Angels and Augury: The Role of the Sparrow in "The Dog and The Sparrow"

[shanmonster]

This is a tiny essay written as analysis of Grimm's story The Dog and The Sparrow. I think I am succinct in my writing, but I'm displeased with the way my two ideas are tied together. I'm not certain how to bring the ideas together better while keeping it within the prescribed word count.



At face value, "The Dog and the Sparrow" is an archetypical tale of love and vengeance. The motifs of the story may be used as a means of marrying the concepts of pagan augury with the righteous wrath of the Judaeo-Christian God. Historically, augurs perform the vital service of interpreting the will of the gods through careful observance of birds and their actions. In European folklore, sparrows are viewed as psychopomps (escorts for the newly deceased to the afterlife) and harbingers of omens.

In Christian tradition, the sparrow is among the lowest of the creatures, but remains a creature worthy of God's notice (Matthew 10:29). In this story, the lowly sparrow takes on defensive and offensive angelic virtues.

The sparrow portends both good and bad luck. When the starving dog first meets the bird, the sparrow exemplifies good luck by bringing him nourishment and watching over him while he sleeps. In this capacity, the sparrow acts as a guardian angel (e.g. Psalm 91:11).

The tale takes on a darker tone at the advent of the waggoner. The sparrow's warning is an auspice. By ignoring the auspices, the waggoner seals his own fate. The dog's death sets in motion an escalation of destruction. The sparrow becomes a punitive angel (e.g. II Samuel 24:15).

An analogy may be drawn between this tale and that of the ten plagues of Egypt where the waggoner (Pharaoh) hardens his heart against the dog (Israelites) so that the wrath of God (the sparrow) comes down upon him. When the waggoner is killed by his own wife, the bird takes on its ultimate role of psychopomp, ferrying the avenged soul of the dog to the afterlife.

Comments

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

And here is the commentary from my markers:

peer 1 → This essay is unbelievably well-written. I absolutely loved both colorful and academic style in which the work is written in. It's clearly structured and easy to read and interpret. Lots of different grammar structures have been used as well as a wide range of beautiful expressions and aptly chosen words.
peer 2 → Very interesting essay. Has a proper structure and arguments are clearly laid out and to the point with no unnecessary ornamentation or grammatical mistakes.
peer 3 → I loved the form of the essay, the wording you chose and the way that the point is gradually made by returning to words you used in the introduction. I think the form really helps in what you want to convey. I also think it is a plus the way you used words and expressions "economical" and that the phrases are rich in contents. If I were to make a suggestion (although I don't feel it's quite necessary) - maybe you could try to make the essay a little less "serious" in its wording, by adding a few "easier" expressions that will give the general impression that you wrote about fantasy and mistery. Maybe an unanswered, partly funny question in the end, such as "...to the afterlife - and hopefully to doggie heaven". Or maybe that's just stupid, I don't know :)
peer 4 → Your explicit referring to references of your thought is valued and makes the essay credible. As well, using simpler words instead of the complications such as psychopomp attracts the reader to understand the content.
peer 5 → You grammar and use of words is impeccable. I commend you on your argument structure. I can find no fault with it.
peer 6 → The essay was generally well-written with good sentence structure & usage.But, there is a mistake in the vocabulary. The word "waggoner" should be "wagoner". There are also rare grammatical errors. The author had made a strong argument to support his thesis. However, in my opinion, it is false that the author used religious beliefs to define the existence of the swallow.
peer 7 → Great form and word usage. I had to use my dictionary a couple of times and learned a couple of new words from this essay. Thanks!
peer 8 → Your formatting is decent. The word “archetypical” appears to be the only misspelling. The citations to the Bible dragged me out of the essay (ex. -(Matthew 10:29), etc.). I feel as if the sections of the Bible you referenced should have been located in the Works Cited section. Your format gets a 2.
peer 9 → First of all, Congrats on taking this course and putting the effort to submit the assignment. My assessment of your piece would be that it is 'very good' in terms of FORM. The grammar and the diction are very impressive.
peer 10 → A little too much background on sparrows in other mythology, at the expense of more analysis of this particular tale
Please grade the FORM of the essay you have just read on a scale of 1 to 3. FORM here refers to matters of grammar, usage, and structure. Are the sentences grammatically correct? Are the words properly used? Is the exposition and argument laid out clearly? An ideal response would note one aspect of Form that the writer does well and would profit by continuing and one aspect of Form that the writer would profit by improving in ways you make clear.

Since everyone can learn to write better, at least 10% but no more than 30% of the grades should be 1. Everyone should strive for perfect grammar. However, if someone writes in ways that are particularly vivid or uses particularly incisive key terms to focus the argument or in some other way is outstanding in usage or structure, that essay should be awarded a 3 but no more than 20% of the grades should be a 3 because, by definition, "outstanding" is comparatively rare. Most grades should be 2.

Score from your peers: 2.5

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

peer 1 → This essay is definitely shows a deep understanding of an aspect chosen. Although it mostly centers around just one of the stories, the work is full of interesting examples and even historical references, which especially give out the author's great knowledge or research on the topic.
peer 2 → Very well written. Symbols have been clearly explained Allusions made are appropriate. The essay is rich and insightful content-wise.
peer 3 → I loved the way you gradually made the point here - it reveals a deep understanding of the story and it reflects the work you put into the essay. The argument is persuasive and totally revealing. Also I like the way that you really focused on one issue instead of commenting on the whole story. The only thing I would add is the connection to the Brothers Grimm and an opinion on what made them choose to rewrite this story as such.
peer 4 → It’s very great to refer to religious texts but is necessary to know that as soon as a story is compared to a religious text, is thought to be heavenly true.
peer 5 → You present and support your argument succinctly. Unfortunately I have no helpful criticism for you in this area ether.
peer 6 → Because the author had used many religious terms when he/she analysed "the Dog and the Sparrow". In my opinion, the death of the dog was not because of the sparrow but because of its fate- the dog was sleeping. Nothing can prevent us if we are supposed to die
peer 7 → Very interesting topic for this essay. It gave me a new way to look at the symbolism in the story, so you definitely succeeded in enriching my reading. The topic was specific and focused and backed up with effective examples. I enjoyed reading it!
peer 8 → The content of your essay was very interesting. With just one story, you managed to cover some fascinating religious motifs. The comparison to the Ten Plagues helped tie the essay into other facets of the world. However, I don’t see any elements of the augurs you mentioned in the opening paragraph in the body of the essay. I only see the Christian themes. Other than that, I liked your essay, and I will give it a 3.
peer 9 → I agree that it is not clear whether we have to analyse the entire collection of tales or a few specific tales for this assignment. It is not really possible to evaluate your work based on CONTENT. It is good that you have taken only one tale for analysis. It makes your piece quite focussed. But, I would have liked a overall analysis, spanning through several, if not all, tales. Also, I am not sure the analogy you have made is apt.
peer 10 → The biblical analogies are not persuasive. Pharaoh, the ruler of the slave tribes who refuses the Israelites their freedom even after seeing various plagues, is not a clear, well explained parallel for a man running over a dog.
Please grade the CONTENT of the essay you have just read on a scale of 1 to 3. CONTENT here refers to matters of insight, argument, and example. Does the essay show a deep understanding of some aspect of the work or of a pattern that one can see in the work? Does the argument make sense, feel persuasive, and reveal the significance of the insight or insights? Are there concrete details from the text that support the argument and that we come to understand more powerfully because of the argument? An ideal response would note one aspect of Content that the writer does well and would profit by continuing and one aspect of Content that the writer would profit by improving in ways you make clear.

[shanmonster.livejournal.com]

Since everyone can learn to write better, at least 10% but no more than 30% of the grades should be 1. Most people will offer their readers a new insight and some detailed reference to the text that argues for the significance of that insight and for an appreciation of how that detail functions, so most essays will enrich our reading and earn a 2. Some essays will be astonishingly new or persuasive or useful by making the story much richer and even by helping you understand better how to read stories in general. Such essays earn a 3 in Content, but no more than 20% of the grades should be a 3 because, by definition, "outstanding" is comparatively rare. Most grades should be 2.

Score from your peers: 2.5

Please write here any other comments which you feel might be of use to you or the writer of this essay.
peer 2 → Well researched essay.
peer 3 → I loved your essay, it's the best that I've read of the 5 I received.
peer 4 → As a comment, care for the stupidity of the waggoner as well.
peer 5 → I hope I don't get one of your essay's again, because you're using up all my 3's! Well done
peer 6 → I would want to write from a different approach on this story. We can see the personality of the sparrow. It fought for its friend, the dog. The wagoner is very aggressive, dictatorial. The sparrow believes in "an eye for an eye", He pay a lot attention on his friendship with the dog, they were just acquaintances though.

...

FWIW, "waggoner" is the spelling in the version of the story I wrote upon....