By Robert W. Morrell

PAINE by David Freeman Hawke. Harper and Row, New York. S15.00 

Perhaps the point made in this book which struck me with most force occurred when the author was discussing the controversy between Edmund Burke and Paine. Paine refers to the view of some individuals he does not name who considered Burke “a madman.” This, says Professor Hawke, was a case of stooping to “character assassination” on the part of Paine (p.220). Six pages later in the opening paragraph of the next chapter, a Mr. Hodge, in conversation with Gouverneur Morris, describes Paine, with whom he lodged, “as being a little mad,” which Morris considered was “not improbable.” Hawke who described the similar comment from Paine as “character assassination” pointedly fails to use the same term to describe Hodge’s assertion and Morris’s agreement. The bias in this cannot be escaped from. Had it been an isolated incident in Professor Hawke’s five hundred page biographical study of Thomas Paine we may well have passed it by and simply noted it, however, it is not the exception but rather the rule, for time and time again the author appears to deliberately go out of his way to insert some reference to what he sees as Paine’s faults, failings and weaknesses. 

Now I am the last person to wish to have Paine presented as some plaster saint who never did wrong and never upset anyone. Paine made many an enemy, and in a large number of cases can only blame himself for it. Some of his habits probably irritated others, and perhaps he should have been rather more diplomatic than he was. In short, Paine was very human with all the deficiencies that implies. But does not the same apply to others? To read Hawke one would imagine that Paine had all the faults while his other famous contemporaries, particularly the Americans, possessed all the virtues. Only Paine, it seems, got drunk; indeed, on this latter point I seriously doubt whether I could name another biographical study of Paine in which we meet so many references to Paine being a drunkard. Paine, one gathers, required an ample supply of rum and water to enable him to write properly- (p.14-5), the fact that this tale originated with a bitter critic of Paine is of no concern to Professor Hawke anymore than the fact that he openly contradicts it a few pages further on, when Paine is shown to like to do his writing after a long walk, with no mention of rum and water – indeed the passage refers to his moderation in drinking habits! (p.71) Paine is described as being untidy in his habits, but at least he shares this failing with Edmund Burke (p.189). Paine, though, is quoted by Hawke as being, “physically repulsive” (p.384), an opinion not borne out by any of the portraits I have seen of Paine, including those reproduced in this book. Paine is mean money wise (p.376), a strange comment to make of a man who surrendered the vast profits from the sale of Common Sense and the Crisis series to his country when it desperately needed funds; and, need anything by now to surprise us? Paine lacked a deep concern and affection for America and his patriotism was questionable (pp.33,193 and 335). I will not continue the catalogue, it is enough to say that Hawke as often as not accepts these charges at face value and makes no attempt to assess their standing or probe the reasons for them being made, however, in fairness to him I do not think he shares the opinion as to Paine’s lack of patriotism to America. Hawke does, though, call into question any attempt by Paine’s friends to defend him against charges of being a drunk, thus of the claim that Paine only drank “three quarts of rum a week,” Hawkes says the statement was being “protective of the old gentleman’s reputation” (p.391). 

Thomas Paine was in fact a problem, seemingly as much to biographers like Hawke as he was to the people who led the colonists. He had the unfortunate trait of being at one and the same time an honest man in politics and an idealist. Paine placed reason in place of ruthlessness and had too much faith in hIs fellows. He was used, and it is doubtful whether he appreciated the fact. When the revolution succeeded Paine became a liability, happily, to quote William Kenry, “‘of the lesser sort’ who led the war, the “lesser sort” did not demand a more equal share of America’s earthly treasure (Annales du C.R.A.A.3.1. 1974. p.22). Paine could have become the articulate spokesman for the “lesser sort” had he remained in America, and so posed a genuine threat to the new establishment, for Paine was of the ordinary people and knew their problems from personal experience. Paine, one suspects, was encouraged to leave America, in order to pursue his interest in technology where facilities were better. Once out of the way it was easy to destroy his reputation, a process in which Paine unfortunately lent an unwitting hand.

The Hawke biography of Paine is not without its merits, the particular strength it has being in the material incorporated into it on the background to Paine’s life in America. This alone makes it worth having, however, its treatment of Paine’s early life in England is rather too superficial to make it have much value, and some errors creep in, an example being the description of Samuel Ollive as a Quaker. He was not. One wonders, too, why Rights of Man is continually referred to as The Rights of Man, except in the index. There is no excuse for such an elementary blunder.