who deny Mary's immaculate conception. The Catholic writers who insist upon such disputes are rare, and those who deny are found only in little democratic journals of the inferior sort or of degraded taste. [Sidenote: _Subjectivity and objectivity in history: their meaning._] To drive _subjectivity_ out of history, in order to obtain _objectivity,_ cannot therefore mean to drive away thought to obtain intuition, or worse still, to obtain brute matter, which is altogether inexpressible; but to drive away false thought, or passion that usurps the place of truth, and to mount to true thought, rigorous and complete. If we attain to intuition, instead of saving ourselves from passion we shall burn in its flames. For intuition says nothing but what we as individuals experience, suffer, and desire. It is just intuition which, when unduly introduced into history, becomes subjectivity _sensu deteriori;_ whereas thought is _true subjectivity,_ that of the universal, which is at the same time _true objectivity._ [Sidenote: _Historical judgments of value, and normal or neutral values. Critique._] We have thus also solved the question (so much discussed in our day) as to the _criterion of value_ in history, and whether judgments of values, as well as judgments of fact belong to the province of the historian. It is solved, because true judgments of fact, individual judgments, are precisely judgments of value, or determinations of the proper quality, and therefore of the meaning and value of the fact. We admit no other criterion of value than the concept itself. For this reason, we must also reject the distinction of the _history_ of fact and the _criticism_ (or valuation) of it. Every history is also criticism, and every criticism is also history; to say that a thing is the fact which we call the _Divine Comedy_ is to say what its value is, and so to criticize it. To think _normal_ or _neutral_ values, as to which (according to the most modern historical theories) men of different points of view should agree, seems at the most a mere _symbol_ of that agreement which men are constantly seeking and realizing in the subjectivity objectivity of thought. This will never be a _fact_ completely agreed upon, because it is a perpetual _fieri._ It cannot be expected of the future, because it will belong to the future, as it belongs and has belonged to the present and to the past. [Sidenote: _Various legitimate meanings of the protests against historical subjectivity._]