Introduction 1. Conrad's Conception of Authorship: Probing The

Notes

Introduction

1. On the notion of the death of the author, see Barthes (1977) and Bannet (1989). 2. On Conrad and postmodernism, see also Krajka et al. (2001). 3. See Aristotle (1991), Quintilian (1987), and Bann (1989). 4. Conrad’s admiration for Stendhal was expressly conveyed in his Notes on Life and Letters: ‘Stendhal’s mind was of the first order ... Stendhal was preemi- nently courageous. He wrote his two great novels, which so few have read, in a spirit of fearless liberty’ (NLL 8). 5. Flaubert’s influence on Conrad has attracted critical attention since the 1920s. In his short monograph Joseph Conrad, Hugh Walpole declared: ‘Flaubert’s effect on [Conrad’s] style is quite unmistakable’ (1929, 77). Many critics have since widely explored these connections. Jameson discussed Flaubert’s influence on Conrad’s thematic and stylistic methods. On examining Lord Jim, he stressed ‘the Flaubertian accents’ in this novel, referring, for example, to Jim’s ‘bovarysm’ (1981, 211–13). For a thorough study of Flaubert’s influence on Conrad, see Hervouet (1990).

1. Conrad’s Conception of Authorship: Probing the Implications and Limits of the Death-of-the-Author Theory

1. For more information on the didactic function of tragedy in classical literature, see Johnson (2006). 2. On Victorian literature and didacticism, see Kumar (2002). 3. For a concise historical view of Formalist and New Criticism theories, see Rosenblatt (1978) and Davis and Womack (2002). 4. Frye contends that ‘in all literary verbal structures the final direction of meaning is inward’ (1957, 74). 5. Rosenblatt and Iser have likewise engaged in rehabilitating the reader’s role and accorded the reader a central position in interpreting literary texts. Rosenblatt defines this transaction between text and reader as an ‘ongoing process’ (1978, 17) and summarizes it as being ‘basically between the reader and what he senses the words [in the text] are pointing to’ (17). Unlike Barthes and Iser, Rosenblatt does not reduce the text to a mere linguistic or semiotic component. Nevertheless, her reader-centric approach is similarly dismissive of the author, since it does not envisage the author as a partner in the production of textual meaning. In keeping with Barthes, Iser locates the meaning of a text within the transaction between reader and text. He states: ‘We could then maintain, at least tentatively, that meanings in literary texts are gen- erated in the act of reading; they are the product of a complex interaction

193 194 Notes

between text and reader, and not qualities that are hidden in the text and traced solely by that traditional kind of interpretation I have described’ (Iser 1989, 4–5). Significantly, in Iser’s theory, too, the author is not conceived of as a collaborator to sense-making (see also Iser 1980). 6. Iser argues: ‘The indeterminate sections, or gaps, of literary texts are in no way to be regarded as a defect; on the contrary, they are a basic element of the aesthetic response ... This means that the reader fills in the remaining gaps. He removes them by a free play of meaning-projection and thus himself provides the unformulated connections between the particular views’ (1989, 9–10). He continues: ‘Whenever the reader bridges the gaps, communication begins. The gaps function as a kind of pivot on which the whole text-reader relationship revolves. Hence, the structured blanks of the text stimulate the process of ideation to be performed by the reader on terms set by the text’ (34). 7. Barthes writes: ‘In France, Mallarmé was doubtless the first to see and to foresee in its full extent the necessity to substitute language itself for the person who until then had been supposed to be its owner. For him, for us too, it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality (not at all to be confused with the castrating objectivity of the realist novelist), to reach that point where only language acts, “performs”, and not “me”. Mallarmé’s entire poetics consists in suppressing the author in the interests of writing (which is ...to restore the place of the reader)’ (1977, 143). 8. Seán Burke rightly states, obviously with Barthes and deconstructionist theorists in mind: ‘Thus, when critics deliberately banished the original author, they themselves usurped his place, and this led unerringly to some of our present-day theoretical confusions. While before there had been but one author, there now arose a multiplicity of them, each carrying as much authority as the next’ (1995, 111). 9. It is almost a truism to say that Bakhtin’s pioneering study on carnival and heteroglossia greatly influenced modern reader-response theories. In his theory, Bakhtin distinguishes two categories of texts, dialogic and monologic. According to Bakhtin, monological works are dominated by single, control- ling voices and tend to represent the official ideological stance of the author’s culture. In the process, Bakhtin nonetheless adds that monological writings may also depict characters speaking from various standpoints. In contrast, dialogic texts create a polyphonic space where the discourses of the domi- nant culture and ideology interact and compete with the voices of popular culture (Bakhtin 1981, 1990). 10. It is important not to lose sight of the ideological and political dimensions of Barthes’s theory, which are often overlooked in literary criticism. We should specifically remember that Barthes’s death-of-the-author mantra was pro- duced in the boisterous French cultural and political climate of the 1960s. As such, Barthes’s struggle to free the text from the shackles of authorial dictatorship ought to be read in the light of the overall struggle of 1960s French intellectuals, including Barthes, to release French society from stifling political, social, and moral constraints. Celebrating the death of the author, as does Barthes, is in the end tantamount to a rallying cry against the repressive Notes 195

political, religious, and ideological absolutes that were current on the French cultural scene. 11. Following Flaubert and Conrad’s theories of authorship, Booth argued that the author is a constant presence in his writing: ‘In short, the author’s judgment is always present, always evident to anyone who knows how to look for it. Whether its particular forms are harmful or serviceable is always a complex question, a question that cannot be settled by any easy reference to abstract rules. As we begin now to deal with this question, we must never forget that though the author can to some extent choose his disguises, he can never choose to disappear’ (1961, 20). 12. Hervouet rightly observed that ‘the rise of objectivity in the nineteenth- century literature is related to the erosion of the old certainties, particularly in religious and ethical matters’ (1990, 190). See also Kindt and Muller (2006). 13. Flaubert stated: ‘Mon moi s’éparpille ... dans les livres’; he added ‘j’ai tou- jours péché par là’ (1981, 461). Many critics have pointed out Flaubert’s omnipresence in his works. As early as the 1960s, for instance, Booth showed that Flaubert’s omnipresence was expressed in his overt intrusions, generaliz- ing observations, addresses to the reader, and judgements on the characters (1961).

2. Polish Responses: Art and the Ethics of Collectivity

1. The impact of cultural and racial factors on the reception of Conrad’s works in England is overlooked in both past and recent scholarship. 2. Conrad occasionally engaged in direct diplomatic action in favour of Poland’s independence. During his short stay in Vienna, for instance, he discussed the Polish issue with M. Marian Bilinski, a civil servant. Their conversation, as Conrad wrote in his letter to Teodor Kosch (18 October 1914) was ‘mainly about how the Polish question should be presented in England ... It will be necessary to look around, sound the hearts and minds of influential people and only then start to act, if any action is possible in this question which is so close to our hearts’ (CL 5, 416). Conrad pleaded the cause of Poland in his adopted country and, as he stated in a letter to Richard Curle (20 August 1916): ‘I too have dipped my fingers in diplomacy by writing a memoran- dum on the peace settlement on the Eastern front which got into the F.O.’ (CL 5, 638). 3. In 1840 Mickiewicz lectured at the College de France where he held the chair of Slavonic literature. Prior to this appointment, he held a chair of Latin at the University of Lausanne. During his lectures in both France and Switzerland he unremittingly pleaded Poland’s cause and reminded the West of his country’s contribution to Western civilization (see Krzyzanowski 1930, 99). 4. Messianism refers to a system of thought and belief that cherishes the ideal of liberty and sacrifice for the Polish cause. Poetry is viewed within this system as indissolubly linked to national destiny. Krzyzanowski writes: ‘Polish romantic poetry is undeniably full of nationality and of the necessity for it ... It became for the Poles a treasure house of national ideals cherished by one generation after another as a remembrance of heroic endeavours in the past 196 Notes

as well as a promise of a happier future’ (1930, 107). The poetry of Mickiewicz is a privileged vehicle of Polish Messianism. His pamphlet, Books of the English Pilgrimage ‘formed and proclaimed the fundamental views of the philosophical and political system called Polish Messianism’ (Krzyzanowski 1930, 96–7); see also Zaborowski (2004) and Nowak (2005). 5. Both Mickiewicz and Słowacki joined the 1848 Rising in Pozan. They sacri- ficed their possessions and individual pursuits for Poland’s independence. 6. In a letter to Gordon Gardiner (8 October 1923) Conrad claimed to have refused to join a club restricted to members of the Church of England and a Catholic Society: ‘I am afraid I am a lost soul ...I have got to stand between the two, a prey to the first inferior devil that may come along’ (CL 8, 191). 7. Ford stated that Conrad was ‘above all things else ... a politician’ and ‘a student of politics, without prescription, without dogma, and, as a Papist, with a profound disbelief in the perfectibility of human institutions’ (1964, 57). 8. Conrad told Warrington Dawson in a letter dated 20 June 1913: ‘Art for me is an end in itself. Conclusions are not for it’ (CL 5, 237). 9. Conrad would have preferred the word ‘Polonism’ to ‘Slavonism’, as he stated in a letter to Charles Chassé (31 January 1924): ‘As to the references to my Slavonism, I am certain you wrote in all sincerity, like many English critics who had been raising the same point some years ago, but not so much lately ...What I venture to say is that it would have been more just to charge me at most with “Polonism”’ (CL 8, 290–1). 10. Thus the patriotic impulse is strongly at work in both categories of readers; those who rejected Conrad’s fiction as non-Polish and those who enthusiastically reintegrated him into the fold. Each group of readers assessed Conrad’s fiction within a strict patriotic interpretative frame that conflated the aesthetic and the ideological. 11. Krajka insightfully remarked that ‘before 1948 [Conrad] was read by the élite, intellectuals and youth; after 1956, by a great many lovers of literature among the general public’ (1993, 49). 12. Perlowski wrote: ‘It was accepted that any Pole might seek his livelihood elsewhere, that he might write in a foreign language and even become famous as a result. Yes, the better known he was abroad, the more effectively he could serve the Polish cause ... But years went by and Conrad did not fulfil our expectations. His later works, which accounted for his fame in England, seemed to us different and more remote. His thoughts and feelings were more English. Our disappointment grew as this writer, forgetting his home country, merged more and more with his English environment, to such a degree that he even began delivering in real earnest inspired speeches on its behalf. In all his works there was no mention of Poland. We were baffled. But none of us suspected that things would get even worse when he finally remembered Poland’ (cited in Najder, 1983a, 158). 13. See Conrad’s A Personal Record (PR), ‘A Note on the Polish Problem’ and ‘The Crime of Partition’ (NLL). 14. In a conference paper entitled ‘“Simple Ideas” in Conrad’s World? The Case of “Prince Roman”’, Romanick Baldwin discussed Conrad’s relation to the reader and perceptively argued that ‘the narrative first distances readers from Prince Roman’s story, establishing them as outsiders, in order to move them Notes 197

gradually into shared experience and affective understanding of patriotism shaped by the concrete particulars of the story’ (2008). 15. Conrad was grieved by Poland’s predicament, as he told Marian Dobrowski: ‘When I ponder the present political situation, c’est affreux! I can’t think of Poland often. It feels bad, bitter, painful. It would make life unbearable’ (cited in Najder 1983a, 201). 16. Najder (1983b) rightly points out that before 1914 Conrad mentioned Poland in his published work only three times: in ‘Autocracy and War’ (1905), in A Personal Record (1908–09) and in ‘Prince Roman’ (1911). 17. In terms echoing Morf, Wit Tarnawski saw A Personal Record as reflecting the ‘settlement of an outstanding debt to his native country’ (cited in Najder and Stape 2008, xliv). 18. The State Editorial Office in Warsaw republished Lord Jim in 1949, followed by The Mirror of the Sea and The Shadow Line in 1950. 19. Morf discussed the influence of Polish culture on Conrad in The Polish Heritage of Joseph Conrad, first published in 1930. His 1976 monograph pursued and extended this discussion. 20. The term ‘bovarysm’, coined in reference to Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, con- notes duplicity and elusiveness, key features of several Conrad’s characters. 21. In contrast to Lutosławski, Orzeszkowa, and Gomulicki, Zagorska, Morf, and Najder, among others, reclaimed Conrad as completely ‘one of us’ and unreservedly reintegrated him into the Polish culture and literary tradition. They laboriously traced most of Conrad’s themes and symbols to his native cultural tradition. And they did so in terms that betrayed essentialist appropriative gestures and Messianic as well as mystic notions of textuality. 22. After having previously stressed Conrad’s deep Polish roots, Najder in his recent works tends to emphasize the author’s continental dimension, following in the steps of Hervouet, among others. In this way Najder intends to situate Conrad as an essentially European rather than a specifically British writer. In ‘Joseph Conrad: a European Writer’, Najder rightly observes that Conrad must have certainly ‘felt at home in several European civilizations’ (1997, 167). Judging from his multi-faceted poetic, epistemic, and existential scope, Conrad is, in my view, more fittingly defined as a trans-continental author who defies nationalistic appropriations and insular critical perspectives. 23. In this monograph, Najder clearly aims to undermine Conrad’s French and British legacy in terms that are sometimes extreme, if not simply erroneous. Discussing the impact of Flaubert and Maupassant on Conrad’s writing, Najder writes: ‘The influence of Flaubert and Maupassant, although undoubt- edly strong and consciously absorbed by Conrad, was in fact doubly limited: it concerned mainly matters of literary technique, and affected almost exclu- sively his early and still immature books’ (1964, 28). Hervouet demonstrated that the impact of these writers on Conrad went well beyond the mere level of style (1990). To further reinstate the true measure of Flaubert and Maupas- sant’s influence on Conrad, it is important to bear in mind that this influence was certainly not limited to the ‘early’ and ‘immature’ works, as Najder contends. Rather, Conrad’s later and major books also strongly echo his French masters’ writing, especially with regard to reader theory, as shown in this study. 198 Notes

24. Najder’s undermining of the influence of the French language on Conrad’s prose, for instance, is emphatically rendered in this statement: ‘The alleged “Gallicisms” of his English are in fact not gallicisms but simply polonisms; it is enough to set Conrad’s original text side by side with a Polish translation to observe idiomatic borrowings and syntactical influences’ (1964, 29). Conrad, as Najder states, obviously borrowed idioms and syntactical constructions from his native language. At the same time, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of French could appreciate that Conrad’s English is strewn with French syntactic structures. 25. Conrad declared in a letter to Richard Curle (17 July 1923): ‘I have always tried to counteract the danger of precise classification, either in the realm of exoti[ci]sm or of the sea; and in the course of years here and there I have had helpful paragraphs and articles in that sense. But they never amounted to much. Neither were my protests very effective’ (CL 8, 136).

3. British Reception: Englishness and the Act of Reading

1. There are of course, honourable exceptions to this generalization about English writers, for example, neither Hardy nor Dickens, nor many women writers would have had this kind of elitist background. The adjective rhizomic is used here in a Deleuzian sense to mean multiple, non-dualistic ways of conceiving identity and knowledge. 2. Conrad declared in a letter to Sir Sidney Colvin (1 March 1917): ‘Perhaps you won’t find it presumption if after 22 years of work I may say that I have not been very well understood. I have been called a writer of the sea, of the tropics, a descriptive writer, a romantic writer – and also a realist. But as a matter of fact all my concern has been with the “ideal” values of things, events and people. That and nothing else’ (CL 6, 40). Conrad was apparently expecting such categorization of his works, as he pointed out in a letter to Richard Curle (14 July 1923): ‘Indeed, the nature of my writing runs the risk of being obscured by the nature of my material. I admit it is natural; but only the appreciation of a special personal intelligence can counteract the superficial appreciation of the inferior intelligence of the mass of readers and critics’ (CL 8, 130). 3. In a letter to Agnes Tobin, dated 21 July 1911, Conrad stated: ‘I am awfully in arrears with my N.Y.H [erald] novel [Chance]; and it makes me anxious. But all my writing life has been one long anxiety’ (CL 4, 461). 4. Chance sold about 13,000 copies during the year 1914–15; it fared far better than Under Western Eyes (1911), for instance, which sold only one-third as many copies. Conrad seems to have sensed that Chance could be a popular and commercial success. In a letter to J.B. Pinker (7 April 1913), Conrad declared that this novel is ‘the sort of stuff that may have a chance with the public. All of it about a girl and with a steady run of references to women in general all along, some sarcastic, others sentimental, it ought to go down’ (CL 5, 208). It is also important to remember that the publicity and promotion orchestrated by Conrad’s American publisher, Frank Doubleday contributed widely to Chance’s commercial and popular success. Notes 199

5. Conrad wrote in the ‘Author’s Note’ to Chance: ‘What makes this book mem- orable to me apart from the natural sentiment one has for one’s creation is the response it provoked. The general public responded largely, more largely perhaps than to any other book of mine, in the only way the general public can respond, that is by buying a certain number of copies. This gave me a considerable amount of pleasure, because what I always feared most was drifting unconsciously into the position of a writer for a limited coterie; a position which would have been odious to me as throwing a doubt on the soundness of my belief in the solidarity of all mankind in simple ideas and sincere emotions’ (C xxxii–xxxiii). 6. In a letter to J.G. Huneker (late June 1913) Conrad referred to Chance as ‘my girl-novel’ (CL 5, 236). This labelling clearly distinguishes this book from his characteristically masculine fiction. 7. Conrad stated in a letter to T. Fisher Unwin (28 May 1896): ‘My style may be atrocious – but it produces its effect – is as unalterable as – say – the size of my feet – and I will never disguise it in boots of Wells’ (or anybody else’s) making. It would be utter folly. I shall make my own boots or perish’ (CL 9, 32). 8. H.G. Wells reviewed An Outcast of the Islands in the Saturday Review and offered Conrad the following advice: ‘Since you don’t make the slightest concessions to the reading young woman who makes or mars the fortunes of authors, it is the manifest duty of a reviewer to differentiate between you and the kind of people we thrust into the “Fiction” at the end, the Maples and the Shoolbreds of literature ...If I have indeed put my finger on a weak point in your armour of technique, so that you may be able to strengthen it against your next occasion, I shall have done the best a reviewer can do. You have everything for the making of a splendid novelist except dexterity, and that is attainable by drill’ (cited in Gordan 1963, 281). It appears, as Greaney remarks, Conrad ‘deliberately ... played up the romantic content of “girl-novel” in order to appeal to a female readership’ (2001, 99). 9. For recent approaches to the reception of Conrad’s works, see Billy and Orr (1999), Peters (2006), and Simmons (2006). 10. Conrad’s opinion of reviewers wavered throughout his career. Initially he looked eagerly to the reviews of his books, for he valued highly the role of the critic. In a letter to Barett H. Clark (4 May 1918), Conrad wrote: ‘it is the critic’s affair to bring to its [the story’s ‘final effect’] contemplation his own honesty, his sensibility and intelligence ...If his conscience is busy with petty scruples and trammelled by superficial formulas then his judgment will be superficial and petty’ (CL 6, 211). However, in a letter to Alfred Knopf (20 July 1913), Conrad spoke disdainfully of reviewers, declaring that ‘the majority of writers of notices in newspapers are men of average tastes’ (CL 5, 257). Conrad’s most caustic critique of the reviewers is expressed in a letter to H.G. Wells (20 October 1905): ‘The worst of our criticism is that it is so barren. Most of our reviewers seem absolutely unable to understand in a book anything but facts and the most elementary qualities of rendering’ (CL 3, 289). Beyond superficiality, Conrad also reproached the critics for indulging too easily in comparison and categorization of his writing. He wrote in a letter to J.B. Pinker (18 November 1920): ‘I know how the minds of professional 200 Notes

critics work. They live on comparisons, because that is the easiest method of appreciation. Whereas I hate them, even if made in my favour’ (CL 7, 206). 11. For further information on the reception of A Personal Record, see Najder and Stape (2008) 12. In ‘The New Novel’, Henry James criticized Conrad’s method in Chance, pointing out the imbalance between the novel’s complex technique of exposition and the simplicity of the story. He referred to Marlow’s narrative as a ‘prolonged hovering flight of the subjective over the outstretched ground of the case exposed’ (cited in Sherry 1973, 267). The review in the Glasgow News of 5 February 1914 likewise criticized Marlow’s narrative technique: ‘Some- how Chance suggests a scaffolding that people watch being constructed intri- cately for days, only to find that at the end it was designed for nothing more than the placing of a weather-cock on a steeple’ (cited in Sherry 1973, 283). 13. Henry James pointed out Conrad’s elitism in a letter to Edmund Gosse in 1902, stating that Conrad’s production ‘has all been fine, rare and valid, of the sort greeted more by the expert and the critic than ...by the man in the street’ (cited in Gordan 1963, 303). Conrad himself seemed to be aware that his sophisticated narrative methods could not appeal to or be understood by the average reader. He declared in a letter to H.B. Marriott Watson (28 January 1903): ‘My conviction is that the general reader does not care anything for method. And rightly so. Why should he (having his own heavy grindstone to turn) bother his head about what he cannot possibly understand’ (CL 3, 13). 14. In his early writing career Conrad believed that he would make a finan- cially successful artistic life, yet after the commercial failure of Almayer’s Folly and An Outcast of the Islands he felt that he would never be popular (see Conrad’s letter to the Baroness Janina de Brunnow, 2 October 1897; quoted below, Chapter 7, note 7). It is worth mentioning in this respect that in the last decade of his life Conrad’s financial situation improved greatly. Curle remarked that Conrad ‘was really very well off during the final eight years of his life – one year he actually made more than £10,000 – and he stood out more and more as a figure in the public eye’ (1968, 136). Indeed, shortly before his death and in the following years, Conrad enjoyed a grow- ing reputation in both Britain and America and his books sold extremely well. As Gordan reports, between 1923 and 1938 Conrad’s American publishers affirmed having sold 12,669 copies of Almayer’s Folly, 35,800 copies of The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’, 59,150 copies of ‘Youth’, and 109,300 copies of Lord Jim. ‘During the same period subscription sets have sold approxi- mately 1,157,401 volumes, containing ... many copies of the books above listed’ (1963, 309). According to Ray: ‘At his death, Conrad left an estate of £20,045’ (1993, 17). 15. From 1911 to 1918 Conrad sold his manuscripts to John Quinn, and from 1918 on to Thomas Wise (see Billy and Orr 1999). 16. Conrad went to the United States in May 1923. During this promotional visit instigated by his American publisher, Doubleday, Conrad could sense his American readers’ enthusiastic response. In a letter to Alfred A. Knopf (20 July 1913), he stated that ‘I have had in the U.S. a very good press – invariably!’ (CL 5, 257). Conrad also referred to the ‘boom in Joseph Conrad in France’. 17. Curle pointed out Conrad’s pessimism and ascribed the ‘fatalistic melan- choly’ of his fiction to his Polish background (Manchester Guardian, 2 February Notes 201

1912). The Glasgow News also labelled Conrad ‘a pessimist’ and associated this feature with his Polishness (8 February 1912) (cited in Najder and Stape 2008, xli). 18. In 1896, the Saturday Review criticized Conrad’s prolixity in these terms: Conrad ‘has still to learn the great half of his art, the art of leaving things unwritten’ (cited in Gordan 1963, 279). The review implied that Conrad was lacking a fundamental trait of Englishness: understatement. 19. Riede highlights that ‘Englishness is a closed system, a game played by abso- lute, defined rules learned on the playing fields of Eton, and is characterized by a laconic disposition to rest upon received opinions’ (2006, 212). 20. The conflation of the terms ‘British’ and ‘English’ was such even during the twentieth century that politicians were pressured to favour the inclusive word ‘British’ over the insular ‘English’. But the old habit was persistent, as illustrated by the famous advertisement in The Times of November 1914, which run as follows: ‘Englishmen! Please use “Britain”, “British”, and “Briton”, when the UK or the empire is in question – at least during the war’ (cited in Hanham 1969, 130). 21. On Ford and Forster’s attitudes to Englishness, see Brown and Plastow (2006). 22. John Crompton drew attention to the inclusive dimension of Englishness in his discussion of the notion of the ‘gentleman’ in his essay ‘Faith, Virtue and the Conduct of Life’ (2003). Similarly, Allan Simmons elaborated on the inclusive potential of Englishness in ‘The Art of Englishness’ (2004). While pointing out the inclusive character of Englishness in connection with Conrad, Simmons interprets Conrad’s relationship with Englishness in terms of ‘negotiation’ and mutual ‘transformation’. As a preliminary remark, it is important to note that Conrad, as an emigrant, had no choice but to negoti- ate his new existence within the established social and cultural norms. That being said, Conrad had benefited from the generosity and inclusiveness of British society, and this has been frequently stressed in Conrad criticism. What is, however, overlooked is that Conrad was equally a helpless victim of the same society’s xenophobia and exclusionary practices. In this respect, it is important to bear in mind that Conrad’s negotiation of Englishness, evoked by Simmons, was above all based on extremely unbalanced power relationships. To venture an analogy, Conrad’s relation to Englishness was somehow similar to the cultural and commercial transactions between the Malays and Dutch in ‘Karain: A Memory’. Balanced and inclusive in appearance, these transactional relationships, like Englishness itself, were in practice deeply coercive and exclusionary. 23. Crompton refers to Brierly as ‘seemingly the epitome of Englishness’ (2003, 153). 24. In 1900, the Academy gave vent to its jingoism, associating Jim with those heroic ‘men who are engaged in relating the East to the West; those strange links with the two civilizations; voluntary exiles from this country, denation- alizing themselves that the British flag shall find trade wherever it penetrates’ (cited in Gordan 1963, 295). 25. Berberich argues that ‘while Englishness and gentleman seem inextricably linked – the gentleman has always ... been considered a quintessentially English phenomenon’ (2006, 195). In the light of this consideration, we may understand why Conrad’s dream of becoming an English gentleman 202 Notes

remained unfulfilled. It is yet worth noting that the notion of ‘gentleman’ has some degree of elasticity. As Crompton remarks: ‘The concept of “the gentleman” in England partly involves social class’, but ‘it is possible for a man of humble birth to become a gentleman by absorb- ing and upholding the gentlemanly code. Social mobility has for centuries enabled men of lowly origin to become gentlemen, through ability, acquired wealth, and merit in the services, including the merchant navy’ (2003, 146). 26. Ford’s vision of Englishness is ambiguous and thus differs from the almost uniform, monological version of the rest of the authors mentioned here. For more details, see Brown and Plastow (2006). 27. According to Colls, there was a ‘revival’ of interest in ‘folk studies’ and local anthropology at that period. He attributes this revival to social and political unrest, which led to a retreat into England’s ‘racial and rural essence’ (1986, 47). 28. Morton states: ‘The village that symbolizes England sleeps in the subcon- scious of many a townsman’ (1984, 2) 29. Haslam notes: ‘In the first decade of the twentieth century “invasion literature”, novels and pamphlets that envisioned the defilement of the island, enjoyed record sales figures from a fascinated and appalled population during the years 1900–14’ (2006, 48). 30. The Spectator attributed Conrad’s lack of success to his themes: ‘Mr. Conrad’s matter is too detached from “actuality” to please the great and influential section of readers who like their fiction to be spiced with topical allusions, political personalities, or the mondanities of Mayfair, – just now the swing of the pendulum is entirely away from the slums, and almost altogether in the direction of sumptuous interiors. Mr. Conrad, in a word, takes no heed to the vagaries of fashion or of pseudo-culture – he only once mentions an author and only once makes a quotation – he eschews epigrams, avoids politics and keeps aloof from great cities. His scenes are laid in unfamiliar regions, amid outlandish surroundings.’ The Outlook ascribed Conrad’s lack of popularity to his subtle artistry and elusiveness: Lord Jim’s ‘qualities are of a peculiarly refined and half elusive kind which may well prove unattractive to the multitude’ (cited in Gordan 1963, 297). 31. In contrast to Conrad’s precarious English identity, Hardy’s Englishness could not be doubted since, as Whibley remarked, he belonged ‘by birth and temperament to the soil of England’ (1995, 419). 32. The Citizen (2 May 1896) described The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’ as ‘darkly pes- simistic’; so, too, did the Illustrated London News, which complained that ‘the school of fiction-brutality to which he belongs is not given to idealizing fact’ (Gordan 1963, 279 and 288). Similar descriptions were applied to Tales of Unrest which was deemed ‘a disagreeable book’ (Literary World); ‘unbearably sinister’ (Spectator); ‘grim beyond endurance’ (Book Buyer) (cited in Gordan 1963, 294). 33. According to Gainer, immigration ‘into England trebled between 1899 and 1902’ (1972, 2–3). 34. What was most distressing for the Anglophile Conrad was to be lumped together with the despised, unwelcome Jews. As Curle remarked, several people explicitly identified Conrad with the Jews from Eastern Europe: ‘Many Notes 203

people, for instance, could not get out of their heads the idea that Conrad, just because he came from Poland, must be a Jew – and this, of course, annoyed him intensely’ (1968, 178–9). 35. For detailed studies on the theme of isolation and alienation, see Gillon (1960) and Krajka (1992). 36. Kipling’s observation is repeated with little variation by the essayist and short story writer Christopher Morley: ‘Conrad’s prose ... seems always like a notable translation from the French’ (1918, 243). Such reflections might have been spurred by Conrad’s own observation on his writing. He told W.E. Henley who published The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’ in his Review: ‘When I write I think in French and then translate the words of my thoughts into English. This is an impossible process for one desiring to make a living by writing in the English language’ (cited in Ford 1964, 32). 37. On Conrad and race politics, see also Firchow (1999). 38. Several critics pointed out the biographical elements in ‘Amy Foster’. Najder (1964), for instance, referred to the presence of ‘an autobiographical component’ in the tale. Karl, in turn, stated that ‘despite Conrad’s attempts to intensify the size of the story through mythical references and the aura of the incomprehensible, “Amy Foster” works best at its simplest level, which also corresponds to very personal elements in Conrad’s own development’ (1979, 514). Carabine discussed these biographical connections, arguing: ‘biographical and psychological commentary ... has obscured the links between the historical, political and cultural aspects of what Conrad called his “pecu- liar experience of race and family” and his nodal idea of “irreconcilable differences”’ (1992, 198). 39. Morf asserts that ‘like his heroes, like Almayer, like Yanko Goorall, Joseph Conrad had to fight alone; he knew it’ (1965, 96). This argument needs to be tempered, for there is plenty of evidence that Conrad was tremendously assisted in his literary career by a host of British writers and friends.

4. Conrad’s Visual Aesthetics: Classical and Modern Connections

1. Conrad admitted that The Two Gentlemen of Verona was the first Shakespeare work he read when he was in exile with his parents (see Gillon 1976). 2. Conrad’s father translated Shakespeare’s The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Hugo’s Les Travailleurs de la mer. 3. Several critics have explored the influence of Shakespeare on Conrad. Schultheiss was among the first to draw attention to Shakespearean echoes in Conrad’s works in his essay ‘Lord Hamlet and Lord Jim’ (1966). Gillon elaborated on the connections between Conrad and Shakespeare. He drew attention to Shakespearean resonances in Conrad’s fiction, arguing that ‘Conrad’s use of Shakespearean archetypes in Lord Jim, The Shadow Line, Under Western Eyes, and other works reaches a culminating point in Victory’ (Gillon 1976, 85). 4. On the thematic and symbolic correspondences between Conrad and Dickens, see Daleski (2001). 5. On Conrad and scepticism, see Wollaeger (1990). 204 Notes

6. Authors including Matthew Arnold, Haggard, Woolf, and Forster established close connections with ancient Greek literature, culture, and society. Their writings often invoked and re-imagined the ancient Greek world in an idealized form in order to serve contemporary aesthetic and ideological purposes. These could range from cultural and social reforms to aesthetic reinvigoration and the bolstering of imperial conquests (Acheraïou 2008). 7. For more information on the battle of Salamis, see Isaac (2004) and Acheraïou (2008). 8. Among the Odyssey’s secondary narrators are Nestor, Manelaus, Agamemnon, and Odysseus. See De Jong (2004a). 9. De Jong points to the Odyssey’s internal narrators’ restricted knowledge: ‘They do not know the future, cannot read the minds of other characters, and cannot be present everywhere. Occasionally these restrictions are effectively exploited: the fact that on his way home from Troy Nestor becomes separated from Odysseus makes it impossible for him to tell Telemachus about the whereabouts of his father, and therefore necessitates the youth’s visit to Menelaus. But more often they are circumvented by allowing the internal narrators to use their ex eventu knowledge. Thus Nestor knows what lies ahead of him in Od. 3.160–161, Odysseus can read the mind of his com- panions in Od. 10.415–417, and knows what took place on Mt. Olympus in Od. 12.374–390’ (2004a, 19) 10. Hunter refers to Apollonius’ exploration of the ‘rhythms of a long epic narrative and the limits of epic “repetitiveness” and authorial discretion ... Callamachus’ experiments with the inherited modes of form and voice imposed by genre and metre, and seeks to recuperate within hexameter and elegiac poetry some of the narrative techniques of archaic and classical choral lyric, notably that of Pindar and the choruses of Attic tragedy, which had long since died out’ (Hunter 2004, 94). 11. On Fielding and the ancient writers, see Olds Bissell (1969; originally published in 1933). In this monograph, Olds Bissell points out the influence of Homer and Aristotle on Fielding’s critical theories and refers to the impact that poets like Lucian, Plutarch, and Virgil had on his Burlesques and parodies. For a more recent study, see Mace (1996). 12. Herodotus’ narrator calls customs ‘very wise’ (1.63.2), advice ‘very useful’ (1.170–1), the death of Polycrates ‘unworthy of himself and his designs’ (3.125.2), and the blinding by the Thracian king of his own sons a ‘monstrous deed’ (8.116.1). See De Jong (2004b, 105). 13. Ford claimed that in his collaboration with Conrad: ‘Our eyes were for ever on the reader’ (1964, 69) 14. Conrad told Richard Curle: ‘I prefer Cinema to Stage ... The Movie is just a silly stunt for silly people – but the theatre is more compromising since it is capable of falsifying the very soul of one’s work both on the imaginative and on the intellectual side’ (1968, 113). 15. On Conrad’s relation to photography, see Donovan (2005, 28) 16. Similarly, Diderot, who was influenced by Sterne, also associated writing with painting. He declared in the salon of 1767 that he always tried to arrange his characters in his head as if they were on canvas (see Fredman 1973). 17. On Sterne and impressionism, see Sichel (1910). Notes 205

18. As far as impressionism is concerned, it is important to note that although he adopted what could be read as impressionist techniques in his fiction, Conrad’s reactions to this artistic trend were negative. See CL 1, Peters (2001), and Matz (2007). 19. In this Preface Conrad articulated an artistic credo and reiterated his dis- missal of formulas: ‘It is evident that he who, rightly or wrongly, holds by the convictions expressed above cannot be faithful to any one of the tem- porary formulas of his craft. The enduring part of them – the truth which each only imperfectly veils – should abide with him as the most precious of his possessions, but they all: Realism, Romanticism, Naturalism, even the unofficial sentimentalism ... all these gods must, after a short period of fel- lowship, abandon him – even on the very threshold of the temple – to the stammerings of his conscience and to the outspoken consciousness of the difficulties of his work’ (NN x–xi). 20. Watts refers to Walter Pater who stated in ‘The School of Giorgione’ (1877): ‘All art constantly aspires towards the condition of music.’ Watts adds that ‘this notion, deriving from Schopenhauer, had become an aesthetic com- monplace by the 1890s; it was argued that music manifests that invisibility of form and content to which the other arts aspire’ (Watts 1988, 131). On Conrad and music, see Di Gaetani (1977) who points out the Wagnerian influence on Conrad. 21. Watts quotes Schopenhauer who wrote: ‘the artist lets us see the world through his eyes. That he has these eyes, that he knows the inner nature of things apart from all their relations, is the gift of genius, is inborn; but that he is able to lend us this gift, to let us see with his eyes, is acquired, and is the technical side of art’ (cited in Watts 1988, 131). 22. Conrad remarked: ‘Trusting then in your sense not to condemn me I will repeat that fundamentally the creator in letters aims at a moving picture’ (cited in Schwab 1965, 346). 23. Flaubert revered Homer and Shakespeare and looked upon both as paragons of poetic expression, if not simply the ‘conscience’ of the world. He was deeply convinced that only such classics were worth reading and studying. He advised Amélie Bosquet: ‘Devote yourself to the classics ... Do not read any thing mediocre’ (1973, 302). 24. Thucydides, for instance, highly valued the accounts of eye-witnesses in his historical works. The device of the eye-witness, alongside the classical visual and rhetorical strategies evoked earlier are, of course, central to Conrad’s literary credo in the Preface to The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’. 25. From the outset of his career Conrad was committed to ‘complete, unswerv- ing devotion to the perfect blending of form and substance’, to ‘an unremitting never-discouraged care for the shape and ring of sentences’ (NN, ix). 26. Original phrase: ‘être oeil, tout bonnement’ (1981, 169). 27. ‘On n’est plus l’homme, on est oeil’ (1973, 339). 28. On Conrad and voyeurism, see Acheraïou (1998) and Hawthorn (2007). 29. My translation. Original: ‘Il ne faut pas oublier que le langage (et j’applique ceci au langage dans tous les arts) est imparfait.’ 30. For a thorough study of Conrad’s relation to language, see Billy (1997). 206 Notes

5. A Cartography of Conrad’s Fictional Readers: Reading Hierarchy in Lord Jim, ‘Heart of Darkness’, Nostromo, and Victory

1. Conrad expressed his admiration for J. Fenimore Cooper in a letter to Arthur Symons (3, 10, or 17 August 1908): ‘F. Cooper is a rare artist. He has been one of my masters. He is my constant companion’ (CL 4, 101). Conrad’s enthu- siasm for Cooper’s works was expressed earlier in a letter to David Garnett (22 December 1902): ‘We have sent off three volumes of the “Leather-Stocking Tales” – one from each of us – with our love to you. You have promised me to read these stories and I would recommend you to begin with the Last of the Mohicans – then go on with the Deerslayer and end with the Prairie. I read them at your age in that order; and I trust that you, of a much later generation, shall find in these pages some at least of the charm which delighted me then and has not evaporated even to this day’ (CL 2, 467). 2. ‘Heart of Darkness’ is Conrad’s work which best illustrates the importance of gesture as a privileged means of communication. We recall how, faced with the impossibility of communicating in English with the black tribesmen, Marlow resorts to gesture to convey his message. The attempt seems successful, as Marlow further stresses the communicative value and efficiency of gesture, arguing that none of his gestures were lost on his audience.

6. Narrative Solidarity and Competition for Truth and Signification

1. For a detailed analysis of Conrad’s narrative methods in Chance and in his novels at large, see Lothe (1989). 2. As pointed out in Chapter 2, Conrad claimed vigorously that he would never submit to the taste of the multitude or fit into the shoes of other writers; a claim which is starkly contradicted by the type of story and literary genre he adopts in Chance. 3. In Conrad’s works, voice and perspective establish symbiotic relationships, feeding upon one another to sustain the narrative flow (Acheraïou 1998). 4. For a detailed analysis of Conrad’s narrative method and representation of otherness in ‘Karain: A Memory’, see Acheraïou (2007).

7. Conrad and the Construction of the Reader: Tension between Democratic Vision and Aristocratic Leaning

1. Virginia Woolf is perhaps the writer who best illustrates this modernist incli- nation to recover the ancient ideal poetic communication. By the 1930s, as Silver points out, Woolf ‘had begun to speculate how one might recover the mutually sustaining, collaborative relationship anonymous poets had enjoyed with their audiences before the invention of the printed text and authorship, a relationship that had required the audience to listen intently Notes 207

to the spoken word and to watch closely the body language of actors, a relationship that had derived from the “song making instinct” and the desire both to sing and to listen’ (1979, 426–7). 2. Watt claims that ‘Marlow’s story can be considered as an abortive quest to escape from the breakdown of society’s modes of reciprocity’ (1979, 245) 3. Bette London’s notion of a ‘yes men’ audience fits well Marlow’s listeners (1990, 43). 4. Conrad’s dislike of ‘closed ends’ echoes the views of his French master, Flaubert who regarded conclusions as a sign of stupidity and shallowness. 5. In a letter dated 18 October 1905, Conrad warned Norman Douglas: ‘Don’t forget my dear fellow that your point of view in general is the unpopular one. It is intellectual and uncompromising. This does not make things easier. People don’t want intelligence. It worries them – and they demand from their writers as much subserviency as from their footmen if not rather more’ (CL 3, 286). In another letter to Norman Douglas (24 July 1905), Conrad referred to ‘the imbecility of human nature’ (CL 3, 277). 6. As Hervouet observed, Conrad’s denying the popular mind a capacity for scepticism echoes Anatole France’s view that ‘only cultivated minds could bear scepticism’ (‘le doute n’est supportable qu’aux esprits cultivés’ (1990, 161). 7. In response to the commercial failure of his first two novels, Almayer’s Folly and An Outcast of the Islands, Conrad declared in a letter to the Baroness Janina de Brunnow (2 October 1897): ‘the future is anything but certain, for I am not a popular author and probably I never shall be. That does not sadden me at all, for I have never had the ambition to write for the all-powerful masses. I haven’t the taste for democracy – and democracy hasn’t the taste for me. I have gained the appreciation of a few select spirits and I do not doubt I shall be able to create a public for myself, limited it is true, but one which will permit me to earn my bread. I do not dream of fortune; besides, one does not find it in an inkwell. But I confess to you I dream of peace, a little reputation, and the rest of my life devoted to the service of Art and free from material worries’ (CL 1, 388–9). 8. As many have remarked, Flaubert’s concern with posterity was common in nineteenth-century France. The period was also characterized by the ‘serious’ writers’ suspicion and contempt for the average reader. See Brombert (1988) and Conroy (1985). 9. Watts correctly remarked: ‘Narrative variation is needed to enable Conrad to speak more freely and eloquently; the modulation helps Conrad to dis- tinguish himself from the novel’s authorial narrative voice’ (1977, 187). We may further state that narrative modulations in Conrad’s writing reflect in essence the epistemological relativity on which Conrad’s ethical and aesthetic outlook is based. 10. Like Anatole France, Conrad also regards curiosity as a supreme value. In Chance he describes it as ‘the most respectable faculty of the human mind’ (C40). 11. For a detailed study of narrative alter ego in Homer and Herodotus, see De Jong (2004a and 2004b). 12. Marlow, who targets life’s depth, is obviously above the general public, whose superficiality Conrad laments in a letter to Richard Curle (17 July 1923): ‘You 208 Notes

know how the public mind fastens on externals, on mere facts, such, for instance, as ships and voyages, without paying attention to any deeper significance they may have’ (CL8, 136). 13. Conrad declared in a letter to Barrett H. Clark (4 May 1918): ‘Coming now to the subject of your inquiry I wish at first to put before you a general proposi- tion: that a work of art is very seldom limited to one exclusive meaning and not necessarily tending to a definite conclusion’ (CL 6, 210-11). 14. Conrad wrote in a letter to Harriet Mary Capes (22 March 1902): ‘I have just re-read Your gracious message. I can not believe that I deserve so high a commendation. That you should give it to me is not my merit but yours alone – for the reader collaborates with the author’ (CL 2, 394). 15. Sterne in Tristram Shandy explicitly tells the reader: ‘– And the story too – if you please: for though I have all along been hastening towards this part of it, with so much earnest desire, as well knowing it to be the choicest morsel of what I had to offer to the world, yet now that I am got to it, any one is welcome to take my pen, and go on with the story for me that will–Isee the difficulties of the descriptions I’m going to give – and feel my want of powers’ (TS 654). Interestingly, in Jacques the Fatalist Diderot also solicits his reader’s collaboration in terms echoing Sterne’s: ‘Look, Jacques said over and over that it was written on high that he’d never finish the tale, and I now see that he was right. I can tell, Reader, that you are not best pleased. Well, why don’t you pick up his story at the point where he left it yourself, and continue it as you think best? Or go and call on Mademoiselle Agathe, find out the name of the village where Jacques is being held, see Jacques, and question him’ (JF 236–7). 16. Conrad stated in a letter to Cunninghame Graham (5 August 1897): ‘To know that You could read me is good news indeed – for one writes only half the book; the other half is with the reader.’ 17. Brooks stated: ‘The story is, after all, a construction made by the reader ... from the implications of the narrative discourse, which is all he ever knows’ (1985, 25). See also Iser (1980).

8. Narrative Self-Consciousness and the Act of Reading: Examining Under Western Eyes through the Lens of the Poetics of Fielding, Sterne, and Diderot

1. Conrad strove for popularity despite a manifest contempt for the general public. Throughout his career he tried to attract a wide audience, but he was aware that his writing was not often understood or only inadequately so by his readers. On many occasions he expressed a desire to win his public’s sym- pathy and understanding. In some of his writing this desire to be understood is explicitly conveyed by his protagonists. The phrase ‘I want to be understood’ recurs, for instance, in both Lord Jim and Under Western Eyes. And Jim and Razumov’s pleas for understanding echo Conrad’s own appeal for his readers’ empathy and discernment. 2. Shakespeare borrowed extensively from earlier and ancient poets. He imitated and appropriated writers as varied as Ovid, Plutarch, and Holinshed. Even Notes 209

the ancient writers like Ovid, Aeschylus, and Euripides borrowed from and reshaped earlier myths. See Bullough (1957–75) and Sanders (2006). 3. See Stedmond (1967) and Hartley (1966). 4. Fielding tapped into modern as well as ancient sources. He was influenced by authors as varied as Cervantes, Rabelais, Shakespeare, Molière, Swift, and Lesage. His ancient influences, on the other hand, include Lucian, Plutarch, Nepos, Virgil, and Juvenal. On Fielding and the classics, see Fielding (1937, 189) and McKeon (1960). 5. As is evidenced in Waverley’s sublime landscapes and in the hero’s Romantic portrait, Walter Scott in this novel draws on Romance and Gothic forms, but turns to caricature these traditions he tries both to assimilate and domesticate. In 1824, Scott contributed an essay on ‘Romance’ to the fifth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in which he attempted to make a generic distinction between Romance – in which we may include its Gothic sub-genre led by its precursor Horace Walpole, Ann Radcliffe, and Matthew Gregory Lewis – and the novel, represented by works by authors such as Richardson and Burney. In his essay Scott pointed out that Romance ‘with its roots reaching back to the chivalric tales of the Middle Ages relied on colourful incident to the point of disregarding the dictates of plausibility’. His definition of Romance is well in keeping with the seventeenth-century conception of this genre: ‘We would be rather inclined to describe a romance as a fictitious narrative in prose or verse; the interest of which turns upon marvellous and uncommon inci- dents; being thus opposed to the kindred form of the Novel which we would rather define as a fictitious narrative, differing from the romance, because the events are accommodated to the ordinary train of human existence’ (see Scott 1834, 129). 6. Many seventeenth-century writers looked down on Romance as a vehicle of irrational flights and moral corruption. See Sherman (1976) and Fredman (1973). 7. On Aristotle’s notion of the verisimilar, see Poetics. 8. What we call today ‘roman’ or ‘novel’, as Maureseth notes, was called ‘histories’ by seventeenth and eighteenth-century theorists (2007, 189). 9. According to Hobson: ‘What seems evident is that the concept of “truth” comes in fact to mean historical truth. History and Romance are consciously separated and it is between these two that the novel moves’ (1982, 89). 10. On Diderot and Sterne’s influence on nineteenth-century realism, see Fred- man (1973), Walder (1995), and Watt (1957). 11. Diderot declared that the theatre had with the passing of centuries grown stiff and dull: ‘les acteurs s’arrangent en rond ... et arrivent à pas comptés et mesurés ... Ne soyez donc plus symétrisés, raides, fiches, compasses et plantés en rond’ (cited in Kempf 1964, 61). 12. In his letters Sterne also stressed his originality when discussing his later work, A Sentimental Journey which, he declared, was to be ‘something new, quite out of the beaten track’ (Curtis 1935, 301). 13. Sherman remarks: ‘Swift, Batteux, and Turgot translated him, Diderot and Wieland imitated him, Addison used his topics in the Spectator’ (1976). See also Gay (1967, 39). 210 Notes

14. Woolf showered praise on Sterne’s work, particularly Tristram Shandy, which she regarded as a precursor of modernist aesthetics. She declared that Sterne was ‘singularly of our age’. Similarly, in his memoir, ‘My Friend James Joyce’, Eugene Jolas recounts a conversation he had with Joyce concerning work in progress in which Joyce drew an analogy between his work and that of Laurence Sterne (1948, 3–18). 15. Sterne no doubt introduced freshness into contemporary narrative forms and pushed further a number of literary devices recurrent throughout Western literary traditions, starting with the ancient Greek and Roman poets. Yet, it is important to remember that several of the devices we tend to associate with Sterne’s fiction are not his invention, but age-old devices that Sterne reworked to suit contemporary literary, moral, and commercial interests. Narrative self-consciousness, digressions, close author-reader relationship, and empha- sis on verisimilitude – prominent features of Sterne’s aesthetics – were, as mentioned earlier, common devices in ancient writing. Sterne’s originality consisted, then, not in inventing these devices, but in treating them in a new light and bringing a new level of sophistication to them. On Sterne and the classical writers, see Stedmond (1967). 16. In Tom Jones (Book 12), Fielding broaches and defends literary plagiarism, which was, of course, a common practice in the Western literary tradition from the high Middle Ages onwards (see Stedmond 1967). 17. On poetic sensibility, see Ress (2002) and Ahern (2007). 18. See Aristotle (1991), Lloyd (1978), and Sherman (1999). 19. Kundera, for instance, enthusiastically claimed that Sterne in Tristram Shandy ‘does not make us believe in anything: neither in the truth of the characters, the truth of the author, nor the truth of the novel as a literary genre: everything is put in question, everything is put in doubt, everything is a game’ (1986, 13). This comment needs to be moderated, for Sterne’s novel is far from collaps- ing the truths enumerated by Kundera. A close examination of the novel’s discursive layers shows, indeed, that Sterne’s apparent contestation of these literary truths – authorship, the novel genre – is undercut by a diffused, persistent impulse that simply seeks to legitimize the presumed literary novelty and new form of authorship self-proclaimed by Sterne. On a more global ideological level, it also becomes evident that behind Sterne’s subversive rhetoric lies a subtext of conformity and endorsement of the moral, political, and ideological truths on which the society in which the writer lived was founded. 20. Sterne disliked French polite society’s ‘artificiality’ and ‘insipidity’. He wrote: ‘Here every thing is hyperbolized – and if a woman is but simply pleased – ’tis je suis charmée – and if she is charmed ’tis nothing less, than that she is ravi-sh’d – and when ravi-sh’d (which may happen) there is nothing left for her but to fly to the other world for a metaphor, and swear qu’elle étoit toute extasiée – which mode of speaking, is, by the bye, here creeping into use, and there is scarce a woman who understands the bon ton, but is seven times in a day in downright extasy – that is, the devil’s in her – by a small mistake of one world for the other – ’ (Curtis 1935, 161–2). 21. Original: ‘[des œuvres] qui élèvent l’esprit, qui touchent l’âme, qui respirent partout l’amour du bien’ (Diderot 1968, 29). Notes 211

22. This eighteenth-century notion of fiction as consumption and reader as con- sumer of fiction is conveyed from the early pages of Tom Jones and Tristram Shandy. Both Fielding and Sterne compare their books to cookery; and both stress that their writing is a dish of outstanding quality. 23. At the close of the narrative, Sterne in Tristram Shandy, exhorts his reader to complete the story; so, too, Diderot in Jacques the Fatalist urges his reader to active collaboration: ‘Look, Jacques said over and over that it was written on high that he’d never finish the tale, and I now see he was right. I can tell, Reader, that you are not best pleased. Well, why don’t you pick his story at the point where he left it yourself, and continue it as you think best?’ (JF 136). 24. This denigratory rhetoric recalls Conrad’s own pejorative opinion of the reviewers and critics of his works. 25. Conrad saw literature as anything but amusement. In a letter to Arthur Symons (7 February 1911), he wrote: ‘to be amusing is not in my line. That’s why the public fights shy of my writing I suppose’ (CL 4, 411). 26. Conrad stated that ‘at the heart of fiction ...some sort of truth can be found’ (NLL 6). 27. Some critics contend that in Conrad’s fiction ethics and aesthetics are closely connected. Karl, for example, argued that Conrad was leaning to that ‘devotion to craft wherein art and morality meet in commitment, responsibility and lawfulness’ (1960, 36). Yet, we should be careful not to think of Conrad as a moralist in the way that Diderot or Fielding can be. The ethical and poetic qualities of Conrad’s works are so entangled and elusive that it is difficult to locate them with precision and confidence. 28. In a letter to Arthur Symons (29 August 1908), Conrad wrote: ‘Thus I’ve been called a heartless wretch a man without ideals and a poseur of brutality. But I will confess to you under seal of secrecy that I don’t believe I am such as I appear to mediocre minds’ (CL 4, 114). 29. This Conradian existential and ethical stance is strongly echoed in Stein’s rhetoric in Lord Jim, famously summed up in his much-quoted phrase ‘how to be’. 30. On theatricality in Sterne and Diderot, see Tadié (2003) and Menil (1995). 31. Baker notes that Fielding ‘learned from his own practice in imitating Restora- tion drama’. He goes on to observe: ‘Fielding puts his characters before us by making them speak and act; he makes them expose their essential traits in the first few syllables. The character drawing is in the dialogue itself, and the dialogue is always shapely’ (1924, 20). 32. Conversational and exclamatory modes are features of eighteenth-century prose, and Sterne and Diderot were recognized to be emblematic of this ‘loquacious’ age. Sterne, for instance, conceives of good writing as a conversation. He writes in Tristram Shandy: ‘Writing, when properly managed (as you may be sure I think mine is) is but a different name for conversation’ (TS 110). 33. Diderot accorded gesture a central place in his works. According to him, some gestures are so meaningful that they can in no way be rendered in words, however eloquent these may be (see Diderot 1875–77, 350–4). 34. Conrad declared in 1897: ‘I greatly desire to write a play myself. It is my dark and secret ambition’ (CL 1, 419). However, Conrad’s relation to the theatre was an ambiguous one. Curle stated: ‘If Conrad did not care much for poetry 212 Notes

he cared still less for the drama. He thought play writing the lowest of all forms of art – if, indeed, he thought it a form of art at all ... He was driven almost to distraction during the rehearsals of The Secret Agent by the inability of the actors to catch, or to interpret, his meaning’ (1968, 113). 35. The gaze is clearly of central thematic importance in this novel and many critics have pointed out Conrad’s constant reference to eyes and seeing (see Acheraïou 1998; Hawthorn 2007). 36. Pope stated: ‘The great art of all poetry is to mix truth and fiction, in order to join the credible with the surprising’ (2006, 201). 37. Diderot’s narrator openly states that the reader is at his mercy: ‘You see, Reader, I’m into my stride and I have it entirely in my power to make you wait a year, two years, three years, to hear the story of Jacques’s love affairs, by separating him from his Master and making the both of them undergo all the perils I please. What’s to prevent me marrying off the Master and telling you how his wife deceived him?’ (JF 4). 38. In their introduction to A Personal Record, Najder and Stape alluded to Sterne’s likely influence on Conrad, arguing: ‘Structurally, the four first sections of the reminiscences follow the same pattern: a series of loose associations is art- fully linked together by returns to the topic of Conrad’s first novel, Almayer’s Folly (more precisely, of its manuscript), and interspersed with “learned” digressions. Whether Conrad was consciously following a demonstrably Ster- nian mode cannot be proved but seems likely. He may even have done so without thinking about Tristram Shandy [1760–67] and A Sentimental Jour- ney [1768] and by relying on memories of his early reading’ (2008, xxxvii). Najder and Stape further state that Conrad’s ‘reference in Chance to “A sort of anti-sentimental journey” suggests, however, a knowledge of the original’ (xxxvii). 39. Dostoevsky’s influence on Conrad had attracted critical attention as early as the 1920s. Hugh Walpole wrote: ‘[Conrad] has been influenced by the Russian writer continuously and sometimes obviously. In at least one novel, Under Western Eyes, the influence has led to imitation’ (Walpole 1929, 114). 40. The language teacher’s moral identity has elicited much critical discussion and caused controversy among Conrad scholars. Kermode in ‘Secrets and Narrative Sequence’ identified the professor with ‘Satan’ and called him ‘a diabolical narrator’ (1983, 153). Carabine rejected Kermode’s observation, arguing that Kermode has misread the novel. Carabine writes: ‘the old teacher (inadvertently) functions as a secret agent in Conrad’s novel, working to release the protagonist from the false identity imposed on him by Mikulin, “the Enemy of Mankind”, who is the truly satanic tempter in this text’ (1996, 244). 41. Hawthorn rightly observes that ‘of all Conrad’s novels this is the most deeply felt, and that in his grappling with these questions Conrad is also grappling directly with the usefulness and morality of fiction itself, with, in short, the worth of his second vocation’ (1979, 103). 42. Marlow states: ‘As to me, I have no imagination (I would be more certain about him today, if I had)’ (LJ 135). 43. Within a postmodernist critical perspective no writing can pretend to originality; all boils down to a repetition and reworking of preceding texts and literary discourses. See Sanders (2006). Notes 213

44. For a recent discussion of the language teacher’s inconsistencies, see Watts (2009). 45. The notion of haunting is central to Under Western Eyes. As Watts points out, this novel ‘is a remarkably haunted text ... Within Under Western Eyes, modes of haunting inform the plot, the thematic structure, and the ironic meshwork. This novel presents the largest and most complex instance of Conradian Gothic’ (2009). 46. In stating that Under Western Eyes is a dialogued text, I am dissenting from the views of Fogel and Greaney among others. Fogel regarded Under West- ern Eyes as a ‘set of anti-conversations’ (1985, 184) and Greaney considered it as ‘a pre-emptive travesty of this ideal of dialogue as an interpersonal, reciprocal, and consensual form of intellectual exchange’ (2001, 153). My argument is that from a strictly reader-response perspective, Under Western Eyes is profoundly conversational and its creator is essentially concerned with establishing a sustained, complex, and intersubjective intellectual exchange with the reader.

Conclusion

1. Conrad stated in a letter to Warrington Dawson (20 June 1913): ‘And the fact is my dear Dawson (when I say Dawson I mean Powell too) that I don’t believe in the oneness of life. I believe in its infinite variety’ (CL 5, 237). References

Achebe, Chinua (1988) ‘“An image of Africa”: Racism in Conrad’s “Heart of Dark- ness”’, in Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays, 1965–67 (Oxford: Heinemann) 1–13. Acheraïou, Amar (1998) Voix et regard dans l’oeuvre romanesque de Joseph Conrad (Phd thesis, unpublished) (Paris : Sorbonne Nouvelle). Acheraïou, Amar (2004a) ‘The Shadow of Poland’, in Wiesław Krajka (ed.) A Return to the Roots: Conrad, Poland and East-Central Europe (Boulder: East European Monographs) 47–70. Acheraïou, Amar (2004b) ‘Floating Words: Sea as Metaphor of Style in “Typhoon”’, The Conradian 29(1): 27–38. Acheraïou, Amar (2007) ‘Colonial Encounters and Cultural Contests: Confronta- tion of Orientalist and Occidentalist Discourses in “Karain: A Memory”’, Conradiana 39(2): 153–67. Acheraïou, Amar (2008) Rethinking Postcolonialism: Colonialist Discourse in Modern Literatures and the Legacy of Classical Writers (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Ahern, Stephen (2007) Affected Sensibilities: Romantic Excess and the Genealogy of the Novel, 1680–1810 (New York: AMS Press). Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso). Anderson, Howard Peter et al. (1966) The Familiar Letter in the Eighteenth Century (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press). Aristotle (1968) Poetics (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Aristotle (1991) The Art of Rhetoric (London: Penguin). Baker, Ernest Albert (1924) The History of the English Novel (London: H.F. & G. Witherby). Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (Austin: Texas University Press). Bakhtin, Mikhail (1990) Art and Answerability: Early Essays of Mikhail Bakhtin (Austin: Texas University Press). Bann, Stephen (1989) The True Vine: On Visual Representation and the Western Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bannet, Eve Tavor (1989) Structuralism and the Logic of Dissent: Barthes, Derrida, Foucault (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Barthes, Roland (1977) Image, Music, Text (London: Fontana Press). Bender, Todd K. (1997) Literary Impressionism in Jean Rhys, Ford Madox Ford, Joseph Conrad and Charlotte Brontë (New York: Garland) Berberich, Christine (2006) ‘A Modernist Elegy to the Gentleman? Englishness and the Idea of the Gentleman in Ford’s The Good Soldier’, in Denis Brown and Jenny Plastow (eds) Ford Madox Ford and Englishness (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 195–210. Billy, Ted (1997) A Wilderness of Words: Closure and Disclosure in Conrad’s Short Fiction (Lubbock: Texas University Press).

214 References 215

Billy, Ted and Leonard Orr (eds) (1999) A Companion to Joseph Conrad (Westport: Greenwood Press). Bond, Donald (ed.) (1965) Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, The Spectator, 3 vols, (Oxford: Clarendon). Booth, Wayne (1961) The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Brant, Clare (2006) Eighteenth Century Letters and British Culture (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Brissenden, R.F. (1964) ‘Sterne and Painting’, in John Butt et al., Of Books and Humankind: Essays, Poems Presented to Bonome Dobree (London: Routledge) 93–108. Brodsky, Stephen (1996) ‘Conrad’s Two Polish Pasts: a History of Thirty Years of Misrule’, in Alex S. Kurczaba (ed.) Conrad and Poland (Boulder: East European Monographs) 9–31. Brombert, Victor (1988) The Hidden Reader: Stendhal, Balzac, Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Brooker, Peter and Peter Widdowson (1986) ‘A Literature for England’, in Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (eds) Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880–1920 (London: Croom Helm) 116–63. Brooks, Peter (1985) Reading for the Plot: Design and Invention in Narrative (New York: Vintage). Brown, Denis and Jenny Plastow (eds) (2006) Ford Madox Ford and Englishness (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Bullough, Geoffrey (1957–75) Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (New York: Columbia University Press). Burke, Seán (1995) Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Carabine, Keith (1992) ‘“Irreconcilable Differences”: England as an “Undiscovered Country” in Conrad’s “Amy Foster”’, in Simon Gatrell (ed.) The Ends of the Earth: 1876–1918 (London: Ashfield) 187–204. Carabine, Keith (1996) The Life and the Art: a Study of Under Western Eyes (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Colls, Robert (1986) ‘Englishness and the Political Culture’, in Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (eds) Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880–1920 (London: Croom Helm) 29–61. Colls, Robert and Philip Dodd (eds) (1986) Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880– 1920 (London: Croom Helm). Conroy, Mark (1985) Modernism and Authority (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press). Crompton, John (2003) ‘Faith, Virtue and the Conduct of Life: Englishness in Lord Jim’, in François Gallix (ed.) Lord Jim. Joseph Conrad (Paris: Ellipses) 139–54 Curle, Richard (1968) The Last Twelve Years of Joseph Conrad (London: Russell & Russell). Curtis, Lewis Perry (ed.) (1935) Letters of Laurence Sterne (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Cuypers, M.P. (2004) ‘Apollonius of Rhodes’, in Irene de Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie (eds) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1 (Boston: Bibliotheca Classica Batava) 43–62. Daleski, Hillel Matthew (2001) ‘Conrad, Dickens, and the Signifier as Siren’, in Gail Fincham, Attie De Lange and Wiesław Krajka (eds) Conrad at the 216 References

Millennium: Modernism, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism (Boulder: Social Science Monographs) 197–214. Daleski, Hillel Matthew (1977) Joseph Conrad: the Way of Dispossession (London: Faber and Faber). Davie, Donald (1952) Purity of Diction in English Verse (London: Chatto & Windus). Davis, Todd F. and Kenneth Womack (eds) (2002) Formalist Criticism and Reader- Response Theory (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). De Jong, Irene (2004a) ‘Homer’, in Irene de Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie (eds) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1 (Boston: Bibliotheca Classica Batava) 13–24. De Jong, Irene (2004b) ‘Herodotus’, in Irene de Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie (eds) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1 (Boston: Bibliotheca Classica Batava) 101–14. De Vinne, Christine (2002) ‘Begging the Question of Confession; Joseph Conrad’s A Personal Record’, Prose Studies 25(3): 82–99 Delacroix, Eugène (1981) Journal 1822–1863 (Paris: Plon). Di Gaetani, John Louis (1977) Richard Wagner and the Modern Temper (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press). Diderot, Denis (1875–77) Œuvres complètes, 20 vols (Paris: Garnier Frères). Diderot, Denis (1968) Œuvres esthétiques (Paris: Garnier). Donovan, Stephen (2005) Conrad and Popular Culture (Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Doyle, Brian (1986) ‘The Invention of English’, in Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (eds) Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880–1920 (London: Croom Helm) 1–28. Fielding, Henry (1937) Henry Fielding: Miscellaneous Writings, Vol. 1 (New York: The Library Guild of America). Firchow, Peter (1999) Envisioning Africa: Racism and Imperialism in ‘Heart of Darkness’ (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky). Flaubert, Gustave (1973) Correspondance, Vol. 1, ed. Jean Bruneau (Paris: Pleiade). Flaubert, Gustave (1981) Correspondance, Vol. 2 (Paris: Pleiade). Fogel, Aaron (1985) Coercion to Speak: Conrad’s Poetics of Dialogue (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Ford, Ford Madox (1964) Joseph Conrad: a Personal Remembrance (New York: Octagon Books). Franssen, Paul (1990) ‘Great Lessons of Political Instruction: the Earl of Clonwell Reads Sterne’, The Shandean 2: 152–201. Fredman, Alice (1973) Sterne and Diderot (New York: Octagon Books). Frye, Northrop (1957) The Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Gainer, Bernard (1972) The Alien Invasion: the Origins of the Aliens Act of 1905 (London: Heinemann Educational). Gasiorek, Andrzej (2006) ‘Ford Among the Aliens’, in Danis Brown and Jenny Plastow (eds) Ford Madox Ford and Englishness (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 63–82. Gay, Peter (1967) The Enlightenment: an Interpretation – Vol. 1, The Rise of Modern Paganism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Genette, Gérard (1980) Narrative Discourse: an Essay in Method (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Genette, Gérard (1982) Figures of Literary Discourse (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press). References 217

Gerard, William Blake (2006) Laurence Sterne and the Visual Imagination (London: Ashgate). Gillon, Adam (1960) The Eternal Solitary: a Study of Joseph Conrad (New York: Bookman Associates). Gillon, Adam (1976) Conrad and Shakespeare, and Other Essays (New York: Astra Books). Gillon, Adam (1978) ‘Conrad as Painter’, Conradiana 10(3): 253–66. Gillon, Adam (1982) Joseph Conrad (Boston, MA: Twayne). Gordan, John Dozier (1963) Joseph Conrad: the Making of a Novelist (New York: Russell & Russell). Greaney, Michael (2001) Conrad, Language, and Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hagstrum, Jean H. (1958) The Sister Arts: the Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Hampson, Robert (2001) Cross-Cultural Encounters in Joseph Conrad’s Malay Fiction (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Hand, Richard (2005) The Theatre of Joseph Conrad (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Hanham, H.J. (1969) Scottish Nationalism (London: Faber and Faber). Hartley, Lodwick (1966) Laurence Sterne in the 20th Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press). Haslam, Sara (2006) ‘England and Englishness: Ford’s First Trilogy’, in Denis Brown and Jenny Plastow (eds) Ford Madox Ford and Englishness (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 47–62. Hawkins, Alun (1986) ‘The Discovery of Rural England’, in Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (eds) Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880–1920 (London: Croom Helm) 62–88. Hawthorn, Jeremy (1979) Joseph Conrad: Language and Fictional Self-Consciousness (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press). Hawthorn, Jeremy (2007) Sexuality and the Erotic in the Fiction of Joseph Conrad (London: Continuum). Helsinger, Elizabeth (1982) Ruskin and the Art of the Beholder (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Hervouet, Yves (1990) The French Face of Joseph Conrad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Higdon, David Leon (1987) ‘“His Helpless Prey”: Conrad and the Aggressive Text’, The Conradian 12: 108–21. Hobson, Marian (1982) The Object of Art: the Theory of Illusion in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hodgson, Emily (2009) Authorship and the Play of Fiction: Novels and Theater, Heywood to Austen (New York: Routledge). Horace (1989) ‘The Art of Poetry’, in D.A. Russel and M. Winterbottom (eds) Classical Literary Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hough, Graham (1960) Image and Experience: Studies in a Literary Revolution (London: Duckworth). Howes, Alan B. (ed.) (1974) Sterne: the Critical Heritage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Hunter, R. (2004) ‘Theocritus and Moschus’, in Irene de Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie (eds) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies 218 References

in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1 (Boston: Bibliotheca Classica Batava) 83–99. Isaac, Benjamin (2004) The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Iser, Wolfgang (1980) The Act of Reading: a Theory of Aesthetics (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press). Iser, Wolfgang (1989) Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Jabłkowska, Róza (1961) Joseph Conrad (Wrocław: Zakł. nar. im. Ossoli ´nskich). Jackel, Bradley Kevin (2004) ‘Joseph Conrad and Dante’s Inferno: a Demonstra- tion of an Approach to Conrad’s Allusive Imagery’ (Phd thesis, unpublished) (Monash University). Jameson, Fredric (1981) The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (New York: Cornell University Press). Jean-Aubry, G. (1927) Joseph Conrad: Life and Letters (New York: Doubleday). Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (2006) Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism (Aldershot: Ashgate). Jolas, Eugene (1948) ‘My Friend James Joyce’, in Seon Givens (ed.) James Joyce: Two Decades of Criticism (New York: Vanguard). Joyce, James (1964) A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (New York: Viking). Karl, Frederick (1960) A Reader’s Guide to Joseph Conrad (London: Thames and Hudson). Karl, Frederick (1979) Joseph Conrad: Three Lives (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux). Kempf, Roger (1964) Diderot et le roman ou le démon de la présence (Paris: Seuil). Kermode, Frank (1983) ‘Secrets and Narrative Sequence’, in Essays on Fiction, 1971–1982 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul) 133–55. Keymer, Tom (2002) Sterne, the Moderns and the Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Müller (2006) The Implied Author: Concept and Controversy (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter). Kott, Jan (1945) ‘The Lay Tragic Spirit’, Creativity: 137–60. Krajka, Wiesław (1992) Isolation and Ethos: a Study of Joseph Conrad (Boulder: East European Monographs). Krajka, Wiesław (1993) ‘Conrad and Poland: Under the Eyes of My Generation’, in Keith Carabine, Owen Knowles and Wiesław Krajka (eds) Contexts for Conrad (Boulder: East European Monographs). Krajka, Wiesław, Attie De Lange and Gail Fincham (eds) (2001) Joseph Conrad at the Millennium: Modernism, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism (Boulder: Social Science Monographs). Krzyzanowski, Julian (1930) Polish Romantic Literature (London: Allen & Unwin). Kumar, Krishan (2003) The Making of English National Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kumar, Shiv K. (ed.) (2002) British Victorian Literature (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers). Kundera, Milan (1986) Jacques and his Master (London: Faber and Faber). Leavis, F.R. (1948) The Great Tradition (London: Chatto and Windus). Lewis, W.S. and Ralph Williams (1952) Horace Walpole’s Correspondence (London: Oxford University Press). References 219

Lloyd, Geoffrey E.R. (ed.) (1978) Aristotle on Mind and the Senses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). London, Bette (1990) The Appropriated Voice: Narrative Authority in Conrad, Forster, and Woolf (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Lormier, Douglas A. (1978) Colour, Class and the Victorians (Leicester: Leicester University Press). Lothe, Jakob (1989) Conrad’s Narrative Method (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lothe, Jakob (2001) ‘Cumulative Textuality in “Heart of Darkness”: Virgil, Dante, and Goethe’s Faust’, in Gail Fincham, Attie De Lange and Wiesław Krajka (eds) Conrad at the Millennium: Modernism, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism (Boulder: Social Science Monographs) 177–95. Lucian of Samosata (1905) The Works of Lucian of Samosata: the Way to Write History, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Mace, Nancy A. (1996) Henry Fielding’s Novels and the Classical Tradition (Newark: University of Delaware Press). Mallios, Peter Lancelot (2003) ‘Introduction’, Joseph Conrad Victory (New York: Modern Library). Matz, Jesse (2007) Literary Impressionism and Modernist Aesthetics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Maureseth, Anne Beate (2007) L’Analogie et le probable: Pensée et écriture chez Denis Diderot (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation). McKeon, Michael (1960) The Origins of the English Novel, 1660–1740 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Menil, Alain (1995) Diderot et le Drame: Théatreˆ et Politique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Meyers, Jeffrey (1991) Joseph Conrad: a Biography (London: Murray). Michel, W.J.T. (1987) Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology (Chicago: Chicago University Press). Miller, Hillis J. (1985) ‘“Heart of Darkness” Revisited’, in Ross C. Murfin (ed.) Con- rad Revisited, Essays for the Eighties (Alabama: University of Alabama Press) 31–50. Morf, Gustav (1965) The Polish Heritage of Joseph Conrad (New York: Haskell House). Morf, Gustav (1976) The Polish Shades and Ghosts of Joseph Conrad (New York: Astra Books). Morley, Christopher (1918) Shandygaff : a Number of Most Agreeable Inquirendoes upon Life and Letters (New York: Garden City). Morton, Henry Vollam (1984 [1927]) In Search of England (London: Methuen). Morzinski, Mary (1995) Linguistic Influence of Polish on Joseph Conrad’s Style (Boulder: East European Monographs). Mudford, William (1811) The British Novelists, Vol. 3-I (London: W. Clarke). Muir, Edwin (1924) ‘A Note on Mr. Conrad’, in Latitudes (New York: Huebsch). Najder, Zdzisław (ed.) (1964) Conrad’s Polish Background: Letters to and from Polish Friends (London: Oxford University Press). Najder, Zdzisław (1974) ‘Conrad and the Idea of Honour’, in Wendell M. Aycock and Wolodymyr T. Zyla (eds) Joseph Conrad: Theory and World Fiction. Proceed- ings of the Comparative Literary Symposium, Vol. 7, January 23–25 (Lubbock: Texas Tech) 103–15. Najder, Zdzisław (ed.) (1983a) Conrad under Familial Eyes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 220 References

Najder, Zdzisław (1983b) Joseph Conrad: a Chronicle (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press). Najder, Zdzisław (1997) ‘Joseph Conrad: a European Writer’, in Zdzisław Najder, Conrad in Perspective: Essays on Art and Fidelity (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press) 165–75. Najder, Zdzisław and J.H. Stape (eds) (2008) ‘Introduction’, A Personal Record (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), xxi–xlix. Nicole, Pierre (1667) Les Imaginaires, ou lettres sur l’hérésie imaginaire (Liège: Adolphe Beyers). Nowak, J. (2005) ‘Wincenty Lutoslawski’s National Idea: Derivative or an Advance- ment of a Romantic Commonwealth of Nations’, Issues of Nationality, n.s. 26: 115–33. Nünlist, R. (2004) ‘The Homeric Hymns’, in Irene de Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie (eds) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, Vol. 1 (Boston: Bibliotheca Classica Batava) 35–42. Olds Bissell, Frederick (1969 [1933]) Fielding’s Theory of the Novel (New York: Cooper Square). Pakenham, Thomas (1979) The Boer War (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Parfect, Ralph (2006) ‘Romance of Nationhood: Ford and the Adventure Story Tra- dition’, in Denis Brown and Jenny Plastow (eds) Ford Madox Ford and Englishness (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 37–46. Pascal, Blaise (2004) Pensées (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger). Perkins, David (1976) A History of Modern Poetry (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Peters, John (2001) Conrad and Impressionism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Peters, John (2006) A Cambridge Companion to Conrad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pierce, David and Peter Jan de Voogd (1996) Laurence Sterne in Modernism and Postmodernism (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Plutarch (1936) Moralia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Pope, Alexander (2006) ‘Peri Bathous or the Art of Sinking in Poetry’, in The Major Works, including The Rape of the Lock and The Dunciad (Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics) 195–238. Quennell, Peter (1943) ‘Laurence Sterne’, Horizon, VIII: 337–49; 419–33. Quintilian (1921) Institutio Oratoria, 4 vols (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Quintilian (1987) The Teaching of Speaking and Writing (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press). Ray, Martin (1993) Joseph Conrad (London: E. Arnold). Ress, Jane (2002) Tender Consciousness: Sentimental Sensibility in the Emerging Artist – Sterne, Yeats, Joyce, and Proust (New York: Peter Lang). Riede, Austin (2006) ‘The Decline of English Discourse and the American Invasion in The Good Soldier and Parade’s End’, in Denis Brown and Jenny Plastow (eds) Ford Madox Ford and Englishness (Amsterdam: Rodopi) 211–24. Romanick Baldwin, Debra (2008) ‘“Simple Ideas” in Conrad’s World? The Case of “Prince Roman”’ (unpublished paper; Joseph Conrad Annual Conference, UK). Rosenblatt, Marie Louise (1978) The Reader, the Text, the Poem: Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press). References 221

Safran, Gabriela (2000) Rewriting the Jews: Assimilation Narratives in the Russian Empire (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). Sanders, Julie (2006) Adaptation and Appropriation (London: Routledge). Schultheiss, Thomas (1966) ‘Lord Hamlet and Lord Jim’, The Polish Review 11(4): 111–33. Schwab, Arnold T. (1965) Conrad’s American Speeches and his Reading from Victory (Chicago: Chicago University Press). Scott, Walter (1834) Essays on Chivalry, Romance, and the Drama (Edinburgh: Cadell). Shelley, Percy Bysshe (1887) ‘In Defence of Poetry’, in Essays and Letters (London: W. Scott) 1–40. Sherman, Carol (1976) Diderot and the Art of Dialogue (Geneva: Librairie Droz). Sherman, Nancy (1999) Aristotle’s Ethics: Critical Essays (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield). Sherry, Norman (ed.) (1973) Conrad: the Critical Heritage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Sichel, Walter (1910) Sterne: a Study (London: Williams and Norgate). Silver, Brenda (1979) ‘“Anon” and “The Reader”: Virginia Woolf’s Last Essays’, Twentieth Century Literature 25: 365–441. Simmons, Allan (2004) ‘“The Art of Englishness”: Identity and Representation in Conrad’s Early Fiction’, The Conradian 29(1): 1–26. Simmons, Allan (2006) Joseph Conrad (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Stape, John (2007) The Several Lives of Joseph Conrad (London: Heinemann). Stape, John and Owen Knowles (1996) Correspondence to and about Conrad (Atlanta, GA: Rodopi). Stedmond, John (1967) The Comic Art of Laurence Sterne: Convention and Innovation in Tristram Shandy and A Sentimental Journey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Stendhal (1986) Journal Littéraire, Vol. 3 (Geneva: Slatkine). Stendhal (2007) L’histoire de la peinture en Italie (Paris: Champion). Symons, Arthur (1925) Notes on Joseph Conrad (London: Meyers and Co.) Tadié, Alexis (2003) Sterne’s Whimsical Theatres of Language: Orality, Gesture, Literacy (Aldershot: Ashgate). Tillyard, E.M.W. (1958) The Epic Strain in the English Novel (London: Chatto and Windus). Walder, D. (1995) The Realist Novel (London: Routledge). Walpole, Hugh (1929) Joseph Conrad (London: Nisbet). Watt, Ian (1957) The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding (Berkeley: University of California Press). Watt, Ian (1979) Conrad in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley: California University Press). Watts, Cedric (1977) Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’: a Critical and Contextual Discussion (Milan: Mursia). Watts, Cedric (1988) ‘Introduction’, The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’ (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Watts, Cedric (2009) ‘Under Western Eyes: the Haunted Haunts’, The Conradian 34(2) (Autumn). Wettlaufer, Alexandra K. (2003) In the Mind’s Eye: the Visual Impulse in Diderot, Ruskin and Baudelaire (Amsterdam: Rodopi). 222 References

Whibley, Charles (1995) ‘Thomas Hardy’, in R.G. Cox (ed.) Thomas Hardy: the Critical Heritage (London: Routledge) 419–28. Wollaeger, Mark A. (1990) Joseph Conrad and Fictions of Skepticism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). Woolf, Virginia (1924) ‘Joseph Conrad’, Times Literary Supplement, 14 August, 493–4. Yelton, Donald C. (1967) Mimesis and Metaphor: an Inquiry into the Genesis and Scope of Conrad’s Symbolic Imagery (The Hague: Mouton). Zabierowski, Stefan (1971) Conrad w Polsce (Gda ´nsk:Wyd. morskie). Zaborowski, W. (2004) ‘Wincenty Lutosławski – His life and Work’, Kwartalnik Historii Nauki Techniki (Quarterly Journal of the History of Science and Technology) 49(1): 65–81. Zwerdling, Alex (1977) ‘Between the Acts and the Coming of War’, Novel 10: 220–36. Index of Names and Titles

Achebe, Chinua 63 Conrad, Joseph see under individual Addison, Joseph 85, 148, 154, 209n book titles Almayer’s Folly 42, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, Cooper, James Fenimore 96, 206n 62, 70, 200n, 207n, 212n Corneille 147 ‘Amy Foster’ 63–5 The Country House 60 Apollonius of Rhodes 75, 204n Courtney, W.L. 53 Aristotle 5, 11, 81, 84, 87, 145, 151, Crime and Punishment 172 152, 191, 193n, 204n, 209n, 210n Curle, Richard 62, 195n, 198n, Arnold, Matthew 71, 204n 200n, 202n, 204n, 207n, 211n The Arrow of Gold 71, 80 Cuypers, M.P. 75 The Art of Rhetoric 87 Austin, Alfred 58 Dabrowski, Marian 37 Daleski, Hillel Matthew 118 Dante Alighieri 70, 172 Bakhtin, Mikhail 15, 125, 194n Davie, Donald 133 Balzac, Honoré de 69, 96, 123 de Quincey, Thomas 182 Barbaud, Anna Laetitia 77 de Vinne, Christine 40 Barthes, Roland 1, 2, 13–21, 141, Delacroix, Eugène 88 187, 193n, 194n Dickens, Charles 69, 78, 198n, 203n Batteux, Charles 148, 209n Diderot, Denis 7, 16, 85, 143–8, 150, Bender, Todd 80 153, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, Bennett, Arnold 58–9, 62 171, 172, 173, 175, 179, 190, 191, Blackwood, William 79, 86 204n, 208n, 209n, 211n, 212n Booth, Wayne 2, 141, 195n Don Quixote 42, 162 Brissenden, R.F. 77 Donovan, Stephen 76, 83, 129 Brodsky, Stephen 46–7 Dostoevsky, Fyodor Mikhaylovich Brontë, Charlotte 87 172, 212n Brooke, Rupert 58–9 Dumas, Alexandre 96 Burke, Edmund 182 Burke, Seán 194n Encyclopédie 147 Busza, Andrej 28, 43 The Epic Strain in the English Novel 72

Camus, Albert 71 Fielding, Henry 7, 11, 12, 75, 85, Carlyle, Thomas 62, 78 123, 133, 143–5, 147, 148, 150–5, Cervantes 41, 70, 143, 144, 171, 158–9, 160, 161–2, 163, 167, 171, 172, 209n 187, 190, 204n, 209n, 210n, 211n Chance 41, 52–3, 54, 111, 114–16, Flaubert, Gustave 1, 6, 7, 16–18, 41, 120, 126, 128, 189, 198n, 199n, 43, 50, 69, 78, 84, 87, 129, 131, 200n, 206n, 207n, 212n 172, 185, 191, 193n, 195n, 197n, Cicero 5, 84–6, 90, 191 205n, 207n Coleridge, Samuel Taylor 182 Fogel, Aaron 71–2, 213n Colls, Robert 55, 202n Ford, Ford Madox 30, 57, 58, 62, 75, Conrad, Jessie 62 167, 196n, 201n, 202n, 204n

223 224 Index of Names and Titles

Forster, E.M. 57, 71, 201n, 204n ‘Karain: A Memory’ 42, 43, 57, 69, Foucault, Michel 17 70, 76, 80, 99–101, 120–2, 163, France, Anatole 69, 129, 207n 189, 201n, 206n Kermode, Frank 183, 212n Kipling, Rudyard 55, 62, 203n Galsworthy, John 52, 58, 60, 129 Kocóvna, Barbara 42 Gasiorowska, Maria 33 Korzeniowski, Apollo 31, 41 George, Jessie 61 Kott, Jan 41 Gide, André 168 Krajka, Wiesław 28, 36, 196n Gillon, Adam 28, 43, 79, 203n Gomulicki, Viktor 26, 32, 35, 197n La Bruyère, Jean de 70 Gordan, John Dosier 53, 200n Lesage, Alain-René 144, 209n Greaney, Michael 17, 18, 115, 183, Lord Jim 5, 7, 21, 28, 33–4, 35, 199n, 213n 38–40, 41, 42, 44, 53, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 80, 86–7, 88–9, 94, 97–9, 106–9, 110, 113–14, 115, Hand, Richard 76 116, 117–20, 121, 122, 124–8, Hardy, Thomas 58, 60–1, 198n, 202n 129, 130, 131, 132–42, 158–9, ‘Heart of Darkness’ 5, 7, 42, 53, 57, 163–4, 168, 178, 187, 188, 189, 58, 62–3, 70, 71, 74, 80, 86, 94, 190, 193n, 197n, 200n, 202n, 99, 101–3, 106, 108, 110, 111–14, 203n, 208n, 211n, 212n 115, 117, 120, 124, 125, 126, 133, Lucian 79, 204n, 209n 137–8, 158, 159, 168, 188, 189, Lutosławski, Wincentry 26-8, 29, 30, 190, 206n 31, 32, 34, 197n Hervouet, Yves 43, 69, 78, 84, 195n, Lynd, Robert 50–2, 57, 65 197n, 207n Higdon, David Leon 183 Madame Bovary 17, 197n Histories 74 Mallarmé, Stéphane 14, 194n Homer 5, 71, 72–5, 131–2, 136, 191, Mann, Thomas 168 204n, 205n, 207n Marivaux, Pierre de 144 Horace 85, 148–9, 173 Marryat, Frederick 69 Hough, Graham 115 Maupassant, Guy de 16, 43, 50, 69, Hugo, Victor 69, 203n 84, 129, 197n Michel, W.J.T. 76-7 Iliad 72, 73, 74, 132 Mickiewicz, Adam 26, 28, 29, 37, 41, Iser, Wolfgang 2, 13, 21, 141, 193n, 42–3, 69, 195n, 196n 194n Miller, Hillis 82 The Mirror of the Sea 71, 174, 197n Montaigne, Michel de 70 Jabłkowska, Róza 41 Montesquieu, Charles Louis 133 Jacques the Fatalist 7, 145–6, 147, Moralia 77 148, 150, 153, 161, 162, 173, 179, Morf, Gustav 6, 26–7, 28, 33, 35, 208n, 211n, 212n 38–41, 42, 43, 47, 65, 197n, 203n James, Henry 16, 54, 168, 200n Mudford, William 182 Jameson, Fredric 2, 193n Muir, Edwin 80 Joseph Andrews 75, 144, 145, 150, 151 Najder, Zdzisław 28, 35, 38, 41, 42, Joyce, James 17–18, 78, 144, 149, 43–7, 71, 137, 172, 197n, 198n, 168, 210n 203n, 212n Index of Names and Titles 225

Nepos 151, 209n Sanderson, E.L. 88, 176 Newbolt, Henry 58, 62 Scarron, Paul 144 The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’ 5, 53, Schopenhauer, Arthur 83, 205 80–2, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 142, 191, Scott, Walter 77, 144, 182, 209n 200n, 202n, 203n, 205n The Secret Agent 33, 59-60, 69, 80, Nostromo 5, 41, 71–3, 80, 94, 97, 99, 94, 188, 212n 110, 114, 120, 129, 132, 133–5, The Secret Sharer 94, 188 188, 189, 190 Shakespeare, William 59, 69, 87, 147, 161, 172, 178, 203n, 205n, O’Connor, T.P. 53, 54 208n, 209n Odyssey 71, 73, 131–2, 204n Shelley, Percy Bysshe 11, 12, 83 The Old Wives’ Tale 58–9 Sherman, Carol 133, 147, 209n Orzeszkowa, Eliza 26, 28–31, 32, 34, Słovacki, Juliusz 29, 31–2, 69 197n Steele, Richard 154 An Outcast of the Islands 33, 52, 53, Stendhal 6, 7, 69, 131, 190, 191, 54, 62, 70, 124, 199n, 200n, 207n 193n ‘An Outpost of Progress’ 62, 80, 94, Sterne, Laurence 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 95–7 75, 77, 78, 85, 123, 133, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146–50, 152, 153, 155–9, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, Pan Tadeusz 37, 41 169, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179, Pascal, Blaise 69 182, 183, 187, 190, 191, 204n, A Personal Record 18, 20, 26, 40, 50, 208n, 209n, 210n, 211n 51–2, 53, 54, 185, 186, 196n, Swift, Jonathan 79, 143, 148, 166, 197n, 200n, 212n 209n Peters, John G. 80 Symons, Arthur 41-2, 78, 79, 80, Phidias 79 206n Plato 11, 81, 84, 170 Szczepa ´nski,Jan Józef 38 Plutarch 77, 84, 151, 191, 204n, 208n, 209n Tales of Unrest 53, 202n Pope, Alexander 167, 212n Tarnawski, Wit 38–9, 197n A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Telemachus 75, 204n 17 Thackeray, William Makepeace 62, Praxiteles 79 78 ‘Prince Roman’ 36, 196n, 197n Theocritus 75 Proust, Marcel 168 Thucydides 71, 72, 77, 191, 205n Tillyard, E.M.W. 72 Quennell, Peter 183 Tom Jones 7, 75, 123, 144–5, 150–2, Quintilian 5, 84, 86, 191 153–5, 161–2, 167, 210n, 211n Tristram Shandy 7, 12, 75, 77, 123, Rabelais, François 70, 79, 143, 171, 141, 145, 146–50, 152–3, 155–8, 209n 161, 162, 167, 169–73, 175, 178, Richardson, Samuel 144, 153, 163, 179, 182, 183, 208n, 210n, 211n, 209n 212n Rodin, Auguste 78, 79 Turgenev, Ivan Sergeyevich 69 Romance 57 Turgot, Anne-Robert Jacques 148, Rosenblatt, Marie-Louise 2, 13, 141, 209n 193n ‘Typhoon’ 5, 41, 89–93, 133, 134, Ruskin, John 79, 88 188, 192 226 Index of Names and Titles

Under Western Eyes 7, 8, 21, 57–8, 69, Walpole, Horace 182, 209 86–7, 88, 94, 104, 108, 131, Watts, Cedric 80, 82–3, 111, 205n, 137–8, 141, 150, 158–9, 160–1, 207n, 213n 163, 164–6, 167–9, 172–8, 180–2, Wells, H.G. 53, 62, 65, 199n 183, 187, 190, 198n, 203n, 208n, Weslawska, Emilia 28, 33–4, 40, 41 212n, 213n Wettlaufer, Alexandra 85, 163 Whistler, James 79 Valéry, Paul 71 Woolf, Virginia 62, 65, 71, 78, 83, Victory 5, 69, 70, 74, 94, 97, 99, 144, 149, 204n, 206n, 210n 103–6, 108, 110, 114, 116–17, 120, 121, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, ‘Youth’ 53, 111–12, 114, 124, 200n 132, 163, 188, 189, 190, 203n Zabierowski, Stefan 41 Wagner, Richard 79, 205n Zagorska, Aniela 33, 197n Waliszewski, Kazimierz 25, 34 Zola, Emile 123 Index of Concepts

acculturation 30 proxy of 121, 140 aesthetics relevance of 18, 186 of indirectness 37 resilient persona 26 multi-faceted 30, 46–8, 49, 66, 81, as secret sharer 21, 141, 187 83–4, 113, 118, 197n surrogate 137, 142 of readership 4–5, 6, 131, 150 as total absence 3, 19 visual 4–5, 69–93, 185, 191 authorial determination 19 alter ego 7, 95, 136–8, 190, 207n authorial dissemination 1, 13, 15, alterity 140 17–20, 185–7 ambivalence 6–7, 34, 122, 127, 131, authorial presence 16, 17, 18, 20, 170–1 110, 141, 185 appropriation 34, 47–8, 66, 102, authorial redundancy 186 121–2, 143, 149–50, 197n authorship 1–3, 8, 16–21, 170–3, aristocratic leaning 6–7, 123–42, 175, 180, 183, 185–7, 195n, 189–90 206–7n, 210n artifice 8, 146–7, 168–9, 173, 175 artistic aim 81, 115–16, 140, 165–6, barbarism 56, 58, 63, 70, 71 205n betrayal 28–9, 34–5, 37, 39 artistic creation 5, 12, 30, 81–2, 88, body language 94, 124, 166, 177, 91, 178, 181–2 207n artistic freedom 147 borrowing 42, 48, 69, 70–1, 76, audience 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 20, 32, 36, 143–4, 149–50, 172, 178–9, 185, 49, 59, 60, 75, 83, 85–7, 99–100, 190, 198n, 208n, 209n 107, 108, 110–14, 123–8, 130–6, bovarysm 17, 42, 193n, 197n 140–2, 153–60, 163, 166, 167, Burlesque 144, 204n 168–71, 173–4, 180, 183, 185, 188, 189, 190, 206n, 207n, 208n centrifugal consciousness 112–13 addressee 125, 127, 132, 133, 134, centrifugal truth 6, 122 171, 189 centripetal agency 6, 122 construction of 6, 26, 123–42 centripetal perspective 19, 112–13 elect 132, 135, 138, 142 chauvinism 26, 43 elite 54, 190 chiaroscuro see authorship fictional 5, 95, 123, 124, 168, 189 chronotope 132 ideal 26, 101, 123 cinematic device 76, 83, 172, 191, privileged 6, 40, 128, 130, 132, 204n 135–6, 138 see also the pictorial; visuality sympathetic 101, 132, 135, 190 classical poetics 2, 4–5, 11, 42, 69, author 71–3, 78, 84–7, 124, 143, 145, demise of 1, 8, 13, 15–16, 18–20, 148, 149–51, 170–1, 173, 185, 186, 187 191–2, 204n, 206n, 208–9n, 210n implied 7, 8, 123, 142, 183 collectivity 4, 28, 30–1, 52, 63 nomadic aura of 19 idealized ‘imagined community’ as past conjecture 14 40, 55, 58

227 228 Index of Concepts colonialism 49, 57, 70, 72, 80, 96, dramatic impulse 161–6 99, 101, 112, 121 dramatic intensity 92, 162, 164 anti-colonial rhetoric 30 dual loyalty 4, 25 decolonization 46 postcolonialism 22 egotistic leaning 31–2 communion 40, 52, 64, 107–8, 126, elastic conception of art 31 140, 141–2 elastic meaning 119 conclusiveness 40, 54, 119, 126 elastic readership 4, 26, 119, 140 confessional novel 39–40 elitism 6–7, 95, 129–32, 189–90, cosmopolitanism 45, 50–1, 57, 59, 198n, 200n 190 see also audience country-house fiction 59 elusiveness 19–20, 34, 37–8, 118, cultural mistranslation 103 185, 197n, 202n enargeia 5, 85–7, 191–2 deconstruction theory 1–2, 3, 13–14, encyclopaedic competence 125–6 17–21, 47, 149, 186–7, 194n Englishness 50, 55–65, 201n, 202n, theoretical absolutism 14 Enlightenment 70 democratic vision 6, 120, 129–31, enunciation 14, 20, 73–4, 110, 113, 132 120–1, 130, 134 derivation 30, 48, 76, 84, 192 epistemic deadlock 103 see also aesthetics epistemological deficiency 74, 102, detachment 17, 25, 28–9, 57, 71, 106 113, 114–15, 148, 159, 174 essentialism 4, 47, 51, 59, 197n deterritorialization 30 ethics 46–7, 64, 66, 158–9 dialogism 65, 83–4, 110, 125, 132, of authorship 16 133, 140–1, 171, 181–2, 187, of collectivity 4, 31, 194n of denegation 7, 8, 181, 190 dictatorship 16, 154, 187, 194n of mobility 135 didacticism 7, 12, 46, 75, 141, 193n of negativity 15, 177–8, 183–4 aesthetic 153–61 of readership 4, 6, 16, 76, 84, 182 heuristic teacher 99–100, 152–3 exile 17–19, 28–9, 31, 39, 42, 43, moral instruction 150–3 45–6, 59, 62, 186, 201n, 203n difference see otherness existential precariousness 39, 64–5, diffidence 170, 171 92, 119, 202n diffusion 1, 15, 19, 185–6 exoticism 101, 111 digression 75, 147, 154, 156–8, experimentation 75, 84, 105, 110, 159, 160, 167, 171, 173, 182–3, 148, 153, 175, 181 212n artistic 70–1 discourse 6, 19, 34, 58, 118, 120, innovation 69–70, 76, 84, 85, 147, 185–6, 194n, 208n, 212n 149, 156 discursive layers 19, 210n random writing 179 monolithic 2, 15, 17, 25–6, 118, 140, 194n, 202n fiction-as-confession 39–40 see also rhetoric focalization 80, 109–10, 118 dissemination 1, 13, 18–20, 27, 119, fallible perspective 119, 125, 134 185–7 floating 109 dramatic display 99 limited knowing subject 73–4, 119 dramatic form 143, 161 migrating 118 Index of Concepts 229

multiple 110, 118 see also linguistic bankruptcy; roving presence 17–18, 19, 21 linguistic frenzy; linguistic fragmentation 66, 90, 93, 112–13, insider; linguistic regeneration 118, 119, 141 letter writing 93, 94, 132–6, 139, 188, 190 gesture 5, 64, 82, 101, 162–3, 164, liminality 134–5, 188 177, 206n, 211n linearity 54, 80, 93, 99, 108, 110, 118, 139, 140, 173 heroism 36, 38–9, 41, 73, 89, 98, linguistic bankruptcy 66, 88–9, 124, 201n 177, 192 mock-heroism 73 see also language heteroglossia 49, 194n linguistic frenzy 92 holistic theory 2, 6, 14, 22, 40, 66, see also language 122, 191 linguistic insider 51–2 horizontality 5, 108–9, 122, 139, see also language 188, 191 linguistic regeneration 5, 89, 91, 177 Humanism 69, 70 see also language hybridity 26, 64 literalism 86, 93, 95, 97, 116, 139, see also otherness; dual loyalty 189 literary compromise 52 literary impulsiveness 179 identity 35, 49, 52, 118 literary novelty 147–8, 210n cultural insider 51–2 literary randomness 179 homo-duplex 25–6, 61 literature and education 11, 146, moral 119, 212n 151–3, 158, 160–1, 175 narrative 173, 175, 177, 180 loyalty see dual loyalty rhizomic 50 multifarious 2, 4, 25, 65–6 matrix 47, 59 see also hybridity meaning see signification illusion see verisimilitude mega-poetics 5, 82 image see cinematic device; the Messianism 26, 28–30, 31, 40, 46, pictorial; visuality 195–6n, 197n imperialism 17, 28, 30, 56, 58, 62, meta-narrative 6, 95, 124, 128, 70, 71–2 134–5, 188 impressionism 78, 80, 90, 118, 205n mimesis 81, 84 indeterminacy 3, 13, 74, 93, 119–20, modernism 2–3, 12, 16, 17, 19–20, 142, 160, 186–8, 194n 66, 75, 78, 83, 124, 129, 148, 150, provisional meaning 119, 134 158, 182, 206n, 210n see also narrative; representation multiplicity 15, 115, 120, 179 insularity 27, 50, 63, 66, 201n mystification 17, 47, 121 irony 7, 8, 72, 73, 98, 183, 190 myths of origins 47, 55 jingoism 47, 57, 201n narrative see also nationalism act of denial 101 authority 121, 125, 127 language 5, 14, 28, 34, 44, 50–2, 54, competency 112, 124, 125, 135 56, 57, 85, 87–90, 92–3, 140, 148, competition 110–23 161, 176–7, 180, 191, 192, 194n, credibility 116, 152, 167, 174, 196n, 198n 212n 230 Index of Concepts narrative – continued Occidentalist discourse 45, 48, 121, despised informants 114–16 183 dual-voice 111–12 odyssey of telling 131–2, 190 erratic 146, 158 open-endedness see indeterminacy hegemonic 6, 116, 187 Orientalism 62, 71, 99–100, 121 hierarchy 5–6, 74, 109, 114, 120, otherness 49, 62, 63, 101, 206n 124, 126, 130, 189 radical other 46, 56, 165 indeterminacy 3, 13, 74, 119, 120, 187–8, 194n participation (active) 8, 125, 166 layers 3, 19, 43, 46, 49, 114–15, patriotism 4, 26, 28, 29–31, 34–6, 118, 121, 139, 186, 191, 210n 42, 50–1, 55, 56, 61, 153, 174, multi-focal 54 196n pact 113, 169 see also nationalism reader-oriented 5, 123 perspectivism see focalization rite of passage 110 pessimism 54, 55, 60, 88, 97, 200–1n self-consciousness 7, 75–6, 143–9, philosophical outlook 41, 49–50, 54, 161, 165–9, 172, 184, 190, 210n 60, 70 solidarity 5–6, 122, 130, 191 Picarro 42 supremacy 120–1, 127–8 the pictorial 5, 12, 76–82, 85, 87, variation 134, 161, 188, 207n 163, 172, 191, 204n see also enunciation; see also cinematic device; visuality experimentation; narrator; voice plasticity 26, 51, 81–2 narrator plausibility 36, 144, 145, 167, 209n authorial 80, 90, 95, 97, 110, 111, Polishness 4, 29, 35–7, 48, 201–2n 112, 113, 120, 124, 128, 132 Polonism 50, 196n, 198n elect 110–11 polyphony 3, 15, 111, 120, 121, 132, eye-witness 128, 134, 205n 134, 191, 194n hegemonic status 116, 121 postmodernism 2–3, 16, 19, 20, 47, homodiegetic 111, 164 119, 140, 149, 152, 179, 182, 185, primary 73–4, 112, 120, 122, 186, 187, 193n, 212n, 123–4 primitivism 100 privileged informer 117 proliferation 3, 110, 186 secondary 73–4, 113–14, 115, see also dissemination 116–20, 124, 130, 189, 204n source of enunciation 20, 121, 134 valorized informants 114, 116 quintessence 59 see also enunciation; narrative nationalism 17, 26–30, 34, 40, 43–4, race politics 4, 63–5, 203n 52, 55–6, 58–60, 65, 195n, 197n ramifications 2–3, 5, 82, 143, 192 see also patriotism; transnationalism reader negativity 15, 60, 167–84, 186 as active collaborator 7, 8, 12, 21, see also ethics of negativity 141, 160, 211n neutrality 14, 15, 26, 36, 47, 174, actual 6, 22, 99, 128, 134, 188–9 175, 180–1 as author’s secret sharer 21, 141, New Criticism 12, 47, 193 187 nostalgia 37, 47, 59, 111 average 54, 60, 95, 126–9, 131, 132, 136, 189, 200n, 207n objectivity 16, 36, 48, 113, 117, as co-author 7, 12 174–5, 180, 194n, 195n, competent 8, 109, 140, 183, 189 Index of Concepts 231

as creative agency 7, 13–14, 21–2, multiple 134, 140 141, 160 multitude 95, 131 deified 1, 2, 21, 187 participative poetics 143, 182, 187 discerning 7, 108, 141–2, 181, 188 solidarity 142, 143, 182, 188 as entity-in-the-making 8 superficial 96, 99 fictional 5, 6, 94–109, 135, 188 surface 95 hegemonic 16, 21, 187 trajectory 134, 154, 159 highbrow 65, 128–9, 132, 190 vertical 108–9, 139, 191 ideal 7, 101, 123, 141–2, see also reader implied 7, 75, 90, 123, 134, 183, realism 60, 93, 145, 146–7, 151, intra-textual 188 173–4, 175, 178, 194n, 198n, iterative 160 205n, 209n literalistic 97, 189 see also verisimilitude lowbrow 65, 190 reception theory 2, 3, 21 metaphoric 5, 94, 99, 103, 109, referentiality (crisis of) 89 119, 122, 123, 132, 188, 190 rehabilitation 39, 40, 45, 52, 89, myopic 5, 95, 99, 108, 189 relativity 70, 118, 120, 187, 207n naive 97–8 Renaissance literatures and thought nominal 5, 94–5, 97, 99, 122–3, 70 188, 189 representation 2, 4–7, 13, 15, 38, 63, overarching 16 66, 72–7, 80–4, 87, 91, 100–1, para-fictional 135, 188 115, 118–19, 140, 142, 151, 192 privileged 21, 132, 134–9, 141, fictional 6, 63, 161–2 190 impressionistic 78–80, 90, rhetorical 94, 99, 106, 108–9, 136, 118, 205n 188–9 indeterminate 188 shallow 97, 131, 189 modes of 6, 7, 38, 76, 109, 171, 181 subliminal 135–6, 140, 190–1 pluralistic 6, 13, 15 surrogate 134–5 shock tactics 167–8, 178, 184 as surrogate writer 142 theory of 2, 4–5, 72, 192 see also reading rhetoric 15, 18, 30, 32, 79, 86, 136, reader-centric theory 14, 20–2, 179 186–7, 193n of denegation 8, 171, 180, 181, reader-oriented narratives 5, 123 211n reader’s pact 8, 52, 154, 169 of inflation 91, 156 reader theory 2, 4, 7–8, 13, 69, 76, of justification 122, 152, 190 93, 130–1, 137, 149, 180, 181, see also discourse; rhetorical devices 183, 187–91, 197n rhetorical devices 6, 8, 14, 57, 74, readership 85, 86, 87, 93, 120, 122, 123, 125, aesthetics of 4–5, 6, 131, 150 152, 158, 176, 179, 181, 183, elastic 4, 26, 119, 140 210n ethics of 4, 6, 16, 76, 84, 182 see also rhetoric reading Romance 46, 53, 97, 115, 144–5, act of 136, 162–3, 184 146, 147, 151, 209n coherence 90, 157–8, 175 Romanticism 11, 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, figurative 101, 189 37, 41–4, 46, 69, 97–9, 106, 111, finite 118, 140 118, 182, 188, 195n, 198n, 205n, hierarchy 5, 94–109, 124–5 209n linear 99, 110, 118 rootlessness 52, 57 232 Index of Concepts sacrifice 29, 31, 38–9, 42, 195n, subtext 103, 140, 188, 210n 196n textual truth 7, 141 sameness 64–5 theory of 14 semiotic 13, 103, 105, 193n transtextuality 190 showing 6, 66, 81, 82, 84, 122, 164 see also tripartite textual see also telling transaction sight 5, 80, 82, 85–7, 90, 104, 106, theatricality 7, 69, 99, 101 124, 135, 163, 177, 191 text as stage 161–6 see also the pictorial; visuality see also dramatic display; dramatic signification form; dramatic impulse; dramatic literalism 7, 86, 93, 95, 118, 139, intensity 140 tragedy 11, 148, 193n multi-layered 3, 117–18, 119 transculturalism 63, 70, 103 provisional meaning 134 transnationalism 65-6 signifying enterprise 1, 13, 16, 21, tripartite textual transaction 1, 21–2, 141–2, 187 141–2, 187 signifying totality 141 truth 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 39, 81–2, 88, 98, social realism 41 101, 104, 110–22, 126, 128, 129, solidarity 31, 42, 64–5, 109, 137, 140, 141, 143–50, 151–3, 160, 142, 158 173, 177, 185, 209n, 210n, 211n, act of 130, 142, 143, 182, 188 212n narrative 5–6, 117, 122, 130, 143, centrifugal 6, 122 191 competing 119 reading 142, 143, 182, 188 decentred 6, 122 scriptural 8 ethical 46 solipsism 27, 140 manifold 81, 113 structuralism 1, 12–13 relative 119, 140, 152 symbiosis 30, 76, 82, 121, 142, 188, single 47 206n textual 7, 141 synergy 5, 66, 70, 82, 191 see also mega-poetics; plasticity unidentified origination 185 szlachta 28, 45–6 verisimilitude 36, 133, 143–50, 173, telling 6, 66, 81, 82, 112, 113, 120, 175, 210n 122, 125, 131, 190 verticality 108–9, 122, 139–40, 161, territoriality 28, 57 188, 191 see also deterritorialization visuality 1, 4, 5, 69–93, 105–7, textuality 2–3, 20–1, 22, 40, 134–5, 135–6, 162–4, 166, 185, 136, 139–42, 149, 160–1, 163, 191–2 188, 197n imagistic style 80, 92 allegorical scripts 94, 103 making the reader ‘see’ 5, 82, 84, construction of textual meanings 86, 90, 160, 191–2 1, 7, 12, 13, 21, 139, 141–2, 187, ocular penetration 101, 105 193n optical jouissance 104 intertextuality 172, 188 visual activity 98, 104 metaphoric script 101–2, 118, 136, visual communion 107 188–9 visual orientation 90 polarized textual transaction 1, 21 visual perception 72, 78, 83, 85 Index of Concepts 233

vividness 79, 86, 192 narrative voice 73, 90, 110–14, voyeurism 87, 205n 120–1, 122, 126, 132, 134, 138, see also enargeia; the pictorial; sight 163, 180, 207n voice 5, 6, 14, 15, 17–19, 66, 73, 82, see also enunciation; narrator; sight 90, 92, 104, 107–8, 110–14, 117, 119, 120–2, 129, 130, 135, 160, writing back 40 194n, 204n, 206n dual-voice narrative 73, 110–12 xenophobia 61–2, 64, 201n