忒勒马科斯历险记[1699]

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Utopian Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.5325/utopianstudies.34.1.0140
Jean-Michel Racault
{"title":"忒勒马科斯历险记[1699]","authors":"Jean-Michel Racault","doi":"10.5325/utopianstudies.34.1.0140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fénelon’s 1699 novel The Adventures of Telemachus—or more precisely, the epic poem in prose—was one of the major bestsellers in many European countries for nearly two centuries. The book inspired paintings, operas, fashions, and even wallpaper motifs. It gave birth to a literary subgenre, the “archeological novel,” such as Terrasson’s Sethos (1731) or Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s L’Arcadie (1788), in which the action is located in an antique setting. Still part of French schools’ syllabi a century ago, this book mainly owes its survival today to highly specialized academic research, stimulated from time to time when an “Agrégation” program generates new publications, papers, and conferences, as happened in 2009–10. The situation is similar in English-speaking countries, if perhaps just a bit worse: new editions are scarce and generally based more or less on revised versions of eighteenth-century translations, such as those editions by John Hawkesworth’s (1768) or Tobias Smollett’s (1776).The publication by A. J. B. Cremer of an entirely new translation, featuring a close rendering of the French text into modern English and preserving the original’s formal dignity without resorting to a pastiche of the classical language, is therefore a landmark in the history of Fénelon’s reception, and in the valuation of Telemachus particularly. This edition, while intended for the general reader, includes most of what is expected of a scholarly edition. In a comparatively short introduction, the editor recalls the essential facts about the author’s background (as a descendent of high nobility) and about his ecclesiastic career, which was compromised by both his involvement in mystical spirituality (the quarrel over Quietism) and his critical attitude toward the absolutism of Louis XIV’s régime.In fact, Fénelon’s appointment as Archbishop of Cambrai (1695) was a kind of exile. In 1689, however, he was appointed tutor to Louis XIV’s seven-year-old grandson, the young Duke of Burgundy, second in the line of succession to the throne after his father (though both died prematurely). Fénelon wrote for this boy The Adventures of Telemachus as an educative fiction in the tradition of the “mirrors of Princes.” Of course, such a book was not intended for publication, and when it appeared in 1699—strangely enough, in a fully legal manner and with a printing privilege—it was against Fénelon’s will and in a very faulty form, which was corrected in later editions. An editor today therefore faces solving some highly complex textual problems, and choosing between the manuscript traditions. Cremer’s translation is based upon Jacques Le Brun’s authoritative text, published in Fénelon’s Œuvres, tome II (Paris: Gallimard, “Pléiade,” 1997).1After surveying the critical reception of Telemachus, particularly in England, starting at the text’s first publication and reaching the present time, the introduction discreetly hints at an apparent trend, among some interpretations, toward Christian allegory. If the figure of Mentor obviously “represents Fénelon” in his tutorial role, Cremer notes, this character, also an incarnation of Minerva, embodies humanity and divinity simultaneously, and thus may be seen as a “Christ-figure,” with Telemachus as his disciple and Ulysses, with his pursuit of a never-ending quest, as the symbolic form of the Divine. These observations are not entirely new; they have been formulated before by various critics. The editor himself concurs with a well-known article by André Blanc that describes Fénelon’s neo-platonician turn of mind: for Fénelon there is no contradiction between Christian revelation and the pagan fables of classical mythology, which he considers prefigurations or allegories of Christianity.This interpretation is abundantly and convincingly confirmed in the editor’s annotations. While as expected the commentaries point frequently to Greco-Latin mythology or classical literary sources, especially Homer and Virgil, the biblical quotations or hidden allusions are far more numerous and fully justify the Christian reading of what could appear as a mere continuation of the Odyssey. However, several other important aspects do remain unexplored or underestimated. For example, Fénelon’s very innovative literary choice of an epic poem in poetical prose rather than in verse likely has something to do with new conceptions of poetry and with contemporary critical opinions concerning the use of rhyme, a debate that revolved around the “Ancients” and the “Moderns.” This important aesthetic context is now obscure, and attention to Fénelon’s own place in that literary development ought to have alerted today’s readers, likely to find the style of Telemachus conventional and rhetorical, to a corrective view that argues against an impression of Telemachus as an outdated work.More importantly, the utopian scope of the narrative, for readers of this journal likely to be its capital aspect, is limited to a few occasional mentions (364 n. 68, 369 n. 118, 385 n. 303, etc.). While not entirely overlooked by the editor, the texts’ utopian resonances receive little in the way of contextualization. Fénelon was not a complete stranger to the classical French utopian literature of the end of the seventeenth century; one editorial note (373 n. 172) refers to a paper by D. R. McKee proving that, surprisingly enough, the reformed social organization of the city of Salentum in Telemachus is borrowed from Denis Vairasse’s Histoire des Sévarambes (1677–79). But while Fénelon and Vairasse use the travel narrative as a basic structural element, their mode of construction of the utopian fiction is very different. In works by Foigny, Vairasse, or Fontenelle, utopian alterity is achieved in its perfection and embodied in a spatial “elsewhere” located very far away, but sharing the same temporality as author and reader. In The Adventures of Telemachus travels take place in a well-known area of the Mediterranean Sea, and within the remote legendary period of the Trojan War. As Telemachus visits different types of societies and political configurations, the young prince seeks, with the analytical assistance of Mentor, to find the one that most inspires him, as he anticipates his future reign in the kingdom of Ithaca. Thus, Fénelon paves the way for a new conception of utopia, no longer seen as a static model of achieved perfection, but as a pluralistic, dynamic, yet unachieved process. This critical turn foreshadows later, more modern conceptions of utopia. Of course the editor had to choose what he deemed most significant about his new edition and was limited by his choice of a brief general introduction, for which he cannot be blamed. However, for those readers interested in the academic study of utopian history, and the history of utopian form, the absence of this consideration is regrettable.In addition to a “Select Bibliography” in English and in French, Cremer’s edition includes several appendices, in particular a chronology and a useful note concerning the many English translations of Telemachus that appeared by the end of the eighteenth century (there were at least eleven, some reissued several times). The editor did not attempt to provide the variants of the different manuscripts and early editions—in the case of Telemachus a particularly pain staking task, the result of which can be found in J. Le Brun’s critical edition. But Cremer does choose to translate two documents extracted from Fénelon’s Correspondence, stating the circumstances of the book’s publication—at least those circumstances Fénelon was willing to reveal. The appendices also include a “Key to Classical References,” a glossary and an index. This edition meets all the requirements generally expected in an academic work, but also meets the needs of the more general reader, with its highly readable translation and neat and appealing production values offering a classic text made accessible to all.","PeriodicalId":44751,"journal":{"name":"Utopian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Adventures of Telemachus <i>[1699]</i>\",\"authors\":\"Jean-Michel Racault\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/utopianstudies.34.1.0140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Fénelon’s 1699 novel The Adventures of Telemachus—or more precisely, the epic poem in prose—was one of the major bestsellers in many European countries for nearly two centuries. The book inspired paintings, operas, fashions, and even wallpaper motifs. It gave birth to a literary subgenre, the “archeological novel,” such as Terrasson’s Sethos (1731) or Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s L’Arcadie (1788), in which the action is located in an antique setting. Still part of French schools’ syllabi a century ago, this book mainly owes its survival today to highly specialized academic research, stimulated from time to time when an “Agrégation” program generates new publications, papers, and conferences, as happened in 2009–10. The situation is similar in English-speaking countries, if perhaps just a bit worse: new editions are scarce and generally based more or less on revised versions of eighteenth-century translations, such as those editions by John Hawkesworth’s (1768) or Tobias Smollett’s (1776).The publication by A. J. B. Cremer of an entirely new translation, featuring a close rendering of the French text into modern English and preserving the original’s formal dignity without resorting to a pastiche of the classical language, is therefore a landmark in the history of Fénelon’s reception, and in the valuation of Telemachus particularly. This edition, while intended for the general reader, includes most of what is expected of a scholarly edition. In a comparatively short introduction, the editor recalls the essential facts about the author’s background (as a descendent of high nobility) and about his ecclesiastic career, which was compromised by both his involvement in mystical spirituality (the quarrel over Quietism) and his critical attitude toward the absolutism of Louis XIV’s régime.In fact, Fénelon’s appointment as Archbishop of Cambrai (1695) was a kind of exile. In 1689, however, he was appointed tutor to Louis XIV’s seven-year-old grandson, the young Duke of Burgundy, second in the line of succession to the throne after his father (though both died prematurely). Fénelon wrote for this boy The Adventures of Telemachus as an educative fiction in the tradition of the “mirrors of Princes.” Of course, such a book was not intended for publication, and when it appeared in 1699—strangely enough, in a fully legal manner and with a printing privilege—it was against Fénelon’s will and in a very faulty form, which was corrected in later editions. An editor today therefore faces solving some highly complex textual problems, and choosing between the manuscript traditions. Cremer’s translation is based upon Jacques Le Brun’s authoritative text, published in Fénelon’s Œuvres, tome II (Paris: Gallimard, “Pléiade,” 1997).1After surveying the critical reception of Telemachus, particularly in England, starting at the text’s first publication and reaching the present time, the introduction discreetly hints at an apparent trend, among some interpretations, toward Christian allegory. If the figure of Mentor obviously “represents Fénelon” in his tutorial role, Cremer notes, this character, also an incarnation of Minerva, embodies humanity and divinity simultaneously, and thus may be seen as a “Christ-figure,” with Telemachus as his disciple and Ulysses, with his pursuit of a never-ending quest, as the symbolic form of the Divine. These observations are not entirely new; they have been formulated before by various critics. The editor himself concurs with a well-known article by André Blanc that describes Fénelon’s neo-platonician turn of mind: for Fénelon there is no contradiction between Christian revelation and the pagan fables of classical mythology, which he considers prefigurations or allegories of Christianity.This interpretation is abundantly and convincingly confirmed in the editor’s annotations. While as expected the commentaries point frequently to Greco-Latin mythology or classical literary sources, especially Homer and Virgil, the biblical quotations or hidden allusions are far more numerous and fully justify the Christian reading of what could appear as a mere continuation of the Odyssey. However, several other important aspects do remain unexplored or underestimated. For example, Fénelon’s very innovative literary choice of an epic poem in poetical prose rather than in verse likely has something to do with new conceptions of poetry and with contemporary critical opinions concerning the use of rhyme, a debate that revolved around the “Ancients” and the “Moderns.” This important aesthetic context is now obscure, and attention to Fénelon’s own place in that literary development ought to have alerted today’s readers, likely to find the style of Telemachus conventional and rhetorical, to a corrective view that argues against an impression of Telemachus as an outdated work.More importantly, the utopian scope of the narrative, for readers of this journal likely to be its capital aspect, is limited to a few occasional mentions (364 n. 68, 369 n. 118, 385 n. 303, etc.). While not entirely overlooked by the editor, the texts’ utopian resonances receive little in the way of contextualization. Fénelon was not a complete stranger to the classical French utopian literature of the end of the seventeenth century; one editorial note (373 n. 172) refers to a paper by D. R. McKee proving that, surprisingly enough, the reformed social organization of the city of Salentum in Telemachus is borrowed from Denis Vairasse’s Histoire des Sévarambes (1677–79). But while Fénelon and Vairasse use the travel narrative as a basic structural element, their mode of construction of the utopian fiction is very different. In works by Foigny, Vairasse, or Fontenelle, utopian alterity is achieved in its perfection and embodied in a spatial “elsewhere” located very far away, but sharing the same temporality as author and reader. In The Adventures of Telemachus travels take place in a well-known area of the Mediterranean Sea, and within the remote legendary period of the Trojan War. As Telemachus visits different types of societies and political configurations, the young prince seeks, with the analytical assistance of Mentor, to find the one that most inspires him, as he anticipates his future reign in the kingdom of Ithaca. Thus, Fénelon paves the way for a new conception of utopia, no longer seen as a static model of achieved perfection, but as a pluralistic, dynamic, yet unachieved process. This critical turn foreshadows later, more modern conceptions of utopia. Of course the editor had to choose what he deemed most significant about his new edition and was limited by his choice of a brief general introduction, for which he cannot be blamed. However, for those readers interested in the academic study of utopian history, and the history of utopian form, the absence of this consideration is regrettable.In addition to a “Select Bibliography” in English and in French, Cremer’s edition includes several appendices, in particular a chronology and a useful note concerning the many English translations of Telemachus that appeared by the end of the eighteenth century (there were at least eleven, some reissued several times). The editor did not attempt to provide the variants of the different manuscripts and early editions—in the case of Telemachus a particularly pain staking task, the result of which can be found in J. Le Brun’s critical edition. But Cremer does choose to translate two documents extracted from Fénelon’s Correspondence, stating the circumstances of the book’s publication—at least those circumstances Fénelon was willing to reveal. The appendices also include a “Key to Classical References,” a glossary and an index. This edition meets all the requirements generally expected in an academic work, but also meets the needs of the more general reader, with its highly readable translation and neat and appealing production values offering a classic text made accessible to all.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utopian Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utopian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.34.1.0140\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utopian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.34.1.0140","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

更重要的是,对于这本杂志的读者来说,乌托邦的叙事范围可能是它的资本方面,仅限于偶尔提到的几次(364 n. 68, 369 n. 118, 385 n. 303等)。虽然没有被编辑完全忽略,但文本的乌托邦共鸣在语境化方面几乎没有得到体现。对17世纪末的法国古典乌托邦文学来说,f<s:1>尼隆并非完全陌生;一篇社论注释(373 n. 172)引用了dr . McKee的一篇论文,该论文证明,令人惊讶的是,忒勒马科斯的Salentum市改革后的社会组织借用了Denis Vairasse的Histoire des s<s:1> varambes(1677-79)。但是,虽然f<s:1>尼隆和瓦拉塞将旅行叙事作为基本的结构元素,但他们构建乌托邦小说的模式却截然不同。在Foigny, Vairasse或Fontenelle的作品中,乌托邦的另类被完美地实现,并体现在一个空间的“别处”,位于非常遥远的地方,但与作者和读者共享相同的时间性。在《忒勒马科斯历险记》中,旅行发生在地中海的一个著名地区,并发生在特洛伊战争的遥远传说时期。忒勒马科斯访问了不同类型的社会和政治结构,年轻的王子在导师的分析帮助下,寻找最能激励他的人,因为他期待着他未来在伊萨卡王国的统治。因此,fsamuelon为乌托邦的新概念铺平了道路,不再被视为已达到完美的静态模式,而是一个多元化、动态但尚未实现的过程。这一关键转折预示了后来更现代的乌托邦概念。当然,编辑必须选择他认为对他的新版本最有意义的内容,他选择的是一个简短的概述,这是他不能受到指责的。然而,对于那些对乌托邦历史和乌托邦形式历史的学术研究感兴趣的读者来说,缺乏这种考虑是令人遗憾的。除了英文和法文的“精选参考书目”之外,克莱默的版本还包括几个附录,特别是一个年表和一个有用的注释,涉及到18世纪末出现的许多《忒勒马科斯》的英文翻译(至少有11个,有些重新发行了几次)。编辑并没有试图提供不同手稿和早期版本的变体——在忒勒马科斯的情况下,这是一项特别痛苦的任务,其结果可以在J.勒布伦的批评版本中找到。但是克雷默选择翻译了两份摘自f<e:1>通讯的文件,说明了这本书出版的情况——至少是f<e:1>通讯愿意透露的情况。附录还包括“经典参考文献的关键”、词汇表和索引。这个版本满足了所有的要求,一般预期在学术工作,但也满足了更一般的读者的需要,其高度可读的翻译和整洁和吸引人的生产价值,提供了一个经典的文本,使所有访问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Adventures of Telemachus [1699]
Fénelon’s 1699 novel The Adventures of Telemachus—or more precisely, the epic poem in prose—was one of the major bestsellers in many European countries for nearly two centuries. The book inspired paintings, operas, fashions, and even wallpaper motifs. It gave birth to a literary subgenre, the “archeological novel,” such as Terrasson’s Sethos (1731) or Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s L’Arcadie (1788), in which the action is located in an antique setting. Still part of French schools’ syllabi a century ago, this book mainly owes its survival today to highly specialized academic research, stimulated from time to time when an “Agrégation” program generates new publications, papers, and conferences, as happened in 2009–10. The situation is similar in English-speaking countries, if perhaps just a bit worse: new editions are scarce and generally based more or less on revised versions of eighteenth-century translations, such as those editions by John Hawkesworth’s (1768) or Tobias Smollett’s (1776).The publication by A. J. B. Cremer of an entirely new translation, featuring a close rendering of the French text into modern English and preserving the original’s formal dignity without resorting to a pastiche of the classical language, is therefore a landmark in the history of Fénelon’s reception, and in the valuation of Telemachus particularly. This edition, while intended for the general reader, includes most of what is expected of a scholarly edition. In a comparatively short introduction, the editor recalls the essential facts about the author’s background (as a descendent of high nobility) and about his ecclesiastic career, which was compromised by both his involvement in mystical spirituality (the quarrel over Quietism) and his critical attitude toward the absolutism of Louis XIV’s régime.In fact, Fénelon’s appointment as Archbishop of Cambrai (1695) was a kind of exile. In 1689, however, he was appointed tutor to Louis XIV’s seven-year-old grandson, the young Duke of Burgundy, second in the line of succession to the throne after his father (though both died prematurely). Fénelon wrote for this boy The Adventures of Telemachus as an educative fiction in the tradition of the “mirrors of Princes.” Of course, such a book was not intended for publication, and when it appeared in 1699—strangely enough, in a fully legal manner and with a printing privilege—it was against Fénelon’s will and in a very faulty form, which was corrected in later editions. An editor today therefore faces solving some highly complex textual problems, and choosing between the manuscript traditions. Cremer’s translation is based upon Jacques Le Brun’s authoritative text, published in Fénelon’s Œuvres, tome II (Paris: Gallimard, “Pléiade,” 1997).1After surveying the critical reception of Telemachus, particularly in England, starting at the text’s first publication and reaching the present time, the introduction discreetly hints at an apparent trend, among some interpretations, toward Christian allegory. If the figure of Mentor obviously “represents Fénelon” in his tutorial role, Cremer notes, this character, also an incarnation of Minerva, embodies humanity and divinity simultaneously, and thus may be seen as a “Christ-figure,” with Telemachus as his disciple and Ulysses, with his pursuit of a never-ending quest, as the symbolic form of the Divine. These observations are not entirely new; they have been formulated before by various critics. The editor himself concurs with a well-known article by André Blanc that describes Fénelon’s neo-platonician turn of mind: for Fénelon there is no contradiction between Christian revelation and the pagan fables of classical mythology, which he considers prefigurations or allegories of Christianity.This interpretation is abundantly and convincingly confirmed in the editor’s annotations. While as expected the commentaries point frequently to Greco-Latin mythology or classical literary sources, especially Homer and Virgil, the biblical quotations or hidden allusions are far more numerous and fully justify the Christian reading of what could appear as a mere continuation of the Odyssey. However, several other important aspects do remain unexplored or underestimated. For example, Fénelon’s very innovative literary choice of an epic poem in poetical prose rather than in verse likely has something to do with new conceptions of poetry and with contemporary critical opinions concerning the use of rhyme, a debate that revolved around the “Ancients” and the “Moderns.” This important aesthetic context is now obscure, and attention to Fénelon’s own place in that literary development ought to have alerted today’s readers, likely to find the style of Telemachus conventional and rhetorical, to a corrective view that argues against an impression of Telemachus as an outdated work.More importantly, the utopian scope of the narrative, for readers of this journal likely to be its capital aspect, is limited to a few occasional mentions (364 n. 68, 369 n. 118, 385 n. 303, etc.). While not entirely overlooked by the editor, the texts’ utopian resonances receive little in the way of contextualization. Fénelon was not a complete stranger to the classical French utopian literature of the end of the seventeenth century; one editorial note (373 n. 172) refers to a paper by D. R. McKee proving that, surprisingly enough, the reformed social organization of the city of Salentum in Telemachus is borrowed from Denis Vairasse’s Histoire des Sévarambes (1677–79). But while Fénelon and Vairasse use the travel narrative as a basic structural element, their mode of construction of the utopian fiction is very different. In works by Foigny, Vairasse, or Fontenelle, utopian alterity is achieved in its perfection and embodied in a spatial “elsewhere” located very far away, but sharing the same temporality as author and reader. In The Adventures of Telemachus travels take place in a well-known area of the Mediterranean Sea, and within the remote legendary period of the Trojan War. As Telemachus visits different types of societies and political configurations, the young prince seeks, with the analytical assistance of Mentor, to find the one that most inspires him, as he anticipates his future reign in the kingdom of Ithaca. Thus, Fénelon paves the way for a new conception of utopia, no longer seen as a static model of achieved perfection, but as a pluralistic, dynamic, yet unachieved process. This critical turn foreshadows later, more modern conceptions of utopia. Of course the editor had to choose what he deemed most significant about his new edition and was limited by his choice of a brief general introduction, for which he cannot be blamed. However, for those readers interested in the academic study of utopian history, and the history of utopian form, the absence of this consideration is regrettable.In addition to a “Select Bibliography” in English and in French, Cremer’s edition includes several appendices, in particular a chronology and a useful note concerning the many English translations of Telemachus that appeared by the end of the eighteenth century (there were at least eleven, some reissued several times). The editor did not attempt to provide the variants of the different manuscripts and early editions—in the case of Telemachus a particularly pain staking task, the result of which can be found in J. Le Brun’s critical edition. But Cremer does choose to translate two documents extracted from Fénelon’s Correspondence, stating the circumstances of the book’s publication—at least those circumstances Fénelon was willing to reveal. The appendices also include a “Key to Classical References,” a glossary and an index. This edition meets all the requirements generally expected in an academic work, but also meets the needs of the more general reader, with its highly readable translation and neat and appealing production values offering a classic text made accessible to all.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Utopian Studies
Utopian Studies HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
The Future of the Book: Images of Reading in the American Utopian Novel Response 2: “Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will” Indian Science Fiction: Patterns, History and Hybridity The Past and Future of Utopian Studies Response 1: Acting Up in Utopia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1