| + + − | Ind. 62: 969. Ap. 25, ’07. 660w. (Review of v. 1.) |
“The work, as now completed, ranks second only to Reusch as a history of prohibitive book legislation, and is easily the best authority on the subject in the English language.”
| + + | Ind. 63: 401. Ag. 15, ’07. 220w. (Review of v. 2.) |
“Fairness and justice, and that essential historical perspective which is attained by transporting oneself into the epoch described are the prevailing traits of the work.”
| + + | Lit. D. 34: 342. Mr. 2, ’07. 440w. (Review of v. 1.) |
“In dealing with this large and difficult subject, Dr. Putnam appears to have fallen between two stools. Although the book shows evidence of considerable labor and contains much matter not to be found elsewhere in convenient form, it is frankly selective, and therefore not of essential value for scholars. On the philosophical side, again, Dr. Putnam has but little to offer. The book is somewhat loose in style and inaccurate in minor details.”
| + − | Nation. 84: 478. My. 23, ’07. 550w. (Review of v. 1 and 2.) |
“The temper in which the work is done and the purposes manifested by the writer are open to the appreciation of all. It would be ungracious to close this slight notice of Mr. Putnam’s work without an expression of appreciation for the unusual lucidity of his style.” Edward Cary.
| + + | N. Y. Times. 12: 1. Ja. 5, ’07. 1280w. (Review of v. 1.) | |
| N. Y. Times. 12: 372. Je. 8, ’07. 500w. (Review of v. 2.) |
“It is prepared by a scholar for scholars. It takes rank with such works as Henry Charles Lea’s volumes on ‘The Inquisition of the middle ages,’ ‘The inquisition of Spain’ and ‘Sacradotal celibacy.’ We predict that it will be an authority on this subject for American and English readers.”