in his guest’s pocket, momently changing both their color and their import, and in a few seconds, in place of the original title, the words “Régitre des Condamnés ” blazed forth in characters of red. This startling circumstance, when Bon-Bon replied to his visiter’s remark, imparted to his manner an air of embarrassment which probably might not otherwise have been observed.
“Why, sir,” said the philosopher, “why, sir, to speak sincerely – I believe you are – upon my word – the d – dest – that is to say, I think – I imagine – I have some faint – some very faint idea – of the remarkable honor —”
“Oh! – ah! – yes! – very well!” interrupted his Majesty; “say no more – I see how it is.” And hereupon, taking off his green spectacles, he wiped the glasses carefully with the sleeve of his coat, and deposited them in his pocket.
If Bon-Bon had been astonished at the incident of the book, his amazement was now much increased by the spectacle which here presented itself to view. In raising his eyes, with a strong feeling of curiosity to ascertain the color of his guest’s, he found them by no means black, as he had anticipated – nor gray, as might have been imagined – nor yet hazel nor blue – nor indeed yellow nor red – nor purple – nor white – nor green – nor any other color in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. In short, Pierre Bon-Bon not only saw plainly that his Majesty had no eyes whatsoever, but could discover no indications of their having existed at any previous period – for the space where eyes should naturally have been, was, I am constrained to say, simply a dead level of flesh.
It was not in the nature of the metaphysician to forbear making some inquiry into the sources of so strange a phenomenon; and the reply of his Majesty was at once prompt, dignified, and satisfactory.
“Eyes! my dear Bon-Bon – eyes! did you say? – oh! – ah! – I perceive! The ridiculous prints, eh, which are in circulation, have given you a false idea of my personal appearance? Eyes! – true. Eyes, Pierre Bon-Bon, are very well in their proper place – that, you would say, is the head? – right – the head of a worm. To you likewise these optics are indispensable – yet I will convince you that my vision is more penetrating than your own. There is a cat I see in the corner – a pretty cat – look at her – observe her well. Now, Bon-Bon, do you behold the thoughts – the thoughts, I say, – the ideas – the reflections – which are being engendered in her pericranium? There it is, now – you do not! She is thinking we admire the length of her tail and the profundity of her mind. She has just concluded that I am the most distinguished of ecclesiastics, and that you are the most superficial of metaphysicians. Thus you see I am not altogether blind; but to one of my profession, the eyes you speak of would be merely an incumbrance, liable at any time to be put out by a toasting-iron or a pitchfork. To you, I allow, these optical affairs are indispensable. Endeavor, Bon-Bon, to use them well; – my vision is the soul.”
Hereupon the guest helped himself to the wine upon the table, and pouring out a bumper for Bon-Bon, requested him to drink it without scruple, and make himself perfectly at home.
“A clever book that of yours, Pierre,” resumed his Majesty, tapping our friend knowingly upon the shoulder, as the latter put down his glass after a thorough compliance with his visiter’s injunction. “A clever book that of yours, upon my honor. It’s a work after my own heart. Your arrangement of the matter, I think, however, might be improved, and many of your notions remind me of Aristotle. That philosopher was one of my most intimate acquaintances. I liked him as much for his terrible ill temper, as for his happy knack at making a blunder. There is only one solid truth in all that he has written, and for that I gave him the hint out of pure compassion for his absurdity. I suppose, Pierre Bon-Bon, you very well know to what divine moral truth I am alluding?”
“Cannot say that I —”
“Indeed! – why it was I who told Aristotle, that, by sneezing, men expelled superfluous ideas through the proboscis.”
“Which is – hiccup! – undoubtedly the case,” said the metaphysician, while he poured out for himself another bumper of Mousseux, and offered his snuff-box to the fingers of his visiter.
“There was Plato, too,” continued his Majesty, modestly declining the snuff-box and the compliment it implied – “there was Plato, too, for whom I, at one time, felt all the affection of a friend. You knew Plato, Bon-Bon? – ah, no, I beg a thousand pardons. He met me at Athens, one day, in the Parthenon, and told me he was distressed for an idea. I bade him write down that o nous estin aulos (Greek – Ed.). 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 inditing the ‘aulos.’ Giving the lambda a fillip with my finger, I turned it upside down. So the sentence now reads ‘o nous estin augos‘, and is, you perceive, the fundamental doctrine in his metaphysics.”
“Were you ever at Rome?” asked the restaurateur, as he finished his second bottle of Mousseux, and drew from the closet a larger supply of Chambertin.
But once, Monsieur Bon-Bon, but once. There was a time,” said the devil, as if reciting some passage from a book – “there was a time when occurred an anarchy of five years, during which the republic, bereft of all its officers, had no magistracy besides the tribunes of the people, and these were not legally vested with any degree of executive power – at that time, Monsieur Bon-Bon – at that time only I was in Rome, and I have no earthly acquaintance, consequently, with any of its philosophy.”
“What do you think of – what do you think of – hiccup! – Epicurus?”
“What do I think of whom? ” said the devil, in astonishment; “you cannot surely mean to find any fault with Epicurus! What do I think of Epicurus! Do you mean me, sir? – I am Epicurus! I am the same philosopher who wrote each of the three hundred treatises commemorated by Diogenes Laertes.”
“That’s a lie!” said the metaphysician, for the wine had gotten a little into his head.
“Very well! – very well, sir! – very well, indeed, sir!” said his Majesty, apparently much flattered.
“That’s a lie!” repeated the restaurateur, dogmatically, “that’s a – hiccup! – a lie!”
“Well, well, have it your own way!” said the devil, pacifically; and Bon-Bon, having beaten his Majesty at argument, thought it his duty to conclude a second bottle of Chambertin.
“As I was saying,” resumed the visiter, “as I was observing a little while ago, there are some very outre notions in that book of yours, Monsieur Bon-Bon. What, for instance, do you mean by all that humbug about the soul? Pray, sir, what is the soul?”
“The – hiccup! – soul,” replied the metaphysician, referring to his MS., “is undoubtedly —”
“No, sir!”
“Indubitably —”
“No, sir!”
“Indisputably —”
“No, sir!”
“Evidently —”
“No, sir!”
“Incontrovertibly —”
“No, sir!”
“Hiccup! —”
“No, sir!”
