Forma, a niekiedy gest przysięgi były jedną ze składowych świata symboliki epoki średniowiecznej i nowożytnej. Celem pracy jest przedstawienie dwóch wczesnonowożytnych przysiąg zachowanych w zbiorach (księgach przysiąg) z miast tzw. magdeburskiego okręgu prawnego – Wrocławia i Świdnicy – oraz ich analiza w kontekście rozwoju przysięgi żydowskiej (juramentum judeorum, sacramentum Hebreorum, Judeneid) w Europie Środkowej. Na podstawie porównania tekstu obu wspomnianych przysiąg z przysięgami średniowiecznymi została podjęta próba prześledzenia ciągłości owego zjawiska oraz zmian we wzajemnych relacjach pomiędzy mniejszością żydowską a chrześcijańską większością. Brzmienie przysięgi żydowskiej zależało od celu, jakiemu miała ona służyć. Przysięga została stworzona przez chrześcijan, którzy dążyli do tego, by jak najbardziej ograniczyć możliwość jej złamania. Biorąc pod uwagę przepisy dotyczące praktycznego zastosowania przysięgi, można powiedzieć, że jej celem było również ukazanie miejsca i pozycji narodu żydowskiego w społeczności chrześcijańskiej. Przysięga była przede wszystkim narzędziem dyscyplinowania i kontroli. Z powyższych powodów stanowi ona bogate źródło cennych informacji na temat rozwoju społeczeństwa miejskiego oraz zapewnia wgląd w zmiany, jakim podlegało ono na przestrzeni znaczącego i długiego okresu swojego istnienia.
{"title":"The Oath \"More Judaico\" Two Early Modern Jewish Oaths from Wrocław and Świdnica and Their Comparison with Medieval Jewish Oaths","authors":"Hana Komárková","doi":"10.26881/sds.2020.24.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2020.24.02","url":null,"abstract":"Forma, a niekiedy gest przysięgi były jedną ze składowych świata symboliki epoki średniowiecznej i nowożytnej. Celem pracy jest przedstawienie dwóch wczesnonowożytnych przysiąg zachowanych w zbiorach (księgach przysiąg) z miast tzw. magdeburskiego okręgu prawnego – Wrocławia i Świdnicy – oraz ich analiza w kontekście rozwoju przysięgi żydowskiej (juramentum judeorum, sacramentum Hebreorum, Judeneid) w Europie Środkowej. Na podstawie porównania tekstu obu wspomnianych przysiąg z przysięgami średniowiecznymi została podjęta próba prześledzenia ciągłości owego zjawiska oraz zmian we wzajemnych relacjach pomiędzy mniejszością żydowską a chrześcijańską większością. Brzmienie przysięgi żydowskiej zależało od celu, jakiemu miała ona służyć. Przysięga została stworzona przez chrześcijan, którzy dążyli do tego, by jak najbardziej ograniczyć możliwość jej złamania. Biorąc pod uwagę przepisy dotyczące praktycznego zastosowania przysięgi, można powiedzieć, że jej celem było również ukazanie miejsca i pozycji narodu żydowskiego w społeczności chrześcijańskiej. Przysięga była przede wszystkim narzędziem dyscyplinowania i kontroli. Z powyższych powodów stanowi ona bogate źródło cennych informacji na temat rozwoju społeczeństwa miejskiego oraz zapewnia wgląd w zmiany, jakim podlegało ono na przestrzeni znaczącego i długiego okresu swojego istnienia.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133648832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this article in the describe the money market in the Byzantine Empire in the sixth century. At its basis were the fiscal reforms implemented at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century by Emperor Anastasius. As a result of these, the “heavy follis” was introduced, a monetary unit intended to improve everyday retail trade, which in the second half of the fifth century had been “flooded” by small bronze coins, 5 to 10 millimeters in diameter (so ‑called minimi). An objective insight into the nature of the money market of that time is not given by written (literary) texts, but by the contents of contemporary stores of coins and monitoring of the contemporary coin market. Analysis confirms that besides the so‑called heavy follis (worth 40 nummia) and its parts, that is coins worth 30, 20, 10, and 5 nummia, the everyday retail market was dominated by coins of intermediate value, that is, ½ 1, 1½, 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, and even 33 nummia. An analysis of stores of coins in the sixth and seventh centuries on the territory of the contemporary Byzantine Empire also confirms that so ‑called clipped coins were also in common use. In other words, the issuing authority, that is, the imperial mint, did not meet the demands of small‑scale transactions; bronze coins of a value of less than 5 nummia and the intermediary values noted above were necessary.
{"title":"Kilka uwag na temat rynku pieniężnego w Cesarstwie Bizantyńskim w VI wieku","authors":"Ireneusz Milewski","doi":"10.26881/sds.2020.24.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2020.24.05","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article in the describe the money market in the Byzantine Empire in the sixth century. At its basis were the fiscal reforms implemented at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century by Emperor Anastasius. As a result of these, the “heavy follis” was introduced, a monetary unit intended to improve everyday retail trade, which in the second half of the fifth century had been “flooded” by small bronze coins, 5 to 10 millimeters in diameter (so ‑called minimi). An objective insight into the nature of the money market of that time is not given by written (literary) texts, but by the contents of contemporary stores of coins and monitoring of the contemporary coin market. Analysis confirms that besides the so‑called heavy follis (worth 40 nummia) and its parts, that is coins worth 30, 20, 10, and 5 nummia, the everyday retail market was dominated by coins of intermediate value, that is, ½ 1, 1½, 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, and even 33 nummia. An analysis of stores of coins in the sixth and seventh centuries on the territory of the contemporary Byzantine Empire also confirms that so ‑called clipped coins were also in common use. In other words, the issuing authority, that is, the imperial mint, did not meet the demands of small‑scale transactions; bronze coins of a value of less than 5 nummia and the intermediary values noted above were necessary.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122885675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article analyzes contacts between Bolesław Szczodry (1058–1079) and neighbouring states in Central Europe (Hungary, the Czech lands, the Lutician Federation, Saxony). The main emphasis is on the influence of those contacts on Polish‑German relations. The article attempts to answer the question as to whether the alliances formed by the Polish ruler were a result of a more serious, far‑reaching policy directed against the German ruler. In connection with this, each state is dealt with separately, and relations with it are viewed separately from the remainder. The effect of such an approach is the perception that the majority of the actions of Bolesław Szczodry were of an ad hoc nature, and not stricte directed against the Empire. Only the Polish ‑Hungarian alliance – although also not without certain controversial aspects – gives the appearance of a lasting alliance, one fundamental for Polish policy at that time. As a result, the answer to the question in the title is in the negative: Bolesław Szczodry did not form alliances with neghbouring states with the aim of weakening Germany and of building a more powerful coalition capable of defeating King Henry IV.
{"title":"Bolesław Szczodry (1058–1079) konstruktorem środkowoeuropejskiego bloku antycesarskiego?","authors":"Adam Lubocki","doi":"10.26881/sds.2020.24.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2020.24.04","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes contacts between Bolesław Szczodry (1058–1079) and neighbouring states in Central Europe (Hungary, the Czech lands, the Lutician Federation, Saxony). The main emphasis is on the influence of those contacts on Polish‑German relations. The article attempts to answer the question as to whether the alliances formed by the Polish ruler were a result of a more serious, far‑reaching policy directed against the German ruler. In connection with this, each state is dealt with separately, and relations with it are viewed separately from the remainder. The effect of such an approach is the perception that the majority of the actions of Bolesław Szczodry were of an ad hoc nature, and not stricte directed against the Empire. Only the Polish ‑Hungarian alliance – although also not without certain controversial aspects – gives the appearance of a lasting alliance, one fundamental for Polish policy at that time. As a result, the answer to the question in the title is in the negative: Bolesław Szczodry did not form alliances with neghbouring states with the aim of weakening Germany and of building a more powerful coalition capable of defeating King Henry IV.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127886195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article discusses the Proposicio Polonorum, which contains an accusation against the Grand Master and the Teutonic Order of harbouring a hostile attitude towards Poland, King Władysław Jagiełło, and the Christianizing mission led by him in Lithuania. The indictment was presented by the Polish delegation to the Council of Constance in February 1416. The author discusses the manuscripts and the contents of the indictment. He compares various versions and on this basis considers the question of the authorship and the genesis of the text. The “Kraków” version held in the Jagiellonian Library (Cod. 1143) contains several “Lithuanian” elements (the marriage of the daughter of Witold with the Grand Duke of Moscow; the alliance of Svidrigiello with the Tatars) that are unknown in other manuscripts. This might indicate its preparation to support Duke Witold’s interests. Any details of the genesis of the indictment are hypothetical, but several factors emerging directly from its content (quotations from the twelfth-century letter writer Pierre de Blois) indicate that Piotr Wolfram, secretary to the Archbishop of Gniezno at the Council and professor of law at Kraków University, had a fundamental influence on its writing.
{"title":"Dwie wersje skargi \"Proposicio Polonorum\" oraz kwestia jej genezy","authors":"Přemysl Bar","doi":"10.26881/sds.2020.24.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2020.24.01","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the Proposicio Polonorum, which contains an accusation against the Grand Master and the Teutonic Order of harbouring a hostile attitude towards Poland, King Władysław Jagiełło, and the Christianizing mission led by him in Lithuania. The indictment was presented by the Polish delegation to the Council of Constance in February 1416. The author discusses the manuscripts and the contents of the indictment. He compares various versions and on this basis considers the question of the authorship and the genesis of the text. The “Kraków” version held in the Jagiellonian Library (Cod. 1143) contains several “Lithuanian” elements (the marriage of the daughter of Witold with the Grand Duke of Moscow; the alliance of Svidrigiello with the Tatars) that are unknown in other manuscripts. This might indicate its preparation to support Duke Witold’s interests. Any details of the genesis of the indictment are hypothetical, but several factors emerging directly from its content (quotations from the twelfth-century letter writer Pierre de Blois) indicate that Piotr Wolfram, secretary to the Archbishop of Gniezno at the Council and professor of law at Kraków University, had a fundamental influence on its writing.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133143340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Janusz Bieniak’s study Zarębowie i Nałęcze a królobójstwo w Rogoźnie (The Zaręba and Nalęcz Families and the Regicide in Rogoźno – 2018), alongside important discoveries and interesting proposals of a prosopographic and genealogical nature, has as its main aim to discredit information in the sources concerning the participation (possibly even direct participation) of those families in the crime committed in 1296 in Rogoźno. The crime occurred through the agency of the Margraves of Brandenburg, of the older (Johannine) line of the House of Ascania/ Anhalt. This article takes issue with several aspects of Bieniak’s argument. Bieniak questions my earlier view of the probable recognition of the Nałęcz family of the suzerainty of the Margraves over their Greater Polish possessions situated to the north of the middle and lower stream of the River Noteć, that is on formerly Pomeranian territory (centred on Człopa), which could of course lay them open to the charge of treachery, since in Poland there was no consciousness or understanding of German claims (essentially rights) to the region of Pomerania. At the same time, in terms of German law, from 1231 Pomerania, including, of course, the territory of Nadnotecie still remaining in the thirteenth ‑century and – from a Polish perspective – of the former Pomeranian Zanotecie, remained within the gift of the German Empire within the fief of the Margraves of Brandenburg. Bieniak decisively rejects any reckoning in Poland in the thirteenth century with any kind of claim of the (in any case weakened) German state as a whole (Bieniak calls this the Empire), and even more of Brandenburg, the rulers of which as conquerors had no interest in the historical borders of Pomerania and did not even know them, but were driven only by brutal force and not by any legal titles. Of course, they ignored these, and the Nałęcz and Zaręba families did not see themselves as subordinate to anyone, just like everyone in Poland. Thus, they must be exonerated from participation in the crime of 1296. In this controversy, I wish to point out even more forcibly than previously (and, indeed, quite frequently) that the Nałęcz family, just like the Greater Poland princes (an example from 1253 is cited) and the knightly families settled in Pomerania (the Wedlow, Liebenow, Güntersberg, and Borkow families, 1296–1297, and the Święc family, 1307) knew the suzerain competences of the Margraves and recognized them – of course, under military pressure – over the castles and towns held by the Poles on the left bank of the Noteć (Santok–Drżeń–Wieleń– Czarnków–Ujście) along with their hinterlands, thus becoming Brandenburg and Polish subjects. In fact, the few sources do not permit such a maximum treatment of all the Brandenburg claims at the end of the thirteenth century, but that becomes obvious in subsequent decades of the fourteenth century, when it is by the intervention of the Margraves with support of the Nałęcz, Güntersberg, and Wedlow fa
Janusz Bieniak的研究Zarębowie i Nałęcze a królobójstwo w Rogoźnie (Zaręba和Nalęcz Families and The Regicide in Rogoźno - 2018)，除了重要的发现和有趣的人类学和宗谱性质的建议外，其主要目的是质疑有关这些家庭参与(甚至可能直接参与)1296年在Rogoźno犯下的罪行的信息来源。犯罪是通过勃兰登堡侯爵的代理发生的，他是阿斯卡尼亚/安哈尔特家族的老(约翰内)系。本文对Bieniak观点的几个方面提出了质疑。Bieniak质疑我之前的观点，即Nałęcz家族可能承认马尔格拉夫对其位于诺特奇河中下游以北的大波兰领土的宗主权，这是在原波美拉尼亚领土上(以Człopa为中心)，这当然会使他们面临背叛的指控，因为在波兰，没有意识到或理解德国对波美拉尼亚地区的要求(本质上是权利)。与此同时，根据德国法律，从1231年起，波美拉尼亚，当然包括Nadnotecie的领土，仍然保留在13世纪，从波兰的角度来看，前波美拉尼亚的扎诺tecie，仍然在勃兰登堡侯爵的封地内，属于德意志帝国的礼物。Bieniak果断地拒绝了13世纪波兰对德意志国家(无论如何被削弱了)作为一个整体(Bieniak称之为帝国)的任何主张的任何计算，甚至更拒绝了勃兰登堡，作为征服者的统治者对波美拉尼亚的历史边界没有兴趣，甚至不知道它们，而是被野蛮的武力所驱使，而不是任何法律上的权利。当然，他们忽略了这些，Nałęcz和Zaręba家族并不认为自己是任何人的下属，就像波兰的每个人一样。因此，他们必须被免除参与1296年的罪行。在这场争论中，我希望比以前更有力地指出(事实上，经常指出)Nałęcz家族，就像大波兰王子(引用1253年的一个例子)和定居在波美拉尼亚的骑士家族(1296-1297年的Wedlow, Liebenow, g ntersberg和Borkow家族，以及Święc家族，1307年)一样，知道Margraves的宗主权能力，当然，在军事压力下-占领了波兰人在诺特奇河左岸的城堡和城镇(Santok-Drżeń-Wieleń - Czarnków-Ujście)及其腹地，从而成为勃兰登堡和波兰的臣民。事实上，在13世纪末，很少的资料来源不允许这样最大程度地处理所有勃兰登堡的主张，但在14世纪随后的几十年里，这一点变得很明显，当马尔格雷夫斯在Nałęcz、gtersberg和Wedlow家族的支持下进行干预时，Nadnotęcie东部土地的领土、城堡和城镇被占领了。这就是为什么提到Nałęcz家族(Ostroróg)在德列日登科附近的Puszcza Notecka的几个村庄中提出的权利，最明显的原因是，在1330年左右，Małgorzata Nałęczówna家族(Szamotuły)把嫁妆带给了德列日登科的德国冯·德·奥斯滕领主，1408年，他们把这些嫁妆连同城堡一起卖给了条顿骑士团。利润率的文章中,我还提供了一个“温和的”防御位置(由Bieniak还批评)识别的问题——在当代条目上的西多会的修士Kołbacz——Jakub“Kaszuby”原则犯罪者(唯一的名称)的弑君,与德国骑士Jakub Guntersberg,是谁干的,的确,来自Kaszubia,自从1296年他离开西波美拉尼亚公爵的服务(从1295年开始,我们łogoski公爵的爵位),在那之前，他在星加德附近有一块封地。在这种情况下，“Kasube”不是一个种族描述，而只是一个地理-政治描述。
{"title":"Jeszcze o zbrodni rogozińskiej i granicy między Polską a Brandenburgią na Noteci w XIII–XIV wieku","authors":"Edward Rymar","doi":"10.26881/sds.2020.24.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2020.24.14","url":null,"abstract":"Janusz Bieniak’s study Zarębowie i Nałęcze a królobójstwo w Rogoźnie (The Zaręba and Nalęcz Families and the Regicide in Rogoźno – 2018), alongside important discoveries and interesting proposals of a prosopographic and genealogical nature, has as its main aim to discredit information in the sources concerning the participation (possibly even direct participation) of those families in the crime committed in 1296 in Rogoźno. The crime occurred through the agency of the Margraves of Brandenburg, of the older (Johannine) line of the House of Ascania/ Anhalt. This article takes issue with several aspects of Bieniak’s argument. Bieniak questions my earlier view of the probable recognition of the Nałęcz family of the suzerainty of the Margraves over their Greater Polish possessions situated to the north of the middle and lower stream of the River Noteć, that is on formerly Pomeranian territory (centred on Człopa), which could of course lay them open to the charge of treachery, since in Poland there was no consciousness or understanding of German claims (essentially rights) to the region of Pomerania. At the same time, in terms of German law, from 1231 Pomerania, including, of course, the territory of Nadnotecie still remaining in the thirteenth ‑century and – from a Polish perspective – of the former Pomeranian Zanotecie, remained within the gift of the German Empire within the fief of the Margraves of Brandenburg. Bieniak decisively rejects any reckoning in Poland in the thirteenth century with any kind of claim of the (in any case weakened) German state as a whole (Bieniak calls this the Empire), and even more of Brandenburg, the rulers of which as conquerors had no interest in the historical borders of Pomerania and did not even know them, but were driven only by brutal force and not by any legal titles. Of course, they ignored these, and the Nałęcz and Zaręba families did not see themselves as subordinate to anyone, just like everyone in Poland. Thus, they must be exonerated from participation in the crime of 1296. \u0000In this controversy, I wish to point out even more forcibly than previously (and, indeed, quite frequently) that the Nałęcz family, just like the Greater Poland princes (an example from 1253 is cited) and the knightly families settled in Pomerania (the Wedlow, Liebenow, Güntersberg, and Borkow families, 1296–1297, and the Święc family, 1307) knew the suzerain competences of the Margraves and recognized them – of course, under military pressure – over the castles and towns held by the Poles on the left bank of the Noteć (Santok–Drżeń–Wieleń– Czarnków–Ujście) along with their hinterlands, thus becoming Brandenburg and Polish subjects. In fact, the few sources do not permit such a maximum treatment of all the Brandenburg claims at the end of the thirteenth century, but that becomes obvious in subsequent decades of the fourteenth century, when it is by the intervention of the Margraves with support of the Nałęcz, Güntersberg, and Wedlow fa","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"313 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129376874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper contains the never‑before‑published document of Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary, of the 1st January 1377, drawn up in Cracow and later validated by the vicars of the Kingdom of Poland on the 16th April 1381. The addressee of the document was the bishop of Seret Andrzej, chaplain of the queen and a parson in Kłodawa. In this diploma, the queen exempted him from paying rent to the royal treasury from some of the land belonging to the Kłodawa parish. The document is one of several sources confirming Elisabeth’s stay in Cracow in 1376/1377.
{"title":"Dokument królowej Elżbiety Łokietkówny z 1 stycznia 1377 roku, w potwierdzeniu wikariuszy Królestwa Polskiego z 26 czerwca 1381 roku","authors":"A. Marzec","doi":"10.26881/sds.2019.23.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2019.23.17","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contains the never‑before‑published document of Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary, of the 1st January 1377, drawn up in Cracow and later validated by the vicars of the Kingdom of Poland on the 16th April 1381. The addressee of the document was the bishop of Seret Andrzej, chaplain of the queen and a parson in Kłodawa. In this diploma, the queen exempted him from paying rent to the royal treasury from some of the land belonging to the Kłodawa parish. The document is one of several sources confirming Elisabeth’s stay in Cracow in 1376/1377.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131796720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：