The Meaning of Mythology: Narcissus and Shimon the Righteous

The Rabbi’s Opening Post

The Meaning of Mythology: Narcissus and Shimon the Righteous

Posted on 6/6/2008

| |

The Meaning of Mythology: Narcissus and Shimon the Righteous

It has already been observed that there is a similarity between the story of Narcissus in Greek mythology—who, by gazing into the water, fell in love with himself and turned into a narcissus flower—and that of Shimon the Righteous (Nazir 4b and parallels), who partook of the guilt offering of an impure nazirite, namely, that nazirite who shaved his hair because his evil inclination surged within him when he looked into the spring water and saw his reflection.

There is much to discuss in these stories separately, and in the relation between them. But they raised for me several more general questions. Most mythological stories seem somewhat childish, one-dimensional (I mean when one reads them on their own, before the many interpretations that are poured into them), and very simple. And yet there is in them something very fundamental in our culture, and in the human psyche in general.

It seems to me that the root of the matter is that, in order to understand something complex, one must break it down into aspects, each of which is simple. The world and the human being are complex and complicated. To understand them, we must break them down into different aspects and discuss each one separately. After that, those aspects must be reassembled, and we must try to understand the human being as a whole.

Every scientific theory that deals with one such component is a simplistic generalization. Take, for example, Newton’s first law (the law of inertia), according to which any body not acted upon by an external force continues in uniform straight-line motion. This never actually happens, since there is always some force (friction and the like), but it is a good account of one component of complex reality. Therefore it would also be wrong to accuse this law of being simplistic and overly general. That is not a flaw, since we must work in this order if we are to try to return to complex reality.

It seems to me that the stories of Greek mythology succeed in capturing several of these foundation stones of the psyche. There is a Narcissus in each of us (as Kohut already maintained), and an Agamemnon (= a leader who sacrifices his daughter for the sake of an ideal; cf. Jephthah), and an Odysseus (= a sophisticated trickster, a politician, someone who passes through a winding and upheaval-filled journey in life until he returns home; the treasure at the bridge in Prague, or Paulo Coelho), and an Achilles (= a hero), and a Hermes (= a messenger), and so on. The same is true of society, in which there are people, each of whom bears a high dosage of one of these aspects. When something is exceptional, it stands out. In essence, it becomes a myth again. [There are also myths of complexity, for which that is the salient feature].

Therefore each such story is simple and simplistic, sometimes almost childish. But these are the building blocks, and only on their basis can one go on and assemble something more sophisticated and complex. Today, when one writes a story, one can use Narcissus as one component and Helen as a second component. They are already built and ready for use. In this way a complex story is created, one that comes closer to our complicated reality. Exactly as in the process of scientific research, where from the simplistic building blocks (which arise from simplifications of complicated reality) reality is reassembled, and thus understood better.

In other words, most mythological stories have no literary value, nor philosophical value. They are the building blocks of our psychology. That is, they have scientific value (in the sense of the ‘nonsense sciences,’ of course).

And now a few comments/questions about Narcissus and Shimon the Righteous.

1. This brings us back to the thread that once existed about Alexander the Great and Shimon the Righteous, who could not have met (even though the Sages describe such a meeting), because of the historical gap between them (though someone there claimed that there were two figures named Shimon the Righteous, and even brought proofs for it). Here too we encounter Shimon the Righteous in connection with a story that came from the Greeks, even though the period in question preceded their arrival in our region by quite a few years. Was there really Greek influence here in the story of the nazirite’s guilt offering and Shimon the Righteous, or a response (reaction) to such an influence? It is hard to ignore this similarity.

2. What, in fact, is the relation between the two stories? On the simple level, Narcissus fell in love with himself and was therefore lost. That nazirite, by contrast, began to fall in love with himself and fought against it. But much more needs to be added here.

3. Is cutting the hair really the way to fight it? At first glance, that does not solve the problem. Now he will grieve over the shorn hair. And even if you say that he will not grieve, then why shave at all? Let him work on the narcissistic tendency itself, and not on its consequences.

I am only making these remarks in order to stimulate the discussion, and therefore I will not continue.

I would be glad to hear: responses to what I wrote about mythological stories in general; about the meaning of particular mythological stories; and about the story of Narcissus (the king of the marsh) and its relation to the impure nazirite.

I am not expecting an overly systematic discussion, so do not be afraid of different lines of discussion developing, or of eclecticism.

_________________

Source (the ‘Stop Here, We Think’ forum): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2424571&forum_id=1364