Thomas Paine of \"Common Sense\"

Thomas Paine

Of "Common Sense" and Common Language

Thomas Paine is justly famous for his historical role in the political foundation of the United States. Common Sense appears to have been his best-selling work, and was likely the most widely read pamphlet of its era, for critics suggest that "probably every literate person in the thirteen colonies had read it." (Woodress) Historians have generally recognized that "Common Sense was the work that convinced America's 'common' people that independence was their best -- or, more exactly, their only -- course of action." (Moss & Wilson, ed.)

Perhaps unfortunately, the work's historical and popular success did not grant its author the sort of respect which was forthcoming for other founding fathers. Within his own lifetime Paine was consigned to ignomy and neglect, as the general populous became less revolutionary in spirit after the close of the war, and the more academic elements scorned his populism. Though some critics even today accuse Paine of vulgarity and a lack of originality, a further examination of critical, historical, and literary research reveals that Paine's straight-forward and "common" style is a necessary externalization of his message of equality.

The main themes of Common Sense are the inherent equality of mankind and the moral and civil ill of a hereditary monarchy, as these states relate directly to the idea of an American Revolution. The goal of this work, quite simply, was to convince the people of America that a revolution was needed, and that their current struggle should result not in reconciliation with their former monarch but with the establishment of an independent nation. To this extent, Paine adopted a unique method of appealing directly to the highest sentiments of the most common people, and the simplest convictions of the most literate. "Paine's essay was written with uncommon passion and simplicity, for he hoped that his words would have a powerful impact on the whole spectrum of American colonists." (Moss & Wilson, ed.) Though these themes and goals have generally been happily proclaimed by latter- day critics, his populism has frequently made Paine vulnerable to critical charges of vulgarity and a lack of originality. More insightful critics, however, have rightfully noted that it is precisely this "vulgarity" (in the highest sense of the word) that perfectly united his themes and his style, and allowed his work to achieve its stated goal.

Paine's message, in its simplest form, was that of "all men being originally equals," (Paine, 2) This argument he extended in an attack on the fundamental theory of a monarchy, which he says can arise in only three ways: "either by lot, by election, or by usurpation." (Paine, 2) in the first two cases, it is merely a matter of elected representation and cannot be justified as hereditary; in the final case it is unjustifiable as the dominance of the least humane and noble. In either case, "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion." (Paine, 2) in Paine's career, albeit not as extensively in this instance, he consistently argues not only against monarchy but against all systems in which men are held to be unequal. "When I reflect on the pompous titles bestowed on unworthy men, I feel an indignity that instructs me to despise the absurdity." (Paine in: Moss & Wilson, ed.) Modern critics speak glowingly of his commitment to equality, even while admitting that this sentiment was occasionally met with less enthusiasm by his contemporaries. " the politically equal society that Paine saw emerging in Philadelphia was not, however, the dream of every colonist. Many of the wealthy merchants, planters, and lawyers who controlled colonial government were disturbed by middle-class participation in politics, a growing trend throughout the colonies." (Moss & Wilson, ed.) One may perhaps speculate that some of his most adamant critics in the beginning had such concerns in mind, and that even today his more vociferous critics have a certain elitism at play.

The original publication of Thomas Paine's work was generally met with considerable interest by its audience, and more than a little ill-humor by academics who considered his writing style to fall far short of the neoclassical ideal.

One contemporary said that his style was "so coarse, that you would think he meant to degrade the language as much as the government." (Horace Walpole, in: Boulton) Even a relatively sympathetic colonial magazine, the Monthly Review, recorded in 1791 that Paine was "desultory, uncouth, and inelegant. His wit is coarse, and sometimes disgraced by wretched puns, and his language, though energetic, is awkward, ungrammatical, and often debased by vulgar phraseology." (Boulton)

Today, most critics leave aside significant critique of his writing style (no doubt due to the general tend towards a casual approach in modern literature); however, there persists a tendency among critics to speak of his lack of originality. "Although scholars have debated the exact nature of Paine's indebtedness to other writers, it is generally conceded that with few exceptions most of Paine's ideas were not original. His social and political theories, for example, are borrowed from such writers as Rousseau, Montesquieu, Locke, and Hobbes, and his religious views owe their origin to the theories set in motion by Newton and Diderot." (Levernier) Even the most sympathetic of critics seem to address his intellectual indebtedness with a bit of snobbery, as when Woodress writes, "Where Paine got the ideas that he put into his pamphlet is moot. He was not a reader, and he no doubt picked up his notions here and there."

Of course, there are some critics who acknowledge that the quality of a thought or a work of literature is by no means defined by its lack of historical context, and that demanding philosophical and political rhetoric exist in a void without predecessors is rather absurd (representing an unadmirable disconnect from the world). In fact, one critic argues that Paine is at his best when he lays his finger on the metaphorical pulse of the nation and of philosophy. "Benjamin Franklin, in London, said in March 1775 that he had never heard anyone in America, drunk or sober, advocate independence....Then the next January Paine's pamphlet... burst on the colonies... leaders like... Franklin... were beginning to work quietly for independence by that time, no one before Paine had come out flatly in print for separation." (Woodress) His goal, of course, was not to be entirely original, but rather to be entirely persuasive --to call out the hidden dreams and seditions of the people and put them into print and to, in a sense, discover a single spark and fan it into a flame. One might say that Paine was not an inventor, but rather a producer -- one who was capable of taking lofty ideals and secret desires and making them palpable and real to the audience. As one of his contemporaries wrote in a letter to Paine, "You have declared the sentiments of millions. Your production may justly be compared to a landflood that sweeps all before it. We were blind, but on reading these enlightening words the scales have fallen from our eyes. (Foner, in: Moss & Wilson) Paine was not so much innovative, then, as rennovative, for he made that which was inaccessible and unattached and combined it. It is interesting to see that his critics claim he was merely regurgitating Rousseau...and Hobbes. Two more different philosophers would be difficult to stumble upon in a given era -- and yet in Paines we do see a form of philosophy which could be called a synthesis of the two. In this, he is original inasmuch as he can take all the spirits of a time and bring them together in service of a single coherent ideal. Above all the goal of persuasion remains tantamount.

Indeed, as the critic Boulton is quick to point out, the vulgarity with which Paine was charged by many of his contemporaries was precisely what was needed to transmit his message. Paine himself says, "In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader..." (Paine, 3) as Boulton point out, the reader must accept this stated goal as justification of any crudity of style:

The modern critic, then, finds himself in the position of having to accept that, given the urgency of the situation and the needs of the audience, Paine's effectiveness depended in part at least on his 'vulgarity'....when the term is applied to Paine and his style the pejorative is completely out of place; 'vulgar' is necessary as a critical word but it should be descriptive, meaning, not boorish or debased, but plain, of the people, vulgus. (Boulton)

Vulgus is the vernacular -- the language of the people -- hence its use in the title of a translation of the Bible from the ancient languages into the spoken language of Rome: the Vulgate. Paine's decision to write of high philosophical and political issues in common speech, and of used "graphic metaphors and his simple sentence structure [to] reflect a language understood at the time by common Americans," (Moss & Wilson, ed) has much the same purpose as a translation of the Bible from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into Latin, which is to say the need to initiate common people into profound truths.