In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• The American Reception of Tourneur’s Volpone in the 1940s
• Purificación Ribes (bio)

Introduction

Maurice Tourneur’s French screen version of Volpone,¹ the best film adaptation of Jonson’s satiric comedy,² was released in Paris in 1941 and reached the United States in 1947, at a time of social, ideological and economic change. A detailed analysis of the film’s paratext, which includes press reviews, interviews and a sophisticated advertising campaign throughout the United States between 1947 and 1949, yields valuable information on the changing nature of the targeted audience. Analysis of the socio-political and economic context casts light on the positive reception of Tourneur’s Volpone, an icon of French refinement that perfectly met the demands of American audiences for cultural capital in the prosperous aftermath of World War II.

The fact that the source text is an early seventeenth-century English comedy, transposed into the film medium by a twentieth-century French screenwriter and film director, and shown in a subtitled version all over the United States during the late 1940s, speaks of the key role played by adaptations as a means of ensuring the afterlife of classical texts.³ Well aware that texts are heavily dependent on their contexts of production and reception,⁴ I have paid special attention to the circumstances that surrounded the production and reception of Ben Jonson’s initial hypotext⁵ in 1606. For the same reason, I have looked into the different contexts that may have affected the play’s successive hypertextual transformations over a period of three hundred and fifty years.⁶

In order to offer an informed assessment of Tourneur’s film version, I have identified the most outstanding features of its previous hypotexts, especially Stefan Zweig’s 1926 German stage adaptation of the play⁷ and [End Page 109] Jules Romains’ 1928 French adaptation of Zweig’s version.⁸ Taking into account that Romains was also the screenwriter of Tourneur’s film version of the play, special attention has been paid to the specificities of the film medium⁹ in terms of length, plot and character portrayal to account for the differences between both adaptations. Finally, as Tourneur’s French film was shown with English subtitles in the United States, the most relevant changes it underwent before its American release have been pointed out.

The political, ideological and commercial contexts of production and re-production have been addressed in all cases, especially when dealing with the film’s reception in the United States. The rich archival evidence I have gathered on the film’s distribution and reception has confirmed to what extent the text is dependent on its context of reception.¹⁰ These circumstances are particularly relevant when analyzing a text with a high satirical content, as both individuals and institutions are likely to take offence at it. This is why, for example, both Zweig and Romains, while retaining Jonson’s denunciation of greed and lust in their respective versions, adapted them to their target audiences.¹¹ These versions, moreover, explored the issue of xenophobia in a way that suited the personal tastes of their adaptors: sarcastic in the case of Zweig—himself a Jew—and more subtle in that of Romains. Attention to their reception history reveals that some texts were performed with few changes, whereas others were subjected to substantial pruning before being staged and/or shown. The first case applies to Zweig’s theatrical adaptation as performed in Germany in the late twenties, where, according to the reviews of contemporary newspapers, audiences did not find fault with any aspect of the play. The situation had been different in Austria, where Zweig’s adaptation was first performed on 6 November 1926. On that occasion, most reviews of the performances that took place in Vienna’s Burgtheater highlighted the play’s salaciousness,¹² in spite of the systematic deletions that the promptbook evidences.

The situation was reversed in the case of Romains’ stage adaptation, as no reviews of the 1928 performances at the Parisian Atelier¹³ condemned the text’s ribaldry, even though Romains’ adaptation of Zweig’s version did not remove a single word that could be deemed immoral. Romains was clearly...

中文翻译：

---

1940年代在美国接受Tourneur的Volpone招待会

代替摘要，这里是内容的简要摘录：

• 1940年代在美国接受Tourneur的Volpone招待会
• PurificaciónRibes（生物）

介绍

中号aurice图尔纳的法国屏版本Volpone，¹琼森的讽刺喜剧的最好的电影改编，²发布于巴黎于1941年，并于1947年达到美国，在社会，意识形态和经济变革的时期。对影片的旁观者进行的详细分析，包括新闻评论，访谈和1947年至1949年在美国各地进行的复杂的广告攻势，可提供有关目标受众性质变化的宝贵信息。对社会政治和经济背景的分析为图尔努尔的Volpone的积极接受提供了启示，这是法国精致化的标志，在第二次世界大战之后，完全满足了美国观众对文化资本的需求。

源文本是十七世纪初的英语喜剧，是由二十世纪的法国编剧兼电影导演改编成电影媒介，并在1940年代后期在美国各地以副标题显示的事实。改编作为确保古典文本来世的一种手段发挥了关键作用。³众所周知，文本在很大程度上取决于其生产和接受的语境^。4我特别注意本·琼森最初的假想文本的生产和接受所处的环境⁵1606年。出于同样的原因，我研究了可能影响该剧在350年内连续的超文本转换的不同环境。⁶

为了对Tourneur的电影版本做出明智的评估，我确定了其先前假说的最突出特征，尤其是Stefan Zweig于1926年在舞台上对剧本^7的改编，以及[End Page 109] Jules Romains于1928年在法国对Zweig的改编版的改编。⁸考虑到Romains也是Tourneur电影剧本的编剧，因此特别注意了电影媒体的特殊性⁹在长度，情节和人物形象方面要考虑到两种改编之间的差异。最后，当图尔努尔的法国电影在美国以英语字幕显示时，已经指出了它在美国发行之前所经历的最相关的变化。

在所有情况下，特别是在处理电影在美国的接待时，都涉及到了生产和再生产的政治，思想和商业背景。我从电影的发行和接受中收集到的丰富档案证据已经证实了文本在多大程度上取决于其接受背景。¹⁰当分析具有讽刺意味的内容时，这些情况尤其重要，因为个人和机构都可能对此表示冒犯。例如，这就是为什么Zweig和Romains在各自版本中保留了Jonson对贪婪和欲望的谴责，并使它们适应目标受众的原因。¹¹此外，这些版本以适合其改编者个人喜好的方式探讨了仇外心理的问题：在茨威格（本人是犹太人）中讽刺，在罗曼人中则更为微妙。注意他们的接收历史表明，某些文本的改动很小，而另一些文本则在上演和/或展示之前经过了大幅度的修剪。第一种情况适用于二十年代末在德国演出的茨威格的戏剧改编，根据当代报纸的评论，观众在剧本的任何方面都没有发现过错。这种情况曾在奥地利，在那里第一次1926年11月6日进行茨威格的适应在这次会议上有所不同，那发生在维也纳的演出大多数评论城堡剧院突出了剧中的salaciousness，¹²尽管系统性缺失的promptbook证据。

在Romains的舞台改编的情况下，情况发生了逆转，因为没有评论1928年在巴黎Atelier ^13上的演出，谴责了文本的讽刺意味，尽管Romains对Zweig版本的改编并没有删除一个被认为是不道德的词。罗曼斯显然是...