Jonathan Ewell.

Thesis, ProQuest, Ann Arbor MI, 2009.

Focusing on texts written during several high-profile public controversies of the late 18th-century and Romantic period in order to map the intersections between literary aesthetics and the politics of popular discourse, this dissertation argues that such texts became a primary vehicle for understanding public writing and Britain's diverse, contentious and expanding reading audiences. I argue that contemporary writers understood public debate as a complex discourse, sitting at the convergence of several distinct areas of cultural activity: it was a forum in which literary, political, and philosophical ideals were all forced to adapt to the expectations of a continuously changing public audience. Thus, my dissertation conceives of the literary practice of public debate as both a medium for political exchange and an aesthetic proving ground, arguing that it facilitated the practical and ideological changes in writers' attitudes toward public discourse required for the development of new, publicly oriented, and highly politicized literature. Chapter one looks at the explosion of public contention during the first decade of George III's reign, and analyzes the aesthetic language used by John Wilkes in his weekly North Briton. Chapter two focuses on the Revolution Debate in England of the early 1790's, considering the overall role of figurative language and persuasive rhetoric in the debate before offering a reading of both Edmund Burke's and Thomas Paine's confrontational deployments of the figure of the body politic. Chapter three considers the relationship between poetics and popular political discourse in the work of Percy Bysshe Shelley, arguing that Shelley's concept of unacknowledged legislation arises out of his skeptical reflections on the transformative potential of public debate. Chapter four turns to the German philosophical tradition, considering Immanuel Kant's engagement with public debate in his critical and post-critical philosophy, and examining one of Kant's lesser-known polemical pamphlets to observe several complications that arise when the philosopher attempts to put his theories of public debate into practice. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by addressing your request to ProQuest, 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346. Telephone 1-800-521-3042; e-mail: disspub@umi.com

William Bruce Parsons.

Thesis, ProQuest, Ann Arbor MI, 2008.

This dissertation compares Thomas Paine's political thought with that of John Locke in order to illuminate the central principles of Paine's thought and establish his importance among 18th century liberal thinkers. A secondary goal is to gain a better understanding of liberalism, and more specifically, early liberalism's understanding of the subjects Paine considers in his works: human nature, equality, private property, good government, and religion. Paine's unswerving commitment to principle and theory leads him to be an excellent critic of early liberal political philosophy, which, though animated by theory, remains grounded decisively in practical considerations. As this comparison with Locke reveals, earlier liberals do not share Paine's optimism; they temper their ambition with a radical skepticism concerning man's intellectual and moral capacity, which leads them to pursue goals that are more modest. As an apostle of the enlightenment, Paine lacks this skepticism; this dissertation demonstrates that this is a decisive failing of Paine's political thought, a consideration of which nonetheless sheds considerable light on the limits of what a liberal society -- and liberalism itself -- can accomplish. Paine is particularly adept at -- and largely succeeds in -- reminding liberals of the great promise of their political arrangement. He is convinced that if man constantly refers to the guiding principles of liberalism -- liberty, equality, and the rational consideration of one's interest -- he can fulfill that promise. Thus, it is by reminding liberals of what they ought to do that Thomas Paine establishes himself as the conscience of liberalism. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by addressing your request to ProQuest, 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346. Telephone 1-800-521-3042; e-mail: disspub@umi.com

David C. Hoffman.

Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 3, fall 2006, pp. 373-410.

This essay reviews the established case for the pivotal role played by Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense in the American Revolution as well as the various explanations that have been proffered to account for its success: the time & place of its publication, Paine's style, Paine's ethos, & his use of psychology & ideology. To these accounts it adds the suggestion that Paine used the term "prejudice" to frame his readers' positive perception of monarchy & the British constitution, & negative perceptions of American independence, as distortions imposed by "habit & custom." In the process of making this case it explores the genealogy of the term "prejudice.". Adapted from the source document.

Andreas Kalyvas and Ira Katznelson.

Polity, Vol. 38, No. 4, Oct 2006, pp. 447-477.

The relationship between republicanism and liberalism has emerged as a central issue for students of political thought. Neo-republican scholars in particular have advanced a stark conceptual opposition between two competing intellectual and political projects, and have claimed that liberalism decisively defeated and replaced republicanism. By contrast, in exploring the writings of Thomas Paine and James Madison, this article shows how they initiated a radical and unexpected reconfiguration within the republican tradition that fashioned a surprisingly liberal doctrine for a modern republic. Their "republic of the moderns," we argue, altered the contours and content of classical republicanism, transmuting it into an important strand of liberal political thought and institutions. Adapted from the source document.

J. M. Hogan and G. Williams.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 86, No. 1, February 2000, pp. 1-18.

By measures of impact alone, Thomas Paine might be considered the charismatic leader of the American Revolution and his Common Sense its most important manifesto. Psychological and sociological theories of charisma, however, are hard pressed to account for the impact of Paine and his pamphlet. Written anonymously, Common Sense did not derive its power from the reputation of its author, nor did the text itself project the image of a charismatic leader as conventionally understood. Instead, Common Sense exemplified a new rhetoric and a new style of charismatic leadership—a republican charisma—more in tune with the emerging egalitarian ethos of revolutionary America. The authors begin their analysis with further elaboration of some of the issues and problems in the sociological, political, and rhetorical literature on charisma. Beginning with the most basic question of how charisma is defined as an object of scholarly inquiry, the authors show how even supposedly rhetorical notions of charisma typically retain the conventional emphasis on the objective characteristics of personalities and contexts. In the second section of the essay, they introduce what might be called the paradox of charismatic leadership in the American Revolution—the fact that the single most influential revolutionary manifesto of the era was written not be a well-known leader thought to be exceptional or superhuman, but rather by a complete unknown whose anonymity was maintained even as his pamphlet unleashed revolutionary impulses.

Florence Gauthier.

Raison Presente, No. 123, 1997, pp. 59-72.

The Marxist concept of bourgeois revolution has been mistakenly applied in the case of the French Revolution. The bourgeoisie largely determined its twisting course, but the fact that Maximilien Robespierre & his followers continue to be considered bourgeois by some contemporary Marxist historians of today is largely a legacy of Marxist historians of the early 20th century. Viewing the Revolution in the context of the American Revolution & particularly, contemporary events in the French colonies, reveals the limitations of the concept of individual rights in French society. The significant nonideological underpinnings of the Revolution are clear from the French Constitution of 1795, which largely repudiates the philosophy defended by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man (1791/92). Many factors operating simultaneously led to the Revolution: to simply label it a "bourgeois revolution" is to unreasonably simplify its causes. L. Brentlinger