A careful comparison of the major and minor differences between the doublets of the De nugis curialium demonstrates that they are not merely two versions of the same story, recorded perhaps at separate times, but rather the same story at different stages of revision. Many passages share exact phrasing, which would be highly improbable had Walter impulsively recorded in his commonplace book the same story, metaphor, or idea ten years apart; he was clearly rewriting with a close eye to his earlier compositions. An analysis of Walter’s diction, prose style, and larger literary aims bears this assumption out. The philologically faint of heart may be forgiven for skipping to the end of this section, but for those who stay, these comparisons offer a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a twelfth-century author at work. For ease of reference, I list the doublets along with their subject matter in Table 1.
I will deal separately with the major and minor differences between the doublets. Under major differences I include the addition and deletion of significant passages and changes in how a tale fits within the larger context of its neighboring tales. Because the minor differences show most clearly the process of revision, I will begin with them.
One of the most easily recognizable differences between the doublets is that small changes in diction are sometimes driven by the desire to insert as much alliterative effect as possible. In several cases the doublets occurring in distinctiones 1 and 2 contain more alliteration than their counterparts in IV and V. Since many Medieval Latin writers of the twelfth century took such a liking to alliteration—Walter is among those who could not resist its pull—it is much more plausible that Walter added alliteration during his process of revision, rather than purposefully omitting it. For example, “Cor autem illud saxo comparatur, quia Dominus ait” becomes “Cor illud bene comparatur saxo Sisiphi, quia scriptum est.”30 And toward the end of comparison of the court with hell, Walter works up a tour de force of alliterative imagery: “obuoluciones autem ignium, nebulas et fetorem, anguium <et> uiperarum sibila, gemitus et lacrimas, feditatem et horrorem” is amplified to “Obuolucionem autem ignium, densitatem tenebrarum, fluminum fetorem, stridorem a demonibus magnum dencium, gemitus exiles et miserabiles a spiritibus anxiis, uermium et uiperarum et anguium et omnis reptilis tractus fedos, et rugitus impios, fetorem, planctum et horrorem.”31 The increased alliteration of this passage is hard to miss (i.e., densitatem tenebrarum; fluminum fetorem; demonibus … dencium; uermium … uiperarum). Moreover, Walter has also added the additional effect of rhyme with “exiles et miserabiles.” In the tale of Eadric the Wild, the same process is seen in the sentence “se iussit Herefordiam deferri” becoming “et se deferri fecit Herefordiam.”32 Here the meaning of the two phrases is almost identical, but Walter has changed iussit to fecit in order to answer the f in deferri and Herefordiam. He takes similar care in revising “et relapsum cor in uallem auaricie secuntur” to “et relapsum in auaricie uallem animum reuocare conantur,” where cor is replaced by the closely related animum, thus nicely linking auaricie and animum. In another case, Walter’s earlier material in distinctio 5 shows that he had already decided to include the three judges of the dead, Rhadamanthus, Minos, and Aeacus, in his satire on the court. In the process of revision, these judges take on ironic epithets, which, of course, alliterate: “Minos est misericors, Radamantus racionem amans, Eacus equanimis.”33 Furthermore, “Det Deus [sc. cor] et sic faciat curialibus” is improved to “Det Dominus cor curialibus carneum.”34 Likewise, in the tale of the militant monk of Cluny, Walter improves the alliteration of “lethali spiculo perforat inprouisum [sc. monachum]” to “monachum misso letali telo perforat.”35 Walter may have made this change so that the alliteration falls on two stressed syllables (pérforat inprouísum versus mónachum mísso).
Table 1. Revised Passages in the DNC
| Revised | Unrevised | Topic |
| 1.1–10 | 5.7 | Satire on the court |
| 1.11 | 4.13 | King Herla/Herlething |
| 1.14 | 4.7 | Militant monk of Cluny |
| 2.12 | 4.10 | Eadric the Wild |
| 2.13 | 4.8 | The sons of the dead woman (though see discussion) |
But this last example also demonstrates that as Walter revises he sometimes abandons an alliterating pair of words in order to create alliteration elsewhere. In many cases, however, it is difficult to say why exactly Walter switches his alliterative targets, and it may in the end be fruitless to seek clear explanations for each of these edits. Regardless, these changes confirm that Walter did pay close attention to alliteration as he worked through his drafts. Further examples of this type of alliterative vacillation are not hard to find: “Sunt et hic qui diuiciarum altitudinem adepti nichil actum putant” is revised to “Sunt et hic multi qui montem ascensi diuiciarum nil actum putant.”36 Here, Walter seems to have preferred montem over altitudinem because it allows for the pair multi … montem, even though it cannibalizes the alliterative triplet altitudinem … adepti … actum. Perhaps here Walter shows a preference for consonance over assonance. And in the story of the militant monk of Cluny, Walter eliminates the varied alliteration of “Sentit monachus mortem in ianuis, confiteri cupit, nec adest preter puerum cui possit,” preferring instead a relentless focus on the sound of p: “Ille se morti proximum sciens, puero qui solus aderat peccata fatetur, penitenciam sibi petens inuingi.”37 While these changes in alliteration may not be deeply significant on their own, taken together they show that as Walter revises, he remains in line with the general twelfth-century practice of minding one’s alliteration.
In a few instances, we also see Walter changing his diction with a preference for a more striking or more appropriate term. “Porfirius dicit genus esse …” (Porphyry says a genus is …) becomes “ut Porphirius diffinit genus” (as Porhyry defines a genus).38 The scholastic connotations of diffinire are more appropriate for Walter’s mock intellectual exercise of comparing the court and hell than the commonplace verb dicere.39 Moreover, in the revised version Walter uses diffinire once again: after a few paragraphs on the current state of the court and the degeneration of the modern age, he begins his famous comparison of the court with hell, though he hesitates, asking himself, “Hic tamen dubito an eam recte diffinierim” (Yet in doing so I wonder if I have defined it correctly).40 Here, Walter alerts the attentive reader that what follows is in the mold of a scholastic exercise and that he will be as careful in his definitions as Porphyry. Another small change is found in the revision of “Non in omnes loquor iudices, sed in maiorem et in insaniorem partem” (I am not speaking against all judges, but against the larger and madder part) to “sed secundum maiorem et insaniorem loquor aciem” (but I am speaking with respect to the larger and madder fray).41 That acies (blade; battle line, fray) is much more striking than pars (part; portion) is clear, but its use also picks up on the violence implicit in Walter’s description of foresters, uenatores hominum (hunters of men), that precedes this remark. Moreover, puns, one of Walter’s favorite literary devices, are clearly on his mind as he revises: “Sed parcendum est curie” (But the court must be spared) becomes “Sed curie parcere curiale uidetur” (But sparing the court seems a courtly thing to do).42 And in revising the section on Ixion, Walter changes “hinc et illinc” (hither and thither) to “ultra, citra” (on this side, on that side), which, while not in the least rare terms, are however less clichéd than the original.43 Finally, Walter makes a savvy change when describing the court’s wheel of fortune: “nullius in ea sine spe locus est” (nobody’s place on it is