ppoli61

@ppoli611674629039 · 23 Nov 2020

Follow Following

An encounter with the Devil

#poe #humor

If The Man who was Used up and The Spectacles constitute a single block in terms of subject and structure, a further grouping can be formed by two other humorous stories: Bon Bon and Le Duc de l'Omelette. These two stories are, in fact, united by the topic: the encounter with the devil, a situation that is certainly more in keeping with Poe's inspiration. It seems, in fact, that even when he proposes to make people laugh, Poe feels more at home in the world of larvae than in the living rooms and theaters of everyday life.

Bon Bon, or The Bargain Lost, is perhaps Poe's most mature and most successful humorous tale, especially when compared, for example, with The Spectacles. Yet Bon Bon was written eight years before The Spectacles, when Poe was only twenty-three. It may be that, over time, he let himself be carried away by a commercial need. In Bon Bon all levels of the comic are developed to the same degree of perfection and the fusion is completely successful.

The situation is comical in itself: the host Bon Bon, drunk, is about to sell his soul to the devil, who usually eats the souls he buys. The infernal messenger, however, with a morality that amazes us in him, does not buy Bon Bon's soul because he is incompetent because of alcohol. As soon as the devil leaves, Bon Bon accidentally dies. It is therefore only by chance that he saves his soul.

The encounter with the devil offers a whole series of comic ideas. It is comical, for example, that the devil considers his business "a profession". In practice, the comedy of the story arises precisely from the trivialization and reduction to everyday reality of supernatural facts (displacement). Singular and very typical of Poe, is the macabre and grotesque description of hell, where the souls of the condemned are roasted or put in brine.

Bon Bon is alone in the house on a stormy night. Suddenly he hears a voice: "The devil!" screams. "Very true" replies the devil calmly. Obviously, Bon Bon's was only a surprise exclamation but it is interpreted by the mysterious visitor as an acknowledgment. Every time he is surprised, Bon Bon has the habit of shouting "Good God!" This invocation is unwelcome to the devil, who recommends that the guest "not swear". The reversal of common morality is comical. When Bon Bon, now drunk, tries to give a definition of the soul, the devil interrupts him continuously:

“The - hiccup! - soul, "replied the metaphisician (...)" is undoubtedly "-" No, sir! "" Indubitably "-" No, sir! "" Evidently "-" No, sir! "" tly! "" No, sir! "" Hiccup! "" No, sir! "" And beyond all question, a "-" No, sir, the soul is no such thing! "

We laugh because the devil comments on opinions on the soul that Bon Bon has not yet formulated. The figure of the drunkard is ridiculous, shaken by continuous sobs, who drinks - says Poe - "to show his sympathy towards the guest". This explanation is also part of an ironic overturning of reality and indirectly indicates the justification that the drunkard himself gives for his behavior.

In Bon Bon, the character's comic is as developed as that of the situation and is expressed in the two figures of the host and the devil, starting from their physical description. Bon Bon measures only ninety centimeters and has a very small head, offset by a huge belly that, ironically, inspires grandeur. The ridicule of physical deformity is the most basic form of comedy, reported in all theories about the comedian. The host's clothing is extremely ridiculous: he wears a pea-colored waistcoat and a hat with tassels. Equally ridiculous, though scarier, is the figure of the devil. He dresses in clothes from a century ago and hides his tail in his pants which, however, reveal "a certain quivering swelling". The tie also gives him - here is the irony - an ecclesiastical appearance. Returning to Bon Bon, he is "a man of genius", which even his cat knows, which

Forbore to whisk her tail in the presence of the man of genius.

The character's comic is accompanied by that of the environment. The house of the philosopher cook is the most bizarre one can imagine, since it faithfully reproduces the two passions of the owner, precisely gastronomy and philosophy. The shop sign is a large In Folio on which a bottle is painted on one side, and a paté on the other. A plate of controversy dominates the sideboard and an ethics cake can be glimpsed from the oven.

The comic language is developed at the same level as other types of comedy, just note the continuous use of learned terms aimed at ironizing the culture of the philosopher cook.

A peculiar feature of this story is what we could define as a "reductive approach". By reductive juxtaposition we mean the same procedure in place in burlesque works, that is, the juxtaposition of the great with the small, the sacred with the profane, with the aim of reducing the greater element, or at least creating a comic contrast. The whole personality of the philosopher cook has this characteristic. He loves cooking and philosophy alike. It can be said that you think with your stomach and eat with your brain. His philosophy mixes everything (like one of his soups). He is Ionic and Italic at the same time, he reasons a priori and a posteriori at the same time, he has innate and acquired ideas.

In the following passage

Nor did he, like the modern Leibnitz, waste those precious hours which might be employed in the invention of a fricassé, or facili gradu, the analysis of a sensation, in frivolous attempts at reconciling the obstinate oils and waters of ethical discussion.

The philosophical analysis of a sensation or the invention of a fricassé have the same value. This comic juxtaposition is expressed through the language, where the philosophical irreconcilable are defined with the culinary terms "water" and "oil". Similarly in the following passage

It is not to be supposed the restaurateur would lose sight of that intuitive discrimination which was wont to characterize, at one and the same time, his essays and his omelettes

Philosophical essays and omelettes are given equal dignity thanks also to the use of the French that combines the two terms. In addition to the figure of the restaurateur, this principle of juxtaposition and reduction also includes all the devil's discussion of his "gastronomic" encounters with the greats of antiquity. Classicism is treated in an extremely irreverent way. Hippocrates stinks so much that the devil vomits at the mere memory of his taste. Virgil has the same taste as Theocritus, just as Titus Livius is the spitting image of Polybius. Here we touch perhaps the maximum of comedy of the story, since, to the same literary production - to a suspicion of plagiarism, such as Virgil's dependence on Theocritus for his Eclogues - the same taste for the devil's palate is associated.

Another climax of refined comedy is reached when the devil speaks of Plato and the genesis of his famous phrase "thought is light". The devil claims that he was a friend of Plato and that he first advised him to write "thought is music".

He said that he would do so, and went home, while I stepped over to the pyramids. But my conscience smote me for having uttered a truth, even to aid a friend, and hastening back to Athens, I arrived behind, the philosopher’s chair as he was indicting the "αύλος". Giving the lamma a fillip with my finger, I turned it upside down.

All the sacredness of Platonic thought is reduced to a mere operation of chance. If we then think that the devil acts to prevent the affirmation of the truth, we must conclude that philosophical thought has always coincided with the lie.