:: :: University of Virginia Library

The Raverat revises in Section XI cluster between pages 271 and 281, with only one alteration in capitalization made at R 248.17. The Harcourt proofs, on the other hand, show fifteen altered passages between pages 248 and 271, further evidence that Woolf continued correcting that set after she mailed the Raverat proofs. More significant are the revises unique to the Raverat proofset:

Apr reading with Woolf's changes . . . closeness drew apart; rapture faded, one was alone. (A1 281.2-3)	Revisions made only on R . . . closeness draws apart; rapture fades, one is alone. (R 278.3-4)
. . . revive, send roaring up that immeasurable delight, rubbing stick to stick, one thing with another, she must have perished. But that young man had killed himself. (A1 282.1-4)	. . . revive [∧] send roaring up that insolence [∧] that levity [∧] that immeasurable delight, rubbing stick to stick, one thing with another—she must have perished. She escaped. But that young man had killed himself. (R 279.2-5)
She had wanted success. Lady Bexborough and the rest of it. (A1 282.10-11)	She had wanted success,—Lady Bexborough and the rest of it. (R 279.13-15)

The last of these three passages contains merely a punctuation variant resulting from a transcription error when Woolf confused the Harcourt and the Raverat proofs. The Hogarth edition omits the dash Woolf inserted at R 279.14, but does show the comma she inserted after "success". (No alterations

256

were made in this passage on Apr. The dash could have been added on the Hogarth proofs, then deleted later; or Woolf simply could have made a transcription error here. Cf. E1 279.11-13.) It was generally her practice to use the dash without the preceding comma, although instances where both marks appear together can be found in A1 which in all cases follows Apr: 8.8, 24.26, 69.22, 77.22, 109.1, 117.21, 119.21, 140.6, 198.18, and 206.15. Variants between E1 and A1 occur in three of these cases (109.1, 117.21, and 206.15) where E1 deletes the comma before the dash, presumably at Woolf's instructions on a later reading of the Hogarth proofs. Available evidence thus points to Woolf's inconsistency and suggests that, at times, she failed to attend carefully to punctuation. That she included this revision on Raverat's set, but made no changes on Apr, marks another instance where she confused the proofsets, intending to make the punctuation change for the Harcourt edition.

The addition of the words "insolence [∧] that levity [∧] that" at R 279.2 may represent a revision that Woolf wrote out hastily, omitting the commas, but then rejected for the published editions; or it could represent an authorial oversight, if at this point she was transcribing her revises from R to the other two proofsets. In the absence of the Hogarth proofs, it is necessary to resort to an argument based on context. The R addition alters appreciably the character of Clarissa Dalloway in ways for which the novel itself offers little justification. Although she admits that she can be petty, envious, ambitious, and easily irritated, Clarissa is hardly insolent or contemptuously rude. Having flouted some social proprieties in her youth, as a mature woman she is the epitome of civility. If the R addition represents merely a momentary experiment with a new phrase, then Woolf's rejection of it for E1 and A1 could be seen as her attempt to maintain this consistency of character.

The alteration at R 278.3-4, like that at R 279.2, can be considered an initial revision rejected later in favor of the original: after all, the shift in tenses produced by the revision is an error Woolf rarely committed. Or the failure to include this alteration for the published editions can be attributed to authorial oversight: the R changes are not made in the margins of the proofpage, but interlined or written over the original letters; thus, they could have been easily overlooked in transcription. A third possibility, however improbable, is that these are Type IV revisions, changes Woolf intentionally included for Raverat but not for the published editions. Her awareness that Raverat's death was near might have stayed her hand in deleting these revises or might have encouraged her to alter the phrasing to render it more immediate, more poignant. Since editorial decisions based on R readings alone are tenuous, it is best to consider the changes at R 278.3-4 as rejected revises and to follow the phrasing of the published editions.