the new British Asian productions of Much Ado about Nothing (2012), The Merchant of Venice (2005), and even A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1997). Buckley’s essay takes up this problem of staging Indian (and, by extension, subcontinental) Shakespeares in the United Kingdom from a different perspective by questioning the extent to which performances at the World Shakespeare Festival (2012) were able to open up a “‘global’ dialogue” between the two cultures in the face of rigid linguistic demarcations imposed by the organizers (77). While the third section shifts to “Shakespeare and Indian Films,” the essays here still work in the performance aspect. For instance, Paramita Dutta reads the Merchant Ivory film Shakespeare Wallah (1965)—a quasi-fictionalized account of Geoffrey Kendal’s acting company Shakespeareana, which toured India in the years leading up to independence and shortly after—as a commentary on the shifting theatrical appetites of decolonization. Similarly, Trisha Mitra’s essay partly looks at the Theyyam performance in the Malayalam film Kaliyattam (1997). The remaining sections of the collection mostly reexamine questions of translation. T. S. Satyanath’s maps and tables on the earliest translations of Shakespeare in different Indian languages can be helpful, though they are not always chronologically arranged. A common theme in these later sections is a comparative study of Shakespeare and well-established icons of Indian literature, such as the Sanskrit playwright Kalidasa or Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali poet and educationist. The result is a fairly representative discussion of indigenous traditions and Shakespearean adaptations with essays by Naina Dey, Radha Chakravarty, Sayantan Roy Moulick, and Sandip Debnath, which look at translations in Bengali; Jatindra K. Nayak’s chapter that covers Oriya translations; and Himani Kapoor’s more exhaustive take on Kannada, Sindhi, Marathi, Tamil, and Hindi adaptations. Kapoor also provides detailed charts on each of the languages. Though placed within this group, Preti Taneja’s essay brings in a more global dimension to debates on translation and linguistic choices by turning to four distinct performance moments in the United Kingdom and India. Overall, Performing Shakespeare in India has a cohesive feel, with essays in the later sections returning to themes introduced earlier. Moreover, what makes this collection particularly useful to researchers are the many, and often comparative, lists on Shakespearean translations and adaptations in Indian languages from the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries.

中文翻译：

---

热爱正义，活生生的莎士比亚 by Regina Mara Schwartz

新的英国亚洲作品《无事生非》（2012 年）、《威尼斯商人》（2005 年），甚至《仲夏夜之梦》（1997 年）。巴克利的文章从不同的角度探讨了在英国上演印度（以及次大陆）莎士比亚的问题，质疑世界莎士比亚节（2012 年）的表演能够在多大程度上开启“全球面对组织者强加的严格的语言界限，两种文化之间的“对话”（77）。虽然第三部分转向“莎士比亚和印度电影”，但这里的文章仍然在表演方面发挥作用。例如，Paramita Dutta 阅读了 Merchant Ivory 电影 Shakespeare Wallah (1965)——一个对 Geoffrey Kendal 的表演公司 Shakespeareana 的准虚构描述，它在独立前和之后不久在印度巡回演出——作为对非殖民化不断变化的戏剧胃口的评论。同样，Trisha Mitra 的文章部分地着眼于马拉雅拉姆语电影 Kaliyattam (1997) 中的 Theyam 表演。该系列的其余部分主要重新审视翻译问题。TS Satyanath 的关于莎士比亚最早翻译的不同印度语言的地图和表格可能会有所帮助，尽管它们并不总是按时间顺序排列。这些后面部分的一个共同主题是对莎士比亚和印度文学的知名偶像的比较研究，例如梵文剧作家卡利达萨或孟加拉诗人和教育家罗宾德拉纳特泰戈尔。结果是通过 Naina Dey、Radha Chakravarty、Sayantan Roy Moulick 和 Sandip Debnath 的文章对土著传统和莎士比亚的改编进行了相当有代表性的讨论，这些文章着眼于孟加拉语的翻译；Jatindra K. Nayak 的章节涵盖了奥里亚语翻译；以及 Himani Kapoor 对卡纳达语、信德语、马拉地语、泰米尔语和印地语的更详尽的改编。Kapoor 还提供了每种语言的详细图表。尽管属于这个群体，Preti Taneja 的文章通过转向英国和印度的四个不同的表演时刻，为关于翻译和语言选择的辩论带来了更加全球化的维度。总的来说，《在印度表演莎士比亚》有一种连贯的感觉，后面几节的文章又回到了前面介绍的主题。而且，