TYPE 4

THE MAGUS by Peter Carroll

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a master of magic the Adept has some abilty to change himself

and the reality which surrounds him at will. The mark of a Magus

however is that he is able to show other people how to change themselves

into whatever they desire through the discipline of magic. There are

two main types of genuine Magus, the Apotheosis Magus and the Nemesis

Magus. Additionally there is the Hierophant or pseudo-magus. Each is

recognizable by the debris left in his wake.

The Apotheosis Magus, sometimes known as the Harlequin, is typically

a master of internal disguise and often external disguise also.

Frequently a person of fallstaffian tastes and grand gestures, he often

distinguishes himself in a variety of human endeavors precisely because

he has attained the freedom to be anything at all. Such freedom is often

won only after a tremendous personal struggle to repair the effects of a

difficult start in life. The Apotheosis Magus teaches by encouraging

emulation and then often finally capping it with outrage. His play, which

is often never consciously formulated, is to provide a role model for

emulation by his accoltes and perhaps later to drive them away and throw

them back on their own resources, the horizons of which have been expended

by the encounter. The essential trick of the Apotheosis Magus is to

present magic as a source of boundless self confidence. If he can convince

his accolytes that they are magicians capable of anything such beliefs will

tend to become self fullfilling. The Apotheosis Magus implies this through

the triumph of the will.

The Nemesis Magus implies it by showing that nothing is true. Both aim

to set the imagination free. Both are exponents of a short and dangerous

path which is inevitably strewn with casualities and misunderstandings.

Yet this is considered to be a small price to pay if a few do win through

to a more effective self definition.

The continual setbacks, reverses and dry periods to which the magical

tradition is habitually prone are due to the frequent appearance of the

Hierophant or pseudo-magus figure. The Hierophant always presents himself

as an exponent representative of something greater than himself. Out of

the multiple of roles, identities and behaviors that a person might adopt,

the Hierophant presents a single model as an ideal. This is particularly

convenient for the Hierophant as he need not be a perfect example of his

own ideal although he must at least make a show of trying in public.

Additionally, as it is he who defines the ideal, it is comparatively easy

for him always to appear one step closer to it than his accolytes.

Of course most Hierophants are merely religious teachers who rarely

venture into esoterics because of the potentially immense costs of public

failure. Yet there remains a depressingly long roll call of dishonor

for occult Hierophants or psuedo-magi.

The Hierophant inevitably teaches a system of magic that he has either

assembled from pieces or inherited. The most enduring systems are those

which are highly complicated, and of low magical effectiveness. They

should furthermore be surrounded with hosts of petty exhortations.

Aleister Crowley dabbled in the Hierophant mode but was a supreme

exponent of the Apotheosis Magus role. Nobody of any potential adhered

to him for long but many were ejected to find their own path.

Crowley's writings are liberally salted with deliberate invitations to

emulation and hero worship and as equally peppered with devices designed

to repel. However their effect has never been quite as reliable as the

presence of the magus himself was.

The Apotheosis path is lonely, difficult and dangerous. Such a magus

must be all things to all men and women. As a matter of policy he may be

continually engaged in challenging the limits of what is socially acceptable.

He may have to resort to trickery to make himself seem large enough to

accomodate the totality of his followers' expectations of him.

Any true friendship prevents him exercising his life's function towards

any person with whom it is shared and there will be few of his peers with

whom he can be completely open. He will get few thanks from society in

general for his efforts and perhaps only a grudging respect from those whom

he touches. The tangible rewards of this role are limited to those he can

extract form his temporary followers. The Apotheosis Magus must be

continually alert to avoid the backlash from his own lifestyle and those

who have associated with him. He must always be one step ahead of the

police raid. He often comes to a bad end. Notable magi operating in

this mode include Cagliostro, Giordano Bruno, Paracelsus, and Gudjieff.

The Nemesis Magus is a rare figure in the generally positive esoteric

climate of the west. In the east the role is more common. The historical

Buddha with his rules and restrictions to provide accolytes with a slightly

new identity to adhere to. Rules concerning clothing, sex, and diet are

particularly effective. Such systems are indispensible to the Hierophant

in his ceaseless quest for followers. The complexities of his systems

guarantees protracted tuition and its comparative magical ineffectiveness

ensures that few will be tempted to go freelance. Such systems are designed

to create dependency. New accolytes are always welcome in such systems no

matter how long their potential; for, in the absence of measurable progress

mere numbers at least provide some positive confirmation. Heresy and

Schism always threaten the Hierophant's position and system. Unrealistic

ideals and ineffectual means of attaining them will always attract criticism

and attempts at revisionism. Yet if these can be avoided the Hierophant can

look forward to extensive rewards from his followers, the lucritive

commercialisation of his system, and maybe postumous deification for what

it's worth.

Hierophantic magi frequently inherit the systems of the predecessors.

The Apotheosis Magus and the Nemesis Magus rarely have direct successors,

although Hierophants frequently appear on the scene afterwards and reduce

their works to a system. Pseudo magi outnumber the real thing by a large

margin. It would be unseemly to mention any living examples for whilst

there is life there is hope of change; however, Blatavsky, MacGregor Mathers,

Dion Fortune, and Franz Bardon provide examples of past occult Hierophants.

A single test serves to separate the true Magus from the Hierophant. The

false magus is never able to give a simple meaningful explanation of what

his teachings are supposed to do. His justifications are invariably

verbose and tautological concatenations of indefinable terms.

A host of petty Hierophants feast upon the debris of Crowley's work

without managing to enlarge themselves or their followers. Austin Spare's

works however have been largely resistant to sytematisation and slavish

adherence for he left little that could be made into dogma. Yet Crowley

and Spare between them exemplify the paradox facing the genuine magus.

Speak and be misunderstood or keep silent and be ignored. Most, it

appears, have chosen to speak knowing that the tricks of the Hierophant

are an indispensible medium but that these tricks ultimately obscure the

message itself. The hope is to blow some minds in the meantime.

Either

The Apotheosis of the Self

The Nemisis of the Self

Will set the Kia soaring

But promulgation begets systematisation

And the Apotheosis

Of Somebody Elses Self

Is for suckers.