of an algebraic curve [@B-N 371]. The footnote begins by downplaying the critical passage, “which at the time remained [*completely*]{} ignored by \[Noether\] and which was just recently brought to his and the author’s attention by accident” (“welche damals von \[Noether\] [*gänzlich*]{} unbeachtet geblieben war, und auf welche seine, wie des Schreibers Aufmerksamkeit erst jetzt wieder zufällig gelenkt wurde”). Noether might have left the matter there, but he decided to add some commentary to be sure that nothing in Klein’s letter left the reader wondering.

> Clebsch’s observation only concerns a special form of his general investigations on the transformation of an $h$-fold point with distinct tangents into $h$ simply separated points …; the significance of Klein’s observation, which was given only as a mere sketch without further elaboration, cannot be judged. In any case it was not exploited for the resolution of truly [*singular*]{} points. It could thus not serve as the basis for a priority claim.[^21]

Whether or not Coolidge ever read these remarks, he certainly did not share Noether’s dismissive attitude with regard to “Clebsch’s Theorem,” based on the argument in [@Bertini1894]. This is apparent not only from his lengthy exposition of it, but also from some 