In her Letter to Napoleon III, the brilliant author Elizabeth Barrett Browning asks for a hopeful pardon on behalf of her contemporary Victor Hugo for his novel without seditious doubt The Hunchback of Notre Dame. By writing this personal letter, she intends to make the emperor understand that forgiving Hugo will improve his own approval among the citizens. Through her gentle tone and focus on her audience's needs for how they will benefit from her advice, she effectively creates a sense of urgency for Napoleon to act as soon as possible. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay From the first paragraphs of the letter, Browning strokes Napoleon's ego to convince him to switch to his point of view. By claiming to have read "a book called 'Contemplations' by a man who deeply sinned against [Napoleon] in [Hugo's] political writings", she cleverly makes concessions to Napoleon by asserting that Hugo's decision to say of the leader's evil was provocative, so the Emperor's upcoming punishment of Hugo was not shocking. This use of procatalepsy establishes his credibility in arguing a point because it shows that it is right, while still reaching the conclusion that Hugo should be excused. In fact, this usage explains why Hugo should be freed, because it does not resolutely defend Hugo's freedom; rather she demonstrates complex knowledge by realizing that Hugo has committed a bad deed but still deserves freedom. Seeing through Napoleon's point of view is likely to convince him to listen to her. Browning's further admission that "[she] has no personal knowledge of this man and certainly [she] is not now coming to apologize" further proves her view that she is balanced, which underlines that Hugo should be free. With the intention that Napoleon can see through his point of view that none of them know Hugo, the underlying message is conveyed that there are more factors that determine his fate of freedom or banishment. Browning moves from establishing his credibility to explaining why Hugo's sin should be committed. be forgiven. She uses anaphora to clarify and make Napoleon think about how Hugo's banishment might affect him, because as supreme leader, Napoleon cares more about what people think of him. As a result, the main points of Browning's essay focus on the benefits for Napoleon and not so much for Hugo, which ironically is exactly Napoleon's ego which is exactly the basis of Hugo's punishment to the extent where it would harm the people's opinion of Napoleon. The three-time repetition of “What touches you” reminds Napoleon that being emperor means being widely admired and therefore listened to. He can't just banish everyone who opposes him, but if he accepts his opponents, he will appear to be a more logical leader. This is true because Napoleon does not want to be remembered as an intolerant leader because of a single derogatory comment; he would rather be a modest and liberating leader. Additionally, the term "touch" forces Napoleon to consider his fears as a ruler, as low approval equates to his inability to effectively accomplish his agenda. “Touching” even implies such sensitivity that the success of one's reign can be accounted for by small things like one's response to political opponents. He is thus forced to consider the release of Hugo. To enforce his message, Browning.