University of Virginia Library

JOSEPH CONRAD'S UNDER WESTERN EYES: THE SERIALS AND FIRST EDITIONS
by
Roger Osborne

Joseph conard's Under Western Eyes was published in London by Methuen & Co. Ltd. on 5 October 1911 and in New York on 19 October 1911 by Harper and Brothers. Versions of the novel had been appearing monthly in serial form in the English Review and the North American Review since December 1910, but extant correspondence suggests that Conrad was most concerned about the book form of the novel, especially Methuen's first English edition. As early as July 1910 Conrad had proclaimed that "The book publication will be from the text as established in the English Review" (Letters, 4, 353), revealing a plan for the transmission of text that centred on revision and correction before the publication of the English Review serial.[1] But on 25 November 1911 he told Warrington Dawson that he was "having a row with Methuen about certain matters connected with the publication of that miserable novel" (Letters, 4, 511). Conrad recalled these matters in March 1913 when he wrote to his agent, James Pinker, about "the beastly muddle with the Western Eyes proofs" (Letters, 5, 188). His disappointment with this "beastly muddle" suggests that Conrad's preparation for the book publication of Under Western Eyes was complicated by "the Western Eyes proofs". Comparison of the two serials and the two first book editions shows that Conrad's preoccupation with English publication subsequently caused the American versions of Under Western Eyes to differ substantially from the English versions. This occurred because he used several sets of English Review pages and proofs to transmit his corrections and revisions. This method of transmission also produced a number of anomalies in the English texts, resulting in the publication of a collection of texts with questionable authority in relation to Joseph Conrad's intentions, final or otherwise. The following discussion of the transmission of Under Western Eyes from typescript to first edition demonstrates how much instability lies behind the printed text familiar to most readers.

1. The Typescripts of Under Western Eyes

The following discussion of the transmission of the text of Under Western Eyes addresses the period following Conrad's revision of the extant typescript. The typescript (TS) is an 843-page document that accumulated between October 1908 and January 1910.[2] The tale was first conceived as a short story called "Razumov" in December 1907, but it continued to evolve as Conrad explored the personal themes contained in the narrative. Despite repeated insistences that the composition was at a penultimate stage, Conrad continued to add to the narrative throughout the first eight months of 1908 until a 288page clean typed copy was prepared (from the messy typed copy that had accumulated to that point) in September and October 1908 by Conrad's occasional secretary, Lillian Hallowes. In October 1908, Conrad insisted that "Razumov" would be a seven- or eight-chapter novel, requiring only a short period of time for completion. But this did not occur and the narrative continued to expand.

The typing of these 288 pages ended a difficult ten months of composition and revision, and the beginning of a further fifteen months of composition before Conrad suffered a nervous breakdown at the end of January 1910. Throughout 1909 Conrad continued to expand the story, adding almost five hundred pages of typescript to the growing pile. The typescript from this period is clearly divided into batches that match batches of the extant manuscript (MS), indicating that TS grew alongside MS as Conrad completed batches of manuscript and sent them for typing (Osborne, 2000, 212-214). The typescript batches following the first 312 pages are unnumbered and were held together with brads before they were arranged and labelled A-T in April 1910. The last batches of typed copy were probably forwarded to Conrad soon after he declared the novel complete on 26 January 1910. But the stress caused by his £2700 debt to Pinker, his immersion in the personal narrative and the prospect that Under Western Eyes would not make enough money to erase his debt brought on a complete nervous breakdown at the end of January 1910.[3]

Conrad did not touch TS again until the end of March 1910. Having sufficiently recovered from the breakdown to be able to work, he returned to the typescript afresh. In April and May 1910 he clearly marked part and chapter divisions for the first time, then cut large sections of text from this new arrangement with blue pencil before revising the remaining pages with grey pencil. These revisions added two more levels of revision to the occasional ink revisions executed during composition. It is difficult to describe Conrad's motivations at this time with certainty, making these revisions an important

transition in the growth of Under Western Eyes. Scholars have offered a number of explanations for the excision of such a large amount of material, including artistic, psychological and financial motivations. However, the ambiguity of Conrad's extant correspondence inhibits our complete understanding of this period. There is no concrete indication that he intended later to restore text he had cut from TS, but Conrad's apparent acceptance of the new text should not consign the discarded sections to the workshop floor.[4]

A clean typed copy of TS was organised and corrected by Conrad's lawyer, Robert Garnett.[5] This non-extant typed copy (and probably a carbon copy) then served as the setting copies for the serialisation of Under Western Eyes in the North American Review and the English Review. While there is no evidence to prove a carbon copy was made, Conrad's practice in previous years suggests that the new text of Under Western Eyes existed in at least two copies with Garnett's corrections imposed on those pages.

2. Under Western Eyes in the North American Review

Although James Pinker had probably been communicating with Colonel George Harvey since 1909, Harvey's magazine, the North American Review, was not mentioned in direct relation to Under Western Eyes until October 1910. Conrad probably sent, via Pinker, one copy of the typescript arranged and corrected by Robert Garnett. On 1 October Conrad wrote to Pinker, "I trust you will be able to conclude with the N. A. R. but its a very small review—I mean in point of size" (Letters, 4, 372).[6] From this day, the American serialisation is not mentioned again in Conrad's extant correspondence.[7]

The text of Under Western Eyes found in the North American Review is the closest of the four published versions to the final text of TS. This suggests that the variation in the text of the North American Review reveals many of the corrections made by Robert Garnett in May 1910 or changes imposed by an editor or compositor during serialisation. Many of the changes are spelling corrections and can be attributed to a typesetter, but some implement minor stylistic changes. For example, Mr de P— "addressed them repeatedly" (TS11) in TS, but this was changed to "addressed the people repeatedly" for the American magazine. In TS, Razumov stopped thinking of killing Haldin because "The corpse would hang round his neck nearly as fatal as a living man" (TS47). The magazine text reads, "The corpse hanging round his neck would be nearly as fatal as the living man". Comparison of the texts reveals many similar transpositions that have insignificant effect on the meaning of a sentence, but do affect the rhythm. Distinct changes are found as well,

such as "unsubtle example" (TS38) to "obvious example"; "unenergetic" (TS109) to "listless"; "interests" (TS178) to "purposes"; but many of these changes appear to reflect someone following Conrad's request to "correct" the text—that is, someone who believed they had the authority to do so. This points to Robert Garnett. He can probably be connected to many of the variants that are carried through to all published texts.[8] He contributed to the text of Under Western Eyes heavier punctuation than TS and a collection of subtle changes to sense and rhythm, some, or conceivably all, of which Conrad might have made himself had he read over the clean typescript in May 1910. There is no evidence, however, that he did so.[9]

Many readings unique to the American serial can also be found, probably indicating the interventions of editors and compositors.[10] For example, "the spree" (TS24) is "a spree", "suspect" (TS30) is "a suspect" and "spoke-like" (TS44) is "spook like" only in the American serial. Small variations such as these can be found throughout the text of the North American Review. [11] But, in addition to these, several large variations between TS and the North American Review text appear in the final chapter of the novel. The following passages were omitted in the North American Review text, but retained in all other published states:

These omissions were probably implemented by the compositor simply to keep the text of the end of the novel from flowing over to the next page.[12] But, most importantly, the absence of these passages in the American serial assists the reconstruction of the transmission of text when Harper and Brothers'

text is compared.[13] Because Harper and Brothers' text does not omit these passages and does not contain the many readings unique to the American serial, it is highly unlikely that the North American Review text was used as setting copy, during the urgency of August and September 1911.[14] Furthermore, because Harper and Brothers' text does not exhibit a return to TS punctuation, it is also highly unlikely that the typescript used by the North American Review was used as setting copy by Harper and Brothers.[15]

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]

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.

Works Cited

Pre-publication materials are held in two libraries in the United States of America. The extant manuscript is held at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. The extant typescript is held at the Philadelphia Free Library. Joseph Conrad's Under Western Eyes appeared serially in the North American Review and the English Review from December 1910 to October 1911.

Carabine, Keith. 1993. "From Razumov to Under Western Eyes: The Case of Peter Ivanovitch", Conradiana, 25.1, pp. 3-29.

—. 1996. The Life and the Art: A Study of Conrad's "Under Western Eyes". Amsterdam-Atlanta, Ga: Rodopi.

Conrad, Joseph. 1911. Under Western Eyes. London: Methuen.

—. 1911. Under Western Eyes. New York: Harper & Brothers.

—. 1983-96. Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad. 5 vols. Karl, Frederick and Davies, Laurence, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Davis, Roderick. 1973. "Joseph Conrad's Under Western Eyes: A Genetic, Textual, and Critical Study". Unpublished PhD thesis, Columbia University.

—. 1977. "Under Western Eyes: `The Most Deeply Meditated Novel' ", Conradiana, 9, pp. 59-75.

Higdon, David Leon. 1986. " `Word For Word': The Collected Editions of Conrad's Under Western Eyes", Conradiana, 18, pp. 129-136.

—. 1987a. "The Unrecognized Second Edition of Conrad's Under Western Eyes", Studies in Bibliography, 40, pp. 220-225.

Higdon, David Leon and Sheard, Robert F. 1987b. "Conrad's `Unkindest Cut': The Canceled Scenes in Under Western Eyes", Conradiana, 19, pp. 167-181.

Higdon, David Leon. 1991a. " `Complete but Uncorrected': The Typescript of Conrad's Under Western Eyes", in David R. Smith, ed., Joseph Conrad's Under Western Eyes: Beginnings, Revisions, Final Forms: Five Essays. Hamden: Archon Books, pp. 83-119.

—. 1991b. "Conrad, Under Western Eyes, and the Mysteries of Revision", in Judith Kennedy, ed., Victorian Authors and Their Works: Revision, Motivations and Modes. Athens: Ohio UP, pp. 169-185.

Knowles, Owen. 1990. A Conrad Chronology. Boston: Hall.

Moser, Thomas. 1983. "Ford Madox Hueffer and Under Western Eyes", Conradiana, 15.3, pp. 163-180.

—. 1984. "An English Context for Conrad's Russian Characters: Sergey Stepniak and the Diary of Olive Garnett", The Journal of Modern Literature, 11.1, pp. 344.

Osborne, Roger. 2000. "For Art and Money: A Textual History and Scholarly Edition of Joseph Conrad's Under Western Eyes". Unpublished PhD thesis, University of New South Wales.

Osborne, Roger. 2002. "The Typescript Versions of Conrad's Under Western Eyes: Motivations, Intentions and Editorial Possibilities", Bibliographical Society of Australia and New Zealand Bulletin 26.2, pp. 105-117.

Note