to take a stand against Bertini, and I also only do that because I would otherwise appear in false light. The point is namely this, that often in recent years – and, in particular, also recently in the New York Mathematical Society, where I was asked about the resolution of multiple points with distinct branches – I have lectured about this, naturally without any mention of Bertini. If now immediately afterward I publish Bertini’s note in the Annalen it creates the impression that I had intentionally neglected to mention Bertini’s name. I thus believe it is necessary that I add a comment to Bertini’s note, which I include for provisional passage to Dyck. That way I will create no problems for you.
>
> On the other hand it would appear to me correct if you would perhaps include in your report the passage from my letter …with the comment that we both only later became aware of this communication, and that I naturally do not want to make any priority claim based on a sketch as opposed to a thorough investigation of the object in question. But I leave that entirely up to you, and if you decide not 