The Origins of a Free Press in Prerevolutionary ... - Web Publishing
The Origins of a Free Press in Prerevolutionary ... - Web Publishing
The Origins of a Free Press in Prerevolutionary ... - Web Publishing
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
210<br />
R<strong>in</strong>d, with only m<strong>in</strong>or discrepancies <strong>of</strong> capitalization and abbreviation, to William<br />
W. Hen<strong>in</strong>g just the year before Thomas’ book was first published. 36 It is also<br />
known that Hen<strong>in</strong>g wrote to Thomas about another matter with<strong>in</strong> a year <strong>of</strong><br />
Jefferson’s letter. 37 In a copy <strong>of</strong> the first edition <strong>of</strong> History <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g that Thomas<br />
notated by hand for a revised second edition, he wrote <strong>in</strong> the addition, “to the<br />
author,” <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g the former president’s letter was to him, and that is how it ended<br />
up <strong>in</strong> the subsequent edition <strong>of</strong> the book. 38 It seems probable that either Thomas<br />
stretched the truth to make the po<strong>in</strong>t that a former president <strong>of</strong> the United States<br />
corresponded with him, or that time and old age had distorted his memory. (He<br />
was at least sixty-one years old and possibly as old as eighty-three, but it is not<br />
known exactly how old he was when he made that notation.) What is remarkable is<br />
that this claim, reasonably easy to double-check, has been passed on by other<br />
historians for more than one hundred years. 39<br />
Furthermore, the suggestion that Jefferson was a key player <strong>in</strong> the<br />
recruitment <strong>of</strong> the new pr<strong>in</strong>ter does not stand up. As Godfrey noted, Jefferson was<br />
36 Thomas Jefferson to William W. Hen<strong>in</strong>g, July 25, 1809, <strong>The</strong> Thomas Jefferson Papers,<br />
Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827, Library <strong>of</strong> Congress, Manuscript Division, also<br />
published <strong>in</strong> <strong>The</strong> Papers <strong>of</strong> Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series, ed. J. Jefferson Looney (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton:<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton University <strong>Press</strong>, 2004) 1:369-370. Godfrey also po<strong>in</strong>ted to this letter as the source,<br />
“Pr<strong>in</strong>ters <strong>of</strong> Virg<strong>in</strong>ia Gazettes,” 249.<br />
37 Thomas G. Knoles, Curator <strong>of</strong> Manuscripts, American Antiquarian Society, emails to<br />
author, Dec. 29, 2005, says that Thomas left a handwritten note <strong>in</strong> an annotated copy <strong>of</strong> his first<br />
edition stat<strong>in</strong>g that Hen<strong>in</strong>g had written to him on July 21, 1810 about a fact regard<strong>in</strong>g earlier<br />
Virg<strong>in</strong>ia pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
38 Thomas, History <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> America, annotated 1 st ed., Isaiah Thomas Papers, American<br />
Antiquarian Society, Box 12. Thomas was not able to publish the second edition <strong>of</strong> his History <strong>of</strong><br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g before his death. A committee served as editors, follow<strong>in</strong>g Thomas’ notes for changes,<br />
and it is they who ultimately <strong>in</strong>cluded the footnote cit<strong>in</strong>g a letter from Jefferson to Thomas as the<br />
source, but that decision was based on Thomas’s notes.<br />
39 Godfrey, “Pr<strong>in</strong>ters <strong>of</strong> Virg<strong>in</strong>ia Gazettes,” 249-250, also noted that the popular quotation<br />
could not be found <strong>in</strong> correspondence to Thomas, but rather <strong>in</strong> a letter to Hen<strong>in</strong>g. She apparently<br />
did not explore how this discrepancy got <strong>in</strong>to Thomas’ book.