Path: Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!news.he.net!pushkin.conxion.com!ultra.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: catherine yronwode Newsgroups: alt.lucky.w,alt.magick.tantra,alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna Subject: Re: Sheila-na-Gig and the "lucky vulva" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:59:46 -0800 Organization: Lucky Mojo Curio Co. Lines: 102 Message-ID: <3519D2B3.438A@luckymojo.com> References: <3511D194.3474@luckymojo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d46.pm.sonic.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) To: sacredlandscape@intuition.org Xref: Supernews70 alt.lucky.w:2300 alt.magick.tantra:5645 alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna:1133 Ashley Yakeley wrote: > > catherine yronwode wrote: > > > Barry Carroll wrote: > > > > re sheila-na-gig. what do you know about her? a real celtic heresy > > > would make her mary -- ergo jesus' mom. > > > > never knew a gal like-a little Sheila > > her name drives me insane > > (Tommy Roe, circa 1959) > > > > Sheila is a goddess in her own right and i really don't think she is > > Mary. For one thing, she is never shown with a child.In some ways > > she has more in common with the Hindu goddess Kali, but a happy > > Kali, a "cute" little Kali -- if such a thing were possible. > Ron Hutton (see _The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles_, > pp 308-316) claims that they are more probably Christian allegories on > the perils of sin. His arguments for this being more likely than the > 'Celtic goddess' explanation: > > * They're on Christian churches; > > * Evidence from the 14th and 15th centuries suggests that they were > often commissioned (at that time) by bishops and abbots; > > * They're almost all very ugly by medieval (and modern) standards - > 'bald, plump and leering'; I have seen more thin and bony ones than "plump" ones -- but you are right about their baldness. I had overlooked mentioning that crucial fact in my mention of their accidental resemblance to the WW II "Kilroy Was Here" image. > * They appeared first in Aquitaine in 1050, and didn't reach England > until the next century, and Ireland slightly later. Aquitane in the 11th century! How amazing! Thank you very much for this information and citation. I had no idea! > > I know of no neolithic or "ancient goddess" counterparts to Sheila > > in Ireland. However, it has been speculated that some of the bas > > reliefs of Sheila-na-Gig found in medieval churches are of far > > earlier manufacture, and i have read (and can see from photos) that > > some are made from different stone than that used for the churches > > themselves. > > This could be a matter of masonry: perhaps preferred stone for carving > is not preferred for general construction. Of course. My real point here was that despite the fact that modern neo-pagans think of them as "ancient," there are no neolithic exapmples, and, as you note, differing stone is not proof of an ancient image being embedded in a later church, merely evidence that two types of stone were used in a given church, one for carving and one for building. > > I recall reading somewhere that the 17th through 19th > > century saw widespread destruction of her image and at least two > > Sheila-na-Gigs were taken out of churches in the 19th century but > > saved and have been set back in place in recent years in order to > > satisfy the tourist trade. > > Attitudes to sexual representation change. What starts off as plain > ugly slowly turns into bad pornography by the standards of the time. You put that very well. However, i still see them as "cute" more than "ugly." But not "pornographic," although i agree with you that to Victorians they could have seemed so. > > To the priests who hated her, the really galling part of the > > Sheila-na-Gig image is that since she is always on or over a > > doorway, pious church-goers lovingly rub her vulva "for luck" as > > they enter the church. There is not very much "Christian" in that. > > This could be a resurgence of 'folk paganism' or general pagan > impulses. I believe that paganism is in some sense 'natural religion' > in that some form of it will appear spontaneously given the chance. So > even if Hutton is right, it's not necessarily inappropriate to > consider them as representations of a goddess ...even if their > creators didn't. Good point...and, although we can never know, there may have been a streak of rebellion in the adoption of a "sinful" or Z"vulgar" woman as a totemic lucky figure. I still wonder, however, under what possible reasoning the bishops who commissioned these images were working. > Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA Thanks much for the information. It helps put these images in contect. catherine yronwode Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/LuckyW.html Sacred Sex: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html check out news:alt.lucky.w for folk magic and good luck charms