Some early editions attribute it to the twelfth century Pope Honorius II but this seems unlikely in the extreme, and most modern scholars think that the title is totally spurious, perhaps having been given to it in the hope that the unwary would confuse it with the famous thirteenth century grimoire, "The Sworn Book of Honorius." The book itself appears to have been compiled from a number of diverse sources: ranging from Roman Catholic liturgy to works like the Grimorium Verum.
Some early editions attribute it to the twelfth century Pope Honorius II but this seems unlikely in the extreme, and most modern scholars think that the title is totally spurious, perhaps having been given to it in the hope that the unwary would confuse it with the famous thirteenth century grimoire, "The Sworn Book of Honorius." The book itself appears to have been compiled from a number of diverse sources: ranging from Roman Catholic liturgy to works like the Grimorium Verum. This has led some commentators to speculate that it might have been a confection produced purely for commercial purposes, whereas others maintain that it does have a (misguided) internal consistency, and even though it is a compilation, it might still - like Barrett's "Magus" - be considered an authentic work in its own right. The book's bibliographic history, like that of so many other grimoires, is deliberately obscure. Caillet lists a printed edition supposedly published in Rome in 1670, and the title page of this edition - perhaps not entirely co-incidentally - suggests that it was published in Rome in 1760. In fact it seems to have been published in France in the early nineteenth century (a printer's mark in the colophon gives "Lille - Impremerie de Blocquel" indicating that it was from the printery of Simon Blocquel (1780 -1863), bookseller, printer, and publisher of numerous grimoires). The work is certainly scarce: Caillet quotes Levi as referring to it as "introuvable."
Volume 1’s Now Being Released in Trade Paperback:
