Answer: James Weldon Johnson's "Sonnet" is a powerful and poignant poem that explores themes of love, loss, and the passage of time. The structure of the poem plays an important role in conveying these themes and shaping the overall meaning of the work. The poem is written in iambic pentameter, with each line consisting of ten syllables and five metrical feet. This regular meter creates a sense of stability and order that contrasts with the poem's more chaotic themes.
The poem's rhyme scheme is also significant. The first eight lines follow an ABAB CDCD rhyme scheme, with the final six lines consisting of a rhyming couplet. This structure creates a sense of tension and resolution, as the first eight lines build up to the final couplet. The shift that occurs between the first eight lines and the final six lines is also significant. The first eight lines describe the fleeting nature of love and the inevitability of loss, while the final six lines offer a more hopeful perspective on the passage of time.
The final couplet, in particular, is a powerful moment in the poem. The rhyming words "shall" and "all" provide a sense of closure and finality, while the sentiment expressed in these lines suggests that even though love may be fleeting, it is still worth pursuing. The final lines also offer a sense of acceptance and resignation, acknowledging that everything must eventually come to an end.
Overall, the structure of "Sonnet" is an integral part of its meaning. The regular meter and rhyme scheme create a sense of order and stability that contrasts with the poem's themes of love and loss. The shift between the first eight lines and the final six lines offers a sense of tension and resolution, while the final couplet provides a powerful and hopeful conclusion to the poem. Through its structure, "Sonnet" offers a complex and nuanced exploration of the human experience.
Explanation:
100 POINTS! PLEASE HELP!!
Read "On Women's Right to Vote," a speech given by Susan B. Antony after she was arrested for voting in the 1872 presidential election. Then, respond to the question that follows.
Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.
The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people -women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government—the ballot.
For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land.
By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.
To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household—which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.
Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities.
In a well-written paragraph of 5–7 sentences, explain the meaning and significance of the speaker's use of one rhetorical appeal and one rhetorical device from the list below. Use textual evidence from the speech to support your response.
Rhetorical appeals
ethos
logos
pathos
Rhetorical devices
figurative language
irony
rhetorical question
Answer:
The speech by Susan B. Anthony, given after her arrest for casting a vote in the presidential election, is a notable example of American oratory. In this speech, Anthony’s objective was to persuade the audience that women’s suffrage was guaranteed by the Constitution as well as that of men. To do so, Anthony combined logos, ethos, and historical parallels in a brief yet convincing address.
Logos is, by far, the most prominent rhetorical strategy used in the speech. Essentially, the core of the author’s argument is a classical syllogism: the Constitution secures liberties for all people, women are people – therefore, women should enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution – including suffrage – as much as men. She even adopts the form of a syllogism directly when she speaks of this discrimination from a legal perspective.
Any law that contradicts the universal suffrage is unconstitutional, and restrictions on voting are in contradiction to the Constitution – therefore, such law is “a violation of the supreme law of the land” (Anthony 5). Thus, Anthony represents her thesis – that women have the right to vote and restricting it is against the spirit and letter of the Constitution – as an inevitable logical conclusion of an impartial inquiry into the matter.
Anthony’s use of ethos is not typical, but all the more impressive because of that. Closer to the end of her speech, she mentions that the only way do deny citizens’ rights to women is to deny they are persons and doubts that her opponents “will have the hardihood to say they are not” (Anthony 8). As a rule, the speaker tries to establish credibility by pointing to something that makes him or her more competent to speak on a given topic than others, be that knowledge or personal experience. However, Anthony does not opt for that – rather, she appeals to a bare minimum of credibility a sentient creature is entitled to: being considered a person. While not elevating her above the audience, this appeal to credibility is still enough for her rhetorical purpose.
To further her case and root it in the audience’s relatively recent experiences, Anthony also draws a historical parallel with the emancipation and enfranchisement of former slaves. She emphasizes that the Constitution says, “we, the people; not we, the white male citizens” (Anthony 4). This specific reference to whiteness is a clear reference to the 15th Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on color, race, or previous condition of servitude.
By linking the issue of women’s suffrage to voting rights for black citizens, Anthony claims the former is an important progressive endeavor, just like the latter. This parallel is likely an attempt to appeal to the audience’s self-perception as progressive citizens of a free country. The implicit reasoning is clear: those who decided that race is an obstacle for casting a ballot cannot, in all honesty, claim that the gender is.
As one can see, Susan B. Anthony’s 1873 speech combines logos, ethos, and historical parallels to make a case for women’s voting rights. Anthony’s appeals to logic are simple and clear syllogisms based on the Constitution itself. She claims no greater credibility that is due to any sentient being, but that is just enough for her rhetorical purpose. Finally, a historical parallel with the recent enfranchisements of citizens of all races appeals to the audience’s sense of justice and self-perception as progressive people.
