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.
1dans le centre, et l'ame est ainsi environnée de la divinité, et mange ou se nourrit àe Dieu ^ car elle est esprit. Ainsi , ma chère ame, si in es régénérée en Christ , alors tu te revêts du corps du Christ ou du saint élément 5 cet élément donne la nourriture et la boisson à ton nouveau corps ; et l'esprit de ce monde dans les quatre éléraens donne la nourriéure, à notre vieux corps terrestre. 12. Ainsi, pénètre ce sens profond : de même que le Christ a fait avec nous, dans le jardin d'Eden , une alliance par laquelle il devoit devenir un homme, ainsi que cela a été exposé ; de même aussi il a fait une alliance avec nous après qu'il a eu déposé son corps terrestre ; il nons a distribué son corps pour nourriture, son sang pour boisson , et Peau de l'éternelle vie dans Poriginelde la divinité, pour un saint baptême ; et il nous a recommandé d'en user jusqu'à ce qu'il revienne. i3. Maintenant tu dis : Qu'est-ce que le Christ a donné à ses disciples clans la dernière cène, lorsqu'il étoit à table avec eux? Vois, ladivinilé n'est pas saisibsable, et le saint corps du Christ n'est pas mesurable ; il est bien créaturel , mais non pas mesurable. Il leur a donné son saint corps céleste à manger et son sang céleste à boire , comme ses propres paroles l'exposent. ( Math. 26 : 26. 27. 28. ) i4. Dis-tu : Comment cela peut-il être ? Mais réponds-moi : Comment se peut-il que le saint élément se soit revêtu de ce monde , et ait un autre principe dans le corps de ce monde , et que le saint élément soit le corps céleste du Christ ? C'est aiuH ( *6a ) ' en. >3*
2que le Christ a donné à ses disciples le pain extérieur et le vin extérieur dans le royaume de ce monde ; eft sous ces substances^ il leur a donné et son saint corpa céleste dans un autre principe qui comprend l'extérieur ; et son saint sang céleste , dans lequel est la teinture céleste j et la vie sainte, i5. Ici la raison dit : C'étoit un corps étranger dans un sang étranger, et ce n'éloit point son propre corps créaturel du pur élément. Chère raison , dis-moi, comment cela peut-il être nn corps étranger? Il est bien dans un autre principe j mais non pas d'une autre créature. Christ ne dit-il pas : Je n« ^uia pas de ce monde ? et cependant selon l'homme extérieur il étoit aussi véritablement de ce monde* Ou bien eniends-^tu seulement cela de sa'divinilé? alors où est donc demeurée son éternelle humanité^ selon laquelle il étoit un roi de la promesse sur le trône de David ? 16. Si la promesse avoit pu npus acquitter , elle n'auroit pas eu besoin d'être suivie de l'œuvre. Alors Moïse auroit pu aussi introduire le peuple d'Israël dans la vraie terre promise-, cependant Josué , qui étoit une image de Jésus^Christ , ne pouvoit pas le faire non plus , mais il les a menés seulenient dans /)a terre des pajens , où il j avoit sans cesse des guerres et des combats , et qui o'étoit qu'une vallée de douleurs, 17. Mais ce Christ siège sur le trôiiQ de David 5 sur le trône de la promesse. C'est ainsi que David étoit un roi extérieur ; qu'il étoit , dans son esprit , unprophétç devant Diçu^qu'il siégea aussi exlériqure- «=»• ^^' ( 163 )
3ment comme un juge dans ce monde , et intérieurement comme un prêtre devant Dieu ; qui avoit prophétisé de ce Christ en annonçant qu'il devoit venir; et qui ordonna d'ouvrir toutes les portes , et d'élever en haut toutes les portes pour quele roi de gloire entrât: ainsi il ne parla pas seulement de sa divinité, de laquelle il prophélisoit, car elle étoit sans cela éternellement avec lui , et c'est dans cette même puissance et connoissance qu'il parloit ; mais il prophétisoit de sou éternelle humanité. Car ce n'eût pas été un vrai roi , s'il n'eut siégé là qu'en esprit j quo nous n'eussions pas pu le voir , et converser avec lui : mais c'est un roi qui siège là dans Thumanilé. iC. Enfin ce même roi a été promis par Dieu, pour qu'il pût s'emparer des portes de ses ennemis et emmener ses ennemis prisonniers : or, ses ennemis sont les démons. 19. Comment conçois-tu que cette même créature ait lié les démons dans Jérusalem, et que, comme une créature limitée, qui n'eût pas pu atteindre plus loiu , il les ait conduits prisonniers? qui donc les auroil liés à Rome ? Diras-tu : sa divinité ? O non , ce n'étoit pas là son office. Les démons , malgré cela, ne sont pas moins dans la plus intérieure racine du père , dans sa colère. Il n'y avoit qu^une créature qui prit le faire 5 et il falloit que cette créature fût si grande qu'elle fût par-tout près des démons. 20. C'est pourquoi le Christ dans sa tentation devoit soumettre le rojraume de la colère et de son extra-génération 5 et dans son entrée dans k mortil ( 264 ) CK. 23.
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.
1in the centre, and the soul is thus environed with the divinity, and eats or nourishes herself of God, for she is spirit. Thus, my dear soul, if thou art regenerated in Christ, then thou clothest thyself with the body of the Christ or with the holy element 5 this element gives the nourishment and the drink to thy new body; and the spirit of this world in the four elements gives the nourishment to our old terrestrial body. 12. Thus, penetrate this profound sense: even as the Christ made with us, in the garden of Eden, an alliance by which he was to become a man, according as that has been set forth; even so also he made an alliance with us after he had laid down his terrestrial body; he has distributed to us his body for nourishment, his blood for drink, and the water of the eternal life in the original of the divinity, for a holy baptism; and he has recommended to us to use it until he come again. i3. Now thou sayest: What is it that the Christ gave to his disciples in the last supper, when he was at table with them? See, the divinity is not seizable, and the holy body of the Christ is not measurable; it is indeed creatural, but not measurable. He gave them his holy celestial body to eat and his celestial blood to drink, as his own words set forth. ( Math. 26 : 26. 27. 28. ) i4. Sayest thou: How can that be? But answer me: How can it be that the holy element clothed itself with this world, and has another principle in the body of this world, and that the holy element is the celestial body of the Christ? It is thus ( *6a ) ' en. >3*
2that the Christ gave to his disciples the exterior bread and the exterior wine in the kingdom of this world; and under these substances he gave them both his holy celestial body in another principle which comprehends the exterior; and his holy celestial blood, in which is the celestial tincture; and the holy life, i5. Here the reason says: It was a strange body in a strange blood, and it was not his own creatural body of the pure element. Dear reason, tell me, how can that be a strange body? It is indeed in another principle; but not of another creature. Does not Christ say: I am not of this world? and nevertheless according to the exterior man he was also truly of this world. Or else understandest thou that only of his divinity? then where has his eternal humanity remained, according to which he was a king of the promise upon the throne of David? 16. If the promise could have acquitted us, it would not have had need to be followed by the work. Then Moses could also have introduced the people of Israel into the true promised land; nevertheless Joshua, who was an image of Jesus-Christ, could not do it either, but he led them only into the land of the pagans, where there were without ceasing wars and combats, and which was but a valley of sorrows, 17. But this Christ sits upon the throne of David 5 upon the throne of the promise. It is thus that David was an exterior king; that he was, in his spirit, a prophet before God, that he sat also exteriore- «=»• ^^' ( 163 )
3ly as a judge in this world, and interiorly as a priest before God; who had prophesied of this Christ in announcing that he was to come; and who ordained to open all the gates, and to lift up on high all the gates that the king of glory might enter: thus he spoke not only of his divinity, of which he prophesied, for she was without that eternally with him, and it is in this same power and knowledge that he spoke; but he prophesied of his eternal humanity. For it had not been a true king, if he had sat there only in spirit; that we could not have seen him, and conversed with him: but it is a king who sits there in the humanity. iC. Finally this same king has been promised by God, that he might seize upon the gates of his enemies and lead away his enemies prisoners: now, his enemies are the demons. 19. How conceivest thou that this same creature bound the demons in Jerusalem, and that, as a limited creature, which could not have reached farther, he led them prisoners? who then would have bound them at Rome? Wilt thou say: his divinity? O no, that was not his office. The demons, in spite of that, are none the less in the most interior root of the father, in his anger. There was but one creature that could do it 5 and it was necessary that this creature should be so great that it should be everywhere near the demons. 20. It is why the Christ in his temptation was to subdue the kingdom of the anger and of his extra-generation 5 and in his entry into death he ( 264 ) CK. 23.
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.