if you have something real you don't say 'after 3 months tomorrow'
you just start then and there.
stop with the 'is it Q ?' slide.
unless you have a physical copy of it, it's most likely a modern fake.
a lot of the 'new agey' books are written later than as billed.
and the whole 'golden bough' thing is very much a known mind-fuck.
tred carefully.
You can learn History.
much of what is taught in schools and books is carefully selected.
there is only so much fabrication that can happen.
there are methods to learn history.
you already said you have a PDF.
so you checked it page per page against a real copy?
and you trust it is a legitimite copy of the said, well known, book.
I'm skeptical of much literature from that period, especially from publishing houses out of Chicago or London when they are in the 'spiritualist' catagory.
the book is from the 1920s,right? supposedly.
and in the 1940s and 50s and 60s and 70s we'd see it at book store and it would always be there with the books on spiritualism and various versions of occultism. That's what I mean.
but to be fair, the better stores would stock other spiritual books too, many which I did enjoy.
I say tred lightly. In other words take it for what it is.
It's not a gospel.
often cited by people who enjoy leading other people off into the magic gardens of hedonistic paganism.
perhaps also used by some who think that they are good intentioned.
my skepticism isn't me saying don't do it.
I often read scanned PDFs and yes, I would also trust archive.org.
I've found some wild and very contriversial things that are very political, even after a 150 years.
I would have had to have seen it printed to echo it or put out 'I didn't check this with a physical copy' if I did cite it.
all in all while the dig was interesting from one particular dig, and the information was scandalous details of the boasters over the losers of a particular event in world history I said 'hum, interesting. but this doesn't need to be echoed after 150 years.'
now it's 150 years plus a few months.