Commentary on the Charge of the Goddess 1: Introduction

A few years ago I began work on a commentary on the Charge of the Goddess. I envisaged it as a book originally, but have decided that I will publish it here as blog posts with irregular frequency. I will label these posts with Charge of the Goddess so that they can be isolated from the rest of the blog. I am sure that the references will get mixed up, publishing it this way, but please bear with me, a bibliography will appear at some ill-defined time in the future.

Introduction

This work aims to serve two roles in relation to the Charge of the Goddess, the well-loved ritual text of witchcraft and wicca. It aims to be a commentary on the text, identifying sources for it, how those sources have been adapted for use in the Charge, and what this use means in terms of Wiccan thealogy. A thealogy – the term which has come into use in the past few decades as a feminine form of the word theology – is its second function. What does the Charge say about witches' understanding of the Goddess, and how does this understanding impact on what Wiccans and witches do?
There is nothing original here, I have merely marshalled sources, and attempted to bring these sources together as they relate to the Charge.
Nor is this a work of academic scholarship: many of the sources of Wicca are not now considered academically credible, and I have tried to indicate where this is so, but these are the sources which must be looked to for Wicca’s foundations. There is also little that is firmly evidenced in this work, it does not claim to be the final word in any sense, and few firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the available evidence. This difficulty is created by a total absence of any evidence before the 1940s for the creation of the Charge as used in Wicca today. Therefore in the textual analysis I have been forced to make decisions on sources based on what I feel to be most plausible. These decisions therefore cannot be considered final.
The thealogy is based on evidence of a mixed nature. Many of the writers influential on Neo-Paganism are not considered authoritative by the academic community, so I have tried to indicate where things are supposition or I have not been able to find wide agreement. That said, because the thealogy of Wicca and witchcraft is in places founded on ideas which were commonplaces in the worlds of history, archaeology, theology, folklore, anthropology and mythology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (or at least as popularly understood), and are no longer accepted by either academic concept or popular understanding, I have been obliged to include sources for the thealogy which would not now be considered authoritative, again trying to indicate this where appropriate.
I have taken further liberties in sourcing understandings of the Goddess, quoted sources of different witchcraft and occult traditions, even used (and misused) Christian sources, because that has been the available source for what I want to say: once again this thealogy is in no way authoritative and I will be delighted if people feel free to differ.
There are three agendas underlying this commentary, which should perhaps be made clear at the start.
The first is the underlying historical assumption: I do not believe Wicca to be the ‘Old Religion’, reaching back to the Neolithic, nor do I believe Gerald Gardner to have created it himself. The assumption here is that there were antecedents to Wicca as publicised by Gardner, there was definitely something magical going on in the New Forest area of Hampshire, but there is very little evidence as to what it was and how it relates to Gardnerian Wicca.
The second agenda is to appeal to my fellow witches to bear in mind that it is possible both to be a witch, or even an initiated Gardnerian Wiccan, and also take seriously the findings of modern historiography about those who were called witches in the mediaeval and early modern periods and the antecedents of our religion. The days of Murrayism, and pseudohistory supported only by the testimony of dead grandmothers are gone.
And my final agenda is another appeal: it is high time we passed beyond the basics. Too many books of the Introduction to Witchcraft for Beginners type continue to be published – of course this is because they sell – but there is little available for those who wish to pass on to a mature understanding of our traditions. It is time to pass on to a deeper understanding of what we have already done, rather than rehashing the same material all over again.
A word on terminology: I have taken further liberties here and opted for the North American usage in which ‘Wicca’ and ‘Witchcraft’ are interchangeable, so that here Wicca can also mean witches of other traditions. This is because the Charge is not only used by Wiccans as strictly defined by Gardnerian (and/or Alexandrian) initiatory lineage, what is referred to in America as British Traditional Witchcraft, but has broken loose into the broader Pagan community, so that these words are not only addressed to those of one tradition. Similarly I have not followed the usual English convention of referring to divinities in polytheisms as gods or goddesses, with a small g, but capitalised these words throughout, except in direct quotation, as referring to real divinities to whom people pay homage today.