Hebrew literature -- History and criticism; Jewish literature -- History and criticism; Jews in literature
In the case of Shakespeare’s _Othello_ no such problem as this arises.
In finding a Hebrew title for it, Salkinson did not seek for any
paraphrase. He just searched for a Hebrew name which would sound
like “Othello,” and he found it in the biblical “Ithiel,” which may
signify “God is with me.” “Ithiel” would thus mean much the same as
“Immanuel” (“God is with us”). It cannot be asserted that “Ithiel”
fails to correspond in sense with “Othello,” for the simple reason that
no one seems to know what “Othello” means; Ruskin suggested the sense
_careful_. On the other hand, “Iago” is probably a variant of “Jacob”;
Salkinson calls him Doeg: there is some similarity in character, as in
a name, between the false Doeg and the wily Iago. The other names call
for little comment. Desdemona becomes Asenath, not a happy choice, for
while Desdemona apparently means the “unfortunate,” Asenath is probably
the Egyptian for the “Favorite of Neith.” Cassio is Cesed--a mere
assonance. On the other hand, the Clown is _Lez_ (the scoffer); this
is a reproduction of meaning, not of sound. After all, not the names,
but the play is the thing. Salkinson certainly gives us the play.
His Hebrew is the real Shakespeare. Often have I found in difficult
passages of the English that the Hebrew is a useful help to the
understanding of the original. Sometimes a hasty reader of Salkinson
may think that the translator erred, as in his rendering of Othello’s
last pathetic speech:
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then must you speak
Of one that loved not wisely but too well;
Of one not easily jealous, but being wrought,
Perplex’d in the extreme; of one whose hand,
Like the base _Indian_, threw a pearl away
Richer than all his tribe.
Salkinson turns these last two lines into:
Like the despicable _Jew_, who threw a pearl away
Richer than all the wealth of Israel.
It is no mistake. There is good authority for reading _Judean_ in the
English text in place of _Indian_. The most plausible suggestion is
Theobald’s, that Shakespeare was referring to Herod and Mariamne. The
whole of this speech is a triumph of literalness combined with beauty
of phraseology. If Salkinson had only written this one page he would be
famous among modern Hebraists.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account