The Marsh King.

The King of Egypt lies dying. His daughter, the Princess Jasmina, is desperate to find a cure for her beloved father. She has swan suits made to fly across the Great Sea with her two step sisters to the faraway North, to the land of the Marsh King where a sacred healing flower grows…

Once they arrive, Jasmina’s stepsisters betray her and steal back to Egypt with her swan suit leaving her to be swallowed up by the Marsh King, events carefully noted by the Marsh’s resident Stork, who has an innate sense of knowing right from wrong and decides to use his migration South as an excuse to follow the step sisters to Egypt. Just to see what they were up to.

Back in Africa, the step-sisters tell the Egyptian court that Princess Jasmina was shot by a hunter and killed. They claim her swan suit was all they could save, followed by an elaborate story as to the vengeance they supposedly extracted from said hunter and how they burned him in his shack in the woods….

Papa-Stork listened, incredulous at the barefaced lies being told. His earlier whim to simply keep an eye on things now forged into determined resolve, a sudden feeling that his honor is at stake.

Papa-Stork heists the step-sisters’ swan suits. Every year thereafter he managed to carry the heavy suits some part way of the migratory route back to the Viking Marsh thinking that the Princess might need them if he ever found her. Year after year he faithfully criss-crossed the Marsh during the summer months looking for any sign of Jasmina. His wife berated him for ignoring his chores and taking so much time away from family life but Papa-Stork endured, fired by the injustices perpetrated against the noble Princess.

One day, as Stork-Papa kept his winged vigil, he saw a green stalk shoot up from the slimy depths, a leaf unfurled and from that a bud in which there lay asleep a beautiful  little girl, daughter of Princess Jasmina and the Marsh King. Stork-Papa takes her to a Viking Mother (from whence come our tales of storks delivering babies) who is delighted, though slightly perplexed, since her beautiful but tempestuous child turns into a frog as soon as the sun is set….

It seems that a curse had been placed upon the child, Helga. She looks like her mother Jasmina, yet has her father’s temper by day. At night she has her father’s looks but her mother’s kindly disposition, croaking mournfully.

Helga’s split nature is healed by her concern for a christian priest enslaved by the Vikings. She frees him from captivity though he is killed as they make their escape. She mourns him all night, hidden in a tree. In the early dawn she digs his grave. When she speaks sacred words and makes a holy sign over him, her frog skin falls from her. Her grief for the young man is so great that his spirit appears and magically returns her to the Marsh from which she first emerged, where her mother Jasmina and Stork-Papa are waiting..

The two swan suits fit mother and daughter perfectly and so at long last they fly back to Egypt. Helga herself is the healing flower needed and her grandfather the King returns to full health as soon as she embraces him.

And so they all lived happily ever after. Except the step-sisters who were indicted for corruption, lying to the government, criminal conspiracy, money laundering and sent to the pen for a long stretch….

What does it mean psychologically to marry the Marsh King? Why is it that Helga’s grief is the key to her becoming whole?

Being swallowed up by the Marsh King is an involuntary descent into the Unconscious. It’s what happens when we are consumed by the rage, grief and abandonment exemplified by the step-sisters’ betrayal. It’s what happens when you are overtaken by circumstances way out of your control that still demand a response, some relationship with them so that consciousness can come from experience.

This is represented by the eventual birth of Helga who, despite feeling cursed, still manages to contain the opposites in herself and finally manages to mourn the death of the christian priest in a directly feeling way, honoring him with sacred gestures. This is the Principle of Relatedness in action. She is made whole by being letting herself need and grieve, by use of ritual gesture and the holy names reserved for things of ultimate value.

“Without an understanding of myth or religion, without an understanding of the relationship between destruction and creation, death and rebirth, the individual suffers the mysteries of life as meaningless mayhem alone.” – Marion Woodman 1985 The Pregnant Virgin.

Sometimes life presents you with moments when you are helpless to influence events and all you can do is sink down into your own boggy depression, saturated and stagnant, when you come to the limits of heroic action and just surrender to deeper processes that may feel like they’re sucking you down at the time but somehow, after much patient vigil, also give birth to new consciousness.

Stork-Papa’s devotion to Princess Jasmina is forged in the crucible of the stepsister’s betrayal. It is a good example of what ethologist Robert Ardrey calls the Amity/Enmity complex, coined out of speculation as to how a strong and apparently dominant species of our ancient ancestor Australopithicus, ‘East Rudolf Man’, failed to prevail over physically smaller representatives of the species with equally smaller brains that evolution would suggest be left behind.

The smaller Australopithicines seem to have banded together as never before, as a direct result of the threat of East Rudolph Man, evolving gesture, language, and kinship bonds that more than made up for any apparent shortcomings..

”the greater the pressure of inimical force against a group, the greater the amity within it.’ ibid

Provided circumstances are not entirely destructive they can evoke from us strengths, values, and dedication to common purpose we may not have otherwise known lay within, urgently quickened to life by Adversity. Papa-Stork’s righteous indignation sets alight a feeling of absolute commitment to Princess Jasmina, of faithfullness to the truth, something of ultimate importance that normally lay outside his usual daily concerns suddenly bursting in…

So if you are ever disposed to write yourself an enemies list, you might like to consider the possibility that it could assume a life of its own, grow by itself, that folk may elect to add their own names, and that this shared spirit of defiance creates the very bipartisan solidarity required to end the tyranny of its author.

 

The Soulful Sacrifice. 1.

When milk bottles were first introduced, Blue-tits learned how to take the tops off pretty quickly. But the truly impressive aspect of their door step robberies was that they managed to communicate the secret to one another faster than Blue-tits can fly.

How did they do it?

Whatever the answer, Blue-tits are not the only species to have this knack of manifesting collective change without crib notes or peeking over one another’s shoulder.

Give or take a few centuries, humans all over the world changed the structures of their societies without confering nicely or resorting to the pointy end of something more persuasive.

We invented kings and queens.

The characteristics of this new type of leader differed markedly from those that preceeded them. They may look like chiefs with their rides pimped but there are important differences that have an impact on culture and consciousness difficult to get your head around.

”This was not simply a quantative extension of a ranking system, it was a truly qualitative change by which society had entered a new realm.” P V Kirch

These new leaders emerged simultaneously in cultures that had no bearing or influence upon one another which suggests that something greater was at work than big hairy blokes with extra pointy beards wanting a crown.

But what?

Whether you take the Egyptian Pharaohs, or the ancient kingdoms of West Africa, early European lineages or the far-flung Aztec and Chinese emperors from whom they were entirely isolated, there are aspects of this new fangled system of resplendent dudes in metal hats so common to all that you’d think they’d copied each other’s homework.

All agreed, there was to be a fundamental change in how humans got on together with ramifications for Collective Consciousness we can scarcely suspect.

or is that scaredly?

or sacredly?

Superficially, kings meant centralised power, more rigid hierarchies, increased divisions of labour and more highly organised economies. But the most important difference, the most impactful on their subjects, was a shift in the value of human life and the rules about who you can kill without calling it murder…

so you’ll be pleased to know that Kings are only recent inventions.

”The way of life we now take for granted and on the foundations of which we have built civilizations, occupies but one percent of the time of the big-brain’s preoccupation.” R. Ardrey.

We tend to think of kings as something that belongs to history and by which we are no longer affected. In fact it’s the other way around. The institution is very recent and pervades the very viscera of modern life.

Far from being ousted by revolutions or the democratic aspirations of suitably frightened subjects, kings adapted as only the very youthful can. They went underground, as our serf like devotions to the rich and famous, as the farce of rule by deep state oligarchs, as the proliferation of corruption and being above the law whose daily tabloid shenanigins, violent exploits and eternal wars are just the kind of court intrigue you’d expect from period drama.

There are a number of important differences between chiefs and kings, with consequences for those grovelling nearest, but there is one that stands alone in its impact upon us because it affects our perception of what it means to be human.

Not only is the king a political ruler, he is also the high priest and most significant for those within reach, an incarnation of State-Your-Prefered-Deity-Here. Again, you might imagine this to be some amusing footnote of history, a witty anecdote from The Golden Bough and yet its widely accepted by considerable swathes of people in our time that might has right. The powerful are ordained by and represent God. In everyday life this trickles down and manifests in the wider populace as the feeling that, by virtue of your allegiance, you too are special and/or entitled to be exempt and above the law.

‘I like to be offensive”, said a Charlottesville supremacist. After all, what is the point of being above the law if you don’t demonstrate it once in a while? In fact what other way is there to make the point?

The archives of Ethography are rich in examples of how animals of all kinds obey a natural law which distinguishes between neighbour and stranger. This is so that the aggression necessary for survival within a species does not spill over into communal violence. Snakes won’t use their fangs when they fight. The anxiety of the young male baboon to join a new troop is not just for acceptance but for protection. Herring gulls will erupt into a frenzy of squawking and tear up great lumps of grass when anger boils over, without ever resorting to their rapier sharp beaks.

People are the same..

”All known societies make a distinction between murder, the killing of member’s of one’s own group – and the killing of outsiders.” G. Gorer.

In other words the Principle of Relatedness is more fundamental in its distinction of friend from foe than the inevitability of violent outcome.

”It is the effect of natural arangments, not the inoffensiveness of natural disposition that minimizes violent behaviour in a natural world.” Ardrey

Latent violence is there, but it’s subject to the natural law that distinguishes friend from foe. In a society run by leaders who are not ordained by the gods, nor  believed to be so special that they may not touch the ground, everyone in the community is protected from each other by this natural law. Contact with those who fall outside this protection can be made safer by rituals of politeness, exchange, intermarriage and stylised etiquette..

We shake hands, give gifts, let you have the seat furthest from the lavvy…

For folk who have been chosen by God and doing His Will, this natural law works against the majority because the king is removed from the community by a host of taboos which means that everybody, subjects and strangers alike, are now Other, unprotected by the rule which says that even an angry wolf will instinctively muzzle his bite if a pup merely shows him its belly.

No-one is safe.

In 19th C Buganda, not saying thankyou properly, with just the right amount of dust poured on your head, could get you killed. Oh, and also if you were vaguely related, or caused his Maj’ to touch the ground..or if you were unlucky enough to see him eating…. or caught his eye…

and so life is suddenly very precarious…

security and belonging eroded..

defences kicking in.

The rats start to turn on each other.

The advent of King-ship spills contained aggression into explosive violence. Not just between the king and anybody that looks at him funny but between the subjects themselves who are now also objects just a shade higher in worth than a non-believer and scrabbling to secure their positions.

If just deserts are your thing it doesn’t end well for the king. He is inflated and so must die. Tradition has it that he comes to a very bad end.  In Dahomey, if he’s lucky, he just gets murdered for the crown. If he’s not so lucky he has to be chopped up in bits, sometimes having to do the job himself, while he can, before being ritually consumed by the next incumbent.

Sometimes the king’s violent demise is ritualised at the end of fixed terms. Scandanavian kings ruled for twelve years after which they were put to death or a substitute found to die in their place, for just the right kind of sacrifice might appease the gods… sacrifices in their ones and twos all decked out in costumed finery, but then… maybe it would cover all the angles if they were also made in their uniformed millions.

Parts 2, 3, and 4 to follow.