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