Perhaps one of the clearest indications that Walter revised with a sharp eye is that many of the revised passages are stylistically superior to the earlier draft material. A good example of this tendency is found in the beginning of the work, just after Walter invokes Augustine’s confusion over the definition of time. Compare the following draft passage with its revision below:
Simili possum admiracione dicere, quod in curia sum et de curia loquor, et quid ipsa sit non inteligo. Scio tamen quod ipsa tempus non est.
(With similar astonishment I am able to say that I am in the court and I speak of the court, and I do not understand what it is. Nevertheless, I know that it is not time.)
Ego simili possum admiracione dicere quod in curia sum, et de curia loquor, et nescio, Deus scit, quid sit curia. Scio tamen quod curia non est tempus.
(With similar astonishment I am able to say that I am in the court and I speak of the court, and I do not know—God knows—what the court is. Nevertheless, I know that the court is not time.)45
Walter has replaced the two instances of the pronoun ipsa with curia, resulting in curia—the ostensible topic of distinctio 1—being repeated four times at the work’s opening. Moreover, Walter has emphatically added ego at the beginning of the sentence in order to heighten his witty paralleling of Augustine. Walter also echoes St. Paul’s own struggle to define his mystical experience: “sive in corpore nescio, sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit” (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth).46 Thus, both biblical and patristic authority coalesce in these revised opening lines to create satirical astonishment over the precise definition of Henry’s court, neatly leading into the exploration of Walter’s famous question—is the court hell?
Moreover, Walter adds two striking images: the court is “a hundred-handed giant which, though all its hands have been cut off, is still entirely the same hundred-handed giant,” as well as a “hydra with many heads.”47 Walter also extends the court-as-time metaphor, adding the line “et hodie sumus una multitudo, cras erimus alia; curia uero non mutatur, eadem semper est” (And we are one multitude today; we will be another tomorrow. But the court is not changed—it is always the same).48 This small addition, moving quickly through hodie (today), cras (tomorrow), and semper (always), transforms the initial invocation of Augustine from a mere quip into a prolonged, though still tongue-in-cheek, comparison. Finally, Walter concludes his introduction by offering one more playful comparison. Only now, instead of time, Walter measures the court against Boethius’s definition of fortune—that it is only stable in its instability.49 He of course finds this comparison fitting. The thorough revision of this introductory passage apparently found its mark, as it appears with dependable regularity in scholarship that touches upon Henry II’s court.
Another stylistic improvement occurs when Walter rewrites his comparison of the denizens of hell with courtiers.50 While many of the same images occur (e.g., Tantalus, Sisyphus, and Ixion), Walter simplifies and systematizes this section. The introduction to this section, which had contained a discussion taken from Macrobius on the human body as hell, as well as a brief passage on the allegorical significance of the four rivers of the underworld, is reduced to a few sentences. Thus Walter seems to have taken his own advice in omitting his discussion of Macrobius: “Quod quia longum est distinguere, leuiterque potest alias haberi, dimittimus” (But we put this aside, since working it out takes some time and it is easily found elsewhere).51 Instead of dwelling on the body as hell, a conceit that while somewhat pertinent does little to set up the comparison between court and hell, the revised passage concisely defines the court as a place of punishment and ends on the simple question: “Quis ibi cruciatus qui non sit hic multiplicatus?” (There [i.e., in hell] what torment exists which is not amplified here?).52 This ibi-hic (there-here) formula then repeats in each of the figures of hell that Walter introduces. The revised passage on Ixion, for example, begins “Sibi sepe dissimilis, super, subter, ultra, citra, Yxion ibi uoluitur in rota. Nec hic desunt Yxiones” (Never able to keep himself still, there Ixion spins about in his wheel—up and down, over here and over there. And here there is no lack of Ixions).53 “Nec hic desunt Yxiones” (And here there is no lack of Ixions) replaces an earlier “Habemus et nos Yxiones” (We too have Ixions), thus bringing this passage into line with the those of Tantalus and Sisyphus and adhering to the newly introduced ibi-hic question now anchoring this section.54
In this revising of the comparison of courtiers with those in hell, we see Walter tempering his ever-present desire to quote from the ancients in order to create a more focused piece of prose. Moreover, the newly systematized ibi-hic formula creates a strong sense of stylistic unity in this passage. It is a shame that a folio is lacking in this section, which originally continued on to make courtly comparisons with Tityus, the daughters of Belus, Cerberus, and Charon. (We know what passages are missing here because the table of contents for the De nugis curialium was written before the loss of this folio.) Had these survived, we would have even more evidence of Walter’s revision of this section. But from what remains, it is clear that Walter could recognize and correct one of his supposed faults: his inability to refrain from learned digressions. Moreover, Walter’s care in developing the ibi-hic formula demonstrates that he had a clear rhetorical plan for this section and that he could execute it.
Yet another stylistic improvement appears in the ending to the section on Ixion, whose transgressions caused Zeus to bind him to a fiery wheel. Walter here takes Ixion’s spinning wheel as a courtly rota fortunae, capriciously lifting up and casting down courtiers, who despite this fickleness find the mere possibility of advancement difficult to resist. A comparison of the first draft with its revised version below shows that Walter stays close to the original.
Tota terribilis est, contra consciencias tota militat, nec inde minus appetitur.
(It is completely terrifying, completely at odds with good conscience. Nonetheless, for these reasons it is sought out.)
Tota terribiliter horret, tota contra consciencias militat, nec minus inde proficit alliciendo.
(It is completely and terrifyingly dreadful, completely at odds with good conscience. Nonetheless, it therefore succeeds in luring them away.)55
However, he makes a few small changes to improve the balance of the sentence. In his revised version, the first two clauses now both begin with tota, and the change of terribilis est to terribiliter horret results in both clauses having the same syntactic structure (i.e., predicate adjective + adverbial phrase + intransitive verb) and thus a pleasing balance. Finally, the change of logical subject from appetitur (it is sought out)—in which the courtiers seek the wheel—to proficit alliciendo (it succeeds in luring them away)—in which the wheel actively seduces them—not only makes the rota the logical subject of every verb in the sentence but also heightens the menace of the court. Rather than being sought out, the court now seeks its own victims.
Major Changes During Revision
While the above serves as representative of the nature of Walter’s minor revisions, it is not an exhaustive treatment. His countless adjustments would require much more space to discuss in full. But equally revealing are Walter’s major alterations: his addition or omission of entire passages, his repurposing of earlier tales for a different use, and his close attention to narrative continuity. In considering this type of revision, I first approach chapters 1 through 15 of distinctio 1. Here we have the best evidence for Walter’s technique and aims, as we can watch as he composes a coherent narrative in both theme and structure. I will then address the revised sections of distinctio 2, which, while less extensive than those in distinctio 1, nonetheless show Walter working with the same consideration. I will, however, omit discussion of the tales of King Herla and Eadric the Wild, since I discuss them elsewhere.56
First of all, Walter has reworked his introduction in order to better reflect his subsequent critique of