Literature | High school » Section on the Translations of Shakespeare into Arabic

Section on the Translations of Shakespeare into Arabic The translation of Shakespeare from English into Arabic goes back to the end of the nineteenth century when al-Nahḍa Movement1 (see Baker et al eds. 1998: 336) emerged in Egypt giving rise to a wide range of intellectual and cultural activities in different aspects including literature, art, language, the media, etc. In response to that revival in education and thought, translation emerged as an intellectual and literary trend marking the beginning of a new era in the Arab world; where scholars and intellectual institutions started to show an unswerving interest in the ‘transfer’ of all forms of knowledge and art from Europe. To that end, Nahḍa leading thinkers and institutions launched and encouraged different means of contact and communication with Europe such as cultural exchange, travel, as well as translating the works of remarkable literary figures and scholars into Arabic to acquaint their people with the cultural

heritage of modern Europe and bring them closer to what was happening overseas when Europe had reached the height of its enlightenment. Given the prominence of Shakespeare all over Europe at that time, he was one of the first figures to be translated and introduced to the Arab reader, which is quite interesting from a historical point of view since this makes him a key figure in the renaissance of two cultures with a gap of four hundred years approximately separating between Shakespeare’s first appearance on the English, Elizabethan stage and his rebirth in the Arab arena. In other words, the translation of Shakespeare into Arabic marks a turning point in the history of Arabic language, literature, and culture, not only because he was “the first English dramatist to be presented on the Arab stage, he was also the only English playwright to be widely translated in the late nineteenth century.” (Al-Shetawi 1989: 119) The translation of Shakespeare from English into Arabic went

through a long process of development passing through three main phases: adaptation (ʹal-ʹiqtibās bitaṣarruf), Arabization (ʹal-tacrīb), and finally translation proper, in the strict sense. The first attempts at translating Shakespeare into Arabic were “done for the stage” (Twaij 1973: 52). Those early translations took the form of mere adaptations of the original texts which were appropriated “to the conventions of native drama and to the taste of the audience” (Al-Shetawi 1989: 115). To bring the Shakespearean texts closer to the Arab audience, translators dealt with them Al-Nahḍa is the Arabic for ‘renaissance’; in reference to the cultural revival that began in the late 19th century in Egypt, and then moved to other Arab countries. Nahḍa is a movement of intellectual reform considered to be the Arabs’ counterpart of European Enlightenment 1 1 flexibly introducing various changes to their main components and features including the plot, setting,

characterization, etc. Hamlet, Othello, and Macbeth are said to be among the Shakespearean plays that were mostly adapted to the tradition of the Arab theatre, and there were even translations that tended to drop whole scenes in the play, alter the whole ending, and use the local Egyptian dialect. This made Shakespeare gain great popularity in the Arab world because he was contemporarized, in a manner of speaking, by being “translated, staged and adapted to the local taste and colour of the area.” (ibid, 124) After the performances of the English Shakespeare Company in Egypt at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, however, more serious translations of Shakespeare started to appear in response to the criticism of adaptation which was considered a distortion of the Shakespearean text. This encouraged leading men of literature to produce much more reliable translations of the Bard keeping the structure, plot, and characterization intact and limiting their changes to the linguistic

content of the play by omitting some sentences or scenes or rephrasing certain linguistic structures without harming the course of events or the essence of the play. This was referred to later as ‘Arabization’ The famous poet Khalīl Muṭrān played a leading role in bringing up the notion of ‘Arabization’ to the translation of Shakespeare’s texts since “such plays ought to be written, he says, to be understood and made use of.” (Ghazoul 1998: 4) In his introduction to the translation of Othello, as cUṭail, Muṭrān explains how he chose to ‘arabize’ the metaphorical language of Shakespeare to make it comprehensible to Arabic language readers, (Muṭrān tr. 7th edit 1993: 8-9) For people like ʹAhmad Shawqī and Khalīl Muṭrān, who tried to yield a better representation of Shakespeare by trying to make him speak Arabic, the main focus of translations was the thematic content of the text without being fettered by the linguistic formalities of Source Language

structures because they wanted their translation to be natural for Arab readers. Therefore, they were tempted to make shifts that went as far as deleting and/or adding sentences and paragraphs in the original text to make it more appealing to Arab readers. In the middle of the twentieth century, Shakespeare’s plays started to appear in different Arab countries in new translations sponsored by certain cultural and academic institutions such as the Cultural Committee of the Arab League, state publishing institutions, and private publishing houses. It was for people like Jabra Ibrahim Jabra to produce the first authoritative translations of Shakespeare setting the foundation for translation as an accurate re-production of the original text. By and large, the translations that started to appear as of the 2 second half of last century were considered “accurate and faithful to the original” (Twaij 1973: 54) to the extent of being considered sometimes “competent scholarly

achievements.” (Zaki 1978: 301); because they did not deal with the text freely and were committed to translating it as closely as possible without changing anything in its structure, plot, characterization, sequence of events, or linguistic content: “In the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century, the translation of Shakespeare’s plays into Arabic entered a third stage when the League of Arab Nations established the Cultural Committee, which was founded for the sole purpose of translating the masterpieces of world literature into Arabic and which announced that its first priority was to translate all of Shakespeare’s works into Arabic. Well qualified literary figures and translators in the Arab world were appointed to translate all of Shakespeare’s work.” (Tounsi 1989: 51) Following the Arab League’s initiative to institutionalize the translation of Shakespeare on the professional level, and by the time the translation of Shakespeare into Arabic had reached

a mature phase with translators becoming more dedicated to the accurate representation of Shakespeare’s language in Arabic, a new literary movement began to be involved in improving and refining the translation of the Bard taking the form of academic and literary criticism. This trend aimed at examining the translations of Shakespeare to evaluate their contribution and check how far they match the original texts in form and content. Hence, the interest in Shakespeare no longer remained limited to the themes of his plays and the meaning beyond his words. Shakespeare’s language itself became the main criterion for testing the translator’s competence and skill in bringing the Bard’s art to the Arab world, based on the claim that very “little critical research on translating Shakespeare into Arabic has been done to improve the translation of Shakespeare and producing better Arabic versions of Shakespeare for Arab readers.” (Alsaai 1997: 35) This gave rise to academic and

literary critical studies that meant to question the primary difficulties and “to highlight all the major problems which confront translators.” (ibid: 37) in translating Shakespeare into Arabic. Those studies fall into two categories based on the point of departure in their critical account. The first category of such critical studies approached the translations of Shakespeare from a socio-cultural perspective giving priority to the Target Text and target audience over the Source Text and culture; whereas the second category 3 adopted a Source-Text orientation taking into account the principles of accuracy and faithfulness to the original. The first category of critical accounts hailed the adaptations of Shakespeare into Arabic with wide flexibility and unbound liberty dealing with the themes of Shakespeare’s heritage and how they were adapted by some Arab dramatists to reflect their own reality, which is why people who belonged to this category did not examine any of the

aspects that are related to the Bard’s linguistic heritage. Praising the “Arab recreations of Shakespeare”, (Canaan 1998: 219) those criticisms were interested in the adaptations for their role in introducing the art of theatre to the Arab public by borrowing the attractive themes of Shakespeare’s plays and voicing them out in a language that is easy for the audience to understand. From a sociocultural perspective, some of the modern critical studies that dealt with the translations of Shakespeare into Arabic saw the early translations, i.e adaptation, of Shakespeare simply as genuine attempts to fit the translated work in the cultural atmosphere of the audience. Consequently, their sociological framework of analysis dealt with “macro level” cultural concepts, instead of “micro level linguistic structures” (Hanna 2006: 13). There were others who stood firmly for the case of adaptation vis-à-vis the principle of faithful translation, defending the former on the ground

that Shakespeare’s language has its own cultural environment and linguistic specificities and is, therefore, untranslatable in a one-to-one correspondence: “.the purists ideal of a good and faithful translation of Shakespeares text into a foreign language, not to mention the translation of Shakespearean themes into foreign cultures, is in reality an impossibility. English metrical niceties, word-plays, imagery, emphases, insinuations, skilful repartee, and the atmospheric use of colour in verse and prose may all evaporate in a straightforward Arab representation of Shakespeare. Consequently, deletions of whole scenes, speeches, or characters from the original text and the interpolation of novel characters, speeches, songs, and theatrical techniques in "foreign Shakespeare" are within the nature of the enterprise.” (Canaan 1998: 219) The second category of studies that criticized the Arabic translations of Shakespeare was interested in Shakespeare’s linguistic and

conceptual legacy, rather than its adaptation to Arabic. Those scholars maintained that what made Shakespeare assume an authoritative place in his own culture as well as worldwide is not his themes, settings, characters, or plots, popular as they may be. It is rather the way he voiced them out and let them speak, move, act, 4 and impress even when they were still on the page. This gave the ST prominence over the TT, observing the standards of faithfulness and accuracy as the main criteria in a successful translation of Shakespeare. Tracing the development of translating Shakespeare into Arabic to its beginning, ST-oriented studies conducted an in-depth analysis of the complexities involved in translating cultural concepts and lexical items in Shakespeare including religious lexicon, objects of nature such as birds, plants, “precious stones and gems” (Zaki 1978: 74) , as well as indirect language structures like jokes, idioms, “figures of speech” (al-Tounsi 1989: 95)

“puns, proverbs, grammar and images” (Alsaai 1997: 30). Both Zaki (1978) and Alsaai (1997) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the history of translating Shakespeare into Arabic referring to the main obstacles that faced the translators in every stage and coming up with a set of solutions to improve those translations and bring them to a higher level of intellectual and linguistic excellence. For them, “only a few of Shakespeare’s plays and poetical works that have been translated into Arabic are regarded as accurate renditions combining both sound scholarship and literary merit” (Zaki 1978: 300). There were, however, certain shortcomings in those translations partially “due to negligence.” (ibid: 75), but mainly as a result of the lack of “solid knowledge of English literature”, the lack of acquaintance with “classical and European Renaissance literature and cultures.” (ibid: 27), as well as “the translators’ unfamiliarity with basic tools of research

needed both in translation generally and Shakespearean translation in particular.” (ibid: 76) Therefore, the task of the translator was no longer limited to projecting the Source Text onto the Target Language in a one-to-one representation of lexical items and grammatical structures. Translation has become a much more ardent task that calls for the translators to arm themselves with all the necessary tools of research: “.such as the various lexicon, glossaries, and the Variorum A Shakespearean grammar book is also necessary to shed light on some of the rather archaic sentence structures. It is also mandatory for a Shakespearean translator to acquire at least two different very well annotated copies of the work he is dealing with. Those well known editions that have been revised by the famous Shakespearean scholars should be referred to whenever one is in doubt about an expression or an idiom.” (ibid: 28) In my selection of the translations for text analysis, I sought to choose

translators that met three requirements of qualification in translating Shakespeare. These qualifications comprise: the scholarly interest in metaphoric language, in general, and the language of 5 Shakespeare, in particular, the acquaintance with the main sources and tools of investigation and referencing, and last but not least the wide critical acclaim for their contribution to the translation of Shakespeare into Arabic within the framework of accuracy, cultural sensitivity, and the linguistic and literary excellence shown in their attentiveness to the component of imagery. The translations I will be examining are done by three translators: Jabra Ibrahim Jabra, Mohamed Enani, and Salah Nyazi, all of whom had certain commonalities in approaching the translation of Shakespeare. But at the same time they varied in their contribution to the improving the translation of Shakespeare from English into Arabic. As for the points of commonality between Jabra, Enani, and Nyazi, the

following brief account will reveal their shared sense of responsibility towards the refinement and accuracy in translating Shakespeare, their reliance on authoritative anthology of the works of Shakespeare, and their recognition of the importance of metaphor in both understanding and representing Shakespeare’s language adequately enough. The main contribution of Jabra lies in him being the first to take the initiative of translating Shakespearean into Arabic as accurately as possible, away from adaptation or Arabization and with “a tendency to emphasize the form as well as the content.” (Ishrateh 2006: 20). With his first translation of Hamlet in 1960, the translation of Shakespeare witnessed “a new and unprecedented development” (Zaki 1978: 294) where he started a longterm, self-motivated translation project making use of relevant major sources and works to get to a better understanding of Shakespeare’s language and style. To mention a few, Jabra translated “Jan Kotts

Shakespeare Our Contemporary (1979) and Janette Dillons Shakespeare and the Solitary Man (1986)” (Boullata 2001: 221). Also, in his translations of the tragedies, Jabra provided a review of critical studies by Shakespearean scholars who dealt with each play from a historical and literary perspective. For example, he quotes remarkable scholars, thinkers and critics on Shakespeare’s language including Coleridge (Jabra 1986: 80) in his introduction to the translation of Hamlets, A. C Bradley (ibid: 386) in his introduction to the translation of Othello, Kenneth Muir’s study on Macbeth (ibid: 608), as well as Spurgeon’s Shakespeare’s Imagery and what it Tells us (ibid: 222). Jabra did not even miss negative critical accounts of Shakespeare’s language like Tolstoy’s comments on the unnatural language of King Lear (ibid: 220). He made sure to acquaint himself with different critical studies about Shakespeare’s literature, and his decision to translate Shakespeare was

self-motivated and inspired by his long-lived love for Shakespeare’s language and style. In his introduction to the translation of the Sonnets, Jabra voices out his 6 interest in the metaphors and images of Shakespeare (1983: 22) and their role in building up his special poetic atmosphere, and after he finishes translating the Tragedies, he expresses his deep appreciation and admiration of Shakespeare’s texts: ‫ ﻟﻢ أﺗﺨ ّﻞ‬،‫ رﻏﻢ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺷﻐﻠﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺆون اﻟﺤﯿﺎة واﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ واﻟﻔﻦ‬،‫"وﯾﺮوق ﻟﻲ أن أرى أﻧﻨﻲ طﻮال ھﺬه اﻟﻤﺪة‬ ‫ وھﻮ أن أﻧﺠﺰ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻟﮭﺬه اﻟﻤﺴﺮﺣﯿﺎت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﺘﻌﺘﻨﻲ وﻋﻠﻤﺘﻨﻲ اﻟﻜﺜﯿﺮ أﯾﺎم اﻟﺘﻠﻤﺬة‬:‫ﺣﻠﻢ راودﻧﻲ ﻣﻨﺬ اﻟﺼﺒﺎ‬ ٍ ‫ﻋﻦ‬ (607 :1‫ ط‬1986 ‫" )ﺟﺒﺮا‬.‫ وﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ

ﻟﻐﺔ‬،‫ واﻟﺘﻲ ھﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻮھﺮ اﻟﻘﻀﯿﺔ اﻷدﺑﯿﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻜﺎن‬،‫وﺑﻌﺪھﺎ‬ “It is fulfilling for me to see that, throughout this period and despite all my preoccupation with life, writing, and art, I have not let go of a dream which never stopped to haunt me ever since my youth: to accomplish the translation of those plays which brought me much joy and enlightenment during my days as a student and after that, and which is a main issue in literary studies everywhere and in every language.” (My translation) There is an apparent consensus among critics on Jabra’s contribution to improving the translation of Shakespeare by launching the interest among translators, men of literature, critics, as well as academic and cultural institutions alike in the production of professional and responsible translations of Shakespeare into Arabic. His translation of Hamlet was described as “a genuine attempt to produce

a faithful rendition of Shakespeare’s play.” (Zaki 1978: 281) In his other translations, Jabra is also said to “observe accuracy of text and show deep understanding of Shakespeare’s dramaturgy.” (Al-Shetawi 1989: 120) Some went even as far as declaring that Shakespeare has not been translated “with such deep understanding as Jabra showed or with his sensibility and subtle feeling for language.” (Boullata 2001: 222) From the point of view of the majority of researchers, Jabra’s achievements do not stop at the limit of his accurate representation of the form and content of the text. He is also thought to have paid close attention to the “aesthetic function of the language” (Ishrateh 2006: 20), and described as showing “accomplished scholarship, accuracy of rendition and an elegant style.” (Zaki 1978: 295), reflecting “on the organic images and how to render the details in relation to the core as creatively and as coherently as possible.” (Ghazoul 1998: 5)

Jabra’s translations, however, were not utterly faultless and void of shortcomings; as they were criticized from time to time for being unintelligible and “marked by obscurity and vagueness making the process of drawing appropriate inferences hard.” (Obeidat 2001: 216) But even Jabra’s faults or misrepresentation of Shakespeare, as a result of misinterpreting certain linguistic structures, perhaps (Muḥammad 2005), and his unjustified omission of 7 certain oaths occasionally (Zaki 1978: 42) were considered mostly “minor” (ibid: 294) and “few slight flaws.” (Twaij 1973: 115) until some recent studies came up with more specific faults in their criticism of Jabra’s translation attributing those shortcomings to his literal translations of certain metaphoric components (Yūsif 2009), as a result of being very committed to the principle of accuracy: “Having confined himself to a faithful translation, Jabra did not succeed in translating certain passages, mainly those

of a metaphorical nature, into an equivalent clear Arabic. When a comparison between the Arabic text and the original is made, we come across passages which have been ambiguously translated.” (Alsaai 1997: 84) The second translator I will deal with in my text analysis is Enani who showed, in his translations, no less attention, dedication, and professional skill than Jabra. So far, and since the decision of the Arab League’s Cultural Committee to translate all the works of Shakespeare, Enani saved no effort in dedicating himself to that significant cultural project guided, as he puts it, “by what the critics since Shakespeares day have had to say. Hence my use of all available editions of the play, as well as the mass of critical opinions I could gather from books and articles in learned periodicals. My introductions tried to cover the critical views, and my notes were devoted to defending my choices.” (Enani 2006) Enani has also shown a great interest in the translation of

metaphor and idiomatic expressions, in general, and in Shakespeare’s plays, in particular. However, unlike Jabra, he is said to have been much more flexible in translating metaphoric expressions, taking into account their appropriateness to the target culture and target readers. Enani sought to present figurative language or al-majāz, as he puts it, by means of explication or ʹal-baṣṭ, versus simplification or tabṣīṭ, in order for the readers to grasp the meaning of metaphoric expressions and experience their aesthetic effect without difficulty (Enani 2001: 41). An example of this is his adaptation of religiously-grounded concepts such as oaths to fit them in the contexts of Arab culture. His attempts to adapt certain concepts to the cultural environment of the reader did in no way compromise their meaning or effect; because even when he had to give those expressions “an Islamic flavour, yet in Arabic they convey almost the same message which is supposed to be conveyed

by the original.” (Zaki 1978: 38) That is why Enani’s translation was commended for his success in preserving the semantic content and the metaphor, and considered by Alsaai “one of the finest examples so far of how to translate Shakespeare into Arabic.” (1997: 300) 8 “Enani, for his part, although also guilty of paraphrasing and interpolation, provides the reader with the most authentic and accurate translation of all the four, being noted in particular for his elegant, poetic prose which at times aspires to match the verse of Shakespeare himself.” (ibid: 137) The last translator I will deal with in testing the translation of Shakespeare’s metaphoric language from English into Arabic is Nyazi whose contribution to the field is considered the most updated and most critical of previous leading translators such as Jabra, Badawi, and others. Nyazi has so far translated Macbeth (2000) and recently Hamlet (2008) each of which came with a critical introduction explaining

how the translation was a response to bizarre interpretations on part of some translators leading them to commit astonishing errors in their translation of Shakespeare into Arabic, as he puts it. Criticizing Jabra’s translation of Macbeth in 1980, Nyazi questions whether the reason behind the shortfalls in Jabra’s translation is related to the metaphorical richness of the play and the difficulty in translating the original metaphors, images and similes into Arabic, and if it were, then why Jabra neglected that conceptual richness which is a main factor in making Shakespeare’s language powerful: ‫ ﯾﻜﻤﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺪرﺟﺔ اﻷوﻟﻰ ﻓﻲ اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎرات‬،‫"ﯾﺘﻔﻖ اﻟﻨﻘﺎد ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﻣﻮطﻦ اﻟﻘﻮة واﻟﺘﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺷﻜﺴﺒﯿﺮ‬ ‫ وﻛﺄﻧﮭﺎ ﻓﻮاﻛﮫ ﻣﺠﻔﻔﺔ ﻓﯿﮭﺎ‬،‫ ﻓﻼ ﺑﺪّ أن ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﺒﺘﺴﺮة‬،‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ھﺬا

ﻓﻜﻞ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻠﺘﻔﺖ إﻟﻰ ذﻟﻚ‬.‫واﻟﻜﻨﺎﯾﺎت واﻟﺘﺸﺎﺑﯿﮫ‬ (24 :2000 ‫ وﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻤﺎذا أھﻤﻠﮭﺎ" )ﻧﯿﺎزي‬،‫ ﻻ ﺑﺪّ أن اﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻋﺎرف ﺑﮭﺬه اﻟﺤﻘﯿﻘﺔ‬.‫اﻟﺸﻜﻞ وﻟﻜﻨﮭﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﯿﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮوح‬ “Critics agree that what makes the poetry of Shakespeare so powerful and moving is, in the first degree, his metaphors, metonymies, and similes. Consequently, any translation that does not pay attention to that aspect must be considered shallow; as though it were a dry fruit which looks the same but has no core. There is no doubt that the translator was well aware of this truth, but the question is: why did he neglect it?” (My translation) Nyazi criticized previous critical accounts of Jabra’s translations for lacking a defined criterion in judging his different translations of Shakespeare (Nyazi 2008: 17; 18) For

him, the shortfalls in Jabra’s translation have to do with the lack of attention to metaphorical elements inside the play, literal translation of concepts and terms, and wrong interpretations and additions as a result of his exaggerated attempts to interpret concepts and images. From the perspective of Nyazi, Jabra’s faults are not to be underestimated because he could have always consulted the wealth of resources which are full of annotations on Shakespeare’s 9 works (Nyazi 2006) In his introduction to the most recent translation of Hamlet, Nyazi attributes the shortcomings in Jabra’s translation to his reliance on his literary background in English, without considering some of the techniques used by Shakespeare like turning words into concepts by repeating a ‘word’ in different occasions in order to question its varied implications in different situations and contexts. For Nyazi, Jabra strayed where he was inconsistently dealing with the conceptual content of words

turning the text into fragmented strips, instead of producing a coherent, meaningful painting whose images and colours are brought together in an artistic and eloquent manner. Jabra’s main weaknesses included skipping some metaphors (ibid: 21) and rendering a handful of concepts and words arbitrarily (ibid: 22) without checking specialized English language sources (ibid: 6). Before I move to core of this research, namely text analysis, it would be important to point out that there is much more than a historic review in my previous account on translating Shakespeare from English into Arabic. My choice of Shakespeare’s Arabic language translators was made in the light of that account because, although the three translators share the qualifications, tools, high sense of commitment, as well as personal and professional interest in Shakespeare’s metaphoric language, yet, the contributions made by every single translator seem to be at this stage highlighting different aspects of that

language and following different ways in the translation of metaphor into Arabic. It is far from fair to say that these are the only translators who showed excellence and variation in translating Shakespeare into Arabic. The contributions of other equally important scholars such as ʹalQuṭ, cAbd `l-Qādir; Badawi, M M, and others are wider than what could be covered within the limited scope of this research. Jabra, Badawi, and Nyazi were chosen for the purpose of this study, not only for their contribution to bringing the translation of Shakespeare to a high level of accuracy and distinction, but also because I believe them to have shown variation in their treatment of metaphor despite their common declared attention to figurative language on the semantic, aesthetic, as well as creative levels of signification. 10 Bibliography Alsaai, Hayan Jomah (1997): A Critical Assessment of the Translations of Shakespeare into Arabic, Unpubl. PhD Diss, University of London, SOAS

Al-Shetawi, Mahmoud F. (1989): "Shakespeare in Arabic" New Comparison: a Journal of Comparative and General Literary Studies 8, pp. 114-26 Baker, M. and Gabriela Sanldanha eds (1998): Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge Boullata, Issa J. (2001): “Living with the Tigress and the Muses: An Essay on Jabrā Ibrāhīm Jabrā”, World Literature Today 75:2, pp. 214-223 Enani, Mohamed (1987): Tājir ʹal-Bunduqiyya, tr. Of the Merchant of Venice, Hayʹat ʹalKitāb: Cairo Enani, Mohamed (2006): “On translating Shakespeare into Arabic”, Al-Ahram Weekly Online No. 790, URL: http://weeklyahramorgeg/2006/790/cu4htm Ghazoul, Ferial J. (1998): “The Arabization of Othello”, Comparative Literature 50: 1, pp 1-31 Hanna, Sameh Fekry (2006): Towards a Sociology of Drama Translation: a Bourdieusian Perspective on Translations of Shakespeare’s Great Tragedies in Egypt, Unpubl. PhD Diss, the University of Manchester Ishrateh, Mahmoud

Khaleel Mahmoud (2006): The Translatability of Cognitive Synonyms in Shakespeare’s Macbeth: A Comparative/ Contrastive Study, Unpubl. Thesis for Master of Arts, An-Najah National University: Nablus Jabra, Ibrahim Jabra (1983): ʹal-Sunettāt, 1st ed., al-Muʹassasa `l-cArabiyya li `Ddirāsāt Wa `Nnashir: Beirut Jabra, Ibrahim Jabra (1986), ʹal-Maʹāsī `l-Kubrā tr. Of the Tragedies, 1st ed ʹal-Muʹassasa `lcArabiyya li `Ddirāsāt Wa `Nnashir: Beirut Kanaan, Falah (1998): Shakespeare on the Arab Page and Stage, Unpubl. PhD Diss, the University of Manchester Muḥammad, cAbd al-Wāḥid (2005): “Tarjamat al-Nuşūş al-Drāmiyya `Ila `llugha `lcArabiyyaʼ̍, Foreign Literature Quarterly 124, AWU: Damascus, URL: http://www.awu- dam.org/adabagnaby/124/adab124-006htm accessed on 29/10/2006 Muṭrān, Khalīl, tr. (1993): cUṭail tr Of Othello, Dar al-Macārif: Cairo Nyazi, Salah (2000): Macbeth 1st ed., Arab Diffusion Company: London and Beirut 11 Nyazi,

Salah (2006): “Munājayāt Hamlet al-Sabca”, Elaph Online Daily, URL: URL: http://www.elaphcom/ElaphWeb/ElaphL/12/199603htm Nyazi, Salah (2008): Hamlet: ʹAmīr ʹAddenmark tr. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, al-Mada Publishing Company: Damascus Obeidat, Hisham (2001): “the Discourse of Peace in Othello: a Comparative Analysis of Three Arabic Translations”, Babel 47:3, pp. 205-227 Tounsi, Mohamed Mohamed A. (1989): Shakespeare in Arabic: a study of the translation, reception, and influence of Shakespeare’s drama in the Arab world, Publ. Diss, University of Northern Colorado Twaij, Mohammed Baqir (1973): Shakespeare in the Arab World, Unpubl. Diss, Evanston: Illinois Yūsif, Shacabān (2009): “Hal ʹjāda `l-cArab Tarjamat Shakespeare?” Dar al-Hayat, URL http://www.daralhayatcom/portalarticlendah/43812 (consulted on 00:21 26/10/2010) Zaki, Amel Amin (1978): Shakespeare in Arabic, Unpubl. PhD Diss, Indiana University: the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures

12