12-09-2015, 06:18 PM
این تاپیک خیلی غیر فعاله ولی باز من انشا رو میزارم لطفا اگر کسی دیدش بگه غلطی داره یا نه و...
The main idea of both the reading and the lecture is about a professional portrait which is resemble to the Jane Austen's face. Considering this, the author claims that there are several reasons which lead us to believe that Austen was the subject of the portrait. The professor, on the other hand, categorically denies whatever was mentioned in the reading through citing several reasons.
First, the reading states that Austen's family announced that the subject of the portrait was Jane Austen. The professor refutes this point by states that they announced this assertion many years later after she died. Therefore, their claim could not be true.
Second, the author claims that the face in the portrait is similar to Jane Austen so that it was found in one of the Cassandra's sketches .However, the professor contends that it is not significantly resemble to Austen's face ; thus, it maybe belong to one of the another Austen's family members.
Third, the reading states that there is an evidence that shows the portrait was painted by Ozias, who probably was hired by Austen's family to paint Jane Austen’s face. The lecture opposes this point by saying that Ozias was not living in London when Jane Austen was living there as a teenager, and when Ozias went to London Jane Austen had about 27 years old.
The main idea of both the reading and the lecture is about a professional portrait which is resemble to the Jane Austen's face. Considering this, the author claims that there are several reasons which lead us to believe that Austen was the subject of the portrait. The professor, on the other hand, categorically denies whatever was mentioned in the reading through citing several reasons.
First, the reading states that Austen's family announced that the subject of the portrait was Jane Austen. The professor refutes this point by states that they announced this assertion many years later after she died. Therefore, their claim could not be true.
Second, the author claims that the face in the portrait is similar to Jane Austen so that it was found in one of the Cassandra's sketches .However, the professor contends that it is not significantly resemble to Austen's face ; thus, it maybe belong to one of the another Austen's family members.
Third, the reading states that there is an evidence that shows the portrait was painted by Ozias, who probably was hired by Austen's family to paint Jane Austen’s face. The lecture opposes this point by saying that Ozias was not living in London when Jane Austen was living there as a teenager, and when Ozias went to London Jane Austen had about 27 years old.
