That makes this necessary, no matter how absurd I think it is. So, here goes. For the record: The following is a list of the people I initiated into 1734: 
 

• Mara Schaeffer (1973) (Received extensive training for 2 years) 
• Lynn Brownlee (1974) (Received limited training for 2 years) 
• David and Ann Finnan (1975) (received limited training for about 3 years, later rejected my tradition in favor of John Jones who is Clan of Tubal Cain instead of 1734) 
• Joanna Watkyns (1976) (Received extensive training for 12 years) 
• Bill Holmes (1977) (Never showed up for any training and never got any teaching via correspondence) 
• Bonnie and Jim Crowley (1980) ( Never accepted training. Excommunicated/disowned in 1987) 
• Tanith Tyrr (Midsummer 1987) (Trained along with TOTEG membership, and much personal instruction) 
• Tori McElroy (1996 ) (Received extensive personal training until 2002) 

There are one or two others who could be on that list, however to my knowledge they never established any groups of their own, and ceased practicing. 

I am NOT implying that others are not 1734, too. As I said, I will publicly recognize anyone I initiated, or taught, for whatever that's worth. 

Just because someone isn't on that list of people doesn't mean they aren't 1734. The problem is that some of the folks out there seem intent on invalidating others on the basis of not having inititiations. Some of those groups, so far as I can tell, don't have an initiatory pedigree themselves. 

1734 was *NOT* intended to be a Gardnerian/Masonic style tradition by which legitimacy is judged by a confirmed/recognized pedigree. 

You do NOT have to be able to trace an initiatory line back to Tubal Cain and Naamah (Genesis 4:22) in order to be "real 1734". 

There are other people I initiated into the Old Religion without any reference to 1734. There are other people I gave 1734 initiations to. There are other people I taught 1734 to, directly or indirectly, without giving them any kind of initiation. 

I was widely published and I was a source for a huge number of writers and books. I ran a very large very successful group in Los Angeles -- and when I say large, I mean large -- for almost 20 years as many as 30 people a week attended circles in my home. And that doesn't begin to cover the groups I ran elsewhere, the groups I helped others establish, or the influence I had on them. There are LOTS of people who were influenced by 1734, directly or indirectly. 

"Witchcraft" in America today is as riddled with 1734 influences as it is Gardnerian influences. 

So saying "So and so isn't 1734," or "Coven DonkeyGroddle isn't 1734" is ridiculous. 

They are. And they aren't. Because none of them are pure 1734, all of them are mixed with other influences; all of them are doing their own thing -- AND THATS GOOD DAMMIT. THAT's what I taught -- that it had to be personalized, that the dogma wasn't sacrosanct and untouchable. 

BUT don't confuse what has been changed with what is the basis of 1734. Don't confuse added dogma or rejected dogma with the basis of the mysteries. 

On my grumpier days (which is most days these days) I don't think ANYONE is actually practicing 1734, as I know it. 

So get over the whole legitimacy thing. 

I'm sick of one group trying to flaunt their supposed legitimacy in the faces of others while being unwilling or unable to show their own pedigree. If they are going to do it that way they HAVE TO be able to trace their lineage back to me through one of the people on that list above. Otherwise they should just shut up. 

1734 is not dependent on being able to trace an initiatory pedigree. But if folks are going to try and make it that way, they damn sure better make sure their own pedigree is in order and start recognizing those that ARE "legitimately initiated," no matter what I or others think of the practices of those people or groups. 

Let me repeat this one more time. 

Who is and is not 1734 DOES NOT DEPEND on a direct initiatory pedigree. 

Period. 

Joseph B Wilson 
1734 Founder 
 

HOME