This has been a long, and perhaps strange, way into William Blake.footnote＊ On one matter I am impenitent. Blake can’t have dreamed up a whole vocabulary of symbolism, which touches at so many points the traditions which I have discussed, for himself ab novo. Nor can he have put it together like mosaic from his reading. Things don’t happen like that. Nor can it have arisen just from a reading of the Bible, for this presupposes the Bible, and particular passages of Genesis, read in a particular way. The author of the Prefaces to Jerusalem and the ‘Annotations to Watson’, of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell and The Everlasting Gospel, was writing within a known tradition, using terms made familiar by seven or eight generations of London sectaries.
Certainly my argument does not stand or fall upon the Muggletonian hypothesis. What this does is to give the argument concretion and indicate one possible actual context. Whether or not Blake’s family, or any of them, came from this particular church is not the critical question. There were other
By 1750 or 1760 it is probable that most of the petty sects reported as existing in 1706 no longer survived in their old forms. But the vocabulary survived, and it was continually in search of new vehicles for its expression. The sects had never been hermetically sealed against each other; part of the intellectual excitement of sectarianism (then, as now) had been found in the factional disputes between sects, the open debates, the struggle to convert each other’s disciples. An earnest seeker might sample different sects, and move on from one to another. Such seekers were still to be found at the end of the century, like the earnest artisans, John Wright and William Bryan, who, in 1789, walked all the way to Avignon in search of spiritual revelation.footnote1 And the same fierce intellectual disputes continued. When the Reverend Richard Clarke came to the city in 1788 and preached universal redemption, ‘the sectaries were ready to tear him out of the Pulpit; and one person called out when preaching at the Temple Church, “This man preaches false doctrine.”’footnote2 We will do best to think of a sectarian and antinomian gathering-ground in London, where heretical tracts were cherished, where sects suffered secessions and new hierarchs arose, where Behmenists disputed with Universalists, and where seekers shopped around among preachers and little churches. If James Blake, Senior, can be shown to have been, at some moment, a Baptist or a Moravian, or if Catherine Hermitage was at one time a Muggletonian, this does not go to prove that they remained in these churches always. It is more relevant that we should see them within this general gathering-ground, with its intellectual and sometimes passionate concern for heretical doctrine. And it was from this same gathering-ground that some of the first members of the Swedenborgian New Jerusalem Church were to be drawn.
By the end of the eighteenth century this tradition of plebeian and tradesman Dissent had drifted a great distance away from the polite and rational religious culture—a culture which, with its uneasy memories of the Commonwealth, still feared ‘enthusiasts’. And the derisory judgement which the learned and the accomplished then made upon these enthusiasts still imposes itself upon us today. We see them only as eccentrics or as survivors. At a casual glance it seems self-evident that those who turned their backs upon rational (and historical) biblical criticism, and who even ignored or traduced all the
In my view, the reply which Davie predicates, in the manner in which he proposes the question, is profoundly wrong, and this book is offering a different answer. But Davie is still asking a necessary and significant question.