FNS 2017; 3(1): 9–31 Almut-Barbara Renger* Narrating Narcissus, reflecting cognition: Illusion, disillusion, “self-cognition” and “love as passion” in Ovid and beyond https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2017-0002 Abstract: Since Ovid’s version of the Narcissus narrative, numerous readings and re-narrations have emerged across the globe that are related to the ancient myth of the beautiful youth who unwittingly sees himself in a pool of water and eventually dies staring at the insubstantial image. Generating a wide spectrum of reinterpretations of values, ideas, and aesthetic aspects inherent in the ancient narrative, its reception history has continued to elicit some of the most diverse intellectual responses to Greek and Roman mythology, each of them reflecting the cultural context in which they were produced. The present article is devoted to this issue, providing introductory perspectives on the Ovidian narrative and its ramifications by giving particular examples, especially of works taking up central themes of Ovid’s version, such as reflection and deception, illusion and (self-) cognition, passionate love for another and the incurable desire for oneself. Sensitive to the cultural contexts out of which the examples emerge, the paper conceptually frames the topics of narrative and narcissism, and contextualizes them by drawing on insights from several theoretical strands and academic disciplines. Keywords: reception of mythology, Ovid, Narcissus, narcissism, reflection and cognition 1 Introduction Long regarded as repertoires of universal motifs, plots, and structures, Greek and Roman mythology have consistently proven their versatility and applicability within specific historical and cultural contexts. For Arthur Schopenhauer (1788– 1860), a philosopher whose work was doubtlessly motivated by mythic aspira- *Corresponding author: Almut-Barbara Renger, Freie Universität Berlin, Department of History and Cultural Studies, Institute for Religious Studies, Fabeckstr. 23–25, 14195 Berlin, E-Mail: [email protected] 10 Almut-Barbara Renger tions, the rich and varied collection of narrative material that stems from Greco- Roman mythology provides nothing less than “a schema in which almost any train of thought [Gedankengang] may find illustration.”1 That is to say, mythology marks the “path” or “passageway” [Gang] of thought’s expression. The countless appropriations and interpretations of mythic narratives from antiquity to the present day corroborate Schopenhauer’s assessment, insofar as they lend themselves to an extraordinary range of cognitive, moral, and aesthetic ends, marking out the “way” for formulating ideational and emotional content. Myth has therefore long provided a profound source for reflection on the meaning of human experience. As Hans Blumenberg (1988 [1979]: 215–216) observes, “Myth, as it was transmitted by the ancient world’s texts, excited, propelled, impregnated, and stimulated the imagination and the formal discipline of the European litera- tures in a unique way [...].” The power of mythic narrative may lie precisely in the tension between its general influence and the “unique way” this influence is exerted. One might go so far as to say that the reception history of ancient myth is reducible to this single function: namely, to allow particular differences to be mirrored in the universal and thus reveal a “way” or “path” toward identity. Perhaps for this reason, the story of Narcissus, which may once have had a cultic background,2 has frequently served as the exemplary myth – as the myth of myth itself. To this day, among artists, writers, and scholars, the plight of Narcissus has continued to elicit some of the most diverse intellectual responses of any of the ancient plots. Ever since the canonical version by Ovid (43 BC–17/18 AD) in his poem of transformation (Metamorphoses 3: 339–512), this story – of the beautiful youth who disdains those who desire him, only to fall passionately in love himself when he catches sight of his own reflection in the mirrored surface of a pool – has been the subject of adaptations and revisions.3 Many later appropria- tions and interpretations of the narrative have offered variations on its themes of reflection and (first-person) identity, deception and illusion, (self-)recognition 1 “...ein Schema, an dem man fast jeden Gedankengang veranschaulichen kann” (Schopenhauer 1985 [1826]: 286). 2 On the issue of a possible cultic background, see, for example, Eitrem (1935: 1721–1733, esp. 1727) and Hadot (1976: 81–108, esp. 86–87); see also Zimmerman (1994: 11–13) and Knoepfler (2010: 61– 72). For the history of the Narcissus myth before Ovid from a more general point of view, see Castiglioni (1964 [1906]: 215–219) and Vinge (1967: 1–40). Recent discussion has grappled with the relation of the Boetian version and a text suggesting a Euboian context, see Bettini and Pellizer (2010: 85–86); Daneshvar-Malergne (2009: 54), and, in particular, Knoepfler (2010: esp. 155–156). 3 For the reception history of the Narcissus myth and a discussion of how it has been received, appropriated, and used throughout history, see, for example, Vinge (1967); see also the compre- hensive bibliography, 417–438; Bettini and Pellizer (2010: 41–200 by Pellizer); Orlowsky and Orlowsky (1992); Renger (1999); Renger (2002a); Spaas (2000). Narrating Narcissus, reflecting cognition 11 and death, desire and rejection, the excessive love for another and the incurable love for oneself – as well as the motif of the flower, discovered in place of Narcissus’ body (pro corpore, 509) after his death.4 Throughout most of these variations, Narcissus is faced with or joined by (one or) a number of unrequited lovers of either gender. The best known of these is the nymph Echo5 – most probably Ovid’s own contribution to the mythic plot.6 Depending on the inten- tions of the author, the implied audience or readership, and the particular circumstances of its production and reception, the basic Narcissus story is embel- lished with supplemental figures and deities, each of whom serves a particular function. The diversity of these variations is reflected in the rich secondary literature on the Narcissus myth, which employs the story to explore and test aspects of philology and literary theory, philosophy, and psychology.7 This paper provides an introduction to works that have adapted the central themes of the Narcissus myth: reflection and deception, illusion and cognition, passionate love for another and the incurable desire for oneself. After first delving into Ovid’s version in the Metamorphoses, I give examples of its ramifications, particularly in works from the turn of the twentieth century, for it is then that Narcissus, poetically coming into his own, found his way into modern, and thence postmodern, theories of the self. Out of these then grew theoretical speculations on the concept of narcissism, which remains the most influential of all productive (mis)readings of the myth. Subsequently returning to Ovid, I conclude with remarks on the issues of self-cognition and the reflexivity of love, following the “trains of thoughts” put forward by Schopenhauer, and by Niklas Luhmann (1927–1988) in Love as passion (1986). 4 On the topic of the narcissus flower, see the “Anhang über die Narcissen” in the major study of the mythological ground of the Narcissus story, Wieseler (1856: 99–135). 5 On Echo, see, for example, Graf (1997: 873); Gehring (2006); Hermann (1959: 500–505); Wie- seler (1854). For a cross-disciplinary study, see Hollander (1981). As is the case with Narcissus (see, for example, Brenkman [1976: 293–327]), Echo has been seen as a reflection of the meta- poetical qualities of the Ovidian text, for example by Hamilton (2009), who elaborates on the meta-poetical implications of the story by arguing that Echo can be equated with the poet and Narcissus with tradition. 6 On this issue, see, for example, Manuwald (1975: 355–358), and the discussions in Rosati (1983: 22–23) and Schmidt (1991: 114). According to Hardie (1988: 74–77), Ovid got the idea from Lucretius. 7 Scholarly literature alone on Ovid’s version is strikingly abundant. In the following, only a sample is provided: Bartsch (2000); Bömer (1969: 536–570); Borghini (1978); Cancik (1967); Castiglioni (1964 [1906]:209–254); Dörrie (1967); Fränkel (1945: 82–85); Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant (1997: 200–241); Hilbert (1970); Knoespel (1985: 1–22); McCarty (1989); Milowicki (1996); Nouvet (1991); Ringleben (2004); Wesselski (1935); Zanker (1966). 12 Almut-Barbara Renger 2 Illusion and disillusion – from an ancient mirror image to contemporary digital reflection The most widely received version of the myth is the one formulated by Ovid. While other Greek and Roman renderings of the myth – such as those in prose by Conon (first century BC/first century AD), author of the Dihēgḗseis (Narrations), or Pausanias (second century AD), famous for his Periḗgēsis Helládos (Description of Greece) – tell the story very briefly,8 Ovid elaborates at length on events and figures by using stylistic means particularly associated with the themes. The link Ovid’s text creates between reflection, desire, cognition, and death exerted a strong influence on writers and artists of later generations, rising to special prominence in post-ancient times: Having become one of the most revered Latin authors by the late twelfth century, Ovid was credited with supplying the narra- tive that served as the model for all subsequent work on the Narcissus material throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period.9 Countless new render- ings of ancient myths were inspired by the Metamorphoses during these periods, and even today, writers and artists whose reference point is antiquity still focus on his version of the Narcissus myth.10 2.1 Narrating Narcissus – Ovid’s myth of illusion and disillusion The story, ornamented with much detail, is found in Book Three of the Metamor- phoses, which is devoted to stories from the Theban cycle of legends.11 According to this narrative, Tiresias, the blind seer of Thebes, was once asked whether 8 Cf.