Okay, now going officially off-topic.

I have "A Dictionary of Angels", and it IS fascinating, but it's also frustrating, for two reasons: First, so much of it contradicts itself (the order of precedence of the angels, which ones serve which functions, which ones are 'really' demons or fallen angels, etc.); Second, a lot of the information comes from relatively modern fiction rather than from 'ancient' or 'scholarly' sources. Just because Shakespeare invents an angel, or invents a personality for one, doesn't make it so. He couldn't get his history right, so why would he be an authority on the divine?

I have the same problem with my three Arthurian encyclopaedias. Each draws from different source material, but all of them are 'contaminated' by references to T.H. White, Tennyson and other 'modern' writers. I don't think anything written after maybe 1300 (or possibly 1400) should be considered for inclusion.

One interesting thing you learn from "A Dictionary of Angels" is that there are vanishingly few female angels (according to some authorities, none). Another is that people don't become angels after they die; that happened only two or three times in 'history', and was remarkable when it did. A third would be that angels and humans interbreed. In fact, the human race as it exists today is primarily descended from the interbreeding of angels with the daughters of Adam (unless those were the humans who were wiped out by the flood). There's also an entry for Adam's first wife, Lilith. A very useful book.

Sorry for the diversion.