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.
1m>nt dans le jardin ; mais tu ne mangeras point de Varhré de la connoissance du bien et du mal, car au jour que tu en numgeras tu mourras <te mort. Ici îlyann Voile sur Moïse , et il faut avoir les jeujj per^ns pour voir Moïse 'en face : ce n'est pas sans motif que Dieu a permis que Moïse écrivit ainsi mystérieusement: iin":qti.'c:30-" • 23. Car. , qu'est-ce qu'il y avoitd'întéfê'ssarit pour Dieu dans la manduteation d'une pomm^^pour perdre une si belle créâlùt'é?'ll pardonne de bien plus grands péèhés. il a tellement aimé l'homn^e qu'il n'a pas épargné son propre fils , mais l'a laissé devenir homme , et l'a livré à la mort 1 ne pouvoit-il aonc pas pardonner un foible péché ? ou pourquoi permit-il que rhômme mangeât de ce fruit, puisqu'il sait toute chose? pourquoi laissa -t-il croître l'arbre de la connoissance du bien et du mal? 24. Voilà comment juge la raison : si Dieu ne l'avoit pas voulu , Adam n'anrôît^as mangé ainsi, ou il n'auroit pas mis une pareille défense sur cet arbre seulement 5 il l'a placé là comme un achopement pour lui. C'est ainsi que raisonne une partie; l'autre partie qui est un peu plus sage , sans l'être beaucoup , veut faire mieux , et dit : Dieu a tenté l'homme pour savoir s'il vivroit dans son obéissance ; et, lorsqu'il fut trouvé désobéissant , Dieu H jeté sur luinne forte colère, il l'a maudit jusqu'à; la mort , e. sa colère ne pouvoit point être appaisée qu'il ne fût ainsi réconcilié. Cette raison fait de Dieu un être sans miséricorde, comme un méchant homme de ce monde , qui sera cepen- «aut appa.se quan4 il se Aipt* ««« venrf ; et elle va tovteloi, aucune croissance de Dieu et 01) paradis.
2fe ciel «urou b^npu ^oug^r. Sous celte tenu^ion JIo.se a cache de grandes ç^^oses,, que /'ame noa éclairée ne comprend point. I>^ ^ .^^^oit point a la n,anducation d'une pomm^ ou d'une^poire pour punif wasi ufle si bellp préatHreil» punition, ^^^j^ pp,nt de sa niain , mai* de l'e^p^M du grand mo«l. Imjçns TOw.^O,du Uoisièn.epri,cipe. mt,,ptns^ bien wiséwordipusement à l'^d de l'homme • et le la,|sa devenir homme, afin qu'il pût de sou' veaM secourir l'homme. N'aie plu, .de sembUile. pensées : D.*u est l'amour et le biea; e« Ui il i,', a aucBp semimei^t de colè^, fltc'est l'homme luiV înpme quj s'est ^ s, punition , ei«. , comme ta le rjerias e» son lieu. ZaporU tficrè£0 de Iq tentatwn de Plwmme. Z6. Puisqu'ça ce «eu plusieurs questions sa présentent, (car l'ame d^ l'homme se retotirœ tou. ïours vers son pays natal, d'où ejje est émigrée , et clésire.de rentrer dan^ sa demeure pour y jouir da 1 éternel repos i) et ^ïu{m cela m'est accordé d«n« jna connoifisonce , je vais écrire sur la cause proionde de la chute ; là on pourra i^arder Moïse en lace ; loutelw «i lu es né de Die« , cela sera «f^ in^elIigiWe pour toi , m^s aucune ame non éclairée ne pourra saisir le but ; car l'ame doil éiré dàw sa propre maison , si elle venf voir ce qu'il y a dans là itiaisoiû.Bn effet, de |yarletpat dui-dité j et ne pas voir soî-rtiême , cela est tou* jours douter si les choses que l'on entend dire sont vraies ; mais ee que l'odil voit , et ce que l'esprit o<yâki(yit , ils le croîenfl patfaitémetitvcar ll4 rôtit
3^*ji L'èsptît cherehe ri^ànmoinspôui'qiifdl l'homnié à dé è\té ithiê , tatidis que cependant Dieu l'aVoii cï'éé parfait : Dieu sachant toiit, la faute retombé toujoufs sur Dieu. Le démon en fait autant , car l'esprit dit : S'il li'y àroît pas ëii d'arbre de la èciehcé 4u bien et du toal , Adaiii ne seroit point tombé. a8. O! ^tiie chérie, st tti tie connais rien de plus, ferme tes yeux fortement ^ et ne cherche pas; de*- meure dans là patience et -dans l'espérance, et laisSfe Dieu agir , autrement IMPtomberas dans uii gràtid trouble, et le démon' té^cotidùita dans ces doutes qu'il insinue toujours, que Dieu ait voulu le mal 5 qu'il »e voulolt point que tous les hommes fussent sauvés , et que c'est pour cela qu'il avoit fcréé l'arbre de là colère. A9. Ame chérie , écarte de semblables pensées , àuttement tu fois d'Utt Dieu «àint et aimant, unétre sans fliiséricorde et plein d'une volonté euiiômie. lî'aie poidt de Dieu de telles pensées , et considère toi t<^*mémG 5 et oe que «u es 5 lu trouveras en toî*. nêm^ l'arbre de la tèilti^tion , et aussi la Volonté ( .1^0 ) ^^' ÏOrl*où il â poussé. Oui , la spur<;e de cet te. végétation est en toi , et non en Dieu , eu ne parlant ici.que de te divi^té pure qui se œanifostç dap^ le second ' principe par le coeur de Dieu. Cela est ainsi, et nou autrement.
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.
1are in the garden; but thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death. Here there is a veil upon Moses, and one must have the eyes pierced to see Moses in the face: it is not without motive that God permitted Moses to write thus mysteriously: iin":qti.'c:30-" • 23. For, what was there of interest for God in the manducation of an apple, to lose so fair a creature? He pardons far greater sins. He has so loved man that he spared not his own son, but let him become man, and delivered him to death 1 could he not then pardon a feeble sin? or why did he permit that man should eat of this fruit, since he knows all things? why did he let grow the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? 24. Behold how reason judges: if God had not willed it, Adam would not have eaten thus, or he would not have set such a prohibition upon this tree only 5 he placed it there as a stumbling-block for him. Thus reasons one party; the other party which is a little wiser, without being much so, will do better, and says: God tempted man to know whether he would live in his obedience; and, when he was found disobedient, God cast upon him a strong anger, he cursed him unto death, and his anger could not be appeased unless he were thus reconciled. This reason makes of God a being without mercy, like a wicked man of this world, who will be never- «aut appeased whe4n he feels himself avenged; and it goes however, no growth of God and 01) paradise.
2the heaven might well have blushed. Under this temptation Moses has hidden great things, which the unenlightened soul comprehends not. God looked not to the manducation of an apple or of a pear to punish thus so fair a creature; the punishment came not from his hand, but from the spirit of the great world. Imagine it all of the third principle. He thought very mercifully upon the help of man, and let him become man, that he might anew succour man. Have no more such thoughts: God is the love and the good; and in him there is no sentiment of anger, and it is man himself who has made his own punishment, etc., as thou wilt see in its place. The secret0 gate of the temptation of man. Z6. Since in this place several questions present themselves, (for the soul of man turns itself always toward its native country, whence it is emigrated, and desires to re-enter into its dwelling to enjoy there 1the eternal repose;) and since this is granted me in my knowledge, I will write upon the profound cause of the fall; there one may look Moses in the face; however if thou art born of God, this will be intelligible for thee, but no unenlightened soul will be able to seize the aim; for the soul must be in its own house, if it will see what is in the house. In effect, to speak by hearsay, and not to see for oneself, that is always to doubt whether the things one hears said are true; but what the eye sees, and what the spirit knows, they believe it perfectly, for the4y are
3^*ji The spirit seeks nevertheless why man had to be tempted, whilst yet God had created him perfect: God knowing all, the fault falls always back upon God. The demon does as much, for the spirit says: If there had not been a tree of the science 4of good and evil, Adam would not have fallen. a8. O! dear soul, if thou knowest nothing more, close thine eyes strongly, and seek not; abide in patience and in hope, and let God act, otherwise thou wilt fall into a great trouble, and the demon will lead thee into those doubts which he always insinuates, that God has willed the evil 5 that he would not that all men should be saved, and that it is for that he had created the tree of anger. A9. Dear soul, put away such thoughts, otherwise thou makest of a holy and loving God, a being without mercy and full of an inimical will. Have not of God such thoughts, and consider thyself 5 and what thou art 5 thou wilt find in thyself the tree of the temptation, and also the will ( .1^0 ) ^^' ÏOrl*whence it has sprung. Yes, the source of this vegetation is in thee, and not in God, speaking here only of the pure divinity which manifests itself in the second principle by the heart of God. It is so, and not otherwise.
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.