Untitled

Southland Times, Issue 23380, 11 December 1937, Page 14

It was anticipated in some quarters that Barrie’s would prove to be the largest fortune ever left by a British author, writes a London correspondent of The New York Times. That position, however, is still held by Hall Caine’s £250,000, but Barrie’s £173,000 removes Kipling’s £155,000 from the second place. Other recent estates passing the £50.000 mark are Weyman’s £99,000, Hardy’s £91,000, Galsworthy’s £BB,OOO, Moore’s £75,000, Garvice’s £71,000 and Haggard’s £61,000. Among fortunes left by earlier writers were Dicken’s £BO,OOO, Trollope’s £70,000 and Miss Braddon’s £68,000. The lastmentioned was more successful financially than other popular women novelists, for Edna Lyall left only £25,000 and Marie Corelli £24,000. In drawing inferences from such figures as these, and especially in using them as a basis for comparisons, certain points should be borne in mind. In the first place, the sum remaining to an author at death supplies only an imperfect index of what he has actually made by his literary work. A man who lives frugally and invests his savings wisely may leave much more than another whose royalities have been far larger but who has spent lavishly and speculated foolishly. One can easily call to mind recent instances of best sellers who took so little care of their money that there was only a mere pittance to be administered by their executors. Then, too, we must not overlook the fact that some of the largest estates on the list are those of writers' whose income did not depend upon the sale of their books alone. Writing for the stage is a highly remunerative occupation for its most accomplished practitioners, but it demands a technical skill not possessed by every one who can appeal successfully to a multitude of readers. We should like to know—but, of course, we never shall know—what proportion of Barrie’s wealth was derived from his plays and what proportion from his fiction.