University of Virginia Library

4. The Texts of the English Review Galley Proofs

As I have argued, Conrad corrected and revised three sets of galley proofs:
one for the English Review; one for Harper and Brothers; and one for Methuen.
Revision on one set of proofs was then followed by transcription onto
the other two sets. Most revisions were transmitted to all three publications,
But Conrad's transcription was not always successful because, as the figures
quoted above indicate, a significant number of changes failed to be transcribed.
Subsequently, the uncertainty surrounding Conrad's intentions in
this process of transcription complicates conclusive attribution of Conrad's
authority to many variants. Nevertheless, close examination of specific variants
further supports the textual scenario I have proposed, revealing the effect
that Conrad's method of transmission had on the texts under consideration.

Approximately 580 substantive variants from TS appear in all three texts,
representing Conrad's successful transcription between each set of English
Review galley proofs. However, a number of cases show that Conrad revised
each proof differently, perhaps inspired after the initial revision on one set
of proofs. In TS we read this description of Madame de S—: "She disregarded
it. Her carmine lips moved with an extraordinary rapidity". While the
English Review text remains the same, Methuen's text replaces "moved" with
"vaticinated" (220). Harper and Brothers' text retains the sentence, but adds,
"She vaticinated" (221) The addition of such an unusual word only in both
book publications strongly suggests Conrad's involvement, but the variation
between them indicates that Conrad treated differently the various copies of
each galley proof from which each text derives. Such a development is seen
most strikingly in the last chapter of the novel where the original reading of
Sophia Antonovna's "indulgent voice" from TS became "soft" for the North
American Review, "prudent" for the English Review, "cautious" for Harper
and Brothers and "guarded" for Methuen. From these and other examples
found throughout the novel, one can see that Conrad's transcriptions were
not always simple copying, but sometimes developments of earlier readings.
Each set may have been used as a draft before a final revision was incorporated
on one preferred set of galley slips.[25]

This method of transcription often left the Harper and Brothers text
without new readings incorporated in the English Review and Methuen.
These variants are detected when all texts are compared, revealing agreements
between Harper and Brothers and the North American Review that
suggest a common relationship.[26] At first glance, this seems to contradict the
picture drawn above of the transmission of the text. But, the agreements
between Harper and Brothers and the American serial can be explained by
identifying the document on which the change was made. If one assumes that
the typescripts sent to the North American Review and the English Review
were copies of TS, one would expect agreement between the serials except
where Conrad made changes on the English Review galley proofs. For example,
"vanishes" (TS29) reads "vanished" and "do not ask questions" (TS
120) reads "do you ask questions" in both American texts. The transmission
of the latter example probably proceeded like this: The reading "do not ask
questions" was incorrectly typed in April 1910 or changed by Robert Garnett
during his corrections. The new reading, "do you ask questions" was transmitted
to the North American Review and would have appeared in the English
Review, had it not been corrected by Conrad on the galley proofs of the
English serial. If this correction was not transcribed to the set of proofs prepared
for Harper and Brothers, the earlier reading would remain, producing
an agreement with the American serial.[27]

The three sets of galley proofs that passed through Conrad's hands were
treated differently, and, from the variants that appear through comparison,
one must assume that the set for Harper and Brothers did not receive Conrad's
full attention. This is most evident in readings that are unique to both English
texts. Almost 200 variants fall into this category, further supporting the
argument that Conrad did not correct and revise the galley proofs for Harper
and Brothers to the same extent as the English sets.[28] For example, the TS
reading that has Miss Haldin "walking alone in the main alley" (TS182)
reads "walking alone in the main valley" in both English texts. Because this
change was not transcribed to the set of proofs prepared for Harper, the
reading in the text of the American first edition agrees with the unchanged
reading in the American serial and TS. Many small readings such as this fall
into the pattern of agreement between the English texts, especially in the
second half of the novel when galley proofs were sent to Harper and Brothers
with no corrections or revision.

One of the most intriguing groups of variants produced by Conrad's use

of English Review galley proofs is the unique readings found in the published
English Review text. In chapters three and four of Part Four, 30 omissions
and variations are unique to the published English Review text. For example,
a passage that appears on TS"R15" reads,

This passage appears in all published texts except the English Review serialisation,
suggesting that Conrad might have deleted it from one set of galley
proofs, but failed to transcribe the change to the sets of proofs sent to Harper
and Methuen. Another example is found several pages later. The narrator
describes Razumov's state of mind: "It was as though he had stabbed himself
outside and had come in there to show it—and more than that as though he
were turning the knife in the wound and watching the effect" (TS"S20"). The
emphatic text that follows the dash in this passage is omitted only in the
English serial.

This collection of variants complicates the attribution of authority because
of its inconsistency with the dominant patterns of variation found in
the rest of the novel. A second, longer, omission involves the narrator's analysis
of the attraction between Razumov and Natalia and shows Conrad's different
treatment of the three sets of proofs:

Higdon cites this variation as evidence that Conrad was consulting TS when
preparing for book publication. Higdon argues that this passage is "no
simple addition but instead is a complex reworking of a passage in the typescript
cancelled before the English Review was set" (Higdon, 1991b, 177-178).
It is highly unlikely that this passage was cancelled before the English Review
was set because it was transmitted to the first American edition which, I argue,
used English Review galley proofs as setting copy. The entire passage quoted
above is found in Harper and Brothers' text. In Methuen's text the passage
between "and it was impossible" and "She was no stranger to him when he
saw her first;" is omitted. If Conrad was preparing three sets of galley proofs,
the set for Harper and Brothers was untouched and the sets for the English
Review and Methuen received different treatment.[29] It is most likely that the

collection of unique omissions and additions in the English texts derive from
two different sets of galley proofs, representing different moments of intention.
However, because the majority of the variants unique to the English
Review are found in one section of the October instalment, these variants
might be the result of Methuen's "beastly muddle".[30]

Conrad's acceptance of Methuen's text might be seen as a case of passive
authorisation, but his continued dissatisfaction with Methuen suggests that
he had some misgivings about the text of the first English edition. Unique
readings in the Methuen text may indicate Conrad's continued involvement
after corrected English Review galley proofs had been sent to Methuen as
setting copy. For example, the Methuen text reads "a long time" instead of
"many years" (TS2); "gouty invalid" for "gouty subject" (TS15); "other,
flinging off his cap" was expanded from the simple "other" (TS21) to match
an image of Haldin's hair several paragraphs later; and "gloomily" replaced
"in a gloomy murmur" (TS35). Approximately 290 readings unique to the
first English edition suggest that Conrad corrected Methuen's proofs; or,
alternatively, he corrected and revised the English Review galley proofs for
Methuen to a greater extent than the galley proofs he sent to the English
Review. Of course, many of these changes might have been editorial or the
work of a compositor. But, while the majority of unique readings could be
attributed that way, most readings suggest Conrad's hand. For example, in
the closing paragraphs of the first chapter of Part Third the following passage
was omitted only in Methuen's text:

Higdon attributes the excision of this meditation on journals to Conrad,
arguing that it was done "perhaps in a move to make his narrator more
limited, less perceptive, more self-deluded about his true attraction to Razumov's
story" (Higdon, 1991, 176). Such interpretations can allow attribution
of Conrad's authority to larger variations. But, without further evidence, one
can only attribute Conrad's authority to smaller variants with trepidation.

The deadline set by Methuen arrived and Under Western Eyes was published,
ending Conrad's opportunities to correct and revise, and establishing

the version of the novel familiar to most readers.[31] The four published texts
of Under Western Eyes reveal characteristics that give each text a unique
status. The text of the North American Review remains closest to TS and
probably resembles the text of the typescript "corrected" by Robert Garnett.
The texts of the English Review, Harper and Brothers and Methuen are the
result of Conrad's inconsistent revision of English Review galley proofs. There
is little doubt that Conrad wanted Methuen's edition to represent his final
intentions. But the mechanical processes of typing and typesetting that preceded
its final state complicated this outcome, and undetectable errors may
have been incorporated in Methuen's text. As the case of Joseph Conrad's
Under Western Eyes stresses, readers must not disregard the physical and
mechanical processes of textual production in their analyses of the history
of texts, because these processes can have a significant effect on the way an
author transmits a text to readers. Behind the stability of the text of Under
Western Eyes familiar to readers is a complex network of transmission that
poses many interpretative challenges; challenges that, when fully engaged,
will offer a better understanding of Conrad and his texts.