The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. I., No. 12, August, 1835Various
History
The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. I., No. 12, August, 1835
Various
American literature -- 19th century -- Periodicals
That Pierre Bon-Bon was a Restaurateur of uncommon qualifications, no
man who, during the reign of ----, frequented the little Câfé in the
Cul-de-sac Le Febvre at Rouen, will, I imagine, feel himself at
liberty to dispute. That Pierre Bon-Bon was, in an equal degree,
skilled in the philosophy of that period is, I presume, still more
especially undeniable. His _Patés à la fois_ were beyond doubt
immaculate--but what pen can do justice to his essays _sur la
Nature_--his thoughts _sur l'Ame_--his observations _sur l'Esprit_? If
his _omelettes_--if his _fricandeaux_ were inestimable, what
_literateur_ of that day would not have given twice as much for an
'_Idée de Bon-Bon_' as for all the trash of all the '_Idées_' of all
the rest of the _savants_? Bon-Bon had ransacked libraries which no
other man had ransacked--had read more than any other would have
entertained a notion of reading--had understood more than any other
would have conceived the possibility of understanding; and although,
while he flourished, there were not wanting some authors at Rouen, to
assert "that his _dicta_ evinced neither the purity of the Academy,
nor the depth of the Lyceum"--although, mark me, his doctrines were by
no means very generally comprehended, still it did not follow that
they were difficult of comprehension. It was, I think, on account of
their entire self-evidency that many persons were led to consider them
abstruse. It is to Bon-Bon--but let this go no farther--it is to
Bon-Bon that Kant himself is mainly indebted for his metaphysics. The
former was not indeed a Platonist, nor strictly speaking an
Aristotelian--nor did he, like the modern Leibnitz, waste those
precious hours which might be employed in the invention of a
_fricassée_, or, _facili gradu_, the analysis of a sensation, in
frivolous attempts at reconciling the obstinate oils and waters of
ethical discussion. Not at all. Bon-Bon was Ionic. Bon-Bon was equally
Italic. He reasoned _a priori_. He reasoned also _a posteriori_. His
ideas were innate--or otherwise. He believed in George of Trebizond.
He believed in Bossarion. Bon-Bon was emphatically a--Bon-Bonist.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account