University of Virginia Library

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:

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

of each month's instalment. The setting of the English Review text received 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:

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,

4, 436). Pinker saw little merit in this and apparently suggested that pages 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:

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,

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

of proofs. However, for Conrad's new revisions and corrections to be transmitted 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,

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.

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-

lish Review at this time. He had begun to correct and revise the English 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,

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:

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]