A very nasty putdown is Bertrand's review of Walras's book. 
 
It is, of course, possible to quote several sentences in this review. E.g. 
the sentence in which Bertrand suggests that Cournot's book should not have 
been published. Another good one is the remark that this 'new mathematical 
economics' is poor mathematics. 
 
The putdown is in the structure of the review. Bertrand's review sets out 
as an evaluation of Walras's book. At the start B mentions that Walras 
refers to Cournot. Next he reviews Cournot's book, published decades ago. 
Bertrand leaves no doubt: that book is trash. Finally he returns to Walras. 
His tone becomes less sharp. But for any reader the message is perfectly 
clear: this new mathematical economics is beneath all standards. 
 
It is incredible that Bertrand with this review made his way in the history 
of economic thought. The model that we call nowadays the Bertrand model was 
formalised by Edgeworth. Only two, rather vague sentences in his review can 
legitimate a claim to his fame. 
 
A first game-theoretic model with Bertrand behaviour was published in the 
early fifties of the last century by Nash and others. Bertrand's review is 
mentioned in this article, but I have the strong feeling that none of these 
authors read Bertrand's review. They were echoing Edgeworth and put it in a 
new framework. 
 
My question is: who coined the name "Bertrand model" for a model with a 
price competing oligopolist? 
 
When talking about justice in the history of ideas: the one who coined that 
name has done wrong. Bertrand merely tried to put down Walras. 
 
Henk Plasmeijer