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.
1âe Farbre de la science du bien et du mal , it tiiouri^oit , etpériroitî, il lui rèprésentoit toujours qu'il n'était plus enfant de t)ieu , de la propre essence de Dieu , et créé du premier principe , Fbomme crut alors n'être plus absolument qu^un ét)fant Ùé Ce ïtlonde , puisqu'il voyoît éa corrupfitm , et en oUtrë l'image monstrueuse qu'il porloit atec lui. Aussi le discernement, l'attract et la joie paradisiaque l'abandonnèrent , d'autant que son esprit, avec toutes ses perfections, fuf chassé du patâdis (6'esi-à-diré , dû second principe de Dieu , dans lequel là lumière et le cœur de Dieu est engendfréd'éteïnîté en éféf nité, et où Téspril saint procède du père et du fiïs). D ne vécut plus seulement delà parole de DieU, c'est-à-dire, de et dans la sainte génération divine , mais il mangea et but , c'est-àdire , que la génération de sa vie n'exista plus que clans !e troisième principe ou dans le règne des étoiles f et des élémens. Il devoit désormais manger et vivre de la fôifce et du fruit de ce même principe Ou de ce même règne. Alors il conjectura que t'en étoit taii de lui , que la noble image de Dieu étoit brisée , le démon lui montrant en même tems sa corruption et sa mortalité ; et en efïet il ne pouVoit rîen voir autre croisé puisqu'il éfoit sorti du l^radis, c'est-à-dire, de la sainte, impérissable génération divine , dans laquelle il étoit le fils et là jiiàinte image de Dieu , et dans lac^uellè Dieu l'avoit créé pour y demeùter éternellement ; et si Ta*- înôur miséricordieux de Dieu ne l'avoit entrevu dé ùouveàii et consolé dans leceûtfe de la génération Ml { 32 ) fe. 4, 6e sa vie y il auroit cru qu'il avoit été séparé dm toute éternilé de l'éternel engendrement divii^ § qu'il n'étoit plus en Dieu , ni Dieu en lui j qu'il n'étoit plus de son essence.
25. Mais le très gratieux amour , ou le fils unique du père (ou, conime je puis l'exposera l'intelligence , la cinquième source d'où est engendrée l'éternelle lumière de Dieu ) s'éleva et fleurit de nouveau dans Adam ^ dans le centre de la généray tion de sa vie , dans la cinquième forme de son */»- gendrement. Alors Adam reconnut qu'il n'étoit point séparé de la racine divine , mais qu'il étoit encore enfant de Dieu , et il se repentit de son premier mauvais al tract. Sur quoi le seigneur lui montra le briseur de serpent qui devoit briser sa génération monstrueuse, et il devoit par les propriétés, formes, puissances, Givertus de ce même briseur de serpent et r«- staurateurà^XsL génération monstrueuse , être engendré de nouveau; être rétabli avec puissance dans le paradis , dans la génération sainte j manger de nouveau du verbe de Dieu , et vivre éternellement au-dessuaet en dépit des portes de la colère dans lesquelles vit ledémon, etc. ce dont il sera traité plus amplement en son lieu. 6. Cher lecteur , remarque ceci et penses j bien. jNe te laisse égarer par aucun défaut d'attention. L'auteur n'est rien de plus qu'un autre ; il ne sait ni ne peut rien de plus ; il n'a pas une plus grande puissance que les autres enfans de Dieu. Seulement considère-toi ; pourquoi penses-tu terrestrement de toi? pourquoi laissesrlu le démon se moqueç ^. e". 4- ( 33 ) de toi , comme si tu n'étois pas enfant de Dieu, <?«- faut de sa propre essence? ne te laisse point jouer par le monde comme si tu n'étois qu'une image figurative , et que tu ne fusses pas né de Dieu.
37. Ta forme monstrueuse n'est pas Dieu, ni de son essence. Mais Tliomme caché qui est l'ame ( en tant que l'amour s'é\h\e dans la lumière de Dieu dans tou centre), est la propre essence de Dieu, où l'esprit saint s'élève , et ou demeure le second principe de Dieu. Comment ne voudrois-tu donc pas avoir la faculté de parler de Dieu , qui est ton père , de l'essence de qui tu es toi-même ? Regarde : ce monde est certainement de Dieu. Et si la lumière de Dieu est dans toi , elle est donc aussi à toi, selon qu'il est écrit: Le père a toutdonnè au fils i et le fiU te Va donné. Le père est la puissance éternelle , et le fils est son cœur et sa lumière, demeurant éternellement dans le père , et tu demeures dans le père et le fils. Or , si l'esprit saint procède du père et du fils , et si l'éternelle puis- *ance du père est en toi , et si l'éternelle lumière dm fils brille en toi , pourquoi te laisse-tu jouer? ne saistu pas ce que dit St.-Paul ? iVba« cheminons dans U ciel d*oà nous attendons le sauveur Jésus-Christ ^ quilors du brisement du troisième principe de ce monde, nous fera passer de cette monstrueuse génération et image dans la génération paradisiaque pour manger du verbe du Seigneur. 8. Pourquoi laisses -tu donc l'antecbrist te jouer avec ses préceptes , et son babil ? où veux-tu aller cbercherDieu?Dans l'abîme au-dessus des étoiles ?, L 3 - ( 34 ) CH. 4.
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.
1of the tree of the science of good and evil, he would die, and would perish, he represented to him always that he was no longer child of God, of the own essence of God, and created of the first principle. Man believed then that he was absolutely nothing more than a child of this world, since he saw his corruption, and moreover the monstrous image he bore with him. Also the discernment, the attraction and the paradisiac joy abandoned him, the more so as his spirit, with all its perfections, was driven from paradise (6that is to say, from the second principle of God, wherein the light and the heart of God is begotten from eternity to eternity, and where the holy spirit proceeds from the father and from the son). He no longer lived only of the word of God, that is to say, of and in the holy divine generation, but he ate and drank, that is to say, that the generation of his life no longer existed save in the third principle or in the reign of the stars and of the elements. He must henceforth eat and live of the force and of the fruit of that same principle or of that same reign. Then he conjectured that it was all over with him, that the noble image of God was broken, the demon showing him at the same time his corruption and his mortality; and in effect he could see nothing else, since he was gone out of paradise, that is to say, of the holy, imperishable divine generation, wherein he was the son and the holy image of God, and wherein God had created him to dwell there eternally; and if the merciful love of God had not glimpsed him anew and consoled him in the centre of the generation Ml { 32 ) fe. 4, 6of his life, he would have believed that he had been separated from all eternity from the eternal divine begetting, that he was no longer in God, nor God in him; that he was no longer of his essence.
25. But the most gracious love, or the only son of the father ( or, as I may set it forth to the intelligence, the fifth source whence is begotten the eternal light of God ) rose and flowered anew in Adam, in the centre of the generation of his life, in the fifth form of his begetting. Then Adam recognised that he was not separated from the divine root, but that he was still child of God, and he repented of his first bad attraction. Whereupon the lord showed him the bruiser of the serpent who was to bruise his monstrous generation, and he was to be, by the properties, forms, powers, and virtues of that same bruiser of the serpent and restorer of the monstrous generation, begotten anew; be re-established with power in paradise, in the holy generation; eat anew of the verb of God, and live eternally above and in spite of the gates of the anger wherein the demon lives, etc., whereof it shall be treated more amply in its place. 6. Dear reader, remark this and think well upon it. Let thyself be led astray by no want of attention. The author is nothing more than another; he knows nor can do anything more; he has no greater power than the other children of God. Only consider thyself; why dost thou think terrestrially of thyself? why dost thou let the demon mock ^. e". 4- ( 33 ) thee, as if thou wert not child of God, and of his own essence? let thyself not be played with by the world as if thou wert but a figurative image, and wert not born of God.
37. Thy monstrous form is not God, nor of his essence. But the hidden man who is the soul ( inasmuch as love rises in the light of God in thy centre ), is the own essence of God, where the holy spirit rises, and where the second principle of God dwells. How then wouldst thou not have the faculty of speaking of God, who is thy father, of whose essence thou art thyself? Look: this world is certainly of God. And if the light of God is in thee, it is then also thine, according as it is written: The father has given all to the son, and the son has given it thee. The father is the eternal power, and the son is his heart and his light, dwelling eternally in the father, and thou dwellest in the father and the son. Now, if the holy spirit proceeds from the father and from the son, and if the eternal power of the father is in thee, and if the eternal light of the son shines in thee, why dost thou let thyself be played with? knowest thou not what St. Paul says? We walk in the heaven whence we await the saviour Jesus Christ, who at the breaking of the third principle of this world will make us pass from this monstrous generation and image into the paradisiac generation to eat of the verb of the Lord. 8. Why dost thou then let the antichrist play with thee with his precepts, and his babble? where wilt thou go to seek God? In the abyss above the stars? L 3 - ( 34 ) CH. 4.
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.