The Angelical Language, Volume II: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the Tongue of Angels (The Angelical Language, 2)

a wonderful guide in a two book set The Angelical Language (Vol I & II), written in plain English, can be the start of a wonderful voyage.

The Authors book is the most scholarly to date on this subject. I really enjoyed reading it. I look forward to reading other books from this author.

I adore this! Worth the buy.

great work

not what i expected. good condition. wish you can see more of inside the book. no symbols in the book

As someone who is actively researching and learning this language I own probably every book on the subject. This book (and its Volume 1 companion) are without a doubt the best written and researched of all of them. Buying both volumes can be a bit of an expense, but for those who are seriously studying the language it is worth it.

This is an interesting work, where clearly a lot of effort has gone into it. However, I was somewhat disappointed by the fact that the author has used, for his main source, Casaubon's printed version of Dee's works, which contain many errors. One example will suffice: the word 'Peral', to be found in Key 5 (according to Leitch and many other authors), never appears in Dee's works at all. It is in fact a misprint for 'Peoal'. At least Leitch has inserted it in its correct position. There are a number of other spelling errors throughout the Keys. I would also strongly argue against some of the numbered listings of the Keys near the beginning of the book, where, in my view, they are clearly wrong, but it was nice to see that in the first Key he lists 86 words (despite the fact that many individual words are numbered incorrectly), which is certainly correct. My last criticism is with accents: Dee never uses the circumflex (found throughout this work, and interpreted as as long vowel); all these should be replaced with a breve (from the Latin brevis - short), being a short vowel or syllable. The number of errors in this work are just too numerous to list, simply because the author is not using original source works.To be of any real value, works such as this must be based upon Dee's original manuscripts; relying on printed sources is a serious mistake. I have found no printed source which is free from errors, some of them are appalling. My own 40 year study in this field may one day be published. As a final note, I would say that, a revised and corrected version of this work would be a valuable addition to Enochian (not a word Dee ever used) literature.

Bought for daughter interested in the subject matter. She was delighted

Very interesting.A lot of effort went into this book.

If you are into this subect then this book is worthy of a place on your bookshelf.

This is an interesting work, where clearly a lot of effort has gone into it. However, I was somewhat disappointed by the fact that the author has used, for his main source, Casaubon's printed version of Dee's works, which contain many errors. One example will suffice: the word 'Peral', to be found in Key 5 (according to Leitch and many other authors), never appears in Dee's works at all. It is in fact a misprint for 'Peoal'. At least Leitch has inserted it in its correct position. There are a number of other spelling errors throughout the Keys. I would also strongly argue against some of the numbered listings of the Keys near the beginning of the book, where, in my view, they are clearly wrong, but it was nice to see that in the first Key he lists 86 words (despite the fact that many individual words are numbered incorrectly), which is certainly correct. My last criticism is with accents: Dee never uses the circumflex (found throughout this work, and interpreted as as long vowel); all these should be replaced with a breve (from the Latin brevis - short), being a short vowel or syllable. The number of errors in this work are just too numerous to list, simply because the author is not using original source works.To be of any real value, works such as this must be based upon Dee's original manuscripts; relying on printed sources is a serious mistake. I have found no printed source which is free from errors, some of them are appalling. My own 40 year study in this field may one day be published. As a final note, I would say that, a revised and corrected version of this work would be a valuable addition to Enochian (not a word Dee ever used) literature.