What is Shadow-work? The salutary tale of St George.

St George, patron saint of England and slayer of Dragons, has had the kind of rebranding over the centuries that would make even the most ardent spin-doctor blush. His name has become synonymous with the defeat of evil but he didn’t start out like that. Not at all.

George was a Roman soldier who spoke out against Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of the Christians and refused to renounce his faith. He was tortured and beheaded for his trouble near Lydda, also known in antiquity as Diospolis, near present-day Tel Aviv. Lydda then became an important pilgrimage site, and a church was built there over his reputed tomb. The location is especially significant because it later became a shared sacred site, venerated by Christians as Saint George and by Muslims as Al-Khadr, a mysterious, revered figure in Islamic tradition and Middle Eastern folklore, known as a bearer of divine wisdom and a symbol of life and regeneration. His name, meaning ‘the Green One,” reflects the belief that wherever he walks, life springs forth, linking him to vegetation, rain, and springtime renewal.

The earliest references to Al-Khadr are in the Qur’an (Surah al-Kahf, 18:60–82), Al-Khadr appears as a servant of God whom Moses meets while seeking deeper knowledge. The story is a living embodiment of shadow work.

Moses once set out on a long journey in search of self knowledge. He had been told that there was a servant of God who possessed a wisdom he did not. When Moses finally met Al-Khadr, the Green One, Al-Khadr agreed to let Moses accompany him on one condition: Moses must not question anything he saw until it was explained.

They first boarded a small boat owned by poor fishermen. As the boat carried them across the water, Al-Khadr suddenly damaged it, tearing out a plank. Moses, shocked, cried out, “Have you ruined it to drown its people?” Al-Khadr reminded him of the promise of silence.

Later, they met a young boy. Without warning, Al-Khadr took the boy’s life. Moses could not restrain himself: “How could you kill an innocent soul?” Again, Al-Khadr warned him that he would not be able to bear what he did not understand.

Finally, they entered a town whose people refused them hospitality. In that town they found a wall about to collapse, and Al-Khadr repaired it without asking for any payment. Moses, bewildered, said, “If you wished, you could have taken a wage for this.”

At that moment, Al-Khadr revealed the meaning of what had seemed unjust. The boat, he explained, belonged to poor men who earned their living at sea. A tyrant king was seizing every sound vessel by force; by damaging it, Al-Khadr had saved it from being taken. The boy would have grown to oppress his faithful parents and lead them into misery, so God would replace him with a child more righteous and loving. And the wall belonged to two orphans; beneath it lay a treasure left by their virtuous father. Repairing the wall protected it until they were old enough to claim it.

Thus Moses learned that what appears cruel or senseless can conceal mercy, and that divine wisdom often unfolds beyond the limits of human judgment.

Beyond the Qur’an, Al-Khadr becomes a powerful figure in Sufi mysticism, where he is seen as an immortal spiritual guide who initiates seekers into inner knowledge. His name, reflects the belief that wherever he walks, life springs forth, linking him to vegetation, rain, and miraculous intervention. As such he seems to represent the rewards of shadow work, provided Moses doesn’t assume too much and keeps his prejudices to himself.

In the West, George was treated very differently. His was a cause of heroism, combat and sacrifice, a model of chivalric virtue. In Western Christianity, the dragon legend displaced the emphasis on St George’s martyrdom and his association with Al-Khadr. It took a thousand years to re-package George, his incarnation as armour clad hero rescuing damsels in distress only fully emerges in the 13th century Legenda Aureate (Golden Legend) by Jacobus de Voragine, whose rendition of George as a latter day Theseus (whose dragon was the Minotaur) or Perseus (saving Andromeda from sea monster Cetus) was embraced by the church as a visible defender of order during the constant warfare and chaotic centuries after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

St George became a saint who fights for faith, rather than dies for it. His martyrdom still mattered, but it became a credential of holiness, not the narrative centre. In the process he becomes a knight who triumphs over the shadow, bringing it to heel, rather than relating to it.

Jacobus de Voragine tells us..

“By this city was a pool or a pond like a sea, wherein was a dragon which envenomed all the country… when the dragon came near the city he poisoned the people with his breath… and so the people of the city gave him, every day, two sheep to feed him, so that he should do no harm to the people… Then was an ordinance made in the town that there should be taken the children and young people of the town by lot…”

This is the opening description of the dragon’s menace and how the city paid tribute — first with sheep, then with human youths from the Golden Legend narrative. When George arrives he first hears the woe of the towns people…

“Thus as they spake together the dragon appeared and came running to them, and Saint George was upon his horse, and drew out his sword and garnished him with the sign of the cross, and rode hardily against the dragon which came towards him, and smote him with his spear…

So, whilst that all seems long ago and far away, much of our contemporary attitudes towards the shadow are hardly any different. ‘Integrating the shadow ‘ or ‘owning’ it runs the risk of simply constituting further subjugation, ”The shadow is not something one can simply assimilate. It remains autonomous and must be met again and again through conscious moral effort.” (Von Franz, Individuation and Fairytales.) She warns that treating the shadow as “mine now,” actually allows it to take over your behavior unconsciously. For her, shadow work is primarily a moral discipline and not a therapeutic technique.

Jung emphasises relating to the shadow rather than integrating it . This distinction matters because it acknowledges the shadow as an autonomous part of the psyche containing those traits, impulses, and potentials with which the ego does not identify. The idea you can integrate the shadow leads to inflation and potentially to what Abraham and Torok called ‘narcissistic incorporation’, the swallowing of something whole where it remains unmetabolised and serves to protect the ego’s self-image rather than modify it.

This is why Jung stresses recognition of the shadow which then makes dialogue, ethical relationship and conscious responsibility for its contents possible. Such an attitude involves acknowledging shadow traits without acting them out, holding moral responsibility for impulses without repression, allowing shadow material to inform creativity and vitality whilst maintaining a safe symbolic distance from it. This is very different from the idea of integration, from which two problems immediately arise. The first is ego inflation – the ego dangerously identifies with shadow qualities (“I own my darkness now”), and secondly a loss of dynamic tension within the psyche, a collapse into sameness. The shadow must remain partly other, so that it can be related to rather than possessed.

Medieval depictions of St George do in fact reference the problematic attitude of wanting to integrate the dragon. Uccello’s painting (above) has the curious and subtle detail of a golden chain linking the dragon to the maiden. They are connected, which means that violence to the one is violence to the other. If we approach the shadow with the lance of intellectual subjugation, ridding ourselves of it by making it ‘mine’, ‘working’ on the shadow in order to diminish it with its hated ‘negative’ emotions, then we do more than lose the richness of the inner other. The maiden, as Principle of Relatedness, will also be devalued, reduced to a concept, and the whereabouts of the inner treasure….lost.

The Shoemaker and the Devil.

based on a story by Anton Chekov.

Once there was a poor shoemaker who was so hard up he had to work on Christmas Eve finishing a pair of boots for a wealthy patron. He cussed and complained under his breath as he labored, taking frequent swigs from a bottle hid under the work bench. ‘Why must I slave like this whilst others are tucked up in their beds?’ he muttered. ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all the rich folk were destroyed! Then I could be rich and lord it over some other mean cobbler..’.

Dreaming like this he suddenly remembered his work. He grabbed the now finished boots and headed out of his shabby hovel into the freezing streets. Rich sleighs slide by, their handsome drivers all holding a ham in one hand and a bottle of vodka in the other. Well dressed ladies snicker at him. An old acquaintance, now made good, mocks his ragged clothes.

Eventually he finds his patron’s large house and knocks sullenly at the door. Inside the place smells of sulfur. The patron is pounding something unspeakable in a mortar. ‘I have come to deliver your boots, my lord… Let me help you off with the old ones..’ and in so doing, he discovers not a foot but a hoof…

‘Oh, so that’s who he is… I should run, but hey, I can make this work for me…’ and so he begins to praise the Devil for being such a fine fellow. ‘Why thank you, and what can I do for you? asks the Devil. The Shoemaker begins a litany of woes.. ‘Yes, yes,.. but what do you want?’

‘I want to be rich, your honor Satan Ivanitch!’ pleads the Shoemaker and in a trice he found himself seated at a huge table groaning with fine food and expensive vodka, all served by deferential footmen in smart uniforms. During the feast he summons the old acquaintance he had met in the street and abuses him with mockery and blows. After dinner the Devil appears to make sure he has had all his needs satisfied but the Shoemaker is too uncomfortably bloated to answer or acknowledge the buxom wife the Devil has brought with him. That night he cannot sleep or embrace his wife for the thought of thieves breaking in.

On Christmas morning the Shoemaker went to church. As he sat praying the same prayer he used to pray when he was poor, he realized that there was little to distinguish the bowed heads around about. The same sins plagued them all; death awaited him as before, the same black earth would cover him, the same hell fires would burn and so he ran out for fresh air clawing at his collar, too distracted to pray for worrying about his money..

and his ruined soul…

He thought he would cheer himself up with a song but a watchman silenced him saying it was not done for a rich man to sing in the street. He bought a concertina to play instead but met with the same rebuke. On the way home beggars call out for bread and alms.. ‘Away, you filthy scum.!’ When he gets home the Shoemaker tries to cuddle up to his wife but she rebuffs him…. and as he begins to realize he is actually more miserable than before the Devil arrives and drags him kicking and screaming to Hell.

Just as he was about to be tumbled into the Infernal Pit, the Shoemaker woke up at his bench with such a start he sent everything flying. There was a pounding at the door. It was the patron, come to collect his boots. As he sewed the last stitches the shoemaker asked, ‘If I may, your honor, what is your occupation?’ ‘ Well, if you must know, I am a pyrotechnician,’ replied the sulfurous one, who then paid the cobbler and left in a puff of burnt chicken feathers and pink smoke.

Our hero stumbles out into the street, wondering at the clean white snow, the crisp air, the beautiful people, the wonderful sights and smells around him. Everyone, he realized, was the same. Some rode in carriages and some played concertinas but the same choice to live right in life, the same grave in death, awaited them all. They were all in it together.

The Shoemaker’s presenting problem was not his poverty but his dividedness. He had an unacknowledged part of himself which despised him irrespective of his station in life, which then lent itself to misery in a way that rags alone cannot induce or convey. The Others he encounters in his dream notice and respond to this, embodying the contempt he secretly feels for himself.

His poverty was one of spirit, brought on by the hateful split between his envious loathing of the have’s and his scornful disparagement for the have not’s. No-one could get it right for him, nor could he accept himself, irrespective of his station in life, for as long as this internal schism existed, for as long as he abdicated his own authorship in favor of the shifting sands of collective opinion.

Without a sense of Self, without his own life to live and his own death to die, the Shoemaker is like chaff in the wind, eternally disgruntled, forever dissatisfied and at the mercy of others. His dream is a compensatory response from the unconscious doing its best to draw his attention to the vain hypocrisy of his neurotic conflict, perhaps hoping that some humility might come from going more deeply into it.

Whether the patient is rich or poor, has family and social position or not, alters nothing, for outer circumstances are far from giving his life a meaning. It is much more a question of his quite irrational need for what we call a spiritual life. The patient’s unconscious comes to the aid of this vital need by producing dreams whose content is essentially religious.’ C. G. Jung. CW8 p686

In previous posts about Grimm’s stories of encounters with the Devil, I showed that the shadow can serve as an initiatory figure into greater consciousness depending upon the protagonist’s attitude. Chekov’s story seems to support this idea. Where, you might wonder, has the Shoemaker’s diabolical dream come from? Though it has been encrusted with two millenia of moral overtones, the origin of the word ‘diabolical’ comes from the Greek, Dia, meaning ‘through’ and Ballos, meaning ‘with the aid of..’ The diabolical dream is unwanted and resisted yet it may well be what you need to get through personal entrenchment with the aid of a salutary kick in the pants.

The Devil gives the Shoemaker what he asked for knowing pretty well that it will thrust him up against his own divisiveness faster than any wagging ecclesiastical finger. He also gives him the chance to recant, to have a change of heart and learn from his error by way of what amounts to a dry run.

The Devil is sometimes known as the ‘Adversary’. He is the source of adversity, which can become necessary to jolt a person out of the rut worn for themselves once conventional attempts at educating the personality have failed.

You could say that evil is simply all the shit in life you’d rather didn’t happen, that which confronts or negates conscious intention. Yet it is subtly more than that. Satan is also the Accuser, the merciless and infernal/ underground light thrown on the ego’s double standards in claiming to want growth and change whilst clinging to inauthentic or childlike constructs about how life has to be..

The shoemaker’s wishes are all self centered, childlike, orally fixated, a 19th century version of wanting to win the lottery. Be careful what you ask for, goes the saying… you might just get it.

Fortunately, the Devil is not just out to get the Shoemaker. He lets him learn from the dream. It is not the shadow’s intent to snuff consciousness out. It gets active when consciousness is too narrow or divided against itself. The Devil is quite happy to bow out when the Shoemaker learns his lesson just as Mephistopheles, in Goethe’s ‘Faust’, agrees to a back seat once the sinful hero heals the divide with those he has betrayed despite the small print in his contract.

By means of the Shadow’s cruel intervention, the Shoemaker experiences a moment of enlightenment, different from and transcendent to both the inferior and superior parts of himself. He had latterly just alternated between them, unconsciously swinging between the opposites without realizing what was happening. So he really does get a fresh perspective on life, even if his re-birth means having to be dragged to the edge of the abyss.

The Archetypal Narcissist.

There’s a detail in an ancient story I find intriguing. The story, the ‘Epic of Gilgamesh’, is fascinating in and of itself. It is, after all, the first and oldest story ever written down, penned (or is that ‘stylused’? ) in ancient Sumerian nearly 5 thousand years ago.

The Epic predates much of the Old Testament by several millenia. It is also the only written record from a time where goddess worship would not get you hung drawn and quatered. But most of all, this first story is one about the first man, the first king, who got it into his head to build a massive wall around where he lived and give it a name, Uruk.

The story of Gilgamesh is a salutory tale about what happens when you wall yourself off from Nature.

The king builds his wall, feels chuffed with himself, feels safe from the things-out-there that never seemed to bother him before…. now his wall is built the sounds of the creatures are all…alien, and worse, there is a wild man out there terrorising the land.

Of course, the wild man is his own split off natural self, Enkidu, whom he defeats and charges with the task of joining him on the quest to defeat the ‘Humbaba’, a monster, and destroy the sacred grove of Cedars she lives in. Trawl the archives and you find that Humbaba, is also Kumbaba, AKA Cybele, Mother Goddess of the Ancient world.

Oops.

She is defeated. Her sacred grove, the symbolic tree of life is cut down. Gilgamesh commands  Enkidu to help him carve the wood into a set of  great gates which they then float down the Euphrates back to Uruk.

What an odd tale! If you watch the u tube videos about Gilgamesh there is much chuckling up the sleeve at those citizens of Uruk at this stage of the story who were clearly just cobbling stuff together as a way of making sense of the world.

Innit?

The fact that senior scribes and priests dedicated their all to a cryptic tale containing, like the shard of the hologram, their entire cultural experience, seems lost on the commentators satisfied in their superiority……and narcissistic presumption.

5,000 years ago,  on the fertile plains of Mesopotamia, ego consciousness was manifested by the creation of a walled city. The difference between me and not me emphasised by the novelty of the sudden schism between the world in here and the world out there.

Gilgamesh, previously an entity complete but without self awareness, becomes self conscious but only at the price of an inner split between an idealised self and a dark, shadowy, horned self represented by Enkidu. These ‘brothers’, can only hold together so long as the idealised self defeats the shadow self, setting it the task of raiding the sacred grove and killing off the principle of Relatedness. In so far as the trees represent the earthly manifestation of the Goddess, the gates are made from the defeated and dismembered body of the Great Mother.

Gilgamesh is compelled to split himself in two and shore up the defences of his fragile ego with the bones of the Great Mother. Divided from her he can no longer ‘cathect’ what he needs. So he can’t really grow up. He can only reinforce his defences against the aliveness of the feminine principle with her own dead body which will soon  lead  to the death/loss of Enkidu, only to be ameliorated by growing awareness of his own mortality.

Sound familiar?

When we split ourselves off from our own dark nature in the absence of a containing mother whose divine counterpart is degraded and cut down leading to hubris and loss of relatedness, then narcissism ensues.

Does this mean that narcissism is endemic in our culture from the beginning? Does it mean that the primary causes have to do with splitting off the shadow and devaluing the feminine? Is the way through by virtue of grief and sorrow?

What will the first story tell us about what can be done? Will Gilgamesh find a way out of his situation?

What needs to be done in our own time with the groves being destroyed at record speed and the dark brother being slaughtered beyond every city wall?