Debated Stature of Picasso, Woolf, and Hawking: Understanding the Context

このQ&Aのポイント
  • Debating the Genius: Picasso, Woolf, and Hawking
  • Understanding the Interpretations of Stature: Picasso and Woolf
  • Hawking's Position in Cosmology: One of Many Luminaries
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

英文についての質問です。

Despite his fame and influence, Pablo Picasso's stature as a genius is still debated, for example, as is that of Virginia Woolf in literature. In science, Stephen Hawking, although often regarded by the general public as a contemporary genius comparable with Einstein, is not accepted as such by the physicists who fully understand his work; they regard Hawking as only one of several current luminaries in the field of cosmology. as is that of Virginia Woolf in literatureのthatは何を指しているのでしょうか? stature as a genius ですか? as only one of several current luminaries in the field of cosmologyのonly oneの個所は"only one"で"唯一の"の意味よりもonlyは"~に過ぎない"の意味にとって"~の一人に過ぎない"となるのでしょうか?

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数2

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • bakansky
  • ベストアンサー率48% (3502/7245)
回答No.1

> as is that of Virginia Woolf in literature の that は何を指しているのでしょうか? stature as a genius ですか?  そういう受け止め方で問題ないと思います。Virginia Woolf's stature as a genius というふうに置き換えてみると分りやすいでしょう。 > as only one of several current luminaries in the field of cosmology の only one の個所は "only one" で "唯一の" の意味よりも only は "~に過ぎない" の意味にとって "~の一人に過ぎない" となるのでしょうか?  その部分を文字通りに直訳すると 「天文学の分野における数人の現役の大物学者の中の1人であるに過ぎない」 となるかと思います。ですから、ご指摘の通りでしょう。

chrleyk
質問者

お礼

丁寧なご解説、ありがとうございました!

関連するQ&A

  • 英文についての質問です。

    The 21st century is perhaps more fascinated by genius even than Galton's Victorian age, when geniuses like the poet Tennyson "were in full flower", recalled Virginia Woolf, with "long hair, great black hats, capes, and cloaks". Geniuses in the arts and sciences--the focus of this book--such as Leonardo and Newton, grip the imagination of generation after generation. So does the military and political genius of Napoleon, Churchill, and Gandhi, and the "evil genius" of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Genius is also a word lavishly applied to top performers in activities as varied as chess, sports, and music. Moreover, the accolade may not only be bestowed but also withdrawn by experts and the public, as the prize-winning and sensationally successful British installation artist Damien Hirst discovered. (以前に投稿していた"Genius"の英文の続きになります。) わからない個所を教えてください。 1)The 21st century is perhaps more fascinated by genius even than Galton's Victorian age, when geniuses like the poet Tennyson "were in full flower", recalled Virginia Woolf, with "long hair, great black hats, capes, and cloaks". when geniuses~のwhen以下は、Galton's Victorian ageを説明したものですか? "were in full flower"はテニスンの作品か何かでしょうか? "long hair, great black hats, capes, and cloaks"はヴァージニア・ウルフの風貌? 2) Moreover, the accolade may not only be bestowed but also withdrawn by experts and the public, as the prize-winning and sensationally successful British installation artist Damien Hirst discovered. ここの、as~Damien Hirst discoveredの個所は、ダミアン・ハーストが見出したとして、と読むのでしょうか? よろしくお願いいたします。 *この英文の後に以下の英文が続きます。 In response to devastating reviews of his inaugural exhibition of paintings in 2009, Hirst vowed to continue painting and improve. "I don't believe in genius. I believe in freedom. I think anyone can do it. Anyone can be like Rembrandt", Hirst claimed. "With practice, you can make great paintings."

  • 英文についての質問です。

    The scientific study of genius began with the publication in 1869 of Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, the founder of psychology, who conducted detailed research on the backgrounds, lives, and achievements of illustrious individuals and their relatives, deceased and living. But strangely, there is hardly a mention of 'genius' in Galton's book; no attempt is made to define genius; and no entry for 'genius' appears in the book's index( unlike 'intelligence'). When Galton published a second edition in 1892, he regretted his title and wished he could change it to Hereditary Ability. 'There was not the slightest intention on my part to use the word genius in any technical sense, but merely as expressing an ability that was exceptionally high,' he wrote in a new preface. 'There is much that is indefinite in the application of the word genius. It is applied to many a youth by his contemporaries, but more rarely by biographers, who do not always agree among themselves.' この英文の最後の方の内容がよくわかりません。 1)'There is much that is indefinite in the application of the word genius. thatは何を指しているのでしょうか? (天才という言葉を適応するには不明確なことがたくさんある、と訳したのですがthatの部分がわかりませんでした) 2)It is applied to many a youth by his contemporaries, but more rarely by biographers, who do not always agree among themselves.' それは同世代によるたくさんの若者に適応されているが、しかし伝記作者には滅多に適応されない。彼らは(伝記作者たちは)賛成しない。 hisは誰を指しているのでしょうか?(youth?) among themselvesはどうやって訳すのでしょうか? rarely=まれに、 more rarely=?(訳語がわかりません) 3)最後の部分の意味がとれないのですが、つまり質問の1)と2)の英文を合わせるとどういうことを言っているのでしょうか?伝記作者は天才という言葉を明確に使っている、ということですか?(It is applied to~のitがよくつかめていない感じです) 英文と質問が長くて申し訳ないです。 お手数ですがよろしくお願いいたします。

  • 英文についての質問です。(2)

    投稿した質問の『英文についての質問です。(1)』の続きになります。 When Galton speaks of the heritability of "a man's natural abilities" in his thesis, what he really seems to mean is the heritability of talent, rather than genius. As most psychologists now agree, the evidence for some inheritance of talent is considerable, though nowhere near as convincing as Galton claimed, whilst the evidence for inherited genius is slight or non-existent. (Genius by Andrew Robinson) : 1)部分的によくわからないところがあります。 the evidence for some inheritance of talent is considerable the evidence for inherited genius is slight or non-existent この二つはどのようなことを言っているのでしょうか? ( some inheritance of talentとinherited geniusのところがよく掴めません) 2) though nowhere near as convincing as Galton claimedは、 Galtonが主張したほど説得力のあることにはほど遠かったけれども、という意味ですか? (Galtonほど説得力はなかったが?) よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 英文についての質問です。

    That unavoidable imprecision persists, despite a somewhat improved understanding of the ingredients of genius and its patterns during the 20th century. 'I have always been wary of attempts to generalize about genius....There seems to be no common denominator except uncommonness', writes the historian Roy Porter in his foreword to Genius and the Mind, a collection of academic 'studies of creativity and temperament', edited by the psychologist Andrew Steptoe, published in 1998. 'And yet,.... as a historian I cannot help being fascinated by genius.' The imprecision is reflected in the varying stature of those discussed in this book, of whom a mere handful are undisputed geniuses like Mozart and Einstein. There cannot be a consensus on exactly who is, and is not, a genius. Although certain individuals may be widely accepted as geniuses, the world itself resists precise definition. Indeed, this paradox is part of genius's allure--to academics studying genius almost as much as to Dr Johnson's 'every man'. 内容が掴めないところがあります。 1) There seems to be no common denominator except uncommonness 天才の共通点は非凡である、ということのみである、ということですか? 2)The imprecision is reflected in the varying stature of those discussed in this book, of whom a mere handful are undisputed geniuses like Mozart and Einstein. of whomの文法的な用法がよくわかりません。(なぜof whomを使っているのか。whomの用法がいまいちわかりません) a mere handful are undisputed geniuses like Mozart and Einstein (ほんの一握りなのはモーツァルトやアインシュタインのような議論の余地のない天才たち?) 全体の意味が掴めないのですが、 天才の定義というのは不正確である。この本の中で議論される天才たちの偉業にそのこと(不正確さ)が反映されている?(このあと後半のa mere handful are undisputed geniuses~がどのように意味としてつながるのでしょうか?) thoseはgeniusesですか? *"this paradox"はAlthough certain individuals may be widely accepted as geniuses, the world itself resists precise definition.を指しているのだと思うのですが、なぜこういうパラドックスが起きてしまのかはよくわかりません。 お手数をおかけしてしまいますが、よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 英文についての質問です。(2)

    投稿した質問の『英文についての質問です。(1)』の続きになります。 Put another way, the question becomes: should we speak of greater and lesser geniuses-- instead of simply genius? Physicists generally feel that Einstein is a greater genius than, say, his contemporary Niels Bohr(also a Nobel laureate). Artists feel the same about Picasso, as compared with his contemporary Georges Braque. And the same is true for composers regarding Mozart, as compared with his contemporary (and fervent admire) Joseph Haydn.(Genius by Andrew Robinson)  以下の分からない点を教えてください。 1)should we speak of greater and lesser geniuses-- instead of simply genius? 私たちはより偉大な天才とより劣った天才について話すべきでしょうか? 単に天才の(ことについて話す)代わりに、という訳し方でよいのでしょうか? そして以下 偉大な天才(アインシュタイン、ピカソ、モーツァルト)と彼らと比べてそれほど天才でもない人たち(ボーア、ブラック、ハイドン)を引き合いに出している、という内容ですか? 2)前文で、 Distinguishing talent from genius is inevitable fraught with difficulty, since neither term has a widely agreed definition or method of measurement. The most obvious question to ask is whether talent and genius form a continuum, or are separated by a discontinuity? と書いていて Put another way, the question becomes:~とつながるわけなのですが、 前半と後半の繋がりはどのようにとらえるのでしょうか? 解説をいただけると助かります。 よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 英文についての質問です。

    Not until the Enlightenment did genius acquire its distinctly different, chief modern meaning: an individual who demonstrates exceptional intellectual or creative powers, whether inborn or acquired (or both). Homer, despite two millennia of veneration as a divinely inspired poet, did not become a 'genius' until the 18th century. This later usage derives from the Latin ingenium (not from genius), meaning 'natural disposition', 'innate ability', or 'talent'. It was already in wide currency in 1711, when Joseph Addison published an article on 'Genius' in his newly established journal The Spectator. 'There is no character more frequently given to a writer than that of being a genius', wrote Addison. 1) 冒頭のNot until the Enlightenment did genius acquire its distinctly different, chief modern meaning:は、どう訳すのでしょうか? not untilで「~になって初めて」という意味で、"啓蒙思想になって初めて"ですか? did genius acquireはdidが前に出ているのは倒置ですか? 2) This later usage derives from the Latin ingenium (not from genius), meaning 'natural disposition', 'innate ability', or 'talent'.ここの意味がとれないのですが、this later usage derives from the Latin ingeniumのthis later usageとはどういうことですか? 3)'There is no character more frequently given to a writer than that of being a genius' 作家に天才であることの特徴より、より頻繁に与えられる特徴はありません? thatはcharacterですか? 作家というものは天才である、という意味ですか? よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 英文についての質問です。(1)

    Intriguing though Galton's eminent families are, they decidedly do not demonstrate the inheritance of genius. For there is basic flaw in his analysis: his criteria for genius (which, of course, Galton never defines) are not strict enough, allowing in too many high achievers whose distinction may be considerable but is far from enduringly exceptional. Hereditary Genius is, so to speak, closer to the Queen's honours list than the Nobel prize. (Genius by Andrew Robinson) 1) his criteria for genius (which, of course, Galton never defines) are not strict enough, allowing in too many high achievers whose distinction may be considerable but is far from enduringly exceptional. considerableは"かなりの"という意味ですか? but is~はbut(distinction) is~ですか? この英文はnot~but構文なのでしょうか? 2) Hereditary Genius is, so to speak, closer to the Queen's honours list than the Nobel prize. 遺伝性の天才は、いわばノーベル賞よりも女王の叙爵者一覧に近い(?)とはどういう意味ですか? よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 次の英文でふたつ質問なのですが

    Others, however, dismissed his works as simple retellings of local tales, full of unwelcome liberties taken with the details of the well-known story lines. However, to estimate properly Tutuola's rightful position in world literature, it is essential to be clear about the genre in which he wrote; literary critics have assumed too facilely that he wrote novels. まずliberty ofで~の使用だという意味だと思いますがその間になぜか taken with the details が挟まっていますがこれはどういう意味なのでしょうか?過去分詞のようですが... 次に、too facilely that he wrote novelsこのthatは副詞用法でいいのでしょうか。形容詞の後ろなので...それともこれはtoo~to...のような感じで構文なのでしょうか?

  • 以下の英文はどう訳しますか?

    以下の英文はどう訳しますか? Much of this book is concerned with agricultural change, involving a certain amount of historical reconstruction. It is important to set doctrinal assumptions aside and, in particular, not to assume without evidence the existence of any process such as degradation or intensification. Change can take many forms, and the adoption of practices that are more intensive in use of capital or labor is only one form. Comparatively, it is useful to describe one system as more intensive than another, but the terms to intensify and intensification are used loosely in the literature. I introduce the theory of intensification in chapter 4 but discuss it in some depth only chapter 11. Elsewhere in the book, I avoid these terms as far as possible. Certain other themes are also of major significance. 長いのですが、よろしくおねがいいたします!!!!

  • 英文についての質問です。(1)

    In the middle of the 18th century, Samuel Johnson attempted a definition in his periodical The Rambler, which is recognizably modern in its emphasis on genius as being something achievable through dedication. According to Johnson: which以下がわからないのですが 1)whichの先行詞はa definition ですか? 2)as beingはどう訳すのでしょうか? 18世紀中ごろ、サミュエル・ジョンソンは定期刊行のランブラーの中で定義を試みました。 それは認識できる程度に天才のその重要点において現代的であります。? 献身な姿を通して成し遂げられる何かがあるように? ジョンソンによると: which以下の意味がとれません。 どいういうことを言っているのでしょうか? よろしくお願いいたします。