Was Silvanus Phillips Thompson primarily a physicist, electrical engineer, biographer, or teacher? His obituarists could not agree. I argue Thompson was in fact a polymathic generalist who, as a philanthropic Quaker, worked not to promote his own expertise but rather to ensure the public was swiftly informed of the most important techno-scientific research and applications of his contemporaries. I illustrate this in a comparison of Thompson and his longer-lived friend Oliver Lodge: working in closely-related areas, they had contrasting profiles and (...) commitments. After inspecting Thompson's work as textbook author and bibliophile, I resolve his apparently paradoxical status as both radical critic and figurehead of multiple institutions. Finally, to flesh out his friends' representation of him as a “many-sided crystal,” I analyse Thompson's multi-facetted posthumous reputation, especially in reviews of the Life and Letters written by his widow Jane and daughter Helen exactly 100 years ago. (shrink)

Silvanus Phillips Thompson, FRS began his career in the 1870s when there were still few academic posts for scientists, and when it was still uncertain whether the newer professional ideals would overtake the older, more gentlemanly, ones – in terms of both career advancement and of what being a ‘good’ scientist entailed. Thompson's many scientific, technical and literary activities are discussed in this paper, as is his Quakerism, perhaps the chief motivating force in his life. The paper raises the question (...) of how success in science is measured, and shows how Thompson's sabbatarian impulse influenced both his scientific practice and his pedagogical approach. In detailing the ways in which Thompson made a successful career, despite his lack of professional research focus, the paper relates to larger contexts of science, class, religion and education in late nineteenth-century Britain. (shrink)

S. P. Thompson developed a detailed theory of history in order to understand and explain changes in both science and religion over the centuries. This theory tried to take science and religion seriously as categories based on genuine aspects of human experience, and to understand trends that both brought them together and separated them. For him, the most important element of the practice of history was not “truth,” but rather “sincerity.” This required active reflection on the historian's own outlook and (...) own place in history as a conscious actor. (shrink)