Trust the Title Page? Not Always.

When was Hoffmann's More Magic published? 1890 of course, most sources agree on that. Lots of readers will have a first edition of the UK or American edition, and the title page states 1890 as clear as day. What of C. Lang Neil's superb compilation The Modern Conjurer? Another easy one, 1902, it's in all the American references. Though my British first edition says 1903, and it's a British author, so surely it would be published here before the States? Something's up.

Returning to More Magic, it was actually first published in 1889, not 1890, despite the title page. The first mention of it on the British Newspaper Archive (BNA) comes on the 1st of November 1889. Interestingly this was in an advert in The Home News from Thacker, Spink & Co. of Calcutta notifying English speakers of the books heading to India on the incoming steamer. On the 8th of November it appeared in the "Publications of the Month" section of The Bookseller, confirming the book was published in 1889.

The British first edition of More Magic.

It's the same story for Neil's The Modern Conjurer. Once you search the BNA the first advert appears in the 6th of November 1902 issue of the Pall Mall Gazette, though English first editions are dated 1903 on the title page.

Both these books have inaccurate title pages and both have very similar actual release dates: early November. Another factor to consider is that, despite these books becoming well respected in magic circles, both of these books came from large general interest publishers, not specialist magic publishers. They are also physically big and full of illustrations, making them expensive to produce and to purchase. All these factors push them into the category of the "gift book".

The gift books that are most remembered today were lavishly produced collections of fiction or poetry, often with beautiful woodcuts or plates. They had their heyday in the Victorian era but the habits they formed lived on. They were usually published in November so people could buy them to gift at Christmas. Books are naturally still a popular Christmas gift and lavish "coffee table" books and expensive cookery books are released in time for the Christmas market today.

This routine of releasing "premium" books for the Christmas market was well established when Hoffmann and Neil's books were released. Each came out with some publicity, mainly aimed at booksellers to get them on the shelves. All we can see on the BNA is what survives in newspapers, not the lists sent to booksellers, which would have likely come in advance of these notices.

All of this is well and good, but it doesn't explain why you would print the following year on the title page. Today we can search an archive of millions of newspaper pages and find many dated advertisements for these books, but when these adverts were printed they were literally ephemeral. If you picked up a copy of More Magic in January 1890 it would take a huge amount of effort to find out that it was published a few months earlier, an effort you would be unlikely to make either way as who would care? There's an advantage to the publisher though, a book published at the end of one year can appear brand new to the consumer throughout the following year if it is post-dated. Few people who receive the book in the actual year of publication will notice the "mistake" on the title page either, given that they'll be receiving it on Christmas Day, hopefully merry and in the gloom of a British home in winter.

Does any of this matter though? For the completist collector, probably not. Most bibliographies stick firmly to the date printed on the book unless a book is undated, in which case they may or may not look further. For the people researching the history of magic, it may matter, though probably only in rare cases. A year printed on a title page already covers that full year, so extending the possibility that it may include a few months into the previous year isn't often going to matter, especially as the book will have taken some time to produce, which may have pushed it into the previous year anyway. In rare cases, where the first appearance or invention of something is being discussed, it could be very relevant, and a check on the BNA and magic magazines for an accurate month of release will be wise.

The biggest issues could arise (or have already arisen) in recording references. In the example above of Neil's The Modern Conjurer, the American and British editions were both released in November 1902, the American edition dated correctly, the British post-dated. Which date should be used in a reference? Frustratingly, the only sensible course is to use the listed date on the title page in referencing for whichever copy you've used, even if it's technically incorrect. That will almost certainly be the date used in other research and in library catalogues for the book so, to help future researchers, it is best to stick with that. A correction following the reference would probably be a welcome addition though.

This is basically just a strange quirk of publishing of the time and will rarely have an impact on magic research. Of much more importance, especially given the slew of non-human produced content at the moment, is to actually reference your magic history research in the first place. Too much good work has been wasted by magic historians of the past who, without referencing, have left their sources extremely hard to trace without restarting their research. Neglecting referencing can make valuable research turn into just an interesting story.