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.
137. En effet , s'il n'y avoit pas une amé éternelle^ ©tt une hase éternelle affective d'où dérive Téternellè .volonté , il n'y auroit point de Dieu. Mais il y a upe éternelle a me ou base d'affection , qui engendre l'eterpelle volonté 5 l'éternelle volonté ehgend're l'éi ternel cœur de Dieu; le cœur engendré la lumière^ la lumière , la puissance ; la puissance , l'esprit ; et c'est là le tout puissant Dieu , qui est dans une liii commutable volonté. Car si Tame n'engendfoil point la volonté , la volonté aussi n'engendreroît point le coeur , et tout seroit un rien : mais si l'ame «rigendre la Volorité ') ïâ volonté , le coeur ; le cœur'^ la lumière ; la lumière , la puissance ; la puissance fespril 1^ alors l'esprit entendre de nouveau la base effective ^csLT il a là puissance, et la puissance est lé càbw 5 bt c'est là une alliance indissoluble. . 1 1 JLa profondeur. 38. Maintenant , Vois ; l'ame est dans les ténèbres j èïle rassemble son ardeur pour la lumière , afin de l'engendrer , autrement il n'y auroit aucune volonté et Aussi aucuae générà^on. Cette amè est dans l*anÎjôissé et dans le désir ; ce désir devient la volonfé ; a volonté embrasse là puissance) et la puisisance remplit l'ame. Ainsi le royaume àe Dieu existe dans la puissance qui est, i^. Dieu le père ; et la lumière transforme la puissance désirante en volonté. Le royaume esf , 2**,T)ieu le fils , car dans la pijissance ^ ( i64 ) €«• ï<>' la lumière esl engendrée de toute éternité. Et de la puissance dans la lumière sort , 3^ l'esprit saint qui engendre de nouveau dans Pâme ténébreuse , la volonté de l'éternelle essence.
239. Ainsi , vois , ame chérie, c'est là la divinité ; elle tient en soi le principe second ou médiane , c'est pourquoi Dieu n'est que bonté , qu'amour , lumière et puissance. Maintenant , considère que dans Dieu il n'y auroit pas éternellement , une telle sagesse et une telle science, si l'ame ou la base d'affection n'étoit pas dans les ténèbres. Car là, il y a angoisse dans la volonté pour engendrer ; or , l'angoisse est la qualité ou la propriété 5 la qualité ou la propriété est la jnultiplicilé ; elle produit l'esprit , et l'esprit à sou iouT fait la multiplicité. 40. Maintenant, chère ame , considère-toi en toi même , et en toute chose. Qu'y trouves-tu? Tu ne trouves rien que l'angoisse ; dans l'angoisse, la qualité ou la propriété 5 dans la qualité, Vaffection ; dans V affection ^\di volonté pour croître et engendrer; dan» la volonté , la puissance; dans la puissance , la lumière ; dans la lumière, son esprit multipliant et propageant qui , à son tour , forme la volonté d'engendrer une branche de l'arbre, semblable à lui j et ceci je l'appelle dans mon livre le centre, où la yolonté engendrée esl venue en une substance, et engendre à son tour une semblable substance ; car telle est la mère de la génératrice. 41. Or , l'angoisse a en soi , en possession , le premier principe. Comme elle demeure dans les ténèbres , elle est une autre essence que n'est l'es; CH. id. {^^)
3eence dans la lumière, où il n'y a que pur amour et douceur , et où on n'aperçoit aucun tourment ; et la qualité qui est engendrée dans le centre d9 la lumière, n'est plus maintenant qualité, maie l'éternelle sagesse et science de tout ce qui étoit dans l'angoisse avant la lumière. Cette sagesse et cette science vient maintenant toujours au secours de la volonté comprimée dans Tangoisse , et iait de nouveau en elle un centre pour la génération; de façon qu'ainsi , dans la qualité , s'engendre dé nouveau la croissance ou la puissance ; de la puissance , le feu ; du feu , l'esprit ; et l'esprit fait der nouveau , dans le feu , la puissance ; de sorte qu'ainsi il y a une indissoluble alliance. Or, da cette ame , ou de cette hase affective qui est dans les ténèbres , Dieu a engendré les anges , qui sont des flammes de feu , mais allumées par la lumière de Dieu j car c'est dans cette ame où un esprit peut être engendré, sans cela il resleroit dans le rien. Car , quant à soi , aucun esprit ne peut être engendré dans le cœur et la lumière de Dieu , attendu que c'est là la limite de la nature , et il n'a à hii aucune qualité ; c'est pourquoi il n'en sort rien de plus , et ce cœur demeure invariable dans l'éternité : il brille dans l'àme qui est de la qualité des ténèbres , et lès ténèbres ne peuvent pas le saisir. 42. Or , dans l'afifèclion angoisseuse des ténèbres n y a un tourment inexprimable, d'où dérive le nom de qualité, c'èst-à-dire , de plusieurs bouitbnuemens en une source; et , de ces mêmes bouil3 f x66 1 CH. 10» ■ ■ ■ • lonnemens ,, s'élèvent en un seul bouillonnement ,
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.
137. In effect, if there were not an eternal soul, or an eternal affective base whence the eternal will derives, there would be no God. But there is an eternal soul or base of affection, which begets the eternal will 5 the eternal will begets the eternal heart of God; the heart begets the light, the light, the power; the power, the spirit; and that is the almighty God, who is in an immutable will. For if the soul begot not the will, the will also would not beget the heart, and all would be a nothing: but if the soul begets the will, the will, the heart; the heart, the light; the light, the power; the power the spirit 1 then the spirit begets anew the effective base, for it has the power, and the power is the heart 5 and that is an indissoluble alliance. . 1 1 The profundity. 38. Now, see; the soul is in the darkness; it gathers its ardour for the light, in order to beget it, otherwise there would be no will and also no generation. This soul is in anguish and in desire; this desire becomes the will; the will embraces the power, and the power fills the soul. Thus the kingdom of God exists in the power which is, i^. God the father; and the light transforms the desiring power into will. The kingdom is, 2**, God the son, for in the power ( i64 ) €«• ï<>' the light is begotten from all eternity. And from the power in the light goes forth, 3^ the holy spirit which begets anew in the tenebrous soul, the will of the eternal essence.
239. Thus, see, dear soul, that is the divinity; it holds in itself the second or median principle, that is why God is but goodness, but love, light and power. Now, consider that in God there would not be eternally such a wisdom and such a science, if the soul or the base of affection were not in the darkness. For there, there is anguish in the will to beget; now, anguish is the quality or the property 5 the quality or the property is the multiplicity; it produces the spirit, and the spirit in its turn makes the multiplicity. 40. Now, dear soul, consider thyself in thyself, and in every thing. What findest thou there? Thou findest nothing but the anguish; in the anguish, the quality or the property 5 in the quality, the affection; in the affection, the will to grow and to beget; in the will, the power; in the power, the light; in the light, its multiplying and propagating spirit which, in its turn, forms the will to beget a branch of the tree, like unto itself; and this I call in my book the centre, where the begotten will is come into a substance, and begets in its turn a like substance; for such is the mother of the generatrix. 41. Now, the anguish has in itself, in possession, the first principle. As it dwells in the darkness, it is another essence than is the es- CH. id. {^^)
3sence in the light, where there is but pure love and sweetness, and where one perceives no torment; and the quality which is begotten in the centre o9f the light, is no longer now quality, but the eternal wisdom and science of all that was in the anguish before the light. This wisdom and this science comes now always to the succour of the will compressed in the anguish, and makes anew in it a centre for the generation; so that thus, in the quality, is begotten anew the growth or the power; from the power, the fire; from the fire, the spirit; and the spirit makes anew, in the fire, the power; so that thus there is an indissoluble alliance. Now, of this soul, or of this affective base which is in the darkness, God has begotten the angels, which are flames of fire, but kindled by the light of God; for it is in this soul that a spirit can be begotten, without which it would remain in the nothing. For, as to itself, no spirit can be begotten in the heart and the light of God, seeing that that is the limit of nature, and it has to itself no quality; that is why nothing more goes forth from it, and this heart remains invariable in eternity: it shines in the soul which is of the quality of the darkness, and the darkness cannot seize it. 42. Now, in the anguishing affection of the darkness there is an inexpressible torment, whence derives the name of quality, that is to say, of several boilings in one source; and, of these same boil3 f x66 1 CH. 10» ■ ■ ■ • ings, there rise in one single boiling,
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.