THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIVIL AND PASTORAL IN DAPHNIS AND CHLOE:
Daphnis and Chloe by Longus may seem like a simple novella about love; however, hidden within the narration are subtly implanted notions which reveal that the story focuses not only on love, but also on loves relationship and interconnection between pastoral and civic life. The interconnectivity between the pastoral and civic are placed within the novella as juxtaposed worlds of opposition; however, neither seem to be suggested as superior over one another. Instead, these juxtaposed worlds are presented together as harmonious, in that, one requires the other for them both to function within society. One interesting aspect of this harmonious relationship is that pastoralism in the novella is presented as the means of production for the rich upper-class people who come from the city (the civic). Furthermore, this relationship is presented by the narrator as both utopic and idealistic. This paper will connect this utopic, idealist and interconnected relationship between pastoral and civic with important Marxist analysis, and ultimately suggest that love is presented in the novella as an educational barrier between the two protagonists that stems from their position as slaves to a richer upper class, and that only after Daphnis and Chloe are released from the lowest social status is their marriage deemed appropriate.
The countryside in antiquity was often a space which remained, in practice, a denigrated place to be exploited by slaves and workers(1). The countryside in the novel is subject to this exact scrutiny, and every character native to the pastoral is presented as a slave or worker who is owned or being hired by a master or employer — the exception being the protagonists Daphnis and Chloe, whom are initially presented as exposed children with unknown origins(2). The narrator reveals the protagonist’s unknown origins early in the story, giving readers agnoia, and perhaps also suggesting early in the narration that Daphnis and Chloe do not belong in a pastoral setting. Regarding infant exposure in the ancient Greece, W.V. Harris argues that, “the extent to which infants had been exposed in the classical Greek city is a controversy… For most places we have no information at all”(3) but also says that, “What happened in towns was better known than what happened in the countryside”(4). Furthermore, it should be emphasized that exposure in the ancient novel does not equal to the murder of a child in either language or practice(5). Greek authors and writers used different forms of the word ektithemi (“expose”, “set out”), which is distinguished from paidoktoneo (‘kill a child’)(6) . The words “setting out” or “exposal” of infant children explicitly suggest that they are not meant to be killed, but rather literally exposed or set out against something. Therefore, it is easier to imagine that infant exposure was more of a civic practice than a pastoral one, as the terms suggests a release from a controlled environment and an exposure to something outside a civilized, controlled environment. It should also be noted that infant mortality during the time of the novella was almost unfathomably high, and growth was closer to zero than one per cent per year(7). Additionally, it is easy to imagine that birth rates were higher for rich people in cities, as wealthier people tended to have access to better medical equipment and professional midwives — who were essentially trained as physicians(8). A lower birth rate for people living in the countryside could suggest a lower chance of exposure, simply because the odds of a successful birth were much lower. It is therefore no stretch to assume from an early point in the novel that the narrator is explicitly suggesting that Daphnis and Chloe — although are raised within a pastoral environment — were not born in the countryside. This is further emphasized when the narrator says that, “These children [Daphnis and Chloe] grew up very quickly and became more beautiful than country children usually are”(9). Furthermore, the narrator reveals that Daphnis and Chloe’s adoptive parents are acutely aware that the exposed children do not belong in a pastoral environment when the narrator reveals that their birth tokens suggests their fate holds something greater than becoming shepherds and goatherds(10). In the same breath the narrator also says that, “because of this [Daphnis and Chloe’s birth tokens signaling noble birth] they [Daphnis and Chloe’s adoptive parents] had brought the children up rather delicately, teaching them to read and write and do everything that was regarded as elegant in the country”(11). This important reveal emphasizes the separation between pastoral and civic because is suggests that people who are born in cities are raised to an entirely different standard as those born in the countryside. Whereas those born in cities were taught to read, write, and other forms of elegancy that elevated their social status within the boundaries of civic functionality, those born within a pastoral environment are — according to the narration — raised by entirely different standards.
The the civil sexual educational standards of the city, juxtaposed against the natural educational standards of love in the countryside, acts as the primary force that binds the countryside and the city together within the novella. The first example of this is when Dorcon enters the plot as a sort of barrier type character between the two lovers, and the narrator says that Dorcon was a man, “…whose beard had just started growing, and that he knew about love — what it’s called as well as what it makes you do”(12). Additionally, during the beauty/rhetorical contest between Daphnis and Dorcon, Dorcon describes his complexion as, “white like milk”(13). Dorcon, unlike Daphnis, has knowledge about love, and therefore a higher level of education than Daphnis. The implication that Dorcon may have been educated in the city, or at least influenced through civil discourse, is suggested simply because he does compete with Daphnis in a rhetorical debate. If Dorcon had no connection with the city, it is fair to assume that he would have not chosen a rhetorical debate as the form of competition between him and Daphnis. Dorcon’s elevated knowledge about sexual desire also suggests a closer tie to the city than Daphnis, this is coupled with Dorcon referring to his skin as white in contrast to Daphnis’ skin, which is dark. This is because Daphnis’ work keeps him outside more than Dorcon. Although Dorcon is a cowherd, he is not a slave like Daphnis, this is also hinted through Dorcon’s description of his skin colour, but also through the gifts he offers Dryas in exchange for Chloe’s hand in marriage(14). Although Dorcon may have more formalized education about love and sex, he is unable to defeat Daphnis in the rhetorical contest because he is a native of the countryside, whereas, Daphnis’ noble and civic birth implies that he has some sort of natural rhetorical superiority over Dorcon. Even though Daphnis has no knowledge of love until he is kissed by Chloe after the contest(15), he uses an elevated form of rhetoric superior to Dorcon’s, allowing him to win the contest and discover love for the first time. The fact that Daphnis was taught to read and write undoubtedly creates his ability to actually perform in rhetorical debate, but it is suggested that his origin is what rightfully earns him victory here. At this point of the novella, readers are still in agnoia regarding Daphnis’ birth, however, by the time that his civic birth is revealed, readers may reflect beauty contest scene as one of particular significance because it undoubtedly suggests that clever rhetoric is an educational characteristic of men born from the city.
Another important part of the story which emphasizes that love as an educational standard of the city is through Daphnis’ interactions with Lycaenion. Lycaenion is introduced as a character from town (presumably Mytlene) who is described by the narrator as, “…young, pretty, and rather sophisticated for the countryside”(16). Although Dorcon expresses some knowledge of civic education, he is never described by the narrator as pretty, or beautiful. It is interesting to note here that the first character introduced in the novel from the city is also the first character who is given any physical attributes which imply eroticism and beauty. The exception being of course Daphnis and Chloe, their beauty being constantly referenced throughout the novella, however, this is justified because, like Lycaenion, they too were born in the city. Additionally, the notion that Lycaenion being too sophisticated for the countryside implies that her sophistication is due to her being someone who lived in the city her entire life, only now being exposed, or, perhaps, set-out, into the countryside for the first time. Lycaenion also essentially acts as Daphnis’sex-ed teacher when she begins teaching Daphnis how to have sex, and interestingly, the narrator says that Lycaenion, “guided him [Daphnis] skillfully on the road he had been searching for until now. After that, she [Lycaenion] did nothing exotic; from then on, nature herself taught him what had to be done”(17). The emphasis on Lycaenion’s guidance of Daphnis stresses the notion that Daphnis is being taught something by someone from the city, however, what is truly fascinating is that the narrator describes Lycaenion as only guiding Daphnis to a certain extent, and that it is nature herself who taught Daphnis how to have sex. This is, in my opinion, the most important part of the novella, as it effectively ties two major thematic concepts together by suggesting that there is indeed an important educational balance between: civic and pastoral, city and countryside, ect. The fact that it is nature personified as a woman who teaches Daphnis (I assume that the original Greek word for “nature” is presented in the feminine, rather than the neuter) suggests that Daphnis needed educational guidance towards something which nature could have provided if he was born in the country, but because Daphnis was truly born the city, he does not know how to attain sexual knowledge naturally, he physically needs guidance by someone from the city.
The distinction between learning things from nature verses learning things from the city is made most clear here, but is also subtly suggested in other places of the narration. A great example is when, almost in passing, the narrator references Chloe’s adoptive parents having a child of their own(18). This is an important reveal because it shows that Chloe’s adoptive parents have knowledge about sex, and that presumably, they did not need a sexual education from the city because they were born in the countryside. Therefore, the narrator is suggesting that much like Daphnis’ ability to perform clever rhetoric because of his civic birth, characters in the novella with pastoral births have a natural understanding about sex that characters from the city do not. This may explain why Lycaenion desires to not only have sex with Daphnis, but also to teach him how to as well.
One of the more fascinating aspects of the novella is that although there is a clear separation from civic and pastoral education, the countryside where the story takes place is only twenty miles from the city(19). Even in the ancient world, this is by no means a far distance as most healthy untrained people would be able to walk that distance within an eight hour window, and a trained athlete might be able to make that walk in just over five hours(20). The distance between the two environments is then rather small in relation to the gap between the educational differences of the city and the countryside. The narrator works hard to stress that although the characters born to each environment are radically different, they remain physically close to one another, and because the narrator barely mentions this, readers are left with the feeling that the physical separation between the two settings is larger than it actually is.
An important distinction between the city and the countryside is also that the people working in the countryside act as the means of production for the people who live in the city, and, as previously mentioned, that the countryside in antiquity was a place for slaves and workers. This is reaffirmed when the narrator reveals late in the story that Daphnis and Chloe’s adoptive parents are slaves, whose owners live in the city(21). This creates an important social barrier between the protagonist’s marriage, as Chloe is pursued by rich suiters from the city who offer her adoptive parent’s gifts in exchange for her hand in marriage.
The narrator also reaffirms readers’ natural inclinations of thinking that the characters in the story who live in the country are — generally speaking — less wealthy than the characters who live in the city. Lamon is a goatherd(22), Dryas; a shepherd(23). Dorcon is a cowherd(24), so is Philetas(25) and Lampis(26). In contrast, the first characters who are described as rich people are young men from a city (Methymna), including Braxis(27). Astylus, Dionysophanes and Cleariste are also all rich people from the city(28). Furthermore, Chloe’s true father, Megacles, is also a wealthy man, and in a crucial passage the narrator reveals that prior to becoming wealthy that he was a poor man from the city when Chloe was born, and that poverty is what forced him to expose Chloe in the cave of the Nymphs(29) (this is also a subtle suggestion that exposure was a civic practice). Each character in the novella is carefully positioned as either representing the city or the countryside, and, there is a clear monetary distinction made between the two. This distinction is, of course, that rich people who own the slaves of the countryside come from the city, and the people who are from the countryside are the less wealthy suppliants of people from the city. As shepherds, goatherds and cowherds, the characters from the countryside enable the characters from the city to be rich because they produce the commodities which give people from the city their wealth.
The hierarchical relationship between pastoral and civic life in the novella is undoubtedly presented as both utopic and harmonious; however, modern interpretations may have a conflict with this presentation because the society we live in is profoundly capitalist. Regarding capitalism and Marxist literary criticism, Terry Eagleton says that, “Its aim is to explain the literary work more fully; and this means a sensitive attention to its forms, styles and meanings. But it also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the products of a particular history”(30). As readers, we are naturally inclined to believe that we live in a more civilized society as the one presented in the novella because it is the product of a particular point of humanities history, and in Daphnis and Chloe’s case, the history is so far away from the present that it becomes even more intriguing. The relationship between pastoral and civic is therefore, to us, a product of the time in which the novella was written. This begs the question, why does the novel still give us aesthetic pleasure? Karl Marx suggests that we enjoy Greek art because:
The charm of their [Greek] art for us is not in contradiction to the underdeveloped stage of society on which it grew. (It) is its result, rather, and is inextricably bound up, rather, with the fact that the unripe social conditions under which it arose, and could alone rise, can never return. (31)
Marx is arguing that the Greeks were able to produce relatable art not in spite of but because of the underdeveloped state of their society, and that our liking for it is a sort of nostalgic lapse back into what society was like before the strict division of labour between rich and poor(32). What we enjoy most about ancient civilizations is a primitive image of ‘measure’ between humans and nature which capitalist societies inevitably destroy, and which pre-capitalist societies (such as the society in the novella) reproduce at an astoundingly higher level(33). Even though we read Daphnis and Chloe with this lens, our intuition tells us that the relationship between the city and the countryside is everything but harmonious, it is non-idyllic because it does not conform to what our standard of society is. Daphnis and Chloe explicitly suggest a sort of romanticism surrounded infant exposure, which to us seems absolutely crazy, but to the novella it seems relatively normal. Yet still, we are still intrigued by the story because we look upon it as a primitive aspectual part of what humanity once was. At the same time, we can deeply relate to the story because it focuses on two aspects of our lives which, like the countryside and the city, act as juxtaposed worlds of opposition. These aspects are love and money. We desire to be rich with money (as opposed to material objects) because we live in a capitalist society, something created by us; but in contrast, we also desire love, which is a natural desire that we did not create. Capitalism alienates people from desires such as love because they need to work in order to get what they want, whether it is love or a new car, wealth plays in immeasurable role in determining what is we can and cannot have.
In the resolution of conflict of Daphnis and Chloe, their original roles of slaves are reversed as they become wealthy aristocrats. This reversal of fortune is also relatable to modern readers because capitalism fuels us to desire the exact same reversal of hierarchical status. “The American Dream” is such a perfect example of an extension of this mentality. That one can come from nothing and gain everything. This is, of course, a complete fantasy, the American dream being a fictitious exaggeration of our own idyllic interpretation of the capitalist world we live in. The reality is, however, that going from poor to rich in our society requires much more than moving to America, getting a job and marrying. Yet the fantasy stays ingrained within us: that we can, like Daphnis and Chloe, actually have an idealized switch of fortune from lower to upper class through formalized marriage and idyllic love.
Daphnis and Chloe is not only a novella about love set in a pastoral setting. It is also a story about love and its relationship with nature, and the way in which humans organize the society they live in. The novella clearly expresses a complex barrier of reliance between the pastoral and civil worlds, and it suggests that the distance between them is not measured by physical separation, but rather by a series of educational standards and monetary hierarchies. As modern readers analyze Daphnis and Chloe, we become acutely aware of the separation between the pastoral and civil worlds because we live in a capitalist society which draws inspiration from the apparently utopic and harmonious relationship between the city and the countryside presented in the novella. The innocent reversal of fortune presented in the resolution of conflict is relatable to us because we desire the same thing, to find love and wealth and live happily ever after in the countryside among friends and family. The reality of course being that this is a far-fetched utopic ideal of capitalism, and the majority of people will not have the fortune of living in that false reality.
Endnotes
1. Paschalis, Michal. Frangoulidis, Stavros. Et al. “The Coming of Age and Political Accommodation in the Greco-Roman Novels”, The Greek and Roman Novel Parallel Readings. Netherlands: Barkhuis & Groningen University Library, 2007, 15.
2. Longus. Daphnis and Chloe, trans by Christopher Gill in Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Edited by, B.P Reardon. California: University of California Press, 2008, 290–91.
3. Harris, W. V. “Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 4. doi:10.2307/300867.
4. Ibid,4.
5. Patterson, Cynthia. “Not Worth the Rearing”: The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 115 (1985): 104. doi: 10.2307/284192.
6. Ibid, 106.
7. Woods, Robert. “Ancient and Early Modern Mortality: Experience and Understanding.” The Economic History Review, New Series, 60, no. 2 (2007): 395. www.jstor.org/stable/4502068.
8. Tsoucalas, G. et al. “Midwifery in ancient Greece, midwife or gynaecologist-obstertrician?” The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1980-): 34 (2014): 547. doi: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.3109/01443615.2014.911834?scroll=top&needAccess=true
9. Longus, 291.
10. Ibid, 291.
11. Ibid, 291.
12. Ibid, 295.
13. Ibid, 295.
14. Ibid, 297.
15. Ibid, 296.
16. Ibid, 324.
17. Ibid, 325.
18. Ibid, 328.
19. Ibid, 289.
20. www.healthline.com/health/exercise-fitness/average-walking-speed
21. Longus, 331.
22. Ibid, 290.
23. Ibid, 290.
24. Ibid, 295.
25. Ibid, 304.
26. Ibid, 335.
27. Ibid, 308.
28. Ibid, 337–338, Astylus is described as “…a rich young man” on 337, and the narrator says that, “few men were as rich as he [Dionysophanes]” on 338. Cleariste’s name translates as ‘fairest fame’ (338), implying that she is both fair and famous; both are attributes of rich upper-class women in antiquity.
29. Ibid, 347.
30. Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: Methuen & Co, 1976, 3.
31. Ibid, 11–12.
32. Ibid, 12.
33. Ibid, 13.
