3 ms·

The source that Wikipedia uses for the anonymous writer being Whewell is https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00033796200202722 https://www.tandfonline.c

The source that Wikipedia uses for the anonymous writer being Whewell is https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00033796200202722 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0003379620020272... , which says: >From Todhunter's biography [9] we learn that the reviewer was William Whewell, F.R.S. [9] in turn is: >9 I. Todhunter, "William Whewell, an account of his writings, with selections from his literary and scientific correspondence", London, 1876, vol. i., p. 92. The editor of the Quarterly Review, J. G. Loekhart, had prescribed 'a lightish paper' for the review of Mrs Somerville's book, and he commended Whewell for his 'spirited' contribution. This book is https://archive.org/details/williamwhewelld01whewgoog https://archive.org/details/williamwhewelld01whewgoog but archive.org's search doesn't find any mention of "scientist" in it, and it's 900 pages long so I have no idea if it's in there. "artist", and "philosopher" and "Coleridge" have 35 search results between them, but none of them appear to be relevant.

ska 6y ago
I'm confused as to what you are responding to. The reference we are talking about is above, and it is Whewell's review of Somerville's book (i.e. it is a scan of the text of the 1834 quarterly review you mention). So that attribution isn't in question. It does contain "scientist" (the text is searchable directly) but refers to someone else as having coined the term. Unless I've misread something?
- Arnavion 6y ago
  Err, my bad. I initially quoted a lot more and then trimmed it down, but deleted the wrong part. Let me try again: >From Todhunter's biography [9] we learn that the reviewer was William Whewell, F.R.S. Whewell wrote: > >[...] > >/Philosophers/ was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term, and was very properly forbidden them by Mr. Coleridge, both in his capacity of philologer and metaphysician; /sarans/ was rather assuming, besides being French instead of English; some ingenious gentleman [Whewell himself] proposed that, by analogy with /artist/, they might form /scientist/ [...] The "[Whewell himself]" is an interjection by Sydney Ross. As I said that entire section is cited to the Todhunter biography, so I assumed Ross had found something in the the biography that would verify that Whewell was referring to himself, but I couldn't find it myself.
  - ska 6y ago
    Ah, gotcha. Above I wondered if it might be a self reference also but couldn't see from the text. Either way I think the rest stands.

ska 6y ago

I'm confused as to what you are responding to. The reference we are talking about is above, and it is Whewell's review of Somerville's book (i.e. it is a scan of the text of the 1834 quarterly review you mention). So that attribution isn't in question. It does contain "scientist" (the text is searchable directly) but refers to someone else as having coined the term. Unless I've misread something?

Arnavion 6y ago
Err, my bad. I initially quoted a lot more and then trimmed it down, but deleted the wrong part. Let me try again: >From Todhunter's biography [9] we learn that the reviewer was William Whewell, F.R.S. Whewell wrote: > >[...] > >/Philosophers/ was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term, and was very properly forbidden them by Mr. Coleridge, both in his capacity of philologer and metaphysician; /sarans/ was rather assuming, besides being French instead of English; some ingenious gentleman [Whewell himself] proposed that, by analogy with /artist/, they might form /scientist/ [...] The "[Whewell himself]" is an interjection by Sydney Ross. As I said that entire section is cited to the Todhunter biography, so I assumed Ross had found something in the the biography that would verify that Whewell was referring to himself, but I couldn't find it myself.
- ska 6y ago
  Ah, gotcha. Above I wondered if it might be a self reference also but couldn't see from the text. Either way I think the rest stands.