The Book of ceremonial Magic

But Éliphas Lévi was not contented with the general impeachment; in a later work 2 he
elaborated a more particular charge. In common with the Key of Solomon, and all the
Grimoires, the work of Honorius prescribes the sacrifice of a virgin kid, with the object
of ensuring the possession of a virgin parchment by the operator. Now, Lévi affirms that
when the "abominable author" mentions a kid, he means really a human child. In this
interpretation he has not even the excuse of the humorous analogy which has been
instituted in vulgar English, for his acquaintance, had he any, with our language was
exceedingly slight. There is not a particle of foundation
p. 105
for the charge; the sacrifice in the case of the Grimoire of Honorius means, and can
mean, no more than in the case of the Key of Solomon. There was a defined purpose in
connection with the slaughter of the victim, which was the same in both instances.
So far concerning the misinterpretations of writers who pretend to some first-hand
acquaintance with the work under notice. Others who have mentioned it within recent
years have been content to follow the French authority without examination. Thus it is
that I find Mr. J. H. Slater, in a paper read before the Bibliographical Society, and printed
in its Transactions, 1 describing this Grimoire as an advocate of murder and all kinds of
crimes. Furthermore, he confuses it throughout with the Grand Grimoire.
Taking the work at first hand, the initial question concerning it is the attribution of the
authorship. From what we know of magical literature, to say nothing of pontifical dignity,
it is antecedently unlikely that it is the work of a Roman bishop, more especially of such
a bishop as Honorius. Éliphas Lévi, who rightly sought to vindicate the Church of his
childhood, assailed, in the person of one of its sovereign pontiffs, by an unintelligent
accusation, but vindicated it badly as usual, took a glance at the history of the time and
discovered that during the pontificate of Honorius there was an anti-pope set up by Henry
IV. of Germany, and that he was a man of evil life. He immediately conjectured that this
personage was the likely author of the objectionable Grimoire. Again there is not a
particle of evidence for such a surmise, and it is un bien vilain procédé, as M. Papus
might say, to increase, without good reason, the responsibility resting upon the memory
of the unhappy prelate in question.
p. 106
If we come to the facts, they are these. The first edition of the Grimoire is said to have
appeared in 1629, and it is not likely that it was forged much earlier than the end of the
sixteenth century, being, roughly, nine hundred years after the death of its supposed
author. The canonical Pope, it must be confessed, was a voluminous writer; his sermons
and his vast correspondence have appeared in two large volumes at Paris, 1 under
auspices which were unlikely to admit even a contemptuous reference to the forged
constitution. There is none, accordingly, which is to be regretted from the standpoint of
bibliography. But the editor has further excluded with the same silence another work
much more reasonably attributed, and to which no odium can attach. It is one also which
is important to our inquiry, and it is entitled Honorii Papæ, adversus tenebrarum