Did Edward Kelley report what he saw in the scrying sessions, or invent it?

Why it is open. The Enochian material rests entirely on Kelley's reports of what appeared in the showstone, recorded by John Dee. Dee's diaries are strong evidence of what Dee believed and weak evidence of what actually occurred. Frances Yates called Kelley a fraud outright; others treat him as a genuine visionary or as self-deceived. The question is central to how the whole Enochian corpus should be read and is not settled.

What would resolve it. It may be unresolvable in principle, which is worth recording as such. It would move on evidence of Kelley preparing material in advance, or on linguistic analysis of the Enochian corpus bearing on whether it was composed rather than received.

Field. Early modern history, palaeography, and historical linguistics for the Enochian corpus itself.