The Sworn Book of Honorius
The Sworn Book of Honorius
The Sworn Book of Honorius
Myrthe Houët
s3051730
Master thesis: The Sworn Book of Honorius
Dr. L.S. Chardonnens
June 18th 2015
Houët s3051730/ 2
Table of Content
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Sources for the Liber iuratus Honorii and The Sworn Book of Honorius ....................................... 7
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
This master thesis is concerned with the English translation of the Latin Liber iuratus Honorii, called
The Sworn Book of Honorius. In this thesis, I have edited the text of The Sworn Book of Honorius from
London, British Library, Royal 17 A xlii, in order to provide a readable text of the literary Honorius
tradition for anyone who is interested in magic. I have included some general background information about
the manuscript tradition and content to ensure a full understanding of the subject matter of the ritual.
Additionally, I have written an introduction to the edition in which I will explain my editorial decisions
concerning the transformation of the manuscript text into a readable edition. After these two introductions, I
entrust my edition of The Sworn Book of Honorius to the reader, in the hope that he will immerse himself in
the magical journey of the Honorius tradition, and will experience the strong, tenacious force of its magic.
Houët s3051730/ 4
1. Introduction
“In the which counsel of 811 masters which came owte of Napels, Athence, and Tholetus, we dyd chuse on
whose name was Honorius, the sonne of Euclidus, master of Thebes, in the which cytye this art was redd
that he shulde worke for us in this sayde art, and he throughe the counsel of a sertayne angell, whose name
was Hocroell, dyd write 7 volumes of arte magicke, giving unto hus the kernel, and unto other the shalles”
The passage quoted above is from London, British Library, Royal 17 A xlii. In these lines is explained how
The Sworn Book of Honorius was compiled and written by Honorius, son of Euclid, master of Thebes. It
says that Honorius was chosen by a council of 811 magicians to compile a compendium on magic, and how,
with the help of the angel Hocroell, he wrote The Sworn Book of Honorius.
The tradition of the Liber iuratus Honorii has gradually emerged from the shadows of the ‘dark’
Middle Ages, and made an entrance into the academic world during the past hundred years. The tradition of
the Liber iuratus Honorii was first mentioned by Arthur Waite in 1898. The scholar Lynn Thorndike
included information about the Honorius ritual and its manuscripts in his second volume of A History of
Magic and Experimental Science, published in 1923. This work by Thorndike is part of a larger study on
magic from early Christianity until the end of the seventeenth century, compiled in eight substantial
volumes. Until 1977, all the references made to the Liber iuratus Honorii were based on the work of these
two scholars. In that year, Heptangle books published a modern translation of The Sworn Book of Honorius
by Daniel Driscoll, which was reprinted in 1983. Driscoll modernised the English text of the Honorius ritual,
which made it more widely available as the text was now readable for every practicing magician. In 1998,
Joseph H. Peterson published a transcription of the English translation of The Sworn Book of Honorius on
the internet. This transcription remains true to its source of Royal 17 A xlii, and additional readings of the
Liber iuratus Honorii were included to explicate points in the Royal 17 A xlii manuscript. In 2002, the
scholar Gösta Hedegård produced an edition of the Latin Liber iuratus Honorii, in contrast to the English
versions of The Sworn Book of Honorius. In more recent years, the Honorius ritual has received more
attention due to the historical find of a Sigillum Dei at Doornenburg Castle in the Netherlands, and the
discovery of a Northern and Southern tradition of the Liber iuratus Honorii by the scholars Jan Veenstra and
L.S. Chardonnens at Radboud University Nijmegen.
As the tradition of the Liber iuratus Honorii (from now on referred to as LIH) has gained more and
more attention over the last few years, I have endeavoured to provide a reliable and readable English edition
of The Sworn Book of Honorius (from now on referred to as SBH) based on MS. Royal 17 A xlii. The
purpose of this edition is to provide ‘adventurous’ readers an insight into a magical ritual from the Middle
Houët s3051730/ 5
Ages, and to give them the necessary stepping stones to perform it in full accordance with its description to
attain a vision of God. The introduction gives more information about the general background and content
matter of the Honorius tradition. In the first part of my introduction, I will elaborate on the existing
manuscripts and their relations, possible sources, the dating of the Honorius tradition, and the Sigillum Dei.
In the second part of my introduction, I will comment on certain remarkable subjects dealt with in the text,
such as the prologue, the practice of fumigations, the use of spirits and prayers, and the tradition of the
Schemhamphoras.
2. Background Information
The Southern Honorius tradition of the LIH is preserved in three manuscripts: The first is MS. Kassel,
Universitätsbibliothek, Kassel, which contains substantial parts of the LIH in Berengario Ganell’s Summa
Sacre Magice (SSM) (Veenstra 151). The second manuscript is MS. Halle, Universitäts-und
Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, Halle, and the third manuscript is a German translation of the SSM, MS.
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, SSMG. The Kassel manuscript is dated to the fourteenth
century, 1346 to be precise. It is assumed that the SSM redactor Ganell had a complete version of the LIH at
his disposal, and has taken extracts and fragments from it. Yet, at the same time, Ganell tried to write a
‘unitary volume’ by adding connecting sentences and paragraphs to create more cohesion (Veenstra 153).
The connection between this magical compendium and the Honorius tradition was based on the existence of
minimal references of ‘dicit Honorius’ and the presence of a drawing of a Sigillum Dei (Veenstra 151-152).
The other two manuscripts of the Southern tradition are the manuscript in Halle which contains parts of
Ganell’s SSM, and the German translation of the SSM, from now on indicated as the SSMG, preserved in
Berlin (Veenstra 184).
Houët s3051730/ 6
The Northern LIH tradition exists in six manuscripts: London, British Library, Sloane 313; Sloane 3853;
Sloane 3854; Sloane 3883; Sloane 3885; and an English translation in the London, British Library, Royal 17
A xlii. All of these manuscripts contain either the complete Honorius ritual or substantial parts of it. The
most reliable sources for the Northern tradition of the LIH are Sloane 313, and Sloane 3854, and the other
three Latin manuscripts are second witnesses. I will comment on the LIH in Sloane 313 and 3854
manuscripts, and will include information about the English Royal 17 A xlii.
The Sloane 313 is dated to the second half of the fourteenth century, and is believed to have
contained once the ‘original’ and complete Honorius text. Unfortunately, due to physical damages, it is in
places difficult to decipher the text and appears to lack a few leaves near the end (Hedegård 15). A
remarkable feature of this manuscript is that it was once in the possession of the scholar John Dee, and was
later owned by the poet Ben Johnson. Both scholars left their mark on the manuscript; Dee wrote marginal
notes to the text, while Johnson inscribed the manuscript with ‘Sum Ben; Jonsonij liber’ (Mathiesen 145). In
addition, the manuscript contains a drawing of a Sigillum Dei, the seal that is necessary to attain the vision
of God. The manuscript Sloane 3854 is a well-preserved manuscript and is believed to contain the complete
Honorius ritual. The manuscript is dated to the fourteenth century, and could have been dated down to the
approximate hour of its completion had its colophon (a brief statement containing information about its
publication) not been broken off in the middle of a word (Hedegård 14). This particular manuscript does not
have the drawing of the Sigillum Dei, but contains a detailed description on the construction of the seal. The
manuscript Royal 17 A xlii (from now on referred to as Royal), my primary source for the SBH, is a
manuscript written partly in English and partly in Latin. This manuscript contains additional material on
spirits and fumigations, and has seventy-one pen drawings of angels at the end of the manuscript, which
have been borrowed from other magical works. The catalogue of the British Library dates this manuscript to
the mid-fifteenth century, yet this date can be challenged based on the additional material, a topic I will
address further on in Sources for The Sworn Book of Honorius.
Relation between the Southern and Northern Liber iuratus Honorii traditions
The relationship between the known manuscripts of the Northern and Southern tradition can be established
on the differences and similarities in content. These differences and similarities can indicate which
manuscript is the oldest and which one was used as a source for later manuscripts. After close examination
of the manuscripts, scholars have concluded that all LIH manuscripts have at least one common (unknown)
archetype manuscript from which both traditions derive (number 1 in the manuscript tree) (Veenstra 177).
This means that there was an ‘original’ manuscript that contained the Honorius ritual, one that has been
destroyed or lost over time. In other words, this ‘lost’ manuscript existed during the Middle Ages and was
used as a source, but has not survived. This manuscript was the source of the two traditions of the Honorius
ritual: the Southern and Northern traditions. The evidence for the existence of the two traditions is the
Houët s3051730/ 7
difference in the order of the ritual and the internal differences between the images of the Sigillum Dei. The
Southern tradition contains fragments of the LIH, and the order of the rituals does no correspond to the
Northern tradition. The Northern tradition has given prominence to the ritual for the attainment of the vision
of God. In addition, it contains a historical prologue, which is not present in the Southern tradition. This
prologue is either added to the Northern tradition, or has been omitted by Ganell in the Southern tradition. In
order to clarify the relation between the LIH manuscripts without giving too much detail, I have drawn a
manuscript tree, in which you will see these relations between the manuscripts at the first glance.
2.2 Sources for the Liber iuratus Honorii and The Sworn Book of Honorius
After reading about the manuscripts that contain the Honorius tradition, the question remains where the
scribes found the material on magical rituals and which sources they used. Both the Southern and Northern
tradition of the Honorius ritual had one source of the LIH at their disposal (number 1 in the manuscript tree),
which ultimately derived from the Ars Notoria. In addition, Royal, the translation of the SBH, used the Latin
LIH as a main source, but also extracted material from Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa’s De Occulta
Philosophia and the Fourth Book by Peter D’Abano, a work ascribed to Agrippa at the time. In this part, I
will concentrate on the material and sources for the Latin tradition of the LIH, and will include the additional
sources used in the compilation of Royal.
Houët s3051730/ 8
The sources for the LIH in the Southern and Northern tradition are the earlier ‘lost’ LIH manuscript (number
1 in the manuscript tree), and ultimately the Ars Notoria. Not much can be said about the earliest LIH as the
manuscript was lost, but it is certain that this manuscript borrowed material from the Ars Notoria. The Ars
Notoria, in English the Notory Art of Solomon, is a magical treatise from the Middle Ages attributed to
King Solomon (Hedegård 11). The text contains “methods of gaining knowledge about things human or
divine from God and his angels by means of mystical prayers, invocations and magical figures” (Hedegård
10). In other words, it is a magical text which, through a program of prayers, rituals and meditations, will
grant the operator knowledge and/or special gifts, such as ‘rhetorical skills’ (Klaassen 89). The Honorius
ritual is similar to the magical rituals in the Ars Notoria as the ‘pure’ state of the practitioner is central to the
ritual and it is concerned with rituals that grant knowledge and divine truths. Furthermore, the Ars Notoria
made significant use of angels as it contained material on angelic invocations and prayers. The LIH also
contains this extensive angelic material, which is probably copied and drawn from the Ars Notoria.
The sources for the English SBH in MS. Royal 17 A xlii are the LIH, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa’s De
Occulta Philosophia, and the Fourth Book by Peter D’Abano. The main source for the translation is the
Latin text of the LIH. The SBH is derived from the Northern Honorius tradition, based on the order of the
rituals and the presence of the historical prologue. Yet, the SBH also contains additional material on
fumigations and angels, which is not present in the other manuscripts of the LIH. After close examination of
Agrippa’s De Occulta Philosophia and the SBH, the parallels between the works suggest that Royal contains
extracts and borrowings from Agrippa (Hedegård 16). De Occulta Philosophia by Agrippa appeared in three
books, and the three volume book was first published in 1533. The passages on fumigations in Royal (fol.
15-23), are ‘extracts’ from Agrippa’s first book, and to be specific, from chapter 43 and 44 (Hedegård 16).
In addition, the lists of spirits in Royal (fol. 74-76) bear similarities with Agrippa’s list of spirits in book
three, chapter 24, and Latin quotations on Royal fol. 76 are similar to Agrippa’s chapter 25, book three
(Hedegård 17). The other source is Peter D’Abano’s Fourth Book. This work appeared in Latin in 1550,
some thirty years after Agrippa’s death, and expands on certain themes of Agrippa’s third book, as it is
concerned with magical rituals, and in particular the summoning of spirits. At the time of its publication, the
Fourth Book was seen as an authentic part of Agrippa’s De Occulta Philosophia, but it is now known that
the work was written by Peter D’Abano. The descriptions of the spirits in Royal (fols. 67-70), and the table
of the Schemhamphoras (fols. 76-77) are taken from the Fourth Book. The additional material of De Occulta
Philosophia and the Fourth Book also says something about the dating of the SBH. The SBH in Royal has
been dated by the catalogue of the British Library to the fifteenth century. However, if the manuscript
contains material from Peter D’Abano’s Fourth Book, the manuscript cannot be earlier compiled than 1550.
Houët s3051730/ 9
As a result, the SBH is not from the fifteenth century, but from the mid-sixteenth century. In other words, the
SBH has its roots in the Middle Ages through the LIH, but the text is compiled in the mid-sixteenth century.
In brief, the source for the Southern and Northern LIH is an unknown manuscript that contained the
LIH (manuscript 1), which derived from the Ars Notoria. The English translation of the SBH has used a
Latin text of the LIH as a source, and borrowed additional material from Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa’s De
Occulta Philosophia and Peter D’Abano’s Fourth Book. This additional material supports the dating of the
SBH to the mid-sixteenth century.
Robert Mathiesen argues that the Northern tradition of the LIH originates from the thirteenth century, based
on the earliest known manuscript, references of William of Auvergne, and the prologue (Mathiesen 145-
147). The two oldest manuscripts of the Northern tradition, the Sloane 313 and Sloane 3854, are both dated
to the second half of the fourteenth century, and give a date before which the Honorius ritual must have been
compiled. Mathiesen believes that these two versions have only been copied in the fourteenth century,
suggesting that the ‘original’ manuscript must have been compiled before this date (Mathiesen 145). He
further states that William of Auvergne, the archbishop of Paris from 1228-1249, made two references to a
‘sacred book’ in his De Legibus which refers to the Honorius tradition. The first reference is: “From this
same plague of curiosity came forth the accursed and execrable book which is called the Sacred Book” (qtd.
in Mathiesen 146). The other reference is made in connection to Solomonic magic where he says: “nor that
book which is called Sacred” (qtd. in Mathiesen 146). The context of these two references, Mathiesen
claims, shows that the Honorius ritual was already known by William of Auvergne in his time. Furthermore,
Mathiesen assumes that the content of the prologue, the threat of papal persecution of magicians in the hope
to “obliterate any practice and teaching of magic and to condemn all magicians to death” suits the papacy of
Gregory IX (1227-1241), or even the papacy of Innocent III (1198-1216) (Mathiesen 146). The reason that
he argues for one of these papacies is because the prologue does not state that the persecution of magicians
was already happening at the time (as was common in the fourteenth century), but states that they were only
Houët s3051730/ 10
foreseen (Mathiesen 147). In addition, he claims that the subject of the Beatific vision is more easily
interpreted in connection to “the theological opinion on that subject in the first half of the thirteenth century,
than as a response to the dogmatic pronouncements about it during the fourteenth century” (Mathiesen 147).
In conclusion, Mathiesen claims that the Honorius tradition must have been compiled during the thirteenth
century.
Richard Kieckhefer, however, is not convinced by Mathiesen’s arguments and proposes a date for the
LIH in the first half of the fourteenth century. Kieckhefer suggests this date on the observation that the
Honorius ritual includes material on the Schemhamphoras, an influence of Jewish mysticism, which he
argues could not have been borrowed before the late thirteenth century (Kieckhefer Devil 254). He
furthermore claims that the reference of Willem of Auvergne to a ‘liber sacratus’ by Mathiesen is not
conclusive evidence that he is indeed referring to the SBH, as these words could have been used to refer to
any other magical book (Kieckhefer Devil 254). In addition, Kieckhefer suggest that the internal evidence of
the prologue is suggestive of a period of papal persecution, but believes that the papacy of John XXII (1316-
1334) is a more likely setting for the composition of the Honorius ritual (Kieckhefer Devil 253). In short,
Kieckhefer suggests a date for the LIH in the early fourteenth century.
In his arguments, Kieckhefer gained the support of Katelyn Mesler, who noted that John XXII
“devoted considerable energy to arraigning suspected sorcerers” and began preaching on the Beatific vision
during his papacy, which, according to him, could not be obtained before the Final Judgement (Mesler 115-
116). The scholar Gösta Hedegård also agrees that the papal persecution of John XXII is most plausible, and
states that the references of William of Auvergne are not strong enough to be convincing. Hedegård,
however, does not support the claim that the Schemhamphoras could not have been borrowed earlier than
the late thirteenth century, as there are older texts known that contain this material (Hedegård 12).
Furthermore, he claims that a prayer that is present in the Honorius ritual was only given its genuine form in
the 11th century, and subsequently became more popular. Additionally, a list of names of the Holy Virgin
Mary present in the LIH comes from an anonymous manuscript of the twelfth century, which rules out a date
earlier than the thirteenth century (Hedegård 12). In summary, Hedegård argues that the LIH is dated to the
thirteenth century or early fourteenth century.
Jan Veenstra used the Southern tradition of the Honorius ritual to date the tradition. He agrees with
the other scholars that a date in the early fourteenth century is indeed more plausible, but “he cautions that
there is nothing to rule out a point of origin in the thirteenth century” (Mesler 115). The Kassel manuscript is
dated to 1346, and the material content suggests that Ganell had another, earlier unknown manuscript at his
disposal, suggesting that an earlier manuscript already contained the Honorius ritual. Furthermore, he states
that the subject of a Visio Dei was an important topic in thirteenth century scholastic philosophy as the idea
arose that a vision of God could be attained (Veenstra 155). In addition, the absence of the prologue might
suggest that Ganell’s SSM predates the papacy of John XXII, and therefore predates the fourteenth century,
Houët s3051730/ 11
but this could also mean that Ganell decided to omit the LIH prologue because he only used fragments of his
LIH source.
On the whole, it seems that most scholars agree that the LIH tradition can be dated to the late
thirteenth or early fourteenth century based on the internal evidence of the prologue connecting it to the
papacy of John XXII, but do not exclude an earlier date in the late thirteenth century. At the moment, I am
inclined to conclude that the LIH tradition is likely to be from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century,
based on the evidence of the date of the first known manuscripts, and the papal persecution of John XXII in
the prologue of the Northern tradition. The source of the LIH must have existed earlier than the second half
of the fourteenth century, and therefore I argue for a date in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century.
The text concerned with the construction of the Sigillum Dei in the Northern and Southern traditions are
altogether different; the Southern provides an image of the seal of God and the Northern tradition does not,
except MS. Sloane 313 and Sloane 3853. The Southern SSM chapter on the Sigillum Dei is rather short
compared to the chapter on the seal in the Northern tradition. This chapter in the SSM consists of two parts:
the first on the construction of the seal, and the second on the purposes of the consecration (Veenstra 161).
The description of the placement of angelic and divine names is about four lines long, as the author lists the
names, but does not comment further on particular details as he provides a complete image of the seal
(Veenstra 161/164). The Northern Honorius, on the other hand, provides an extensive and detailed
description on how to construct the seal (Veenstra 161). In other words, the text is trying to specify what is
portrayed in the drawings of Sloane 313 and 3853.
Houët s3051730/ 12
The two drawings of Sloane 313 and SSM have internal differences influenced as such by their
sources, by damage, and by contamination. Below you will see the two different seals of God taken from the
two different traditions. The drawing in Sloane 313 is incomplete; it does not contain the full
Schemhamphoras between the two circles, suggesting that this drawing was intended only as a sketchy
illustration of the text (Veenstra 163). By comparing the two images of the Southern and Northern tradition,
Veenstra concluded that there were at least two main differences between the two magical seals. The first
difference, in comparison with the Southern tradition, is that the second and third heptagons are not
intertwined, as is the case in Ganell’s figure (Veenstra 161). The second difference is that the Sloane 313
heptagon that surrounds the Solomonic pentacle does not lock into the second, more intricate heptagon, a
feature that is not supported by the Honorius text (Veenstra 161). This is a remarkable feature on a closer
examination between the Northern Honorius text and seal, for it appears that the description present in the
Sloane 313 corresponds to Ganell’s image rather in SSM than the image in Sloane 313 (Chardonnens &
Veenstra 140).
Figure 2 Sigillum Dei from Sloane 313 Figure 3 Sigillum Dei from Summa Sacre Magice
The SBH in Royal of the Northern tradition does not contain an image of the Sigillum Dei, but provides an
elaborate description on how to construct the seal. The passage on the construction of the seal in Royal (fol.
9v-14r) is written in Latin. I believe that this particular part is written in Latin because it deals with the
‘sacred and divine’. But, it also could be still in Latin because only ‘true’ magicians were able to read Latin
in the Middle Ages, and as a result only the incrowd was able to perform the ritual. In my edition, the
instructions of the Sigillum Dei remain in Latin as is present in MS. Royal 17 A xlii, and for a full English
translation I will refer you to Peterson’s website Liber Juratus Honorii or The Sworne Booke of Honorius. I
Houët s3051730/ 13
will give a short summary of the construction of the seal and offer a drawing on the basis of my own
interpretation of the Sigillum Dei based on the instructions in manuscript Royal.
The construction of the Sigillum Dei according to Royal starts with making two circles, between
which the seventy-two letters of the Schemhamphoras are written. At the beginning of the Great
Schemhamphoras there is an H drawn, which means ‘the creative breath of God’ (Chardonnens & Veenstra
143). Then in the middle of these two circles a pentagram is drawn, which has the letter T in the middle, and
is surrounded by the words El and Ely. This pentagram is surrounded by a heptagon, a heptagram, and
another heptagon. The first heptagon contains the names of the seven planetary angels (Casziel, Satquiel,
Samael, Raphael, Anael, Michael, and Gabriel) (Chardonnens & Veenstra 141). The second heptagon
surrounds the first heptagon, but is turned so that each angle intersects with the sides of the first heptagon,
and the third heptagon is drawn again like the first. In between the second and third heptagon, a heptagram
is drawn, which indirectly creates another heptagon. The side of the second heptagon contains also holy
names of God, and in the angles of the heptagons sacred letters and names are written. The instruction ends
with enumerating which colour every aspect of the Sigillum Dei should have. The text further states that if
the seal is used in operations it must be done otherwise: “For it is made with the blood either of a mole or of
a turtledove, or a lapwing, or of a bat, or of them all, and in virgin parchment of a calf, or of foal, or a hind
calf” (Peterson fol. 12r). In order to clarify the description on the construction of the Sigillum Dei, I have
drawn a Honorius seal according to the description of Royal.
The quote above is from the prologue of Royal and it is followed by a list of ninety-three chapters on magic.
This list is a promise on what Honorius is going to cover in the compendium in order to write a ‘complete’
work on ‘the effect of this arte’ (magic). Prior to this list, the reader is introduced to the circumstances in
which the SBH has been compiled and written. It states the social context, the reason for compilation, the
purpose of the work, and then elaborates on the chapters to come. According to the prologue, the SBH
consists of four works, and each of these works contains certain chapters on magical themes. The first work
deals with the Schemhamphoras and the attainment of the vision of the deity. The second work is focused on
information on the spirits, and the third is concerned with their conjuration. The fourth work, according to
the list in the prologue, is of a more practical nature as it has chapters on “to have all treasures, metals,
pressyus stones, and all other thinges hyd in the grounde” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 7r). Unfortunately, most
Honorius manuscripts do not contain the full work that is listed in the prologue, and Royal is no exception.
The Royal manuscript has eighty-three folios which contain the first work on the Honorius ritual, and a part
of the second work on angels, but it lacks the third and fourth book.
In this part of the introduction I will comment on the manuscript’s content of the magical themes and
subjects. First, I will say something about the prologue and the performance of the magical ritual. I will
comment on the ritualistic aspects as the practice of fumigations, the spirits, and prayers, necessary for the
Honorius ritual, and then I will introduce the reader to the tradition of the Schemhamphoras.
3.1 Prologue
“When wycked sprites ware gathered to gether, intending to sende devils in to the hartts off men, to the
entente thay wolde dystroy all thinges profytable for mankynde, and to corrupte all the whole worlde, even
to the uttermost off there powr, sowing ipocrysye and envy, and rooting bysshops and prelates in pryde,
even the pope him selfe and his cardenalles”
(Royal 17 A xlii fol. 2r).
The lines quoted above are the opening lines of the prologue of the SBH from Royal. These lines state that
wicked spirits have decided to contaminate the hearts of men with devils -including the people of the church
- in order to destroy and corrupt mankind. This corruption led to the condemnation of magic by the church,
Houët s3051730/ 15
which posed a threat to the magical community. The magicians claim that the church is influenced by the
devil, and justify this with arguments that were used during the Middle Ages to justify the repression of
magic by the church. In other words, the magicians turn the dogmatic argument of the condemnation of
magic. The remainder of the prologue is concerned with introducing the audience to the historical context,
the purpose of the text, and gives an outline of the thematic content. This prologue is not present in the
Southern tradition of the Honorius ritual, which suggests that it was specifically written for, and added to the
Northern tradition to fit the historical context of the time, or that it was omitted in the SSM by Ganell. Aside
from the twist in the argument about magic, the prologue bears features that are exceptional for a medieval
manuscript of this sort, such as the historical setting, the person Honorius, and the elaborate oath of secrecy.
I will discuss each of these remarkable features and hope to show the aspects of this prologue on ‘arte
magicke’ of the Northern Honorius tradition.
The first notable aspects about the prologue are the historical setting and the ‘author’ Honorius. The
prologue starts on the fact that magicians have a foreknowledge about the condemnation of magic by the
church, and to discuss this threat they call a council for magicians in Naples. As already stated, the
magicians claim is that they themselves are not influenced by the devil, but that the popes and cardinals have
been influenced by demons in their campaign against magic (Mathiesen 148). The council consists of 811
magicians, of which one of them is called Honorius. The number of 811 magicians is not accidental as it has
a numerological significance: 811 is the numerical value of the most sacred name of God in Greek IAΩ, and
is equivalent to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH (Mathiesen 149). This number is probably chosen to
support the claim that the magicians act in God’s name rather than in that of the devil (Mathiesen 149). To
avoid the church’s threat, the magicians decide to compile a book on magic which covers the essence of
magical knowledge which will ensure the legacy of the magical art (Mesler 115). This historical setting of a
secret meeting of magicians in Naples enhances the magical atmosphere of the manuscript, and it gives the
reader insight into the secret role of magic at the time when the manuscript was written and compiled.
Besides the description of magical-historical setting, the prologue also introduces the author of the
SBH. The council of magicians has elected Honorius, the son of Euclid, master of Thebes, to compile and
write the book. The identity of the author, Honorius, however remains a complete mystery. No Honorius is
known outside the LIH tradition, and, therefore, most scholars believe that the name Honorius is a
pseudonym. Two scholars have made speculations about this, and the scholar Hedegård puts forward the
idea that the name was intended as a pun, “the most honourable or honest” and that the name Euclid was
borrowed from the work Flores Aurei Apollonii, a text that is close to the Ars Notoria (Hedegård 11). The
scholar Mathiesen suggests that the name of Euclid is mentioned to identify Honorius as the son of the
famous geometer Euclid of Late Antiquity, yet he believes the name is still pseudographical and that the
name is mentioned to feign authority (Mathiesen 146). In other words, the author of the text is ‘cloaked in
Houët s3051730/ 16
mystery’, but there seems to be good reason. Honorius is introduced as a practicing magician, who speaks up
against the church rather than holds his tongue in fear of persecution (Mathiesen 143). Furthermore, he
provides a ritual that puts the operator in direct and ‘authentic’ communication with God, and with this he
challenges the ideological foundation and authority of the church in Western Europe. In other words, the
work of Honorius undercuts the hierarchy of the church, and undermines “the foundations of the entire late
medieval world” (Mathiesen 185). The one responsible for spreading such a work is destined to be
persecuted by the church, and, in my opinion, would be foolish not to use a pseudonym.
Another remarkable aspect of the prologue in the Northern tradition is the oath of secrecy. In order to keep
the work safe and protected, it is necessary to keep the book a secret, but, at the same time, it needs to be
handed down from generation to generation (Mathiesen 150). The presence of an oath of secrecy itself was
not uncommon in magical treatise, as it was used in alchemy since the fifth century (Mathiesen 150). The
Honorius oath, however, is very specific and detailed, and there is no equivalent found in the Middle Ages
(Mathiesen 150). The oath must be sworn by the master of the book and his disciples, so that the book of
magic is protected from the church and not destroyed. The oath of secrecy is present in Royal (fol. 2r-4v),
and the oath contains a practical set of rules that assure the book’s safety. The presence of an oath intensifies
the secret atmosphere of the SBH, as the book was only intended for magicians and disciples of the ‘art
magicke’, rather than general readers.
The oath consists of a practical set of rules, and needs to be sworn in order to read and perform the
magical ritual. The first rule of the oath is that there will be only three copies of the text, and that this book
shall never be given to a woman or a minor. The master, the owner of the book, shall never give this book to
anyone else unless he is in danger of death, and he will leave his book to his disciples. If the master has no
disciples to receive the book, he will return the book to Honorius or one of his successors. In the case that
there is no one to receive the book, the master shall bind his executors to bury it in his grave, or bury it
himself, but never will reveal its hiding place. The oath continues that the recipient of the book needs to be
godly and faithful - tested for a year - before he is able to receive the book. In addition, the master’s duty is
to unite his disciples in unity, concord, and love, and if he succeeds they will never reveal the secrets of
another, and shall sooner suffer death than to betray their master. The oath concludes that everyone that
works with the art of magic shall never break the oath. The funny thing is, though, that the book does not say
what happens to someone who breaks this oath. Up to this point I have already violated two aspects of this
oath: ‘there shall be no more than three copies, and it shall never be given to a woman’, but I am still in
perfect physical and spiritual health. Yet, if this changes in the near future, I hope someone will remember I
worked on the SBH.
In short, the prologue in the Northern tradition strengthens the mystical aspects of the LIH as it
introduces the reader to the magical setting: the churches threat on the condemnation of magic; the mystery
Houët s3051730/ 17
of the author Honorius; and the elaborate oath of secrecy. This prologue’s account of the text’s origin attests
to the authenticity of the text, and enhances the magical experience for readers before they even begin to
read the actual text.
The Prerequisites
Prior to the performance of the ritual there are a few prerequisites for the practitioner to meet in order to
succeed and fulfil the ceremonial ritual. The first prerequisite is that the practitioner needs to be able to work
in the art of magic. The manuscript claims that there are only three kinds of men that are able to work in this
art: Pagans, Jews and Christians. It then further explains that of these three, the Christians are the only ones
that are able to come to see the divine vision and succeed in all the works. The Pagans are known to sacrifice
to the spirits of the air and the earth. They, however, cannot constrain them, and therefore they will commit
idolatry (the worship of an idol or physical object as a representation of God) (Mathiesen 151). The Jews are
also unable to perform this ritual. Jews are not baptized, and for this reason they will not be able ‘to invocate
and bring works to effect’. In essence, the only ones that are able to attain the ‘true’ vision of God, and carry
out effectively the Honorius ritual are Christians.
Another prerequisite for the practitioner of the ritual is that he must be pure and clean. The
manuscript is full of prayers to purify the practitioner in body and soul. As the manuscript states: “he that
shall worke must be very penitent and trewly confessed of all his sinnes” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 14v). The one
who works the Honorius ritual must be clear of sin; otherwise it will impede the vision of God (Kieckhefer
Devil 255). In addition, the practitioner must make a Sigillum Dei according to the instructions given in the
manuscript. Without the seal of God, the ritual will not work and the practitioner will not be able to attain
the vision. The last prerequisite is that the practitioner needs to gain the help of a sympathetic priest. A part
of the ritual is that the practitioner needs to attend mass in church, and in this mass the priest needs to give
sacraments and incorporate certain prayers from the SBH. In short, in order for the magical practitioner to
see the divine vision of God, he needs to be a Christian totally clean of sin; he needs to make a Sigillum Dei;
Houët s3051730/ 18
and requires the help of a sympathetic priest. If you, as a reader, have succeeded to meet all of these
requirements, then you too will be able to proceed in the performance of the ritual.
The exact performance of the Honorius ritual takes up a large part of the first book of the SBH (Klaassen
103). The ritual is of an elaborate and laborious nature, and starts with the practitioner conducting ‘a three
day ritual to determine whether he has God’s permission to continue” (Mesler 122). In these three days the
practitioner needs to fast, make confession, and recite prayers (Klaassen 103). On Sunday, the practitioner
will learn whether he will obtain his petition (a request or plea for the divine vision). If the practitioner is
granted his petition, he is able to continue with the performance of the ritual, if not, he needs to repeat the
three day ritual until he will be granted his petition (Mathiesen 152). The next part of the ritual is concerned
with the practitioner maintaining his physical and spiritual purity, and performing ‘the ritual elements of
fasting, prayer, confession, contrition, attendance at Mass, and giving alms’ (Klaassen 105). What it actually
entails is that the practitioner needs to attend Mass every day, say prayers at specific times, and follow a
strict regime of fasting. Furthermore, as the practitioner hears mass of the Holy Spirit and receives the
sacrament from a sympathetic priest, the practitioner also needs to recite his own prayers at the same time
(Mathiesen 152). After this period, the practitioner needs to find an isolated place where he will make a
couch of hay, around which he needs to strew ash, and in this ash he must write the hundred names of God.
At home, the practitioner needs to wash himself while saying a prayer, and put on a hair shirt and, over that,
a black shirt. In the evening, he must return to his couch of hay and recite one long prayer before going to
sleep, receiving the vision of the deity (Mathiesen 155).
Both the Northern and Southern Honorius ritual follow the general outline of the ritual summarised
above: the construction of the Sigillum Dei; the fasting and reciting of prayers; and the invocation of God in
the end. Yet, there is one remarkable internal difference between the two traditions concerning the ritual’s
ending. The Northern tradition ritual ends with: “the practitioner must go to sleep in order for the
consecration to have its effect” (Veenstra 159). During this sleep, the divine vision will be imparted on the
practitioner and he will behold the celestial palace (Veenstra 159). The Southern tradition also says that the
practitioner must go to sleep, but instead of directly receiving the vision of God, the power of God descends
upon the practitioner, completing the consecration of the Sigillum Dei. This consecration enables the
practitioner to perform invocations, including the invocation of the divine vision (Veenstra 159-160).
A point of discussion between scholars is that there is no agreement on the length of the ritual. Jan
Veenstra did research on the Honorius ritual based on the Kassel manuscript of the Southern tradition, and
concluded that the ritual in total would last at least forty days (Veenstra 155). Mathiesen used the Northern
tradition as his source and claims that the ritual lasts twenty-eight days, of which at least twenty days are for
the purification of the practitioner (Mathiesen 151). Frank Klaassen also gives a detailed description of the
performance of the ritual in his text. First he mentions the three day ritual for the divine permission. Then he
Houët s3051730/ 19
says that the first stage of the ritual will take thirty-two days, and states that the final period of the operation
takes another twenty days, which brings the length of the ritual to fifty-five days (Klaassen 103-104).
In short, a magician has to be dedicated to his cause in order to fulfil the ceremonial ritual of the
Honorius tradition and to attain the vision of God. First, the magician needs to be able to meet the
prerequisites of the ritual, and then endure days of abstinence, reciting prayers and attending mass.
Furthermore, during these days, the practitioner needs to be pure in body and soul; otherwise the divine
vision will not be received. The performance of the Honorius ritual is laborious, and needs to be performed
with commitment and dedication in order to ultimately attain the Visio Dei.
Fumigations
The first magical practice after the construction of the Sigillum Dei in Royal, are fumigations. A fumigation
is a magical practice in which the practitioner burns diverse substances, such as herbs, to produce fumes that
will enhance the magical power of an image or circle (Kieckhefer Magic 133). This material is not officially
a part of the LIH, but is added in Royal through borrowings from Agrippa’s De Occulta Philosophia for the
sake of heightening the mysterious setting and ensuring the Visio Dei. The list of fumigations in Royal (fol.
15r) is introduced with “The suffumigatyons as heare foloweth”, and can be divided into fumigations for the
days of the week, fumigations for the planets, and “suffumigacions accordinge to the demonstracion of
lerned and wyse men after the opnione of philosophye” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 18v).
First, the manuscript enumerates which kind of herbs would be most suitable: “Thimiamate on the
Tewsdaye is sanders, the redd, blake, and white, and all swete woodes as lygnum aloes, cipres, balsami, and
such lyke” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 15v). In these lines, it says that the fumes of Tuesday are sanders wood, and
all other sweet woods such as aloes, cypress, and balsam. All the days of the week are included, and each
has their own kinds of substances and herbs. After the fumes of the days of the week, Royal continues with
the fumigations of the planets. The fumigations for the planets are more elaborate and detailed in
comparison to the fumigations of the week: “For the planett venus, take muscke, ambre, lignum aloes, redd
roses, and of the stone in pouder called corall, of that whiche is redd, equall porcions, and mixt all thes to
gethere, with the braines of sparowes, male and female, and with the bloude of a turcledove, or of a howse
dove beinge whytte” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 18r). Instead of listing only the herbs and ingredients that are
Houët s3051730/ 20
suitable, the fumigations of the planets detail more specifically how to make the fumigation odiferous and
ready for use.
The last kinds of fumigation introduced in the work are the fumigations by ‘wise men’. These
fumigations enable the practitioner ‘to see secret visions, to make spirits of the air and earth appear, and to
drive away all poison and venoms’ (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 18v-21v). In these fumigations not only herbs are
listed, - they also include substances of wondrous properties such as mandrake, laurel, the brain of a hoopoe,
the blood of a bat, and so forth (Kieckhefer Magic 133). These ‘wondrous’ ingredients reinforce the magical
aspect of the fumigations, and with the help of the herbs and their magical properties, they will enhance the
power of the image or prayer that is being used in the ritual (Kieckhefer Magic 133). In Royal, the
fumigation of the Sigillum Dei is added to enhance the power of the seal to ensure the reception of the
Beatific vision.
Spirits
After the fumigations, the Honorius ritual lists the angelic names of the months and planets (Royal 17 A xlii,
fol.23v-27r). Lists of angelic names are a recurring aspect in the LIH, as folios 42r-45v contains prayers
consisting of only angel names. During the Middle Ages, the art of magic was believed to be concerned with
the invocation of spirits, angels and demons, to constrain them and to let them do an individual’s bidding.
Kieckhefer has argued that the addressed spirits in the SBH are “neither straightforwardly demon nor
conventionally angelic’ (Kieckhefer Magic 170). Yet, in the prologue, Honorius himself specifies what
kinds of spirits are used by the SBH.
He first begins by stating that the magicians of the book are aided by God rather than the devil, and
therefore only summon the help of angels and not demons (Mesler 113). He further supports his claim by
elaborating which kinds of ‘spirits’ are present in the book: “Off angells there are 3 kyndes. Some be
selestyall, and some of the ayre, and some be of the earthe. Off the celestyall, there are also 2 kyndes”
(Royal 17 A xlii fol. 8r). The author states that there are three kinds of spirits present in the book: celestial
spirits, aerial spirits, and terrestrial spirits. The text further explains that there are two kinds of celestial
angels: the nine orders of angels that will only serve God, and the ones that serve God, but who will also
answer to men (Mathiesen 151). The angels that will only serve God are the angels of the nine orders: the
“cherubin, and seraphin, trones, domynatyons, vertuse, princypates, and potestates, arkangells, and angells”
(Royal 17 A xlii fol. 8r). The other celestial angels are the angels of the seven heavens, also called the
planetary angels. The second kind of spirits are the airy angels, the angels of the wind, which can be
summoned by men. Christians long regarded these spirits as demons, but Honorius clearly emphasizes that
they are indeed angels. The third kind of spirits are the terrestrial angels. These angles can be summoned and
will do human bidding, but there is a strong chance that they will be demons in disguise, as the earthly
spirits are believed to be evil and ‘full of depravity’ (Mesler 125).
In the first book, the spirits, and specifically the angels, are present in lists of angelic names in
Houët s3051730/ 21
connection to certain prayers. In the second book, however, the spirits receive a more prominent role. The
list of contents of the second book starts with: “of the knowledge of the angells of every heaven, of the
knowledge of every angell his will and power, of the knowledge of the seals of every angell, of the
knowledge of the superyor of every angell” (Royal 17 A xlii 66v-67r). This part of the book is not only
about angelic names, but also includes additional information about their powers, attributes and statures.
This detail on specific angels is not from a Christian tradition, but more likely from the Jewish traditions, as
they began to develop “a highly personalized conception of angels which granted individual angels to be
given a unique and powerful name, a personality, a detailed physical appearance, and specific functions in
the world” (Mesler 126). For example the angels of Jupiter. The names of the angels are given in the
manuscript, followed by detailed angel drawings. This is again followed by a description of the angels: “And
there nature is to gyve love, joye, gladenes and favor of all persons to him that worketh, to bringe forthe
dewys, flowers, herbes and leavys, or to take them awaye, and there regyon or abydinge is betwyx the East
and the Sowth, and there bodyes are of a meane stature. The colour of them is lyke to the coloure of heaven,
or lyke unto crystal” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 68r). This description gives the angels more than a name; it adds
their personal powers and physical appearance and claims for which intention they can best be summoned.
Prayers
After the list of angelic names in the first book, the remaining part of the Honorius ritual contains prayers.
Prayers are verbal formulas and often have the form of a request, directed to God, Christ, Mary, or a Saint
(Kieckhefer Magic 69-70). The use of prayers in magical practices is not inherent, but they can be integrated
into the arts of magic, just as in the Honorius ritual (Kieckhefer Magic 70). The prayers that are present in
the Honorius ritual are taken from the Psalter and the Litany, and are accompanied with directions for the
specific ritual (Mathiesen 146). In other words, the prayers are part of the Christian liturgy, but they are
removed from their context and meaning to fulfil other ‘magical’ purposes (Kieckhefer Magic 70). The
individual prayers in the Honorius ritual can be used for ‘learning the powers of herbs and for gaining
knowledge of all secrets’, but also can be used for ‘inflicting sickness and death, destroy kingdoms and
empires’ and other such purposes that cannot be considered holy (Kieckhefer Magic 170-171). Yet, most of
the prayers are concerned with the purification of the practitioner.
During the ritual the practitioner needs to recite prayers: “and very early in the morninge before the
breke of the daye, thow shalt say 10 prayers which thow shalte fynde wrytten after, that is to say, the 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. And these muste ye saye with greate devocyon” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 45v).
Furthermore, most of the prayers need to be said at different times of the day: “the 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28,
32 of the moone in the morning thow shallte say these prayers folowynge oonce abowt 3 of the cloke, oonce
abowt 9 of the cloke, and oonce at evening,” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 46v). In other words, the reciting of
prayers alone on the correct day and time is already a laborious practice. However, the author states that if
the practitioner performs these prayers with an evil purpose in mind it will lead to the magician’s
Houët s3051730/ 22
condemnation (Kieckhefer Magic 170). This is a statement that fits the dogmatic twist in the argument
evinced in the prologue. In the prologue, the author professes that the complete ‘magical ritual’ is done in
God’s name, and therefore the practitioner needs to recite his prayers with the proper intent and devotion,
otherwise the ritual will not work.
In summary, besides the prerequisites for the Honorius ritual the practitioner also needs to use
fumigations, know his spirits, and endure days of prayer before attaining the vision of God. Furthermore, the
practitioner constantly needs to remain clean and pure of all sin, and say his prayers with proper intent in
order to work the ritual and to attain the divine vision. The Honorius ritual is therefore not to be taken lightly
as it requires strong devotion from the practitioner, and would ask a lot of strength from the general reader.
The first tradition of the Schemhamphoras in the SBH is the list of the seventy-two letters of God,
originating from the Jewish tradition. This Jewish tradition was often used for magical practices of
Solomonic origin, and is present in the Honorius ritual. The seventy-two letters are an acronym for the
seventy-two names of God (Chardonnens & Veenstra 142). The first mention of the Schemhamphoras in
Royal is in the list of contents: “The first chapter is of the composyssyon of the greate name of God, which
the Hebrues call Sememphoras which dothe consyst of 72: h, t, o, e, x, o, r, a, b, a, l, a, y, q, c, I, y, s, t, a, l,
g, a, a, o, w, o, s, v, l, a, r, y, t, c, e, k, x, p, f, y, o, m, e, m, a, n, a, r, e, l, a, t, e, v, a, t, o, n, o, n, a, o, y, l, e,
o, t, s, y, m, a, letters which is the beginning in this arte” (Royal 17A xlii fol. 4v). The first chapter of the
Honorius ritual in the Royal is concerned with the construction of the Sigillum Dei, and the
Schemhamphoras is written between the inner and the outer circle of the seal. The sequence of 72 letters is
divided in eight groups of nine, and starts with the H. This letter, however, is not a part of the sequence, but
Houët s3051730/ 23
“denotes the creative breath of God” (Chardonnens & Veenstra 143). This tradition on the Schemhamphoras
returns (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 76v-77r), where all the full names of the Schemhamphoras are written, followed
by seventy-one angel drawings. The first thirteen bear the names of the Schemhamphoras, the seventy-two
letter name of God, but the other fifty-eight do not bear any name, which suggests that these names still
needed to be filled in. By not including the letter H in the 72 Schemhamphoras, the seventy-one angel
drawings in Royal fit the list of letters. However, the transmission of the Schemhamphoras in the Honorius
manuscripts did not always go well, as authors were unfamiliar with the Jewish tradition. Therefore, there
are scribal errors between the lists of the Schemhamphoras, which also could account for the seventy-one
angel drawings (Klaassen 106).
Besides the seventy-two letter tradition of the Schemhamphoras, the Royal also makes use of the
hundred names of God. The hundred names of God are introduced to the reader in the prologue, and occurs
again at the end of the Honorius ritual. In the prologue, the author gives several reasons why this particular
book, compiled by Honorius, is sacred. Among his reasons he mentions “which we doo call the sacred or
sworne booke for this cause, for in it is contayned a 100 sacred names of God and therfor it is callyd sacred,
as ye wolde saye “made of holy thinges” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 3v). The list of the hundred names is also
mentioned in a prayer (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 28r) that is used to consecrate the blood for the Sigillum Dei. The
last mention of the hundred names of God is at the end of the Honorius ritual on the last day. On this day,
the practitioner needs to recite a prayer in the morning and make a couch of hay. Around this couch the
practitioner needs to strew ash, and in this ash, write the hundred names of God. This list of the hundred
names of God can be found in Royal: “then make a cowche of heye, and a bowt it strew assches that be
cleane cyfted, and in them wryghte the hundreth names of God” These are the names of Godd: Aglai 1,
Monhon 2, Tetragramaton 3,” (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 62r-62v). This list continues until all the hundred names
are included. The use of the hundred names of God at the end of the Honorius ritual is present in the
Northern tradition, but is not in the Southern tradition. At the end of the ritual in the SSM, the practitioner
needs to write the seventy-two letter name of God in the ash around the couch of hay rather than the hundred
names of God.
In summary, in the Honorius ritual, the names of the deity from the Schemhamphoras support the
magician in the fulfilment of the ceremonial ritual. The Southern tradition uses the seventy-two letter name
of God, and the Northern tradition uses the seventy-two letter Schemhamphoras and the hundred names of
God. The practitioner does not need to perform these traditions such as the fumigation or prayers, but has to
be familiar with the tradition in order for the ritual to work.
Houët s3051730/ 24
Conclusion
Before proceeding to my edition of The Sworn Book of Honorius, I will shortly list the highlights of my
introduction concerning the general background and manuscript content in order to refresh your memories
and to improve the reading experience.
In the first part of my introduction, I discussed the general background of the medieval manuscripts
of the LIH, and the English translation of the SBH. The Honorius text is present in nine manuscripts, which
can be divided into a Southern and Northern tradition. All of these manuscripts contain the Honorius ritual,
or at least substantial parts of it. The manuscript content of the LIH derives from a Solomonic work called
the Ars Notoria, and the English translation used the Latin LIH as a main source, but also contains additional
material from Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa’s De Occulta Philosophia and the Fourth Book by Peter
D’Abano. The dating of the literary tradition has been a constant topic of discussion between scholars, yet, it
seems to me likely that the first LIH was compiled somewhere in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth
century. The English translation of the SBH is of a later date as it contains additional material which was
only published in 1550, so the manuscript cannot be earlier than the mid-sixteenth century. A necessary part
of the ritual is the construction of the Sigillum Dei. Only three of the manuscripts contain an image of this
magical seal, while the other manuscripts have a long and detailed description on how to construct the seal.
In the second part of my introduction I discussed the ‘magical’ content of the manuscript Royal of
the SBH. This Honorius manuscript is focused on the invocations of spirits, but is primarily concerned with
attaining a vision of God. A remarkable feature of the Northern tradition, and thus present in Royal, is the
prologue in which the historical setting, the author Honorius and the oath of secrecy is introduced. This
prologue enhances the magical atmosphere, and connects the Honorius ritual to the time of the papal
persecution of John XXII. The work in the Honorius tradition is the performance of the ritual itself. The
ritual consists of days of abstinence, incessant prayers, and attending Holy masses. In addition, the
practitioner also needs to be familiar with his spirits and with the tradition of the Schemhamphoras in order
to perform the ritual perfectly. The Honorius ritual needs to be performed with great devotion of the
practitioner, as the ritual is of a laborious nature.
All in all, I hope that the introduction has given you the intellectual background on the literary
tradition and subject matter of the LIH and the SBH to comprehend and understand the text of my Honorius
edition better, and will enjoy the magical Honorius journey.
Houët s3051730/ 25
“Then they prynces and prelates being pacefyed with burning of serten fables or tryffles,
thought verely this arte had bin utterly destroyed, and therefore we being somwhate moved,
These lines above state that the magicians have sworn an oath to keep their magical book secret and hidden.
The people of the church believe that they have utterly destroyed the art of magic, and the oath will ensure
that they will never discover the existence of this magical text. During the Middle Ages, a lot of magical
texts were written and compiled, yet most of them did not survive. The magical texts were destroyed by civil
and ecclesiastical authorities when they were discovered, as they were in opposition to the church
(Mathiesen 143-144). Luckily, a few magical texts have been preserved, as owners kept them hidden or
secret from the authorities or were bound by an oath of secrecy, such as in Royal. Most of these magical
texts that have survived are still unpublished and only available in manuscript form, as there have been made
very few attempts of editing the vast manuscript material (Hedegård 9). The study A History of Magic and
Experimental Science by Lynn Thorndike lists a number of these magical texts, and mentions the Honorius
tradition as one of them.
As previously discussed in the introduction, the LIH tradition is present in nine manuscripts from the
Middle Ages. Seven manuscripts are written in Latin, of which the earliest is dated to the fourteenth century,
and there are two translations: a German and an English one. The Royal, containing the SBH, is written
partly in Latin and partly in Middle English, and is dated to the mid-sixteenth century. The SBH based on
Royal has already been published twice: once as a modern translation by Daniel Driscoll in 1977, and once
as an accurate transcription by Joseph H. Peterson in 1998, published on the internet. Driscoll’s edition is a
free, modern English translation of the manuscript text as he has applied modern grammar and spelling with
the intention that every practicing magician will be able to read the Honorius tradition (Hedegård 9-10).
Joseph H. Peterson presents the audience with an accurate transcription of the manuscript text of Royal, and
provides additional readings from other LIH manuscripts (Hedegård 9-10).
As a result, I have decided to provide the reader with an edition of The Sworn Book of Honorius,
based on Royal, which holds an intermediate position between the free translation by Driscoll and the
accurate transcription by Peterson. The purpose of my edition is to present a magical work that is accessible
for a wide audience, including the practicing magicians among us, yet maintaining aspects of the Middle
English atmosphere that the manuscript possesses.
Houët s3051730/ 26
Editorial decisions
In this part of the introduction, I will elaborate on the editorial alterations I have made in the manuscript text
of Royal to provide a readable edition for everyone who is interested in this magical text. The text in Royal
is written in a Gothic textura (a script used in the Middle Ages) and bears specific medieval manuscript
traditions such as the layout, the use of abbreviations, line-fillers, and decorated initials (Derolez 28). These
manuscript traditions make the Honorius tradition more difficult to read for a reader unfamiliar with
medieval manuscripts and Middle English. Therefore, I have made some editorial alterations in my edition
to make the text easier to read and comprehend. In the Latin parts, I only altered the sentence line endings
and have deleted the line-fillers, but the editorial decisions applied to the Middle English parts of Royal are
concerned with layout, punctuation, and spelling.
The editorial decisions of the layout are concerned with line-endings, line fillers, layout, scribal
errors, chapter headings, and illustrations. In my edition, I decided to apply modern line endings, and delete
the line-fillers altogether as they became superfluous. The layout is divided into two columns on the page:
the manuscript text on the left side, and a word glossary on the right side. At the bottom of the page, I have
included footnotes which indicate scribal errors, and provide clarification on lexical words and phrases. In
the case of a scribal error, I have corrected the manuscript text, and specified the error in the footnote. The
manuscript text often indicates with explicit lines or decorated letters the start of a new chapter. I have
decided to underline the words to indicate headings and subheadings within the manuscript text.
Furthermore, I have included the manuscript illustrations within the text of my edition to not lose the
reader’s attention by flipping forward to an appendix.
Other editorial alterations which I have made in the SBH edition are concerned with punctuation.
These are the typographical devices which aid the understanding and correct reading of the text such as
punctuation, capitalisation and word spacing. The manuscript overall lacks simple punctuation such as
comma’s, full stops and quotations marks, and if it does provide some kind of punctuation, it often occurs at
strange places. For this reason, I have decided to apply modern punctuation and added commas, full stops,
colons, and quotations marks. Furthermore, I applied the modern use of capitalisation and modern word
spacing. In the manuscript text some words are written such as ‘to gether’ (Royal 17 A xlii fol. 2r), or
‘alyon’ (Royal 17 A xlii 14v), to which I have applied modern word spacing and changed them in ‘together’
and ‘a lyon’. In addition, the text is full of abbreviations for words like the, and, that, and with, which I have
all extended to improve the reading experience.
The last editorial decisions which I have made are concerned with spelling. The spelling in Middle
English was not as standardized as is now the case with Modern English and a lot more spelling variants
were acceptable. The manuscript Royal of the Honorius tradition is no exception, and gives spelling
discrepancies between recurring words in the manuscript such as ‘vouchsaffe, voutsaffe and wouchsaffe’, all
meaning ‘vouchsafe’. If I would change all of these spelling variants throughout the edition, I would lose the
Houët s3051730/ 27
Middle English aspect of the manuscript, and I then would present a similar edition to Driscoll’s work.
Accordingly, I have decided not to alter the spelling of the lexical words into modern English, but to change
some aspects of the Middle English spelling to ameliorate the flow of the text. The alterations in spelling are
focused on the u/v, þ/y/th, i/j and ff. In Middle English the letters u/v are interchangeably used, and therefore
I have decided to modernise the spelling of them in order to avoid confusion in words like heauen, deuil,
corrvpt and bvt. Another Middle English aspect is the letter þ, called the thorn. This letter is a remnant of
Old English, and was ultimately replaced in Modern English by the diphthong th. The Royal manuscript text
does not contain the letter þ, but uses instead the y to indicate the diphthong, as this letter became
indistinguishable from the thorn during the Middle Ages. This resulted in words like ye and yat, which I
have changed into the and that. In addition, I also modernised the use of i/j and ff; I have replaced the i into a
modern j, and changed the ff in initial sentence position into a capital F.
In short, my edition of The Sworn Book of Honorius has been subject to editorial alterations
concerning the layout, punctuation and spelling of the text to make it more accessible and readable for a
broader audience. My edition of the Honorius tradition of the Royal manuscript holds an intermediate
position between the two already existing versions of Driscoll and Peterson of The Sworn Book of Honorius.
In my edition, I have made alterations to the manuscript text which makes it more readable concerning
layout, punctuation and spelling, yet have maintained the Middle English lexical words and phrases to
preserve the magical atmosphere of the period in which the manuscript text was compiled and written.
Houët s3051730/ 28
Works Cited
Chardonnens, L.S. and Jan R. Veenstra. “Carved in Lead and Concealed in Stone: A Late Medieval Sigillum
Dei at Doornenburg Castle”. Magic, Ritual and Witchcraft. 9.2 (2014): 117-156. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
Derolez, Albert. The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books: from the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth
Driscoll, Daniel J. The Sworn Book of Honorius the Magician. New Jersey: Heptangle Books, 1977. Print.
Hedegård, Gösta. Liber Iuratus Honorii: A Critical Edition of the Latin Version of the Sworn Book of
Honorius. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2002. Print.
Kieckhefer, Richard. Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.
---. “The Devil’s Contemplatives: the Liber iuratus, the Liber Visionum and Christian Appropriation of
Jewish Occultism”. Conjuring Spirits: Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic. Ed. Claire
Fanger. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State UP, 1998. 250-265. Print.
Klaassen, Frank. The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and
Renaissance. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania UP, 2013. Print.
Mathiesen, Robert. “A Thirteenth-Century Ritual to Attain the Beatific Vision from the Sworn Book of
Honorius of Thebes”. Conjuring Spirits: Text and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic. Ed. Claire
Fanger. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State UP, 1998. 143-162. Print.
Mesler, Katelyn. “The Liber iuratus Honorii and the Christian Reception of Angel Magic”. Invoking Angels:
Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. Ed. Claire Fanger. Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 113-150. Print.
Peterson, Joseph H., ed. Liber Juratus Honorii or The Sworne Booke of Honorius. Esoteric archives, 1998.
Web. 10 Jan. 2015.
Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science: During the First Thirteen Centuries of our
Era. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia UP, 1923. Print.
Veenstra, Jan. R. “Honorius and the Sigil of God: the Liber iuratus in Berengario Ganell’s Summa Sacre
Magice”. Invoking Angels: Theurgic Ideas and Practices, Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries. Ed. Claire
Fanger. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 151-191. Print.
Véronèse, Julien. “God’s Names and Their Uses in the Books of Magic Attributed to King Solomon. Magic,
Ritual, and Witchcraft 5.1 (2010): 30-50. Print.
Houët s3051730/ 29
1
Prelate] high ranking member of the clergy.
2
damnacyon] condemnation to eternal punishment in hell.
3
of] inserted above.
4
mite] meet;worthy.
5
stamp of the British Library MVLLVM BRITAN NI*C.
Houët s3051730/ 31
6
Dowting] read fearing.
7
Tholetus] place in Spain, known for centre of learning.
8
Thebes] a city in Greece.
9
Consecrated] made sacred.
10
Bin] scribal error bim.
Houët s3051730/ 32
11
Sememphoras] Schemhamphoras; the 72 letter name of
God.
12
Deytey] deity; God or Goddess.
13
Purgatorye] a place of suffering inhabited by souls of
sinners; first r inserted above.
Houët s3051730/ 33
14
invocation] call an angel in prayer.
15
to] inserted above.
16
Infernalles] inhabitants of hell.
17
Seconde] scribal error secode.
18
the] added in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 34
19
63] scribe intended to write ‘67’.
20
Adamamt stone] a stone, especially a hard substance.
21
make] scribal error male.
22
Gryphon] myrthical creature; head of an eagle and body
of a lion.
23
88] scribal error, he wrote 00.
Houët s3051730/ 35
24
a] is inserted above.
25
Constrinkesyon] making narrower.
Houët s3051730/ 36
26
ye is written at the end of the page, under the st of magest.
Houët s3051730/ 37
27
5] quinque in Hedegard.
28
u] inserted above.
29
The scribe here starts naming the initials of the 72 names
of God.
30
The letter 'c' has a letter 't' as superscript. This is a
probably a correction.
31
The 's' has a superscript 't'.
32
That there is a double 'a' at this point in the sequence tells
us that this is the English (and generally northern-European)
tradition of the 72 names of God, because the Mediterranean
tradition has only a single 'a' there.
33
This letter ‘w’has a superscript 'n'.
34
This 'v' has a superscript sign that indicates that the letter
must be pronounced as a 'u'.
35
This 'r' has a superscript 't'.
36
This 'x' has an 's' superscript.
37
This 't' has a superscript 'c'. The roughly 8 letters
preceding this letters are not the initials of the traditional
names of God.
38
The 'v' has a superscript 't'.
39
This 'e' has a superscript 'y'.
40
The 's' has a superscript 'm'.
Houët s3051730/ 38
41
Here the bottom half of the pentagram cuts through the
line. There's also a small, coloured, 'Tau' symbol, flanked by
two medial puncti.
42
l.h.] l.x. in Hedegard.
43
.n.m.] u.m. in Hedegard.
44
7] septem in Hedegard.
45
r] inserted above.
Houët s3051730/ 39
46
a] might also be an 8 in the manuscript.
47
quartum] quantum in Hedegard.
48
quintur] quintum in Hedegard.
49
quantum] quartum in Hedegard.
50
co] erased by scribe; ra in Peterson.
51
Veham(s)] s erased by scribe.
Houët s3051730/ 40
52
sequenti] quinta in Hedegard.
53
sequenti] sexta in Hedegard.
Houët s3051730/ 41
54
Suffumygacion] magical practice to burn herbs to create
fumes and smell.
55
Storax] a rare gum resin from a Middle Eastern tree.
56
Sanders] sanderswood/ sandalwood.
Houët s3051730/ 43
64
Agath] an agate stone.
65
Stagg] a male deer.
66
Corall] the red skeleton of a coral branch.
67
Ut supra] as above.
68
Mandragg] mandrake; plant with human form.
69
of] inserted above.
70
fluider myse] means bats.
Houët s3051730/ 45
71
Flesede] a tall, slender-leaved plant from the grass family.
72
Peruke] a wig.
Houët s3051730/ 46
73
Conffeccion] something made by mixing.
74
Sepulcors] tombs.
Houët s3051730/ 47
75
left-hand margin zodiac sign aries.
76
left-hand margin zodiac sign taurus.
77
left-hand margin zodiac sign gemini.
78
left-hand margin zodiac sign cancer.
79
left-hand margin zodiac sign leo.
80
left-hand margin zodiac sign virgo.
81
left-hand margin zodiac sign libra.
82
left hand margin zodiac signe scorpio.
83
left hand margin zodiac sign saggitarius.
84
left hand margin zodiac sign capricorne.
85
left hand margin zodiac sign aquarius.
86
left hand margin zodiac sign pisces.
87
piper] pip in Peterson; scribe has erased an a.
Houët s3051730/ 48
88
symbol of the sun.
Houët s3051730/ 49
89
Pacrel] in Peterson; manuscript damaged.
90
Man, Polimas] in Peterson; manuscript damegd.
Houët s3051730/ 51
91
pinmybron] in Peterson; manuscript damaged.
92
mitti] in Hedegard; manuscript damaged.
93
Inestymable] too great to calculate.
94
Iniquytes]being unfair.
95
Beseching] ask someone urgently.
Houët s3051730/ 54
96
Vouchsaffe] to give.
Houët s3051730/ 55
97
2] probably meant to write 29.
Houët s3051730/ 56
Oracio Tercia
Salue regina misericordie uita dulcedo et spes
nostra salue, ad te clamancs exules filii eue, ad te
suspiramus gementes et flentes, in hac
lachrimarum ualle eya ergo aduocata nostra illos
tuos misericordes oculos ad nos conuerte et
Ihesum benedictum fructum uentris tui nobis post
hoc exilium ostende o clemens o pia o dulcis
maria ora pro nobis sancta dei genitrix, ut digni
efficiamur promissionibus Christi.
Oracio Quarta
O gloriosa domina uirgo semper maria mater
gloriæ, mater ecclesiæ, mater pietatis et
indulgentiæ, aue carissima domina semper uirgo
maria, mater lumnis, honor eternus, signum
serenitatis, aue piissima domina maria aula dei (fol. 29v)
porta cæli sacrarium spiritussaniti, aue piissima
domina una aurea templum dignitatis
reclinatorium eterna, aue clementissima domina
maria decus uirginum domina gencium regina
cælorum, aue amantissima domina maria fons
ortorum, ablutio peccatorum lancrum animarum,
aue desideratissima domina maria mater
orphanarum mamirilla peruulorum, consolatio
miserorum, Salue sancta parens, salue sancta et
inmaculata uirginitas assistens uultui dei memor
esto nostræ fragilitatis, salue benignissima, salue
suauissima, salue misericordissima, propiciaberis
semper uirgo benedicta et gloriosa uirgo maria
quæ uirga sacratissima dei et mater et piissima
stella clarissima, salue semper gloriosa, margarita
preciosa, ficus, lilium, formosa, olens, uelut rosa
alba dirige me in uisione beata, obsecro te regina
per hennis sancta maria per amorem patris et filii
et spiritussancti, et per commendatum tibi celeste
sacrarium, et per multas miserationes quas fecit
super me et super genus humanum, et per uirtutes
et per misteria sancte crucis, et per sanctos claues
fixas in suas preciosas manus et pedes, et per
sancta 5 uulnera sui preciosi corporis, et per
precium sancti corporis sui quo nos redemit in (fol. 30r)
sancta cruce ut ores pro me et pro omnibus
peccatis meis et necessitatibus meis anime et
corporis mei ad dilectum filium tuum.
Here recyte youre peticion98 accordinge to the
effecte of the which you worke. Doo so in the
(blank space)99 of every prayer before wrytten and
(blank space):
98
Peticion] prayer directed to the deity.
99
Blank space] This place is empty as if something needs to
be inserted here; nothing is erased.
Houët s3051730/ 57
100
hic recita petitionem tuam, pro uisione dic ad uidendum
me uiuente deum eternum] this passage, or somewhat
similar, is a recurring aspect in the manuscript which means
something in the line of: for the vision of the deity recite the
peticion as follows.
101
saxta] 5a oracio in Hedegard.
Houët s3051730/ 58
102
l erased.
103
“ye crede” written in the left-hand margin.
Houët s3051730/ 59
104
manuscript damaged]e visionem divinam habere in;from
Hedegard.
105
On this page the scribe used sometimes the rounded,
cursive r.
Houët s3051730/ 60
106
Manuscript damaged] interpretative reading; sanctus.
107
Manuscript damaged] erat from Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 61
108
oratio decinia] added in at the end of the line by a
different hand.
109
oratio 11a] written above it in a different hand.
110
Wisdome] wildome in manuscript, scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 62
111
N] name of the practitioner needs to be inserted.
Houët s3051730/ 63
112
Sicrogramon] in Peterson.
113
Ierthay] in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 64
114
Magaal] in Peterson.
115
Shalat] in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 65
116
oratio 17] in the centre of the line by a different hand.
117
t] is erased by the scribe.
118
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
semeth lameth ******** ******] added in left-hand margin
by a different hand. Drawing of a hand added in left-hand
margin.
119
Irreperhensible] not deserving condemnation.
Houët s3051730/ 67
120
Instruc] instrue; scribal error.
121
m] imn in Peterson.
122
hyhelyma added in margin above by a different hand as
the word is illegible because of damage.
Houët s3051730/ 68
123
oratio 23] justified to the right hand margin by a different
hand.
124
Amen] was written twice.
Houët s3051730/ 69
125
the holy trynyte] the holy trinity, the Father, the Son and
the Holy Ghost.
126
R] probably an abbreviation for Recita petitionem.
Houët s3051730/ 70
127
Perseverance] persistent in doing something.
Houët s3051730/ 71
128
oratio 32] justified to the right by different hand.
Houët s3051730/ 73
129
chnblaman] abbreviation lines above the a.
Houët s3051730/ 74
130
Termes] prayers that need to be said at a certain time.
Houët s3051730/ 76
131
Thryse] thrice, archaic; three times.
132
Chaldey] a member of an ancient people who lived in
Chaldea circa 800 BC, and ruled Babylonia 625-539 BC.
They were renowned as astronomers and astrologers.
Houët s3051730/ 77
133
theos] inserted above.
134
chastite and clenies] being clean in body and soul.
Houët s3051730/ 78
135
God] gog; scribal error.
136
Twyst]twice.
Houët s3051730/ 79
137
Introyt] introit; a part of a psalm with antiphon recited by
the celebrant of the Mass at the foot of the altar.
138
Francumsence] frankinscence; a substance that is burnt to
give a pleasant smell.
139
Immedyatly] Inimedyatly, unreadable.
140
Te igiter] first prayer of the canon of the Mass.
Houët s3051730/ 80
them and every thing that thei shall aske the father
in my name and he will fullfyll and doo it”.
The prayers, whereof sum are named before and
sume here after, are thes:
Agla,
the lighte, the truthe, the lyfe and the waye,
mercyfull judge, the way, the strengthe, by thy
pacyence conserve and helpe me, hic recita patience
peticyonem sed per deitate dic ut sequitur, and
helpe me in this holy visyon, and for thy greate
mercy have mercye upon me, and for the service
of this, Holy fumygatyon, and for this Holy
sacrafyce of our lorde Jesus Christ and by the
merytes of the gloryous virgin Marye, mother of merits
thy sonne owr lord Jesus Christ and by the
merytes of thy Holy apostells, Peter, Paule,
Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholemew, Mathew,
Symon, Thadee, Lyne, Clete, Clement, Sextus,
Cornelius, Cypriane, Laurenes, Grisogone, Jhon,
and Paule, Cosme, and Damyane, and all thy
sayntes, thorow whose merytes and prayers, hic
recita petycyonem tuam sed per deita dic ut
sequitur, thow wilte graunte me thy holy visyon
thorow the sonne, owr lorde Jesus Christ. Amen.
MonHon,
Lorde, holy father almightye and everlastinge
God, in whose sighte are all the foundatyon of all
vysible and invisible creatures, whose eyes hathe
sene myn imperfytteness, whose swite charyte or imperfectness
love hathe filled heaven and earthe, whose eares
do here all thinges, which haste seene all thinges
before they be doone, in whoso booke all dayes
are nombred and all men wrytten, looke this daye
upon thy servant which hath submitted him selffe
to the with all his mynde and all his harte by thy
holy sprite, confyrme and stregthen me, recita
peticionem sed per deitate dic ut sequitur, that I (fol. 49r)
may se the, blysse me this day and order all my
artes and deeds toward this holy syghte, and
contynually lyghten with thy hooly visitacyon.
Amen.
Tetragramathon,
looke o lorde God most mercyfull and everlasting
father, of all thinges the disposer of all vertues,
consyder my workes this day thow whith dost
beholde the actes and deede of men and angelles
and the discerner of them, dic tuam peticionem
sed per deitate dic ut sequitur, therfore I besiche
that the mervelous grace of thy Holy sufferance
maye wouchsaffe to fill in me the powre of this to give
Houët s3051730/ 81
141
Shid] spill.
142
Intercessyon] the act of saying a prayer for somebody.
143
Indissoluble] unable to be destroyed.
Houët s3051730/ 82
144
Gofgamel] Gosgamel in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 85
145
Shide] pour.
Houët s3051730/ 86
146
moons are mirrored.
147
Decorative symbols, probably referring to note in margin
transcribed here: ͻ + o God (according to Peterson) ****
arte lyffe *** and the t[***]ty graunte the by the power of
thy holy | Spirit thy light maye shine into my concionies and
into myn minde, and graunte that thy house of thy |
operacion and the gifte of thy grace may shine into my
hartte and into my sowle nowe and | ever more amen. That
most folowe after the prayer. Admiol nos ib the 17. Prayer.
Houët s3051730/ 87
148
Sanna] Saima in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 88
149
Fornication] sexual intercoure between people who are
not married.
Houët s3051730/ 89
150
pleasure] correction by scribe: added l later.
151
Exalted] state of extreme happiness.
152
competenc nox ischement] code switch to latin.
Houët s3051730/ 90
155
putt] correction by scribe: last minim of u has an extra
curl on top, making it look like an e, piett Peterson.
156
Iecoharuampde] Iecoharnampde in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 92
157
Wex] in Latin vigeat, which means flourish.
158
sytte] in Latin pedes, which means feet.
Houët s3051730/ 93
159
Vehemencye] vehemence; quality of showing strong
feelings.
Houët s3051730/ 95
160
most] omst; scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 96
161
This] flis scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 97
162
Iefu] scribal error for Iesu.
Houët s3051730/ 98
163
Psalter] the book of psalms.
164
Letayne] the litany; a series of petitions for use in church
services or processions.
Houët s3051730/ 99
165
Abel’s oblation.
166
Mambre] Mamre, a shrine for Pantheon.
167
nazareth] nazereth in Peterson.
Houët s3051730/ 101
168
Be] bo; scribal error.
169
Nighte] mighte; scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 102
170
Ysope] Hyssope; a herbaceous plant, sometimes used as
a medical plant.
Houët s3051730/ 103
171
Nomygon] in Peterson.
172
Which] wch, scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 104
173
Remytt] forgive a sin.
Houët s3051730/ 105
174
Third] thrid, scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 106
175
Because] bocause; scribal error.
176
for] sor; scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 107
177
4th symbol: astrological sign for Saturn.
Houët s3051730/ 109
181
178
4th symbol: astrological sign for Jupiter.
179
3rd symbol: astrological sign for Mars.
180
Peterson omits this line completely.
181
2nd symbol: astrological sing for the sun.
Houët s3051730/ 110
182
3rd symbol: astrological sign for Venus.
183
Which] wch; scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 111
184
184
Last symbol: astrological sign for Mercury.
185
2nd symbol: astrological sign for the moon.
Houët s3051730/ 112
186
Samaym] Angel from the Old Testament.
187
Prayer] praer; scribal error.
Houët s3051730/ 114
(fol. 75r)
+ Cabiel+ Dirachiel + Seheliel + Amnediel +
אל
יח
יח
יח
מ
א
ח
ה
ל
נ
ו
ו
ו
ו
י
י
Ieliel pahaliah haamia Peroiel
נ
b
188
אל
אל
יח
יח
מ
ח
ח
צ
פ
פ
ל
ל
י
י
י
Sitael nelchael Rehael nemamia
h
אל
אל
אל
יח
מ
א
ח
ס
ר
צ
צ
כ
ל
נ
נ
י
אל
אל
אל
יח
מ
מ
צ
ל
ל
ז
י
י
י
י
י
י
mahasia melahel hahahel harahel
h
אל
אל
אל
יח
ש
מ
מ
ח
ח
ח
ח
ח
ה
ה
ר
ל
lelahel hahuiah michael miZrael
אל
אל
אל
יח
מ
מ
ח
ח
ה
ר
כ
ל
ל
ז
ו
י
achaiah nuthaiah veualia umahel
189
h
אל
יח
יח
יח
א
א
ה
ה
צ
כ
כ
ל
נ
ו
ו
ו
cahethel haaiah ielahiah Iahhel
אל
אל
יח
יח
מ
א
א
ח
ח
ה
ה
ה
כ
ל
י
י
haziel Ierathel Sealiah annauel
190
אל
אל
אל
יח
א
ח
ח
ס
ה
ר
צ
ל
ז
ו
י
י
נ
191
אל
אל
יח
יח
ש
ת
מ
א
א
ה
ר
צ
ל
ד
י
188
צ ]נ
189
nuthaiah] nitthaiah.
190
נ ]ח
191
ח ]נ
Houët s3051730/ 120
ה
h
194
יח
יח
יח
יח
ש
א
ר
צ
כ
ל
ל
ד
נ
י
י
hahaiah Omael michael memel
אל
אל
אל
יח
מ
מ
מ
מ
א
ח
ח
ה
ע
ו
י
י
Iezalel lecabel vehuel Eiael
אל
אל
אל
אל
א
ח
צ
ב
כ
ל
ל
ז
ו
ו
י
י
mebahel vasariah Daniel habuiah
אל
אל
יח
יח
ש
מ
ח
ח
ר
ב
ב
ד
נ
ו
ו
י
hariel Iehuiah hahasia Roehel
h
אל
אל
יח
יח
ש
א
ח
ה
ה
ה
ה
ר
ר
ו
י
י
haliamia Lehahiah imamia iabamiah
h h
יח
יח
יח
יח
מ
מ
מ
מ
ח
ק
ה
ה
צ
ב
ל
י
195
lemah chauakiah nanael Haiaiel
אל
אל
יח
יח
ת
א
א
ח
כ
ל
נ
נ
ו
ו
י
י
caliel manadel nithael mamiah
אל
אל
אל
יח
מ
מ
מ
ח
ל
ד
נ
נ
נ
ו
י
י
192
lamah] lauiah.
193
Reiiah] Reiiel.
194
מ ]ה
195
lemah] leuiah.
(blank page) (fol.79v)
The angels of the 7 planetts after the (fol. 80r)
opinione of zebell:
Sachir + Onath + Anasen + Prothophares
+ Gaym + Fimtilis +.
196
Aastegeon + Sexagip + Tors +
Tentercenta + Selops + Versiel +
AstrondAy +
Belligeron + Robrinez
+Thophares+Scetaburous + Zelidrou +
Pristorides + Pirirm +Phitach +.
Alfareon + Luetundium + Ferlucifin +
Moderiel + Pantes + Strindabelion +.
Penel + Apripos + Filiach + Disdros +
Nechir + Pbab + Neptaliam +
Calamichan + Pergamidam + Tichiz +
Aprops + Cirael + Gariliam + Gemasnay +.
197
Ydroel + Nar + Escor + Phin +
Bethan + Gesrus + Philosen + Onfilmetoii
+.
The names of the angels of the xii signes:
Utiridan + Berithz + Manslitan +
Ysmarelion +.
Geofriel + Dridmoyl + Frenil + Dirigalij
+.
Sinchateriel + Anabrochz + Gefrel +
Beliabij +.
Tetrarchin + Froseithz + Endiran +
Cefafin +.
Berferiel + Andri + Facifon + Vridithian
+.
Monosriel + Scamburion + Liricom +
An +.
Ilfiey + Drabundin + Prothabeon +
Sephyron +.
Gefusieon + Grisolis + Ophicen +
Albuth +.
Tebondriel + Zedrociel + Rufibian +
Exdromal +.
Tiragisneil + Sandamruch + Gelisedon +
Nili +.
Sterrunilion + Andebal + Gorthz +
Zahayr +.
Nolicheil + Angiseil + Theodropham +
Salchmeon + Exagiel +
196
Mirrored.
197
Mirrored.
Houët s3051730 /122
198
Gabriel + Orpheniel + Mychael +
Samyhel + Athithael +.
The names of the angels of the xii signes
after the opinione of Honorius:
Malichidael + . Asmodel + Ambriel
+ Muriel + Verchiel + Hamaliel +
Zuriel + Barchiel + Advachiel +
Hanael + Ambiel + Barchiel +
The angels of the . xxviii . mancions of the (fol. 81r)
mone:
Geniel + Enediel + Amixiel + Azariel +
Caiel + Dirachiel + Seheliel + Amnediel +
Barbiel + Ardesiel + Neciel + Abdizuel +
Iazeriel + Ergediel + Ataliel + Azeruel +
Adriel + Egiviel + Amutiel + Kiriel +
Bethnael + Geliel + Requiel + Abrinael +
Aziel + Tagriel + Alheniel + Amnixiel +.
Thes are the princes of the 4 windes:
Of the Est is + Michael + of the West is +
Raphael + of the Northe is + Gabriel + of
the Sowghte is + Nariel + t . Uriel +
Thes are the dominators and reulers of the
4 elementes: Of the ayer is + Cherub + of
the water is + Tharsis + of the yearthe is +
Ariel + of the fyer is + Seruph + uel .
Nathaniel +
Thes are the angels that beare the great
name of God called in the hebrewe tunge
schemhamphoras:
Vehuiah + Ieliel + Sitael + Elemiah +
Mahasiah + Lelahel + Achatah +
Cahethel + Haziel + Aladiah + Lamah +
Hahaiah + Iezalel + Mebahel +
Hariel + Hakamiah + Leuiah + Caliel +
Ievuiah + Pahaliah + Nelchael + Ieiael +
Melahel + Hahuiah + Nitthhaiah + Haaiah
+ Ierathel + Seehiah + Reijel + Omael +
Lecabel + Vasariah + Lehuiah + Lehahiah
+ Chauakiah + Manadel + Aniel +
Haamiab + Rehael + Ieiazel + Hahahel +
Michael + Veualiah + Ielahiah + Sealiah +
Ariel + Asaliah + Michael + Vehuel +
Daniel + Hahasiah + Imamiah + Nanael +
Nithael + Mehahiah + Poiel + Nemamiah +
Ieialel + Harahel + Mizrael + Umahel +
Iahhel + Annauel + Mehekiel + Damahiah
+ Meniel + Eiael + Habuiah + Roehel +
Iabamiah + Haiaiel + Mamiah +.
198
Mirrored.
Abstract
This master thesis The Sworn Book of Honorius deals with the medieval literary tradition of
the Liber iuratus Honorii. The text of the Liber iuratus Honorii is a handbook on ceremonial
magic, and is concerned with the invocation and conjuration of spirits. In the manuscript text,
a magical ritual is described for the attainment of a vision of God (Visio Dei) with the help of
a magical seal (Sigillum Dei). The text of the Liber iuratus Honorii is present in nine
medieval manuscripts and can be divided in two literary traditions: The Southern and the
Northern tradition. One of these manuscripts contains an English translation called The Sworn
Book of Honorius. In this thesis, I have edited the manuscript text of the MS. Royal 17 A xlii
from the British Library in London to a reliable and readable edition of the English text The
Sworn Book of Honorius. In addition, I have done research on the historical background and
manuscript content of the Liber iuratus Honorii and The Sworn Book of Honorius.