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 without hope) is tweaked to “nullius in ea sine spe casus est” (nobody’s fall on it is without hope).44 With its connotations of loss, chance, and the fall of man, casus fits this passage’s context much better than locus.
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
