Picture of it?............
Ingénue would be the a<span>rchetype that Persephone exemplify in the Poem.
Ingenue refers to the archetype of innocent and unsophisticated Character.
In typical writer, this character usually kind-hearted, pure, and does not complicated goals in her every action.
You can see it on this line:
<em>. . . </em></span><span><em>where you played so carefree, . . .</em></span>
A reasonable inference that one can make out of this poem is that you should not be worried about your fate, because at the end people are part of a generation which has its own struggles and at the end, people have to face their own destiny,being courageous, as the previous generations were and have been.
This is the reason why is possible to conclude that the two lines best linked to the theme are:
"Be comforted; the world is very old,
And generations pass, as they have passed"
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Most often, it is deciphered through A) context clues. Some people, however, choose to decipher them through B) pronoun references. Just to be on the safe side, I'd choose A) context clues because most often, the words that are being deciphered are they themselves the pronoun.
