¹ Grattan-Guinness, I., Convolutions in French Mathematics, 1800–1840, 3 vols., Basel, 1990, i, 77–118, on 107.Google Scholar

² Jenkins, Hester and Jones, D. Cardog, ‘Social class of Cambridge University alumni of the 18th and 19th centuries’, British Journal of Sociology (1960), 1, 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Becher, Harvey W., ‘The social origins and post-graduate careers of a Cambridge intellectual elite, 1830–1860’, Victorian Studies (1984), 28, 97–127Google Scholar. Wranglers were the highest class of honours graduates.

³ Becher, Harvey W., ‘William Whewell and Cambridge mathematics’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1980), 11, 1–48, on 42–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim, and ‘Voluntary science in nineteenth century Cambridge University to the 1850's’, BJHS (1986), 19, 57–87Google Scholar, especially 61–4, 67–74, 85–6; Harman, P. M. (ed.), Wranglers and Physicists. Studies on Cambridge Physics in the Nineteenth Century, Manchester, 1985Google Scholar; Wilson, David B., Kelvin and Stokes. A Comparative Study, Bristol, 1987, 17–40Google Scholar, passim.

⁴ Dubbey, J. M., The Mathematical Work of Charles Babbage, Cambridge, 1978, 10–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3)Google Scholar; Schweber, S. S. (ed.), Aspects of the Life and Thought of Sir John Frederick Herschel, New York, 1981, 54–67Google Scholar; Enros, Philip, ‘Cambridge University and the adoption of analytics in early nineteenth-century England’, in Social History of Nineteenth Century Mathematics (ed. Bos, H., Mehrtens, H. and Schneider, I.), Boston, 1981, 135–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Analytical Society (1812–1813): precursor of the renewal of Cambridge mathematics’, Historia Mathematica (1983), 10, 24–47Google Scholar; Wilkes, M. V., ‘Herschel, Peacock, Babbage and the development of the Cambridge curriculum’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1990), 44, 205–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Babbage, Charles, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher, reprint edn, New York, 1969, 29Google Scholar; Rothblatt, Sheldon, ‘The student sub-culture and the examination system in early 19th century Oxbridge’, in The University in Society. Volume 1. Oxford and Cambridge from the 14th to the Early 19th Century (ed. Stone, Lawrence), Princeton, 1974, 247–303, on 267Google Scholar; Hyman, Anthony, Charles Babbage. Pioneer of the Computer, Princeton, 1982, 23–4Google Scholar; Schweber, , op. cit. (4), 62.Google Scholar

⁶ Fisch, Menachem, William Whewell. Philosopher of Science, Oxford, 1991, 27.Google Scholar

⁷ John, and Venn, J. A., Alumni Cantabrigienses Cambridge, 1922–1954Google Scholar; DNB. Hereafter, unless otherwise specified, biographical data are taken from Venn and/or the DNB. If no pertinent biographical data are provided for an individual, I know of none.

⁸ Winstanley, D. A., Unreformed Cambridge, reprint edn, New York, 1977, 278Google Scholar, and Early Victorian Cambridge, reprint edn, New York, 1977, 18–25.Google Scholar

⁹ Babbage, , op. cit. (5), 28–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Herschel wrote of Babbage, 's Acts on 20 02 1813Google Scholar (Herschel Letters, St John's College Library, Cambridge, no. 2, Herschel, to Whittaker, John, 20 02 1813)Google Scholar. In order to take a degree at Cambridge, Babbage had to swear to the Thirty-Nine Articles. However, in reaction to the theistic advocacies of the authors of the eight Bridgewater Treatises, Babbage published an unauthorized The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. A fragment, London, 1837Google Scholar, in which he put forth a deistic position.

¹¹ Ball, W. W. Rouse, A History of the Study of Mathematics at Cambridge, Cambridge, 1889, 164–91, on 185.Google Scholar

¹² Cambridge University Library (CUL), Add. MS 8194/1, [Greenwood], T. G. to [Whittaker], J. W., 14 04 1813.Google Scholar

¹³ Herschel Papers, Humanities Research Center, University of Texas – Austin, L0046, Herschel, to Babbage, , 26 01 1814.Google Scholar

¹⁴ [Wright, J. M. F.]. Alma Mater or, Seven Years at the University of Cambridge, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1827, ii, 60–1, 66, 96–7.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 3Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 22 [n.d.] 1813.Google Scholar

¹⁶ CUL, Add. MS 8194/2, Greenwood, to Whittaker, , 22 04 1813.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 3Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 22 [n.d.] 1813.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 4Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 2 07 1813.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), nos. 5 and 6Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 2 and 6 08 1812.Google Scholar

²⁰ As quoted in Schweber, , op. cit. (4), 41–2Google Scholar, Herschel, William to Herschel, John, 10 11 1813.Google Scholar

²¹ Anonymous, ‘Mr. Woodhouse on the rectification of the hyperbola’, Gentleman's Magazine (1815), 85, 18–22, on 18–19Google Scholar; Airy, Wilfrid (ed.), Autobiography of Sir George Biddell Airy, Cambridge, 1896, 23.Google Scholar

²² De Morgan, Augustus, The Encyclopedia of Eccentrics, reprint edn, Lassale, Illinois, 1974, 190 n 6.Google Scholar

²³ Babbage Correspondence, British Museum, London, vol. 1, Add. MS 37182, fols. 52–3Google Scholar, Bromhead, to Babbage, , [4 03 1816]Google Scholar. For Stewart, see Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald and Burrow, John, That Noble Art of Politics, Cambridge, 1983, 32–3, 39, 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the intellectual debt of Babbage (and Peacock) to Stewart, see Pycior, Helena M., ‘Internalism, externalism, and beyond: 19th-century British algebra’, Historia Mathematica (1984), 11, 424–41, on 435–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the influence of Condorcet on the Analytical Society, see Schweber, , op. cit. (4), 17–20.Google Scholar

²⁴ Millman, Peter M., ‘The Herschel dynasty – part II’, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (1980), 74, 203–15, on 204.Google Scholar

²⁵ Schweber, , op. cit. (4), 17.Google Scholar

²⁶ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 4Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 2 07 1813.Google Scholar

²⁷ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 9Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 7 07 [1815].Google Scholar

²⁸ Bane, Alicia (ed.), Autobiographic Recollections of George Pryme, Cambridge, 1870, 117.Google Scholar

²⁹ Whewell Papers, Trinity College Library (TCL), Cambridge, Add. MS a.214⁷⁷, Whittaker, to Whewell, William, 22 06 1814Google Scholar, and CUL Add. MS 8194/1, Greenwood, to Whittaker, , 14 04 1813.Google Scholar

³⁰ Babbage, Charles, Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and Some of its Causes, London, 1830, 26Google Scholar; and A Word to the Wise. Observations on a Peerage for Life, London, 1856, 4, 7, 15Google Scholar. Babbage wrote and printed the latter in 1833 in reaction to the Lords' hindrance of the Reform Bill of 1832, but did not publish it until 1856.

³¹ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 7–13Google Scholar. It must be stressed that this represented Herschel's view as a young man. From about 1823 his views on mathematics changed, but that is beyond the scope of this paper.

³² Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fol. 26Google Scholar, Slegg, to Babbage, , 4 02 1814Google Scholar. It remains to be determined what took place in 1814. For the purposes of this paper, the perception of what took place is more important than the reality.

³³ Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.247, Peacock, to Herschel, , 3 12 1816Google Scholar. White was the grandson of a publican, the son of the Senior Wrangler of 1765 cum Rector, fourth wrangler in 1808, and, in 1816, Fellow and Dean at Caius.

³⁴ Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), nos. 1 and 11Google Scholar, Herschel, to Fallows, , 8 12 1816Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 25 01 1817.Google Scholar

³⁵ Herschei Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.248, Peacock, to Herschei, , [4 03 1817]Google Scholar; and Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 81–3Google Scholar, Peacock, to Babbage, , 13 01 1817.Google Scholar

³⁶ Tanner, J. R. (ed.) The Historical Register of the University of Cambridge, being a Supplement to the Calendar with a Record of University Offices, Honours and Distinctions to the Year 1910, Cambridge, 1917, 478.Google Scholar

³⁷ Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fol. 26.Google Scholar

³⁸ CUL, Add. MS 8194/42, Whewell, William to Whittaker, , 9 06 [1816?]Google Scholar; Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 11Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 25 01 1817Google Scholar; Peacock, to Herschel, , op. cit. (33).Google Scholar

³⁹ Grattan-Guinness, I., ‘Charles Babbage as an algorithmic thinker’, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (1992), 14, 34–48, on 35–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.248, HS. 13.254, HS. 13.255, Peacock, to Herschel, , 4 03 1817Google Scholar, 15 November 1817, 3 December 1817.

⁴¹ The Times, 31 03, 14 04Google Scholar, and 30 May, 1817; Cambridge University Archives, Laws and Transactions of the Union Society, Revised and Corrected to March, 1834. To Which is Annexed a List of Members From Its Formation in 1815 and a List of the Periodical and Other Works Taken in by the Society, Cambridge, 1834Google Scholar (Cam.d.500.49); Rothblatt, , op. cit. (5), 267.Google Scholar

⁴² For the electors to the Chairs, see Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.259, HS. 18.168, Peacock, to Herschel, , 1 04 1818Google Scholar, Whewell, to Herschel, , 13 10 1826.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ashmolean History of Science Museum, Oxford University, MS Buxton 13, 26, ‘A History of the Origin and Progress of the Calculus of Functions’.

⁴⁴ Lacroix, S. F., Elementary Treatise on the Differential and Integral Calculus, translated and annotated by Babbage, Charles, Peacock, George and Herschel, John, Cambridge, 1816Google Scholar; Herschel, Letters, op. cit. (10), no. 14Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , 2 02 1822Google Scholar; Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 13–14Google Scholar, Bromhead, to Babbage, , [1813?]Google Scholar; Woodhouse, R., The Principles of Analytical Calculation, Cambridge, 1803Google Scholar. For an analysis of Woodhouse, see Becher, Harvey W., ‘Woodhouse, Babbage, Peacock, and modern algebra’, Historia Mathematica (1980), 7, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.249, Peacock, to Herschel, , 3 12 1816Google Scholar; Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 81–3Google Scholar, Peacock, to Babbage, , 13 01 1817Google Scholar. Many of the tutors must have been among the purchasers of the translation, which probably aroused the conservatives to be on guard against revolutionary ‘French’ mathematics on the Tripos of 1817. The latter took place in January, that is, within a month of the translation's publication.

⁴⁶ Peacock, Daniel, A Comparative View of the Principles of the Fluxional and Differential Calculus, Cambridge, 1819, 2, 9, 40–8, 68–76, 86.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Peacock, D., op. cit. (46), 1–3, 7, 54–7, 72–3, 82–6Google Scholar; Lacroix, , op. cit. (44), 581–621.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fol. 180Google Scholar, Peacock, to Babbage, , 23 11 1819Google Scholar; Whewell Papers, TCL, Add. MS a.201¹⁰², Bromhead, to Whewell, William, 29 04 1833.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Richards, Joan L., ‘The art and science of British algebra: a study in the perception of mathematical truth’, Historia Mathematica (1980), 7, 342–65, on 346–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pycior, Helena, ‘George Peacock and the British origins of symbolical algebra’, Historia Mathematica (1981), 8, 23–45, on 37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fisch, Menachem, ‘The emergency which has arrived: the problematic history of nineteenth-century British algebra – a programmatic outline’, BJHS (1994), 27, 247–76, on 259–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Whewell Papers, TCL, Add. MS a.206⁸⁵, Higman, to Whewell, , 30 08 1837Google Scholar; Higman, John, Higman's Syllabus of Differential and Integral Calculus, part I, Cambridge 1825, part II, Cambridge, 1828Google Scholar; Jephson, Thomas, The Fluxional Calculus. An Elementary Treatise Designed for the Students in the Universities, and for Those Who Desire to be Acquainted with the Principles of Analysis, 2 vols., London, 1826, 1830Google Scholar, quotation in i, p. iii. Although Fisch, (op. cit. (6), 43–4, 134–5Google Scholar, passim) contends that Whewell embraced the Lagrangian formulation of the calculus only to abandon it after publishing mechanics textbooks in 1819 and 1823, in all of his publications, including the textbooks of 1819 and 1823, Whewell employed limits (Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 17, 27–30).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 21.Google Scholar

⁵² Questions for the 1820 Trinity College examinations asked the students to ‘Explain by short examples the method of exhaustions, of indivisibles, and of prime and ultimate ratios’ and to ‘Define the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. differentials of a function according to Newton's method of limits, and also according to Lagrange: show that the methods coincide, and exemplify in the case of sin. x. ‘For the 1821 and 1822 Trinity examinations, students were asked to explain prime and ultimate ratios, to define a limit, to find the limits of quantities, to ‘show what circumstances are necessary to the existence of a limit’, and to ‘prove’ the expansion of a function in a Taylor Series with the coefficients of the expansion defined as differentials. In 1824, St John's students were to define ‘limit’ and ‘limiting ratio’ and on the basis of this definition ‘to show that the limiting ratio of the chord, arc, and tangents to each other is a ratio of equality, when the arc itself vanishes’. In 1825 they were to ‘state the analytical method of finding ultimate ratios of evanescent quantities’, and in 1827 they were to ‘Define an differential, and from your definition investigate…’. In 1828, Trinity students had to ‘Explain the different methods of obtaining the ultimate value of a fraction, the numerator and denominator of which both become equal to nothing. Apply one or the other of them to the following examples…’. In 1830, they had to ‘Define the Differential Coefficient, (1) according to the method of limits; (2) according to La Grange's method. Show that both methods lead to the same result.’ The next question was: ‘Investigate, on the principles of one or the other of the above definitions, the differential coefficients of the following quantities…’. In the same year, Queens' College students were asked to ‘Point out the differences between Newton's doctrine of Prime and Ultimate Ratios and Lagrange's Calculus of Functions, and determine the differential coefficient of sin x according to the system of each’ (Wright, J. M. F., A Collection of Cambridge Mathematical Papers; as Given at the Several Colleges. Part I. Containing Papers in the Branches of Pure Mathematics, Cambridge, 1830, 165, 168, 171, 184, 187, 197, 214Google Scholar, and A Collection of Cambridge Mathematical Examination Papers; as Given at the Several Colleges. Part II. Containing Papers of the Mixed Mathematics, Cambridge, 1831, 139, 143, 149, 165–6).Google Scholar

⁵³ Babbage, Charles, Examples of the Solutions of Functional EquationsGoogle Scholar; Herschel, John, A Collection of Examples of the Applications of the Calculus of Finite DifferencesGoogle Scholar; Peacock, George, Collection of Examples of the Applications of the Differential and Integral Calculus, 3 vols. in 1, Cambridge, 1820.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Lacroix, , op. cit. (44), ‘Advertisement’, p. ivGoogle Scholar; Babbage, , op. cit. (5), 40Google Scholar; Peacock, D., op. cit. (46), 68–70, 85–6Google Scholar; Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.255, Peacock, to Herschel, , 3 12 1817.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.249, HS. 13.264, HS. 13.265, HS. 13.271, Peacock, to Herschel, , 17 03 1817Google Scholar, 8 August 1819, 5 December 1819, 16 November 1820; Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 289–90Google Scholar, Peacock, G. to Babbage, , 7 11 1820Google Scholar; Peacock, G., op. cit. (53), ‘Preface’.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 289–90Google Scholar, Peacock, to Babbage, , 7 11 1820Google Scholar; Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.271, Peacock, to Herschel, , 16 11 1820.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Babbage, et al. , op. cit. (53).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Lacroix, S. F., Essais sur l'enseignement, Paris, 1838 [1805], 176–7Google Scholar; Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 11–12Google Scholar; Herschel, John, ‘[Review of] The Principles of Fluxions: Designed for the Use of Students in the Universities. By William Dealtry’Google Scholar Herschel, Papers, op. cit. (13)Google Scholar, W0211; Peacock, D., op. cit. (46), 68–70, 85–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Lancaster Public Library, MSS 6695, 6696, 6702, 6709, Satterthwaite, Thomas to Whittaker, , 15 11 1809Google Scholar, 12 October 1812, 24 July 1814, 7 January [?] 1816.

⁶⁰ Bond, Elizabeth, ‘Two men from Lancaster, Charles Darwin and a garden fence’, Lancashire Life, 11, 1975, 73Google Scholar; Whewell Papers, TCL, Add. MS c.191³, Whewell, to his father, 6 03 1812.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Whewell, William, ‘Boadicea’, reprinted in Cambridge Prize Poems, new edition, London, 1847Google Scholar; see also Laws, op. cit. (41).Google Scholar

⁶² Fisch, , op. cit. (6), 36–56Google Scholar, passim; Becher, Harvey W., ‘Essay review: the Whewell story’, Annals of Science (1992), 49, 377–84.Google Scholar

⁶³ Becher, , op. cit. (62), 383.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Todhunter, I. (ed.), William Whewell, reprint edn, 2 vols. New York and London, 1970, ii, 10–12Google Scholar, Whewell, to Moreland, George, 15 12 1815Google Scholar; Whewell Papers, TCL, 0.15.24²⁸, Whewell, to Moreland, , 3 01 1815.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Todhunter, , op. cit. (64), ii, 15–17Google Scholar, Whewell, to Herschel, , 6 03 1817Google Scholar; Peacock, to Herschel, , op. cit. (33)Google Scholar; Whewell, to Whittaker, , op. cit. (38).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Becher, Harvey W., ‘William Whewell and Cambridge Mathematics’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Missouri, 1971, 55–122, 209–340.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ When acting as judge for awarding a Royal Society medal in 1835, Whewell did not try to read a mathematical paper by William Rowan Hamilton on optics. Rather, he made his decision on the grounds that ‘the result is both true in theory and is verified by experiment’. For the mathematics he deferred to Robert Murphy, son of a shoemaker, third wrangler of 1828 and the best analyst and applied mathematician of the time at Cambridge (Whewell Papers, TCL, 0.15.47²²², and 0.15.47²²⁴, Whewell, to Lubbock, John William, 30 10 and 13 11, 1835)Google Scholar. When Bromhead discovered George Green, of potential function fame, he sent a manuscript of Green's to Whewell in 1832 for consideration for publication in the Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Whewell was Secretary of the Society). Green's paper was an abstract analytical treatment on fluid mechanics wherein forces between the particles of the fluid acted as l/d ⁿ. When n = 2, the mathematics described the fluid of electricity. Whewell passed the paper on to Murphy for evaluation; and the paper was published. When Bromhead asked Whewell if he would consider another paper by Green, Whewell demurred because to him Green's first manuscript was pure mathematics, that is, a work wherein the ‘analytical beauty and skill are the only obvious merits’. Whewell found ‘more pleasure’ in the application of mathematics to problems ‘that really require to be solved for… advancing physical science’. These were problems ‘from the great patch of mathematico-physical investigations’, that is, mixed mathematics (Phillips, David, ‘George Green: his academic career’, in George Green (ed. Bowly, R. M. et al. ), Nottingham, 1976, 68–76)Google Scholar. Likewise, Whewell could penetrate neither Hamilton's quaternions nor Augustus De Morgan's logic (Whewell Papers, TCL, 0.15.47²², Whewell, to Morgan, De, 29 10 1857).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 46–9Google Scholar, Bromhead, to Babbage, , [9 02 1816].Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Babbage Correspondence, op. cit. (23), fols. 13–14Google Scholar Bromhead, to Babbage, , [1813?]Google Scholar. Schweber, , op. cit. (4), 62–3Google Scholar, provided this quotation but omitted the exponent ∞, which changes the perspective considerably.

⁷⁰ Enros, , ‘Analytical Society’, op. cit. (4)Google Scholar; Panteki, Maria, ‘Relationships Between Algebra, Differential Equations and Logic in England: 1800–1860’, Ph.D. thesis, CNAA, London, 1992, ch. 2.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Peacock, D., op. cit. (46), 85.Google Scholar

⁷² Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.258, Peacock, to Herschel, , 7 03 1818Google Scholar. The Vice Chancellor here was not Wood, but very likely Wood was among the Johnians whom Peacock stigmatized without naming.

⁷³ Dubbey, , op. cit. (4), 41–2Google Scholar; Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 13.263, Peacock, to Herschel, , 3 01 1819Google Scholar. Dubbey cited Peacock, 's letter as one written ‘to an unknown friend quoted in his obituary notice of the Proceedings of the Royal Society in 1859’Google Scholar. Peacock's letter was to Herschel (ibid. HS. 13.249, 17 March 1817).

⁷⁴ Whewell Papers, TCL, R.2.99¹³, Whewell, to Rose, H. J., 17 03 1819Google Scholar. Among the conservatives, but not among the radicals, ‘low subjects’, that is the traditional intuitive, geometric mixed mathematics, and useful mathematics were synonymous.

⁷⁵ Corsi, Pietro, Science and Religion. Baden Powell and the Anglican Debate, 1800–1860, Cambridge, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see especially 28–30, 124–7; Whewell Papers, TCL, R.299²⁶, R.2.99²⁷, Whewell, to Rose, , 18 11 1826Google Scholar, 19 December 1826.

⁷⁶ Fisch, , op. cit. (49), 267–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Whewell Papers, TCL, R.2.99², 0.15.47³⁷², R.2.99³, 0.15.47³⁷³, 0.15.47³⁷⁴, R.2.99⁷, 0.15.47³⁷⁵, 0.25.47³⁸¹, Whewell, to Rose, , 11 04 1817Google Scholar, 15 April 1817, 19 April 1817, 21 May 1817, 26 June 1817, 31 July 1817, 30 August 1817, 1 November 1818; Herschel Papers, Royal Society of London, HS. 18.158, Whewell, to Herschel, , 6 03 1817Google Scholar. Fisch, , op. cit. (49), 268Google Scholar, states that Whewell ‘decided to turn down’ Rose's offer. However, it was Rose who torpedoed the plan by failing to keep up his side of the bargain.

⁷⁸ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 15–16.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Whewell Papers, TCL, Add. MS a.207⁵, Herschel, to Whewell, , 1 12 1819.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Fisch, , op. cit. (6), 182 n47Google Scholar, quotes this letter and claims that Herschel misunderstood Whewell's intent. Fisch gives the date of the letter as 19–20 August 1818, which is unlikely since the book was not published until 1819.

⁸¹ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 23ff.Google Scholar

⁸² Schweber, , op. cit. (4), 45–6Google Scholar, Herschel, to Whittaker, , n.d. 08 1812.Google Scholar

⁸³ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 23ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Whewell Papers, TCL, 0.15.46⁴², Add. MS a.215⁶⁸, Add. MS a.64⁵⁷, Whewell, to Peacock, , 12 03 1843Google Scholar, Whewell, to Hare, J. C., 31 03 [1843]Google Scholar, Peacock, to Whewell, , 23 04 [1843]Google Scholar; Peacock, George, Observations on the Statutes of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1841, 152–7Google Scholar; Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 35–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Stokes Collection, Cambridge University Library, 7656 P114, Peacock, to Stokes, George Gabriel, 6 04 1850Google Scholar; Herschel Papers, op. cit. (13), M0419, Peacock, to Herschel, , 5 12 1850.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 34–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Becher, , ‘Whewell’, op. cit. (3), 41.Google Scholar