Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet “Common Sense” is an influential work often cited as one of the inspirations for the American Revolution. His 1791 “Rights of Man,” defending the French Revolution, was also a historically important work. However, Jonathan Clark, a Hall distinguished professor of British history at Kansas University, said he has come to the conclusion that Paine, an English-American political activist, may not have written “Rights of Man” in its entirety.

Currently writing a book on Paine’s social and political thought, Clark said he began to closely examine and compare his works.

Clark’s attention was particularly drawn to a section within “Rights of Man” detailing the genesis of the French Revolution, which read as though it was written by a native French speaker and someone with more knowledge of the country’s politics than Paine likely had, Clark said.

“I became skeptical of Paine’s authorship,” he said. “This is not the prose of an Englishman.”

Clark asserts that the portion of the work in question can likely be attributed to the Marquis de Lafayette, a French aristocrat, military officer and a key player in both the American and French revolutions.

Lafayette likely sent Paine a letter or manuscript with his own observations, knowing that he would use them in “Rights of Man,” Clark said.

The incorporation of Lafayette’s writing into his own wouldn’t be considered plagiarism as much as it would be considered a “cooperation,” Clark said.

“Lafayette was Paine’s closest French friend and he probably provided Paine with the information knowing what use he would make of it,” he said. “It is not Paine’s historical insight; rather it is Lafayette’s propaganda to promote his own career in French politics.”

Clark said his theory calls into question Paine’s expertise on both the American and French revolutions. It also challenges the generally accepted idea of the Enlightenment as a ‘relay race’ where one baton is passed on from one movement to the next or one revolution to the next.

Instead, Clark said there are many differences between the American and French revolutions and the pair may not be as connected as so many suppose.

“The French Revolution is very French and the American Revolution is very American,” he said. “They’re not necessarily deeply and intrinsically related.”

Conclusions drawn from this theory are likely to upset a number of historians, Clark said.

“A lot of people will be very cross at this,” he said. “It undermines the idea of Enlightenment as all one struggle; it undermines the notions that both revolutions are essentially about the attempt to embody natural rights, that they were caused by natural rights denied.”

Clark published an article on his discovery in The Times Literary Supplement, an English publication. The topic has also been covered extensively in many other international publications.

Clark is currently revising his upcoming book on Paine as well as writing a book on the Enlightenment.