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 influ- ence 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 produc- tion 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 the- orists 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 the- ory, 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 dic- tatorship ought to be read in the light of the overall struggle of 1960s French intellectuals, including Barthes, to release French society from stifling polit- ical, 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 judg- ment 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 sys- tem 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 philosophi- cal 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.