Miguel de Cervantes’ “The Dialogue of the Dogs” as Social Commentary by Tajae Pryce

            “In The Dialogue of the Dogs”, Cervantes employs the use of colloquial exchange between two characters to touch on various aspects of society in early modern Spain. This dialogue, however, is irrationally taking place between two dogs sharing autobiographical stories allowing Cervantes’ social satire and criticisms to come across as more accessible to his audiences rather than blatant denigration. A few of the social topics he addresses through this unconventionally constructed short story are the corruption of authority, both civic and religious, the effects of disconnected systems of power in morally misguided societies and the plight of creative artists and writers such as himself of being true to their works or creating publications tailored for mass appeal.

            One of the stories Berganza the dog shares is about his time in a slaughterhouse in Seville. Here, he is exposed to people of selfish intentions who have shunned morality and proper social order in pursuit of the attainment of their own self-interests. “…They are like vultures, maintaining themselves and their mistresses on what they steal” (253). The unsupervised workers at the slaughterhouse allowed their true personas to show, doing whatever it took to plunder prime cutes of meet for themselves including causing harm or imposing death to others without much remorse, as Berganza explains, “But nothing shocked me more or struck me as more scandalous than to see that these slaughterhouse workers will kill a man as easily as a cow”. The actions of these workers represent the tendency for society to act in a mob mentality when presented with opportunities, especially in societies where immoral behavior was as commonplace as in early modern Spain’s working class. This may also be a representation of Cervantes’ view of Spain’s lawmakers and nobility governing a population whom they have no connection nor direct intervention into their day to day lives, seeing how these laws actually impact the people. Rather, the nobility employs public servants as protectors of the legal system despite the fact that these servants can be just as immoral and self-interested as other social deviants.

            “Dialogue’s” episode detailing Bergama’s tenure as a shepherd dog, addresses the corruptive nature of humankind as well as dishonesty in spiritual leadership. The cruelty conveyed through the dishonest shepherds, feigning attacks by wolves in order to steal from their owners, serves as a vivid analogy of shepherds of Christian followers deceiving their blindly faithful and unquestioning flock in order to carry out their own agendas. Spain’s religious system at the time was interwoven with the governmental system, thus allowing for decrees of indulgence requirements and essentially ‘witch-hunts’ for religious deviants. Berganza’s strong loyalty to his shepherd masters leads him to truly believe their commands and accept punishment that may be given to him despite his own rationale because he trusts them. They have fed him, seen him as useful and continuously reinforce their orders. It is not only until he is exposed to the true nature of the shepherds that Berganza is enlightened to the horrible paradox that systematically exists and questions how such a corrupt system based on trust could be exposed to more people. “I was shocked and amazed to see that the shepherds were the wolves and the very people who were supposed to be guarding the flock were tearing it to pieces”, “Who will have the power to persuade anyone that the defenders are on the offensive, that the sentries are sleeping, that it doesn’t pay to trust anyone and that those who guard also kill?” (259). The parallels drawn from the story to Spanish society is Cervantes’ call to action to a conscious collective of revolutionaries who must aim to enlighten society of the corruption that exists in the Church and how the same church that condemns nonbelievers and heretics does so to propagate the gluttonous agendas of those in positions of power.

            Cervantes also comments on the challenges that writers face in his section detailing the poet Berganza meets. Perhaps a reflection of Cervantes’ own impediments, the poet is described as deeply enthralled in the particulars of his play, striving to make it as historically accurate and poetically sound as possible only to be ridiculed and deserted by one of the actors for the poets exorbitance and demands. Cervantes seems to illustrate his own frustrations with a society focused more on sensational and entertaining works of art as opposed to literal contributions that serve to challenge societal inconsistencies and provide historical and rational insight on social issues; thus inciting constructive debate into the social consciousness of a population.  I believe that Cervantes may feel that some of his literary work and especially his poetry had been undervalued by society while contributions such as Don Quixote, a classic in its own right, were more appreciated because of its entertainment value. The poet portrayed in “Dialogue” is fixated on the need for accuracy in his play and his efforts are received as arbitrary embellishments. Cervantes hold the philosophy that art and literature should serve the role of not only reflecting the society it describes, but to also advocate for morality and the rectification of injustices.

            The discourse between Berganza and Scipio is one that allows the audience to view themselves and their actions from a different perspective, one of innocence and simplicity. These dogs provide subjective insight into the actions of various levels of early modern Spain’s society, and the corruption and inconsistencies that exist throughout. Cervantes’ unconventional approach effectively accomplishes his purpose for this short story. He humbles the audience and forces autoscopic reflection, not only for the reader’s own motives and behavior, but also for their societal institutions and cultural norms. The constant theme of corruption expressed through satire in this story is a genre that has been utilized by generations of advocacies in order to allow the level of accessibility needed to incite grassroots-driven transformations of what pillars society chooses to uphold, maintain and ratify.

      De Cervantes, Miguel. “The Dialogue of the Dogs.” In Exemplary Stories. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998

Phillis Wheatley, “To the University of Cambridge, In New England”: A Close Reading by Tajae Pryce

Phillis Wheatley’s poem, “To the University of Cambridge, in New England”, addresses an affluent class of 18^th century Harvard students on the topics of mercy, salvation and hope for the impending and distant future. Wheatley makes great use of Christian ideologies and incorporates superficial tones of uncompromised humility in order to successfully relate to her audience on a culturally rational level in order to maintain a cohesive level of consideration of her thoughts. Despite the obvious discernible differences between Wheatley and her audience ethnically, her style of delivery and choice of metaphors allow for the effectiveness of the conveyance of her central themes.  The author makes a point in the poem to strategically convey humble nature by attributing her African origins to an unfortunate, dark incident that she was luckily saved from through the mercy of a Christian god and His devotees. Wheatley further incorporates strategic implementations of religious themes throughout the text in order to advocate her audiences to unceasingly purse the betterment of themselves and continuing to willingly attain knowledge.

Wheatley refers to her homeland as “The land of errors, and Egyptian gloom” (“Cambridge” 4). Her use of ‘Egyptian’ as an attribute plays to the Christian teachings in the Holy Bible wherein Egypt is described a region of historical disparity and persecution. More importantly, in Christianity, Egypt was the land where God’s chosen people, the Hebrews, were held in captivity and went through great turmoil before eventual, merciful liberation. Wheatley was reciting this poem to a nation where Christianity is mainstream as well as slavery and forced labor. A deeper reading of this line and the reference to Egypt perhaps begins Wheatley’s veiled theme of Christian hypocrisy. The following nine lines of the stanza further embellishes on Christian ideology and iconography. She emphasizes a message of vast godly mercy available to those who seek forgiveness due to the compassion that Jesus holds for His followers and the sacrifice He made dying on the cross for their salvation.  “See him with hands out-stretched upon the cross;/ Immense compassion in his bosom glows;/ He hears revilers, nor resents their scorn:/ What matchless mercy in the Son of God! (“Cambridge” 13-16).  This theme of merciful liberation is intriguingly juxtaposed with the decree of  “Father of mercy, ‘twas thy gracious hand/ Brought me in safety from those dark abodes” (4-5). Here, the author aligns her own liberation from Africa to America as evidence of Christian mercy still at work. This gracious liberation narrative was a historically uncommon one for an African immigrant to America to give and more than likely was not expected by the audience no matter what level of acculturation to the Western world Phillis Wheatley would have had. Africans, for the most part, were forcibly removed from their homelands and transported in the unsanitary, uncomfortable hulls of cramped slave ships where many could not survive the voyage. Wheatley may have been very young at the time of her purchase and subsequent transport, but was she still conscientiously aware of the harsh conditions on the ships and the dehumanization of Africans to the status of expendable commodities. These horrible realities, however, according to this poem, have not deterred Phillis’ faith and thankfulness to the Christian God. Her story and undying faith serves as a testament to the pious obedience to Jesus that she is trying to instill in these men of Cambridge as well as the rest of the American middling and upper classes.

Another strong theme that Wheatley emphasizes in “Cambridge” is the importance of one’s ability to shun sin. In the last lines of the poem, she explains that the joys that may come with sinning will only result in condemnation to an eternity of pain; “Its transient sweetness turns to endless pain, / And in immense perdition sinks the soul” (“Cambridge” 29-30).  Wheatley being cast in the unfortunate position of an ‘Ethiop’, as she describes, once again uses herself as proof of someone who can be reformed to live a righteous life. In other words, if she, an African, can be reformed, her much more privileged audience of white, American elite should be able do so even easier. Wheatley further makes references to these inherent privileges afforded to her audience by encouraging them to not only improve upon these opportunities of great godsend, but to expound upon them on their quests to intellectually and socially develop themselves into men of unlimited reverence;  “Improve your privileges while they stay, / Ye pupils, and each hour redeem, that bears/ Or good or bad report of you to heav’n” (“Cambridge” 21-23). Wheatley’s allusion to “dark abodes” (6) is another strong play on the Christian benchmark elements of darkness attributed to malevolency and lightness to piety.  

The manner in which Phillis Wheatley delivers this poem is not meant to portray an accommodative submission to a socially stratified Western culture, nor does is brazenly bring to light the faults of such a society. However, she creates a platform for constructive conversation on important issues in society such as the morality of forced labor institutions, racism, and other forms of oppressive systems and policies. Wheatley, through her writing style and use of religious allusions, is in a way offering a ‘what would Jesus do’ approach into the colonies’ narrative when contemplating socio-political policies and analyses. Wheatley’s conscious awareness of the need for her to convey a humble tone is critical. She was widely regarded as a prodigy of her time from the days of her youth. She was well educated in the arts and sciences and was encouraged to learn develop her various talents; but, she was present during the 18^th century and no level of social admiration or fascination could take away the reality that she was not only a black slave, but a women as well. Wheatley still faced the prejudices attributed with her ethnicity as well as overly misogynistic attitudes that had been aligned with females for centuries. Her “Cambridge” address was delivered to a generally wealthy white male demographic; brash social criticisms and exposure of immoral contradictions in such a setting could have potentially jeopardized not only her reputation but also her well being. Instead, the author, a best as she can, levels herself with her audience on one of the most intimate human levels acquirable, common spiritual faith. It is through this style of illustration that someone with as many perceived social inadequacies as Phillis Wheatley faced was able to create a substantial avenue for other women, especially of color, to see literature as a viable option for the expression of their ideas and creativity.

                                         Works Cited

The Bedford Anthology of American Literature, Volume One: Beginnings to 1865. Second ed. Vol. One. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 602, 603. Print.