Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819613
M. Wood
Even as a schoolboy Marcel Proust specialized in thoughts of loss and doubt, and in À la recherche du temps perdu, he puts these thoughts to a very particular kind of philosophical work: the cultivation of epistemological (and other) errors that are certainly errors but are in some sense not entirely wrong. A noise is misinterpreted, attributed to an incorrect source, but Proust’s narrator, while scrupulously revising the perception, allows his first take a sort of magical afterlife. This effect is subtly developed in the last volume of the novel, where the narrator completes the experiences of involuntary memory that ground his whole theory of regained time—and also has experiences that contradict the theory, that show time to be ever-elapsing, impossible to regain. He doesn’t endorse the contradiction, and he doesn’t give up his theory. But he doesn’t erase the contradiction either.
甚至在学生时代，马塞尔·普鲁斯特就专门研究失落和怀疑的思想，在À， la recherche du temps perdu中，他把这些思想放在了一种非常特殊的哲学工作中:认认论(和其他)错误的培养，这些错误当然是错误的，但在某种意义上并非完全错误。一种声音被误解了，被归因于一个不正确的来源，但普鲁斯特的叙述者在一丝不苟地修正这种看法的同时，允许他的第一次经历一种神奇的来世。这种效果在小说的最后一卷中得到了微妙的发展，叙述者完成了非自愿记忆的经历，这是他重新获得时间的整个理论的基础，也有与理论相矛盾的经历，表明时间一直在流逝，不可能重新获得。他不认同这个矛盾，也不放弃自己的理论。但他也没有消除矛盾。
{"title":"The Philosophy Class","authors":"M. Wood","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819613","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Even as a schoolboy Marcel Proust specialized in thoughts of loss and doubt, and in À la recherche du temps perdu, he puts these thoughts to a very particular kind of philosophical work: the cultivation of epistemological (and other) errors that are certainly errors but are in some sense not entirely wrong. A noise is misinterpreted, attributed to an incorrect source, but Proust’s narrator, while scrupulously revising the perception, allows his first take a sort of magical afterlife. This effect is subtly developed in the last volume of the novel, where the narrator completes the experiences of involuntary memory that ground his whole theory of regained time—and also has experiences that contradict the theory, that show time to be ever-elapsing, impossible to regain. He doesn’t endorse the contradiction, and he doesn’t give up his theory. But he doesn’t erase the contradiction either.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"430-439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47444212","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819637
T. Pavel
The article examines several twentieth-century polemics between mechanist approaches to language and art and studies that emphasize creativity and historical developments. The 1944 exchange between Leonard Bloomfield and Leo Spitzer was an eloquent example of such polemics, as were the various points of view of Russian formalists as well as the French debates concerning historical determinism and creativity in literary studies.
{"title":"Rigor and Imprecision in Literary Studies","authors":"T. Pavel","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819637","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article examines several twentieth-century polemics between mechanist approaches to language and art and studies that emphasize creativity and historical developments. The 1944 exchange between Leonard Bloomfield and Leo Spitzer was an eloquent example of such polemics, as were the various points of view of Russian formalists as well as the French debates concerning historical determinism and creativity in literary studies.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"455-461"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48164714","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819565
P. Brooks
This essay revisits the question of the fictional person, largely by way of Proust’s claim that the novel offers us nonexistent persons the better to espouse vision through other eyes: knowledge of the world as experienced by another consciousness. If the New Critical stricture against taking fictional characters as real beings—something other than writing on a page—is correct, it does not account for the way in which we imagine, make use of, and interact with the minds of literary characters. Yet Proust’s understanding of the fictional being cohabits with the inevitable death of real persons. As in Henry James, for instance, character may border on nothingness, on illusion—yet it appears an inevitable illusion, one that we need in order to make sense of our lives.
{"title":"The Cemetery and the Novel","authors":"P. Brooks","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819565","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This essay revisits the question of the fictional person, largely by way of Proust’s claim that the novel offers us nonexistent persons the better to espouse vision through other eyes: knowledge of the world as experienced by another consciousness. If the New Critical stricture against taking fictional characters as real beings—something other than writing on a page—is correct, it does not account for the way in which we imagine, make use of, and interact with the minds of literary characters. Yet Proust’s understanding of the fictional being cohabits with the inevitable death of real persons. As in Henry James, for instance, character may border on nothingness, on illusion—yet it appears an inevitable illusion, one that we need in order to make sense of our lives.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"357-369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44995142","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819629
J. Gallop
The author traces her reading of Barthes’s 1973 book, Le Plaisir du texte, over the last five decades. Examining her published writings on the book, she traces how it meshes with her critical attachments to psychoanalysis, feminism, and queer theory. Claiming it as a text that gives her definite pleasure, she finds it also always embroils her in contradiction. She works to understand that contradiction via the articulations of contradiction in Barthes’s text.
{"title":"The History of My Pleasure in Le Plaisir du texte","authors":"J. Gallop","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819629","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The author traces her reading of Barthes’s 1973 book, Le Plaisir du texte, over the last five decades. Examining her published writings on the book, she traces how it meshes with her critical attachments to psychoanalysis, feminism, and queer theory. Claiming it as a text that gives her definite pleasure, she finds it also always embroils her in contradiction. She works to understand that contradiction via the articulations of contradiction in Barthes’s text.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"441-454"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48064228","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819605
C. Weber
This essay examines the role of comedy in Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu.
这篇文章探讨了喜剧在马塞尔·普鲁斯特的《追忆似水年华》中的角色。
{"title":"Proust against the Monde","authors":"C. Weber","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819605","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This essay examines the role of comedy in Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"417-429"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47403579","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819589
J. Landy
Proust’s most famous critic claims that he didn’t have “even a vague or confused idea” of how his novel was going to hang together. Others tell us that every statement in the novel is a “transient hypothesis,” that Proust has “made up his mind about nothing,” or even that Proust thinks he himself is “mad” for believing that art has the power to transfigure reality. This paper will explain why none of that is true. As is clear from his essays, his letters, and even his actions, Proust was not an “essayist,” in the Musil sense: not someone, that is, whose assessments were always tentative and provisional, ready to be relinquished at any moment. At least when it comes to the relationship between selfhood, style, and art, Proust had a set of pretty robust beliefs; and those same letters, along with elements of the novel itself, also show that he wasn’t flying without instruments. So why have some critics thought otherwise? Perhaps, in part, it’s because they have assumed the narrator always speaks for Proust. If so, their foundational assumption isn’t just mistaken; it’s also likely to prevent the novel from doing some of its most important work on us, a work not of deconstruction, and not simply of didacticism, but of self-understanding, formal modeling, and habit cultivation, all in the service of a better life.
{"title":"Why Proust Isn’t an “Essayist,” and Why It Matters","authors":"J. Landy","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819589","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Proust’s most famous critic claims that he didn’t have “even a vague or confused idea” of how his novel was going to hang together. Others tell us that every statement in the novel is a “transient hypothesis,” that Proust has “made up his mind about nothing,” or even that Proust thinks he himself is “mad” for believing that art has the power to transfigure reality. This paper will explain why none of that is true. As is clear from his essays, his letters, and even his actions, Proust was not an “essayist,” in the Musil sense: not someone, that is, whose assessments were always tentative and provisional, ready to be relinquished at any moment. At least when it comes to the relationship between selfhood, style, and art, Proust had a set of pretty robust beliefs; and those same letters, along with elements of the novel itself, also show that he wasn’t flying without instruments. So why have some critics thought otherwise? Perhaps, in part, it’s because they have assumed the narrator always speaks for Proust. If so, their foundational assumption isn’t just mistaken; it’s also likely to prevent the novel from doing some of its most important work on us, a work not of deconstruction, and not simply of didacticism, but of self-understanding, formal modeling, and habit cultivation, all in the service of a better life.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"392-407"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44009118","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8819581
Andrew Holleran
“The Invalid” is an autobiographical account of one American novelist’s reading Proust over the course of his life. After the initial impact of encountering Remembrance of Things Past as a young soldier in 1968 Germany, he is forced to wonder: Did Proust bring the novel to an end? Could there be an American equivalent to his novel? And why among writers is there a saying, “If you want to write like Proust, don’t write like Proust”? Searching for the key to Proust’s achievement, the author realizes that over the years he has possibly read more about Proust than he has Proust. And yet, as an invalid himself toward the end of his life, he can only conclude that the novel is inimitable.
{"title":"The Invalid","authors":"Andrew Holleran","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819581","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 “The Invalid” is an autobiographical account of one American novelist’s reading Proust over the course of his life. After the initial impact of encountering Remembrance of Things Past as a young soldier in 1968 Germany, he is forced to wonder: Did Proust bring the novel to an end? Could there be an American equivalent to his novel? And why among writers is there a saying, “If you want to write like Proust, don’t write like Proust”? Searching for the key to Proust’s achievement, the author realizes that over the years he has possibly read more about Proust than he has Proust. And yet, as an invalid himself toward the end of his life, he can only conclude that the novel is inimitable.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79343256","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8503460
Amanda Vredenburgh, Hall Bjørnstad
Dans cet article, nous proposons le concept du « sublime royal » pour repenser le sublime au dix-septième siècle, avant, avec et autour de Boileau, en nous penchant moins sur l’intervention de Boileau elle-même que sur le contexte qui a rendu sa réussite possible : une situation où toute expression culturelle hégémonique avait avant tout une visée politique, celle de glorifier le monarque absolu. En tant que figure qui présente l’irreprésentable, le sublime permet l’impossible dans la représentation du roi : le présenter comme absolu. Il s’agit là d’un fonctionnement qui est, certes, paradoxal, mais selon un paradoxe qui est constitutif de l’absolutisme lui-même. C’est ce paradoxe constitutif qu’il s’agit d’examiner ici en étudiant, dans un premier temps, quelques exemples représentatifs du discours de l’auto-représentation de l’absolutisme, puis les répercussions plus larges du changement de perspective que nous proposons. En vue d’études ultérieures, nous examinons la façon dont le concept du sublime royal change notre conception de la place des Anciens dans la politique absolutiste, avant de montrer comment le concept de sublime royal contient en germe un nouveau modèle pour penser le développement de l’assentiment affectif à l’absolutisme et la manière dont les sujets y participent.
{"title":"Un discours « de majesté »","authors":"Amanda Vredenburgh, Hall Bjørnstad","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8503460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8503460","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Dans cet article, nous proposons le concept du « sublime royal » pour repenser le sublime au dix-septième siècle, avant, avec et autour de Boileau, en nous penchant moins sur l’intervention de Boileau elle-même que sur le contexte qui a rendu sa réussite possible : une situation où toute expression culturelle hégémonique avait avant tout une visée politique, celle de glorifier le monarque absolu. En tant que figure qui présente l’irreprésentable, le sublime permet l’impossible dans la représentation du roi : le présenter comme absolu. Il s’agit là d’un fonctionnement qui est, certes, paradoxal, mais selon un paradoxe qui est constitutif de l’absolutisme lui-même. C’est ce paradoxe constitutif qu’il s’agit d’examiner ici en étudiant, dans un premier temps, quelques exemples représentatifs du discours de l’auto-représentation de l’absolutisme, puis les répercussions plus larges du changement de perspective que nous proposons. En vue d’études ultérieures, nous examinons la façon dont le concept du sublime royal change notre conception de la place des Anciens dans la politique absolutiste, avant de montrer comment le concept de sublime royal contient en germe un nouveau modèle pour penser le développement de l’assentiment affectif à l’absolutisme et la manière dont les sujets y participent.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"227-248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41686919","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8503452
Jonathan Morton
The main texts under consideration in this article are two French-language Alexander romances written in the second half of the twelfth century, discussed in relation to the Latin historical, romance, and naturalist traditions that form the backbone of the medieval tradition of Alexander the Great in medieval Europe, and in particular in relation to the literary tradition that starts with Pseudo-Callisthenes’s Greek Romance of Alexander. The aim is to show how Alexander was used not simply as an icon of secular or military power but also as an important figure for understanding the relationship between the imagination, technological invention, and discovery of new knowledge, which necessarily entails questions of prestige and power. Alexander’s ingenuity, which manifests both as verbal trickery and in the invention of new machines, is shown to be fundamental for a certain model of knowledge-acquisition that sees natural truths as hidden and in need of tools to be extracted. This ingenuity is shown, also, to be closely connected to the inventions of writers of romance, and the article suggests the specific importance of the Alexander material in the history of medieval romance literature.
{"title":"Engin","authors":"Jonathan Morton","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8503452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8503452","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The main texts under consideration in this article are two French-language Alexander romances written in the second half of the twelfth century, discussed in relation to the Latin historical, romance, and naturalist traditions that form the backbone of the medieval tradition of Alexander the Great in medieval Europe, and in particular in relation to the literary tradition that starts with Pseudo-Callisthenes’s Greek Romance of Alexander. The aim is to show how Alexander was used not simply as an icon of secular or military power but also as an important figure for understanding the relationship between the imagination, technological invention, and discovery of new knowledge, which necessarily entails questions of prestige and power. Alexander’s ingenuity, which manifests both as verbal trickery and in the invention of new machines, is shown to be fundamental for a certain model of knowledge-acquisition that sees natural truths as hidden and in need of tools to be extracted. This ingenuity is shown, also, to be closely connected to the inventions of writers of romance, and the article suggests the specific importance of the Alexander material in the history of medieval romance literature.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66060004","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1215/00358118-8503468
Stephen H. Fleck
The article analyzes the triviality of Austin’s version of everyday-world speech act theory (which explicitly excluded fictional uses of language) in favor of its specific value for investigation of fictionality, invoking ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and Émile Benveniste. Noting the thematic prominence in the Misanthrope of two of Austin’s favorite examples of speech acts, for marriage (“I do”) and courtroom testimony (“I swear to tell the truth . . . ”), the article examines the work’s dramatic ambiguities in relation to Austin’s theory—and in particular, its shortcomings. Molière thus articulates the profoundly divided nature of Alceste indicated by Donneau de Visé (“ridicule”/“juste”), Rousseau (“un homme droit, sincère, estimable,” but also facing the world as “un personnage ridicule”), and recently by Georges Forestier and Claude Bourqui (the melancholic, jealous lover vs. the philosophe misanthrope, the world champion of sincerity), permanently at war with himself, in a war he is bound to lose. The article concludes that Molière constructs much of the famously conversational dramatic texture and indeterminate conclusion not through “successful” speech acts, but rather through failed ones; a reflection, too, of the rapidly transforming social values of the play’s historical moment.
文章援引皮埃尔·布迪厄和埃米尔·本韦尼斯特的观点，分析了奥斯汀版本的日常世界言语行为理论（明确排除了虚构的语言使用）的琐碎性，以利于其对虚构性的调查价值。文章注意到奥斯汀最喜欢的两个言语行为例子，婚姻（“我愿意”）和法庭证词（“我发誓说实话……”。Molière因此阐明了由Donneau de Visé（“嘲笑”/“公正”）、Rousseau（“不人道的权利，sincère，值得尊敬”）以及最近由Georges Forestier和Claude Bourqui（忧郁、嫉妒的情人与哲学厌世者，真诚的世界冠军）所指出的Alceste的深刻分裂性质，永远与自己交战，在这场战争中他注定会失败。这篇文章的结论是，莫里哀不是通过“成功”的言语行为，而是通过失败的言语行为构建了许多著名的对话戏剧性结构和不确定的结论；这也反映了该剧历史时刻迅速转变的社会价值观。
{"title":"Dire, Médire, Dédire","authors":"Stephen H. Fleck","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8503468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8503468","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the triviality of Austin’s version of everyday-world speech act theory (which explicitly excluded fictional uses of language) in favor of its specific value for investigation of fictionality, invoking ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and Émile Benveniste. Noting the thematic prominence in the Misanthrope of two of Austin’s favorite examples of speech acts, for marriage (“I do”) and courtroom testimony (“I swear to tell the truth . . . ”), the article examines the work’s dramatic ambiguities in relation to Austin’s theory—and in particular, its shortcomings. Molière thus articulates the profoundly divided nature of Alceste indicated by Donneau de Visé (“ridicule”/“juste”), Rousseau (“un homme droit, sincère, estimable,” but also facing the world as “un personnage ridicule”), and recently by Georges Forestier and Claude Bourqui (the melancholic, jealous lover vs. the philosophe misanthrope, the world champion of sincerity), permanently at war with himself, in a war he is bound to lose. The article concludes that Molière constructs much of the famously conversational dramatic texture and indeterminate conclusion not through “successful” speech acts, but rather through failed ones; a reflection, too, of the rapidly transforming social values of the play’s historical moment.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"249-259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49606511","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：