What Dickens Made Out of His Work.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVII, Issue 21, 22 May 1912, Page 6

What Dickens Made Out of His Work.

INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT THE GREAT NOVELIST'S EARNINGS. All lovers of the great novelist mu>t regret to hear that some of Dickens's descendants were, till the fund raised on the occasion of his centenary this year, in necessitous circumstances. Yet the novelist was not underpaid for his work. As the records of the Probate Court show, he left over £80.000: and it is no exaggeration to say that he was the best-paid writer of his time. In the last years of his life Thackeray declared that he had never made as much as £5,000 by any book that he had ever written; yet Dickens was to have been paid £7,500. with a share in after profit*, it he had live! to finish “Edwin Drood.” Of course, like Thackeray, Dickens made big sums by his lectures or readings. The sum set down by one authority for the readings between 1858 and 1809 is £36,000. but that must be an under-estimate. The figure was probably nearer £45.000. Dickens himself, writing in 1868, says: “I made £33.000 a< a reader in two years; £ 13,000 of this Mr Chappell and his father supplied, while America had been good for tin* rest. Beginning at £5O a night, the Chappells increased the figure to £6O, and eventually £Bo.’’ It was evidently good business for both parties, as some early takings—at Liverpool, for e.xOinple— were over £3OO nightly. £ s. d. OF “PICKWICK. ’ But what about the novels ? Take “Pickwick.” the first great success. The amount agreed upon for each monthly I art was £l4. Thies was afterwards in- <• reived to £ 15; and. as the popularity of the work increased, the publishers, at intervals, presented Dickens with several cheques, amounting in the aggregate. as they computed, to £3.000, ami as Forster computer to about £2,500. This the author considered a very inadequate jrercentage on the publishers’gains, forgetting, perhaps, that the risk had been wholly theirs, ami that he had been more than content with the original bargain. With Marrone he was no better pleased. Marrone had given him about £4OO for the “Sketches by Boz,’’ and made about £4.000 for himself out- of the book. I .a ter. the enterprising gentleman threatened a reissue in monthly parts, ami to prevent this Dickens was compel led to buy back the copyright for £ 2.600. £lO.OOO A YEAR. .With “Oliver Twist,” published in 1838. the year after “Pickwick,” he had a somewhat similar experience. For writing the novel he at first agreed to accept from Bentley £5OO. which was afterwards increased to £750. Drekens des. ribed this as “a paltry, wretched, miserable sum” : and. surmising that Bentley was profiting very considerably by the sale of the book, he determined to repurchase the copyright, to which proposal Bentley magnanimously' consented. This was the more curious, seeing that Bentley had offered to pay him £4O a month for merely lending his name to the Bentley' “Miscellany” for two years, with no writing or editing—an offer which Dickens accepted, too. “Ni -holas Nickleby" was published in 1839. After a careful investigation of . ounta, Talfourd made a ’calculation during the publication of this novel, by wbi h it appeared that for three years previously Dickens must have been making. one way and another. £lO.OOO a ye.tr. The payment originally agreed upon (based on the sales of “Pickwick") v.as made in twenty monthly instalments of £ 150. that being the fee for each number. The copyright was to revert to the author in five years; but notwithstanding thin. at the conclusion of the story th* publishers sent Dickens ai honorarium of £ 1.500 over and above ihu - im n.lined in the bond. “IDE ( HRISTMAS < AROU" “Barnaby Rtnlgv*’ (IMO) brought him something like £3.000. which again le’t no room for complaint. It was different with “The Christina* Carol.’’ which followed in 1843. The first elition »f fMHM» copies wae sold on the day of publication. and as many more would seem to have lieen disposed of before the end of February. 1814. But Dickens had sat his heir! on a profit of £l.OOO, where v in February he did not see his way to more than £460, and his unpaid bit’s for the previous year he described as •terrific.” The profits on the “Carol”

by the close of 1844 had run up to £726, but this did not help him much. A change of front became imperative, and he accepted the offer of Messrs Bradbury and Evans to advance him £2,800 for •>. fourth share in whatever he might write during the ensuing eight years. "MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT" AND ' "DOMBEY.” Then came "Martin Chuzzlewit,” th? least successful of all his larger works on first publication. The monthly parts of -Pickwick’’ and "Nickleby” had sold to the number of about 40,000 each, but there was a drop to about 23,000 with "Chuzzlewit.” There were twenty monthly parts, and the agreement had been for £2OO a month, in addition to a substantial share of the profits. A clause had been inserted in the agreement to the effect that £5O oi the £2OO to be paid monthly might be withheld if the book did not prove remunerative. After the publication of the seventh part there was a threat to enforce this clause, which led to a rupture between author and publishers. However, when "Chuzzlewit” appeared in volume form the demand for it became almost as great as that which greeted "Pickwick,” the halfyear's profits of the author amounting to £750. “Dombey and Son” (1848) also prove I a pecuniary success. The sale of the first number exceeded that of the first of “Chuzzlewit” by 12,000 copies. The profits for the half-year were brilliant; deducting the £lOO a month which, for six successive months, Dickens received from Bradbury and Evans, there was due to him the sum of £2,200, which he thought “pretty tidy.” The next considerable story was “David Copperfield,” and that also ran well into the four figures for the author. There is no ocv-aslon to go into detail regarding the smaller works. They, too, were all highly paid, Dickens getting as much as £lOOO for a short story.