On May 17, 1814, Jefferson wrote to John Fanning Watson of Philadelphia, in answer to a letter of his concerning his subscribing to the
Edinburgh Review and
Quarterly Review:
“
I have long been a subscriber to the edition of the Edinburgh review first published by m(
~
r)
Sargeant, and latterly by Eastburn Kirk and co. and already possess from N
o 30. to 42. inclusive; except that N
os. 31. & 37 never came to hand. these two and N
o. 29. I should be glad to recieve with all subsequently published thro the channel of mess
rs. Fitzwhylson & Potter of Richmond with whom I originally subscribed, and to whom it is more convenient to make paiment by
a standing order on my correspondent at Richmond. I willingly also subscribe for the republication of the first 28. N
os. to be furnished me thro the same channel for the convenience of paiment. this work is certainly unrivalled in merit, and
if continued by the same talents, information and principles which distinguish it in every department of science which it
reviews, it will become a real Encyclopaedia, justly taking it’s station in our libraries with the most valuable depositories
of human knolege. of the Quarterly Review I have not seen many numbers. as the Antagonist of the other it appeared to me a
pigmy against a giant . . .
”
Watson answered from Philadelphia on June 2: “I acknowledge myself much obliged by your polite attention to the letter, I had the honour to send you respectg the Edinburgh
& Quarterly Rev
ws. The Edinburgh, has indeed a decided preferance, even among those who are its political opponents. This is sufficiently manifested,
by my Sub
on List. Lawyers & Federalists are the principal Sub
ers. As a profound mataphisical work it is certainly unequalled. I could however, point to several very able articles in the
Quarterly Review.
"In consequence of your letter I have sent on to N York & have now rec
d for you the 29, 31 & 37
th N
os which you needed to complete your sets. These, with the early Vol
s (to wit: the 1, 2 & 3
d) you may expect to be delivered in packages to
your address, to your Agents Mess Fitzwhylson & Potter at Richmond in 2 weekly services--The Subsequent Vol
s to 14 inclusive will be sent on to you in intervals of 2 M
os until the whole is complete. It occurs to me however to suggest, whether it might not be more acceptable to you to receive
the future Vol
s by mail? It would much facilitate their receipt with you. I perceive for instance, that you have not yet rec
d the 43
d N
o altho’ the 44
th is now in press & will be out in 8 or 10 days--I speak however exclusively in relation to the early Vol
s, as I should not wish to supply
future N
os, for this would be an interferance with Mess Fitzwhylson & P--You could however (I should suppose) receive them from N York
by having them charged there to their Account--
"As respects the early Vol
s & deficient N
os which you request of me, a remittance per mail once in a year will be satisfactory to me. Any fraction of a dollar which
may occur, will be freely given in, by me--for instance: 11D
s only is enough for the present bill . . .”
Watson’s bill for 11.25 included the
“1, 2 and 3d vols of the Edinbg Reviews and Sub
ent continuation, sent forward this day in a package to his address, to care of Mess Fitzwhylson & P.--sent via Saml Pleasants--7.50.
sent on May 23, and on June 2, for the 29, 31 & 37 N
os of the Edinburgh Reviews, sent this day in the above manner 3.75”
.
This letter was answered by Jefferson on August 17: “
Your favor of June 2. has been recieved, as also N
os. 29. 31. & 37. and vols. 1. 2. 3. of the Edinburgh review. the 4
th. and subsequent volumes had better come on by mail, singly as they are published. I have directed a remittance to be made
by my correspondents in Richmond, Gibson & Jefferson, to m
(
~
r)
Dufief bookseller in Philadelphia, out of which I have desired him to pay you
D11.25 for which be so good as to call on him within a few days after you recieve this . . .
”
Jefferson continued to subscribe to the
Edinburgh Review for more than a year after the sale of his library to Congress. He closed his subscription through John F. Watson on October
4, 1816.
His admiration of the typography of the New York edition caused him to desire his account of the proceedings in the Batture
case to be printed by the same printer and
