Narcissus Has Been with Us All Along: Ancient Stories As Narcissistic Narratives

FNS 2017; 3(1): 33–49

Michal Beth Dinkler* Narcissus has been with us all along: Ancient stories as narcissistic narratives

https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2017-0003

Abstract: Taking her cue from Freud’s insistence that narcissism is the “universal original condition” of humanity, Linda Hutcheon argues in her book Narcissistic narrative: The metafictional paradox that narcissism is “the original condition of the novel as a genre” (1984: 8). Such “metafictional” or “self-reflexive” literature is regularly dated to the seventeenth century. However, this essay argues that narrative narcissism has been with us since ancient times, not just since the rise of post/modern novelistic discourse. Narratives from various ages and places, across diverse corpora, draw attention to their own textuality, even if they do so to differing degrees and in different ways. To relegate all considerations of narrative narcissism to overt examples of post/modern “metafiction” is a categorical mistake. Making my case with reference to a wide range of ancient narratives, I argue that narrative narcissism can be a useful, nuanced analytic lens through which to read ancient literature, and that ancient examples of narcissism can nuance our understanding of this narratological concept.

Keywords: ancient narrative, reflexivity, Echo and Narcissus, narrative narcissism, narratology

1 Introduction

“My soul is wrought to sing of forms transformed.”

So begins the epic poem in which we find the most famous version of the myth of Narcissus and Echo – Ovid’s Metamorphoses (3: 339–351). This particular mythic account has itself been read as an account of literary “forms transformed,” its reflecting pool as a surface on which to reflect about the roles of writers and readers, texts and reality. Linda Hutcheon defines “narcissistic narrative” as “fiction that includes within itself a commentary on its own narrative and/or linguistic identity” (Hutcheon 1984: 1). Taking her cue from Freud’s insistence

*Corresponding author: Michal Beth Dinkler, Yale Divinity School, 409 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, E-Mail: [email protected] 34 Michal Beth Dinkler that narcissism is the “universal original condition” of humanity, Hutcheon argues in Narcissistic Narrative that narcissism is “the original condition of the novel as a genre” (Hutcheon 1984: 8). My aim in this study is twofold: first, I wish to broaden Hutcheon’s already sweeping claim. Narcissism is not tied to the genre of the novel (modern or postmodern). Narcissism is, in fact, the original condition of narrative.1 As the myth of Narcissus and Echo itself attests, ancient narratives, too, can be read as metafictional reflections on their own narrative nature. In contrast to the common view that narrative narcissism belongs to modernity, narratives from various ages, across diverse corpora, draw attention to their own textuality, even if they do so to differing degrees and in various ways. Second, I argue that we ought to consider narrative narcissism on a continuum, a spectrum of degrees. Certain narrative moments reverberate as reflexive – certain moments echo the myth of Narcissus – more deeply, more sonorously than others; this is because, like Ovid’s Echo, their expression depends on contingencies that elude control. The first section below briefly describes the common view that “narcissistic,” or “self-reflexive” literature arose with the advent of the modern novel and explores why this perception continues to hold sway. My proposal, developed in the second section of the essay, is this: we ought to bring Echo back into our allegorical employments of Narcissus in narratology. Narcissus is not the only character in the Ovidian myth, Echo plays an important role, as well – one that rewards theoretical reflection. Yet, she has dropped out of critical discourse on narrative. Like Juno, we (ironically, albeit unintentionally) silence Echo in our efforts to theorize these kinds of narrative.2 Watching only for examples of narrative narcissism in contemporary literature means we will be deaf from the start to the Other – the Echo that precedes repetition – reverberating into our day from long before the modern era. Most basically, listening again for Echo means giving full attention to examples of narrative narcissism from antiquity. The latter section of the essay works toward this end by providing evidence of different kinds of literary narcissism from a wide range of ancient narratives. Throughout, I insist that despite its critical relegation to discussions of post/modern novelistic discourse, narrative narcissism can be a useful and nuanced analytic lens through which to read ancient

1 The concept of narrative narcissism used here ought to be distinguished from psychoanalytic

treatments of narcissism (as clinical/medical disorder) in literature such as, e. g., Berman (1990); Layton and Schapiro (1986); and Bouson (1989). 2 For an insightful reading of Ovid’s myth in terms of the complicated ethical question of relating to the Other, see Nouvet (1991). Narcissus has been with us 35 narratives. Reflexive narratives are not only like Narcissus, after all. Narcissistic narratives are like Echo (echoistic?), as well.

2 Narcissistic narratives: Origins

Other terms used to refer to “narcissistic narratives” include self-reference, self- figuration, narrative introversion, self-consciousness, literary mirroring, breaking the frame, narratorial obtrusiveness, metanarrative, and metafiction. There are subtle differences in the ways individual critics use these specific terms, of course, but for our purposes, it is enough to recognize that they all refer to a particular kind of narrational technique, broadly construed – that is, meta-level references to the narrativity of narrative, or to the textuality of texts. What we are here calling “narcissistic narrative” could just as easily be called “narrative reflexivity,” which as the etymology of reflexivity suggests – from the Latin reflexivus, re (‘again’)+ flectere (‘to bend’) – is a turning or bending back on oneself. Jeffrey Williams thus defines narrative reflexivity as those moments “when narrative refers to itself, to its own medium, mode, and process, rather than simply to other (non-linguistic) ‘events,’ that we normally assume constitute a narrative” (Williams 1998: 7). Or narcissistic narrative could be described using Robert Alter’s definition of what he calls a “self-conscious novel”–that is, one “that systematically flaunts its own condition of artifice and that by so doing probes into the problematic relationship between real-seeming artifice and reality” (Alter 1975: x). For many theorists, narrative narcissism is a category that belongs uniquely to contemporary or modern literature. The edited volume from 2005, Self-reflexivity in Literature, for example, introduces texts that exhibit “metafictional awareness of [their] own constructedness and textuality” by asserting that “self-reflexivity is both an expression of and a basic requirement of modern rationality and self- consciousness” (Huber et al. 2005: 8, emphasis mine). Quite often, scholars trace narcissistic narratives’ originary moment to Cervantes’ seventeenth-century pub- lication of Don Quixote.3 I want to insist, however, with Wallace Martin, that narrative narcissism is “as old as narrative itself” (Martin 1986: 181). To be fair, authors concerned with metafictional elements of literature do at times recognize ancient roots of the phenomena, though they tend to do so only parenthetically. Alter, for example,

3 E.g., Heine (1920 [1893]): 313; Alter (1975: 23); Hutcheon (1984: 8). Originally published in 1605 (Volume I) and 1615 (Volume II), Don Quixote was widely translated and disseminated, well- received from the start. 36 Michal Beth Dinkler refers briefly to moments of self-consciousness in the Odyssey and Euripides’ parodies of Greek tragedy (Alter 1975: 23), while Robert Stam asserts: “The stories- within-stories of the comic epic Don Quixote [...] find their epic antecedents in the heroic songs which dot the larger heroic song which is The Odyssey. The carnival- esque anti-illusionism of a Rabelais traces back to the Menippean satire of Lucian, Petronius, and Apuleius” (Stam 1992: 1). Most critics today would also likely agree with Hutcheon that “[a]rt has always been ‘illusion,’ and as one might surmise, it has often, if not always, been self-consciously aware of that ontological status. This formal narcissism is a broad cultural phenomenon, not limited by art form or even by period” (Hutcheon 1984: 17). Nevertheless, the overwhelming focus on the “modern novel” in critical discourse about narrative narcissism continues to tie narrative self-consciousness to contemporary texts, to the exclusion of their truly ancient narrative predecessors. There have been promising moves in the right direction amongst some scholars of antiquity. Ewen Bowie, for instance, describes Antonius Diogenes’ The Incredible Things beyond Thule and Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe as “interested [...] in flaunting their textuality” (Bowie 2009: 115). Tellingly, Bowie uses the very same verb (“flaunt”) that Alter does in the definition of the “self-conscious novel” cited above (Alter 1975: x). Classicist Tim Whitmarsh has written about the “notable self- reflexivity” in Xenophon’s An Ephesian tale (Whitmarsh 2011: 4), while literary theorist Massimo Fusillo discusses the “extremely interesting literary self-consciousness” in Chariton’s Adventures of Chaireas and Callirhoe and other ancient novels (Fusillo 2009: 166). Sociologist Barry Sandywell, going back as far as Home- ric epic, boldly declares that the Odyssey “contains the first explicit examples of reflexive narration,” and that Hesiod’s Works and Days represents “the earliest known attempt to write reflexively, creating a text in which the author, like a prophetic mediator, is himself embedded” (Sandywell 1996: 98, 169). Despite these admirable advancements, the fact that narrative narcissism remains so rarely employed as an analytical lens in discussions of ancient narratives prompts me to want to ring a cautionary bell: by only peripherally alluding to narcissistic elements in ancient narratives (or ignoring them altogether), we miss the complex ways in which ancient narratives thematize and thus theorize their own existence and interpretation. This subtly reinforces some critics’ pejorative ’ assessments of ancient narratives (e. g., Graham Anderson s description of Xeno- phon’s An Ephesian tale as “a specimen of penny dreadful literature in antiquity” [Anderson 2008: 125]). Despite some ancient authors’ similar assessments of the novel, or romance genre,4 I argue that moments of narcissism across many

4 The terminology is debated. See the discussion in Reardon (1991: 3–14). Narcissus has been with us 37 different kinds of ancient narrative reveal a level of literary sophistication that too often remains neglected in contemporary scholarly discourse.

3 Narcissistic narratives: Frameworks

As Hutcheon underscores, narrative narcissism can take various forms. In some cases, a self-conscious text refers explicitly to itself as narrative or text; the narration, in other words, becomes part of the subject matter. This is most often the kind of narrative narcissism one finds in the postmodern metafiction with which critics tend to associate literary self-reflexivity. In other cases, however, self-reflexivity takes an implicit form; that is, the narrative is not explicitly self- referential, but it employs the storytelling conventions of certain narrative genres in such a way as to critique, parody, transgress, or challenge them. At times, the language draws explicit attention to the constructed nature of the text as text, referring directly to the difficulties of producing and interpreting language. At other times, the language calls attention to itself because it is stylistically opaque or difficult; in the style of Brechtian theatre, the language is geared toward maintaining the audience’s critical distance. The storytelling does not allow the reader to “get lost” in the story or to identify completely with the characters – in these cases, the language disallows Coleridge’s “willing suspension of disbelief” (Coleridge 1847: 442). Hutcheon proffers a fourfold typology for classifying these different instances of narrative narcissism: she distinguishes between diegetic and linguistic self- consciousness, where the former are concerned with the storytelling (diegesis), and the latter, with the language more generally. Additionally, Hutcheon breaks down each of those categories into overt and covert examples, resulting in the following four categories: overt diegetic, covert diegetic, overt linguistic, covert linguistic (Hutcheon 1984: 7). I find it useful generally to recognize distinctions in terms of diegetic/linguistic and overt/covert kinds of narrative narcissism. At the same time, however, such tidy classificatory demarcations can occlude the various contingencies that always are operative in the interpretive process. Like Hutcheon, I wish to develop several allegorical connections between Ovid’s myth and narcissistic narratives, but from a slightly different direction than her account, which reads Narcissus as the modern novel. The very fact that Ovid’s myth is housed in a larger epic called Metamorphoses (literally, a transfor- mation of shape or form) is illuminating: Narcissus changes form, as Hutcheon points out. But what happens if we consider Echo as a literary trope, as well? Echo, too, changes form. She begins as an embodied nymph, one who “possessed a form” (361–362). Yet, following Juno’s punishment and Narcissus’ rejection, as 38 Michal Beth Dinkler she languishes alone in the hills, her form changes: her “miserable body wastes away . . . nothing remains except her bones and voice” (398). Finally, Ovid writes, she becomes entirely incorporeal: “her bones have turned to stone” (399). Even Echo’s personality changes over the course of the narrative; outgoing and talka- tive at the start, she ends the tale sad and alone. The significant point here is that Echo herself controls none of these forma- tional shifts. She is transfigured by Juno, and then, eventually, by the grief engendered by thwarted desire. More specifically, Juno’s retribution means that the previously garrulous nymph cannot initiate speech: “She cannot choose but wait the moment when his voice may give to her an answer” (374–375). The very vocalization of her desire (that is, her expression) depends on speech as delivered by another. Moreover, Echo’s intentionality when she repeats the words she is given has no bearing on the kind of reception she receives. When Narcissus calls out, “Oh, let us come together!” Echo repeats: “Oh, let us come together!” (370). Though she hurries out of the woods “in accordance with her words,” she meets rejection: “He flies from her and as he leaves her says, ‘Take off your hands! You will not fold your arms around me. Better death than that such a one should ever caress me!’” (370). Echo’s actions “in accordance with her words” are actually in accordance only with what she intended; they were not, after all, her words originally, and their reception depends on external factors outside her control. Herein lie several comparisons with ancient narrative self-reflexivity that might usefully nuance Hutcheon’s fourfold typology. The generic mode of delivery affects the degree of narcissism in any given narrative moment. Hesiod’s assertion that “when a singer, the servant of the Muses, chants [about the Olympian gods] he forgets his heaviness” takes on deeper self-reflective signifi- cance when one recognizes that the Theogony was sung aloud in poetry competi- tions (Theogony 103). Alternatively, in Euripides’ tragic drama Hippolytus,an actor playing Theseus would have narrated his own actions aloud, while opening and (silently) “reading” Phaedra’s tragic message:

What’s this? What can it be, this tablet hanging from her dear hand? Does it want to tell me of something I do not know? Has the poor woman written me a message of entreaty about our marriage and children? Fear not, poor woman: there is no woman who shall take possession of the bed and house of Theseus. See, the impress of the dead woman’s gold- chased seal attracts my eyes. Come, let me open its sealed wrappings and see what it wishes to tell me. (Hippolytus 856–865)5

5 This and a passage from Augustine’s Confessions are regularly cited as evidence of silent reading in antiquity, though the level of audibility is debated. See Knox (1968); Johnson (2000); and Saenger (1997). Narcissus has been with us 39

In this case, the dramatic scene – performed live – would not be so redolent of reflexivity as, say, Hamlet’s famous staging of a play in Act III, scene 2 of Hamlet. At the same time, the degree of a narrative’s narcissism also depends on its actual instantiation, or reception, in any given historical moment. To return to the above example from Hippolytus, Theseus’ reading of Phaedra’s writing tablet becomes more deeply narcissistic if the script of Hippolytus is read – as I read it now – silently, as a written text on a page. In the latter case, Euripides’ narrative itself comes closer to Phaedra’s written message, and Theseus and reader can more readily say together, “Come, let me open its sealed wrappings and see what it wishes to tell me” (Hippolytus 865). In other words, the degree to which a narrative can be read as reflexive is not wholly determined by authorial intention. It also depends on the context of a narrative’s reception. Those who hold that reflexivity is a feature unique to modern novelistic discourse appear to equate narrative narcissism with authorial intent; that is, an author must mean for the narrative to reflect on itself to be considered metafictional or self-reflexive. Yet Paul de Man is also right: a narrative can be read as “the allegory of its own reading” even if an author did not write it as such (de Man 1979: 77); conversely, a narrative can also be read as an allegory of its own telling. Surely, metaphors for writing or scenes of characters reading narratives also can be read as meta-theoretical reflections on a text regardless of whether an author intended for them to be read so. Moreover, as the example of an individual silently skimming a dramatic script demonstrates, the original, intended mode of delivery is not always how a narrative is actually received. In what follows, I point toward different forms of narrative narcissism across a wide variety of ancient narratives, recognizing that the realities of narrative production, the always-fluid dynamics of readerly interpretation, and the contexts of delivery and reception directly affect their relative degrees of reflexivity.6

4 First- and second-person references to narrators and readers

Turning to ancient narratives, one finds textual self-awareness in first-person references to the narrator or author as a narrating self. Prologues, prefaces, and

6 Most of my examples in this article are drawn from Greek and Roman narratives, but I do not

mean to imply that other ancient contexts did not also give rise to narcissistic narratives. See, e. g., Stein (2012); Sonnet (1997). 40 Michal Beth Dinkler literary frames in particular often display self-referentiality in this way. The prologue of Apuleius’ Roman novel, The golden ass (also called Metamorphoses), presents a famous conundrum. Scholars have long sought to answer the question posed in the text itself: “What I should like to do is weave together different tales in this Milesian mode of storytelling [...] So let me begin! Who is the narrator?” (1.1, 8–9).7 The question, articulated in the third person, but referring to the first person narrator himself, effectively collapses the traditional distinction between story and discourse levels through metalepsis, as the narrator’s and characters’ worlds coincide. Or consider a second-century BCE letter from the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristeas to Philocrates, which begins less provocatively than The golden ass, but no less self-consciously:

Inasmuch as the account of our deputation to Eleazar, the High Priest of the Jews, is worth narrating, Philocrates, and because you set a high value, as you constantly remind me, on hearing the motives and purposes of our mission, I have endeavored to set the matter forth clearly. (1.1–12)

The Jewish historian Josephus begins his Contra Apion with references to his own earlier writings and the need for him to write again:

I think that, by my books of the Antiquities of the Jews, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have made sufficiently clear to any who may pursue that work the extreme antiquity of our Jewish race [...] That history [...] is taken out of our sacred books but translated by me into Greek. Since, however, I observe that a considerable number of persons [...] discredit what I have written in my history [...] I consider it my duty to write somewhat briefly about all these points. (1.1)

At times, an author will preface a subsequent volume with first-person references, creating a kind of self-conscious bridge between installments. Josephus begins the second volume of Contra Apion:

In the first volume of this work, my most honored Epaphroditus, I demonstrated the antiquity of our race, corroborating my statements by the writings of the Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians, besides citing as witnesses numerous Greek historians [...] I shall now proceed to refute the rest of the authors who have attacked us. (2.1–2)

7 On Apuleius from a narratological perspective, see especially Winkler (1985) and Harrison (1997). Narcissus has been with us 41

The prologues of the biblical Gospel of Luke and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, begin similarly, with references to the author’s own writing process and a direct address to the reader. So begins the Gospel:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account/narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1.1–4)8

At the beginning of the book of Acts, the text again refers to its own textuality: “I wrote the first book, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began both to do and to teach [...]” (1.1). The ancient novelist Chariton creates a similar kind of self- referential bridge, beginning Book Adventures of Chareas and Callirhoe with reference to what was “set out in my earlier account: and what follows I will now narrate [...]” (5.1.2). These opening frames and narrative bridges refer to their own literary constructedness, using the device of reflexive first-person narration. In some cases, characters in the story refer to themselves as narrators. Apuleius’ Metamorphoses relates the love story of Charite and Tlepolemus in two parts, the second part narrated by a slave from Charite’s household. The slave begins with a self-referential disclaimer, which Richard Hunter describes as “glor[ying] in the writtenness of the Metamorphoses as a whole” (Hunter 2008: 268): “I shall tell you what happened from the beginning. It is a sequence of events which persons more learned than I, writers whom Fortune has invested with fluency of the pen, can appropriately commit to paper as an example of historical narrative” (8.1.3; trans. Walsh). Another example is that of a narrating midwife in the second-century CE Latin apocryphal Gospel, The infancy gospel of Thomas. There, the midwife refers to herself as narrator in a prayer just before recounting the miracle of Jesus’ birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity: “Almighty Father, what is this great marvel I have seen [...] What should I do? How can I relate what I have seen? [...] Attend to my words and keep them in your heart” (70.3). Such internal, or tertiary, narrators vary widely in terms of their assessments of their own narrations.9 Some, like the slave above, (ostensibly) downplay their

8 Cf. the famous prologue of John (1.1–18): it refers to “the Word” (logos) – a philosophically rich and complicated concept that has long been conflated with the Gospel narrative in Christian tradition – but does not explicitly use first- or second-person direct address. 9 On theories and terminology for ancient narration, see Jong et al. (2004). 42 Michal Beth Dinkler own storytelling acumen, while others lament the task of telling a tale at all. The herald in the fifth-century BCE Attic tragedy Agamemnon, for instance, declares that “An auspicious day one should not mar with a tale of misfortune – the honor due to the gods keeps them apart” (636–637); of course, he then proceeds to tell a tale of misfortune. Narrative narcissism also appears in direct references to readers or recipients of the narrative. To point again to Chariton, the start of the final book of Adven- tures of Chaireas and Callirhoe declares:

And I think that this last book will prove very pleasurable to its readers: it cleanses away the grim events of the earlier ones. There will be no more pirates or slavery or lawsuits or fighting or suicide or wars or conquests; now there will be lawful love and sanctioned marriage. (8.1.4)

The canonical Gospel of Mark addresses recipients of the narrative directly, appealing to the reader parenthetically in the midst of Jesus’ apocalyptic warning: “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (13.14).10

5 Scenes of characters reading, writing, and interpreting texts

In addition to overt references to narrators and readers, ancient narratives also include scenes in which characters are reading and interpreting narratives. Such scenes implicitly thematize the larger narrative in which they are situated. As Simon Goldhill observes with respect to the ancient Greek and Roman novels, “The scenes of reading in the text are witty, knowing, and cultured” (Goldhill 2008: 193, emphasis original). They are, in Hutcheon’s terms, covert instances of narrative narcissism. Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon provides a ready example. Clitophon describes himself reading a book intermittently as he lurks around his beloved Leucippe:

10 The meaning of this Markan phrase has been the subject of speculation in New Testament studies. Most scholars take the aside to be directed at the reader of the Gospel, not an intra- narrative reference to Jesus’ listeners as readers of Daniel (Daniel 9.27 refers to the “abomination of desolation”). Narcissus has been with us 43

When I arose, I deliberately began to amble around the inner parts of the house in full view of the girl. All the while I held a book, and hunched over it to read; but whenever I reached her door, I peeked up surreptitiously. After several circuits of the course I had drenched myself with desire thus inspired by the sight of her, and I left with a sickness in my soul. (Leucippe and Clitophon 1.6.6; trans. Whitmarsh)

In this scene, which Helen Morales calls “an extraordinary passage of literary mirroring,” two acts of viewing are conflated into one act of erotic interpretation (Morales 2004: 79). Clitophon’s reading of book and body is generative: it leaves him inspired. Read through the lens of narrative narcissism, this scene depicts the implied author’s inspiration, described – in line with the pervasive and persistent ancient trope – as an illness (Clark 1997: esp. 40–60). Scenes of letter writing and reading also appear in ancient Greek narratives and often serve as reflections on the experience of interpreting written texts.11 For instance, in Achilles Tatius’ story, after Clitophon receives a letter from his lover Leucippe, whom he had believed dead, he reflects explicitly on the complex affective responses engendered by reading: “When I read this, I experienced every sort of reaction at the same time: I burned, paled, marveled, disbelieved, rejoiced, and brooded” (Leucippe and Clitophon 5.19). Diverse reactions to reading letters are instantiated narratively in the biblical Acts of the Apostles, where Antiochan believers rejoice after reading a letter from leaders in Jerusalem (15.31). But the apostle Paul says that letters from the Jewish high priest and elders led him to persecute Jesus-followers in Jerusalem (22.5). At times, the characters are not literally reading the pages of a book or letter, but they are reading – that is, interpreting – the “texts” of their own or other characters’ lives, in true Ricoeurian fashion:12 “Scenes in which characters tell each other their life story (their diegemata, ‘narratives’) are prominent in the ancient novels; such scenes may amount, with more or less explicit self-referentiality, to an oral telling of the novel we are reading” (Hunter 2008: 267). Consider a case like Heliodorus’ Ethiopian Romance, in which the two main characters, Theagenes and Charicleia, interpret the chaotic plot of their own love story. Charicleia comforts the distraught Theagenes by pointing out: “We can take hope from our experience of the past, where we have already frequently survived even more implausible situations” (5.7.1).13 Reflecting on this scene, Tim Whitmarsh writes that Charicleia “plays the role of an adept interpreter of plot, extrapolating

11 On fictional letters as narrative device, see Rosenmeyer (2001). 12 See Paul Ricoeur’s analogy between reading texts and reading actions in Ricoeur (2009 [1981]: 197–221). 13 The word for “implausible” (apistoterōn) also appears in Lucian’s famous fiction, True stories (1.4, and esp. 1.25). 44 Michal Beth Dinkler from the narrative so far to predict what will happen” (Whitmarsh 2011: 229). Later, Charicleia refuses initially to reveal herself (despite Theagenes directing her to do so), explaining that “a story for which the deity has established complex beginnings must also reach its ends (telē) at greater length” (9.24.4). The theme of mis/recognition often is integrally woven into such scenes of inter-character interpretation – a topos that goes back, of course, to the Odyssey, and lies right at the center of Ovid’s account of Narcissus. In many cases, one character’s (re)narrated life plot provides the clue by which another character can correctly identify her/him. Conversely, not knowing another character’s story leads to (often comical, sometimes tragic) misidentifications. So, for example, in Xenophon’s Ephesian Tale, Hippothous only recognizes Anthia when she tells the tale of what has happened to her. She, on the other hand, admits that he is a closed book to her; she cannot read him (5.9.6–8).

6 Metaphors for writing and reading

Anton Bitel notes that in ancient literature, “counterfeit coinage can be used as a metaphor for fiction” (Bitel 2009: 230). Lucian, for example, advises historians to avoid writing that is “just fable” because readers will discern and reject what is “counterfeit” in favor of the “correctly minted” (How to write history 10). Bitel thus reads a moment in Petronius’ Latin novel Satyrica as “extraordinarily reflexive.” In the scene, the wealthy freedman Trimalchio tells the tale of the origins of Corinthian bronze:

When Troy was captured, Hannibal, a crafty man and a great slippery character, piled up all of the statues, bronze, gold, and silver, into one heap and set them alight; they were melded together into a bronze mixture. So craftsmen took pieces out of this lump and made small bowls and serving dishes and statuettes. Corinthian bronzes were produced this way from metals all mixed together, neither one kind nor another. (50.5–6)

The trouble is that Trimalchio’s version confuses the already-mythic story as told previously by Pliny (Natural history 34.6).14 As such, Trimalchio’s narrative is a “confused amalgam of disparate elements” that “appears in a text which is in its turn a confused amalgam of disparate elements” (Bitel 2009: 230). In light of Petronius’ moment of narrative narcissism, and the metaphoric use of the coin, Bitel proposes that Apuleius, Roman author of the Latin Metamorphoses men- tioned above, “might be following Petronius in using a prized metal alloy as a

14 Cf. Connors (1998: 20). Narcissus has been with us 45 powerful metaphor for the heterogeneous, syncretic nature of his prose fiction” (Bitel 2009: 231). Metaphorical figures in the text can, at times, create another kind of narrative narcissism: the mise en abyme, an internal reduplication of the work. Lucien Dällenbach explains mise en abyme this way: “Organe de retour de l’oeuvre sur elle-même, la mise en abyme apparaît comme une modalité de la réflexion” [An organ of the work that turns back on itself, the mise en abyme appears as a mode of reflection] (Dällenbach 1977: 16).15 Consider narratologist Mieke Bal’s reading of the second-century CE narrative, The martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (widely believed to be the first autobiographical text written by a woman). Point- ing to Perpetua’s literal contest with beasts in the arena, Bal proposes that contest also functions metaphorically – and consequently, reflexively – as a structural and thematic device: “If a story ‘about’ a contest is set in a structure based on contest, we can happily speak of the contest as an iconic sign, the actual contest with the beast being the mise en abyme of the story [...] This figure [contest] makes the story a highly problematic self-reflexive text whose initial contradictions generate the others” (Bal 2012: 136). The “problematic” contradictions to which Bal refers in part concern Perpetua’s gender as an author/narrator. I cannot do justice here to the rich and complicated dynamics Bal interrogates in this regard. It is enough for the purposes of this article to note that in the ancient world, the metaphor of the agōn, or contest, was inextricably bound up with notions of “ ” verbal or written rhetoric as a fundamentally manly pursuit (e. g., Quintilian, Institutes, 8.3.6–8). Examples of reflexive metaphorical figures in ancient narrative abound: Weaving is a popular metaphor for storytelling (cf. Snyder 1981); the figure of the

road often signifies the writing as journey (e. g., Morris 2007); anatomical bodies stand in for literary bodies (e.g., Keith 1999); seals and signets (which validate signatures in the real world) serve symbolically to authenticate narrators in story

worlds, as well (e. g., Batchelder 1994).

7 The music of the voice

Metaphors like those above typically depend upon the power of visual imagery. This is common even in critical narratological discourse, where scholars often treat narrative elements in visual terms (reflexivity itself is a prime example). Indeed, the trope of Narcissus is essentially visual. Yet the figure of Echo helps

15 Dällenbach credits the phrase mise en abyme to André Gide. 46 Michal Beth Dinkler here, as well. Echo is auditory, stripped of her visual, bodily elements and left as solely a matter of sound. The trope of Echo invites us to listen also for those elements of narrative that ring a certain way in the ear – the tone and tenor of terms, the clatter and clash of consonants, the pace and sound patterns of sentences. To our catalogue of varying kinds of narrative self-reflexivity, then, we can add an author’s conscious manipulations of the sounds of the language. The sonorous dimensions of narrative were significant for ancient authors, as is evidenced in both theoretical and practical contexts. It is well known, for example, that Aristotle, theorizing about narrative genres like tragedy, declared that humans instinctively enjoy the melody and rhythm of language (Poetics 4.1448b 19–20). Or consider Apuleius’ famous prologue to Metamorphoses, which refers directly to the narrator’s desire “to stroke your approving ears with some elegant whispers” (1.2–3).16 We also have an abundance of examples of such self- conscious composition from ancient narratives themselves. Perhaps most ob- viously, the entire genre of oral epic poetry functioned, to use the description of Albert Lord, like a “living organism” that was learned and composed orally using traditional metrical formulas and formulaic expressions (Lord 1960: 4; cf. Ong 1982; Foley 1995).

8 “For once, then, something”

Others taught me with having knelt at well-curbs Always wrong to the light, so never seeing [...] Once, when trying with chin against a well-curb, I discerned, as I thought, beyond the picture [...] What was that whiteness? Truth? A pebble of quartz? For once, then, something. (Robert Frost)17

I have argued throughout this article that considering narcissistic narrative to be only a modern literary development is a categorical mistake. What we miss when we limit our considerations of narrative narcissism to overt examples of post/ modern “metafiction” is the fact that reflexivity permeates ancient narratives. Thus it can be both productive and appropriate to treat these ancient instances as

16 This and many other examples are discussed in Rimell (2007). 17 Robert Frost’s poem, “For once, then, something,” is a reflection on Ovid’s myth. Narcissus has been with us 47 forms of narcissistic narrative. Reading Ovid’s Narcissus and Echo myth allegori- cally with an eye (and an ear?) toward recovering the figure of Echo in our critical discourse suggests the following: Narcissistic narratives appear in many forms, and ought to be conceived as variously located on a spectrum of explicitness, ranging from a narrator’s first-person direct reflections on the task of narration, to scenes of characters in a narrative interpreting narratives, to metaphorical figures that represent the task of reading or writing implicitly. Moreover, narrative narcissism is not solely contingent upon authorial intent. Texts can be read as reflexive whether the author intended them to be read in such a way or not, and modes of delivery and performance (intended and actual) impact such reception, as well. In light of the above, the common claim that narcissism belongs to the genre of the modern novel ought to be revised to include all narratives, not least those from antiquity. I have sought in the foregoing article to reveal narcissistic elements in ancient narrative, and to highlight the many ways in which ancient narratives are, to use John Morgan’s formulation, concerned with “the business of receiving stories (either through listening or reading) and transmitting them (either through telling or writing)”18. I have argued that failed attunement to this archive of examples creates an unfortunate blind spot for contemporary narratology. As Frost might say, we kneel at the well-curbs, looking, but “never seeing.” To return yet again to Ovid’s Narcissus and Echo myth, I have been insisting that we ought to bring Echo back into our critical narratological discourse. Yet Echo’s fate is famously tragic. She suffers first from Narcissus’ failure to see her; her suffering then is multiplied when, after he finally sees her, he rejects her. Once revealed, then reviled, Echo “ever after lives concealed” (397). Hopefully, the plot of our theoretical inquiries will not in this case result in repetition.

References

Alter, Robert. 1975. Partial magic: The novel as a self-conscious genre. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Anderson, Graham. 2008. Introduction: An Ephesian tale. In Brian Reardon (ed.), Collected ancient Greek novels, 125–169. Berkeley: University of California, Oxford University Press. Bal, Mieke. 2012. Perpetual contest. In Jan Bremmer & Marco Formisano (eds.), Perpetua’s passions: Multidisciplinary approaches to the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18 John Morgan’s comment on Antoninus Diogenes applies more broadly, mutatis mutandis,as well. Morgan (2009: 131). 48 Michal Beth Dinkler

Batchelder, Ann. 1994. The seal of Orestes: Self-reference and authority in Sophocles’ Electra. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Berman, Jeffrey. 1990. Narcissism and the novel. New York: New York University Press. Bitel, Anton. 2000. Quis ille Asinus aureus? The metamorphoses of Apuleius’ title. Ancient Narrative 1. 208–244. Bowie, Ewen. 2009. The uses of bookishness. In Michael Paschalis, Stelios Panayotakis & Gareth Schmeling (eds.), Readers and writers in the ancient novel, 115–126. Eelde: Barkuis. Bouson, J. Brooks. 1989. The empathic reader: A study of the narcissistic character and the drama of the self. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Clark, Timothy. 1997. The theory of inspiration: Composition as a crisis of subjectivity in Romantic and post-Romantic writing. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1847. Biographia Literaria, Vol. 2 New York: W. Pickering. Connors, Catherine. 1998. Petronius the poet: Verse and literary tradition in the Satyricon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dällenbach, Lucien. 1977. Le récit spéculaire: Essai sur la mise en abyme. Paris: Seuil. De Jong, Irene J. F., René Nünlist & Angus M. Bowie (eds.). 2004. Narrators, narratees, and narratives in ancient Greek literature: Studies in ancient Greek narrative (Mnemosyne Supplement 257). Leiden: Brill. De Man, Paul. 1979. Allegories of reading: Figural language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust. New Haven: Yale University Press. Foley, John Miles. 1995. The singer of tales in performance (VPT 1). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fusillo, Massimo. 2009. Self-reflexivity in ancient novel. Revue internationale de philosophie 248. 165–176. Goldhill, Simon. 2008. Genre. In Tim Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge companion to the Greek and Roman novel, 185–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrison, Stephen. 1997. From epic to novel: Apuleius’ Metamorphoses and Virgil’s Aeneid. Materiali e discussioni 39. 53–73. Huber, Werner, Martin Middeke & Hubert Zapf (eds.). 2005. Self-reflexivity in literature. Würz- burg: Königshausen & Neumann. Hunter, Richard. 2008. Ancient readers. In Tim Whitmarsh (ed.), Cambridge companion to the Greek and Roman novel, 261–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hutcheon, Linda. 1984. Narcissistic narrative: The metafictional paradox. New York: Methuen. Johnson, William A. 2000. Toward a sociology of reading in classical antiquity. American Journal of Philology 121. 593–627. Keith, Alison. 1999. Slender verse: Roman elegy and ancient rhetorical theory. Mnemosyne 52. 41–62. Knox, Bernard. 1968. Silent reading in antiquity. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9. 421–435. Layton, Lynne & Barbara Schapiro. 1986. Narcissism and the text: Studies in literature and the psychology of self. New York: New York University Press. Lord, Albert B. 1960. The singer of tales. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Martin, Wallace. 1986. Recent theories of narrative. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Morales, Helen. 2004. Vision and narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, John. 2009. Readers writing readers, and writers reading writers: Reflections of Anto- nius Diogenes. In Michael Paschalis, Stelios Panayotakis & Gareth Schmeling (eds.), Read- ers and writers in the ancient novel, 127–141. Eelde: Barkuis. Narcissus has been with us 49

Morris, Christopher. 2007. The figure of the road: Deconstructive studies in humanities disci- plines. New York: Peter Lang. Nouvet, Claire. 1991. An impossible response: The disaster of Narcissus. Yale French Studies 79. 103–134. Ong, Walter. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York & London: Methuen. Reardon, Brian. 1991. The form of Greek romance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ricoeur, Paul. 2009 [1981]. The model of text: Meaningful action considered as text. In John B. Thompson (ed.), Hermeneutics and the human sciences, 197–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rimell, Victoria. 2007. Seeing tongues, hearing scripts: Orality and representation in the ancient novel (Ancient Narrative Supplementum 7). Groningen: Barkhuis. Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. 2001. Ancient epistolary fictions: The letter in Greek literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saenger, Paul. 1997. Space between words: The origins of silent reading. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sandywell, Barry. 1996. The beginnings of European theorizing: Reflexivity in the archaic age (Logological Investigations Vol. 2). London: Routledge. Snyder, Jane McIntosh. 1981. The web of song: Weaving imagery in Homer and the lyric poets. Classical Journal 76. 193–196. Sonnet, Jean Pierre. 1997. The book within the book: Writing in deuteronomy. Leiden: Brill. Stam, Robert. 1992. Reflexivity in film and literature: From Don Quixote to Jean-Luc Godard. New York: Columbia University Press. Stein, Dina. 2012. Textual mirrors: Reflexivity, midrash, and the rabbinic self. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Whitmarsh, Tim. 2011. Narrative and identity in the ancient Greek novel: Returning romance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Jeffrey. 1998. Theory and the novel: Narrative reflexivity in the British tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winkler, John. 1985. Auctor and actor: A narratological reading of Apuleius’ The Golden Ass. Berkeley: University of California Press.