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.
13. Or , lorsque Dieu a créé ce monde et tout ce qu'il contient, il n'a eu aucune autre substance, d'oïl il pût le construire , que sa propre essence sortie de lui-même. Mais Dieu est un esprit qui est insaisissable , qui n'a ni commencement ni fin -, son immensité et sa profondeur constituent et sont tout. Or , un esprit ne fait que s'épanouir , bouillonner , se mouvoir , et s'engendrer toujours luimême , et il a particulièrement trois formes dam sa génération ; savoir : i^ l'amer , 2*». l'astringent , et 3**. le cbaud ; et cependant de ces trois formes , 4iucune n'est la première , la seconde ou la troisième ; toutes les trois ne font qu'une forme , et chacune engendre la seconde et la troisième : car , entre l'astringent et l'amer , s'engendre le feu 5 Fâpreté du feu est l'araertumé,ou l'aiguillon même, et l'ash-ingent est la souche ou le père de l'un et de l'autre, et est néanmoins engendré d'eux, car ua esprit est comme une volonté ou une pensée qui l'élève , et qui , dans sa propre ascension , s« cherche, s'imprègne et s'engendre. ♦, Ctt. r. ( 3 )
24. Mais la langue de l'homme ne peut rîen diro sur ceci, ni rien porter à l'inrelligence , car Dieu n'a aucun commencement. Je veux cependant poser les choses comme s'il avoit eu un commencement, afin qu'on puisse comprendre ce qu'il est dans le premier principe , et que l'on conçoive aussi la différence du premier et du second principe , et ce qu'est Dieu ou l'esprit. Il n'y a réellement aucune différence en Dieu ; seulement quand on cherche d'où vient le mal ou le bien , on doit savoir ce que c'est que la première et originelle source de la colère, ainsi que de l'amour, puisqu'ils sont l'une et l'autre de la même origine , de la même mère , et ne sont qu'une chose. Nous parlons d'une manière créaturelle, comme s'il y avoit eu un commencement , afin que cela puisse par-» venir à l'intelligence. 5. Car on ne peut pas dire que dans Dieii il y ait du feu , de l'amer, ou de l'astringent, encore moins de l'air , de l'eau , ou de la terre ; seulement on voit que cela est venu de lui. On ne peut pas dire non plus que dans Dieu il y ait de la mort , ou du feu infernal , ou de la tristesse ; seulement on sait que cela est venu de lui ; car Dieu n'a engendré de soi aucun démon , mais des anges dans la joie , vivant pour sts délices. Mais on voit qu'ils sont devenus démons , et en outre ennemis de Dieu. Ainsi on doit chercher la source et la cause d'où provient cette première substance du mal ; et cela dans la génération de Dieu , aussi bien que dans les créatures ; car tout cela est un dans l'origine, et tout ( 4 ) » »' a été fait de Bîeu , de ^on essence selon le ternaire 5 comme étant un seul en essence et triplo en personnes.
36. Voyez. Il y a particulièrement trois choses dans l'origine -, et de ces trois choses sont provenus l'esprit et la vie, le mouvement et la [ saisissabililé]^ ce sont le souffre , le mercure, et le sel. Vous me direz que ces choses sont dans la nature , et non dans Dieu. Vous avpz raison. Mais la nature a son fondement dans Dieu ( entendez selon le premier principe du père ) , car Dieu s'appelle aussi un Dieu jaloux et sévère. Ce n'est pas à dire que Dieu s'aigrisse en lui-même, mais dans l'esprit de la créature qui s'enflamme •, alors Dieu brûle là, intérieurement, dans son premier principe , et l'espiil de la créature souffre de la peine , et non pas Dieu. 7. Maintenant voici l'origine du souffre , du mercure et du sel , pour parler créât urellement. [ Car le sent de l'auteur est ici tout esprit. Voyez dans V Aurore Naissante^ ch.8. n^.Sy. ma note sur la langue de la na* ture,'\ Sul est l'ame; ou l'esprit s'élevant; ou bien Dieu dans l'image. Phur est la première matière ou substance d'où l'esprit est engendré , particulièrement l'astringence. Mercure a en soi une quadruple forme: l'astringent , l'amer , le feu , l'eau. Le sel est le fils que ces quatre engendrent ; il est astringent , âpre , et une cause de la [saisissabilité.] 8. Or, concevez bien ce que j'expose. L'astringent, l'amer , le leu sont dans l'origine, dans le premier principe ; la source d'eau est engendrée en eux 5 et selon le premier principe, Pieu ne s'appelle pas CH. 1 . ( 5 ) Dieu , mais sévérité, âpreté, source colérique, d'o5 s'engendrent le mal , la douleur, le frémissement et Venjlammement.
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.
13. Now, when God created this world and all it contains, he had no other substance, whence he might construct it, than his own essence issued from himself. But God is a spirit who is unseizable, who has neither beginning nor end; his immensity and his depth constitute and are all. Now, a spirit does but open out, boil up, move itself, and beget itself always; and it has particularly three forms in its generation; to wit: i^ the bitter, 2*». the astringent, and 3**. the hot; and nevertheless of those three forms, 4none is the first, the second or the third; all three make but one form, and each begets the second and the third: for, between the astringent and the bitter, the fire is begotten 5 the harshness of the fire is the bitterness, or the sting itself, and the astringent is the stock or the father of the one and of the other, and is nevertheless begotten of them; for a spirit is like a will or a thought which raises it, and which, in its own ascension, seeks itself, impregnates itself and begets itself. ♦, Ctt. r. ( 3 )
24. But the tongue of man can say nothing upon this, nor bring anything to the intelligence, for God has no beginning. I will nevertheless set the things down as if he had had a beginning, in order that one may comprehend what he is in the first principle, and that one may conceive also the difference of the first and of the second principle, and what God or the spirit is. There is really no difference in God; only when one seeks whence comes the evil or the good, one must know what the first and original source of anger is, as well as of love, since they are both of the same origin, of the same mother, and are but one thing. We speak in a creaturely manner, as if there had been a beginning, in order that it may come to the intelligence. 5. For one cannot say that in God there is fire, bitterness, or astringency, still less air, water, or earth; only one sees that that came from him. Nor can one say either that in God there is death, or infernal fire, or sadness; only one knows that that came from him; for God has begotten of himself no demon, but angels in joy, living for his delights. But one sees that they are become demons, and moreover enemies of God. Thus one must seek the source and the cause whence proceeds that first substance of the evil; and that in the generation of God, as well as in the creatures; for all that is one in the origin, and all ( 4 ) » »' was made of God, of his essence according to the ternary 5 as being one alone in essence and triple in persons.
36. See. There are particularly three things in the origin; and of those three things have proceeded the spirit and the life, the movement and the [ seizability ]: they are the sulphur, the mercury, and the salt. You will tell me that these things are in nature, and not in God. You are right. But nature has its foundation in God ( understand according to the first principle of the father ), for God is called also a jealous and severe God. That is not to say that God embitters himself in himself, but in the spirit of the creature which inflames itself; then God burns there, interiorly, in his first principle, and the spirit of the creature suffers the pain, and not God. 7. Now here is the origin of the sulphur, of the mercury and of the salt, to speak creaturely. [ For the sense of the author is here all spirit. See in the Aurora Nascent, ch.8. n°.Sy. my note upon the language of nature. ] Sul is the soul; or the spirit raising itself; or else God in the image. Phur is the first matter or substance whence the spirit is begotten, particularly the astringency. Mercury has in itself a quadruple form: the astringent, the bitter, the fire, the water. The salt is the son which those four beget; it is astringent, harsh, and a cause of the [seizability.] 8. Now, conceive well what I set forth. The astringent, the bitter, the fire are in the origin, in the first principle; the source of water is begotten in them 5 and according to the first principle, God is not called CH. 1 . ( 5 ) God, but severity, harshness, choleric source, whence5 are begotten the evil, the pain, the shuddering and the inflaming.
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.