Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-06-01
VALUE or LITERARY WORK.
CHANGES IN AUTHORS METHODS OF
SECURING REMUNERATION.
Some Low and Some High Prices-Sumt
Dickens, Longfellow and Others.

Before the time of Dr. johnson writers
depended in the main upon the generosity
of patrons for their support, and, in recog.
milton of this fact, were accustomed to de.
dicate their works to their patrons, says
George Newell Lovejoy. The most full.
some language frequently characterized
these dedications- such, indeed, as in our
day would provoke in many instances alb
solute disgust. DR.. johnson, who was pos
sessed of great amount of common sense
and wisdom, frowned upon the practice in
question, and breaking through all usages
of the past, set a precedent for all writers
afterward, which was to depend upon the
reading world for support, rather than upon
any private wealthy patron.
Shakespeare, who lived before the day
Of Samuel johnson, but who, it would
seem, had no such friend and admirer on
whom to depend, even had he wanted to
do so, which is sdoubtful, sold his "Hamletr'
for $25-an amount of money so very in
significant in view of the rare merit of the
production in question that we can hardly
resist smile of contempt at the idea.
John Milton disposed of his greatest
masterpiece for $25 in hand, with the un-
derstanding that if second and third edi-
tions were demanded $75 more should be
paid him. The first edition consisted of
5000 copies, and at the expiration of the
second year 1900 copies had been sold.
The remaining number was not disposed of
until some FIVE years afterward At the
very outset this magnificent production
underwent the severest criticism. For ex-
ample the poet Waller commented on it as
follows: eThe old blind schoolmaster, John
Milton, hath published tedious poem on
the fall of man; if its length be not consid-
cred merit, it has no other"
Alexander Pope was much more for
tunate writer, so far as the money returns
for his labor were concerned, as, for in
stance, his translation Of Homer brought
him some $4,000.
Thomas Gray, who ought to have been
splendidly remunerated for his every liter
ary performance, since he adorned every-
thing to which he touched his pen, OBJ
tanned only 5000 for the entire run of his
poems. Fortunately, however, for Gray,
he did not have to depend upon his liter
ary work for living, and what he did in
literature was done for the love of it, and
to make the world better-certainly in
the latter instance, the noblest of ambi-
tions. Gray gave the copyright of his
famous poem, "The Elegy," to the pub
Usher, Dodsley, at the time entertaining
the sentiment that it was quite beneath
the dignity Of gentleman to earn money
with the pen, which, indeed, was the opin-
ion shared by Lord Byron in his early
career as poet. The publisher of "The
Elegy" cleared $4,000 by the publication,
which in those days was considered a re-
markable achievement.
DIR. johnson sold the copyright of Gold
smiths "Vicar of Wakefield" for $500, be-
lieving at the time that this sum repre-
sented the real value of the performance;
but the publisher is said to have made
handsomely out of the venture. For his
"Vanity of Human Wishes" johnson re-
ceived only SIS. For his "RasselasO he
was paid $500, which money he used to
defray the expenses of his mothers funeral.
Oliver Goldsmith sold his poem, "1'he
Traveller" which he liked best of all his
poems, for S405-a remarkable poem, and
which established its authors reputation,
and yet it brought Goldsmith only what a
short, well-told magazine story would bring
its author to-day. But for 'The Deserted
Village" which is more popular with the
world than "The Traveller" Goldsmith
was paid $500, while his "Good- -Natured
Man." performance 60 inferior to most of
his other compositions as to be hardly
worthy of mention in connection with
them, brought him $1,000.
Charles and Mary Lamb received only
SSl5 for their 'Tales From Shakespeare"
while the Smiths labored hard to obtain
from Murray, the publisher, 500 for their
Rejected Addresses" But the work in
question was declined, though another
publisher purchased it, and after it had
passed through sixteen editions Murray
bought the right to print the seventeenth
edition, for which he paid $3.50.
Burns realized only Sl00 from the first
edition of his poems, and only So 500 from
the second. Sir Walter Scott, on the
whole the most successful moneymaker in
literature, received for sThe Law of the
Last Minstrel $500; for "Marmion," be-
fore the poem was finished, $1,000, and
for "The Lady of the Lake, $4,000. OF
the "Waveriy Novels" he received for
eleven of the number, at three volumes
each, and nine volumes of "Tales of NY
Landlord" in all, the sum of S550.000.
For one novel alone he was paid $4,000.
Between November, 1925, and June, 1927,
he earned $4,000. Through his pen
Scott amassed fortune of 81 100000.
Byron made creditable sum of money
from his writings, though he might have
done vastly better had he been at all ex-
acting with his publisher. "Childe Har-
old" brought him $4,000, and for his
minor productions he realized from 81 800
to $1,000 for each. He was paid $4,000
for "Don Juan"
Before his publisher had seen a single
line of "Lalla Rookh.n he paid Moore
$4,000 for it. From his sIrish Melodies"
Moore received the splendid sum of $751;
600.
Hume's History of England" was a
fairly profitable work to those Immediate
ly interested in it, particularly so in re-
spect to the publisher, though the histor-
ian himself received only $500 volume;
but Gibbon, out of his "Decline and Fall
vi thC isoIdu Iuplrc TedlLeu from MS
work much larger sum than Hume, the
former receiving $4,000 for his history,
comprising much less space than that of
the History Of England
Macaulay, however, was more successful
than either, receiving for his history over
$780, Dickens was a very successful
money maker. his writings bringing him
$4,000 year en- an average; that is, after
he had won his great fame. From middle
life on to the time of his decease, Dickens
was an extravagant liver, and, in fact,
prodigal with his money in other ways,
and yet when he died he left the better
part of million dollars. His wealth was
in no case amassed through investments,
but was the result of his pen and platform
work.
Thackeray was not so successful in
money getting as Dickens, receiving much
less sums for his novels than his great ri.
val but he was handsomely paid for his
lectures, which latter, on the whole, were
much more remuneratiye than his other
work. For a single novel, the Earl Of
Besconsdeld received, probably, the largest
,f ,1a,