Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? Harry White, Irving L

Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? Harry White, Irving L. Finston

Conradiana, Volume 42, Number 1-2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp. 81-92 (Article)

Published by Texas Tech University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/cnd.2010.0010

For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/452495

Access provided at 9 Oct 2019 05:10 GMT from USP-Universidade de SÃƒÂ£o Paulo Who Put Kurtz on the Congo?

HARRYWHITEANDIRVINGL.FINSTON

Our article included in this issue, “The Two River Narratives in ‘Heart of Darkness,’” showed that Joseph Conrad imagined Kurtz’s Inner Station to be located on the Kasai River and not on the Congo as has been generally assumed. We now ask how one of the most important, influential, and widely read and studied works of modern fiction has been so con- sistently and unquestioningly misread for so long on such a basic level. In what follows we show that something akin to a cover-up was initiated by the author regarding the location and direction of Charlie Mar- low’s voyage. We will then reveal the primary source for many of the current interpretations and misinterpretations of “Heart of Darkness” by showing how one very influential scholar was the first to place Kurtz’s station on the wrong river. Nowhere in any of his writings did Conrad report that Marlow’s venture into the heart of darkness followed his own voyage from Stan- ley Pool to Stanley Falls. Nowhere in “Heart of Darkness” does it say that Marlow voyages up the Congo to find Kurtz. Yet critics and scholars have persisted in placing Kurtz’s Inner Station on the Congo. This mis- understanding arose in large part from the fact that Conrad was any- thing but forthcoming about the direction of Marlow’s voyage. He was informative when he noted for his publisher that “An Outpost of Progress” took place alongside the Kasai, but withheld the name of the river when writing to his other publisher about “Heart of Darkness” (CL 1: 294; CL 2: 139). Conrad kept from William Blackwood what he revealed to Thomas Fisher Unwin, that the narrative he hoped to have published took place on and alongside the Kasai River (we use the usual spelling and not Conrad’s). After all, the Kasai would not likely have been known to either Blackwood or the British reading public. The “voyage Conrad out- lines in his novella would have already been familiar to Victorian readers” only if his readers were to presume that the voyage he outlined takes place on the Congo (Griffith 23). The Congo after all was the subject of much adventure and controversy, as the doctor who examines

Conradiana, vol. 42, no. 1–2, 2010 © Texas Tech University Press 82 CONRADIANA

Marlow remarks: “‘So you are going out there.’ Famous. Interesting, too” (“Heart” 58). However, as Alexandre Delcommune observed two years before Conrad arrived in the Congo: “It is [. . .] scarcely six years since it [the Kasai] has been known” (221, translation White). Readers could very well have found Marlow’s voyage much less interesting if they realized that it took place along a scarcely known river rather than a very famous one. There was a related problem. Conrad also informed Blackwood that his story dealt with a “subject [that] is of our time distinc[t]ly” (CL 2: 140); so if he were to be as precise and explicit about the direction of Marlow’s voyage as he was about his own, readers might realize that the central episode in this work of fiction described a river journey that took the narrator far from the Belgian exploitation of the Congo River and its environs. Then the timely subject of the novella might be seriously com- promised; and in the long run, “Heart of Darkness” might never have gained the reputation which it now enjoys of being “one of the most scathing indictments of imperialism in all literature” (Hochschild 146). We may gauge something of that concern by Conrad’s remarks to R. B. Cunninghame Graham, a man with strong political convictions who had already expressed interest in the timely subject of the first parts of the novella. Conrad noted that the upriver portions he was composing did not deal so distinctly with the political issues of the time (CL 2: 157). Lastly, if Conrad had identified the river in the novella as the Congo or somehow indicated that it was based on that river, then anyone familiar with seamanship or that particular stretch of waterway could readily refute any claim that Marlow was supposedly traveling up the Congo, since the river and its environs which are described in the novella hardly match the Upper Congo. That Conrad didn’t name the Congo is therefore understandable; yet it remains curious that there is no written record anywhere that we can find indicating that he told anyone—nei- ther his publisher nor his friends and his wife who would write about him and his work—exactly where he did imagine Kurtz’s station to be located. We know that Conrad could be impatient with attempts to link his works to events in his life. He wrote Richard Curle regarding his eastern tales, such as “Youth”: “I knew what I was doing in leaving the facts of my life and even the tales in the background. Explicitness [. . .] is fatal to the glamour of all artistic work, robbing it of all suggestiveness, destroy- ing all illusion” (CL 7: 457). Conrad could not have been very explicit when speaking with Curle about Marlow’s journey, since Curle’s 1914 WHITEANDFINSTON— Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? 83 book which received “Conrad’s authorization” states nothing more spe- cific than that Marlow “went [. . .] [into]Africa[‘s] blind interior” (Joseph 51). However, when Curle prepared a list of the vessels on which the writer had traveled, Conrad did explicitly write “Heart of Darkness,” next to Roi des Belges (“Congo” 159); yet he was not equally explicit about writing the name of the river on which Marlow’s boat voyages. Curle or anyone else might naturally assume from what Conrad did (and didn’t) write that Marlow took his boat up the same river on which Conrad took the Roi des Belges. We suspect that Conrad knew very well what might prove fatal to the success of a work like “Heart of Darkness”; and, for that reason, when speaking with Curle or especially Gérard Jean-Aubry, he did not leave out the facts of his life along the Congo but kept the facts of Mar- low’s journey along the Kasai well in the background. Conrad appar- ently revealed and withheld certain information regarding his life and the tale taken from it not to make this particular work more glamorous, but to make it more interesting and timely by not robbing his readers of any illusion they might arrive at that Marlow’s adventures take place entirely alongside and then upon the famous Congo River; and as we shall see, at least since 1926, that is what most everyone has come to assume. Curle edited and published Conrad’s “Congo Diary,” noting numerous similarities between “Heart of Darkness” and the diary’s account of the author’s overland journey alongside the Congo; yet he refrained from printing Conrad’s “second notebook” (published much later by Zdizsàw Najder as “Up-River Book, 1890”). Curle did not print it, he said, “simply because it has no personal or literary interest,” even though he acknowledged that it “played its special and impersonal part in the construction” of “the river journey in ‘Heart of Darkness’” (“Congo” 159). That fact, one would think, would certainly give it considerable “literary interest” regarding “the river journey in ‘Heart of Darkness’” (“Congo” 159); but it would not be information that would reveal the kind of comparisons Curle was able to find in the diary. To the contrary, if carefully regarded, the second notebook could reveal enough dissimilarities to suggest that the river journey in the novella was not constructed on the basis of Conrad’s voyage up the Congo. We cannot tell for certain if Conrad and those close to him were somehow involved in a cover-up. Yet it is certainly the case that everything written at the time by Conrad and those who spoke with him runs in the same direction: it is detailed and explicit with respect to Conrad’s 84 CONRADIANA and Marlow’s relation to the Congo River, but says or reveals nothing about the Kasai. We do know for certain that the author was not above inventing stories when for instance he needed to cover up his financial losses or not above submitting false information to advance his naval career (Najder, Joseph 70–1, 65–6). Secrecy and lies play an important part in quite a number of Conrad’s narratives, including “Heart of Dark- ness”; and Conrad might very well have advanced his writing career and sought to increase the sales of this one particular novella in a way that was not entirely truthful. Remember too that in an age that favored realistic fiction, an author’s reputation could generally depend on how true to life his work appeared. Curle wrote in 1926 that, “Conrad’s work was founded upon the promptings of memory [. . .]. [T]he driving force behind his creation is reality” (“Congo” 156). A generation before, the first reviewers were also quick to establish the authenticity of the novella: Edward Garnett wrote, “‘Heart of Darkness’ [. . .] is an impression, taken from life” (145). How- ever, Conrad privately admitted that his “experience” in Africa was “limited” to the “course of the main river” (CL 3: 95). Here then Conrad faced another problem having to do with the authenticity of his tale: the realization that Marlow voyages up a river the author had never traveled on would seriously damage any contention that the novella’s central episode was a realistic account founded upon memory or taken from life. We may gauge the importance of authenticity for a novella like “Heart of Darkness” by the fact that Conrad would insist or have to insist later in life that the work was essentially “true” to the actual “facts” of his experience (“Author’s Note,” Tales ix; “Author’s Note,” Youth xi). Yet, the work itself tells a different story from what the author’s notes say it does. It tells us that “the reality [. . .] fades” as soon as Marlow be- gins to voyage upriver to find Kurtz (“Heart” 93). Even as a boy Conrad had the ability to tell the most fantastic stories in a way that “they seemed [. . .] actual happenings” (Najder, Conrad 143); and if Conrad’s remarks on “Heart of Darkness” shy away from revealing the whole truth, his greatness as an artist may be measured by the fact that so many readers have mistaken Marlow’s strange and fantastic voyage for a realistic representation of the author’s actual experiences traveling up the Congo. If Conrad’s writings give no indication that Marlow steams up the Congo, and if we find no statement to that effect by anyone writing dur- ing Conrad’s lifetime, who then was the first writer to put Marlow’s WHITEANDFINSTON— Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? 85 steamer on that body of water? The first indication that we know of, certainly the first significant and influential statement to that effect, appeared in 1926, two years after Conrad’s death and twenty-seven years after the story first appeared in print. The claim was made by his friend and first biographer Gérard Jean-Aubry in Joseph Conrad and the Congo. He and Richard Curle, “were to carry Conrad’s reputation through the years after his death [. . .] and [. . .] help keep his name before the public” (Karl 705). Jean-Aubry carried it much further since he was to publish three studies of the author, the last being in 1957. He was also the first to give prominence to “Heart of Darkness” among Conrad’s works. Jean- Aubry makes his intention clear in the very first pages of the book: “I would like to show ... to what extent his life and his work are merged together, how much one is the outcome of the other, how experience of things ... are responsible for the stirring illusion of real life which per- vades all his work” (Congo 18–9). To that end he affirms that in “Heart of Darkness” directly reflects what Conrad witnessed on his voyage to Stanley Falls (Congo 61). Portions of Jean-Aubry’s 1926 study would re-appear basically un- changed in Joseph Conrad: His Life and Letters (1927) and The Sea Dreamer: A Definitive Biography of Joseph Conrad (1957); and Jean-Aubry’s state- ments regarding “Heart of Darkness” and the Congo would continue to have a profound and long-lasting influence on Conrad studies even after it had been shown that his “assertion that everything Marlow de- scribes is a direct reflection of Conrad’s memories is incorrect on nearly every count” (Karl 295). In Joseph Conrad and the Congo, Jean-Aubry inter- spersed passages from the novella with biographical information to sub- stantiate his assertion that the work was authentically “true to reality” (65). Jean-Aubry, like Curle, had access to the charts Conrad made of his upriver journey. He knew that he had voyaged on a well-traveled waterway and that he made the journey in record time. Most significantly, Jean-Aubry reported, “Conrad entertained me with reminiscences of the Congo [and] [. . .] that which remains most vivid is [. . .] the scenery of a river, vast as a sea [. . .] which the great writer was equally clever in making his listener visualise, whether by word or by pen” (Congo 60). We cannot tell to what extent Jean-Aubry was so intent on advancing the idea that the novella remained true to the reality of its author’s experiences that he overlooked obvious differences between the two voyages. Or did he deliberately insist on similarities even while recognizing that there were more significant differences than revealing similarities? Whatever the case, the connections he made—and he was the first to 86 CONRADIANA

make them—remain suspicious. Jean-Aubry writes that he “greatly re- gret[s] not having made many notes” (Congo 60); yet writing only two years after the author died and with all his own research plus Conrad’s vivid descriptions of the river, why didn’t he provide his readers with more details? Or was he determined to underplay or ignore those details because they would stand as evidence that Marlow’s voyage and therefore much of the novella was actually not all that true to the reality Con- rad experienced? Recall that Richard Curle also refrained from printing details from Conrad’s notebook that did not match Marlow’s voyage. If Conrad “by word” described the Congo as being vast as a sea that is clearly not what he depicted “by pen” in the novella (Jean-Aubry, Congo 60). The Congo is typically ten miles wide and at some of its nar- rowest points, like at Stanley Falls (where critics following Jean-Aubry would continue to place Kurtz’s Inner Station), still one mile wide. The river remains throughout quite open to the sky and hardly matches those passages from “Heart of Darkness” that Jean-Aubry quoted at length in 1927 which describe it as “an empty stream,” that “ran on, deserted into the gloom of overshadowed distances,” a narrow, treacher- ous river which Marlow finds difficult to navigate (Life 1: 134): “I had to keep guessing at the channel; I had to discern, mostly by inspiration, the signs of hidden banks” (Life 1: 134). If Conrad described his own voyage on the Congo in vivid detail for Jean-Aubry, for all we can tell, he appar- ently did not entertain even that good friend with the precise details of Marlow’s voyage. Nevertheless those details are scattered throughout the novella, and it had to be clear to Jean-Aubry that the river Conrad traveled on was not some deserted stream running through “the gloom of overshadowed distances,” as described in the novella and quoted by him (Life 1: 134). He did not navigate into some “blind interior,” as described in Curle’s book that Conrad authorized (Joseph 51). Where literal differences can’t be ignored, Jean-Aubry readily ex- plains them away as metaphor or poetic license. He notes for example that Conrad made the 1000-mile voyage in the record time of twenty- eight days, saying for example, that the voyage on the Congo is ex- tended to two months in the novella for the psychological reason that Conrad must have felt the journey to be “interminable” (Sea 167). How- ever Conrad was an experienced seaman accustomed to even longer voyages, and there’s nothing in his writings to suggest that he found the voyage up the Congo, a mere 1000 miles which was covered in less than one month, to be “interminable” (Sea 167). That it takes Marlow pre- cisely twice as long to cover what critics assume to be the same distance WHITEANDFINSTON— Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? 87 can’t be an indication that either Conrad or Marlow found his trip bor- ing; but in fact Marlow doesn’t even travel the same distance. Whether intentionally or unwittingly, Jean-Aubry tended to work by misdirection. He presented numerous details of Conrad’s voyage up the Congo as evidence that Marlow traveled along the very same river. He thus not only incorrectly placed Marlow’s steamboat and Kurtz’s station on the Congo, but he initiated the approach that critics would employ for decades to draw the same mistaken conclusions: detail facts of Con- rad’s venture as evidence of Marlow’s voyage, and where the differences are too obvious to overlook, presume that the details in the novella are not literal but figurative. In fact, Jean-Aubry examined the details of Conrad’s voyage with a thoroughness he never applied to Marlow’s journey. And later critics have tended to follow his lead, giving us considerable information about Conrad’s thousand-mile journey, but for example ignoring the fact that Conrad indicates at several points in the novella that Marlow’s voyage covered only 800 miles or that it took him twice as long (exactly two months) to travel the shorter distance. Also overlooked is the fact that in A Personal Record, Conrad states that as a child he looked forward to going to Africa and actually did go all the way to Stanley Falls whereas he has Marlow say that he went to Africa, but not to Stanley Falls. Conrad says that when he “was a little chap” he too looked at a map of Africa and said simply, “When I grow up I will go there,” that is, to Africa (13, emphasis original). Conrad does not have him add, what he would clearly state in his Personal Record, that he went to Stanley Falls. That is not what “there” indicates in the novella. Recall that Curle’s book which Conrad authorized speaks only of Marlow voy- aging into “the blind interior” of Africa and also refrains from mention- ing Stanley Falls (Joseph 51). Nevertheless, someone quite familiar with the Congo River, a writer, a sea captain, and an admirer of Conrad’s fiction, realized that there were incontrovertible inconsistencies between Conrad’s voyage on the Upper Congo and Marlow’s venture into the “heart of darkness” (“Heart” 95); and in 1930, he wrote to The London Mercury to expose those differences. Captain Otto Luetkin had worked for the Belgians on the Congo for eight years, and he was as intent on discrediting the accuracy of the novella as Jean-Aubry was in establishing it. He wrote that no author who had visited the Congo had “been so severe in their judg- ment on the white people, particularly the Belgians” or “drawn quite so dark a picture of the conditions prevailing there” (Luetkin 40); and he insisted that it presented “an unfair picture” (Luetkin 43). Luetkin 88 CONRADIANA

concluded quite perceptively that the upriver voyage, unlike the earlier parts of the novel, was not based on personal experience (42). He was however not interested in the novella itself, but in the severity of its judgments regarding the Belgians. To that end he supposed that Conrad most likely did not travel on the Congo and therefore could not have actually witnessed the brutalities depicted in the novella. From his reading of Marlow’s voyage, he surmised that Conrad must have traveled the Kasai to Lusambo, well beyond the region of the Congo River (Luetkin 42). Luetkin could have made a better case or bolstered the one he was making if he would also have refuted the assumption that Marlow voyaged on the Congo. So why didn’t he? He didn’t because the general assumption we now hold, that Marlow traveled on the Upper Congo, simply did not exist in 1930. So as far as Luetkin could tell, if Marlow’s voyage bore any marks of personal experience, it probably represented a journey up the Kasai. Luetkin came ever so close to revealing the truth of “Heart of Dark- ness,” that Marlow steams up one of the tributaries of the Congo, the Kasai River, to get to Kurtz’s Inner Station. His misguided claim that the author did not go up the Congo was easy enough to refute. In the same issue of The London Mercury, Jessie Conrad, the author’s widow, an- swered him: she did so, she said, with the help of “a friend” (261). The friend was most likely Jean-Aubry, since the information regarding Con- rad’s voyage is the same information that he had presented in his 1926 and 1927 books. So by 1930 it was clearly established beyond any rea- sonable doubt and with considerable detail that Joseph Conrad traveled on the Congo from Stanley Pool to Stanley Falls; and countless biographical studies, critical analyses, and study guides have gone over that same information for readers and students of the novella with the intent of helping them appreciate its accuracy and importance with respect to the events of the time. Thanks largely to Jean-Aubry, everyone either overlooked differences between the novella and the author’s experience or kept looking in the wrong direction at the details of Conrad’s voyage, and no one thought to question whether Marlow voyaged on the Upper Congo. So by the time Norman Sherry came in 1971 to make another carefully detailed study of Conrad’s voyage, he concluded that it was very different from Marlow’s and that those differences were due to an imaginative re- vision of his experiences on the Congo (50, 71). Actually the conclusion Sherry drew from his seemingly groundbreaking discoveries never went far enough. Though he detailed what Luetkin had pointed out, WHITEANDFINSTON— Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? 89 that the river voyage portions of the novella in particular bear “all the marks of not being a personal experience,” Sherry still placed Marlow on the Congo and not the Kasai which better matched the voyage Mar- low takes (42). After and largely because of “the remarkable researches of Norman Sherry,” critics now regularly alert readers to numerous differences between the text and the Congo River (Watt 138–9); and yet their belief that Conrad had Marlow steam up the Congo remains unshaken, and their reading of the novella continues to be distorted by that misunderstand- ing. To take just one example, Ian Watt reviewed many of the points Sherry made and then wrote that “the Congo is never named, and remains ‘that river’” (137). Actually, the Congo is named to the extent that it is repeatedly called “the big river” and sometime “the great river” (“Heart” 62, 86). What Marlow identifies as “that river” is not the Congo (“Heart” 51); and the term “big river” is never applied to “that [other] river” (“Heart” 62, 51). The confusion is understandable, since Conrad played something like a literary shell game with his readers, alluding to the Congo as “big” or “great,” but using a nondescript term to identify the Kasai (“that river”)—one that could easily be mistaken as an apposi- tive referring to the big river rather than (as was the case) some other body of water (“Heart” 51). Elsewhere Conrad typically referred to the Congo as the “main river” (“Outpost” 109). See, for example, Conrad’s Letters or “An Outpost of Progress” where we read of “distant and important stations on the main river” (CL 2: 95; 109). That term makes it eminently clear that the station in the story is located on some river other than the main one. However Conrad avoided using that term in the novella. Was it because he did not want readers to realize that Kurtz’s station was not situated on the main river in the region, i.e., the Congo? If so, the strategy has worked well for decades. It is also not really the case: it is actually quite misleading to claim that, except for Stanley Falls, Luetkin “testified to the truth of Conrad’s description” (Watt 144). The starting point of Luetkin’s article was the realization that “Heart of Darkness” did not describe a voyage on the Congo River. Luetkin testified to the truth of the novella’s descriptions only insofar as he mistakenly believed Conrad journeyed up the Kasai and not the Congo, since he correctly recognized that the descriptions in the novella matched the Kasai rather than the Congo. So it turns out that Sherry’s approach, that Watt and others have copied, was actually not that much different from that which Jean- Aubry had established: examine details of Conrad’s voyage and explain 90 CONRADIANA any differences between his and Marlow’s journey as due to imaginative transformation. As a result, Sherry’s excellent research has not funda- mentally altered our understanding of “Heart of Darkness.” Everyone, including Sherry and Watt or, for example, John Batchelor who also cites Sherry’s work, still see no reason not to place Kurtz’s Inner Station on the Congo. Going over the same information for over fifty years and ac- cepting the dogma established by the scholarly community, no one seems to have thought that it might be interesting and important enough to give as careful an examination of Marlow’s voyage as everyone had already done with respect to Conrad’s and to try and match the voyage in the novella to the reality of the Congo Free State, its rivers, forests, and people. After all, the Kasai River shouldn’t have been that hard to find. It is on all the maps of the region Conrad visited. It was the river Conrad was originally supposed to explore. He in fact mentions stopping by it in his “Up-River Book” and refers to it in his letters (22); and as early as 1930 Luetkin suspected from reading the novella that it might have been the river on which Conrad voyaged. Despite claims to clear and independent critical thought, a community of scholars is not that much different from any other community. Critics and scholars work within a tradition; and once that tradition is firmly established, it becomes exceedingly difficult to think and write and publish contrary to received opinion and the conventional wisdom of the scholarly community whose members control and influence the editorship of leading journals, not to mention the appointment of pro- fessors to positions in the field. From graduate school on, advancement in the field of literary studies too often requires abandoning whatever critical skills one developed as an undergraduate and conforming to the currently accepted readings that the community of scholars has established. So it often takes someone not familiar with received opinion, like seamen not familiar with Conrad scholarship, to recognize a work for what it says and not for what others have proclaimed to be its import and meaning. What the history of criticism respecting “Heart of Darkness” reveals is the triumph and failure of scholarship. We use the word triumph iron- ically. It is the triumph of scholarship over accurate critical readings of a text. Consequently, a major misreading of a major work of fiction be- came the accepted paradigm; and subsequent readers and scholars then perpetuated that misreading. That a sea captain familiar with the Congo indicated as early as 1930 that there were serious discrepancies between the novella and the territory and that Marlow’s voyage upriver WHITEANDFINSTON— Who Put Kurtz on the Congo? 91 could not have been based on personal experience should at least have given readers pause. But it didn’t. Luetkin is rarely, if ever, even cited in Conrad criticism and never given any serious credit. After all, he held no degree in literature and was not trained in literary analysis at any university, but that may very well be one reason why he was able to spot difficulties that others either ignored or painted over. It was because he was familiar with seamanship and not with the conventional wisdom of current and past scholarship that he was able to under- stand something about “Heart of Darkness” that everyone else had missed.

WORKSCITED

Batchelor, John. The Life of Joseph Conrad: A Critical Biography. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994. Conrad, Jessie. “Correspondence: Joseph Conrad in the Congo.” The London Mer- cury. 22 (1930): 261–3. Conrad, Joseph. “Author’s Note.” Tales of Unrest. Vol. 8. The Complete Works of Joseph Conrad. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1926. vii–xi ———. “Author’s Note.” Youth, and Two Other Stories. Vol. 16. Conrad, Complete. ix–xii. ———. The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad: Volume 1, 1861–1897. Eds. Frederick R. Karl and Laurence Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. [Cited as CL 1] ———. The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad: Volume 2, 1898–1902. Eds. Frederick R. Karl and Laurence Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. [Cited as CL 2] ———. The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad: Volume 3, 1903–1907. Eds. Frederick R. Karl and Laurence Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. [Cited as CL 3] ———. The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad: Volume 7, 1920–1922. Eds. Laurence Davies and J.H. Stape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. [Cited as CL 7] ———. “Heart of Darkness.” Youth, and Two Other Stories. Vol. 16. Conrad, Com- plete. 45–162. ———. “An Outpost of Progress.” Tales of Unrest. Vol. 8. Conrad, Complete. 86–117 ———. A Personal Record. Vol. 6. Conrad, Complete. ———. “Up-River Book, 1890.” Congo Dairy and Other Uncollected Pieces. Ed. Zdzisław Najder. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1978. Curle, Richard. “The Congo Diary: Introduction.” Introduction. Last Essays by Joseph Conrad. By Joseph Conrad. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1926. 155–61. ———. Joseph Conrad: A Study. Doubleday, Page & Co. Garden City, N.Y., 1914. Delcommune, Alex[andre]. Vingt annees de Vie africaine: Recits de Voyages, d’Ad- ventures et d’Exploration au Congo Belge, 1874–1893 [Twenty Years of Life: 92 CONRADIANA

Accounts of Voyages, Adventures and Exploration of the Belgian Congo]. Brux- elles: Vve Ferdinand Larcier, 1922. Garnett, Edward. “Mr. Conrad’s New Book.” Rev. of Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad. Academy and Literature. 6 Dec. 1902: 606–7. Rpt. in Heart of Darkness. Ed. D. C. R. A. Goonetilleke. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press, 1995. 163–4. Griffith, John W. Joseph Conrad and the Anthropological Dilemma. Oxford: Claren- don Press, 1995. Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1999. Jean-Aubry, Gérard. Joseph Conrad and the Congo. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1926. [Cited as Congo] ———. Joseph Conrad: Life and Letters. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1927. [Cited as Life] ———. The Sea Dreamer: A Definitive Biography of Joseph Conrad. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1957. Karl, Frederick R. Joseph Conrad: The Three Lives. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979. Luetkin, Otto. “Joseph Conrad in the Congo.” The London Mercury. 22 (1930): 40–43. Najder, Zdzisàw. Conrad Under Family Eyes. Trans. Halina Carroll-Najder. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. ———. Joseph Conrad: A Chronicle. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1983. Sherry, Norman. Conrad’s Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. White, Harry, and Irving Finston. “The Two River Narratives in Heart of Dark- ness.” Conradiana 42. 1-2 (2010): 1–43. Watt, Ian. Conrad in the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.