The Scott Archive: Sealed Envelopes and…. Bickering Botanists! (Part 2)

The first attempt to gently prise the flap open involved placing the envelope on a piece of Bondina and slightly dampened blotter which was then covered with polythene and left for an hour. By introducing humidity, it was hoped that the glue on the envelope flap might soften. Frequent checks were made to ensure that the ink remained stable, but unfortunately the glue held fast.

The next attempt involved a mist of cool damp air being fed through a fine nozzle, directed at the sealed edge of the envelope flap. This is a method often employed to release gums and sticky tape from documents and it is a gentler and safer process than using steam. Part of the envelope flap eventually lifted, but it became evident that the envelope had likely been opened previously and then resealed using a few dabs of another adhesive, which was more resistant to humidity. Use of a solvent was considered, but without knowing what adhesive was used, this might have involved the application of a number of chemicals (e.g. acetone, ethanol and petroleum spirits).

In the end, a mechanical approach was taken and the resistant areas were carefully teased apart with a fine spatula whilst applying the fine mist.

But what of its contents? On opening the envelope we found two sheets of paper, folded in half, with text on all sides, as well as illustrations on the last page.

The letter is addressed to ‘Dear Sir’, which must be D. Oliver and (as the envelope indicated) is indeed written by W.C. Williamson, his signature appearing at the end.

Before we delve in to the crux of the letter, it is useful to gain some context by learning more about this fascinating man.

William Crawford Williamson (1816-1895) was an English Naturalist and Palaeobotanist. Originally from Scarborough, Williamson was interested in a range of subjects from an early age. He published his first paper at just 16 years old on the rare birds of Yorkshire and a few years later he presented a memoir to the Geological Society of London on the Mesozoic fossils of Yorkshire. Following in his father’s footsteps (John Williamson was the first curator of the Rotunda Museum in Scarborough), he acted as curator of the natural history collections at Manchester Museum for three years, whilst completing his medical degree at University College London in 1841.

After ten successful years in practice, he was appointed Professor of Natural History at the newly founded Owen’s College in 1851 where he taught zoology, geology and botany, and he made significant contributions in all three of these fields during his scientific career. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1854 and was awarded the Royal Medal in 1874. Following his retirement in 1892, he moved to Clapham Common in South London, where he died in 1895.

And so (finally) we come to the letter!

Writing from his home, Fallowfield, in Manchester, on the 25^th October 1871, Williamson comes straight to the point of his message. Embroiled in a botanical dispute, he is reaching out to Daniel Oliver (whom he knows only from reputation) asking for his support:

‘Though we have never met, I cannot address you as a stranger, but rather as an old acquaintance. You may probably have noticed the controversy in which I have been engaged in the Columns of Nature, especially with Prof. Dyer of Dublin.’

The dispute seems to stem from a difference in opinion over the evolution of vascular tissue (xylem and phloem) in land plants, particularly sporing bearing plants such as lycopods, ferns, conifers and allied groups.[1]

After outlining his stance, Williamson, clearly keen to resolve the matter, invites Oliver to visit so he can show him his work in person:

‘I have a hundred times longed to have you & Hooker here for a week to ransack the treasures of my cabinet illustrating these matters, in order to compare notes & discuss results.’

He goes on to explain that he has already clashed with his friend Carruthers over the matter, which is likely William Carruthers, who had named a fossil plant (Williamsonia gigas) after him in 1870.

I am still to discover what Oliver’s response was to this letter (if any), but it is interesting to see the effect of this public squabble on Williamson and his obvious concern about his reputation.

As to my other questions about the sealed letter, further research on the men mentioned on the envelope have helped offer some tentative answers, including why Scott might have had the letter in his possession.

For instance, there was a direct connection between Scott and Williamson. It transpires that Williamson was so impressed with a paper that Scott presented at the British Association Meeting in Newcastle in 1889 that he invited the young botanist to collaborate with him. In Scott’s obituary (The New Phytologist) F.W. Oliver writes that:

‘Williamson died in 1895 and Scott always referred to this contact as being one of the most important of his life.’

Given this close bond it is unsurprising that Scott was invited to write about his former mentor in a number of publications including Makers of British Botany: a collection of biographies by living botanists. This volume (and this I think is key) was edited by his friend, F.W. Oliver.

However, he was writing about him in 1911-1913 and this letter was not given to him until 1918!

My best guess is that the letter came to F.W. Oliver when his father died in 1916, and he then passed it on to his friend, Scott, as a memento of his friendship with Williamson.

As to the question of why the envelope was sealed, I can only assume it was placed in a new envelope by Scott when he received it (the original addressed to Oliver being lost). However, when and why it was sealed not just once but twice (as Janet discovered during the conservation work) remains a mystery.

I am hopeful there may be more on this topic amongst the hundreds of other letters in the Scott archive still to be looked at.

The bulk of Williamson’s archive, including his correspondence, are at Manchester University so I will contact them to see if they have a response from D. Oliver!