1) I understand and agree with your distinction. Since I am, at present, interested in both, I did not originally make such a distinction for the sake of brevity. I also agree that a truly thorough treatment would require two such canon lists. However, I might (again, impertinently) opine that even one mixed (dare we say interdisciplinary?) canon would stand as a one thousand percent improvement over the current state of things.
Shall I take your examples as another example of "genial winks and nods" in occult writing? :)
3) As I said: far, far more inexperienced. I assume these are just what returned on search, and that there's no especial familiarity on your part, even by reputation? Either way, I will consume them dutifully; thank you again for your time.
4) I remember reading here on Dreamwidth that you had sent a translation of Dee off to be published; might we see that this year, or shall we have to wait for next?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: study recomendations
Date: 2025-01-13 11:29 pm (UTC)1) I understand and agree with your distinction. Since I am, at present, interested in both, I did not originally make such a distinction for the sake of brevity. I also agree that a truly thorough treatment would require two such canon lists. However, I might (again, impertinently) opine that even one mixed (dare we say interdisciplinary?) canon would stand as a one thousand percent improvement over the current state of things.
Shall I take your examples as another example of "genial winks and nods" in occult writing? :)
3) As I said: far, far more inexperienced. I assume these are just what returned on search, and that there's no especial familiarity on your part, even by reputation? Either way, I will consume them dutifully; thank you again for your time.
4) I remember reading here on Dreamwidth that you had sent a translation of Dee off to be published; might we see that this year, or shall we have to wait for next?
Profuse thanks.