Fetching
One moment.
Eleven books by a shoemaker of Görlitz who wrote, by his own account, because he could not help it. Ten of them stand here in the seventeenth-century English of John Sparrow, who translated Boehme within a generation of his death and whose prose is itself now four hundred years old; where that English has drifted out of reach, the facing pane carries a modern register — the same text with archaic inflection and spelling normalised by rule, never paraphrased. Nothing is reworded, and where no register appears beside a passage it is because the rules found nothing to change.
The eleventh book is not in English at all, and it is the reason this note exists.
Des trois principes de l'essence divine, printed at Paris in 1802, is the same work as Concerning the Three Principles of the Divine Essence, which stands here as the second book — the same twenty-seven chapters in the same order, opening `Du premier principe de l'essence divine` against Sparrow's `Of the first Principle of the Divine Essence`. Its translator was Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, who gave the last years of his life to putting Boehme into French, and who has a shelf of his own in this Lycaeum.
That makes a closed circuit inside this archive, and it is worth naming plainly. Saint-Martin translates Boehme. La Iniciación, printed in Montevideo a hundred and forty years later, traces its own descent through Saint-Martin. A reader can therefore follow one thread from a German mystic of 1619, through the French philosopher who carried him into another language, to a Spanish-language monthly of the 1940s that claimed them both — and read every step of it in the original.
The two are shelved as one work rather than two because that is what they are. They are not set as facing panes: an English translation of 1619 and a French translation of 1802 are two independent readings of a lost German original, and pairing them line by line would assert a correspondence neither translator ever claimed.
1puîssaïîôe fait ou permet. Par la sjllabe tu , entendez le froissement de' l'aiguillon, ou le non-repos qui n*est pas ami de l'aslringence , *mais qui bouillonne et s'élève; car la syllabe passe avec force du cœur à la bouche. C'est ainsi que cela a lieu dans l'esprit , dans la puissance de la première matière 9 ou substance. Mais comme la syllabe eu a ainsi une forte impression du cœur , et est cependant aussitôt saisie par la syllabe ri , dans celle-ci toute la significalion est changée ; elle signifie et est la roue amère et piquante dans la génération , et qui s'en* goisse et tourne aussi vite que la pensée. La syllabe U8 est le prompt éclair de feu , de façon que la matière ou la substance, dans le rapide tournoiement entre l'astringence et l'araerlume, s'enflamme eb devient une roue rapide. Là, on entend très particu-* lièrement dans le mot , comment l'astringence s'effraie I et comment la puissance dans le mot se précipite du cœur en arrière , et devient entièrement atténuée et sans force. Mais l'aiguillon, par le moyen de la roue tournante, demeure dans l'éclair, et sort par la bouche , au travers des dents ; car là l'esprit siffle comme un feu allumé^ et se corrobore de nouveau en mot , en se reportant en arrière. i4. Ces quatre formes sont dans l'origine de la nature. C'est de là que vient la mobilité , ainsi que la vie dans la semence, dans toutes les créatures. Et il n'y a d'autre [ saisissabilité ] dans l'origine , que cette puissance et cet esprit. Car c'est une puissance vénéneuse et ennemie ^ et cela doit être ainsi , eu. r. ( 9 ) autrement il n'y^^auroit aucune mobilité, et tout (seroit) un rien. La source colérique ou âpre est la première origine de la nature. t
2i5. N'entendez point du tout par ceci le mercure dans le troisième principe de ce monde créé , que l'on emploie dans les pharmacies , quoiqu'il ait aussi cette puissance, et qu'il tienne de cette essence. Mais il faut entendre le mercure qui est dans le premier principe , dès l'origine de l'essence de toutes les essences, ou dans le premier principe de Dieu^ et de la nature éternelle et sans commencement d'où la nature de ce monde est engendrée. Toutefois entre l'une et l'autre , il n'y a dans l'origine aucune autre séparation que le troisième et plus extérieur principe. Le royaume sj'dérique et élémentaire est né du premier principe, de l'éternel père , du saint ciel par la parole et l'esprit de Dieu, C w) il CHAPITRE DEUXI-EME. Du premier et deuxième principe , ce qu'est? Dieu et la nalute ; avec un plus grand éclaircissement sur le soufiÙre et le mercure. r PursQTJ'it faut «ne lumière divine poav comprendre ces choses , el que ^am elle ou n'a. aucune intelligence de la divine essence , je vai* représenter , d'une manière créaturelle , quelque» parties de ces hauts secrets , afin que le lecteur entr* dans les profondeurs. Car il n'y a point de langue qui puisse exprimer l'être divin. Ce qui peut seul \» saisir, c'est le spiraculum i.i/a? , l'fesprit de l'ame qui voit dans la lumière de Dieu ; attendu que nulle créature en peut porter sa connoissance el sa vue plus loin que dans sa mère, de laquelle elle est originairement venue.
3a. L'ame qui lire son origine du premier principe de Dieu , et qui a été soufflée par Dieu en l'homme , dans le troisième principe , dans li génération sydérique et élémentaire , voit à son tour , dans le premier principe de Dieu , d'où , et dans qui elle est , et dont elle est l'essence et la propriété; et il to'y a rien d'étonnant j car, elle ne fait que se voir elle-même , dans l'expansion de son engendremeni , et là , elle voit toute la profondeur de Dieu le père, datos le premier principe. cm. % ( " ) 3. Or, les démolis savent cela également el I« voyent ; car , ils sont aussi du premier parincipe de Dieu , qui est la soiu-ce de l'originelle nature de Bien. Ils Toudraieut toutefois ne le pas voir et ne le pas sentir ; ils sost seuls la cause que l'on ait fermé pour eux le second principe qui s'appelle et est Dieu , unique en essence , el triple en distinct tlon personnelle , coBune cela sera clairement représenté par la suite. 4. Mais l'ame de l'homme , éclairée par l'eaW prit saint de Dieu ( lequel esprit passe du père et du fils dans le second principe , dans le saint ciel , €« dans ta vraie nature divine qui s'appelle Dieu > entendez l'esprit saint ) , cette ame voit aussi dans la lumière de Dieu dans ce même second principe ée k sainte et divine génération , dans l'essence céleste. Mais l'esprit sydérique dans lequel l'amo est emprisonnée , et l'esprit élémentaire qui a la iotirce el l'impulsion du sang , ne voient pas plus loin l'un et l'autre que dans leur mère y de kfcquella ils viennent et dans laquelle ils vivent.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
1power does or permits. By the syllable cu, understand the bruising of the sting, or the non-repose which is not friend of the astringency, but which boils up and rises; for the syllable passes with force from the heart to the mouth. It is thus that that takes place in the spirit, in the power of the first matter 9 or substance. But as the syllable cu has thus a strong impression from the heart, and is nevertheless at once seized by the syllable ri, in this last the whole signification is changed; it signifies and is the bitter and pricking wheel in the generation, which anguishes itself and turns as fast as thought. The syllable U8 is the prompt flash of fire, so that the matter or the substance, in the rapid whirling between the astringency and the bitterness, inflames itself and becomes a rapid wheel. There, one hears very particularly in the word how the astringency is affrighted! and how the power in the word precipitates itself backward from the heart, and becomes entirely attenuated and without force. But the sting, by means of the turning wheel, remains in the flash, and issues by the mouth, through the teeth; for there the spirit hisses like a kindled fire, and corroborates itself anew into word, in carrying itself backward. i4. These four forms are in the origin of nature. It is thence that comes the mobility, as well as the life in the seed, in all the creatures. And there is no other [ seizability ] in the origin than that power and that spirit. For it is a venomous and inimical power, and that must be so, eu. r. ( 9 ) otherwise there would be no mobility, and all (would be) a nothing. The choleric or harsh source is the first origin of nature. t
2i5. Understand not at all by this the mercury in the third principle of this created world, which is employed in the pharmacies, although it has also that power, and holds of that essence. But there must be understood the mercury which is in the first principle, from the origin of the essence of all essences, or in the first principle of God, and of the eternal nature without beginning whence the nature of this world is begotten. Nevertheless between the one and the other, there is in the origin no other separation than the third and most exterior principle. The sidereal and elementary kingdom is born of the first principle, of the eternal father, of the holy heaven by the word and the spirit of God, C w) il CHAPTER THE SECOND. Of the first and second principle, what God and nature are; with a greater clearing-up upon the sulphur and the mercury. r SINCE a divine light is needed to comprehend these things, and since without it one has no intelligence of the divine essence, I am going to represent, in a creaturely manner, some parts of these high secrets, in order that the reader may enter into the depths. For there is no tongue which can express the divine being. What alone can seize it is the spiraculum vitæ, the spirit of the soul which sees in the light of God; seeing that no creature can carry its knowledge and its sight further than into its mother, from which it is originally come.
3a. The soul which draws its origin from the first principle of God, and which was breathed by God into man, in the third principle, in the sidereal and elementary generation, sees in its turn, in the first principle of God, whence, and in whom it is, and whereof it is the essence and the property; and there is nothing astonishing in that; for, it does but see itself, in the expansion of its begetting, and there, it sees all the depth of God the father, in the first principle. cm. % ( " ) 3. Now, the demons know that equally and see it; for, they are also of the first principle of God, which is the source of the original nature of God. They would nevertheless not see it and not feel it; they alone are the cause that the second principle has been closed for them, which is called and is God, one in essence, and triple in personal distinction, as that shall be clearly represented in the sequel. 4. But the soul of man, enlightened by the holy spirit of God ( which spirit passes from the father and from the son into the second principle, into the holy heaven, and into the true divine nature which is called God, understand the holy spirit ), that soul sees also in the light of God in that same second principle of the holy and divine generation, in the celestial essence. But the sidereal spirit wherein the soul is imprisoned, and the elementary spirit which has the source and the impulsion of the blood, see no further the one and the other than into their mother, from which they come and wherein they live.
Our translation, period-faithful. Citable as our translation, never as the source.
Saint-Martin's French rendering of Boehme's 'Von den drei Principien göttlichen Wesens'. The same work stands in this estate in English as boehme:2. The title page also advertises 'L'Aurore naissante, du même Auteur' from the same booksellers — Saint-Martin's translation of the Aurora, whose English counterpart the estate holds as boehme:1. Reading the two versions against each other shows what a Martinist made of a German shoemaker's theosophy.
→ boehme:2
This work carries, in the author's own voice, both a set of hostile comparisons drawn against named peoples and an explicit refusal of any such boundary, and the Press publishes both rather than either alone. At Ch.25 §85 he calls the Jews blind; at Ch.17 §106 he warns of a coming visitation of the Jews and the Turks; and at Ch.26 §32-33, asked whence the Turks are grown, he answers "From thy perverted sense" — laying the rise of Mahomet at the door of christian pride and disputation. Against these stands Ch.25 §72, which opens the grace with no boundary at all: all men are invited to it, of whatever race, "whether Turks, Jews, Pagans, Christians", and no one is excluded. The same chapter that indicts turns the indictment inward at §105-106 — each believes not to dwell in Babel, and the author includes himself — and §33 concludes that God should be as near the one as the other. The contradiction is the author's, it is not resolved by him, and removing either half would misrepresent the work. Operator ruling, 2026-08-29.
This work carries, in the author's own voice, both a set of hostile comparisons drawn against named peoples and an explicit refusal of any such boundary, and the Press publishes both rather than either alone. At Ch.25 §85 he calls the Jews blind; at Ch.17 §106 he warns of a coming visitation of the Jews and the Turks; and at Ch.26 §32-33, asked whence the Turks are grown, he answers "From thy perverted sense" — laying the rise of Mahomet at the door of christian pride and disputation. Against these stands Ch.25 §72, which opens the grace with no boundary at all: all men are invited to it, of whatever race, "whether Turks, Jews, Pagans, Christians", and no one is excluded. The same chapter that indicts turns the indictment inward at §105-106 — each believes not to dwell in Babel, and the author includes himself — and §33 concludes that God should be as near the one as the other. The contradiction is the author's, it is not resolved by him, and removing either half would misrepresent the work. Operator ruling, 2026-08-29.
This work carries, in the author's own voice, both a set of hostile comparisons drawn against named peoples and an explicit refusal of any such boundary, and the Press publishes both rather than either alone. At Ch.25 §85 he calls the Jews blind; at Ch.17 §106 he warns of a coming visitation of the Jews and the Turks; and at Ch.26 §32-33, asked whence the Turks are grown, he answers "From thy perverted sense" — laying the rise of Mahomet at the door of christian pride and disputation. Against these stands Ch.25 §72, which opens the grace with no boundary at all: all men are invited to it, of whatever race, "whether Turks, Jews, Pagans, Christians", and no one is excluded. The same chapter that indicts turns the indictment inward at §105-106 — each believes not to dwell in Babel, and the author includes himself — and §33 concludes that God should be as near the one as the other. The contradiction is the author's, it is not resolved by him, and removing either half would misrepresent the work. Operator ruling, 2026-08-29.