survival of earlier versions of most of the material in chapters 1 through 15 shows that there is nothing haphazard in the organization of distinctio 1 of the De nugis curialium. In the foregoing discussion, I have, however, omitted Walter’s revision of chapter 11, the tale of King Herla, because it is the subject of Chapter 4. As will be seen, this tale also shows all the hallmarks of careful revision found in the rest of distinctio 1.
On the surface, distinctio 2 seems to contain two stories that have been revised from earlier material: the tale of Eadric the Wild and the story Walter calls “The Sons of a Dead Woman.” As I have explained elsewhere, in revising the tale of Eadric the Wild, Walter adds a famous Anglo-Saxon thane to an earlier story in order to shore up the rights of the bishop of Hereford.98 One more doublet, then, remains to be explained. Both distinctio 2 and distinctio 4 contain broadly similar stories concerning the offspring of humans and fairy lovers, classifying them as “sons of a dead woman” (filii mortue).99 Rigg considers these stories to represent the same episode in revised and unrevised forms. Thus, I have included them in Table 1. However, although these two chapters do touch upon the same subject matter, their identification as the same story is unwarranted. The only direct verbal similarity between the two tales is the tag “sons of a dead woman” (filii mortue). Moreover, distinctio 2 does not actually recount the story of one of these sons of a dead woman. Instead it directly follows the tale of Gastin Gastiniog’s son Trunio Vagelauc and Eadric the Wild’s son Alnoth, both of whose mothers are fairies.100 (Fairy-bride stories have a certain pull on Walter.)101 Walter explains that fairies and their ilk, or “phantasms” (fantasma) as he terms them, are merely demons whom God has permitted to change their appearance. This explanation would not surprise contemporary readers, as succubi and incubi, with which he equates these phantasms, have long been treated as demons in Christian thought. But what, Walter wonders, is one to make of cases in which the offspring of these unions “which remain and propagate themselves in good succession, as in this case of Alnoth or that of the aforementioned Britons, in which a certain knight is said to have buried his wife who was truly dead, and to have gotten her back after he snatched her from a ring of dancers, and afterward to have received children and grandchildren from her, and their offspring endures to this very day, and those who trace their origin from this source have become widespread—all of them are therefore called ‘the sons of a dead woman’ ”?102 Walter does not have a satisfactory explanation for these cases, gesturing merely to the incomprehensible ways of the Lord. Nonetheless, I think it is clear that Walter has not rewritten or retold the story of the sons of the dead woman here; he simply provides another version of the same type of story to increase his examples. This little vignette is made to stand on its own and requires no reference to the story in distinctio 4. No revision has taken place.
However, modern readers of the De nugis curialium have also found something puzzling about this passage, though not its demonology. The reference to “the aforementioned Britons” (Britonum de quo superius) here certainly seems to describe the story found in distinctio 4, in which a “knight from Brittany” (miles quidam Britannie minoris) rescues his dead wife from a great band of women and begets several children with her, the offspring of which are still numerous in Walter’s day.103 Problematically, no preceding story matches the description here. One suggestion is that Britonum here means “Welsh” and refers to the story of Gastin Gastiniog and his son Trunio Vagelauc, which does in fact precede this passage. But although Trunio does have a fairy mother, the particulars do not align: Gastin catches his fairy bride in a lake, and Trunio dies without any mention of his offspring. The erroneous de quo superius may be one more clue that distinctio 2 is still under revision. However, as I show in the next chapter, the De nugis curialium does include several interpolated glosses. I would suggest this de quo superius originally began its life as an interlinear gloss—it is certainly unnecessary and does feel rather awkwardly inserted.104 Indeed, since Walter immediately and fully explains what he means by ille Britonum, there is no need for him to direct readers to another part of his work to gain the full story. Walter, in fact, never directs readers to another distinctio, except for this suspicious passage. Given this, I think it likely that de quo superius first existed as an interlinear gloss, not for ille Britonum, but for Alnoth, whose story we have just heard. When a scribe moved this gloss into the main text of the De nugis curialium, he was a few words off, and de quo superius became confusingly attached to ille Britonum. At any rate, I see no convincing evidence to consider this brief discussion of the sons of a dead woman as a revision of the thematically similar tale in distinctio 4.
Walter the Reviser
The above certainly does not document every change that Walter makes as he revises. It provides enough of an overview to address one major issue concerning the textual state of the De nugis curialium. The minor revisions all point to the same direction of change: if we grant Walter even the least bit of authorial competence, in each of the alterations discussed above the stories found in distinctiones 4 and 5 seems to be the earlier version of their counterparts in distinctiones 1 and 2. The major revisions, which focus mainly on narrative structure, also point to this direction of revision. However, to my mind the minor changes most convincingly demonstrate that the doublets do indeed result from the process of revision. Otherwise, one would have to suppose that as Walter rewrites, he is reducing his alliteration, choosing less striking or appropriate words, and generally impairing the rhetorical success of his work. A few may prefer this view of Walter; I find it unlikely. The man who could gleefully write “si me ruditus ruditas ridiculum reddiderit” almost certainly did not restrain his alliteration and wordplay as he revised.105 Alternatively, one could suppose that the doublets are merely different versions of the same story, recorded decades apart. However, the direct verbal similarities, often exact, in the doublets prove that Walter had an earlier version in front of him as he reworked his prose. The unfinished textual state of the De nugis curialium has even tidily provided us with another group of doublets with which we can compare Walter’s revisions. In distinctio 1, Walter twice recounts tales of the Carthusians and the Order of Grandmont. And while these doublets revisit the same material, they do not represent the same story at different stages of revision; Walter has composed them at different times with different aims. Aside from the broadest of generalizations, they share no direct verbal or thematic likenesses. After comparing these tales, the revised nature of the other doublets stands out in stark contrast.
Comparing Walter’s revision of his own tales with his use of other sources also demonstrates that Walter was a careful reviser of his own work as well as that of others. Like most medieval writers, Walter saw no harm in reworking stories from other authors and sources, but in this respect, Walter is no verbatim transcriber. When he uses another source, he tends to shape it to his needs, editing and rewriting it with a strong focus, unafraid to make radical, and felicitous, changes. Nowhere in his work do we see the wholesale borrowing that is not altogether uncommon in medieval composition, as in the Gemma ecclesiastica of Gerald of Wales, which lifts several passages from Peter the Chanter.106 For example, Walter has carefully reworked a passage ultimately from Cicero’s De officiis to good effect in his story of Earl Godwine of Wessex.107 The tale of Sadius and Galo, one of Walter’s most celebrated pieces, has been skillfully stitched together from several narrative sources.108 And Walter’s refashioning of a story from the collection known as the Analecta Dublinensia is, according to one critic, “more coherent and more satisfying” than the original.109 While an examination of Walter’s use of sources is outside the scope of this book, initial studies all agree that Walter was an adroit adapter who carefully modified earlier material. Clearly, Walter took the same approach when it came time to revise his own work.
That Walter revised the material in the De nugis curialium sheds light
