evidence of European territorial possessions. Even more topically, the storyâs opening sequences confronted its first readers with echoes of their most recent newspaper headlinesâin references to the building of a railway or to expanding trade-syndicates or to increasing militarization in Africa, as signalled by the presence of mercenary soldiers and a blockading French gunboat.
This sense of topical issue is, however, most marked in Marlowâs acerbic quarrel with manifestations of the periodâs sophisticated propaganda machinery, of which the popular press formed a crucial cog. Heart of Darkness was written against a background of recent imperial celebration of a feverishly utopian kind. Queen Victoriaâs diamond jubilee in 1897 occasioned an exaltation of the British Empire and the importance of the imperial idea to the countryâs future as an international power. In her diary for that year, Beatrice Webb summarized the social mood: âImperialism in the air!âall classes drunk with sight seeing and hysterical loyaltyâ. 3 Articles in the New Review evoke the wider note of intoxicated eulogy in lauding the Queen as âthe Great White Mother, the fame of whose virtue has won the loyalty of native races as the genius of Alexander or a Napoleon never couldâ and characterizing the British imperial idea as an onerous religious destiny: âSince the wise men saw the star in the East, Christianity has found no nobler expressionâ. 4 A stream of propaganda also emanated from Brussels, where, as Conrad later observed, Leopold had commandeered press opinionâby, in effect, colonizing its languageâin order to engineer an outrageous ânewspaper âstuntââ. 5
The storyâs early progress from Europe to Africa offers a virtual initiation into the contagious power of the periodâs official imperial propagandaâin the anonymous narratorâs eulogy to the River Thames, in the colourful hyperbole picked up by Marlowâs aunt from her newspapers and through a variety of European voices in Africa. Sharing his creatorâs sense of the power of the printed word, Marlow is acutely aware of its journalistic misuse in rendering people essentially blinkered and insentient. Its invasive power is further suggested by the fact that for most of these speakers such rhetoric is a reflexive act: they are not, on the whole, individuals seeking to use hyperbole to disguise an unsavoury truth, but inert victims and instruments of linguistic coercion.
Marlowâs counter-response takes a number of forms: sometimes he simply speaks plainly of newspaper ârotâ, often he notes the spurious authority given to bureaucratic functionaries in Africa by their naming (as in the case of the euphemistically styled âWorkersâ or âagentsâ), while elsewhere he is shocked by the outrageous incongruities thrown up by the unthinking use of cliché. For example, his grim mirth at hearing from The Harlequin that the heads on stakes belong to ârebelsâ prompts the comment: âRebels! What would be the next definition I was to hear? There had been enemies, criminals, workersâand these were rebels. Those rebellious heads looked very subdued to me on their sticksâ (73).
If much of the best imaginative literature thrives on the exposure of what George Orwell termed Newspeak, it also abhors a vacuum. Silences usually prevailed in the popular press of the 1890s about the exact nature of European rule in Africa and its effect upon her indigenous peoples and customs. By 1897, however, damning facts about the Congo were beginning to filter into British newspapers, as in The Times of 13 May, which reported an ex-Congo missionaryâs testimony that âgross atrocities were perpetrated by the soldiers of the State on the natives, amounting in some cases to shooting and in others to mutilation, for refusal to labour in the gathering of