In his first chapter, Evans discusses ‘magic’ and sets it apart from ’stage magic’. Although he immediately recognises that both his subjects Amado Crowley and Kenneth Grant have elements of trickery to their characters. Furthermore, he argues that their magic is useful to practitioners although both men allow “some apparent historical errors of fact.” This latter point fascinates me. Does it say something about the tradition of magic? For instance, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers claimed to be of Scottish heritage and a noble, using the title ‘Comte de Glenstrae’.
The second chapter is on the subject of knowledge acquiring. In this chapter it becomes apparent that Evans’ isn’t working within the academic tradition of ‘Western esotericism’, but in History. The academic discipline of Western esotericism grew in the last ten years with two MA programs in Amsterdam and Exeter and two scholarly societies. Nevertheless, by quoting Sir Keith Thomas Evans comes closes to a remark by Arthur Versluis on the subject of studying Western esotericism. Both authors argue for an understanding of the research subjects and the “mental climate” of these subjects.
On the subject of ‘magic, religion and science’ and their relationship much can be said. For instance, that James Frazer claimed that magic was merely the first stage of human development, followed by religion and finally science. However, Evans only quotes historian Alex Owen and magician Lionel Snell on this subject. As Owen delivered an interesting monograph on the subject of magic in the nineteenth century, her comments on this point are valuable. With regard to the reason of the contribution on this subject by Snell, I’m puzzled. Is his comment included because the book is intended for a wider audience than academics alone, or for some other reason?
My conclusion up till this point is that these chapters/paragraphs seem to touch upon interesting subjects and areas of research, but they don’t deliver. Why say something about an interesting subject as “how to approach magic as an academic”, but only devote one page to it? There is a suggestion of a deeper and well-researched subject, but it doesn’t materialize that well in this context.
Apart from this review, I found others by Mogg Morgan and other people.