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.
14. Car , c^efit comme lorsque Dieu dit à la matrice de la terre : Que toutes sortes cT animaux soient pro^ duits. Alors le fiât créa des animaux de toutes les essences , et subdivisa d'abord la matrice , et ensuite les essences et qualités ; après quoi, il créa de la matrice subdivisée , un mâle et sa femelle ; mais comme les créatures étoient matérielles , ainsi chaque espèce devoit aussi se perpétuersoi-mêine de chaque essence ; au lieu qu'il n'en est pas ainsi des anges , mais ils avoient été produits a l'instant , comme le sont les pensées de Dieu. 5. Mais c'est ici le fondement. Chaque qualité ou essence dans la source vouloit exister créaturellement j l'essence ignée s'éleva trop puissamment , et Lucifer a conçu là-dedans , sa volonté ; il en a été de même d'Adam, avec l'arbre de la tentation , comme cela est écrit : Et Dieu laissa croître toutes sortes d'arbres dans le jardin d'Eden, et au milieu , l'arbre de la vie , et de la connoissance du bien et du mal. 6. Mpïse dit : Dieu laissa croître du jardin , toute espèce d'arbres beaux à la vue , et bons à manger. Ôr , ici est le voile en Moïse , et cependant dans la' parole il est nettement et claireméhl manifesté' qu'il y avoit des fruits beaux à voir j et bonis à manger, dans lesquels il n^y avoit ni mort , ni colère , ni corruption } mais des fruits paradisiaques, dont Adam pouvoit vivre éternellement dans la splendeur et la volonté de Dieu , dans son amour et sa perfection: la mort existoit seulement dans l'ar- ]>re de la connoissance du brén et du mal , qui saul 'Ai prn ( t74 ) CH. TT.'
2pouvoît introduire Phonome dans une autre image. 7. Or, notre pensée voit clairement que le fruit paradisiaque qui éloit bon , n'est point ainsi devenu totalement terrestre , puisque Moïse dit aussi qu'ils étoient de deux espèces : une , bonne à manger , et agréable à voir ; et l'autre , portant la mort et la corruption. Dans les fruits paradisiaques il n'y avoît ni mort ni corruption j toutefois , si la mort avoit été en eux , Adam auroit mangé de la mort dans tous les fruits ; mais comme il n'y avoit point de mort en eux , leur fruit ne pouvoit aussi également être terrestre ; quoiqu'il crût de la terre , cependant la puissance divine du second principe y étoit représentée ; néanmoins il croissoit réellement de la terre dans le troisième principe, laquelle,.^tfrr# Dieu maudit après la manducalion terrestre j pour que le fruit paradisiaque ne crût plus de la terre. 8 De plus si Adam avoit dû manger du fruit terrestre, il auroit dû manger dans son corps, et avoir eu des boyaux. Or , une puanteur comme celle que nous , portons maintenant dans notre çprps ^ pouvoit-elle subsister dans le paradis , danéla' sâîateté de Dieu ? £n outre , par la manducation ter* i .''..■ . ' , ; ■• ' ' restre il auroit niatisé du fruit des étoiles et des èlémens , qui , aussitôt auroit, ingualifié en lui , comme^ cela est arrivé (dans la chuté , et il n'eût plus été redouté de tous les animaux. Car , aussitôt l'essence anir^ale se seroit assimilée dans sa puissance à. l'essence humaifie) e^t la plus forte auroit dominé VafH\Te. [Faute J^fi« let^xtç;(ru\\j^otfr CEainte.| 9. C'est pourquoi, U cn^j^}^ di'uae i^ulrçj^orl!^ tu. iT. C 175 )
3avec Adam. Il a été un homme célesle et paradisiaque, et ildevoit aussi manger du fruit céleste et paradisiaque, et , dans cette puissance , dominer sur tous les animaux , aussi bien qne sur les étoiles et les élémens. Aucune froidure ni chaleur ne devoit le toucher , autrement Dieu lui auroit donné aussi une peau grossière comme aux autres animaux , et il n'àuroit pas ainsi été ^nud. ^ 10. Maintenant, :on se demandé : Pourquoi donc l'arbre terrestre de la connoisskncp du bien et du mal a-t-il poussé? S'il n'avoit pas été là , Adam n'en auroit pas mangé. Ou bien : Pourquoi Adam a-t-il été tenté ? Ecoute , demande à ce sujet à ta base affective , pourquoi dans toi , une pensée dé colère se conçoit et s'engendre aussi promptement qu'une pensée d'amour. Diras-tu qu'elle vient de ce que tu entends et de ce que tu vois ? Cela est vrai' ; Dieu le savoit bien aussi, c'est pourquoi il falloit^ qu'Adam fût éprouvé , car le centre 'de l'affectioa est libre, et engendre la volonté diaprés l'ouie etlà vue , d'où résultent l'imagination et l'attract. II. Puisqu'Adam fut créé une image et une en-' tière' similitude de Dieu, et qu'il avoit en soi les trois principes cbmtilb Dieu lui-même, alors sa base affective et s6n imagination dévoient voir entièrement dans le cœur de Dieu , et y placer son attract et sa volonté : et comme il étoît uti souverain sur toutes choses , et que son ame étoit un triple esprit , en trois principes, en un'seul être , de même aussi son esprit ou la volonté en son esprit , devoit rester' manifeste en une seule essence -, savoir : l'essence ( I?^ ) CB. Il céleste et paradisiaque ; sa base affective et son ame dévoient se nourrir du cœur de Dieu 3 et soncorps,do ]a puissance du limbes céleste.
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.
14. For, it is as when God said to the matrix of the earth: Let all sorts of animals be produced. Then the fiat created animals of all the essences, and subdivided first the matrix, and then the essences and qualities; after which, it created from the subdivided matrix, a male and his female; but as the creatures were material, so each species was also to perpetuate itself of each essence; whereas it is not so with the angels, but they had been produced in the instant, as are the thoughts of God. 5. But here is the foundation. Each quality or essence in the source would exist creaturally; the fiery essence rose too powerfully, and Lucifer has conceived therein, his will; it has been the same with Adam, with the tree of the temptation, as this is written: And God let grow all sorts of trees in the garden of Eden, and in the midst, the tree of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil. 6. Moses saith: God let grow from the garden, every species of trees fair to the sight, and good to eat. Now, here is the veil in Moses, and nevertheless in the word it is plainly and clearly manifested that there were fruits fair to see and good to eat, in which there was neither death, nor anger, nor corruption; but paradisiacal fruits, whereof Adam could live eternally in the splendour and the will of God, in his love and his perfection: the death existed only in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which alone 'Ai prn ( t74 ) CH. TT.'
2could introduce man into another image. 7. Now, our thought sees clearly that the paradisiacal fruit which was good, is not thus become totally terrestrial, since Moses says also that they were of two species: one, good to eat, and agreeable to see; and the other, bearing death and corruption. In the paradisiacal fruits there was neither death nor corruption; nevertheless, if death had been in them, Adam would have eaten of death in all the fruits; but as there was no death in them, their fruit could also not equally be terrestrial; although it grew from the earth, nevertheless the divine power of the second principle was represented therein; nevertheless it grew really from the earth in the third principle, which God cursed after the terrestrial manducation, so that the paradisiacal fruit should grow no more from the earth. 8 Moreover if Adam had had to eat of the terrestrial fruit, he would have had to eat in his body, and to have had bowels. Now, a stench like that which we now bear in our body, could it subsist in paradise, in the holiness of God? Besides, by the terrestrial manduca- i .''..■ . ' , ; ■• ' ' tion he would have eaten of the fruit of the stars and of the elements, which, at once would have inqualified in him, as this happened in the fall, and he would no more have been dreaded by all the animals. For, at once the animal essence would have assimilated itself in its power to the human essence, and the stronger would have ruled the other. Fault in the te^xtç;(ru\\j^otfr CEainte.| 9. That is why, he created of another sort tu. iT. C 175 )
3with Adam. He has been a celestial and paradisiacal man, and he was also to eat of the celestial and paradisiacal fruit, and, in this power, to rule over all the animals, as well as over the stars and the elements. No cold nor heat was to touch him, otherwise God would have given him also a gross skin as to the other animals, and he would not thus have been naked. ^ 10. Now, one asks: Why then did the terrestrial tree of the knowledge of good and evil grow? If it had not been there, Adam would not have eaten of it. Or else: Why was Adam tempted? Hear, ask upon this subject of thy affective base, why in thee, a thought of anger conceives and begets itself as promptly as a thought of love. Wilt thou say that it comes from what thou hearest and from what thou seest? That is true; God knew it well also, that is why it was needful that Adam should be proved, for the centre of the affection is free, and begets the will after the hearing and the sight, whence result the imagination and the attract. II. Since Adam was created an image and an entire similitude of God, and that he had in himself the three principles as God himself, then his affective base and hi6s imagination were to see entirely into the heart of God, and to place there his attract and his will: and as he was a sovereign over all things, and his soul was a triple spirit, in three principles, in one single being, so also his spirit or the will in his spirit, was to remain manifest in one single essence; to wit: the essence ( I?^ ) CB. Il celestial and paradisiacal; his affective base and his soul were to nourish themselves of the heart of God 3 and his body, of the power of the celestial limbus.
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.