Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" is a powerful defense of universal human rights and a scathing critique of hereditary government and aristocracy, particularly in response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Published in two parts, Paine's work champions the principles of the French Revolution and advocates for radical reforms in the British political system.

Here's a summary of its key arguments:

• Natural Rights and Equality: Paine asserts that all individuals are born free and equal with inherent, inalienable natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not granted by governments or monarchs but are fundamental and precede any form of political authority.

• Critique of Hereditary Government: He vehemently denounces hereditary monarchy and aristocratic privilege, arguing that wisdom and the right to govern cannot be passed down through birth. Such systems are based on usurpation and tyranny, not on the consent of the governed. He emphasizes that each generation has the right to establish its own government.

• Legitimacy of Popular Sovereignty: Paine argues that legitimate government derives its power from the will of the people, not from tradition or divine right. He advocates for representative democracy and a written constitution that clearly outlines the rights and responsibilities of both the government and its citizens. The nation is the true source of sovereignty.

• Defense of the French Revolution: He passionately defends the French Revolution as a just and necessary uprising against an oppressive monarchy. He views the revolution as a natural consequence of the people's desire for freedom and equality, and a legitimate exercise of their natural rights to overthrow a tyrannical system.

• Vision for a Just Society: In the latter part of the work, Paine outlines his vision for a more equitable society. He proposes social welfare programs, including public education, old-age pensions, and financial support for the poor, to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities and access to basic necessities. He also suggests a progressive tax system to fund these initiatives, arguing that government wealth should belong to the people, not be squandered on monarchical wars and aristocratic excess.

• Distinction Between Society and Government: Paine differentiates between society, which arises from human needs and cooperation, and government, which he sees as a necessary evil to manage the affairs of a nation. He believes society can largely govern itself, and government is only needed where individuals cannot satisfy their own wants.

In essence, "Rights of Man" is a call for a government founded on reason, justice, and the inalienable rights of individuals, in stark contrast to the traditional, hereditary systems of his time. It had a profound influence on democratic thought and movements in both Europe and America.

Did William Blake ever meet Thomas Paine? It is not impossible that the poet and the philosopher crossed paths at weekly dinner parties thrown by the radical publisher Joseph Johnson. But in Jack Shepherd's 90-minute play, first staged in 1989, the two men meet in an imagined encounter that is intellectually stimulating, if a bit slow to come to the boil dramatically.

One good reason for reviving the play is that it takes place in the garden of Blake's cottage, close to where Southwark Playhouse is today. The action even starts with Blake and his wife, Catherine, sitting happily stark-naked in the branches of the trees. Their idyll is interrupted by the intrusion of Tom Paine, who is seeking sanctuary from the mob during the anti-Jacobin scares of the 1790s.

What starts as an amiable meeting, with the hospitable Blakes and their guest toasting a better world, turns into a jagged conflict between the poet who believes in the prophetic power of language and the pamphleteer who demands political action. It is an age-old tension, and one Shepherd handles with some skill. Blake argues that radical change has to come from within and that "before we can commit ourselves to revolutions there must first be revelations." Paine, on the other hand, assails artistic individualism, claiming that only practical politics can lead to universal liberty.

I think Shepherd underestimates the subversiveness of Blake's poetry and the artistry of Paine's prose. He also has the two men, Blake especially, heaving quotes from their own work at each other. But the debate is lively, vigorous and given urgency by the sense that Paine is under threat from the anti-republican gangs stalking the local streets. And, even if the barely literate Catherine is marginalised in the debate, Shepherd implies she has a wisdom somehow denied to these towering male egos.

Ruth Sutcliffe's design gives us a richly rambling Lambeth garden and Michael Kingsbury's production is well acted. Tom Mothersdale lends Blake, communing with invisible angels and his dead brother, the right visionary gleam; Christopher Hunter's Norfolk-accented Paine exudes the invincible certainty of the true radical; and Melody Grove as the watchful Catherine implies that poet's wives are expected to be good listeners.

Even if the play doesn't have the amplitude of the musical Tyger by Adrian Mitchell and Mike Westbrook, or the rich detail of Trevor Griffiths's biographical play about Paine, it opens up an intriguing and ultimately unresolvable debate.