This chapter observes that Longus promotes an αἰπόλος, ‘goatherd’, to bear the privileged name Daphnis, transferring his canonical role of βουκόλος, ‘cowherd’, to other herdsmen – something easily done, since all play the syrinx. But Longus’ Daphnis does not inherit the capacity of the Theocritean αἰπόλος for singing mellifluous song: whereas Chloe does sing sola, Longus’ males, including Daphnis, do not, except for the cowherd in the inset tale at 1.27 and Philetas in his recollections at 2.3.2: instead they tell μῦθοι, ‘myths’. It suggests that Longus might have envisaged his own, often poetic, prose achieving what song had achieved for Theocritus’ Polyphemus, and that his elimination of male solo song was part of his programme of refashioning Sappho and Theocritus in prose. It is noted that of the three characters to whom, from a Theocritean Daphnis, the status of βουκόλος is transferred, Dorcon twice saves Daphnis, but his understanding of eros does not advance the couple’s; that of the βουκόλος Philetas does, and his advice is important; Lampis’ impact, however, like Dorcon’s, is ephemeral, and his character unpleasant. Despite Philetas’ positive role, Dorcon’s and Lampis’ actions may hint that Theocritus was wrong to privilege βουκόλοι, who in Longus can be boisterous and self-assertive, and that a society which gave cowherds free rein would be rougher than one in which standards of behaviour were set by goatherds and shepherds.

The conclusion returns to, and completes, the story of Anne Gudis and Sam Kramer, whose fitful epistolary courtship was explored in earlier chapters. It also suggests why the Dear John letter has proven to be such a durable emblem of female betrayal in wartime, despite profound changes in US society and in American war-waging over the past century. Soldiers‘ and veterans‘ stories of abandonment and betrayal by female romantic partners are more than simply outlets for hurt feelings or bruised egos. They also underscore the chasm that many servicemen have felt between civilian society and those in uniform. As such, Dear John story-telling has elevated veterans‘ perceptions that men who jeopardized their lives for their country have been misunderstood and maltreated – not just by the women they loved and lost, but by the nation writ large.

Arden of Faversham contains an unusual number of characters, both main and minor, who tell stories. The main storyteller, Franklin, is the play’s only fictitious character – one who has affinities with another story–teller of the same name in a collection of tales, Chaucer’s Franklin. This essay argues that the authors of Arden use the story-telling characters to explore the function of narrative within drama.