About 500 years ago, a man could remark in all seriousness that the ostrich and the spider hatched their eggs by looking at them, that the glance of the basilisk could kill, and that the snake could draw the nightingale to her death by the mesmerism of its gaze. Leonardo da Vinci certainly thought as much, and a century later, Sir Thomas Browne remained faithful to the notion that looks could kill while doubting that the basilisk, for instance, was much more lethal than the Uraeus serpent, token of sovereignty which the Egyptian Pharaohs once bound upon their foreheads.
Sir Thomas was undoubtedly correct in his views about the basilisk, nor was he entirely off the mark in claiming that eyes can “receive offensive impressions from their objects,” as he put it. Students of behaviorism have observed that an exchange of looks between animals is the usual prelude to all manner of social interactions, from casual acquaintance to fierce fighting.
The very form of the eye lends itself to being the natural image of its own function. Nature herself has made play with this fact, for animals such as dogs may sport a pair of spots upon their foreheads which intensify their gaze and the expression of their faces. The effect of this can be quite mythological: is not folk-lore full of ogres who are safe to approach only when their eyes are open, for they must therefore be sound asleep?
【題組】What is the meaning of the claim that eyes can “receive offensive impressions from their objects”?
(A)The eyes are offensive objects.
(B) The eyes are impressive objects.
(C) The eyes can sense the coming of danger.
(D)The eyes can be open to good intentions.
寫作批改
VIP與詳解卡管理
私人筆記( 0 )
