 | Studies in bibliography |  |
3. From the English Review to American and English First Book Editions
Arrangements for the English serial publication of Under Western Eyes
were made in July 1910, signalling the beginning of a new phase of correction
and revision. On 26 July 1910, Conrad heard the news that the English Review
had agreed to serialise Under Western Eyes (Letters, 4, 351). On 31 July
1910, he wrote to Austin Harrison, the editor of the English Review:
May I ask You to give instructions for a double set of slips to be forwarded to me
when the time comes? The book publication will be from the text as established in
the English Review.
No galley slips or typescript from this period are extant, making it impossible
to identify with certainty the document Conrad revised for Methuen. However,
as I demonstrate below, Conrad probably made most of his corrections
and revisions on the galley proofs of the English Review serial.
Pinker or Robert Garnett probably delivered a typed copy of TS with
Garnett's corrections to the English Review, from which were set galley proofs
little comment in Conrad's correspondence until May 1911,[17] but Conrad's
first extant comments reveal a problem with his correction and revision.
Conrad wrote to Pinker:
It's done. I join to the type a corrected set of galley slips immediately preceeding the
text in case it may come in useful. . . . I beg you most earnestly—if you can do so—to
arrange for the English Rev. setting up slips from this corrected copy here. It will save
me infinite trouble. I doubt too if I will be able to remember exactly the corrections
I've just made.
This letter suggests that, at this stage, Conrad was working on both typescript
and galley slips and reveals the difficulty that he faced in preparing copy for
the English Review. His distinction between "galley slips" and "type" and
his request on 1 or 8 June 1911 that Pinker "send . . . back . . . corrd type when
done for the purpose of clean copy" (Letters, 4, 445) supports the idea that he
was considering both typed pages and galley proofs. One can only speculate
about the problem that was fixed by the procedure described in the letter
above. But it seems most likely that Conrad conducted another layer of revision
on a second set of galley proofs to repair some sort of damage caused
by a setting error or accidental omission, influencing the exclamation, "It's
done". Collation of all texts shows no extraordinary changes to patterns of
transmission at this point, indicating that any problems were resolved on
those pages of type and galley proof. Conrad probably had access to the typescript
that was used as setting copy by the English Review (corresponding
sections might have been returned with each instalment), but, as I argue below,
it is more likely that Conrad's primary correction and revision centred on
the galley proofs.
Although the changes made between TS and the English Review cannot
be attributed with certainty to either typescript or English Review galley
proofs, several patterns of variation can be detected. When comparisons of TS
and each published text are made, TS overwhelmingly agrees with the text of
the North American Review against the English serial and two first editions.[18]
This pattern demonstrates that most substantive changes were made on a
document that transmitted text to all three publications. This occurred because
published instalments and galley proofs of the English Review were
used as setting copy for both book publications. Conrad did not at first expect
this. He must have expected a copy of the Garnett typescript to be used. He
added to the letter quoted in the previous paragraph, "will you request
Methuens to send me proofs (in the usual way double set) in good time. I
won't be hustled over that matter. I must have time to read them" (Letters,
of the English Review should be used as setting copy for Methuen. This would
obviate the need for Conrad to correct carefully Methuen's proofs. Conrad
agreed and replied on 13 May 1911:
I appreciate very much Your considerate suggestion in re proofs in the letter received
this morning. I shall send you on Monday the text as published in the ER, torn out
of the numbers and arranged for the printers. I wish Methuens to set up from that.
There would be then no author's alterations—only corrections of misprints. . . . They
can go on as far as it has appeared including June. And for the future I shall correct
the 2 sets of Review proofs and send one to you for Methuen to go on setting up from.
Conrad arranged the available published pages for Methuen up to the May
instalment of the English Review which contained the third chapter of part
three. From this point, Methuen's printer would have received a set of English
Review galley proofs with corrections. Another set was delivered to the
printer of the English Review. Conrad might have had the opportunity to
revise the typescript arranged and corrected by Robert Garnett, but, if so, he
said nothing about it in the extant letters. It is more likely that he corrected
galley proofs. On 21 or 28 May 1911 Conrad expressed dismay at attending to
the proofs of the English Review: "The proofs of the July ER are now hanging
over my head. I wish I could reach the half of the book without interruption
of mood—but that's impossible" (Letters, 4, 443).
This transmission might have proceeded without incident, but Conrad's
decision to send another set of proofs to Harper and Brothers for setting copy
began several cases of confusion and mishap. Accepting the merit of using
pages of the English Review for setting copy, Conrad proposed that the same
method be used for Harper and Brothers. He asked Pinker in May 1911,
Can we possibly get a set of ER for Harpers to set up from? Would it cost too much?
A small sacrifice would be worth while perhaps in view of the circumstances. This
correcting puts me off other work for a day. Perhaps if that's practicable you would
stop Harper's setting up till we can send them the R. They surely must have old copies
of it on their side. And if they set from them they needn't send proofs here at all.
Their own readers can look after mere misprints.
There is no evidence to confirm that Harper and Brothers had begun to set
up at this time, and, if they had, what document they were setting from.
Clearly, some agreement had been reached regarding the publication of
Under Western Eyes by Harper and Brothers, but no arrangements had yet
been made to incorporate the corrections and revisions made for the English
Review. Nevertheless, a letter Conrad wrote to Pinker on 15 May 1911 gives
some indication of the status of the Harper and Brothers text at this point:
"If the back Nos of the ER can be obtained for Harpers I am prepared to pay
for them myself by deduction from the first money due to me to any reasonable
amount for indeed I wish to save myself the necessity of reading for
Harpers, which would be a serious interruption" (Letters, 4, 441). It is clear
that Conrad was not concerned about the textual integrity of the first American
edition, granting an editor or compositor limited control after delivery
efficiently, a document which incorporated these new readings was
required.
Conrad began preparing the American text soon after, but his extant correspondence
does not specify what material text was used to transmit the
changes. On 19 or 26 May 1911, he wrote to Pinker,
I've forwarded You Harper's proofs—corrd—complete. . . . They extend into May No
of Review, all but 5pp.[19]
Therefore only the Nos from May (inclusive) onwards will
have to be sent to the US. . . . Thanks to unexpected assistance of a friend[20]
staying
with us, the interruption to my current work was not serious.
Although Conrad says "Harper's proofs" there is evidence to suggest he was
using the phrase loosely and that he meant English Review proofs for Harper.
Conrad's clear references to instalments of the English Review suggest that he
probably used a third set of English Review proofs (presumably galleys which
would not necessarily end where the May instalment ended) for the transmission
of text to Harper and Brothers. This would have been the least expensive
method of delivery available to Conrad, requiring only the arrangement of
pages and transcription of changes that were made on the galley proofs sent
to the English Review.[21]
This scenario is supported by Conrad's letter to
Pinker written at the end of May 1911: "I shall send you the dupte sheets
without delay for Harpers" (Letters, 4, 443). Most chapters of the first half of
the novel strongly reflect the dominant agreement between the English Review
and the two first book editions. The American first edition falls out of
this pattern in the second half of the novel, suggesting a separate line of transmission
to the two English publications.
The three sets of published pages and galley proofs were the most likely
site of most of the corrections and revisions that were incorporated in the
texts of the English Review, Harper and Brothers and Methuen. Conrad's
plan suggests that the transmission of text to Harper and Brothers would be
very close to the transmission of the first English edition, but this did not
eventuate. Because approximately 220 changes (the majority in the second
half of the novel) were transmitted to the English Review (and subsequently to
Methuen's text), but not to Harper and Brothers, a set of galley proofs with
lighter, or no correction, is the most likely setting copy for most of the first
American edition.
Figure 1. Transmission of Under Western Eyes from the extant typescript. Text in
square brackets indicates that the document is not extant.
Conrad's work on the "proofs" for Harper receives more comment in correspondence
than his work on proofs for the English Review and Methuen.
In June, Conrad forwarded "the June No" and "corrected slips of the July
instalment for sending to America" (Letters, 4, 445). On 27 June he suggested
to Pinker that "If you will . . . kindly send the July No and such proof-sheets
as are not included in it to Harpers they shall have something to go on with",
and insisted that once forthcoming galley slips of the English Review were
in his hands he would "transmit them to [Pinker] for H's without delay"
(Letters, 4, 454). As this correspondence confirms, a mixture of galley slips
and published pages of the English Review were sent to the American publisher
as setting copy. The first American edition received a stream of copy
from England that was at various stages of completion, and, as I demonstrate
below, this produced a text that varies significantly from the English first
edition because of Conrad's closer attention to the English texts.
As the serialisation of Under Western Eyes neared its conclusion in the
English Review, pressure from both Harper and Brothers and Methuen complicated
Conrad's process of correction and revision. Both Harper and Brothers
and Methuen planned to release Under Western Eyes in October 1911,
so Conrad was forced to proceed with urgency. Harper ordered 4000 copies
on 9 August and these were ready by 5 October.[22]
Methuen ordered 3000
copies of Under Western Eyes on 5 September 1911, 750 of these for colonial
issue. Methuen's domestic copies were bound and ready for distribution by
3 October. Conrad was still preparing the monthly instalments for the Eng-
Review proofs of Part Four in July 1911, but by 1 August 1911 Harper and
Brothers were anxious to finish setting up and called for the final pages of the
novel.[23] Conrad wrote to Pinker,
couldn't you propose to H. to set up at once from typed copy in their possession and
send me over galley slips. I shan't detain them more than a couple of days and they
could go back to them by the return boat. I would prefer this arrangement if possible—one
corrects better on the printed page—quicker too.
Conrad's suggestion that Harper set up "from typed copy in their possession"
indicates that they might have used the typescript sent to the North
American Review as setting copy for these final chapters (because of George
Harvey's connection with both houses) and incorporated revisions as they
arrived. Conrad suggested that "If they are quick about it they may have the
whole matter settled and the corrected proofs with them by middle Sept".
But, collation of all texts demonstrates that the setting copy for Harper
and Brothers remained galley proofs of the continuing English Review
serialisation.
Conrad prepared setting copy for three different printers by correcting
and revising, then transcribing, those changes to other sets of English Review
galley proofs. This activity led to some confusion and as this latter period
of correction and revision drew to a close Methuen's "beastly muddle" probably
occurred. On 13 September 1911, Conrad wrote to Pinker about Methuen:
It's true that in the first moment of irritation at such an instance of carelessness I told
them I would not return the proofs in hand till I had a complete set in my possession;
but the very next day (at their request) I returned them the first batch and the day
after the whole lot right up to the page where the omission occurred. When I got the
amended proofs at last I didn't keep them more than 48 hours. There was no delay
on my part. As far as you are concerned I must say that all through you have done
everything possible to spare me all extra trouble in revising both text and proof.
What sort of "omission" occurred is unclear from this letter, but it is possible
that in the rush to finish setting the novel a batch of English Review galley
proofs was not delivered to Methuen, causing the omission. Alternatively,
a batch without Conrad's corrections may have been delivered. Or, with
three sets of proofs, Conrad may have had a preferred set which was destined
for Methuen, and in the confusion of transcription, the wrong set was delivered.
Without further evidence it is difficult to conclusively state what occurred
at this time. But, because the error continued to vex Conrad, it is possible
that Methuen's first English edition contains text that Conrad did not
wish to be there. Nevertheless, since Conrad was aware of the muddle and
evidently fixed it—in a hurry and under some pressure—it is necessary to
look carefully at the textual variation in the last sections of the novel in relation
to other patterns of variation from TS.[24]
Conrad reiterated this point to Austin Harrison in 1912, writing, "Generally I
don't care a bit for serial publication. . . . But in the case of the E. R. my feeling is different,
since as in the case of Western Eyes the text of the E. R. would be the final text of the book
form" (Letters, 5, 444). As Higdon has shown, and I confirm below, this was not the case.
This letter is undated, but Karl and Davies place it after 29 April 1911 and before
10 May 1911 (Letters, 4, 436).
That is, the North American Review typically agrees with TS, but the texts of the
English Review, Methuen and Harper and Brothers contain the same variant. Approximately
39% of substantive variation from TS falls into this pattern. All percentages referred to in
this essay were calculated from results of computer collation produced by MacCASE at the
Australian Scholarly Editions Centre.
As with the corrected pages for Methuen this batch contained text up to the end of
the second chapter of Part Three.
Robert Cunninghame Grahame is the only "friend" who can be situated near Conrad
at this time (Knowles, 1990, 81).
On 12 January 1911 Conrad discussed the English Review proofs in a letter to
Edward Garnett, saying "Directly I get 3 instalments or so of the novel together I'll send
them to you. My copy of proofs is uncorrected as yet" (Letters, 4, 407). There is no evidence
to confirm that Garnett received this copy of proofs, nor why he was to receive them. Perhaps
Conrad entertained the prospect of using some of the material excised in TS for book publication
and had enlisted Garnett to assist. If this was Conrad's plan it did not occur and
this set of galley proofs would have been available for use as setting copy in May 1911, requiring
only transcription of changes made for the English Review.
Figures relating to the printing of Under Western Eyes have been supplied by the
Center for Conrad Studies, Kent State University, from William R. Cagle's forthcoming
bibliography of Conrad's works.
Higdon has closely analysed the substantive and accidental variation between TS,
the English serial and the Methuen text. He makes three conclusions regarding the correction
and revision: "Conrad was a parsimonious writer who much preferred to adapt and
readjust a sentence rather than to discard it, or add more than a few words to it. Second,
he effected no major structural rearrangements or character redefinitions in this stage but
rather concentrated on sharpening existing phrases and clarifying, often highlighting,
character relationships. Third, his hand was not always successful in improving his text
but sometimes ensnared him in unidiomatic phrasing and flabby sentences" (Higdon, 1991b,
180). Higdon also points out that although the Methuen text "may be the text that Conrad
wished finally to be established, the book has moved far away from Conrad's usual practice
in accidentals", and concludes that the serial is more authoritative in relation to Conrad's
punctuation" (Higdon, 1991b, 181).
| Studies in bibliography | |