The editorship of the Richmond Examiner in the 19th century was something of a dangerous occupation. When someone took exception to an editorial they often expressed there views in pointed fashion. Thomas Ritchie, who founded the paper in 1804 witnessed his founding editor, the delightfully named Meriwether Jones, died in a duel two years later, Skelton Jones, Meriwethers brother, took over the editorship, then died in a duel, as did John Daly Burk, another editor of the Richmond Examiner a couple of years later. Ritchie himself died forty years later. in a duel…

Somehow writings a strongly worded email to the Daily Mail seems a tad meek in comparison to challenging the editor to pistols at dawn…

Half a century or so later this kind of thing was still going on and Richmond Examiner editor at the time John Moncure Daniel challenged an inebriated Edgar Allen Poe to a duel, possibly in response to the latter’s excessive verbiage in short stories.

To be fair this is an impulse I understand…

This was in 1848 and was Daniel’s first brush with duelling. He was still quite young at the time. One legend about this says our dear Edgar reputedly sobered up quite rapidly when he saw the two large duelling pistols on Daniel’s desk. This would have been wise as among other things gains Daniel’s was to go on to earn a certain level of fame as a duellist, going on to fight and survive at least ten over the course of his life. Though give just how inaccurate duelling pistols tended to be, the usual result was honour being satisfied by a draw or the odd flesh wound at best. Surviving pistols duels was not unusual, or at least until rifling pistol barrels became more common place after the civil war, which led to the practise being outlawed.

The other legend has it that Edgar did actually showed up for the duel, but was too drunk to shoot, and Daniel’s missed on purpose, so honour was satisfied. I prefer this version, but in all likelihood Poe didn’t show up at all. He had a rather low opinion of duels and duellists in general. A low opinion that informed ‘Von Jung, the Mystific’ which was published a good 11 year prior to the incident with John Moncure Daniel, in the American Monthly magazine in 1837. Later editions of the story renamed the story ‘Mystification’, which is the name under which the story is commonly recognised.

‘Mystification’ is partly a foe-biographical piece about larger than life character Baron Von Jung’s time at university. Which seems to mostly have been spent, drinking, taking drugs , and lording over every other student. The narrator who is serving as biographer, clearly has a high opinion of Von Jung, one not entirely shared by Poe I suspect, but it doesn’t quite work as the satire it was meant to be, in part because the narrator (Barry Littleton) is too fawning and earnest with his praise.

The first half of this story is just that, Littleton fawning over the baron, and its one of those Poe story’s that’s just a whole lot of words being used to say very little. One gets the feeling Poe was being paid by the word and padding the story accordingly. Nothing really happens until the second half of the story and even then there is no shortage of padding.

That said in the second half Von Jung does at least prove to be witty, cunning and processed of and intellectual intelligence that he used to both belittle an opponent and neatly avoid a duel, the twist at the end being exactly how he avoids the duel. The second half of this tale is acctually a neat little story. While the ending is not entirely a surprise it is carefully crafted. But by the souls of the black winged ravens it goes the longest and wordiest way around to getting there. Though in the latter half this is more forgivable because it is Von Jung use of language that mystifies friend and foe alike.

It is also though Baron Von Jung that Poe pours a little scorn on duels and duellists. This is smartly done and reading the story with this in mind it becomes a cleverer tale. Certainly you can see that Poe intended it to mock the kind of ‘gentleman’ who responds to perceived insults by application of the ‘Irish code Duello’ the accepted code for duelling with pistols from the 18th century onwards. As a mockery of duellists in general the story works quite well. The trouble is that adherents to the ‘Irish code Duello’ are few and far between in this day and age. While this does explain why no one has shot the editorial staff of the Daily Mail, it does make the satirical elements of this story some what dated.

The satire is unfortunately the whole and only point of the story. As that is somewhat redundant it make the tale more of a chore to read than a joy. Which is in essence my issue with it. So unless we bring back duels as a valid form of journalistic criticism some time soon*, this story is one to avoid.

*To be clear I am not advocating for duels as journalistic criticism. there is far too much chance you would miss any attempt to shoot the editor of the Daily Mail in the heart. It way too small a target.

A PAIR OF DUELLING RAVENS

Should you read it: Its not terrible, its just dated overly wordy satire.

Bluffers fact: The Irish code Duello banned the custom of deloping, or deliberately discharging one’s firearm into the ground (usually well away from the opponent). This custom was used when one or both duelists wished to end a dispute without inflicting bodily harm or appearing cowardly. The Irish code specifically forbade the practice because it often resulted in accidental injury because no one wants to accidentally injury an opponent in a duel…