l x x x I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V O L U M E 1 6 30 October 1928. Brouwer went on to denounce Hilbert’s action as a purely personal vendetta with no legitimate justification (Doc. 303). Blumenthal, as managing editor, responded in a lengthy report that he sent to Springer and all members of the board (Abs. 751). This elicited a strong rebuke from Bieberbach and virtually no sympathy from other board members. Even Einstein continued to distance himself from Hilbert’s action (Doc. 319). Brouwer assumed for some time that Carathéodory would enlighten the board about their lengthy conversation (Abs. 804, 850), thereby refuting some of the charges Blumenthal had leveled in his report. After waiting several months for Carathéodory’s clarification, he finally decided on 30 April 1929 to send his own lengthy point-by-point refutation (Abs. 1127, reproduced in Rowe and Felsch 2019, pp. 347–351) of Blumenthal’s report (Abs. 751) from 16 November 1928 to the members of the (former) editorial board. However, this final rebuttal had no effect on the proceedings indeed, it ar- rived some four months after the dissolution of the original board to which Brouwer belonged. In December 1928, Brouwer and Bieberbach made an unannounced visit to Springer’s office in Berlin, during which they threatened legal action against the publisher. Springer took notes from this encounter and duly informed Richard Courant, Hilbert’s closest adviser in Göttingen. In view of his precarious health, Hilbert had granted Courant and Harald Bohr legal authority to conduct all neces- sary negotiations for him in this matter. Courant likewise kept his colleagues, Max Born and James Franck, informed about the deadlock that had now arisen. Born then wrote Einstein a lengthy letter explaining Hilbert’s motives and enclosed a copy of Springer’s notes on his conversation with Brouwer and Bieberbach (Doc. 317). Einstein expressed his gratitude for this enlightenment, which reaf- firmed his respect for Springer’s business acumen (Doc. 323). Indeed, once the publisher’s lawyers clarified that the associate editors had no legal contractual sta- tus, Springer could focus on reaching an agreement with the principal editors. Courant and Bohr then proposed that Springer simply dissolve the original contract from 1920 and give Hilbert carte blanche to constitute a new editorial board. Ev- erything now depended on gaining Einstein’s support for this plan. Einstein continued to distance himself from the conflict precipitated by Hilbert’s decision to dismiss Brouwer from the board (Doc. 282). His dismay as an innocent bystander here takes on a scornful tone as he parodies the behavior of these wolf- like mathematicians. He had assured Born that he would remain completely neutral in this conflict, but these new circumstances forced him to act. Franck urged his friend not to overlook what was at stake politically, writing, “it would surely be a pretty bad joke if you were to be reclaimed by the nationalist side” (Abs. 786). Five days later, on 18 December, Einstein wrote to Courant giving his assent to the new