These are some thoughts on the story “Echo and the Handsome Narcissus” (from Wheelock's Latin Stories). It reads:

“Narcissus was a beautiful boy. Many girls loved him; that boy loved none from them. He loved himself alone and wanted a life in the woods. A Nymph had loved Narcissus for a while, but she was never able to tell her own love to him: only the last other word was she able to repeat. If Narcissus called, “Are you here?,” Echo called, “Here!” If that man “Where are you? Come!” he said, that woman “Come!” she said. But Narcissus comes not to her, and Echo therefore does not live long. She loses the whole body; the voice of hers however we do not also hear.

Meanwhile Narcissus sees his own image in a pool of water and was not able to move away his own eyes. A great love of his own had conquered him. Time flees; Narcissus remains in the same place. Friends of his were not able to find him. Before the pool of water himself, where that boy had been, now was a beautiful flower. The name of this flower in perpetual shall be Narcissus.

Men should not love themselves too much.“ 

There is a clear sense in which the story gives timeless advice about human relationships. Essentially, it tells us that individuals need their own existences acknowledged and fulfilled. For it’s extremely difficult to be an Echo, to have a relationship with someone who only acknowledges you self-referentially. But this is a characterization of much of the world today. Certain nations, for instance, exist through debt and exploitation only for the wealth and comfort of richer ones. Some women and racialized people only exist to appease a system of racism and patriarchy. Like Narcissus, we have an obsession with our own beauty, which promotes endless consumerism without caring much about the effects to others or the environment (especially in the “third world”). Essentially, our society is a lot like both Narcissus and Echo, because sometimes under capitalism what seems to matter is not the quality of our relationships or the content of our own characters, only ourselves or our subservience to others.

But I think there's also another way in which perhaps being Narcissus is not so terrible. Perhaps the extent to which the story can be applied is actually much more narrow. For instance, in many ways, Narcissus is not like the country or person that takes advantage of others, because the only thing that Narcissus does is stare into a pool of water. His selfishness is a different kind of selfishness. It's not that he wants anything from anyone else. It's just that he's so enamoured with his own beauty that he can't really have any relationship that isn't completely self-referential. It reminds me a lot of what Berlin calls the retreat inwards, where you forget completely about the external world and focus only on your own self. But it would be difficult to characterize monks or priests as narcissistic in the way I have above. They're not really committing any harm, they're just too self-involved to have a relationship with the outside world. More specifically, perhaps the world would be better off if people were more like Narcissus, because in the end, they would not be exploiting and conquering, instead, they would only be concerned with reflecting on themselves.

In turn, this means that people might not really be culpable for the mindless consumerism that seems to arise from this retreat inward. The people actually causing harm to the “third world” or the environment are those who provide Narcissus with what he wants—the clothes, the food, the material commodities—but without ensuring that they do no harm. It's true, Narcissus is playing a role through his own infatuation with himself, but it's another character who is taking advantage of his own propensities.

But still, even if Narcissus isn't so terrible, being a narcissist is still damaging to relationships. Echo dies and so does Narcissus. That makes me wonder what it would take to make the story less tragic, more balanced. The fundamental change, I think, would be if Narcissus was more responsive and Echo less so. For instance, if Echo was able to affirm her own existence beyond Narcissus, she would recognize that only loving Narcissus causes her to die, because she's giving her soul to someone who doesn't care. She would acknowledge that for whatever reason, it's just human nature to receive as well as give, not simply to receive or give completely. On the other hand, if Narcissus was able to give in a way that does not just affirm his own existence, he might actually find the love he feels for himself in another person. He might come to appreciate equally and perhaps to a greater extent another person's beauty in their character and their well-being. This connection would feed his soul and keep him alive, rather than making him wither away from self-absorption.

The message, I think, is quite simple. But it would have enormous implications for the state of the world if it were applied. Essentially, I think it would mean an end to exploitation, as individuals and countries no longer take or give wholly but balance the two. But this would not occur as it does today in a relationship of domination, where the qualities of “give and take” take place in a situation of subservience and generosity. Instead, taking the Narcissus story seriously would mean an end to domination itself. It would imply developing a conscience and making changes where each individual can, rather than simply being people constantly absorbed with their own needs and wants.