- UID
- 571566
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-10-6
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
一共293字，是不是有点短？
The lecture apparently rejects the threepieces of evidence cited in the reading passage to prove that the portrait of ateenage girl which appears for sale recently actually depicts Jane Austen. Thelecturer contends that the three points presented in the passage are notconvincing at all for the following reasons.
First, he argues that although in 1882Austen’s family asserted that this portrait was indeed an illustration of Jane Austen,this happened 70 years after Jane’s death and none of the family members inthis period ever saw Jane or knew her personally. Therefore, the family membersonly have a loose connection with Jane so that their judgment could not beacknowledged as evidence to prove that the girl in the portrait is Jane.
Furthermore, the lecturer explains that theteenage girl could very much likely be a relative of Jane Austen because of herresemblance to Jane’s image in Cassandra’s sketch. He points out that Jane grewup in a big family and during the possible period that the portrait might bepainted, several cousins of Jane or their children were of the same age asJane, therefore, any one of them could be the subject of the portrait.
Finally, the lecturer states that theportrait was attributed to Ozias Humphrey just because of the style, which isnot a piece of trustworthy evidence as well. Moreover, the portrait must havebeen painted in a much later date because the black canvas the painter used wassold by a man who did not start to sell canvas until Jane was 27 years old. Therefore,there is no way for the painter to draw a portrait of teenage Jane Austen witha canvas available only after she was already an adult. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-11-17 21:54:57
收藏
收藏
