"In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty."
Disregarding the raging antisemitism towards the end of the passage, I feel this passage is the most interesting one of T-Paine's theories. I find his ideas would theoretically make the most sense and would help his discourse community the most. I personally agree completely with his remarks(not including the last anti-Semitic part).
The diction of his language is also very easy to follow, while other portions of his text tend to lose the reader. He is very straightforward with his ideas which helps the reader look into the concepts rather than the complexity of the language.
-A.J.P.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, having been an expert on T-Pain(e) as of three years ago (ayo eighth grade Williamsburg paper), I have to say I agree. Though Paine often uses highly complex grammar and vocabulary throughout his pamphlet, the religious understatement (not really understatement, is it?) provides a universal common ground for his message. By referencing the bible, the most highly circulating pre-Common Sense literature of the time, Paine manipulates the wishy-washy beliefs of the reader (Common Sense was primarily geared towards though teetering on Loyalism/Patriotism) to something that, for the most part, everyone believes in - the Christian faith. After all, that's what brought people to migrate to America...why not use it again? His words are simple where they need to be and the "need to be" places are those where he wants to make his message the clearest. Here, I think his message is pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you both have said: TP definitely uses the Bible in order for people to relate to what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteWhat I appreciated the most about Common Sense was his use of paradoxes, which I believed strengthened his argument. He used them to his advantage to convey to the reader the 'fraudulent' nature of English (Republican) government. Two of my favorite:
"(The Monarchy) first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. the state of a king shuts him from the World, yet he business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly."
"Though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key."
Paine also uses simple analogies that pertain to everyday life and make somewhat complex theories/ideas (considering his audience) palpable. Some examples include the cog and wheel, infant-parent relationship and when he equates the British king to the Pharaoh of Egypt (which again ties back to a well-know Biblical story that holds with the present situation, in Paine's mind). The interesting thing is that Paine's metaphors, similes, analogies and allegorical references are all intertwined, which add another level of depth to his rhetoric.
One of the most interesting parts of this pamphlet was the following passage:
ReplyDelete"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still."
Here T Paine is telling the reader that a good portion of them fled from the monarchy, when immigrating from Europe to America, that was looming over them. Why, after making such a journey, would they want to be under the control of this same type of monarchy? By bringing this up, Paine shows that he is aware of who his audience is. He is also very convincing. He does this with his diction. By choosing words such as "tender embrace" when speaking of America and "cruelty of the monster" when speaking of Europe and the monarchy that exists there, he is really setting a tone. On top of this all, Paine does in fact bring up an interesting point, one that I even agree with.
I agree with amar. Since T Paine was mostly writing to the common people, he uses simple writing- a fusion between modern writing and archaic writing. I thought the most interesting passage by far in the essay was
ReplyDelete"The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory thro' the divine interposition decided in his favour. The Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, "Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son." Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one; but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, "I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU." Words need not be more explicit: Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of Heaven."
Here, T Paine uses religion as one of his supports for his argument. Although using religion was successful in relating to his audience, I think that he is possibly walking on a thin wire. Fusing religion with politics has been a debated issue throughout history and he should be very careful in doing so.
From Lucy Randall
ReplyDeleteI mostly enjoyed Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and I felt that he made some extremely persuasive arguments in gathering support for the break with Britain. However, there was a small aspect of the piece that bothered me and made Paine seem less reliable and more interested in promoting his own cause than in staying true to fact. He skimmed over some parts of the upcoming Revolution and understated a few aspects of the struggle against England. For instance, Paine claimed that America could win easily as they were a union and all 13 colonies would be supportive of the cause. However, this was not true as many people wanted to reconcile with England and many did not want to get involved either way. Paine also claimed that Britain's Navy was not a big threat as many of Britain's ship were in disrepair or being used in other parts of the world. This was a blatant lie; the British Navy posed a huge threat to the American Cause as America had virtually no Navy during much of the war. In addition, Paine avoided the topic of possible punishment for treason against Britain. Because he was advocating America's independence and a democratic government where people would be free to make their own decisions, I felt that excluding and dismissing these facts was irresponsible and almost dishonest on Paine's part. While I personally agree with Paine's beliefs about establishing an independent and democratic government and breaking away from Britain, I feel that the facts he overlooked or simply failed to mention were unfair to the American people, who had a right to know the possible consequences of war, and undermine Paine's ethos.
In response to Lucy's comment, although he did exlcude that information, I do not think he did so in a detrimental matter to his argument. Paine was very aware of who his audience was and as a result, attempted to impose this knowledge upon them. Stating that their would be varying opinions within American regarding a war with the past parent solely helps convince his audience.
ReplyDeleteMeredith and I share a truly admired, if not favorite, quote of Paine's:
"Though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key."
Paine, almost ironically and satirically, mocks the English and their society. After fighting so long for equality and power, why bestow such things upon a monarch? Paine's very liberal and almost democratic usage in that quote shows his desires to stray from conservative and traditional england. To me, this quote truly hightlights his use of pathos, for it is evident that he truly feels passionately about the subject at hand, and hopes that he does not see the foolish people of england return power to a sole being and consequently, devolve all that england had aspired to achieve, a crushing blow to T-Paine
Not to be repetitive, but I think it bears repeating what everyone seems to have said already in that this essay is effective because of how Paine combines both an indignant (albeit self-aware) tone with Biblical and religious allusions that seem to elevate his argument to an almost mythic status. This doesn't bear as much relevance for us now as I imagine it did as it was written, yet upon reading it, Paine's attitude is so forceful and his points are so frequently spiritual in nature that even from a contemporary perspective it creates an extraordinarily urgent mood. This text was something of a "pain" to read (I deeply apologize for that awful, awful pun), but the sheer force of the rhetoric on display, when coupled with the historical context, makes it an ultimately rewarding experience. Paine is able to conjure an almost timeless feeling of urgency from his use of common-place language, spiritual allusion, and capitalization.
ReplyDeleteLike everyone on this blog post thread thing, I also believe that T-Paine strengthened his argument by using language that most people could understand, while providing biblical references. As religion was a very important part of people's lives at that time and the Bible was a very common piece of literature, T-Paine allows the audience of his essay to be able to relate to it.
ReplyDeleteAnd like Amar, I felt like the whole antisemitism bit kind of took away from the essay.
There wasnt really a specific part of T-Paine's argument that stood out to me that hasnt already been mentioned. If i choose one passage i would probably agree with others and choose "Though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of the key." I thought the way he effectively mocks the english and this statement shows his passion for his argument. I, overall, thought his whole argument worked together very well. Another point mentioning is how he used the bible throughout the argument and the way it made the argument more relatable and more easily understood by most people. He also in general uses good diction, and his whole argument comes together very effectively and passionately.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for all of the repetitiveness, but I agree with alot of what was said in the above posts. Through the usage of straightforward language, T Paine is successful in reaching a broad and common audience. This piece was written to help persuade people to join the revolutionary cause. He was asking for support in the fight for independence from Great Britain. In order to do so, Paine recognized the importance of the usage of clear language.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lucy's comment. Paine irresponsibly fails to mention the full truth regarding the consequences of a rebellion against Enland. He is so focused on conveying his point that he disregards the full truth and misleads his audience. However, he does this with a specific purpose in mind. He remembers who his is addressing, and he knows that he can manipulate the people and force his own ideas on his audience.
I know that Meredith and Justin have already commented on this one particular quote, but it stuck out to me as well: "Though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute Monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the Crown in possession of th key." This statement is a powerful message. He is emphasizing his feelings about the detriments of an absolute monarchy. Going back to Meredith's comment, his reference to common, everyday items is interesting because it reminds us of his audience, the common people. By comparing the complex situation to simple, everyday items like the door and the key, Paine illustrates a clear image with which common people can relate.
From Izzie--
ReplyDeleteThis was one of my favorite passages:
In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to empoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.
It simply sums up the bleak irony that monarchy has played in human history. T-Paine uses multiple rhetorical strategies throughout "Common Sense," but I find the almost sardonic tone of the above paragraph to be most effective in illustrating the author's goal to expose the faults of England. The tone is also more engaging than political examples or statistics or lists. Ultimately, the author's use of DIFFERENT rhetorical strategies is the most effective method of rhetoric because it allows the prose to appeal to many different audiences. The short essays in the rainbow book, on the other hand, tend to only appeal to more specific audiences, thus allowing us to debate them in class.
Like Amar and others, I too found this passage particularly interesting:
ReplyDelete"In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty."
Though the fact that he likes to base most of his ideas on some sort of religious/biblical theory, I found this passage easy to agree with. However, it's very possible that this is because the language is easy to understand, though still manages to sound rich and obscure, kind of convincing one of its credibility.
Of course, as many noted, the anti-semitism is a bit shocking and random, and takes away from the strength of T-Paine's argument. Then again, maybe such an attitude was more widely accepted at the time, and his audience liked him all the more for it. (then again, people came to "the new world" to escape prejudice, so perhaps not...)
I find Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" interesting for a few reasons. Although Paine clearly could write in a very sophisticated manner, he chooses to make his thoughts accessible to the public. In the beginning of the year, when we first talked about the 'discourse community' in class, I did not really think that it had much importance. The more and more we read and discuss, I notice how a the discourse community makes a huge difference in everything we read. The discourse community makes the difference between a national bestseller, and a scholarly journal article which goes generally unnoticed. The scholar could very likely write an accessible bestseller, but he chooses not too. Paine clearly believed that having his work read by many, would be better. The antisemitism is shocking at first, but once again, I think of the discourse community. With a little research, we would probably notice that there were either very few Jews, or that the Jews supported England. Thomas Paine is ultimately successful by writing an extremely popular pamphlet.
ReplyDelete