ills helped to define the political and religious climate of early modern England. The Acts of Succession (1533–43/44), which eventually w gave Henry VIII power “to assign the crown by letters patent or his last will,” circumvented the traditional rules concerning the transference of royal power and helped fuel the dynastic crises that followed Edward VI’s death. Defining the relation between God’s salvific will and human will also helped mark intellectual and doctrinal boundaries in early modern Europe. As Risto Saarinen notes, “Freedomof choice became one of the great discussion topics of theReformation.” The few studies that have examined the important role that forms of will making and willpower play in sixteenthand seventeenth-century literature do, however, primarily focus on Shakespeare’s oeuvre. Despite “being so rich in Will,” we
{"title":"The Will and Testament in English Renaissance Drama: Paper Props, Property, and Ulpian Fulwell’s Like Will to Like","authors":"Douglas J Clark","doi":"10.1086/719472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719472","url":null,"abstract":"ills helped to define the political and religious climate of early modern England. The Acts of Succession (1533–43/44), which eventually w gave Henry VIII power “to assign the crown by letters patent or his last will,” circumvented the traditional rules concerning the transference of royal power and helped fuel the dynastic crises that followed Edward VI’s death. Defining the relation between God’s salvific will and human will also helped mark intellectual and doctrinal boundaries in early modern Europe. As Risto Saarinen notes, “Freedomof choice became one of the great discussion topics of theReformation.” The few studies that have examined the important role that forms of will making and willpower play in sixteenthand seventeenth-century literature do, however, primarily focus on Shakespeare’s oeuvre. Despite “being so rich in Will,” we","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"50 1","pages":"103 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46937142","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}
n the second act of Coriolanus, the title character sets out to satisfy the final condition for consulship by putting on the gown of humility and petitioning the plebeians for their votes of approval. Coriolanus is convinced that this custom is beneath him, and his supplications become increasingly sarcastic. Even as he asks the plebeians for their voices, he mocks the idea that their voices are of sufficient value to motivate a man like him:
{"title":"Bodies and Voices in Coriolanus","authors":"K. Lehnhof","doi":"10.1086/719468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719468","url":null,"abstract":"n the second act of Coriolanus, the title character sets out to satisfy the final condition for consulship by putting on the gown of humility and petitioning the plebeians for their votes of approval. Coriolanus is convinced that this custom is beneath him, and his supplications become increasingly sarcastic. Even as he asks the plebeians for their voices, he mocks the idea that their voices are of sufficient value to motivate a man like him:","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"50 1","pages":"23 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44025249","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}
hat does the game of chess in Thomas Middleton’s A Game at Chess mean? How does it mean what it means? A Game, first performed in w August 1624, is the rare case of an early modern history play that represents not the past but the present. It dramatizes, albeit freely and with significant alterations, Anglo-Spanish relations between 1620 and 1624, especially events surrounding the Spanish Match, the proposed marriage of Prince Charles and Maria, infanta of Spain, which had collapsed after long negotiations only months before the play was staged. Strikingly, Middleton represents these events in the form of a chess game, and their protagonists—including James I; Felipe IV; Charles; George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham; and Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, Conde de Gondomar and the Spanish ambassador to James’s court from 1613 to 1622—as chess pieces. The dramatization of affairs of state brought instant notoriety and popular success. Performed on nine consecutive days at the Globe, A Game had the longest uninterrupted run of any English play before the Restoration, which came to an end only because the Privy Council, prompted by a Spanish diplomat’s letter of complaint objecting to the impersonation of his king on stage, shut down the production. The council issued a warrant for Middleton’s arrest. A Game was
托马斯·米德尔顿的《国际象棋的游戏》中的国际象棋是什么意思？它意味着什么？《游戏》于1624年8月首次上演，是现代早期戏剧中罕见的不代表过去而代表现在的案例。它戏剧性地展现了1620年至1624年间的英西关系，尽管是自由的，也有重大的改变，尤其是围绕西班牙比赛的事件，查尔斯王子和西班牙步兵玛丽亚的拟议婚姻，在戏剧上演前几个月，经过长时间的谈判破裂。引人注目的是，米德尔顿以国际象棋的形式代表了这些事件，以及它们的主角——包括詹姆斯一世；费利佩四世；查尔斯；白金汉公爵乔治·维利尔斯；以及Diego Sarmiento de Acuña、Conde de Gondomar和西班牙驻詹姆斯宫廷大使（1613年至1622年）作为棋子。国家事务的戏剧化带来了即时的恶名和大众的成功。《A Game》在环球剧院连续演出了九天，是复辟前英国戏剧中不间断演出时间最长的一部。复辟之所以结束，是因为一名西班牙外交官因反对在舞台上模仿其国王而发出的投诉信导致枢密院关闭了制作。委员会签发了对米德尔顿的逮捕令。一场比赛
{"title":"Contradiction and Allegorization: Middleton’s A Game at Chess and Althusser’s Theatrical Thought","authors":"Martin Moraw","doi":"10.1086/719470","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719470","url":null,"abstract":"hat does the game of chess in Thomas Middleton’s A Game at Chess mean? How does it mean what it means? A Game, first performed in w August 1624, is the rare case of an early modern history play that represents not the past but the present. It dramatizes, albeit freely and with significant alterations, Anglo-Spanish relations between 1620 and 1624, especially events surrounding the Spanish Match, the proposed marriage of Prince Charles and Maria, infanta of Spain, which had collapsed after long negotiations only months before the play was staged. Strikingly, Middleton represents these events in the form of a chess game, and their protagonists—including James I; Felipe IV; Charles; George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham; and Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, Conde de Gondomar and the Spanish ambassador to James’s court from 1613 to 1622—as chess pieces. The dramatization of affairs of state brought instant notoriety and popular success. Performed on nine consecutive days at the Globe, A Game had the longest uninterrupted run of any English play before the Restoration, which came to an end only because the Privy Council, prompted by a Spanish diplomat’s letter of complaint objecting to the impersonation of his king on stage, shut down the production. The council issued a warrant for Middleton’s arrest. A Game was","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"50 1","pages":"73 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49039989","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}
he induction of Bartholomew Fair broadcasts its strangeness even before the scrivener presents the “articles of agreement” (ind. 49) that outline a t contract between Jonson and the play’s first public audience. The BookHolder’s announcement that the articles stand “not for want of a prologue, but by way of a new one” highlights that what is coming is different and encourages audiences to perceive that difference as an innovation rather than a shortcoming. The induction anticipates, negotiates, andmoves away from awider set of audience expectations; that work begins when the Stage-Keeper enters and, supposedly stalling for time while Master Littlewit’s costume is mended, offers some unsolicited criticism of what the play lacks. “He has ne’er a sword-and-bucklerman in his Fair, nor a Little Davy,” the Stage-Keeper complains, “nor a Kindheart . . . nor a juggler with a well-educated ape. . . .None o’ these fine sights!” (ind. 10–15). According to the Stage-Keeper, in these omissions Jonson has failed to capture the essence of the real fair in Smithfield: “He has not hit the humours—he does not know ‘em” (ind. 9).
{"title":"Caliban at the Fair: Figuring Nonhumanity in The Tempest and Bartholomew Fair","authors":"Toria Johnson","doi":"10.1086/719933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719933","url":null,"abstract":"he induction of Bartholomew Fair broadcasts its strangeness even before the scrivener presents the “articles of agreement” (ind. 49) that outline a t contract between Jonson and the play’s first public audience. The BookHolder’s announcement that the articles stand “not for want of a prologue, but by way of a new one” highlights that what is coming is different and encourages audiences to perceive that difference as an innovation rather than a shortcoming. The induction anticipates, negotiates, andmoves away from awider set of audience expectations; that work begins when the Stage-Keeper enters and, supposedly stalling for time while Master Littlewit’s costume is mended, offers some unsolicited criticism of what the play lacks. “He has ne’er a sword-and-bucklerman in his Fair, nor a Little Davy,” the Stage-Keeper complains, “nor a Kindheart . . . nor a juggler with a well-educated ape. . . .None o’ these fine sights!” (ind. 10–15). According to the Stage-Keeper, in these omissions Jonson has failed to capture the essence of the real fair in Smithfield: “He has not hit the humours—he does not know ‘em” (ind. 9).","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"50 1","pages":"51 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47137667","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}
n The Old Law (1656), a play coauthored by Thomas Middleton, William Rowley, and ThomasHeywood andfirst performed around 1618, theDuke of Epire has decreed that all men arriving at fourscore years and women at threescore yearsmust be put to death. The justification for such a dehumanizing law—what ethicists todaymight describe as “generational cleansing”—appeals to utilitarian values: oldermen are too feeble to bear arms or propagate issue, while olderwomen are beyond their childbearing years. The aged, nomatter howhealthy or functional, have become “fruitless to the republic” (1.1.110), consumers rather than producers of social goods and hence liabilities to themselves, their children, and the state. The play thus takes to its (il)logical extreme what disabilities scholar Hailee M.
{"title":"King Lear and the Duty to Die","authors":"H. Bui","doi":"10.1086/716757","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716757","url":null,"abstract":"n The Old Law (1656), a play coauthored by Thomas Middleton, William Rowley, and ThomasHeywood andfirst performed around 1618, theDuke of Epire has decreed that all men arriving at fourscore years and women at threescore yearsmust be put to death. The justification for such a dehumanizing law—what ethicists todaymight describe as “generational cleansing”—appeals to utilitarian values: oldermen are too feeble to bear arms or propagate issue, while olderwomen are beyond their childbearing years. The aged, nomatter howhealthy or functional, have become “fruitless to the republic” (1.1.110), consumers rather than producers of social goods and hence liabilities to themselves, their children, and the state. The play thus takes to its (il)logical extreme what disabilities scholar Hailee M.","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"49 1","pages":"125 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43712770","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}
he activities, services, entertainments, and goods available in earlymodern London were not enjoyed and consumed exclusively by the gentle classes. t Nor were wit, ingenuity, and performative prowess—pinpointed by critics as London-based competencies—the exclusive purview of London’s gentlemen gallants. Nevertheless, the dominant narrative offered by seventeenth-century plays, a narrative reinforced by decades of literary criticism, emphasizes the London gentry, and particularly young urban gallants, as the primary consumers of London culture and holders of London-based cultural capital. As this narrative goes, when citizens do engage in the pleasures on offer in London or display sophisticated wit and London-based knowledges, they do so aspirationally, as a means of finding or cementing their place among the urban gentry. This dominant narrative is not, of course, inaccurate, but it is incomplete. In “Witty City Boys,” I work from the premise that culturally valued London-based competencies did not belong solely to the elite; more specifically, I argue that they were an integral element in the emergence of a youthful urban masculine ethos that was adopted by youngmale Londoners of both citizen and gentle rank. To young citizen men, the status such cultural capital accrued was by no means always linked to class mobility; on the contrary, select seventeenth-century London comedies present young citizen men who display pride both in their citizen status and in their urban sophistication. To these characters, urban competencies are part of their identity as citizens; they are not ameans of transcending their class and climbing into the gentry. These characters suggest that a keen understanding of and ability tomaneuverwithin London’s sophisticated cultural pleasures and complex social relations was an achievement of an urbane masculine status, a form of gender status that could be and was increasingly delaminated from class, even while class awareness and pride continued to be salient elements of early modern English identity.
{"title":"Witty City Boys: Urban Masculinity and Citizen Gallants in The City Wit, Greene’s Tu Quoque, and The City Madam","authors":"R. Arab","doi":"10.1086/716758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716758","url":null,"abstract":"he activities, services, entertainments, and goods available in earlymodern London were not enjoyed and consumed exclusively by the gentle classes. t Nor were wit, ingenuity, and performative prowess—pinpointed by critics as London-based competencies—the exclusive purview of London’s gentlemen gallants. Nevertheless, the dominant narrative offered by seventeenth-century plays, a narrative reinforced by decades of literary criticism, emphasizes the London gentry, and particularly young urban gallants, as the primary consumers of London culture and holders of London-based cultural capital. As this narrative goes, when citizens do engage in the pleasures on offer in London or display sophisticated wit and London-based knowledges, they do so aspirationally, as a means of finding or cementing their place among the urban gentry. This dominant narrative is not, of course, inaccurate, but it is incomplete. In “Witty City Boys,” I work from the premise that culturally valued London-based competencies did not belong solely to the elite; more specifically, I argue that they were an integral element in the emergence of a youthful urban masculine ethos that was adopted by youngmale Londoners of both citizen and gentle rank. To young citizen men, the status such cultural capital accrued was by no means always linked to class mobility; on the contrary, select seventeenth-century London comedies present young citizen men who display pride both in their citizen status and in their urban sophistication. To these characters, urban competencies are part of their identity as citizens; they are not ameans of transcending their class and climbing into the gentry. These characters suggest that a keen understanding of and ability tomaneuverwithin London’s sophisticated cultural pleasures and complex social relations was an achievement of an urbane masculine status, a form of gender status that could be and was increasingly delaminated from class, even while class awareness and pride continued to be salient elements of early modern English identity.","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"49 1","pages":"155 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48821780","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}
lthough the acts of reading and writing prose romances are often tied to questions of early modern women’s agency, scholarly analyses of the a genre have for the most part concentrated upon the actions and identities of male characters. The specific focus on male identity in romance criticism is apparent at least as far back as the 1975 article in New Literary History in which Frederic Jameson famously described the defining moment of the chivalric romance as the scene in which the heroic knight encounters himself reflected in the enemy, with this mutual recognition of masculine similitude solidifying the concept of feudal nobility as a class identity transcending regional and even religious ties.Within the prose romance’s masculine economy of self-identification, women often appear as quested-for objects or brides, as victims of kidnapping or
{"title":"Does Affection Turn Apostata? Female Agency, Rhetorical Cannibalism, and the Romance of Conversion in The Travels of the Three English Brothers","authors":"Andie Barrow","doi":"10.1086/716766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716766","url":null,"abstract":"lthough the acts of reading and writing prose romances are often tied to questions of early modern women’s agency, scholarly analyses of the a genre have for the most part concentrated upon the actions and identities of male characters. The specific focus on male identity in romance criticism is apparent at least as far back as the 1975 article in New Literary History in which Frederic Jameson famously described the defining moment of the chivalric romance as the scene in which the heroic knight encounters himself reflected in the enemy, with this mutual recognition of masculine similitude solidifying the concept of feudal nobility as a class identity transcending regional and even religious ties.Within the prose romance’s masculine economy of self-identification, women often appear as quested-for objects or brides, as victims of kidnapping or","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"49 1","pages":"179 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44897126","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}
ostalgia can be a powerful and adaptable political idea that evokes a dislocation between past and present but, paradoxically, also collapses nthat temporal distinction by inscribing an idealized, selective past with the concerns of the present and announcing its contemporaneity. First performed and printed in the early Jacobean period, Thomas Heywood’s 1 and 2 If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody recall significant events from Elizabeth I’s reign and were among a number of new Foxean history plays that registered some anxiety about England’s future under the new Stuart king, James I. Their nostalgia for the Elizabethan past acquired new urgency and application through printed editions— and, indeed, Heywood’s plays proved to have, on the basis of edition numbers, lasting appeal in print. Part 1 was printed eight times between 1605 and 1639, and part 2 was printed four times between 1606 and 1633, which makes the former among the period’s most frequently reprinted plays. This article concentrates on the Caroline editions of part 1 (1632, 1639) and part 2 (1633) to demonstrate how
{"title":"“With much labour out of scattered papers”: The Caroline Reprints of Thomas Heywood’s 1 and 2 If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody","authors":"Amy Lidster","doi":"10.1086/716760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716760","url":null,"abstract":"ostalgia can be a powerful and adaptable political idea that evokes a dislocation between past and present but, paradoxically, also collapses nthat temporal distinction by inscribing an idealized, selective past with the concerns of the present and announcing its contemporaneity. First performed and printed in the early Jacobean period, Thomas Heywood’s 1 and 2 If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody recall significant events from Elizabeth I’s reign and were among a number of new Foxean history plays that registered some anxiety about England’s future under the new Stuart king, James I. Their nostalgia for the Elizabethan past acquired new urgency and application through printed editions— and, indeed, Heywood’s plays proved to have, on the basis of edition numbers, lasting appeal in print. Part 1 was printed eight times between 1605 and 1639, and part 2 was printed four times between 1606 and 1633, which makes the former among the period’s most frequently reprinted plays. This article concentrates on the Caroline editions of part 1 (1632, 1639) and part 2 (1633) to demonstrate how","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"49 1","pages":"205 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45180363","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}
oday we readily assert the timeless relevance of Shakespeare’s works, yet before the plays and playwright becamemodern, they were first outdated. t Indeed, following the close of the theaters in the seventeenth century, printers, readers, and spectators of Shakespeare’s plays regularly cast the works as part of an older time. There was a textual reality to those judgments. After the successful printing of a second edition ofMr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies in 1632, a new edition of the folio would not follow until the 1660s. And the most widely available imprint of that third edition (1664’s second issue) was padded out by the inclusion of six apocryphal titles (plus Pericles), advertised for their newness: “And unto this Impression is added seven Playes, never before Printed in Folio.” The printing of quarto editions also declined in the period following Shakespeare’s death in 1616, and especially once the folios were issued. Although a dozen single-play editions came into print between 1623 and 1637, only two quartos were printed after that through the interregnum—TheMerchant of Venice (1652) andOthello (1655).Therewere a few singleplay editions that circulated in the late seventeenth century: Othello remained
{"title":"Old Plays: Shakespeare, Robert Dodsley, and the Early Modern Dramatic Canon","authors":"Cyrus Mulready","doi":"10.1086/716759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/716759","url":null,"abstract":"oday we readily assert the timeless relevance of Shakespeare’s works, yet before the plays and playwright becamemodern, they were first outdated. t Indeed, following the close of the theaters in the seventeenth century, printers, readers, and spectators of Shakespeare’s plays regularly cast the works as part of an older time. There was a textual reality to those judgments. After the successful printing of a second edition ofMr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies in 1632, a new edition of the folio would not follow until the 1660s. And the most widely available imprint of that third edition (1664’s second issue) was padded out by the inclusion of six apocryphal titles (plus Pericles), advertised for their newness: “And unto this Impression is added seven Playes, never before Printed in Folio.” The printing of quarto editions also declined in the period following Shakespeare’s death in 1616, and especially once the folios were issued. Although a dozen single-play editions came into print between 1623 and 1637, only two quartos were printed after that through the interregnum—TheMerchant of Venice (1652) andOthello (1655).Therewere a few singleplay editions that circulated in the late seventeenth century: Othello remained","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"49 1","pages":"229 - 257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43561754","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：