Insane Beard,

It was Lady Raglan who first called the Ecclesiastical Foliate Heads after the Green Men / Man of folklore, pub names included - this amounts to a fairly significant coining, I'd say.

Sorry, but this is not what "coining" means. To apply an existing word or phrase to a similar but different referent is not the same thing as coining the term. It may seem pedantic to point his out, but I think the difference is significant here because to say Raglan "coined the term" suggests that human figures covered in leaves had never been called "green man" before 1931, eliminating the possibility that the phrase was part of medieval or renaissance consciousness. In fact, we now know that the phrase was certainly part of renaissance consciousness, and quite likely part of medieval consciousness too, and that it referred to a human figure covered in leaves. This in turn suggests that all those thousands of people who saw what you call (but they did not call) "ecclesiastical foliate heads," might very well have said, "hmmm...that's kind of like a green man."

As for the rest, I appreciate what you're saying, and absolutely agree that "profound afflicting horror" is sometimes represented in foliate heads. But not always. Traditional symbols, especially ones that persist over time, are always polysemic. Artists are able to express many ideas using variations on traditional symbols.

It's sort of like asking what rabbits meant in the middle ages. Did they mean fertility? Yes. Rampant and perhaps sinful sexuality? Yes. Timidity and cowardice? Yes. Speed? Yes. Succulence and good eating? certainly.

Fecundity or fertility, I would say, is always part of the meaning of the foliate head. Sometimes, this fecundity is seen as sinful, evil, and a prelude to suffering. Certainly the sexual aspects of fecundity were strongly regulated by the church, so it makes sense that this attitude would be expressed there.

But it would be a mistake to assume that the Church was entirely against fecundity, and an even bigger mistake to assume that every stonecarver who ever carved a grotesque or a roof-boss was told by an ecclesiastical authority precisely what to carve and how.

Because churches did not always object to fecundity, and because carvers often put their own spin on things anyway, there are in fact foliate heads that look quite jolly. There are also ones that look threatening, ones that look fierce, and ones that look silly.

So, foliate heads. Fertility? Yes. Sin? Yes. Suffering? yes. Nature? Yes. Fearsome strength and power? Yes.

As to whether stonecarving in churches is folklore...nowadays it is certainly treated as such, and the film on cathedral stonecarvers that won the Oscar for documentary short in 1985 was directed by a folklorist. So whether this is a "non-folklore setting" is open to debate.