Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wica

[Bittersweet_1896]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone who participates on the forums was either a practicing Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wica or at least someone who is interested in traditional Wica. I've found many people don't really have an interest in it, probably because of their strict oath of secrecy, et cetera. I myself am very interested in traditional Wica and just wondered if anyone shared the interest.

[RedRaven]

im a huge fan of Stewart Farrar and Alex Sanders. I wasnt initiated Alexandrain but Ive collected enough material on the tradition to basically practice, so its psuedo-alexandrian lol Any books you can get by Stewart Farrar, especially "a witches bible", is a must have! if you can find the alex sanders lectures grab them, although I was lucky enough to find the book, its still rare nowadays.

RR

[Bittersweet_1896]

I wasnt initiated Alexandrain but Ive collected enough material on the tradition to basically practice, so its psuedo-alexandrian

I believe that they attach "neo" to the tradition if you aren't initiated (neo-Alexandrian, et cetera) into a coven with lineage. I remember I was in a chat room once and I expressed an interest, once they found out I wasn't initiated in a more or less harsh way made the term known to me.




Any books you can get by Stewart Farrar, especially "a witches bible", is a must have! if you can find the alex sanders lectures grab them, although I was lucky enough to find the book, its still rare nowadays.

I've seen the Farrar book A Witches' Bible. Doesn't it come in two volumes? I always remember seeing two books side by side. I tried to get a hold on Maxine Sander's book on Ebay recently. However it went over twenty dollars, and I have a limit on my spending for used good. I'm keeping my eye on Ebay; a copy always seems to pop up out of the blue. I just have to wait for my chance.

[Seren_]

I've seen the Farrar book A Witches' Bible. Doesn't it come in two volumes?

It's two books squished into one volume. The first is on the Sabbats, the second is on theory and practice and includes a copy of Gardner's Book of Shadows with an analysis of it and contributions from Doreen Valiente. If you're interested in Alexandrian practice, or even just a solid book on Wicca then it's a must-have IMHO.

Vivienne Crowley is also a good author, being initiated as both an Alexandrian and Gardnerian. And Deb Lipp is a Gardnerian (I believe, I hope I'm not making that up...), and posts on here. She has some very good books out too.

The "neo" appelation is a fairly recent thing, I think. A lot of BTWs (and I mean the very traditional lot, not everyone's that way) will plain out say that if you're not initiated into a lineaged group, your not Wiccan. I think there tends to be more of a hard-line on the issue in Britain than America, perhaps, where eclecticism is more common. :whatgives From my experience as a Brit and former Gardnerian, anyway.

[Bittersweet_1896]

It's two books squished into one volume. The first is on the Sabbats, the second is on theory and practice and includes a copy of Gardner's Book of Shadows with an analysis of it and contributions from Doreen Valiente. If you're interested in Alexandrian practice, or even just a solid book on Wicca then it's a must-have IMHO.

I believe I'll have to save up my pennies and get it someday. I believe I thumbed through it a while ago at some shop. It does seem like it was be a very nice addition to a personal library.


Vivienne Crowley is also a good author, being initiated as both an Alexandrian and Gardnerian. And Deb Lipp is a Gardnerian (I believe, I hope I'm not making that up...), and posts on here. She has some very good books out too.

I've herd of Vivienne Crowley, I've been meaning to reserve a book of hers at my local public library. As for Deb Lipp I've never herd of her, however, it seems it's something that I might look into in the future.


A lot of BTWs (and I mean the very traditional lot, not everyone's that way) will plain out say that if you're not initiated into a lineaged group, your not Wiccan. I think there tends to be more of a hard-line on the issue in Britain than America, perhaps, where eclecticism is more common.

I think I believe that to be true. However, I really do like the strictness. I read an excerpt from a book by Sybil Leek, in it she mentioned that American covens do not screen their applicants as well as the do in Europe. I believe it went on about how it's import to have such a strict nature to keep out those who are just undesirable or something along those lines.

[Ben Gruagach]

Janet and Stewart Farrar's book "A Witches Bible" was originally published as two separate books, "The Witches' Way" and "Eight Sabbats for Witches." Then they were combined in a two-volume set under the title "A Witches Bible" which was later reprinted as a single volume that is still pretty easy to find. No matter whether you buy them as two separate books or a single book they are the same text inside.

There is a Yahoo group set up called Amber and Jet (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amberandjet) (I've linked in the page to the name of the group there to make it easy) that consists of Gardnerian and Alexandrian initiates and serves as a way for seekers to make contact. They won't discuss any oathbound material of course but it is a place to find out more and get in touch with groups or teachers in your area.

If you're interested in non-Wiccan English witchcraft (that often calls itself "traditional witchcraft") that is mostly descended from or inspired by Robert Cochrane, there is a Yahoo group for that too called BCTW_chat (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BCTW_chat). Note that they claim to be pre-Gardnerian forms of witchcraft, although it is debatable whether any of the groups or practitioners in that segment of the community actually date back to before Gardner's time. They are definitely involved in trying to recreate or restore pre-Gardnerian witchcraft practices though.

[KEishin]

I believe that they attach "neo" to the tradition if you aren't initiated (neo-Alexandrian, et cetera) into a coven with lineage. I remember I was in a chat room once and I expressed an interest, once they found out I wasn't initiated in a more or less harsh way made the term known to me.
The term I hear used most often is "Alexandrian-derived" if you practice in the Alexandrian style but have no lineage. But neo-Alexandrian serves the same purpose. :)

[Kudzu]

I'm very much interested in Traditional Wicca! I am not yet Initiated, but I am a Seeker. I've met and learned from the Outer Courts of some lineaged BTW covens in my area, and have been been very encouraged and inspired by the people I've come to know. I look forward to continuing my Path in that direction!

[Seshata]

The "neo" appelation is a fairly recent thing, I think. A lot of BTWs (and I mean the very traditional lot, not everyone's that way) will plain out say that if you're not initiated into a lineaged group, your not Wiccan. I think there tends to be more of a hard-line on the issue in Britain than America, perhaps, where eclecticism is more common. :whatgives From my experience as a Brit and former Gardnerian, anyway.

Neo is a new one on me. Usually we make the difference by saying Wica and Wicca - Wica being initiated into the tradition and a coven.

Hmmm - i've found more hard-liners in the States (sorry for any who are - Long Island branch of Gardnerians)... The younger Gardnerians and Alexandrians in the UK are pretty more relaxed nowadays. :)

If you're looking for a coven, as has been said, Amber and Jet is good also go to any events that are happening out there, you may be able to contact others. But remember, there are more 'seekers' than coven spaces, so it may take some time. But if you're asking the 'right' questions, you will get guidance if you need it. :)

Onto your list of books I would add anything by Doreen Valiente.

BB

Seshata

[Ruhiel]

The "neo" appelation is a fairly recent thing, I think. A lot of BTWs (and I mean the very traditional lot, not everyone's that way) will plain out say that if you're not initiated into a lineaged group, your not Wiccan. I think there tends to be more of a hard-line on the issue in Britain than America, perhaps, where eclecticism is more common. :whatgives From my experience as a Brit and former Gardnerian, anyway.

I'm a hardliner, stuffy old Gardnerian. If you aren't initiated (by another Gard), you aren't Gardnerian. I think the Neo thing is perhaps another way for people to claim involvement in something they aren't. Eclectic Gardnerian is another term that makes my skin crawl. There's no such thing. But I try to stay light hearted about it.
:D
As for a tradition, I like it. That's about all I can say though.

[Kudzu]

A lot of BTWs (and I mean the very traditional lot, not everyone's that way) will plain out say that if you're not initiated into a lineaged group, your not Wiccan.

I personally agree with that, which is why I don't yet call myself "Wiccan." Since the beliefs and praxis of Wiccans are (for the most part) oathbound, by definition all of the public materials that aren't deliberately uninformative are published by either oathbreakers or those who never practiced Wicca. Frankly, I don't feel that I can know enough about Wicca from public materials to consider myself Wiccan.


Neo is a new one on me. Usually we make the difference by saying Wica and Wicca - Wica being initiated into the tradition and a coven.

It's a new one on me, too. In my personal opinion, such qualifiers can still be innacurate and misleading, which is why I will call myself "Pagan" until I am Initiated.


If you aren't initiated (by another Gard), you aren't Gardnerian. I think the Neo thing is perhaps another way for people to claim involvement in something they aren't. Eclectic Gardnerian is another term that makes my skin crawl. There's no such thing.

I agree with that, too! :-)

[Seshata]

I'm a hardliner, stuffy old Gardnerian. If you aren't initiated (by another Gard), you aren't Gardnerian. I think the Neo thing is perhaps another way for people to claim involvement in something they aren't. Eclectic Gardnerian is another term that makes my skin crawl. There's no such thing. But I try to stay light hearted about it.
:D As for a tradition, I like it. That's about all I can say though.

Eclectic Gardnerian - new one on me... I'm a little bit on the 'progressive side' but I'd still go with Gardnerian = initiated into the tradition by a coven...

BTW it might be you may be able to get rid of that stuffiness by opening the windows! :devil: Nice to see a relative around ! :)

Oh, another set of books (more on the History of) are by a gentleman called Philip Heselton. So far he's on his third book on Gerald Gardner - looking into the history and links.

BB

Seshata

[RedRaven]

eclectic gardnerian? lol yeah thats new to me too. I too think you are only Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc. if youre initiated into that tradition. but like I said in my first reply in this thread, you can gather enough info about a trad to basically practice, like I have with the Alexandrain trad., but I dont call myself Alexandrian because Ive never been initiated into that trad. I really dont think there is anything special thats oathbound. I mean there is so much material out there from people who were initiated Gardnerian/Alexandrian to lead me to believe that the oathbound secrets are more about who is involved in that coven and then maybe some rituals, no big deal. if its anything more than this I would be very suprised, and a little doubtful

RR

[Morgandria]

The Mysteries are inner coven secrets and a few "extra" rituals, huh? I'm sure my priestess would be interested to know that.

All you're doing is miming the non-oathed practices of the Alexandrians - and if you're doing things out of books Alexandrians have written in the past, it's not really the same thing as is practiced, either. Practice evolves - what's written in a book is static.

You'd never know, though, if what you were practicing is really "non-initiatory-Alexandrian-style" (UGH)....unless you had spent some time as a guest or a dedicant to an Alexandrian coven. If you then decided to take everything you observed them doing in ritual and practice that on your own without becoming a neophyte or initiate....at best you would be mimicking what you observed without understanding it. If I were that coven I'd be offended, and I know my coven would feel their hospitality had been taken advantage of.

If you haven't done that, then you're assuming what you've read in books is actual Alexandrian practice. Assuming things can be dangerous.

You can, of course, do what you like. But personally, if you are doing what I think you are doing, it's tacky and disrespectful.

[Ben Gruagach]

Oh, another set of books (more on the History of) are by a gentleman called Philip Heselton. So far he's on his third book on Gerald Gardner - looking into the history and links.

Do you know if the third one is published yet? Or if there is a date set for publication?

I've read "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" and am eager to read whatever comes next.

[Seshata]

As has been said there's a little more to the mysteries than just who's in and rituals. There are teachings etc that are not publicised - this is because it hasn't remained static as has been stated.

Some things may also have been published but understanding some of them is part of what is taught - it is experiential. As my HP has said to me and others in the coven before "the Mysteries could be written in 6 foot high letters on the cliffs of Dover, but that doesn't mean that they will be understood - that takes time, patience and experience through learning"... There definately are parts of the BOS that haven't been published as well as chunks of older stuff that has (only chunks not all). That isn't to say that what has is a bad thing to do, but understand that there may be some teachings linked to parts which hasn't really been dealt with in full.

However, I know a good few people who have started with the Witch's Bible and are extremely competent witches, but they wouldn't (until they became so) call themselves Alexandrian or Gardnerian, they stated that they were influenced by X or y but that was pretty much it. I personally don't find it disrespectful etc if you're working stuff from these kind of books, many people do, but do understand that this doesn't mean that there isn't any oathbound stuff left and for others, that you can call yourself Gardnerian or Alexandrian, as these are purely initiatory traditions.

Hope this is of help. :)

BB

Seshata

[Seshata]

Do you know if the third one is published yet? Or if there is a date set for publication?
I've read "Wiccan Roots" and "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" and am eager to read whatever comes next.

Nope, no news as yet from Philip. All we know is he's busy with it ! There is just so much stuff to work through and threads to follow. When I get any news I'll pass on the info.

BB

Seshata

[Kudzu]

You can gather enough info about a trad to basically practice. [...] I really dont think there is anything special thats oathbound. I mean there is so much material out there from people who were initiated Gardnerian/Alexandrian to lead me to believe that the oathbound secrets are more about who is involved in that coven and then maybe some rituals, no big deal. if its anything more than this I would be very suprised, and a little doubtful

That post came off to me as rather contumelious. Is there nothing more that you have to learn from the world? Personally, I have found the public information published by Traditional Wiccans to be fascinating, but I do not presume that what I've been allowed to see on bookshelves and websites is all there is. Especially since Wicca is an experiential, Mystery religion, I'm actually rather taken aback by your assertion that anything more than an armchair approach to Wicca is "no big deal." I imagine that the public materials were put out there to inspire Seekers to learn more, rather than to cause them to dismiss the very religion that intrigued them and assume that the authors know nothing more than what they've chosen to share.

[RedRaven]

im by no means "armchair", ive been practicing for nearly a decade. my comment may have come off the wrong way. i was meaning that there are plenty of rituals from this or that trad that are published, the mysteries wont just be handed to you and a group wont give you those answers either. from my own experience they are something that you learn on your own. rituals and the way a group changes? really? no sh*t. does anyone here think I do rituals and practice wicca the same way I did all those years ago? hell no. I may have first learned from reading material about alexandrian wicca but my rituals have certainly changed over the years. dont get me wrong, i know that there are experiences that you go through, things you finally understand, feelings you get, etc, that you just cant put into words so of course you cant really go into any kind of detail. what I said before was this, of course this and that group will have their own rituals that they write and perform but I dont think there is anything super secret out there ritualwise. hell, even groups like the golden dawn had all their "secret" rituals published - you can even find the rituals for the higher ranks.

[Ruhiel]

Personally, I have found the public information published by Traditional Wiccans to be fascinating, but I do not presume that what I've been allowed to see on bookshelves and websites is all there is.

It isn't.
I've read most of the books out there that claim to be about the Gardnerian tradition, and while they are right on a few things, and have the right *idea* about some others, they aren't accurate.

I need to come back to this one, but it'll have to wait until I don't feel like i'm going to hurl.
I hate being sick.

[KEishin]

I mean there is so much material out there from people who were initiated Gardnerian/Alexandrian to lead me to believe that the oathbound secrets are more about who is involved in that coven and then maybe some rituals, no big deal. if its anything more than this I would be very suprised, and a little doubtful

My HPS would laugh like a hyena if I told her that!

With all due respect Red Raven, what has been published is *so* only the tip of the iceberg. I myself got introduced to Wicca through books. And it's fine for others to learn from books too. How else will they know if Wicca is correct for them?

But *never* assume that all of Wicca comes from a book. There is so much that is only passed by word of mouth. Most of it has to be experienced before it can be understood. And my experiences will not be the same as yours - we all experience the Mysteries through our own filters.

One of my favorite stories revolves around a seeker to my coven who was only book-taught. She came in having read in her words "everything" so after checking to make sure she wasn't a psychopath, we invited her to an open Sabbat. Not only did she not know what to do with her athame ("what's an athame?") she would say "S-M-I-B" (pronounced sa-mib) instead of "So Mote It Be." :lol:

Needless to say she stayed in the Outer Court for a LONG time.

[Kudzu]

im by no means "armchair", ive been practicing for nearly a decade. [...] The mysteries wont just be handed to you and a group wont give you those answers either. from my own experience they are something that you learn on your own. [...] i know that there are experiences that you go through, things you finally understand, feelings you get, etc, that you just cant put into words so of course you cant really go into any kind of detail. what I said before was this, of course this and that group will have their own rituals that they write and perform but I dont think there is anything super secret out there ritualwise.

I, on the other hand, believe that there's a lot of things out there in the world that I don't yet know. Though I too have been a practicing Pagan for about a decade, I know that there are others who have practiced decades more than I! You wrote that "from [your] experience [the Mysteries] are something that you learn on your own," but I can't know if the "mysteries" that have satisfied you and I in the past are the Wiccan Mysteries at all. I think there is value in learning to honor the Gods from those who have before, and in experiencing the Wiccan Mysteries as Wiccans know them to be.

As an aside reference, have you read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces?" I think of the HP and HPs as those who have gone on the hero's journey, and I am eager to listen to their tales while I look forward to making the same journey.


I need to come back to this one, but it'll have to wait until I don't feel like i'm going to hurl.
I hate being sick.

Eep! Take care of yourself!


she would say "S-M-I-B" (pronounced sa-mib) instead of "So Mote It Be."

*lol* I've heard it pronounced "smihb!" And when two Wiccans were discussing the construction of an Outer Court ritual, one was like, "that doesn't sound quite right. Throw another smihb in there."

[Ruhiel]

I, on the other hand, believe that there's a lot of things out there in the world that I don't yet know. Though I too have been a practicing Pagan for about a decade, I know that there are others who have practiced decades more than I! You wrote that "from [your] experience [the Mysteries] are something that you learn on your own," but I can't know if the "mysteries" that have satisfied you and I in the past are the Wiccan Mysteries at all. I think there is value in learning to honor the Gods from those who have before, and in experiencing the Wiccan Mysteries as Wiccans know them to be.



I've been pagan for 20 years. Practicing, reading, learning everything I could. I thought i'd learned it all :reading: Nope! Not even close to a fraction. I learn now from other people, and experience things in an entirely different way than I did before.. i've been Dianic, Alexandrian, dabbled in some other trads, and been just plain eclectic. I'm happier (and feel somehow more complete) now than I have in the previous 18 years of study.

The funny thing is, i'd read any Gardnerian related stuff i'd come across, and think "Ugh. What a pain in the ass." I thought it was boring, tedious, repetetive shite. How could anyone ever really learn anything if they were doing the same thing, every time? There's no room to grow and try new things. :lol: Boy, I had NO idea. And I had no idea how wrong the stuff i'd been reading was. Now I like being one of the stodgy ones that people think are so hard nosed ;)

[Kudzu]

I thought it was boring, tedious, repetetive shite. How could anyone ever really learn anything if they were doing the same thing, every time? There's no room to grow and try new things. :lol: Boy, I had NO idea. And I had no idea how wrong the stuff i'd been reading was. Now I like being one of the stodgy ones that people think are so hard nosed

*lol* I look forward to hopefully attaining that status someday! ;-)

I love the idea of doing the same ritual over and over, but my mom is into Ceremonial Magic, so I'm a big believer in ritual "resonance" or other words folks use for a rite building something special over time and repetition. Besides, knowing your ritual inside and out helps you get past the awkward newness and into more important work!

I think the hard part will be relearning things that I've been doing that will turn out to be "wrong!" *lol*

[Ruhiel]

I was doing everything "wrong". Now, it was all perfectly OK and had been working for me for years, so it wasn't wrong. Just different. We still do "my" circles sometimes, and i'm now forgetting why I did XYZ in a certain way.

[Ptah]

The term I hear used most often is "Alexandrian-derived" if you practice in the Alexandrian style but have no lineage.

Most covens do follow the Alexandrian system whether they know it or not. This is because of the widespread reading of the Witches Bible, early on. Most all "secrets" passed on to students come from that text, including usage, heirarchy, tools, Esbats and Sabbats. At one time that was the only book you could find on the subject. Few can actually claim Alexanderian lineage in the US and fewer still can prove it, but most practice it at least its basics.


But neo-Alexandrian serves the same purpose. :)

New Alexandrian.. thats funny... Comparatively speaking, Alexanderian is pretty new. Would Alex Sanders be called neo-Gardenarian, then? :bigblue:

[KEishin]

New Alexandrian.. thats funny... Comparatively speaking, Alexanderian is pretty new. Would Alex Sanders be called neo-Gardenarian, then? :bigblue:
lol
I don't know if all the Gards would be happy with that appelation, being that Sanders directly stole a lot of his material from them, then cobbled it together with his CM background.

[Seshata]

lol
I don't know if all the Gards would be happy with that appelation, being that Sanders directly stole a lot of his material from them, then cobbled it together with his CM background.

Actually, could turn round and state 'Alex Sanders was a Gardnerian, therefore all Alexandrians are Gardnerians!' <WG> He didn't 'steal' the material, he was initiated into at least first degree with Gerald's permission, thus would have copied some of the BOS material... not revealing any secret here, the only problems there were were between the different characters of the HPses involved.

BB

Seshata

[Morgandria]

In my coven, some Alexandrians are Gardnerians as well - our high priestess is a 3* degree in both traditions. :>

[Ptah]

Actually, could turn round and state 'Alex Sanders was a Gardnerian, therefore all Alexandrians are Gardnerians!' <WG> He didn't 'steal' the material, he was initiated into at least first degree with Gerald's permission, thus would have copied some of the BOS material... not revealing any secret here, the only problems there were were between the different characters of the HPses involved.

BB

Seshata

I've always found this dissention between Gardenarian and Alexandrian curious. Gardenarians believe, if they believe what Gardner wrote, that the tradition was passed down through the ages via Dorthy Clutterbuck to him. This has always been a contention and unprovable, unless there was an outside source that could verify it. Alex Sanders claims no Gardenarian lineage but the systems are close to identical. For the Gardenarians to claim it was pilfered from them, doesn't allow the second verifiable source that could work to prove the antiquity they seek.
Anyway, thats a different way of looking at it.:sunny:

[KEishin]

Actually, could turn round and state 'Alex Sanders was a Gardnerian, therefore all Alexandrians are Gardnerians!' <WG> He didn't 'steal' the material, he was initiated into at least first degree with Gerald's permission, thus would have copied some of the BOS material... not revealing any secret here, the only problems there were were between the different characters of the HPses involved.

Yes he did have the Gard lineage (through the Crowthers?), I didn't mean to say he didn't. Depending on who you talk to these days, he was either brilliant or a madman.

[Seshata]

Yes he did have the Gard lineage (through the Crowthers?), I didn't mean to say he didn't. Depending on who you talk to these days, he was either brilliant or a madman.

Wasn't through Crowters although it was through one of the HPses 'up north'. :) Can't for the life of me remember who at present.. :(

I think he was a reflection of the time. He was quite 'out there' and quite tricksterish according to people who knew him. I believe he did a stint as a medium before Wica...

:)

BB

Seshata

[DebLipp]

I'm going to reply to a lot of posts at once, to save myself some trouble...


I believe that they attach "neo" to the tradition .

Well, who are “they”? Some people use “neo,” some don’t. Some people don’t believe that “Wicca” should be applied to any non-BTW initiate. Personally, I think there are so many Eclectic people calling themselves Wiccan that the best way to adapt the language is to refer to “Eclectic Wiccans” and “Traditional Wiccans.” People who have not been initiated Alexandrian are not Alexandrian. People who have not been initiated Gardnerian are not Gardnerian.


As for Deb Lipp I've never herd of her,
I get a lot of that! :)


I read an excerpt from a book by Sybil Leek, in it she mentioned that American covens do not screen their applicants as well as the do in Europe.
It really depends on the coven. I’ve seen people get into covens much more quickly in the U.K. than in the States.


like I said in my first reply in this thread, you can gather enough info about a trad to basically practice, like I have with the Alexandrain trad., but I dont call myself Alexandrian because Ive never been initiated into that trad. I really dont think there is anything special thats oathbound. I mean there is so much material out there from people who were initiated Gardnerian/Alexandrian to lead me to believe that the oathbound secrets are more about who is involved in that coven and then maybe some rituals, no big deal. if its anything more than this I would be very suprised, and a little doubtful.
So, you’d be more likely to believe the people who have broken their sacred oaths by publishing purportedly oathbound material, than you would be to believe people who have preserved their sacred oaths by keeping their mouths shut?


Most covens do follow the Alexandrian system whether they know it or not. This is because of the widespread reading of the Witches Bible, early on. Most all "secrets" passed on to students come from that text, including usage, heirarchy, tools, Esbats and Sabbats. At one time that was the only book you could find on the subject. Few can actually claim Alexanderian lineage in the US and fewer still can prove it, but most practice it at least its basics.
A Witches’ Bible (not The Witches’ Bible, the Farrars were not so presumptuous!) was actually a late-comer, published ca. 1985 in two volumes. Before that, Witchcraft for Tomorrow, What Witches Do, The Spiral Dance, and The Tree were all in circulation.

Aidan Kelly has been tooting the “it’s all really Gardnerian” horn for twenty years. Some formal outer structures, though, do not a tradition make. You might as well say we’re all following the Golden Dawn system, since that’s where a lot of the structures originate.

In my coven, some Alexandrians are Gardnerians as well - our high priestess is a 3* degree in both traditions.
Indeed, cross-initiation is common, but an initiation is only valid for its own tradition. If you were given a Gardnerian 1st degree initiation by someone who is 3rd in two or more traditions, you would still be a Gardnerian 1st because that is the ritual that was performed. You wouldn’t “inherit” the other degrees.


Gardenarians believe, if they believe what Gardner wrote, that the tradition was passed down through the ages via Dorthy Clutterbuck to him.
Yeah, that’s a huge oversimplification and a huge “if.”


Wasn't through Crowters although it was through one of the HPses 'up north'. Can't for the life of me remember who at present..
Pat Kopinski, who was a 1st off of the Crowthers, if I’m not mistaken.

[Ben Gruagach]

Wasn't through Crowters although it was through one of the HPses 'up north'. Can't for the life of me remember who at present..
Pat Kopinski, who was a 1st off of the Crowthers, if I’m not mistaken.

Doreen Valiente discusses Alex Sanders' initiations (and the controversy around them) in her excellent history of modern English witchcraft, "The Rebirth of Witchcraft."

Patricia Crowther fills in some of the details (and backs up a lot of what Doreen said) in "High Priestess: The Life and Times of Patricia Crowther." Chapter 4 of her book has the most about Sanders.

Ronald Hutton also talks about Alex Sanders in "The Triumph of the Moon." Chapter 17 (especially the bits starting on page 320) summarizes what seems to be Alex's entrance into Wicca.

Isaac Bonewits has a brief bit on Alex Sanders and the controversy around his Wiccan credentials on page 63 of "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide."

I thought that people who were interested in reading the published history for themselves might find some references helpful.

[Seshata]

Pat Kopinski, who was a 1st off of the Crowthers, if I’m not mistaken.

cheers! :)

BB

Seshata

[Morgandria]

Indeed, cross-initiation is common, but an initiation is only valid for its own tradition. If you were given a Gardnerian 1st degree initiation by someone who is 3rd in two or more traditions, you would still be a Gardnerian 1st because that is the ritual that was performed. You wouldn’t “inherit” the other degrees.

Oh yes, this I am aware of. We have members of our coven, and our sister coven, who have degrees in one, and not the other...and a few with degrees in both Traditions.

[RedRaven]

So, you’d be more likely to believe the people who have broken their sacred oaths by publishing purportedly oathbound material, than you would be to believe people who have preserved their sacred oaths by keeping their mouths shut?


to some degree, yes. Im just one of those people who thinks if someone goes around saying they have this or that secret but doesnt say anything besides knowing a secret then it just makes me think they are all talk and they really dont know anything. Yes i know, I was never initiated so there are likely things I dont know about what a coven of Alexandrians are doing. But to hear over and over there there are oathbound secrets and then no one saying anything after all these years it just gets me thinking that there is nothing to it (I can hear the comments and laughter already). So yes Ms. Lipp, I would be more impressed and I would believe these people more if they did more than say they knew this or that.

and please dont think I speak with disrespect to you :) I have one of your books, loved it and I always recommend it to people.

RR

[DebLipp]

to some degree, yes. Im just one of those people who thinks if someone goes around saying they have this or that secret but doesnt say anything besides knowing a secret then it just makes me think they are all talk and they really dont know anything. Yes i know, I was never initiated so there are likely things I dont know about what a coven of Alexandrians are doing. But to hear over and over there there are oathbound secrets and then no one saying anything after all these years it just gets me thinking that there is nothing to it (I can hear the comments and laughter already). So yes Ms. Lipp, I would be more impressed and I would believe these people more if they did more than say they knew this or that.

and please dont think I speak with disrespect to you :) I have one of your books, loved it and I always recommend it to people.

RR
Well, it's not a matter of disrespect, although don't think I don't appreciate your kind words! But it's a matter of credibility.

There are those people who are always bragging about the hottie they screwed last weekend, and there are those people who never talk about sex, and it's the latter who are probably really getting well laid.

People who claim to have violated a sacred oath have a credibility problem. Either they are dishonest (because they violated an oath) or they are dishonest (because the stuff they purport to be secret isn't really secret).

Some people who claim to have secret information don't, that's a true thing. Sometimes secrecy is used as a cover for a lack of knowledge or for dishonesty. Look to the current White House for proof. But BTW has been around for a long time, and a lot of people are saying that the secrets are intact and meaningful. The presence of some charlatans in some corners isn't enough to outweigh that.

[RedRaven]

you make good point ms. Lipp, good points indeed

RR

[Ben Gruagach]

Please don't interpret this as disrespect in any way, but the whole topic of "breaking oaths" brings to mind some interesting questions.

Did Gardner break his oaths in publishing what he did? (Doreen Valiente sure seems to imply Gardner had rather loose lips with the press -- one of the main reasons why she split from him in the 1950s.)

Did Lady Sheba violate her oaths by publishing her Book of Shadows? (I was under the impression that was the big reason why there was so much animosity directed at her.)

Did Janet and Stewart Farrar, and also Doreen Valiente, break their oaths by publishing what they did regarding both Gardnerian and Alexandrian practices in "A Witches' Bible"? They do have a lot of what they say is the Gardnerian Book of Shadows there.

Did Patricia Crowther violate her oaths when she included things like the Dryghten Prayer in her book "Witch Blood"?

This is all just one of the things I'm curious about, because for being purportedly bound by oaths to not discuss the Craft, there has been an awful lot of published material from key figures in Gardnerian (and Gardnerian-derived) Wicca.

And my sincere apologies if this is opening up a rather messy can of worms. I don't mean to cause problems -- I'm just not clear on this whole thing of oath-breaking regarding the people I've mentioned.

[Ptah]

A Witches’ Bible (not The Witches’ Bible, the Farrars were not so presumptuous!) was actually a late-comer, published ca. 1985 in two volumes. Before that, Witchcraft for Tomorrow, What Witches Do, The Spiral Dance, and The Tree were all in circulation.

Yes, but it became the very widespread and a standard, in a very short time. It is called A Witches Bible Compleat. Stewart said he hated the name and that it was the publisher that gave the compilation that title, over his objection.


Yeah, that’s a huge oversimplification and a huge “if.”

Yes, it was a personal observation from the outside looking in. I don't presume to know all the facts or what everyone believes.

[DebLipp]

Please don't interpret this as disrespect in any way, but the whole topic of "breaking oaths" brings to mind some interesting questions.

Did Gardner break his oaths in publishing what he did? (Doreen Valiente sure seems to imply Gardner had rather loose lips with the press -- one of the main reasons why she split from him in the 1950s.)

Did Lady Sheba violate her oaths by publishing her Book of Shadows? (I was under the impression that was the big reason why there was so much animosity directed at her.)

Did Janet and Stewart Farrar, and also Doreen Valiente, break their oaths by publishing what they did regarding both Gardnerian and Alexandrian practices in "A Witches' Bible"? They do have a lot of what they say is the Gardnerian Book of Shadows there.

Did Patricia Crowther violate her oaths when she included things like the Dryghten Prayer in her book "Witch Blood"?

This is all just one of the things I'm curious about, because for being purportedly bound by oaths to not discuss the Craft, there has been an awful lot of published material from key figures in Gardnerian (and Gardnerian-derived) Wicca.

And my sincere apologies if this is opening up a rather messy can of worms. I don't mean to cause problems -- I'm just not clear on this whole thing of oath-breaking regarding the people I've mentioned.
These are good questions, and people who keep their oaths are in a position of being unable to confirm or deny. There are some I am sure didn't, and some I'm sure did, and some...well...oaths are subject to interpretation.

[Ruhiel]

Aidan Kelly has been tooting the “it’s all really Gardnerian” horn for twenty years.

Don't even get me started on that @#$%#&. I could go on for hours.

[Kudzu]

Most covens do follow the Alexandrian system whether they know it or not. [...] Few can actually claim Alexanderian lineage in the US and fewer still can prove it, but most practice it at least its basics.

Or at least, what is assumed to be "the Alexandrian system (tm)" due to the public materials?


However, I really do like the strictness. I read an excerpt from a book by Sybil Leek, in it she mentioned that American covens do not screen their applicants as well as the do in Europe. I believe it went on about how it's import to have such a strict nature to keep out those who are just undesirable or something along those lines.

Boy, it must be REALLY hard to get into a coven in Europe! I've heard stories that the folks in Britain can tell if you're of the Wicca in an instant just by lookin' at ya'!


Please don't interpret this as disrespect in any way, but the whole topic of "breaking oaths" brings to mind some interesting questions.

As Deb Lip pointed out, such questions are met with silence by those who do keep their oaths! I know, it frustrates me too! ;-)

[Ruhiel]

Boy, it must be REALLY hard to get into a coven in Europe! I've heard stories that the folks in Britain can tell if you're of the Wicca in an instant just by lookin' at ya'!

We don't do a "formal" screening process, mainly because we don't advertise for members. Any that come to us are people that we already know, and probably have known for years. So it's mostly sitting down and talking about what will happen, and what's expected of them. Louisville is apparently teeming with Gardnerians, but I only know maybe 6 off the top of my head. We don't get many new folks :)

[DebLipp]

I do a sort of formal screening process, but it's also seat-of-my-pants. Everyone fills out an application. Everyone we haven't met before or who comes without a personal recommendation from a member also gets a sit down at a coffee shop before coming to my home. Then we just intuit it.

[Ruhiel]

also gets a sit down at a coffee shop before coming to my home. Then we just intuit it.

We do that too. Over a tall bourbon and coke seems to work well :)

[Seshata]

We don't do a "formal" screening process, mainly because we don't advertise for members. Any that come to us are people that we already know, and probably have known for years. So it's mostly sitting down and talking about what will happen, and what's expected of them. Louisville is apparently teeming with Gardnerians, but I only know maybe 6 off the top of my head. We don't get many new folks :)

:) There are always more 'seekers' than spaces.

BB

Seshata

[KEishin]

But the number of SERIOUS seekers, or those seeking for the right reasons are harder to come by.
Good or bad, I"m not sure . . .

[Kudzu]

We don't do a "formal" screening process, mainly because we don't advertise for members. Any that come to us are people that we already know, and probably have known for years. So it's mostly sitting down and talking about what will happen, and what's expected of them. Louisville is apparently teeming with Gardnerians, but I only know maybe 6 off the top of my head. We don't get many new folks :)

Ah, in my area, everyone and their dog wants to be Wiccan, so there's interviews, application forms... The works!