Book Reviews / ARIES .

 () – 

Dave Evans, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado
Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, The Left Hand Path, Blasphemy
and Magical Morality, n.p.: Hidden Publishing .  pp. ISBN -
.

Although Aleister Crowley has become the icon of modern ritual magic and
occultism, magic did not end with his death in . While approximately
a dozen books have been devoted to Crowley, surprisingly little has been
written about his legacy in contemporary occultism. His impact on later cur-
rents such as contemporary witchcraft, Satanism, and various pagan groups
has often been mentioned, but vast areas still remain uncharted, from Chaos
Magic and cyber paganism to the recent history of the Ordo Templi Orien-
tis, the Golden Dawn, and Crowley’s A...A.... The result is that a relatively
broad range of contemporary western esotericism remains essentially unstud-
ied.
Dave Evans’ History of British Magic after Crowley is thus a welcome con-
tribution, because it patches some of these substantial holes in current schol-
arship. The book is a slightly edited version of Evans’ Ph.D. dissertation in
History, prepared at Bristol University under the supervision of the specialist
of witchcraft and paganism, Ronald Hutton. No stranger to scholars of mod-
ern magic, Evans has previously published a short e-book on Aleister Crowley
(Aleister Crowley and the th Century Synthesis of Magick, ) which has
been recently released as a paperback by Hidden Publishing, and may be read
as a prequel to the book under discussion here. Evans is also a founding editor
of the Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, which was established in Bristol
in  and has acquired a wide readership since.
While the focus of the book may seem at first very broad (many would
be surprised how much has happened in the development of modern ritual
magic after Crowley’s death), it is actually quite specific. Four main top-
ics are addressed: ) Kenneth Grant, one of Crowley’s later pupils, head of
the “Typhonian” branch of the O.T.O. and a prolific writer in the field of
occultism; ) The imposturous “Amado Crowley”, who has claimed to be the
son of Aleister and the leader of a huge following of occult students (who do not
seem to exist outside of his books); ) Aspects of the anarchic “Chaos Magic”,
which blossomed in Britain starting in the s; ) The so-called “Left-Hand
Path”.
The book also does much to contextualise modern magic with respect to
public discourses on morality and blasphemy in the British post-war era, which
is another largely neglected focus in the scholarly literature.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,  DOI: 10.1163/156798910X520638
 Book Reviews / ARIES . () –

In addition to shedding new light on neglected esoteric currents, which

makes for an interesting, rewarding, and sometimes very amusing read, the
book also has an ambition to talk about some cornerstone methodological
issues in the study of contemporary magic and occultism. This is where it gets
more problematic. But even though this reviewer is not convinced by Evans’
approach at all times, it can hardly be denied that he does raise some important
questions and make certain valuable points that should be considered. This
makes it all the more important to deal with them in some detail.
One important issue which the author is keen to take up is the “insider /
outsider problem” and questions of emic and etic approaches. Methodolog-
ical problems of this variety have been thoroughly debated in departments,
journals, and books in religious studies over the last couple of decades, and
have also been imported into the scholarly discourse on esotericism. Notably,
Wouter Hanegraaff has insisted on a balanced position between “reductionist”
and “religionist” approaches under the banner of an “empirical” or “method-
ologically agnostic” method.
Dave Evans, on the other hand, does not want to deny being both a scholar
and a practicing magician. Hence, the discussion on academic reflexivity and
the insider / outsider problem reads as an apologetic prologue to the actual
research. In addition to mentioning the issue in the preface, acknowledge-
ments, and in various anecdotes scattered throughout the book, the section
entitled “Reflexivity: Magician-As-Academic” (pp. –) is specifically de-
voted to the topic. The author’s argument is that the very notion of scholars
“going native” is ‘derogatory’ and rests on presuppositions which are ‘massively
racist’; essentially, it is seen as a strategy of exclusion inherited from colonialist
biases. In contrast, Evans argues that an insider’s view may provide ‘a nuanced
understanding that is simply beyond the outsider’ (p. ). Evans elaborates fur-
ther, arguing that a somewhat intimate knowledge of various magical systems
and theories can be an indispensable resource to scholarship. Sharing a frame of
reference with one’s subjects leads to a feeling of community and trust, which
in turn opens up possibilities for the researcher to access sources that would
otherwise be out of reach. Specifically, this relates to participant observation,
interviews, and other forms of fieldwork.
Evans’ own study proves that this point indeed has merit. The extensive
use of primary sources which few have access to, combined with an often
detailed and reliable understanding of the magical theories and practices being
discussed is one of the major achievements of this book. There has been a
tendency in the study of contemporary forms of occultism to give primacy
to the written word, even when a quick visit to an online discussion forum
 Book Reviews / ARIES . () – 

would reveal that there is much more going on outside of old books. When
researching a contemporary phenomenon, the exclusion of sociological and
anthropological methodologies leads to a neglect of important source material.
It is likely that much of the research presented in Evans’ book would not have
been possible without a good reputation in the occult community.
So far, so good. More problematic is the insinuation that outsider scholars,
pursuing the subject matter from an etic perspective, have biases that lead
them more easily to misrepresentations of their subjects. This claim can in
fact easily be turned around: it frequently happens that the insider is biased in
favour of truth claims, arguments, and positions internal to the discourse, and
even tends to insulate the subject matter from possible critical analyses, often
under an appeal for “respect”. But ‘reverence is a religious and not a scholarly
virtue’, as Bruce Lincoln has reminded us. This is a point which has been made
time and again, frequently levelled against theologians researching the history
of Christianity, or the perceived crypto-theology of much phenomenology of
religion.
Most of the time this “insider catch” does not seem to be a problem for
Evans, who strives to keep the argument on a purely historical and factual level.
However, there are some instances where the “outsider” is inclined to raise an
eyebrow. For instance, the author is open about his respect for the occultist
Kenneth Grant. We read that ‘Grant’s works are magical in and of themselves’,
with the author adding that, ‘on a personal level I have the deepest of respect
for what he has achieved.’ (p. ) Fair enough; as has also been the case with
Christian historians of Christianity (and despite Lincoln’s warning), reverence
does not by necessity pose a threat to the quality of scholarship. However, this
open reverence does make the reader more suspicious of what would seem
to be an asymmetry between the treatment of Grant and that of some other
characters discussed in the book. In the case of Amado Crowley, nearly sixty
pages are spent on an excessively thorough debunking of an endless list of
his various claims (pp. –). Although it is noted that Grant, too, has
fictionalised parts of his biography, we end up with exclamations of admiration,
whereas Amado receives a complete rejection. While Amado is continuously
debunked, the author is ready to invoke epistemological relativism to defend
some of Grant’s most imaginative ideas about tentacled aliens and telepathic
communication. Citing Paul Heelas, ‘the academic study of religion must
remain neutral in regard to ultimate truth’; but Evans is prepared to go further
when he adds that ‘what may seem ludicrous today may be only awaiting one
discovery tomorrow to make it mainstream and accepted fact’ (pp. –).
The short sub-chapter entitled ‘Science and Grant’ seems really out of place in
 Book Reviews / ARIES . () –

the context of a historical, scholarly study, with its insinuations of “scientific

evidence” of Grant’s ideas. The association of tentacles and phallic symbols is
defended on the basis of some zoological discovery of an octopus with genitalia
in its tentacles, while Grant’s idea of ‘transplutonic entities’ is corroborated by
appeal to the discovery of trans-Plutonian planets (pp. –).
While these are extreme cases, there are also other instances where the
methodology is open for critique. The statement that Chaos Magic cannot
really be grasped academically because of the fluctuating nature of its beliefs
is one case in point. ‘Since there are no rules in chaos magic,’ Evans contends,
‘the orthodox academic study of it, being rule driven so far as methodology
and disciplinary considerations are concerned, is hugely handicapped’ (p. ).
This is clearly a non sequitur. The disordered state of the subject matter does
certainly not imply that an ordered study of it is futile. This is what the
academic enterprise is all about: trying to put order to things that do not,
previously, have one. One is also puzzled by the alternative: would it really be
more accurate to approach the chaos with an (anti-)method more in line with
Chaos Magic itself, inventing sources and saying whatever one feels like about
it, since “nothing is true and everything is permitted” (as the motto of this
movement goes)?
A final problem is that the author does not appear sufficiently aware of
the scholarly discourse that has recently developed on modern magic and
occultism. On this point he is partially excused, since many excellent and
relevant studies only appeared recently. Christopher Partridge’s two-volume
Re-Enchantment of the West (T&T Clark,  / ) refined the concept of
“occulture”, which Evans’ study could have greatly benefited from, and Alex
Owen’s Place of Enchantment (University of Chicago Press, ) includes
valuable commentaries on magic and modernity. Additionally, there is no ref-
erence at all to developments in the study of western esotericism, as embodied
by the present journal, and the work that has been carried out on Crowley,
magic, and modern occultism in that context. If this vast amount of schol-
arship had been used, Evans’ contribution would have been more valuable to
other scholars in the field, especially since the material he deals with seems
highly relevant for ongoing discussions on the secularization and moderniza-
tion of esotericism.
Despite these criticisms, the picture is not all bleak. There are many inter-
esting pieces of information to be found in this book, particularly information
the author procured due to his familiarity with the contemporary British occult
scene. It is also useful to have a thorough, well researched evaluation and
debunking of Amado Crowley published—even though it seems excessive in
 Book Reviews / ARIES . () – 

the context of this book. The analysis of what magicians themselves think about
the term “Left-Hand Path” is also pertinent, and deserves further attention
(pp. –). The latter is a particularly good reminder for scholars not to
draw foregone conclusions based on stereo- or even ideal-typical classifications
without actually checking the evidence thoroughly (which means checking not
only the bookish evidence). The sections on some major figures in chaos magic,
and the self-fashioning and emic understanding of people like Grant are also of
value. However, these positive aspects would have been even greater if a more
systematic and methodologically robust approach had been followed through-
out.

Egil Asprem