Gulinus Tortured Knight For Love In Misandric, Unfruitful Vineyard

By Author Douglas Galbi: In a stunning medieval vision in Saint Patrick’s Purgatory, King Gulinus ordered his ministers to torture brutally a knight in love with Gulinus’s beautiful daughter. The torture of the knight proceeds significantly from torturing his penis to bathing him in boiling water, then in frigid water, and then to batting him around until his members are torn and his head bashed open. This medieval vision represents Gulinus and his ministers as wicked, misandric tenants in the unfruitful vineyard of gynocentric society.

In 1170, the knight entered Saint Patrick’s Purgatory on Station Island in Lough Derg {Red Lake} in Ireland. The knight then found himself in King Gulinus’s large, lavish palace. Gulinus, who apparently had been out hunting, returned in a bustle of clanging chariots and neighing horses to tumultuous cheers of the people. Gulinus had a young, beautiful daughter. The knight was merely an ordinary knight. Yet when he saw Gulinus’s daughter, he immediately burned in love for her. She seemed to him more beautiful than any other woman in the world.

To Gulinus the knight explained that he had come to purge his sins in Saint Patrick’s Purgatory. But his experience apparently was developing in a different direction:

Then Gulinus asked the knight if he had ever seen such a beautiful young woman and if he wanted to enjoy her embraces. He immediately replied that he had never seen such a beauty and that he would most gladly marry her. Then Gulinus gave his consent and ordered a minister to prepare a bed for them. That indeed was done.

{ Quesiuit autem Gulinus a milite si unquam talem et tam pulchram puellam uideret et an uellet uti amplexibus eius. Ille autem respondit se nunquam tam pulchram uidisse et quod libentissime uteretur connubio illius. Tunc concessit ei Gulinus, et precepit ministro ut pararet illis in camera stratum. Quod et factum est. }[1]

What Valerian heard from Cecilia on their wedding night was a minor annoyance compared to what this knight then experienced:

And behold, when the knight believed he was about to consummate marriage with this young woman, his eyes were opened and he saw a most ancient, arid, and misshapen trunk lying between his arms. His penis itself was squeezed into a certain hole made in that trunk. A minister, deputed to the task by Gulinus, shredded and weakened his penis by striking a nail into it with a hammer with manly force and very frequently. The minister thus confined the knight’s penis in that hole. The knight desired a hundred times to incur death, if it were possible, rather than sustain such agony even for a brief while. The minister very frequently repeated the blows on the nail with the hammer and more narrowly compressing the knight’s very penis, dashed, smashed, battered, and pounded it. This knight suffered these dire straits of agony and cried out and wailed for most of the day. He was tortured to the point of death. Gulinus then said to his ministers, “How’s that knight, our son-in-law, doing?” And they responded, “He’s fine.” “Go,” he commanded, “and bring him to me.”

{ Et ecce cum crederet se miles uti connubio illius puelle, aperti sunt oculi eius et uidet truncum uetustissimum et aridissimum et deformem iacere inter amplexus eius, et uirilem ipsius uirgam in quodam foramine facto in illo trunco coartatam, quam minister ad hoc deputatus a Gulino contriuit et eneruauit percutiendo uiriliter et sepissime maleo clauum stringens in illo foramine uirilem uiram illius, ut miles desideraret centies si fieri posset incurrere mortem magi squam talem cruciatum uel ad modicum horam sustinere. Cumque predictus minister sepissime claui cum malleo percussiones iteraret, et uirilem ipsius uirgam arctius stringendo collideret, confringeret, quassaret, et contereret, et miles ille per multum diei tempus inter has angustias crutiatuum laboraret, clamaret, eiularet, et usque ad mortem fatigatus esset, ait Gulinus ministris suis, “Quomodo se habet miles ille gener noster?” At illi responderunt: “Bene se habet.”. “Ite,” inquit, “adducite eum ad me.” }

A mother-in-law in medieval Verona caused a wife considerable distress. But that mother-in-law didn’t directly torture her daughter-in-law’s vagina. When the knight was brought to his father-in-law, he might have hoped for emergency first aid, a quick grant of divorce, and a fast horse to flee from that place:

When freed from penal punishment, the knight was placed in the presence of Gulinus, who asked him: “How are you?” The knight described all his pain. Gulinus asked him: “Do you wish to enter into a warm bath so that you can revive your broken and aching members?” And he replied: “Very gladly!” Immediately he was thrown into boiling water, which was hotter than any fire. In that bath, all his members were consumed, liquefied like wax in fire. The previous agony he counted as minimal in relation to this one. In this bath the knight was tortured for a long time. He was screaming and complaining all the time. Then Gulinus asked his ministers: “How is our son-in-law doing?”

{ Qui cum laxatus a penis stetisset coram Gulino, ait ei: “Quomodo te habes?” At ille omnem dolorem eius exposuit. Cui Gulinus: “Vis,” inquit, “intrare calidum balneum, ut in eo refoveas confracta et dolentia membra tua?” Qui respondit: “Libentissime.” Statimque proiectus est in aquam bullentem, omni igne calidiorem. In quo balneo, tamquam cera in igne, liquefacta sunt omnia membra illius et depasta. Cruciatum priorem iam pro minimo reputabat respectu sequentis. Cumque diu in hoc balneo fatigaretur et semper exclamaret et eiularet, ait Gulinus: “Quomodo facit gener noster?” }

As King Gulinus knew, his son-in-law was suffering brutal bodily torture. That means, in a common-sense understanding, that his son-in-law was doing very badly. But these circumstances weren’t a matter of common sense:

From this, like the prior misery, the knight was pulled out into the presence of Gulinus. The knight was scarcely able to speak. Gulinus said to him, “Do you wish, just for tempering the heat that you have in your members, to enter into cold water?” The knight responded, “Very gladly!” Immediately he was thrown into an extremely cold bath, a bath whose coldness exceeded that of snow and ice. Now he was plunged under water, now propelled upwards onto sharpened points of ice, sharper and harder indeed than all iron spikes. On all sides his body was thrown back, penetrated and perforated and torn apart. After his life was pulled into the most miserable misery for a very long time, he regarded all the previous penal punishments as having no importance in relation to this one.

{ Ab hac autem sicut et prius miseria miles eductus coram Gulino uix loqui potuit. Cui Gulinus: “Vis,” ait, “ad temperandum calorem istum quem habes in membris tuis, intrare in frigidam aquam?” Cui cum respondisset: “Libentissime,” statim proiectus est in balneum frigidissimum, quod frigiditate sui omnem niuem et gelu superaret. Quandoque sub aquis mergebatur, quandoque sursum proiectus, super acutas cuspides glaciei, acutiores et duriores omni acuto et clavo ferreo, que undique corpus suum intrabant et perforabant et laniabant, reiectus est. Cumque diutissime in hiis miseriis miserrimam uitam duxisset, omnesque penas precedentes respectu istius pene tamquam nullius momenti reputasset }

After burning with passion for King Gulinu’s daughter, the knight first had his penis smashed and pounded, then he was thrown into boiling water, and then into a cutting ice bath. No knight would want such an adventure, no matter how game he was in love:

Finally, just as from the first penal punishment, the knight was pulled out from this bath and placed in the presence of Gulinus, who asked him, “How are you?” The knight responded by describing all his pains. Gulinus said: “I lament for all the miseries that you have endured. Hence I have deliberated: to the extent that you wish to relieve your pain, you should play a certain game that men usually use to relieve their pains.” The knight responded that he greatly need to have such a game. Gulinus then said to his ministers: “Lead him into our game house and make him play there to satiation.” So the ministers led him into a square house constructed from four stone walls. Pointed stones protruded slightly everywhere all around in the walls of this house. On top of the walls a beam went across the house. To that beam was tied a single rope that hung downwards. The ministers bound to the rope the knight’s feet so that his head was hanging downwards. They pulled him upwards a little. Then they threw him and batted him back from side to side like a ball. The ministers didn’t cease from playing this game until all the knight’s members were torn and cut from the sharp stones and his head was bashed, broken, and pulped such that his brains poured out. The knight said that this torture was incomparably more intolerable than all the previous penal punishments.

{ tandem ut prius eductus de hoc balneo stetit coram Gulino. Cui Gulinus: “Quomodo te habes?” Cui respondenti et exponenti omnes dolores suos, ait Gulinus: “Doleo de miseriis tuis quas passus es. Vnde consulo, uolens releuare dolores tuos, quatinus ludas de cetero quodam ludo quo solent homines releuare dolores suos.” Quo respondente se tali ludo, opus habere, dixit Gulinus ministris: “Ducite illum in domum ludi nostri et facite eum ibi ludere ad satietatem.” Duxerunt igitur eum ministri in domum quadratam super quatuor muros lapideos constructam. Erant autem undique per girum domus istius in parietibus acuti lapides aliquantulum prominentes. Et erat trabes quedam sursum super muros in transuersum posita, ad quam funiculus unus alligatus deorsum dependebat. Ad hunc autem funem ministri alligabant pedes militis, capite deorsum dependente. Sursumque illum paululum trahentes proiecerunt et repulerunt eum quasi pilam de pariete in prietem, nec unquam ab hoc ludo ministri cessauerunt donec omnia membra militis predictis lapidibus acutis excerperentur, desecarentur et caput eius collideretur, confringeretur, contunderetur usque ad effusionem cerebri. Hanc autem miseriam dixit predictus miles omnibus predictis penis suis incomparabiliter fuisse intolerabiliorem. }

That was no game of love. The knight’s situation would have been worse if he had been brought before Gulinus and that psychotic father-in-law had again asked, “How are you?” as a prelude to further torture. But the chilling horror that began with the knight’s burning desire for Gulinus’s young, beautiful daughter ended abruptly:

After the knight had been thus violently played with for a long time and the morning of the next day had already come, all those ministers of evil along with their king Gulinus disappeared. All of the knight’s penal punishments and his vision vanished. The knight found himself at the entrance of the purgatory that he had previously entered. He no longer saw any of what he had seen. But he then suffered such infirmity in bodily debilitation that he entirely expected to die.

{ Cumque sic diutissime illuderetur, mane iam die adieniente, disparuerunt omnes illi ministri iniquitatis cum rege suo Gulino, et omnes pene eius euanuerunt cum ipsa uisione sua, et inuenit se miles in introitu purgatorii a quo prius in purgatorium intrauerat, nichil eorum que uiderat uidens. Tantaque infirmitate seu corporis debilitate tunc laborabat, ut se omnino deficere estimaret. }

The knight’s bodily debility testified to the veracity of his vision. The authenticity of his vision is also attested in its written text through explicit citation of a chain of authorities leading back to this knight.[2]

The knight’s vision of penal torture in the palace of King Gulinus is no mere folk nightmare. The Latin text is filled with sophisticated verbal echos and allusions.[3] The four instances of torture are clearly patterned. After feeling burning sexual desire for Gulinus’s beautiful daughter, the knight undergoes tortures that progress from penal pounding to a burning bath, then to the allopathy of an ice bath, and then to a torture game that’s the end-game for a knightly game of love radically re-interpreted.

Jesus’s parable of the vineyard-owner and his wicked tenants, itself a re-interpretation of prophetic verses from the Hebrew Book of Isaiah, seems at least in part to have inspired the knight’s vision. In Jesus’s parable, a man planted a vineyard, protected it with hedges, dug a pit for a wine press, and built a tower. He leased all these assets to tenants. He expected the tenants to manage the vineyard fruitfully:

When the right time came, the vineyard owner sent a servant to the tenants to obtain from them some of the fruit of his vineyard. But the tenants seized the servant, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent to them another servant. They wounded that one in the head and treated him shamefully. He sent yet another, and that servant they killed. So, too, with many others. Some they beat, others they killed. He had still one other to send, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, thinking, “They will respect my son.” But those tenants said to one another, “This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.” So they seized him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

{ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς τοὺς γεωργοὺς τῷ καιρῷ δοῦλον ἵνα παρὰ τῶν γεωργῶν λάβῃ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος καὶ λαβόντες αὐτὸν ἔδειραν καὶ ἀπέστειλαν κενόν καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἄλλον δοῦλον κἀκεῖνον ἐκεφαλίωσαν καὶ ἠτίμασαν καὶ ἄλλον ἀπέστειλεν κἀκεῖνον ἀπέκτειναν καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους οὓς μὲν δέροντες οὓς δὲ ἀποκτέννοντες ἔτι ἕνα εἶχεν υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν ἔσχατον πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγων ὅτι ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου ἐκεῖνοι δὲ οἱ γεωργοὶ πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς εἶπαν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν αὐτόν καὶ ἡμῶν ἔσται ἡ κληρονομία καὶ λαβόντες ἀπέκτειναν αὐτόν καὶ ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος }[4]

The injuries against the vineyard-owner’s successively sent servants for the most part increase in severity. The second servant being handled shamefully {ἀτιμόω} suggests in context sexual abuse.[5] The incidents of injury culminate in killing the vineyard-owner’s son and treating his corpse disrespectfully. The vineyard-owner in this parable, like the knight in Gulinus’s palace, suffers a terrible injury to fruitfulness and generation.

The parable of the vineyard-owner and his wicked tenants is an allegory for God and his wayward people in salvation history. The vineyard-owner (God) sends servants (Hebrew prophets) to receive what is due to him from his tenants (God’s people). Yet the wayward tenants / God’s people only increase in their waywardness. Finally the vineyard-owner sends to them his son. In Christian understanding, the sending of the son represents God incarnating himself in the Virgin Mary’s womb as his beloved, fully masculine son Jesus.

The knight’s vision similarly represents men’s love for women under misandristic gynocentrism. From a Christian perspective, loving, conjugal heterosexual intercourse of reproductive type follows the pattern of God’s love for his people. It’s potentially an act of creation and incarnation. Yet in today’s rape-culture culture, leading organs of the public propaganda apparatus proclaim that nearly a quarter of husbands rape their wives. Men have been criminalized in criminalizing their gender role in seduction. In defining crimes and administering criminal justice, penal punishment is predominately aimed at persons with penises. Just consider the gender composition of persons locked up in prisons and jails. Those locked-up men have have little opportunity to love women and incarnate new human beings. The wicked tenants of the world’s unfruitful, dying vineyards don’t care about having babies.

Persecution of the penis is worse than just criminalization. In addition to penal crimes and punishments, men endure civil burdens like those of indentured servants. If a man encounters unplanned parenthood and his woman-partner doesn’t choose to have an abortion, he has no choice but could be legally compelled to pay about a third of his income to her for 18 years or more as so-called “child support.” He then becomes an indentured servant who must produce his assigned monthly financial quota or be incarcerated. Few even bother to ask, “How are men doing?” The wicked tenants of the world’s unfruitful, dying vineyards don’t care about men.

Across the long span of civilization, men’s situation with respect to women has continually worsened. Men have long suffered dire consequences from false accusations of rape. Punishment for adultery has long been gender-biased against men. Now misandristic, totalitarian gynocentrism has developed to the extent that an academic has declared that castration “gifts men with wholeness and a better maleness.”[6] Men are smeared as rapists for seeking burning passion with women rather than act-by-act negotiation and contracting. Men are castigated as haters for expressing icy disinterest in women today. Both men and women leaders favor women. Inventing new ways of pandering to woman and bashing men is a common media game of our age. Most women are less happy living with cats or yes-dearing men than living with strong, self-valuing, fully human men. The wicked tenants of the world’s unfruitful, dying vineyards don’t care about women.

You can perceive gender reality through an underground vision like that of the knight in Gulinus’s palace. While medieval men didn’t endure gender injustice as oppressive as that which exists today, medieval women and medieval men protested men’s gender subordination to women. Most academics have rejected Matheolus’s brilliant medieval lamentations as being unworthy of serious study. Read and ponder Matheolus. Study medieval Latin literature. Through this special journey, you will gain a vision of the misandristic, totalitarian gynocentrism that threatens men in ordinary life today.

*  *  *  *  *

Notes:

[1] Peter of Cornwall, Liber revelationum, vision in St. Patrick’s Purgatory, sentences 32-5. Latin text from Easting (1979) via Maggioni, Tinti & Taviani (2018), my English translation, benefiting from the Italian translation of id. Subsequently quotes are seriatum from this vision and are similarly sourced. For the Latin text, with English translation, Easting & Sharpe (2013). I have unfortunately not been able to access that book.

Peter Cornwall’s Liber revelationum has survived in only one manuscript: London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 51. This manuscript is Peter’s own and includes annotations in his hand.

In Liber revelationum, the anonymous knight’s vision in Saint Patrick’s Purgatory follows a copy of the Treatise on Saint Patrick’s Purgatory {Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii}. The latter transmits, among other important stories, the knight Owein’s vision in Saint Patrick’s Purgatory.

Peter of Cornwall directed the compilation of his Liber revelationum in 1200 and perhaps for a few years afterwards. He intended this work to document revelations and spiritual visions in which souls of persons continue to live after their body’s death. Liber revelationum is a massive book of 1,105 chapters and about a half-million words. Three scribes wrote it under Peter’s direction.

Peter compiled Liber revelationum as prior of Holy Trinity Church, Aldgate, London. Peter lived from about 1140 to 1221. A widely learned man, he also participated in high ecclesiastical politics in England. On Peter’s life and books, Barbezat (2013) pp. 16-27.

The story of the knight being tortured for love in King Gulinus’s palace is not elsewhere attested, nor is King Gulinus known. Gulinus is plausibly an Irish name. Yolande de Pontfarcy associated Gulinus with Culann and the forge Slieve Gullion {Sliabh gCuillinn} near Newry, Ireland. Haren & de Pontfarcy (1988) pp. 43-8, as cited in Sharpe (2016) p. 200. Sharpe doesn’t find that attribution convincing.

Sharpe interprets Gulinus to be the Irish name Guile with an added Latin suffix -inus. He associates the story with the early modern Irish story “The complaint of Guile’s daughter {Ceasacht inghine Guile}.” An earlier version exists in Middle Irish, “The excuse of Gulide’s daughter {Erchoitmed ingine Gulidi}.” Here’s the Irish text (from Ms Rawlinson B 512, f. 114c – 115c) and an English translation by Kuno Myer.

A woman having sex with a guest visiting her home is common in literary history. It’s a typical structure in stories of men being cuckolded. But of course sex with guests isn’t limited to cuckolding, e.g. a young, unmarried princesses falls in love with a visiting knight and sleeps with him. For a slightly different class of Irish examples, see “sex hospitality” (motif T281) in Cross (1952), cited in Steel (2016) p. 10, n. 32.

The knight’s vision in Gulinus’s palace in Saint Patrick’s Purgatory has been mischaracterized as “a barely Christianized account of the dangerous hospitality of the fairy folk.” Green (2016) p. 183. Christianity has always coexisted with folk myths, including those of academia. What’s most interesting about the “dangerous hospitality” that the knight received in Gulinus’s palace isn’t its relation to folk myths, but its relationship to social reality. The story is similar to other stories in Walter Map’s De nugis curialium.

[2] According to Liber revelationum, the knight recounted his vision to Bishop Lawrence of the Church of Downpatrick, whose episcopate encompassed Saint Patrick’s Purgatory, and to the monk Walter, who was staying with Bishop Lawrence. After Lawrence died, Walter returned to his abbey at Mellifont in County Lough, Ireland, and told the story to Bricius, the Cistercian abbot of the monastery of Saint Patrick in Ireland. Bricius, visiting London in 1200, told the story to Peter of Cornwall, a scholar and prior of Holy Trinity Priory in London. Peter immediately recorded the knight’s vision in his Book of Revelations {Liber revelationum}. The knight’s vision has survived to the present only in the one known manuscript of Peter of Cornwall’s book.

Bricius’s abbey of Saint Patrick is thought to have been in Newry, near Belfast. Sharpe (2016) p. 199. The modern Cathedral of Saint Patrick and Saint Colman is now located in Newry.

Documenting an authoritative chain of transmission is also a feature of Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii. Hadith studies of Islamic scholars developed sophisticated methods for analyzing the reliability of transmitted historical accounts. That aspect of Islamic learning may have influenced learned scholars in twelfth-century Europe.

[3] This include poena / pena {punishment} in relation to penis {penis}, membrum (meaning both “limb” and “penis”), truncus (meaning both “tree trunk” and “torso of a human body”), virga (meaning both “twig” and “penis”), and various Latin verbal forms for enter and withdraw.

[4] Mark 12:2-8, Greek text from BlueLetterBible, my English translation, based on standard English biblical translations. Similarly, Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19. This parable re-interprets Isaiah 5:1-7 and Psalm 118:22-23.

[5] Cf. Romans 1:24.

[6] Steel (2016) pp. 6-7. Steel embeds that declaration in an even more fulsome paragraph:

Castration delivers a sense of newfound wholeness, a newly unified self, undistracted and in control, and suggests that it was the burden of the penis that stymied self-mastery. If, in the logic of medieval misogyny, the female body was disordered desire incarnated,²² and if excessively practiced sexuality, with whatever partner, effeminized men,²³ then the genitalia was the most female part of a man’s body.²⁴ Unmanning thus paradoxically gifts men with wholeness and a better maleness.²⁵ Castration becomes the surest route to bestowing on men the illusory gift of the phallus, male power’s mythical thing, which should never be confused with the actual, always inadequate genitalia.

Id. The footnote texts, referenced with the superscripted numbers, both signal academic authority and flatter similar quality academic work. Imagine Professor Steel lecturing undergraduates with this paragraph. A typical student might scribble in her class notes: “Genitalia = female part of male body, castration = better maleness. Male power mythical -> inadequate genitalia.” This is how today’s universities educate students into castration culture and oppressive idiocy.

Perhaps to demonstrate his academic merit, Steel solemnly affirmed the absurd. For example, castration “sought to make the (male) self whole.” Steel (2016) p. 2. Steel explored “the ethics of interpreting literary accounts of torment.” Id. p. 1. He forcefully imposed meaninglessness on the knight’s genital injury:

What may be strangest of all is a story of injury to a man’s genitals that just takes it as one among many injuries — a bad one, to be sure, but not the one. The knight suffers the genital injury first; afterwards, he is boiled and frozen, thrashed about, his whole body hideously damaged, but with no sense of order or purpose, without any hint that he gradually learns anything. Juridically and morally speaking, this is parataxic punishment, without the subordination of one injury to another, because things just happen, and then more things happen, horribly, but without any one injury taking absolute precedence over the others. Then he’s expelled and everything stops.

Steel (2021). Steel then offers a disciplined ethics (no apophasis allowed) of meaninglessness in interpreting the knight’s penis being tortured:

it may be just a strange injury, something that just happens. … genital injury is just something that happens. … the very meaninglessness of the knight’s suffering should be preserved as meaningless, and that the best response to his pain may be to refuse to interpret it.

Id. pp. 1, 13, 14. To face down those lacking his ethical sophistication, Steel deploys a mendacious rhetoric of truth-telling: we must interpret the story “without denying the bizarre hilarity of what the knight undergoes.” Id. p. 13. Is it any wonder that about twice as many women as men are earning advanced degrees in literary and humanistic fields in the U.S. today? See note [8] in my post on Peter Dronke and medieval Latin literature.

Other have readily found superficial meaning in the tortures that the knight suffers. Those tortures have been interpreted as love tests: “a certain King Gulinus tests the knight’s love for his daughter.” Flechner (2019) p. 183. No specific textual support exists for that interpretation. Alternatively, the knight undergoes these horrible tortures “to purge him of the sin of Lust, and cause the sin to have associations with a more demonized memory.” Kuykendall (2020) p. 41. That interpretation recognizes the patterning of the tortures, their allegorical associations with love (hot, cold, game), and a plausible allusion to demonic torturing. The story of torturing the knight in Gulinus’s palace has, however, broader significance in relation to castration culture and gynocentrism.

[image] Medieval woman riding and beating a man. Illumination from a fifteenth-century manuscript of Aristotle’s Politics translated into French by Nicolas Oresme. Detail from illumination on folio 1r of Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Français 22500. Via Gallica.

References:

Barbezat, Michael. 2013. Doubt, Faith, and the World to Come in Peter of Cornwall’s Book of Revelations. Ph.D. Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Cross, Tom Peete. 1952. Motif-index of early Irish literature. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Easting, Robert. 1979. “Peter of Cornwall’s Account of St. Patrick’s Purgatory.” Analecta Bollandiana. 97 (3-4): 397-416.

Easting, Robert and Richard Sharpe. 2013. Peter of Cornwall’s Book of Revelations. British Writers of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, 5. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. (review by Eileen Gardiner)

Flechner, Roy. 2019. Saint Patrick Retold: The Legend and History of Ireland’s Patron Saint. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Green, Richard Firth. 2016. Elf Queens and Holy Friars: fairy beliefs and the medieval church. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. (review by Cathy Hume, by Krisztina Ilko, by David Russell Mosley, by Alastair Minnis)

Haren, Michael, and Yolande de Pontfarcy, eds. 1988. The Medieval Pilgrimage to St Patrick’s Purgatory: Lough Derg and the European tradition. Enniskillen: Ireland.

Kuykendall, Victoria. 2020. Wonderland: Myth or Fairy-Tale? M.A. Thesis. Texas State University.

Maggioni, Giovanni Paolo, Roberto Tinti, and Paolo Taviani. 2018. Il purgatorio di San Patrizio: documenti letterari e testimonianze di pellegrinaggio (secc. XII-XVI). Firenze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo. (review by Robert Bartlett, by Marie-Céline Isaïa)

Sharpe Richard. 2016. “Varia III: Gulide, Guile and Gulinus: an Irish type for a twelfth-century Latin story.” Ériu. 66: 199-201.

Steel, Karl. 2016. “Logsex in Hell: What a Body Can’t Do.” Paper presented at the conference The Body Unbound: Literary Approaches to the Classical Corpus, Brooklyn College, Oct 7-8, 2016. Expanded / revised into Steel (2021).

Steel, Karl. 2021 (forthcoming). “Nothing to Lose: Logsex and Genital Injury in Peter of Cornwall’s Book of Revelations.” In Katherine Lu Hsu, Brian P. Sowers, and David Schur, eds. The Body Unbound. Palgrave MacMillan. (preview of first part)

Source