Hey all,

Just joined the forum. Hoping to get some help here. I recently found a 1851 copy of Simmonite's The Prognostic Astronomer, or Horary Astrology. I was wondering if anyone could share with me its significance in astrology. I am a big book collector. Any help is very much appreciated.

Thanks!

Hello Mtomich,

What you have is the first edition of one of several different mid-19th century astrological works written by the astrologer William Joseph Simmonite. It was one of his later works, following 'The Celestial Philosopher' (1847) and 'The Astro-philosopher and Meteorologist' (1848; this was a compilation of articles from several years of his journal 'The Meteorologist' which itself ran in the 1840s), but predating 'Prognostications on Revolutions' (1854).

I personally have an 1852 printing by Routledge of the title you are asking about. Although its edition is not numbered, I am presuming it the second since it was published a year after the first.

Your first edition should be published by Simpkin, Marshall and Company. Could you please check this?

There appear to have been three further editions after the Routledge edition of 1852, all of them so scarce, in common with the 1852 edition, as to be found in no library records worldwide, whereas the 1851 first edition is found at Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; The John Rylands University Library, Manchester, England; the British Library, London; Oxford University; and the National Library of Scotland.

The sixth edition was posthumously published by a John Story in 1896, but renamed 'Horary Astrology, the Key to Scientific Prediction'. It is much more common than all earlier editions, having been published in large quantities at a time of a strong resurgence in the popularity of astrological literature, and used copies tend to be plentiful and cheaply available.

Thus, the third, fourth and fifth editions must have been published some time between the 1852 second edition and the 1896 first John Story edition. Yet there is no record of them on OCLC or COPAC, just as there is no record of the second edition of which I have a copy myself, satisfying me of its existence!

I presume therefore that the second, third, fourth and fifth editions were produced in absolutely tiny print runs just to satisfy occasional fresh demand for the 1851 original over the following years or possibly decades.

You'll probably be pleased to know that all editions before the 1896 John Story reprint, and especially those printed in Simmonite's lifetime, are collectible among astrologers at least, though they might not be of much interest to broader occult collectors because Simmonite confined his writings relatively narrowly to pure astrology, at least by comparison with many of his 19th century contemporaries. Personally I think that he was a competent astrologer for his time, though I haven't studied his work in enough detail yet to assess just how competent.

My 1852 printing of the work you have just acquired cost me ?38.50 on Abebooks last summer. The binding is in poor condition but it is internally complete. I suspect that a first edition from 1851 if in good condition must be worth ?50 ($95) at least at retail value, and maybe up to ?75 ($140) if you were patient enough. At auction on ebay, you could reasonably expect to make around half that price at least, but would not be advised to start any lower than half in case likely bidders are not watching that week, since sometimes books can significantly undersell their value on ebay just by bad luck.

If you were interested in selling your copy, then I might be among those interested in it myself since I would prefer the first edition to the second. Then again, as a collector yourself, you probably don't want to sell it any time soon!

With regard to the significance of the work in astrology as a whole, well, I am no expert on horary astrology so someone better qualified to answer ought to ideally, but I tend to believe that it was a significant transitional work in the descending lineage of ideas on horary, bridging the gap between the 17th century works of Lilly (especially as revived though somewhat reduced by the first Zadkiel in the 1830s) and his contemporaries, and the mid-20th century works on horary that would in their turn probably draw quite heavily on the later John Story editions of Simmonite's work. I can't be more precise than this without cross-checking the contents of all the volumes concerned.

But when I think of the 19th century literature on astrology as a whole, only about five works on horary in the entire century come to mind: Zadkiel's abridgement of Lilly's 'Christian Astrology' as 'An Introduction to Astrology' from 1835 and reprinted many times thereafter; Rupertus Stella's very rare 'The Astrologian's Guide in Horary Astrology' from 1832; Simmonite's work from 1851; and then much later, Casael's 'Your Future Foretold' from 1875 and the later Raphael's 'Raphael's Horary Astrology' from 1883.

Perhaps if it had not been for the John Story reprints starting in the 1890s, Simmonite's work on horary would have become almost as obscure as those of Rupertus Stella and Casael, both of which are rather scarce, though I have been personally fortunate to find copies within the last few years. But the fact that Simmonite had a substantial body of published work on astrology apart from 'The Prognostic Astronomer' may have been one of the decisive factors that led to an entrepreneur like John Story deciding that Simmonite had left a literary legacy on the subject well worthy of milking for profit, as mercenary as that sounds. (Story also reprinted Simmonite's works 'The Celestial Philosopher' and 'Prognostications on Revolutions', changing both of their names too! His reprint of 'The Celestial Philosopher' became 'The Complete Arcana of Astral Philosophy' and under this title or occasionally 'The Arcana of Astrology' became a best-seller throughout much of the early to mid 20th century. His reprint of 'Prognostications on Revolutions' became 'The Daily Guide', not to be confused with Sepharial's later work of the same title, and unlike Story's other two Simmonite reprints, appears to have been relatively unsuccessful, since both the Story edition and the original are very scarce to this day!) In contrast, Rupertus Stella and Casael achieved a grand total of only one book each, and neither has ever been reprinted.

I hope you will get some other replies too!

Wow, thank you for the reply. I think that is by far the best response I have ever received on any forum, of any nature! I am still absorbing much of your comments and definitely printing it out as reference.

Funny enough, the book was not printed by Simpkin, Marshall and Company. See below:

LEEDS:

Printed and Published
By Israel Holdsworth, Central Market.
1851

Any thoughts on this?

This could possibly suggest that the Routledge edition of 1852 that I have was in fact the third edition and not as I had presumed the second. It is worth pointing out at this stage that there appears to have been little or no distinction drawn between editions and printings among many publishers in the 19th century, and the fact of three different publishers printing the book in the space of two years would probably have been sufficient for the book to have been regarded (by John Story, among others, at a later date) as having passed through three editions in these first two yeras alone even if there was no difference in the contents.

I checked the OCLC reference to the publisher of the first edition being Simpkin and Marshall by following up the search results for the copy at Northwestern University. This copy is clearly catalogued as being published by Simpkin and Marshall, London.

However, I notice that several of the copies listed in COPAC in the UK, though not specifying any publisher by name, refer to Leeds as the place of printing, though in some cases linking this to London too.

It might be that Israel Holdsworth was granted publication rights over the book in the north of England and Simpkin Marshall further south. Or it might be that really they were just acting as a printer and distributor in the north but that they preferred to call themselves the publisher because this conferred higher status. I don't know much about how publication businesses worked in those days so this is really pure speculation on my part, however. I would suspect in any case that the London edition came first, even if only by a matter of weeks or months. Perhaps there was an established business connection between Simpkin Marshall and Israel Holdsworth and this was a common arrangement between them. Still, in view of the fact that Routledge also published the same book a year later in 1852, there are some mysteries yet to be resolved here. Perhaps Simpkin Marshall agreed to a non-exclusive contract on the book. It seems unlikely that they completely lost interest in it after selling out a first printing in the very first year, and that subsequently Israel Holdsworth also lost interest in it after a first printing that same year, resulting in the continuing demand for more copies having to be met by Routledge in 1852.

Without knowing more about how publishers worked in those days, I'll have to leave this mystery open. Again, I hope that there might be an historian in our midst who can comment with more assurance on this matter! Ideally it would be necessary to look into books on the history of publishing in 19th century England for clearer answers.

You're most welcome with regard to my reply. Obviously I'm very interested in historical astrological literature, so it is a pet topic of mine anyhow!

Philip

My turn?

What Philip said and -

Funny enough, the book was not printed by Simpkin, Marshall and Company. <snip> Any thoughts on this?

Simpkin Marshall & Co were known for buying out copies of books from provincial publishers and were primarily wholesalers and distributors. They were one of the main suppliers for WH Smith. Therefore, a book under their name is often NOT a first edition.

Holdsworth was a bookshop owner in Leeds who occasionally branched out to publish back copies of ephemerides and the like. He?s mentioned in the appendix of Broughton?s Elements of Astrology as a member of the astrological society that had William Broughton, Simmonite and Haywood as members.

In other words, I think you can be confident that the copy you have is a first edition. And it may well be worth more than Philip indicates (to the right buyer) given that the original print run is likely to have been in very small numbers.

I'm not sure why Routledge would have then taken it on.

Btw, I remember that Rupertus Stella is a psueudonym but can't remember (or maybe I never knew) who it's a pseudonym for. Can anyone enlighten me?

Kim

Dear Kim,

Thank you for these insights, which are very good to know!

I note however the following:

1) The entry on OCLC for Rupertus Stella's 'The Astrologian's Guide in Horary Astrology' indicates:

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26715753?tab=editions#tabs

'Publisher: London : Simpkin and Marshall ; Leeds : G. Crawshaw, printer'

This would suggest, if accurate, that Simpkin and Marshall were in the habit of publishing from London in tandem, if not actual co-operation, with a different Leeds publisher on astrological literature some 19 years before the printing of the first edition of Simmonite's 'The Prognostic Astronomer' in 1851. Though I suppose it is possible that by sheer coincidence a different Leeds publisher also initiated the publication of Rupertus Stella's work and also outsourced it to Simpkin and Marshall for national distribution, it strikes me as relatively unlikely. If we knew who Rupertus Stella was we could perhaps more easily determine whether he was more likely to have himself approached a publisher in Leeds before one in London. Since Simmonite was a schoolteacher in Sheffield, he himself would have had an obvious connection with the Yorkshire area, but:

2) Simmonite had already had several other books officially published by Simpkin and Marshall before 'The Prognostic Astronomer': to wit,

(a) Simmonite's Juvenile Grammar of the English Language (1843):
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/128282229& ... ef_results

[Although admittedly the above was probably derived from his 'The Practical and Self-Teaching Grammar of the English Language', first published 1841 by Whittaker:
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/128196946& ... ef_results]

(b) The Celestial Philosopher (1848):
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/29667070&r ... ef_results

(c) Mathematical and Astronomical Tables (1847):
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57182733&r ... ef_results

(d) The Astro-Philosopher and Meteorologist (1848):
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38603565&r ... ef_results

(e) Medical Botany (first edition estd. 1850):
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26682028&r ... ef_results

(f) Astronomical Ephemeris for 1846 (presumed 1845):
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57182743&r ... ef_results

There are no references in OCLC to any alternative publishers for any of the above.

What reason, then, would Simmonite have had for commencing publication of his 1851 work uniquely in Leeds, when he had an ongoing relationship with Simpkin and Marshall spanning several years? This is not to say that he necessarily did not, but it occurs to me in view of his past works mostly being first officially published by Simpkin and Marshall and 'The Prognostic Astronomer' also being published by them in 1851 that it is more than likely that he arranged publication of 'The Prognostic Astronomer' with Simpkin and Marshall at the outset.

This would leave a few logical possibilities as far as I can at present conceive:
(1) that Simpkin and Marshall themselves had no interest in distributing the book in the north of England, or at least in the Yorkshire area, requiring Simmonite to have it separately published there;
(2) that Simpkin and Marshall pro-actively delegated publication and distribution in Leeds and probably much of the North of England to Holdsworth's bookshop, perhaps in return for a commission, just as in 1832 Rupertus Stella's 'Astrologian's Guide' had been published in Leeds by another publisher but by Simpkin and Marshall in London;
(3) that by 1852, Simmonite was on personal good terms with Holdsworth's and its priorietors to the extent that even though he could have got a national contract with Simpkin and Marshall exclusively as for his previous works, he decided instead to offer a regional deal to Holdsworth's, either before or simultaneously with his deal with Simpkin and Marshall;
(4) that Simmonite, despite his past publications through Simpkin and Marshall, on this occasion turned his back on them and arranged nationwide publication exclusively through Holdsworth's bookshop, but then Simpkin and Marshall took a distribution interest in the work over Simmonite's head or brought him round to their involvement belatedly.

Which of these is most likely I do not pretend to know, but in view of Simmonite's rich past history of publication through Simpkin and Marshall as well as the circumstances of Simpkin and Marshall's joint publication of Rupertus Stella's 1832 work with another Leeds-based publisher, I remain as yet unpersuaded that the Holdsworth's edition came first.

COPAC indicates with regard to the several 1851-printed copies of 'The Prognostic Astronomer' the following distribution of places of publication:

National Library of Scotland copy: London;
Oxford copy: London;
British Library copy: London but 'Leeds-printed'
Manchester copy: London but 'Leeds-printed'

A closer look at the Manchester record suggests the presence of no fewer than three copies of this particular work held there.

What puzzles me is why both the British Library and Manchester claim London as the place of publication but Leeds as the place of printing, in view of the fact that the copy discussed in this strand is claimed to be both printed and published in Leeds. Perhaps the copy at the British Library is the same as the copy under discussion here, but whoever assembled the record on it had other reasons to believe that the actual place of publication was London and that Holdsworth's merely printed it in the North of England? The alternative possibility, that the copy under discussion here is not the same as any of the others in being uniquely free from references to London, would indeed suggest that it was peculiarly uncommon.

I would love for one of us to be able to solve this mystery definitively!

Philip

PS: I did know that Rupertus Stella was a pseudonym too and I think I have read for whom before now, but I can't for the life of me find the answer anywhere on the Internet at the moment! Sorry!

Mtomich will wish (s)he never asked!

Here?s a first, I?m going to disagree with you. I believe it IS a first edition.

1) The entry on OCLC for Rupertus Stella's 'The Astrologian's Guide in Horary Astrology' indicates:

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26715753?tab=editions#tabs

'Publisher: London : Simpkin and Marshall ; Leeds : G. Crawshaw, printer'

This would suggest, if accurate, that Simpkin and Marshall were in the habit of publishing from London in tandem, if not actual co-operation, with a different Leeds publisher on astrological literature some 19 years before the printing of the first edition of Simmonite's 'The Prognostic Astronomer' in 1851;

The BL copy is Simpkin and Marshall alone. As far as I understand S&M didn?t so much cooperate with provincial publishers as buy them out. They were big buyers of remaindered books and had a long reputation of taking over books previously under a local imprint. And to be picky?Crawshaw is cited as the printer, S&M acted as distributors and wholesalers and sneaked in as publisher. That?s different to operating in tandem.

2) Simmonite had already had several other books officially published by Simpkin and Marshall before 'The Prognostic Astronomer': to wit,

There are no references in OCLC to any alternative publishers for any of the above.

That doesn?t mean that there weren?t originally :-)

What reason, then, would Simmonite have had for commencing publication of his 1851 work uniquely in Leeds, when he had an ongoing relationship with Simpkin and Marshall spanning several years?

Having a relationship with S&M could be like having a relationship with WH Smith ? in fact, it often was. S&M picked up on stuff that was already known to be a seller. I don?t see a contradiction.

This would leave a few logical possibilities as far as I can at present conceive:
(1) that Simpkin and Marshall themselves had no interest in distributing the book in the north of England, or at least in the Yorkshire area, requiring Simmonite to have it separately published there;

No, I think that?s back to front. S&M took local books and gave them national distribution.

(2) that Simpkin and Marshall pro-actively delegated publication and distribution in Leeds and probably much of the North of England to Holdsworth's bookshop, perhaps in return for a commission, just as in 1832 Rupertus Stella's 'Astrologian's Guide' had been published in Leeds by another publisher but by Simpkin and Marshall in London;

That would be like delegating to the Lodge. Holdsworth was publishing for the satisfaction of a small astrology group. His wife did the typesetting. It was a local bookshop that occasionally got bigger ideas. Nowhere near on the level of S&M. The only other things I can find that Holdsworth published were back issues of White's ephemeris and an 1855 ephemeris of his own. Like I said, only one step up from self publishing.

(3) that by 1852, Simmonite was on personal good terms with Holdsworth's and its priorietors to the extent that even though he could have got a national contract with Simpkin and Marshall exclusively as for his previous works, he decided instead to offer a regional deal to Holdsworth's, either before or simultaneously with his deal with Simpkin and Marshall;

Holdsworth was a friend of Simmonite?s ? or at least an associate. It was one step up from self publishing, a small step at that. He probably didn?t sell enough for S&M to automatically take a title on.

(4) that Simmonite, despite his past publications through Simpkin and Marshall, on this occasion turned his back on them and arranged publication exclusively through Holdsworth's bookshop, but then Simpkin and Marshall took a distribution interest in the work over Simmonite's head or brought him round to their involvement belatedly.

Which of these is most likely I do not pretend to know, but in view of Simmonite's rich past history of publication through Simpkin and Marshall as well as the circumstances of Simpkin and Marshall's joint publication of Rupertus Stella's 1832 work with another Leeds-based publisher, I remain as yet unpersuaded that the Holdsworth's edition came first.

I don?t agree that Stella?s book was a joint venture as I said above. I think this is a first.

COPAC indicates with regard to the several 1851-printed copies of 'The Prognostic Astronomer' the following distribution of places of publication:

National Library of Scotland copy: London;
Oxford copy: London;
British Library copy: London but 'Leeds-printed'
Manchester copy: London but 'Leeds-printed'

A closer look at the Manchester record suggests the presence of no fewer than three copies of this particular work held there.

?Leeds printed? would give the same situation as the Stella with a handover period listing the original publisher and an S&M involvement.

What puzzles me is why both the British Library and Manchester claim London as the place of publication but Leeds as the place of printing, in view of the fact that the copy discussed in this strand is claimed to be both printed and published in Leeds.

I think we?re getting in a muddle as there seem to be loose definitions of ?publisher.? We don?t have a problem if we remember that S&M were primarily wholesalers and distributors.

Perhaps the copy at the British Library is the same as the copy under discussion here, but whoever assembled the record on it had other reasons to believe that the actual place of publication was London and that Holdsworth's merely printed it in the North of England? The alternative possibility, that the copy under discussion here is not the same as any of the others in being uniquely free from references to London, would indeed suggest that it was peculiarly uncommon.

I wouldn?t put anything past the BL?s record keeping. When I ordered Pearce?s Future, I ended up with a set of railway timetables. But I believe that it was printed during the time S&M were taking it over.

I would love for one of us to be able to solve this mystery definitively!

That probably involves my going to the BL at some point? :-) I?ve run out of S&M knowledge now.

Kim

PS: I did know that Rupertus Stella was a pseudonym too and I think I have read for whom before now, but I can't for the life of me find the answer anywhere on the Internet at the moment! Sorry!

I did take a quick look and couldn't find it. I seem to have mislaid my file of pseudonyms and until I find that I don't know who anyone is any more :-(

Can someone put us out of our misery?

Kim

I'll gladly bow to your greater knowledge of the history of Simpkin and Marshall and their operations here, Kim.

It would still somewhat surprise me in these circumstances that no true first editions of any of Simmonite's earlier works that were also (by your theory) taken over subsequently by Simpkin and Marshall have survived in any institutional library records in the US or UK, but I accept it is possible if those original print runs for provincial publishers prior to the books being bought out by Simpkin and Marshall were in the low hundreds!

I'd feel happiest if first-hand documentary records of what exactly Simmonite did with each of his works and when had survived in some archives somewhere and could be accessed.

Presuming that your theory is correct, however, then certainly I would agree that the copy discussed in this strand, if free of all references to London and Simpkin and Marshall on the pages detailing the particulars of publication, and if the multiple copies at Manchester and the single copy at the British Library all contain at least one mention of Simpkin and Marshall or London on the equivalent pages, must be of much greater value than I assessed on my initial assumption that all 1951 copies were more or less equivalent.

If it is a uniquely surviving (as far as library records go) true first edition prior to remaindering and resale to Simpkin and Marshall, then it could be worth easily ?250 or $500 at a lower estimate, with the upper limit about as high as multiple collectors of rare 19th century firsts would take bidding.

19th century astrological literature as a whole has yet to catch on in the collectors' market to the extent of that of the 17th century or earlier, so prices for a given degree of true rarity are very much lower. If this had been a uniquely surviving 17th century first edition on the same topic, it would surely be worth in the thousands of pounds at least.

The actual realisable value, I suspect, will ultimately depend on securing reliable historical documentation to strengthen the case for your theory. The onus would be on Mtonich to achieve this prior to putting it up for sale, if this be the ultimate intention!