The other criticism concerns the idealistic interpretation which I have given to some of Vico's doctrines. It is contended that Vico was a Catholic, and that fact is supposed to prove that he could not have entertained the ideas which I find in his works. But that Vico professed himself an entirely orthodox Catholic, and that he clung to Catholicism with all the strength and zeal of his mind I have myself said again and again: I have even defended him against the accusations or praises dealt out to him by other critics for deceit or prudence in his attitude to the Church. But is it really so amazing, so unheard-of a thing, to find heterodox ideas in an orthodox writer? Are they not found in the Early Fathers and the Schoolmen, in mediaeval and modern theologians and mystics? To take an example of the many that occur, an example for a double reason above suspicion: Nicholas of Cusa was a Catholic and in fact a Cardinal of Holy Church, and in his lifetime the intimate friend of three popes. And yet the Catholic historian of Scholasticism, De Wulf, wrote of him "Le Cardinal catholique est-il donc panthéiste?... Il s'en défend vivement dans son _Apologia doctae ignorantiae,_ mais on peut dire de lui comme d'Eckehart: 'il fait fléchir la logique au profit de son orthodoxie et retient de force les conséquences de ses prémisses'" (_Hist. de la philos. médiévale,_ p. 389). If this happened to the Cardinal of Cusa or the Franciscan Master Eckehart, could it not happen to the Catholic Vico? M. de Wulf the Catholic historian is allowed to use this admirable method of criticism and to distinguish intention and action, will and logic. Why should it be denied to me? But enough. [Footnote 1: A lecture delivered before the _Accademia pontaniana_ on March 10, 1912, and here reprinted from the _Atti_ of that society, vol. xlii.] [Footnote 2: _Von den göttlichen Dingen und ihrer Offenbarung_ (1811), W.W. iii. 351-354.] [Footnote 3: _Vorlesungen über religiose Philosophie,_ W.W. i. 195, and _Vorles. über spekul. Dogmatik, ib._ ix. 106 (passages quoted by K. Werner, G. B. Vico, p. 324).] [Footnote 4: _La Filosofia fondamentale,_ translated from the Spanish, Naples, 1851, bk. i. ch. 30-31.] [Footnote 5: _Storia critica delle prove metafisiche di una realità sovrasensibile (Atti dell' Accademia di Torino,_ i. 1866), pp. 640-41.] [Footnote 6: _Geschichte der neueren Philosophie_ (1878), 5th edition, i. 23.] [Footnote 7: _G. B. Vico als Philosoph und gelehrter Forscher_ (Wien, 1881). It is well known that Werner has written upon St. Thomas, Duns Scotus, late Scholasticism, Suarez, Augustinianism, nominalism, etc.] [Footnote 8: Th. Neal (A. Cecconi), _Vico e l'immanenza,_ in the Roman _Cultura contemporanea,_ iii. (1911) parts 7-8, pp. 1-24.] [Footnote 9: Cf. _Summa Theol._ i. q. v. a. I: q. xxi. a. 1-2.] [Footnote 10: _Prima risposta al Giornale dei letterati (Opere,_ ed. Ferrari, ii. 117).] [Footnote 11: Balmes, _loc. cit._]