A Little Dr. Auguste-Edouard Chauvet Sampler: ‘L’Esotérisme de la Genèse’- A Contextual Introduction

Portrait of Dr. Auguste-Edouard Chauvet, a.k.a. ‘Dr Saïr‘

A picture in Robert Amadou’s publication,

‘Le Graal en Compagnie au XXe siècle.’ Cariscript 1987.

*

Today’s sharing from the Blue House of Via-HYGEIA is the first of a planned few in memory of Doctor Auguste-Edouard Chauvet, a.k.a. Dr ‘Saïr’ (1863-1946). He was a French physician and esotericist, deeply involved in various mystical and initiatory movements of his time and who authored a multi-volume work (4+1), ‘L’Esotérisme de la Genèse’, privately published in 1946 and 1947 by the ‘Société des Journaux et Publications du Centre‘ in Limoges, and finally by ‘SIPUCO’ (Signaler-Publier-Communiquer) in Paris in 1948.

This remarkable study of many years of meditation and intense work offers an esoteric interpretation of the first ten chapters of the Sepher Bereshith (Book of Genesis). After the below contextual introduction which set the frame and program of Dr. Chauvet’s lengthy visionary endeavor, we will share, in forthcoming samplers, excerpts of volume I-II-III and IV and of the appendiceal 5th volume.

**

What follows is a Contextual

Introduction in 4 Parts

*

Part 1-‘The Friends of  Saint-Yves’

*

*

*

Involvement with the Martinist Order

Dr. Chauvet was a member of the supreme Council of the the Martinist Order, a Christian initiatory society rooted in the mystical teachings of Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, ‘revitalized‘ (or created) in 1891 with the formation of a Supreme Council. This Council was led by prominent figures such as Gérard Encausse (Papus) its founder, and included members like Augustin Chaboseau, Stanislas de Guaita, Lucien Chamuel,  Yvon Le Loup-a.k.a. ‘Paul Sédir‘, Paul Adam, Maurice Barrès, Julien Lejay, Georges Montière, Albert Faucheux-a.k.a. ‘François-Charles Barlet‘, Jacques Burget. and Joséphin Péladan. It should be noted that Barrès and Péladan resigned fairly quickly, replaced by ‘Marc Haven‘ (Doctor Emmanuel Lalande, Monsieur Philippe’s son-in-law) and Victor-Émile Michelet.

‘Le Voile d’Isis’ Magazine

‘Le Voile d’Isis’ was a significant esoteric magazine associated with the Martinist tradition. It underwent several series and fortunately still exist today. The magazine served as a platform for discussions on esoteric traditions and teachings. Dr. Chauvet’s contributions to ‘Le Voile d’Isis’, as an active member of the Martinist community played an invaluable role.

Preservation of Saint-Yves d’Alveydre’s Legacy

Dr. Chauvet was a close associate and personal physician of the French occultist Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre. He played a crucial role in preserving Saint-Yves’s legacy, particularly concerning the unfinished work “L’Archéomètre.” After Saint-Yves’s death in 1909, a group known as the ‘ Les Amis de Saint-Yves‘  (Friends of Saint-Yves d’Alveydre) was formed to publish and disseminate his esoteric teachings. This group, under the direction of Papus (Gérard Encausse), published ‘l’Archéomètre’ in 1913 with Parisian renown esoteric publisher, Librairie Dorbon-aîné, presenting it as a comprehensive synthesis of ancient religious and scientific knowledge. Through Dr. Chauvet’s dedication with his friends, the teachings and works of influential figures like Saint-Yves d’Alveydre were preserved and propagated for future generations.

*

Part 2- Robert Amadou’s Teacher.

Around Dr. SAÏR, Homage to
Dr. Auguste-Edouard Chauvet

He was my master; he never ceased to be. We owe him — though this may hardly be known — for having revealed the hidden and true meaning, no less real than the literal one, of the first ten chapters of Genesis.

Man, his life, and his work are the subject of a forthcoming book; reprints are also planned. At the heart of it, unquestionably, is the Word of God and the Hebrew language finally and truly restored, through the providential and reverent use of grammar.

Esotericism of Genesis: a theogony, a cosmogony, an anthropogony, with its politics — all unveiled through the means of a sacred philology: in short, the entirety of Tradition.

Particular themes emerge along with other aspects of Chauvet’s thought and work: Martinism (in which he bore the nomen Saïr), Neoplatonism, Synarchy, and he knew better than anyone this very singular instrument of a universal science: the Archéomètre.

His heart kept watch, Saint-Yves d’Alveydre awakened his intelligence, his spirit walked with Christ; a friend of mankind and, in the sense of Alain (1), the true man, he rose and made the future; like the Christian according to the Gospel, he walked toward the Kingdom of God, cultivating its mysteries. It is my duty, and my joy, to work in service of his memory and above all to make his efforts fruitful, according to his wish, and with the collaboration of my friend Franck Villard (2), his grandson.

For a year, Dr. Auguste-Édouard Chauvet dedicated himself to the idea of a society of initiation-‘The Grail Society‘, formed by his most worthy friend, Dr. Octave Béliard (3); he adhered to it with all his heart, with wisdom and without doggedness. The episode in which he played his part deserves to be recounted—especially as it involves other remarkable figures—and it ideally connects with other analogous efforts, particularly that of an orthodox gnostic and that of the theosophical poet. It is an unknown episode of Christian esotericism in the 20th century. Unknown — and higher.

(Source: From ‘Le Graal en Compagnie au XXe siècle.’ Cariscript 1987, pages 81 and 82).

Notes 

Note 1: Alain was the pseudonym of Émile-Auguste Chartier (1868–1951), a French philosopher, essayist, and teacher renowned for his clear, concise prose and moral rigor. Deeply influenced by classical philosophy and the French Enlightenment, Alain emphasized individual responsibility, civic virtue, and inner freedom. Though not a mystic, he had a profound sense of ethical idealism and spiritual dignity. In calling Chauvet ‘a true man according to Alain‘ Robert Amadou evokes this ideal of a morally upright, intellectually disciplined individual—one who thinks freely, acts justly, and remains inwardly sovereign regardless of circumstance.

Note 2: Franck Villard was the grandson of Dr. Auguste-Édouard Chauvet and, according to Robert Amadou, a key collaborator in preserving and continuing his grandfather’s legacy. Villard was a devoted inheritor of the esoteric and philological mission that Chauvet undertook, particularly concerning the hidden meanings of the Hebrew language and sacred texts. His contribution, even if more familial and supportive than doctrinal, represents the faithful transmission of a spiritual lineage—one that honors both memory and mystery.

Note 3: Octave Béliard (1858–1936) was a French writer, journalist, and esoteric thinker with strong ties to the Martinist movement and the wider Symbolist and occultist circles of his time. A friend of Dr. Chauvet, he was deeply engaged in spiritual and initiatory endeavors, including the conception of esoteric societies aimed at the inner regeneration of individuals. His work often blended mysticism, literature, and Christian esotericism, echoing the currents of Saint-Yves d’Alveydre and Louis Claude de Saint-Martin. Béliard’s discreet yet impactful role in early 20th-century esotericism makes him a quietly important figure in the hidden history of the French spiritual revival.

*

Robert Amadou, authored ‘De la Langue Hébraïque Restituée à l’Esotérisme de la Genèse‘, which discusses in depth Dr. Chauvet’s work in relation to Antoine Fabre d’Olivet’s earlier studies on the Hebrew language and Genesis altogether with Saint-Yves d’Alveydre’s endeavors, as a faithful duty of memory to set the records straight for posterity about these remarkable visionary men.

*

*

Part 3-Abbé Eugène Bertaud,

a. k. a. ‘Jean Saïridès.’-the faithful disciple

*

Jean Saïridès’

Foreword to Volume I 

*

“There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.”
— Saint Mark, IV, 22

For a long time, tradition has been preserved—at least in initiatic circles—that certain passages of the Bible, and in particular the first ten chapters of Genesis, contain several superimposed meanings, certainly two and perhaps even three, according to some teachings. It is undoubtedly true that in ancient sanctuaries—Egyptian temples especially—a double teaching was given: one for the vulgar masses of the profane, and the other secret, reserved for the initiates alone, which contained esoteric truth.

Raised in the sacred temples of Memphis, Moses, who is affirmed to be a former priest of Osiris, was initiated into this science. ‘The Acts of the Apostles‘, Ch. VII, expressly tell us: ‘Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in words and in deeds.’

He knew the value of numbers, the letters of the sacred alphabet, and the cryptographic art that would later allow him to veil his teachings. As Éliphas Lévi wrote: ‘The first ten chapters of Genesis are written in a secret language, and their true meaning is hidden from all but initiates.’

It is very likely that Moses received, alongside the written Law of the Pentateuch, a secret oral teaching—the so-called Secret Doctrine—that was not taught in the outer courts of the Temple (1), but was only revealed in the Sanctuaries. This was the origin of the Kabbalah, and the ZOHAR itself.

This doctrine of esoteric Genesis was not rejected by Christ either. On the contrary, we see in the Gospels that He categorically affirms it, when He says in Saint Luke, Ch. VIII, 10 and Saint Matthew, XIII, 11 and 14:

‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to others I speak in parables only so that seeing, they may not see, and hearing, they may not understand.’ In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive…’— and Saint Mark, IV, 12, further tells us the same: ‘Christ speaks to the crowds in parables–so that seeing, they may see and not perceive; hearing, they may hear and not understand, lest they should be converted and their sins forgiven them‘.

It seems quite difficult to admit that Christ would pronounce such words. Some critics believe that the Greek negation ‘ουχ‘, which appears in the first manuscript copies, would mean: ‘I speak to them in symbols so they do not understand, out of fear that they might be converted and have their sins forgiven.’ (This is the ancient esoteric doctrine that has been misunderstood…)

For his part, Saint Paul, the great Initiate, declares: ‘I myself, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal men, as to little children in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with solid food, for you were not able to bear it, nor even now are you able.‘— 1 Corinthians, III, 1 to 3.

And again, in Hebrews, V, 12 to 14, this ‘solid food‘ is called the ‘hidden Wisdom of God‘ — 1 Corinthians, II, 6. This is what he calls the ‘epignosis‘, the higher knowledge, in his Epistles — Colossians, I, 10; 2 Timothy, III, 7 — to clearly distinguish it from ordinary ‘gnosis‘, or simple knowledge.

Elsewhere, in 2 Corinthians, III, 14–15, he says that the veil thrown by Moses over the Old Testament is only lifted in Christ, and that it will be removed ‘when the heart turns to the Lord. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’

— Saint Denis the Areopagite would later say that there existed two levels of theological doctrine: one hidden and reserved, the other more widely known (Epistles, IX and II).

Saint Clement of Alexandria declared: ‘Do not throw your pearls before the eyes of all.’ (‘Stromateis‘, Book I, chap. X and XIII) and Saint Irenaeus also tells us: ‘There are, in Christianity, mysteries too elevated for the common people, and one does not deliver perfect knowledge to those still in need of milk.’— (‘Against Heresies’, Book III, chap. 25).

Is this not precisely what we call ‘Disciplina arcani‘, the discipline of secrecy of the early centuries, before the loss of esotericism?

Just as Christ spoke in parables to the crowds and reserved the secret of the Kingdom of God for those called to know it, so too did Saint Paul offer only milk to the carnal and kept solid food for the spiritual senses. Moses, faithful to the millennia-old tradition of the Egyptian sanctuaries, in the essentially dogmatic passages of Genesis, also offered a double teaching: one exoteric, the meaning for the outer world, and the other esoteric, reserved for initiates of the Sanctuary — the latter being hidden under the first and written according to a sacred and secret cryptography, based on the ideographic and hieroglyphic sense of Hebrew letters.

And it is the great merit of Dr. Chauvet that, after long research and with the benefit of prior attempts by less fortunate pioneers, he succeeded in reconstructing this sacred cryptography and restoring the hidden value of the Hebrew letters, reestablishing their ancient symbolic sense that is embedded in the open text. Despite some uncertainties, and a few inevitable oversights in such a task, it seems to us that his work, solid and scientific despite its boldness, is of immense significance.

Is it not, at the very least, one of the most troubling and pragmatic contributions—one might say, without a play on words—that, thanks to this rediscovered cryptography, he reveals to us its secrets and the rules outlined in the introduction to his work—that throughout the first ten chapters of Genesis, without the slightest distortion and without any fanciful interpretive acrobatics, he managed to establish a consistent meaning that aligns perfectly with the sacred Judeo-Christian tradition.

And isn’t this, indeed, a kind of singular counter-proof, the fact that this “success” proves impossible in non-initiatic passages that do not carry a double meaning? Is it not fair to say, in this case, that the author has, according to the traditional expression, truly ‘found the key to the Temple‘?

The esoteric translation by Dr. Chauvet, as thus restored, is perfectly logical and coherent. It brings a special clarity to the science of Moses, ‘trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians‘, strangely in agreement with the most up-to-date findings of modern science; and, furthermore, it removes the implausibilities and contradictions of the text—contradictions that have always troubled translators and commentators of these chapters in Genesis.

Without delving too deeply, let us just mention, for example, the making of man by God from a lump of clay, into which the breath of life is blown; or the making of woman from a rib taken from Adam’s body during his sleep… There is no mention of a soul for her—which would already be enough to highlight a few of the many difficulties.

In the first chapter of Genesis, we see God create the plants and seed-bearing trees on the third day, even before the sun appears on the fourth, and man does not appear until the sixth day, whereas at the beginning of the second chapter, the open text tells us there were no shrubs or plants on the earth, and that no rain had yet fallen because Jehovah had not yet caused it to rain and ‘there was no man to till the ground’. And it is only afterward, with the creation of man, that this second chapter begins.

‘He caused trees to grow that were pleasing to the eye and good for food‘. It is man and woman whom He creates jointly on the sixth day: “male and female He created them.”

But in the second chapter, He makes them separately. In Chapter VI, we see the new generations of men: ‘When the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair…’ Who, then, are these sons of God? Angels? How can one justify this, according to the open text of Genesis?

Cain, cursed, after murdering Abel, is cast out from the land of his fathers and says: ‘I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me‘. How can this fear be justified, if, according to the open text of Genesis, there were only Adam, Eve, and their children? Were there other human beings on the earth? And if so, where did they come from?

And how, under such circumstances, could Cain take a wife on the earth or in the land to which he withdrew? And finally, do we not see God resting, on the seventh day, from the work He had created in order to make it? (quod creavit UT FACERET…)

Here, we find the essential distinction, overlooked by all translators and which Dr. Chauvet brings to light with care, between the two Hebrew words Bara and Ghashoah, which Moses used deliberately.

Bara means to create, in the theological sense of the term, and Ghashoah means simply to carry out, to effect, to realize. Thus, the creation of the world happened in two distinct phases:

First, the WORD of God created in the invisible world the effectual substances, the Elohim, to whom He would later communicate His creative plan, as well as the Principles and Substances (including the celestial souls intended to serve), and the primordial Adam and the Nachash (the serpent of Genesis), also created by God to carry out (ghashoah)—in accordance with the celestial laws (Shamaïm)—the World of the Sensible Universe, at the time appointed by Providence.

This realization of the Sensible Universe, moreover—strange though it may seem—will be recounted to us in esoteric form, under the guise of the fable of the Flood. For just as Noah will be, as a Prince of a new cosmogony, the one who will take the place of the Nachash, accursed and fallen, he will be the implementer, under the control of the Elohim and in accordance with the celestial laws established by the Creator.

It is no longer necessary, in order to give a complete idea of Dr. Chauvet’s work, to add more than what his many knowledgeable commentators have already said: that it is a substantial work which appears to be a true Summa of the entire ancient esoteric tradition—an authentic Judeo-Christian gnosis. It is a work, we believe, that comes at the right moment in an age too drawn to superficial sensationalism, an age where the ‘conspiracy of silence‘ has not yet managed to stifle the truth, and that now calls for a new great awakening—not only within the Christian world as a whole, but also within the higher world itself.

And now, on the eve of the great departure, trusting in Providence—which has undoubtedly aided the difficult completion of this work—we say with all our hearts: “A Dieu-va!” (Godspeed!) Jean Saïridès, January 1946.

*

Above Foreword’s Note:

(1) Certain Fathers of the Church believed in the oral transmission, from Moses, of the Mysteries of the Law. Saint Hilary in fact says: ‘There was already among the Jews, in every synagogue, a group of seventy elders called ‘Doctores’; the same Moses, although he committed the words of the Old Testament to writing, nevertheless entrusted certain separate and occult mysteries of the Law to seventy elders, who kept them in secret, declaring themselves to be the interpreters of Moses’ doctrine; and the Lord Himself refers to them in the Gospels, saying: ‘They have sat upon the seat of Moses’,’ etc. (In ‘Tractatus super Psalmos‘-II). This secret doctrine that Moses is said to have received was partly of Egyptian origin, and partly from direct revelation on Mount Sinai.

It must be added that a group of ‘Doctores’ was established in every synagogue; for, says Maimonides, even though Moses wrote the words of the Old Testament, he nevertheless transmitted, without writing them, the Mysteries of the Law to seventy elders, so they would become ‘Doctores’. The Lord Himself mentions them in the Gospels, when He says: ‘The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses‘ seat’, etc. (Quoted by Paul Vulliaud, in La Kabbale Juive, Vol. I, p. 180).

*

Part 4-From Dr. Chauvet’s own words,

from Page 15 to 17

‘…We are aware that the word “esotericism” alone — especially in religious circles — is enough to arouse all suspicions: often legitimate suspicions, we must acknowledge. From the Talmuds, in fact, to Theosophy and contemporary Occultism, passing through Neoplatonic Mysticism, the Gnosis, Jewish and Christian Kabbalah — what doctrines, more or less strange, has it not served to cover? What unjustified usage has it not endured? That being said — no one can deny it — from the most ancient times, it has existed, and this teaching constituted one of the higher degrees of initiation into the Mysteries. That it may have had, throughout time, varying degrees of value is not for us to claim — and we shall show, on the contrary, that it was not always so.

In any case, concerning the first ten chapters of the Book of Genesis (Bereshith Rabbah), opening with the Pentateuch itself, we can affirm that their profound, direct meaning — their truly literal sense — is esoteric, and not the one offered by the common translations and interpretations that are often derived (as we will explain) from the deliberately materialized version known as the Septuagint.

For the time being, it will suffice to assume the reality of biblical esotericism, since the following work is a demonstration of its existence: a demonstration based on the analytical study of the literal terms and signs used in composing these ten chapters — entirely written in a double mode: eso-exoteric.

We do not claim (let this be clearly understood) to be the first to have attempted this demonstration. At least three men, just within our own country, preceded us on this path:

Antoine Fabre d’Olivet, Pierre Lacour & Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre.

All had the intuition that beneath the literal meaning of Genesis lay another, traditional sense. And if our method of research, different from the ones they employed, has led us to results very different from those they themselves arrived at, it is only just, on our part, to acknowledge that their works — at least as concerns the first and the last — have often been useful to us.

There is no doubt regarding Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, that deeply Christian man who wished to be for us not only a teacher, but a friend — for it was he who opened the path for us and guided our first steps. We are happy to pay homage to his venerated memory, the respectful and grateful tribute that we owe him.

We will say nothing of Pierre Lacour, who, imbued with encyclopedic ideas and certainly sharing those of Dupuis, makes of Genesis — in his book “Elohim or the Gods of Moses” published in 1835 in Bordeaux— a mere cosmological allegory, without ever suspecting its magnificent initiatic value.

Antoine Fabre d’Olivet was the first among the critics to attempt to re-establish the true meaning of Bereshith — a meaning he claimed to reveal in his 1816 work ‘La Langue hébraïque Restituée’ (‘Hebrew Language Restored‘).

Unfortunately, unable to free himself from his preconceived philosophical theories, he always strove to make his interpretation of the Book of Moses conform to his own ideas. This led him into inextricable difficulties and caused him to fall into serious errors — errors which we shall have more than enough opportunity to observe.

In short, if Fabre d’Olivet missed the true esoteric meaning of Genesis, it was, on the one hand, due to his ignorance of authentic Tradition and, on the other hand, due to his deep attachment to the Theosophical doctrine — one heavily influenced by Oriental elements and fundamentally pantheistic.

With the adherents of that school, he made “Unity in itself” a purely metaphysical principle. He may have valued it for the sake of the Ternary, but it no longer bore any essential relation to it. It can no longer manifest or truly exist except under the veil of individual appearances — which is clear evidence of his pantheism. Indeed, his translation of the word Elohim as Lui, les dieux (‘He, the gods‘) confirms this inclination, as does — even more so — his inevitable slide toward polytheism, which marked the final phase of his life.

In reality, though he implies that he possessed an initiation — a claim that is at least questionable — Fabre d’Olivet has no starting point or foundation for his translation. Like all his predecessors and successors, he acknowledges (as we ourselves do) that only the Septuagint version, elevated even to the status of scripture, holds any figurative meaning, but not the esoteric meaning properly speaking.

Furthermore, even the most recent discoveries of Champollion misled him concerning the origin of the sacred Language he was studying. He saw only the mysterious language of the Egyptian temple priests. In this — as we will see when we speak of the primordial language — he mingled elements of truth with a good deal of error.

For while it is possible to draw connections between many roots of that language and those of Hebrew (we ourselves will point this out), it must be seen as a kind of adaptation, comparable to the link between Hebrew and, for instance, Assyrian (which is unsurprising, given the common origin of the two languages), but also — and more curiously — with Sanskrit, as well as the Celtic-Nordic languages derived from Vedism.

All of this shows how, in studies of this kind, it is essential to break free from all preconceived ideas and remain loyal to the meaning that emerges from the text itself — even when this meaning contradicts what is commonly accepted (when it isn’t already contradictory in itself) and even from that which, a priori, one thought or hoped to find.

Above all, let us be careful not to fall into simple phonetic analogies, which are not only without value, but often lead to the worst interpretive errors.

For Saint-Yves, it was a different matter. A profoundly Christian man, deeply convinced of the truth of what he called the Judeo-Christian tradition, he devoted his life and his high intelligence to adapting the social state of humanity to this tradition — as his various ‘Missions’ attest.

Nevertheless, and even though he strongly rejected it — and perhaps even believed himself free of it — he had too deeply absorbed, in his youth, the influence of Fabre d’Olivet’s ideas to fully erase it.

Furthermore, paradoxical as it may seem, despite being endowed with a prodigious intuitive power, he always mistrusted that very intuition — which, ironically, was his strength — and in seeking to subject his intuitive faculty to the strict control of reason, he often troubled or weakened his revelatory visions. For, as a poet and musician — more a musician than a poet — his imperious sense of number always dominated him and pushed him to seek, through the numerical value of letters, the esoteric sense of sacred books. This path, borrowed from the Kabbalah, led him into that same Kabbalah his reason had him reject and fight, yet which he paradoxically continued to pursue (and which, let us note, still contains curious contradictions even within the highest intelligences), as he embraced its most illusory avenues of inquiry.

Also, the few fragments of scriptural translation he left behind — written in the form he borrowed from Fabre d’Olivet and which he called mystical and eulomorphe — are they not, at most, poetic paraphrases rather than a true esoteric rendering of the Bible? These fragments, collected and edited after his death by his disciples, are included in the volume titled ‘La Théogonie des Patriarches‘. They include translations of the first chapter of the Gospel of Saint John, the first chapter of Genesis, and finally, the Temptation and Fall of Man in the third chapter of the same book. (A Via-hygeia note: ‘The Theogony of the Patriarchs‘ was published in the 1913 Dorbon-aîné edition of  ‘l’Archéomètre‘).

Is this to say his work has no value? Far from us be such a thought! On the contrary, we are assured that this work — particularly in its social aspect (however misunderstood or little known it may be) — deserves to be ranked among the highest honors of human thought.

His only mistake (and what genius hasn’t made one?) was to try to support — through unsuitable means — the revelations of his intuitive power, a power fully sufficient in itself, which allowed him to predict — more than ten years before 1914 — with true prophetic vision, the tightening grip of America on Europe, as an inevitable consequence of a hypocritical international policy that fosters both internal and external hatreds, and which has already caused (despite the terrible lessons of the world war) a further tearing apart of the peoples of our unfortunate continent.’

*

Source

*

*

Coming soon

A Little Dr. Auguste-Edouard Chauvet Sampler:

A Selection From ‘L’Esotérisme de la Genèse’- From Volume I

***