetenskapens historia i Sverige. Eslöv, Sweden: Brutus Ostling Bokförlag Symposion, 2000. Keeling, Clinton. Where the Lion Trod: A Record of Forgotten Zoological Gardens. Shal- ford, Great Britain: Clam Publications, 1984. . Ln the Beginning. Shalford, Great Britain: Clam Publications, 1991. Kenyon-Jones, Christine. Kindred Brutes: Animals in Romantic-period Writing. Alder- shot, Great Britain: Ashgate, 2001. Kisling, Vernon, Jr., ed. Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001. Klös, Heinz-Georg, and Ernst M. Lang, eds. Handbook of Zoo Medicine: Diseases and Treatment of Wild Animals in Zoos, Game Parks, Circuses and Private Collections. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982. Kohn, David, ed. The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Ï985- Kumar, Deepak. Science and the Raj, 1857—ipo$. New ed. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. Lablaude, Pierre-André. The Gardens of Versailles. Translated by Fiona Biddulph. London: Zwemmer, 1995. Lasdun, Susan. The English Park: Royal, Private and Public. London: Andre Deutsch, 1991. Latour, Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Soci­ ety. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. Lever, Christopher. They Dined on Eland: The Story of the Acclimatisation Societies. London: Quiller Press, 1992. Levine, Lawrence W. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. New ed. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1990. Lightman, Bernard, ed. Victorian Science in Context. Chicago and London: The Uni­ versity of Chicago Press, 1997. Lindsay, Debra. Science in the Subarctic: Trappers, Traders, and the Smithsonian Insti- tution. Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993. Loisel, Gustave. Histoire des Ménageries de Vantiqué a nos jours. 3 vols. Paris, 1912. Longford, Elizabeth. Victoria R.L. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964. Low, Donald A. That Sunny Dome: A Portrait of Regency Britain. London: Dent,

I977* MacKenzie, John M., ed. Imperialism and the Natural World. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1990. MacLeod, Roy, ed. Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise. Osiris, vol. 15. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000 Margetson, Stella. Regency London. London: Cassell, 1971. Marshall, Dorothy. The Life and Times of Victoria. London: Book Club Associates, 1972. 246 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Martin, Theodore. The Life ofH.R.H. the Prince Consort. 5 vols. London, 1875-1880. McCracken, Donai E Gardens of Empire: Botanical Institutions of the Victorian British Empire. London: Leicester University Press, 1997. Mehos, Donna. "Science displayed: Nation and nature at the Amsterdam Zoo, Artis'." Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1997. Mendelsohn, Everett, Peter Weingart, and Richard Whitley, eds. The Social Produc­ tion of Scientific Knowledge. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Com­ pany, 1977. Merrill, Lynn. The Romance of Victorian Natural History. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Miller, David Philip, and Peter Hans Reill, eds. Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany, and Representations of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Mingay, G.E., ed. The Agricultural Revolution: Changes in Agriculture, 1650-1880. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1977. ., ed. The Agrarian History of England and Wales. Vol. 6, 1750—1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Mitchell, Peter Chalmers. Centenary History of the Zoological Society of London. Lon­ don: Zoological Society of London, 1929. Morrell, Jack, and Arnold Thackray. Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Morris, Desmond. Animal Days. London: Jonathan Cape, 1979. Mullan, Bob, and Garry Marvin. Zoo Culture. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987. Newsome, David. The Victorian World Picture: Perceptions and Introspections in an Age of Change. New ed. London: Fontana Press, 1998. North J.D., and J.J. Roche, eds. The Light of Nature: Essays in the History and Philos­ ophy of Science Presented to A. C. Crombie. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985. Nyhart, Lynn K. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universi­ ties, 1800-1900. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995. Oettermann, Stephan. The Panorama: History of a Mass Medium. Translated by Deb­ orah Lucas Schneider. New York: Zone Books, 1997. Olby, R.C. Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge, 1990. Olsen, Donald J. The Growth of Victorian London. London: B.T. Batsford, 1976. Osborne, Michael A. Nature, the Exotic and the Science of French Colonialism. Bloom- ington and Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1994. Ousby, Ian. The Englishman's England: Taste, Travel and the Rise of Tourism. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Outram, Dorinda. Georges Cuvier: Vocation, Science and Authority in Post-Revolution- ary France. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984. Owen, Richard. The Life of Richard Owen. 2 vols. 1894. Reprint, Farnborough, Great Britain: Gregg International Publishers, 1970. Page, Jake. Zoo: The Modern Ark. Toronto: Key Porter, 1990. Palmers Index to the Times Newspaper, London, iyço-ç$(—iço$). 1868-1925. Reprint, London, 1965. Phillips, John A.S., ed. Prince Albert and the Victorian Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. BIBLIOGRAPHY 247

Pinault, Madeleine. The Painter as Naturalist: From Dürer to Redouté. Translated by Philip Sturgess. Paris: Flammarion, 1991. Pollard, William. The Stanleys ofKnowsley: A History ofthat Noble Family Including a Sketch of the Political and Public Lives of the Right Hon. The Earl of Derby, K. G. and the Right Hon. Lord Stanley, M.P. Liverpool, 1868. Porter, Roy. London: A Social History. New ed. London: Penguin Books, 1996. Price, R.G.G. A History ö/"Punch. London: Collins, 1957. Raffles, Lady Sophia. Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles: Particularly in the Government of Java, 1811-1816, and of Bencoolen and its Dependencies, 1817-1824; With Details of the Commerce and Resources of the Eastern Archipelago, and Selections from his Correspondence. London: John Murray, 1830. The Regent's Park and Primrose Hill. London: The Royal Parks, 1993. Ritvo, Harriet. The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. . The Platypus and the Mermaid and Other Figments of the Classifying Imagina­ tion. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1997. Robinson, John Martin. Georgian Model Farms: A Study of Decorative and Model Farm Buildings in the Age of Improvement, 1700-1846. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Rolt, L.T.C. IsambardKingdom Brunei. New ed. London: Penguin Books, 1970. Ross, Andrea Frederici. Let The Lions Roar! The Evolution of Brookfield Zoo. Brook- field, 111.: C hicago Zoological Society, 1997. Rubinstein, W.D. Britain's Century: A Political and Social History, 1815—1905. London: Arnold, 1998. Rupke, Nicholaas A. Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1994. Russell, Edward Stuart. Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. 1916. Reprint, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. Saunders, Ann. Regent's Park: A Study of the Development of the Area from 1086 to the Present Day. 2nd ed. London: Bedford College, 1981. Saxon, A.H. P.T. Barnum: The Legend and the Man. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989. Scherren, Henry. The Zoological Society of London: A Sketch of its Foundation and Development and the Story of its Farm, Museum, Gardens, Menagerie and Library. London: Cassell and Company, 1906. Schwartz, Vanessa. Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin-de-Siècle Paris. New ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. Sears, John F. Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century. New ed. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998. Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. "Low scientific culture in London and Paris, 1820-1875." Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1976. Shinn, Terry, and Richard Whitley, eds. Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985. Singer, Charles. A History of Biology to About the Year ipoo: A General Introduction to the Study of Living Things. 3rd ed. London and New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1962. Stagi, Justin. A History of Curiosity: The Theory of Travel, 1550-1800. Chur, Switzer­ land: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995. 248 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Stimson, Dorothy. Scientists and Amateurs: A History of the Royal Society. 1947. Reprint, New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. Storch, Robert D., ed. Popular Culture and Custom in Nineteenth-Century England. London and Canberra: Croom Helm, 1982. Street, Philip. The London Zoo. London: Odhams Press, 1956. Summerson, John. Georgian London. Rev. ed. London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1962. Thompson, F.M.L. English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. 1963. Reprint, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971. . The Rise of Respectable Society: A Social History of Victorian Britain, 1830-1900. London: Fontana Press, 1988. Thurston, Hazel. Royal Parks for the People: London's Ten. London: David & Charles, *974- Tinniswood, Adrian. Guide Books and Historic Buildings. Dept. of Adult Education, University of Nottingham. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 1981. Tudge, Colin. Last Animals at the Zoo: How Mass Extinction can be Stopped. London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991. Twyman, Michael. Printing ijjo-1970: An Illustrated History of its Development and Uses in England. London: British Library, 1998. Urry, John. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE Publications, 1990. Vann, Donn, and Rosemary VanArdsel, eds. Victorian Periodicals and Victorian Soci­ ety. Aldershot, Great Britain: Scholar Press, 1994.

Vaughan, John. The English Guide Booky c.ij8o—i8yo: An Illustrated History. London and Vancouver: David and Charles, 1974. Vevers, Gwynne, comp. London's Zoo: An Anthology to Celebrate 150 Years of the Zoo­ logical Society of London, with its Zoos at Regent's Park in London and Whipsnade in Bedfordshire. London: The Bodley Head, 1976. Victorian Britain: An Encyclopedia, edited by Sally Mitchell. New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1988. Walvin, James. Leisure and Society.; 1830—1950. London and New York: Longman, 1978. Webster, A.D. The Regent's Park and Primrose Hill: History and Antiquities. London: Greaning & Co., 1911. Weintraub, Stanley. Uncrowned King: The Life of Prince Albert. New York: The Free Press, 1997. Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900, edited by Walter E. Houghton. 5 vols. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1966—1989. Wilmot, Sarah. 'The Business of Improvement': Agriculture and Scientific Culture in Britain, c.i/oo—c.i8/o. Historical Geography Research Series, no. 24. Bristol, 1990. Winsor, Mary P. Starfish, Jellyfish, and the Order of Life: Issues in Nineteenth Century Science. Yale Studies in the History of Science and Medicine 10. New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press, 1976. Wonders, Karen. Habitat Dioramas: Illusions of Wilderness in Museums of Natural His­ tory. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 1993. Figura Nova Series 25. Uppsala, Sweden,

I993' Woodham-Smith, Cecil. Queen Victoria: Her Life and Times, 1819-1861. New ed. London: Cardinal, 1975. Wurtzburg, C.E. Raffles of the Eastern Isles. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1954. BIBLIOGRAPHY 249

Yeo, Richard. Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Young, G.M. Portrait of an Age. New ed. 1936. Reprint, London: Oxford University Press, 1964. Zuckerman, Lord Solly, ed. The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and Beyond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, no. 40. London: Academic Press,

19j6' , ed. Great Zoos of the World: Their Origins and Significance. London: Weiden­ feld & Nicolson, 1979. 2S0 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

INDEX OF NAMES

Clark, Kitson 105 Adelaide, Queen 123 Clarke, H.G. 158 Alben, Prince Consort 113—114 Cobbold, T. Spencer 33 Allen, David 37, 39 Cocksedge, Mr. 78 Altick, Richard 107, 120 Cook, Thomas 147—148 Appel, Toby 188 Cooter, Roger 38 Aristotle 176, 182, 187 Cortés, Hernando 21—23 Arnold, Joseph 58, 59 Crisp, Edwards 191 Atkins, Thomas 26 Croke, Vicki 42 Auckland, Lord 71, 86 Cross, Edward 13, 25—26, 74, 79, 123—124 Bacon, Francis 126 Cuming, Sir Hugh 88, 181 Baedeker, Karl 147—149, 164 Cuvier, Georges 33, 173, 177, 187—188 Baer, Karl Ernst von 173 Baird, Spencer Fullerton 34 Dartmouth, Mr. 159—161 Banks, Joseph 29, 58—60, 66, 73, Darwin, Charles 65, 91, 107, 153, 170, 90-91, 94 184, 195, 206 Barber, Lynn 37, 39 Davy, Humphry 16, 28, 59, 61—64, 67, Barker, Robert 121 71,89-90,94 Barnum, Phineas Taylor 56—57, 141, 150 Deiss, William 17, 42 Bartlett, Abraham Dee 57, II6, 170, 193 Derby, Earl of 66, 71, 92, 114, 193 Bastin, John 45, 62, 63 Desmond, Adrian 28, 32, 45, 92, Bennett, Edward 29, 81, 144—145, 154, 171—172 159, 195 Diard, M. 59 Betts, John 141 Duvaucel, M. 59 Bewick, Thomas 159 Bishop, James in, 160—161, 163 Egremont, Earl of 67 Blunt, Wilfrid 46 Broderip, William 29, 47, 80—81, Färber, Paul 32, 35, 173 149—150, 181—182, 184 , 196 Franklin, John 163 Brookes, Joshua 14, 32, 75 Frederick II 24 Brown, Robert 58 Gage, Andrew 60 Buckland, Frank 112, 196 George III 66 Buffon, Georges Louis Ledere, Comte de George IV 30 153,177,180 Gibbon, Edward 146 Burton, Decimus 26, 31, 76, 121, 208 Goethe, Johann 186—187 Burton, John 31 Gosse, Philip Henry 39, 130 Butler, Elizabeth 149 Gould, John 117 Butler, Mr. 161 Grant, Robert 28, 45, 172, 188 Caligula 21 Graver, Josiah 78 Canterbury, Archbishop of 123 Gray, George 125 Carlisle, Dean of 79 Gray, John Edward 89, 176 Carus, Carl Gustav 187, 188 Griffiths, Mr. 68 Chard, Chloe 109 Günther, Albert 126 Chunee (elephant) 13—14, 25, 32 INDEX OF NAMES

Mehos, Donna 17 Hagenbeck, Carl 45, 122, 208 Merrill, Lynn 39 Hancocks, David 42 Mitchell, David William 47, 103, 116, Hardwicke, Thomas 70, 71 125-127, 151, 153-155 Harris, Cornwallis 153 Mitchell, Peter Chalmers 46, 47, 116, Henry I 24 144, 150-152, 155 Henry III 24 Mivart, George 189 Hoage, R.J. 17, 42 Montezuma 21, 22, 23 Home, Sir Everard 58, 79 Murie, James 189, 193 Hornor, Thomas 121 Murray, John, Jr. 147—149, 164 Horsfield, Thomas 29, 58, 67 Houghton, Walter E. 106 Nash, John 30, 31 Humboldt, Alexander von 153—155 Newman, Edward 170, 194 Hunter, John 185 Huxley, Thomas Henry 39, 141 Obaysh (hippopotamus) 103, 114, 127— 128, 165 Inglis, Sir Robert 66 Ogilby, William 125, 180, 194 Oken, Lorenz 187 Jack, William 58 Olmsted, Frederick Law 120 Jenny (orang-utan) 170, 206 Ormrod, Stefan 206 Johnson, Samuel 145 Osborne, Michael A. 17, 65 Jones, Robert W. 18—19, 45 Owen, Caroline 103 Jordan, Bill 206 Owen, Richard 28, 33, 45, 65, 85, 103, Jumbo (elephant) 56—57, 9 4 172-174,184-185,187-189,193,195, 204, 209, 210 Kirby, Rev. William 60—61, 63, 67 Kisling, Vernon, Jr. 17, 42, 43 Papps, Mr. 77 Kumar, Deepak 72 Pasha, Abbas 127 Pearl, Captain 75 Lansdowne, Marquis of 29, 71, 93 Peel, Sir Robert 61, 62, 63 Latour, Bruno 73, 91 Pennant, Thomas 152, 153 Lever, Christopher 65 Perrault, Claude 22 Levine, Lawrence 118 Prince Regent 30, 31 Lichtenstein, Martin 27 Ptolemy I 21 Lightman, Bernard 39, 141, 161 Pumfrey, Stephen 38 Linnaeus, Carl von 176—177 Locke, John 112, 164 Raffles, Lady Sophia 58—59, 87 Loisel, Gustave 42, 44 Raffles, Rev. Thomas 59, 62 Loudon, Cornelius 72, 85, 152 Raffles, Sir Thomas Stamford 16, 19, 24, Louis IX 24 28-29, 46-47, 57-59, 61-64, 66-67, Louis XIV 22 69-71, 74, 87-94, 196 Louis XV 23 Ray, John 62, 177 Louis XVI 23 Ritvo, Harriet 18—19, 45 Lubetkin, Berthold 208 Rogers, Alan 141 Lyard, Edgar 35 Romanes, George 107 Ross, James Clark 163 Macaulay, Thomas Babington 105 Rousseau, Jean-Jaques 112 MacLeay, William Sharpe 60, 67, 174, 177-178,187 Ruskin, John 122 Martin, William 190, 195 2$2 KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE AT REGENTS PARK

Sabine, Joseph 71, 85—87, 171 Varrò, Marcus Terentius 21 Saint-Hilaire, Etienne Geoffroy 174, 185, Victoria, Queen 27, 41, 56, 93, 113, 128 188 Vigors, Nicholas Alyward 26, 29, 47, 60, Saint-Hilaire, Isidore Geoffroy 126 67, 71, 81, 88, 150, 177, 178, 189 Scherren, Henry 46, 150 Schmidt, Max 192 Wallich, Nathaniel 58 Sclater, Philip Lutley 57, 151, 155, 195 Weston, Charles Iii—112, 132, 140, Secord, Anne 38 162—164 Secord, James A. 65, 90 Weston, Emma Iii—112, 132, 140, Shapin, Steven 38 162—164 Sheets-Pyenson, Susan 38—39, 4 8 Weston, Mr. in—112, 162—165 Somerset, Duke of 29, 71, 93 Wheeler, William Morton 156 Spooner, Charles 76, 184, 192 Whitley, Richard 38 Stanley, Lord 66—67, 71 William IV 27, 29, 93 Stearn, William 60 Wood, Rev. J.G. 109 Summerson, John 30 Wordsworth, William 146, 147 Swainson, William 34, 89, 179, 182 Yarrell, William 81, 125, 188, 195 Tommy (chimpanzee) 181—182, 184 Youatt, William 192 Toovey, J.W. 46 Zuckerman, Lord Solly 43—45, 4 6, 209 Trollope, Anthony 146 Turner, H.N. 190 Idéhistoriska skrifter 253

Institutionen för historiska studier Umeå universitet Idéhistoriska skrifter

1. Liv och text. Sex föreläsningar från ett symposium (1985).

2. Sverker Sörlin, Drömmen att förstå hur allting hänger ihopy egentligen (1985). 3. Swedish Science in Context: Women, Theologians and Engineers and Their Role in the Scientific Debate, 1870-1920. Three papers presented at the XVILth International Congress of History of Science, Berkeley, California, 198$ (1986). 4. Roger Qvarsell, Kulturmiljö och idéspridning. En studie av idédebatt, bokspridning och sällskapsliv i Härnösand kring 1800-talets mitt (1986). 5. Hem och bostad. Bostadsideologier i ett historiskt perspektiv. Fem föreläsningar från ett symposium (1986). 6. Karin Nordberg, Märkpojkarna tar makten. Människor och idéer i 20- och 30-talets Holmsund (1987). 7. Diderot-föreläsningar av Jan Myrdal och Lars Furuland (1987). 8. Bilden av det andra. Texter från ett tvärvetenskapligt symposium (1986). 9. Diderot-föreläsning av Magnus Nyman 1988 (1990). 10. Diderot-föreläsningar av Carl-Göran Ekerwald och Ronny Ambjörnsson 1989 (1990). 11. Karin Nordberg, Askungen i Holmsund—sagan om Selma, Gerda och Lilly. Tre kvinnliga politiska profiler (1990). 12. Radion i kulturbygget. Texter från ett radiosymposium 28-29 september 1989 (1990). 13. Diderot-föreläsningar av Karin Johannisson och Stajfan Laestadius 1990 (1990). 14. Bosse Sundin (red.), Från hermetism till rationell distribution. Föredrag vid svensk idéhistorisk konferens (1993). 15. Roger Qvarsell, Skall jag taga vara på min broderi Tolv artiklar om vårdens, omsor­ gens och det sociala arbetets idéhistoria (1993). 16. Mohammad Fazlhashemi, Rättvisa och politisk stabilitet: En studie i al-Ghazâlîs politiska tankegångar (licentiatavhandling, 1993). 17. Gunnar Eriksson, Roger Qvarsell & Bo Sundin, Från renässans till upplysning: Idéhistorisk översikt (1976, 31e upplagan 1993). 18. Marianne Swedmark, Hulda Flood. Socialdemokratisk agitator och kvinnopionjär (licentiatavhandling, 1993). 19. Lena Berggren, Från bondeaktivism till rasmystik: Om Elof Erikssons antisemitiska skriftställarskap 1923-1941 (licentiatavhandling, 1997). 20. Kerstin Thörn, En bostad för hemmet: idéhistoriska studier i bostadsfrågan 1889- 1929 (doktorsavhandling, 1997). 21. Bengt Lundberg och Per Råberg, Kunskapsarv och museum. Rapport från museidagarna 1995 och 1996 i Umeå. Ingår också som nr 2 i serien Papers in Muse- ology, Institutionen för museologi (1997). 22. Richard Pettersson & Sverker Sörlin (red.), Miljön och det förflutna: Landskap, minnen, värden (1998). 23. Bosse Sundin (red.), Idéhistoria i norr: Rapport från en konferens 1996 med idéhis­ toriker från Uleåborgoch Umeå (1998). 254 Idéhistoriska skrifter

24a. Åsa Bergenheim, .. kan ej för otukt fällas ... " — Om vetenskapens och det svenska rättsväsendets förhållningssätt till incest och sexuella övergrepp mot barn under perioden 1850-1910 (1998). 24b. Brian Dolan (red.), Science Unbound: Geography, Space & Discipline (1998). 26. Erland Mårald, I mötet mellan jordbruk och kemi: Agrikulturkemins framväxt på Lantbruksakademiens experimentalfält 1850-1907 (bearbetad licentiatavhandling, 1998). 27. Björn Olsson, Att torgföra vetenskap: Det vetenskapliga föredragets och populär­ föreläsningens teori, praktik och kultur; Ingår också som nr 24 i skriftserien Svensk sakprosa, Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lunds universitet (1998). 28. Ronny Ambjörnsson, Pär Eliasson & Björn Olsson (red.), Upplysningen i periferin, (Diderot-föreläsningar, 1998). 29. Pär Eliasson, Platsens blick: Vetenskapsakademien och den naturalhistoriska resan 1790-1840 (doktorsavhandling, 1999). 30. Olof Lönneborg, Mwalimu och ujamaa: Julius Karambage Nyerere och nations­ bildningen i Tanzania (doktorsavhandling, 1999). 31. Christer Nordlund, Natur i norr: Historiska studier i gränser; vetenskap och miljö. Ingår också som nr 17 i skriftserien Kulturens frontlinjer, Institutionen för litte­ raturvetenskap och nordiska språk, Umeå universitet (1999). 32. Ronny Ambjörnsson, Stefan Gelfgren, Gunilla Jonsson, En globaliserad värld: Tio uppsatser om globala processer (1999). 33. Erland Mårald, jordens kretslopp: Lantbruket, staden och den kemiska vetenskapen 1840-1910 (doktorsavhandling, 2000). 34. Anna Larsson, Det moderna samhällets vetenskap: Om etableringen av sociologi i Sverige 1930-1955 (doktorsavhandling, 2001). 35. Stephen Fruitman, Creating a New Heart: Marcus Ehrenpreis on Jewry and Judaism (doktorsavhandling, 2001). 36. Sofia Åkerberg, Knowledge and Pleasure at Regent's Park: The Gardens of the Zoo­ logical Society of London during the Nineteenth Century (doktorsavhandling, 2001).

KNOWLEDGE AND PLEASURE at Regent's Park

The subject of this study is the Zoological Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, founded in 1826, in the nineteenth century. Located in Regent's Park, it was the express purpose of the Gardens, opened in 1828, to function as a testing-ground for acclimatisation and to demonstrate the scientific importance of various animal species.

The aim is to analyse what the Gardens signified as a recreational, educational and scientific institution in London by considering them from four different perspectives: as a part of a newly-founded scientific society, as a part of the leisure culture of mid-Victorian London, as a mediator of popular zoology and as a constituent of the Zoological Society's scientific ambitions.

Sofia Åkerberg is a historian of science at the Department of Historical Studies, Umeå University. This is her dissertation.

^ 1