No historian worthy of the name has as yet undertaken to treat the Inquisition from this objective standpoint. In the seventeenth century, a scholarly priest, Jacques Marsollier, canon of the Uzès, published at Cologne (Paris), in 1693, a _Histoire de l'Inquisition et de son Origine_. But his work, as a critic has pointed out, is "not so much a history of the Inquisition, as a thesis written with a strong Gallican bias, which details with evident delight the cruelties of the Holy Office." The illustrations are taken from Philip Limborch's _Historia Inquisitionis_.[1] [1] Paul Fredericq, _Historiographie de l'Inquisition_, p. xiv. Introduction to the French translation of Lea's book on the Inquisition. Henry Charles Lea, already known by his other works on religious history, published in New York, in 1888, three large volumes entitled _A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages._ This work has received as a rule a most flattering reception at the hands of the European press, and has been translated into French.[1] One can say without exaggeration that it is "the most extensive, the most profound, and the most thorough history of the Inquisition that we possess."[2] [1] _Histoire de l'Inquisition au moyen âge_, Solomon Reinach. Paris, Fischbacher, 1900-1903. [2] Paul Fredericq, loc. cit., p. xxiv. It is far, however, from being the last word of historical criticism. And I am not speaking here of the changes in detail that may result from the discovery of new documents. We have plenty of material at hand to enable us to form an accurate notion of the institution itself. Lea's judgment, despite evident signs of intellectual honesty, is not to be trusted. Honest he may be, but impartial never. His pen too often gives way to his prejudices and his hatred of the Catholic Church. His critical judgment is sometimes gravely at fault.[1] [1] The reader may gather our estimate of this work from the various criticisms we will pass upon it in the course of this study. Tanon, the president of the Court of Cassation, has proved far more impartial in his _Histoire des Tribunaux de l'Inquisition en France._[1] This is evidently the work of a scholar, who possesses a very wide and accurate grasp of ecclesiastical legislation. He is deeply versed in the secrets of both the canon and the civil law. However, we must remember that his scope is limited. He has of set purpose omitted everything that happened outside of France. Besides he is more concerned with the legal than with the theological aspect of the Inquisition. [1] Paris, 1893.