A Study of the Framing on the Exodus of Egyptian Jewry in Translation into Arabic: A Case Study of the Arabic Translation of The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit by Lucette Lagnado

he way we perceive the world depends on the narrative to which we subscribe as narratives are essentially the stories through which we form our views of the world. Baker (2005) points out that narratives are diffuse, unstructured configurations rather than discrete fully articulated local stories. They are the collection of stories and anecdotes to which we register and that contribute to the formation of our identity, allies, enemies as well as our perception of the world (Baker, 2005, 2006).

Framing is an active strategy that implies agency and by means of which we consciously participate in the construction of reality (Baker, 2006). The process of framing involves setting up structures of anticipation that guide others’ interpretation of events, usually as a direct challenge to the dominant interpretations of the same event in a given society. According to Entman (1993), frames highlight selective bits of information about a narrative, making them more salient, i.e. more noticeable, meaningful, and memorable to the audience.

The angle via which a narrative is portrayed not only affects the portrayer but also those who depend on him/her for a better judgment. In this sense, framing is a key tool to shape the picture through highlighting a point, expunging another, or neutralizing a third. This study focuses on the idea of framing the same narrative to suit the different pursuits of each given side of a conflict.

This study aims at investigating the textual and paratextual frames traced in the target text. It examines the differences between the narratives perpetuated in the source and target texts, and the tools through which these narratives are framed. Moreover, it attempts at analyzing the effectiveness of such traces of textual and paratextual frames in circulating a competing narrative that defies the narrative perpetuated originally in the source text.

To reach this end, it investigates The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit, first published in 2007, in which Lucette Lagnado recounts the journey of her Jewish family from Egypt to USA after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, highlighting the different reactions of her family members to the trauma. The memoir portrays a true story that demonstrates real emotions of despair as the direct results of immigration.

The book was translated into Arabic by a team of translators: Mostafa Tanany, Medhat Maqlad, and Effat Abdul Fattah, and published by Al Tanany Publishing House in Cairo in 2010. In a sense, Lagnado, and the translators, Tanany et al, belong to the different sides of a conflict. Therefore, the portrayal of the exodus of the Jewish family from Egypt would most likely demonstrate the two different angles through framing.  

In an attempt to demonstrate the role of framing/reframing in the circulation of different narratives, the analysis takes the following steps: tracing the textual and paratextual frames in the target text, comparing them to those in the source text to investigate the perpetuation of competing narratives, and analyzing the reasons for and implications of using them.

In her Narrative Theory, Mona Baker (2005, 2006, 2007, 2010) adopts the sociological definition of narratives rather than that of narratology or literature. Whereas the fields of literature and socio-pragmatics treat narratives as optional modes of communication, sociology theory treats them as the principal and inescapable mode by which we experience the world (Baker, 2006). Fisher (1987) states that “Narration is the context for interpreting and assessing all communication not a mode of discourse laid on by a creator’s deliberate choice but the shape of knowledge as we first apprehend it” (p. 193). Unlike narratology, Baker’s definition of narratives builds on models by Fisher (1987) and Bruner (1991) to illustrate that the focal point of study in a narrative is its contribution to the reflection and construction of reality rather than its linguistic constitution. According to Bruner (1991), “the central concern is not how narrative as text is constructed, but rather how it operates as an instrument of mind in the construction of reality” (p. 5-6).

Baker (2006) believes that “no narrative can represent the ultimate, absolute, uncontestable truth of any event or set of events” (p.18), which is an obvious effect of the various distinct experiences and backgrounds of different people. A person’s perception of reality depends on the angle through which he/she stands (Darwish, 2006). Thus, different people looking at the same phenomenon devise different sets of categories to account for it (Baker, 2006). Such categories are heavily dependent upon and feed into the narrative of the time, as well as the narratives accrued over the years. According to Bennet and Edelman (1985, p.159), “narrative shapes people’s views of rationality, of objectivity, of morality, and of their conceptions of themselves and others”.

“Framing refers to the construct of a communication—its language, visuals and messengers—and the way it signals to the listener or observer how to interpret and classify new information” (Wendland, 2010, p.32). This quotation elucidates that frames are not merely direct interferences in a sentence or speech; they can rather be subtle moves on the periphery of text or utterances that still guide the perception of others. Accordingly, Baker (2005, 2006, 2007, 2010) divides framing tools into textual and paratextual.

Like other historical controversies, the issue of the Egyptian Jewry’s modern exodus and whether their belonging to Egypt in the first place has been recounted through two main competing narratives. On the one hand, some Jews believe that they are Egyptian as they have lived most of their lives prosperously in Egypt, and have contributed to its rising economy at some time. They see Nasser and his nationalistic regime as the main drive behind their diaspora. On the other hand, many Muslim and Christian Egyptians believe that Jews are their ultimate enemy, especially after the rise of the State of Israel in 1948, and that they have left the country on their own accord without any pressure of any kind. This group rather cherishes Nasser’s nationalistic regime, and thinks of him as the savior from the corrupt king. Therefore, that the way a person deciphers the significance of a certain set of events or a historical incident relies heavily upon the narrative to which he/she subscribes.

Somers and Gibson (1993) identify four core narrative features. However, this study relies upon only three of them: temporality, relationality and selective appropriation. It is worth noting though that the features of narrativity “are not discrete; they inevitably overlap and are highly interdependent” (Baker, 2006, p.103).

First, temporality refers to the time of narration that has a great impact on its validity. The meaning of narratives depend highly upon the temporal moment of the narration since they are embedded in time (Baker, 2006). This does not mean the re-narration of events in a specific order, but rather that the elements of the narrative are put in some sequence that implies a certain meaning, which entails that the sequence of events is pivotal to interpreting an experience (Baker, 2006, p.51). In addition, the sequence constitutes the narrative itself in the sense that it guides and constrains the way it is to be interpreted (Baker, 2006). The temporal order in which the elements of a narrative appear creates the ties and relations that “transform isolated episodes into a coherent account” (Baker, 2006, p.52). For instance, the temporal order of events in The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit (2009) - from a prosperous vivid life in Cairo to a poor hopeless life in Paris, ending with an uprooted life in New York- portrays the fall of the family from a life of flourishing stability to that of exile, centering the mischiefs that have happened to the family in focal position to demonstrate the main point intended by the author. According to Baker (2006), “temporality is not just about the past and the present but also, and crucially, about the future” (p.53). Narratives usually present a moral end that guides our behavior and actions “by locating events within an unfolding life story” (Polletta, 1998, p.140 as cited in Baker, 2006). In this sense, the temporal or spatial sequence affects the projected end given to a narrative. Since all narratives are “history laden” (Somers and Gibson, 1993, p.44), temporality means that history is a function of narrativity, and thus our narration of history is dependent upon our present situation (Baker, 2006). “Historicity is also a resource that narrators draw on in order to enhance identification with a current narrative and enrich it with implicit detail” (Baker, 2006, p.57). Hence, history from the view point of the narrator, in the case at hand the author in the source text and the translators in the target text, shapes the detailed narration of events.

Second, relationality entails that a given narrative must be perceived within a series of other incidents and stories. According to Baker (2006), Human minds cannot perceive isolated elements without weaving them into a narrative. In other words, an event “renders understanding only by connecting (however unstably) parts to a constructed configuration or a social network (however incoherent or unrealizable) composed of symbolic, institutional, and material practices” (Somers and Gibson, 1994, p.59). Therefore, both the narration of a story and its comprehension depend on the human capacity and frame of knowledge (Bruner, 1991).

The relationality of narratives adds to the complexity of the translation process since the “translator and ethnographer both necessarily reconstruct narratives by weaving together relatively or considerably new configurations in every act of translation” (Baker, 2005, p.8 and 2006, p.62). Baker (2006) further argues that “in the process of importing elements from another narrative, both the original and our own narrative are inevitably reconstructed” (p.62). This is due to the fact that viability and coherence of narratives depend on how its elements “mesh together” (Bruner, 1991, p.8). Therefore, according to Baker (2006), translating a narrative into another language creates a sort of “contamination” (p.62), where the original narrative is also altered. Sometimes translators choose to retain certain words in a foreign language to keep the original narrative intact and avoid evoking different narratives due to relationality (Baker, 2006). They avoid the use of a target semantic equivalent in order to avoid evoking a different narrative embedded in the mindset of the target audience.

In this respect, the Egyptian translators of The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit have opted for using "مصر" or “Egypt” to translate the expression “Old Cairo” in the title of the memoir: “The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit; A Jewish Family’s Exodus from Old Cairo to the New World” (Lagnado, 2009). It might be argued that the translators have not used the direct equivalent to “Old Cairo”, مصر القديمة, to avoid evoking a false image. The expression Old Cairo, or مصر القديمة, is generally used to refer to a neighborhood that encapsulates the historical remnants of Coptic, Islamic, and Fatimid Cairo (http://www.marefa.org). Thus, in the title of the target text, the term مصر القديمة, or Old Cairo, would evoke a different meaning in the shared narrative of the Egyptian readers.

Third, selective appropriation is an essential feature of narratives since weaving a coherent narrative necessitates selecting certain elements and excluding others from the vast array of open-ended and overlapping events that constitute human experience (Baker, 2006). In other words, people tend to elect certain aspects of a given narrative to form a distinct perspective. Somers (1992) argues that this process of selection is driven according to the theme promoted by the narrative itself. Similarly, Polkinghorne (1995, p.7) suggests that the selection of events is guided by a plot or a “thematic thread”, which allows the narrator to choose certain elements of the story to lead to the end goal of the narrative.

For instance, to propagate for any of the competing narratives accounting for the second Jewish exodus, people would elect the elements that fit the narrative to which they originally subscribe. While those who subscribe to the Egyptian public narrative would choose to pinpoint certain notions about the corruption of King Farouk and the advantages of the nationalistic regime to legitimize the political changes that have driven the Jews among other foreigners out of the country in the fifties, those who subscribe to the Jewish public narrative would highlight aspects of their trauma and exile amplifying the magnitude of the political and social changes at the time. In The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit (Lagnado, 2009), Lucette Lagnado selectively depicts the trauma of Jewish families without any mention of the rest of the Egyptian population and their lives under Nasser. This way, she marginalizes any advantage of the abolishment of the monarchy and the 1952 Revolution, which in turn magnifies the implications of the political and social changes that have driven the Jews towards mass immigration.

Despite its direct impact on the world, the process of selective appropriation can both be conscious and subconscious (Baker, 2006). The selection of a text to translate in the first place is considered the first act of selective appropriation practiced by translators. For that matter, the recent trend in the Egyptian literary society to translate literary works depicting the lives and immigration of Egyptian Jewry during Nasser’s era is worth thorough examination and research.

Within the context of this study, the Arabic translation of The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit manifests the use of an abundance of paratextual tools in order to meet the distinct expectations of the Egyptian readers. Since Lagnado’s memoir is translated from the language of a more sympathetic audience to that of the stereotypical enemy, it might be established that some interference on the translators’ part is necessary in order to tone down the narrative aspects that would render the book unacceptable for an Egyptian audience. Paratextual framing incidents traced in this translation relate to temporality and the repositioning of participants.

First, paratextual temporal framing is evident in the narrative examined in this study through referring to the incident of the immigration of Egyptian Jewry in Nasser’s era as the “second exodus”. Embedding the narrative of the exodus in a modern temporal context builds a narrative parallel to that of the Biblical Exodus of Moses and his followers from Egypt in ancient times. This evokes a certain narrative in the minds of readers that entails Egyptian Jews being compelled to leave, mistreated, may be even tortured, and more importantly that they have been original members of the Egyptian society throughout  history. 

The translators of the book opt for maintaining the same temporal frame in the target text. However, they differ in their attribution of the cause of such trauma. Whereas Lagnado blames Nasser and his regime for the traumatic experience of her displaced people, Tanany argues that the rise of the State of Israel in 1948, rather than the rise of the Egyptian republic and the abolishment of the monarchy in 1952, is the direct cause of the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora.

"لکن السياسة والحرب وأهداف الاستعمار البغيضة، والکيان الصهيوني العنصري وطأت بأقدامه الغليظة هذه التربة الکزموبوليتانية الغنية"  (مقدمة الناشر: لنيادو، 2010)

“But politics, war, the abhorrent colonial goals, and the racist Zionist entity have destructively stepped over this rich cosmopolitan soil” (My Translation).

Second, the translators of the memoir at hand employ paratextual repositioning of participants through the publisher’s introduction, the author’s special preface for the Arabic translation, the cover design, the blurb, and footnotes.

1. Publisher’s Introduction

In the publisher’s introduction, Tanany attempts to reposition the memoir as a social story pertaining to family relations and nostalgic sentiments without any trace of politics. For instance, he asserts in his introductory remarks that love, nostalgia and fate are the main themes of the book. He denies that the book is about Egyptian Jewry, and rather sets the political and social events that have touched the Jews to the background, stating clearly that they represent merely the background against which the real events of the story take place, as evident in the following quotation.

" هو ليس کتابًا عن الطائفة اليهودية المصرية رغم ما به من تفاصيل تخصها، کما أنه ليس کتابًا في السياسة رغم بعض لمحاتها. إنه کتاب في الحب کتاب عن المصير، أما ما يتعلق بالطائفة اليهودية المصرية والأحداث السياسية فقد مثلا فقط خلفية أسهمت في تشکيل الأجواء التي تدور الأحداث فيها دون أن يکونا الهم الذي شغل اهتمام الکاتبة أو الرسالة التي أرادت إيصالها" (مقدمة الناشر: لنيادو،2010)

“It is not a book about the Jews of Egypt despite all the details it includes about them, and not even a book about politics despite occasionally touching upon it. It is a book of love… a book about fate. As for the Egyptian Jewry and the political events, they merely represent a background that has contributed to setting the atmosphere within which the events take place without being the author’s main concern or the message she wants to convey” (My translation).

In this quotation, Tanany not only states that the book is about love and fate rather than politics and the Jews of Egypt, but also claims that the author has never had a different intention for it. Thus, he attempts to affirm that the author does not initially intend the political narrative in her memoir. This notion is recurrent in the publisher’s introduction. He also states directly that the book is not about politics and does not aim to reflect the Jewish narrative. He repeats his assertion that it is a book about love, nostalgia and fate.

"الرجل ذو البدلة البيضاء الشرکسکين کتاب لا يورط نفسه في السياسة ولا يتبنى وجهة نظر ضيقة لطائفة دينية، ولکنه کتاب عن الحب والتسامح والحنين وغلبة المصير" (لنيادو، 2010، مقدمة الناشر).

The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit is a book that does not embroil in politics, and does not adopt a narrow viewpoint of a religious sect. It is rather a book about love, tolerance, nostalgia, and the supremacy of fate” (My Translation).

In this quotation, Tanany directly denies the theme of politics. This recurrent denial may be considered a framing incident since negating a frame is in itself a frame (Wendland, 2010).

2. The Author’s Special Preface

 Lucette Lagnado has provided a special preface for the Arabic translation of her memoir in which she strives to reposition herself, her father, her entire family as well as the rest of the Egyptian Jews in Brooklyn as displaced Egyptians. To reach this end, she starts by the cry “Take us back to Egypt”,"رجعونا مصر", repeated during the journey in Egyptian vernacular by her father, the man in the white sharkskin suit. She asserts her family’s belonging to Egypt in different ways; for instance, they lived among other Egyptian Jews, cooked Egyptian food, and strived to preserve the Egyptian culture in America, as shown through the following quotation.

"فنحن نتکلم بالعربية في المنزل ونقرأ الصحف العربية، کما أن أمي کانت تقوم بطهي الأطعمة المصرية في مطبخها الأمريکي" (مقدمة المؤلفة للطبعة العربية -لنيادو، 2010)

“At home, we speak Arabic, read Arabic newspapers, and my mother only cooks Egyptian food in her American kitchen” (My Translation).

It is worth noting, that the author does not include any hint of the political incidents leading to the Jewish departure from Egypt in her special preface. Lagnado only includes traces of love and nostalgia in this preface to set a preliminary frame that centralizes the father as the main character and highlights his distress for leaving Egypt in an attempt to set the book, in accordance to the prevalent public narrative in Egypt, as a story about love and nostalgia rather than about the diaspora and the right to return.

3. Cover Designs

Cover designs are among the first framing attempts to guide the readers’ interpretations. They give a first impression about what a reader should expect from a book, positioning a certain theme or character as the center of the book even prior to the actual reading experience. Within the context of this study, the cover designs of the memoir and that of its Arabic translation are among the first traced paratextual instances as there are major distinctions between the cover designs of the source and target texts analyzed for the purpose of this study. While the source text uses family photos on its cover (fig.1) to demonstrate the family’s Egyptian identity, the target text cover (fig. 2) accentuates the Jewish identity through portraying the skullcap and the Jewish prayer book.

On the one hand, the cover design of the source text (fig.1) shows an ensemble of old family photos taken in Cairo. It establishes belonging, proving that this family, among many other Jewish families, has lived a full life in Cairo before the change of tides in the fifties. Leon Lagnado appears mostly in Tarboush, a sign of Egyptian traditions at the time. In this respect, the cover of the source text frames the expectation of the sympathetic western reader towards understanding the trauma of a displaced group of people, thus accepting the vilification of Nasser and his regime.

On the other hand, the cover of the Arabic translation (Fig.2) features the father, Leon Lagnado, reading in his favorite Hebrew prayer book with a skullcap on his head. This is a paratextual attempt to portray him as a Jew, striping him of any trace of his Egyptian identity, which repositions him as a foreigner to the Egyptian reader. Positioning the most traumatized character in the story as a Jew rather than an Egyptian not only stresses that the book is not about the political claim of a religious group, but also undermines the author’s underlying narrative that sets the Jews as uprooted Egyptians. This in turn marks the first attempt to direct the reader to the fact that the book is about the empathy he/she should feel towards a religious other, which resonates with the publisher’s main reason behind translating the book in the first place.

In addition, the cover design of the source text indicates vividly that the book has won the Sami Rohr Prize of the Jewish Book Council in 2008. Highlighting this fact sets the expectations of the Western reader towards the credibility of the book as an acknowledged account of the ordeal of the Jews of Egypt. However, the cover of the target texts opts for the total omission of this fact, which is a necessary step in compliance with the main theme of the book as framed to the Egyptian reader as a book of love, nostalgia and fate rather than a true story about the Jewish diaspora and ordeal. Accordingly, it is evident that each cover design serves its intended effect of co-opting a certain narrative by repositioning the main characters of the book in relation to the narrative.

4. Blurb

Another initial paratextual frame lies in the blurb. Targeting different audience, the source and target books feature different blurbs. While one frames the book as an account about the political drives behind the Jewish exile, the other frames it as a book of love and nostalgia.

On the one hand, the blurb of the source text (Fig. 3) features a summary of the memoir, information about other books by the author, critiques from reputable institutions, and credits for cover design and photographs. First, the summary highlights the fact that the Jewish family has lost everything “after the fall of king Farouk, and the rise of Nasser’s dictatorship” (Lagnado, 2009, blurb). Openly calling Nasser’s regime a dictatorship positions the Egyptian government as the main drive behind the exile and diaspora of Egyptian Jewry. This frames the book to appeal to a western audience as a book about the diaspora and the Jewish trauma. It vilifies the Egyptian regime that unrightfully expelled the Jews out of their land for a second time in a way similar to that of the Biblical time with Moses. Second, the blurb features information about another book by the author pertaining to the victims of Auschwitz. This sets the author as an advocate for the Jewish cause, as she uses her books to depict the different atrocities exercised against the Jews throughout history. Contrary to her endeavor to position herself as an Egyptian to the Egyptian reader, Lagnado openly positions herself as a Jew to the western audience.

On the other hand, the blurb of the Arabic translation (Figure 4) features solely excerpts from Lagnado’s special preface. It omits the features eminently highlighted on the blurb of the source text in another attempt to position the memoir as a book about love and nostalgia for an Egyptian reader, expunging any hint of the political changes that have accounted for the exile.

This variance between the two blurbs might be due to the difference of audience and their expected public narratives. What might be intended to raise the appeal of the book to a western reader certainly differs from that intended for an Egyptian reader. Many Egyptians look up to Nasser and his regime, considering him the savior and the cause for their autonomy and sovereignty (Shamir, 1987). Thus, bluntly labeling him a dictator would most probably be met with unacceptance if added on the blurb of the Arabic translation. This distinction in itself indicates the presence of competing narratives in the two texts. The Arabic reader expects to read more about the trauma of an old nostalgic displaced man while the Western reader expects to read about the political forces that have dramatically driven the Jews out of the country and ruined their lives. Accordingly, it might be argued that the blurb attempts to reposition the narrative in a way acceptable to the recipients of each text. 

4. Footnotes

The use of footnotes is another paratextual technique used to indirectly frame a narrative. In his introduction, Tanany promises the use of footnotes to account for historical inaccuracies found upon revision with the consent of the author. In total, there are 47 footnotes in the target text that may be divided into three groups: some clarify terms and ideas, others correct some inaccuracies, and a third states personal opinions about certain claims given by the author.

The first group includes mainly footnotes set to explain transliterated terms, such as “tuxedo, poker, porcelain, Yiddish, baguettes, etc.” For instance, the word “poker” is transliterated into "لعبة البوکر" with a footnote to clarify it:

"نوع من أنواع القمار" (Lagnado, 2010,p.18)

“a type of gambling” (My Translation)

Moreover, some footnotes in this first set add information to clarify some names and incidents given by the author. For instance, in the source text, Lagnado uses the expression “little aluminum travelling caddy” (Lagnado, 2009, p.111) to refer to the type of traveling pots where her mother has used to take food to her father in hospital. This expression is translated into

"آنية صغيرة من الألومنيوم معدة للرحلات" (Lagnado, 2010,p.138)

“Small aluminum traveling pots” (My Translation) with the following footnote for further clarification:

"کانت تلک الآنية معروفة بين العامة باسم’ العمود‘وتتکون من عدة أواني صغيرة الحجم ترص فوق بعضها تتصل وتنفصل عن بعضها من خلال العمود الذي يربطها معًا" (Lagnado, 2010, p.138).

“These pots were known among the commoners as ‘Al-Amoud’, and they consisted of several small pots arranged vertically and connected or separated through the pillar that ties them together” (My Translation).

This footnote adds extra details to a cultural specific concept. It manifests the translators’ attempt to show that even when Lagnado related correctly to the culture, they still know better.

In broader terms, this set of footnotes attempts to challenge Lagnado’s claim of being Egyptian through distancing her from the Egyptians and their culture in two ways. One, they position her as a foreigner who uses concepts missing in the target culture, and thus require transliteration and explanation. Two, they position the translators as the Egyptians who know better than the foreign author who lacks some basic information about the country and the culture.

The second set constitutes a smaller number of footnotes dedicated to the correction of cultural imprecisions. For example, Lagnado mentions that Om Kulthoum is “the daughter of a village sheik” (Lagnado, 2009, p.13), which is, according to the translators, an inaccuracy. Thus, they add a footnote to correct it every time it is mentioned:

"الصحيح أنها ابنة منشد ديني" (Lagnado, 2010, p.29)

“The truth is that she was the daughter of religious singer” (My Translation)

"مرة أخرى للتصحيح أباها کان منشدًا دينيًا" (Lagnado, 2010,p.32).

“Once again, for correction, her father was a religious singer” (My Translation).

Moreover, they insert a footnote to correct Lagnado’s claim that her cousin Solomon used to take the trolley bus in his morning journey, saying

"لم يکن هناک تروللي باص في الأربعينيات، فخط التروللي 34 لم يبدأ سوى في الستينيات ويبدو أن الکاتبة تقصد ترام رقم 17من السکاکيني إلى وسط المدينة" (Lagnado, 2010,p.61).

“There was no trolley bus in the forties as the trolley number 34 was not used until the sixties. It seems that the author means train number 17 from Sakakini to downtown” (My Translation).

In addition, the translators attempt to comment on some linguistic imperfections in the author’s attempt to use Arabic. For instance, there is a footnote correcting Lagnado’s use of the wrong equivalent for the Arabic word "حارة" during her father’s Arabic lessons

"من الواضح أن الأمر اختلط على الکاتبة فحارة لا يقابلها ‘street’ بالإنجليزية" (Lagnado, 2010,p.146)

“Obviously, the author is mistaken since the word ‘حارة’ (alley) is not equivalent to ‘street’ in English” (My Translation).

Such corrections may be considered an attempt to position the author as well as her nostalgic father as non-Egyptians, who do not master the most basic aspects of being an Egyptian; they neither speak the national language nor know the basic cultural information. Positioning the most nostalgic figure in the memoir as non-Egyptian directly defies any political narrative circulated in the source text.

The third set of footnotes is the most interesting as it includes those dedicated to the translators’ personal opinions. They decide to give their personal opinions, without evidence, about ideas stated by the author. For instance, they add the following footnote to comment on Lagnado’s claims that her father has had an affair with Om Kolthoum (Lagnado, 2009, p.16).

"وهو ما نرى أنه من تهويمات أبيها ومبالغاته، وهو ما سبق وأشارت إليه المؤلفة نفسها عن أبيها في صفحات سابقة وستعود إليه لاحقًا" (Lagnado, 2010,p.30).

“We believe this to be her father’s illusions and exaggerations, as she the author herself has mentioned about him in previous pages, and would come back to it later” (My Translation).

Moreover, when Lagnado travels to Egypt in 2005, her Egyptian driver tells her: “Once upon a time, Arabs weren’t allowed into Groppi’s” (Lagnado, 2009, P.322). In the target text, the translators add a footnote giving their opinion regarding this claim saying:

"هذه کذبة کبيرة وجهل من السائق وإما من خيال الکاتبة، من هم المستعمرون؟ هل کان اليونانيون والبلجيکيون والفرنسيون واليهود مستعمرين؟" (Lagnado, 2010, p.361).

“This is a huge lie and ignorance on the part of the driver, or the imagination of the author. Who are the colonialists? Were the Greeks, the Belgium, the French, and the Jews colonialists?” (My Translation).

It might be argued that most of the footnotes in this book are not purposeful in the sense claimed by the publisher. Although Tanany promises footnotes only to correct Lagnado’s historical and cultural mistakes, he adds a total of 47 footnotes not only to correct inaccuracies, but also to add information or give personal opinions. Thus, they might be considered a powerful tool to reposition Lagnado and her family as foreigners to the language and culture of Egypt. Although born in Cairo, Lagnado does not know about the country and its heritage as much as the Egyptian translators. Setting the Jews of Egypt as foreigners is a direct challenge to Lagnado’s narrative of Egypt being originally a Jewish land, out of which the Jews have been driven by force both in the Biblical times and the modern era. 

In addition to such instances of initial paratextual framing attempts, Baker (2006) lists four textual framing tools: temporal framing, selective appropriation, labeling, and repositioning of participants. However, textual framing incidents traced in the target text in question relate only to the repositioning of participants, selective appropriation, and labeling.

First, in addition to the paratextual repositioning of participants discussed in the previous section, the textual repositioning of participants can be achieved “through the linguistic management of time, space, deixis, dialect, register, use of epithets, and various means of self and other identification” (Baker, 2006, p.132). The selection of language, dialect and register identifies participants and positions them in relation to others within the same narratives. This is apparent in the novel at hand where Lucette Lagnado writes in English, but opts for maintaining her father’s occasional use of Arabic and her mother’s occasional use of French. This positions the father among the Egyptians and the mother among foreigners, which in turn repositions them apart from one another and reflects Lagnado’s torn identity. While the father is purely Egyptian, the mother is more influenced by the French culture and language. Interestingly, the translators opt for preserving some of such incidents of code switching while omitting others.

For Example

“… to the fellahin in their hovels” (Lagnado, 2009, p.13)

"...إلى الفلاحين في أکواخهم" (Lagnado, 2010, p.29).

“…small vendors, simple fellahin selling juice” (Lagnado, 2009, p.26)

"صغار التجار... فلاحين بسطاء يبيعون العصير"  (Lagnado, 2010, p.44)

“I heard my father cry ‘Ragaouna Masr’ – Take us back to Cairo” (Lagnado, 2009, p.163).

"سمعت صرخة أبي ’رجعونا مصر‘" (Lagnado, 2010, p.197)

“Ragaouna Masr, my father kept shouting” (Lagnado, 2010, p.165)

"’رجعونا مصر‘ ظل أبي يصيح بتلک العبارة" (Lagnado, 2010, p.199)

In the previous examples, the author uses the Arabic word “fellahin”, literally meaning peasants, and the phrase “Ragaouna Masr”, or take us back to Egypt, within the context of the English memoir. It is worth noting that although the memoir targets non-Arab readers, the author does not comment on the use of such Arabic terms in anyway. In other words, the author uses code switching in an attempt to position herself as an Egyptian who is capable of using Arabic. However, as seen in the examples, there are no references in the translation for these instance of code switching, which poses a direct challenge to the narrative perpetuated in the source text, as they do not convey to the Egyptian reader the author’s frame of herself as Egyptian. Moreover, ignoring the fact that the phrase “Ragaouna Masr” is originally mentioned in Arabic in the source text fails to reflect the author’s original attempt to position the Jews as Egyptians who long for returning to their land.

In contrast, when code switching is done in French, it is vividly mentioned in the translation. For instance, like she uses Arabic, Lagnado also uses French without any kind of explanation or commentary. However, the translators include both the Arabic translation and the French expression in the target text in an attempt to position the author as non-Egyptian through demonstrating to the Egyptian reader that the Jews who claim belonging to Egypt used to prefer French over Arabic, the country’s national language, even while they lived in Cairo.

     “Une fille? He said in disbelief” (Lagnado, 2009, p.48)

"بنت؟  Une fille? قالها أبي غير مصدق"  (Lagnado, 2010, p.68)

     Second, selective appropriation highlights certain aspects of narrative over others to direct the perception of the recipients through addition, omission and substitution (Baker, 2005, 2006). Baker (2006, p.122) believes that “each decision taken by the interpreter or translator contributes to the elaboration of the larger narrative”. Accordingly, translators and/or interpreters accentuate or undermine aspects of the immediate narrative, which in turn feeds into a larger circulating narrative.

Some instances of total omission have been traced within the target text. For instance, the translators opt for omitting the word “terrible” used in the source text to describe the morning of the Nazi’s approach. This omission shows the difference between the Jewish author who thinks the Nazi’s approach towards Cairo makes a “terrible” day and the Egyptian translators who do not fear the Nazis as much. This is an attempt to distance the Jews from the Egyptian population and undermine their trauma.

“One terrible morning in the summer of 1942” (Lagnado, 2009, P.30)

"في صباح أحد أيام صيف 1942" (Lagnado, 2010, P. 48)

In another attempt to undermine the Jewish trauma as perpetuated in the source text, the translators opt for omitting the phrase “fall from Grace”, used by the author to show the degree of loss and trauma felt by Leon Lagnado who believes that the journey out of Egypt is equal to the fall from heaven.

“His favorite complaint about the fall from Grace between Cairo and Paris and New York concerned the flowers” (Lagnado, 2009, P.220)

"کان أکثر ما يفتقده والدي في باريس ونيويورک هو رائحة الورود القاهرية" (Lagnado, 2010, P. 256)

Omission may also be traced in the following example, where the translators omit the word “called” from the Arabic phrase. The author expresses how during her childhood in Egypt she was “considered” a foreigner because she failed to speak Arabic. The source sentence positions the author as an Egyptian who was simply “called” foreigner. However, the translators stress that she actually “was a foreigner” in Egypt through the omission of the word “called” in translation.

“I was called a foreigner.” (Lagnado, 2009, P. 116)

"کنت أجنبية" (Lagnado, 2010, P. 144)

On the contrary, in some instances, the translators add words or phrases in order to challenge the author’s claim of beloging. For instance, in the following examples, the translators add the word "يهود", literally meaning “Jews”, to “Aleppo” to confine the author’s description of her family’s original Syrian lifestyle to the Jews of Aleppo, unlike the author who attributes the secretive, paranoid nature to the people of Aleppo in general. This addition contributes to the alienation of the Jews from the rest of the culture.

“… that was the legacy of Aleppo” (Lagnado, 2009, P.24)

"ذلک کان ميراث يهود حلب" (Lagnado, 2010, P. 41).

“… that was the Aleppo way” (Lagnado, 2009, P.24)

"فتلک هي طريقة يهود حلب" (Lagnado, 2010, P.42)

     “Aleppo was also a secretive almost paranoid culture...” (Lagnado, 2009, P.25)

"تميزت ثقافة يهود حلب بالکتمان، کانت ثقافة تنزع إلى الشک والريبة." (Lagnado, 2010, P. 43)

Another important instance of addition lies in the following example, where the translators inset the word "التوطن" in the target text to describe the purpose of the Jews in Palestine.

“….the Holy Land, where the Jews dream of settling.” (Lagnado, 2009, P.52)

".... الأرض المقدسة حيث يحلم اليهود بالاستقرار والتوطن." (Lagnado, 2010, P. 73)

Instead of only translating the word “settling” into its direct equivalent "استقرار", the translators have opted for adding the term "التوطن" to assert the meaning further. This evokes the narrative of the Arab Israeli conflict. It might be argued that despite their apparent sympathy, the Egyptian translators do not distinguish between the Jews of Egypt and the Israeli usurpers, which frames their depiction of the Jews in general. Thus, it might be a reflection of their view of the Egyptian Jewry as well, who claim the right to return to the country they have settled in prior to the 1952 revolution. The translators evoke the Palestinian narrative in an attempt at assert their view that the Jews have no right in Egypt as much as they have no right in Palestine.

Third, according to Baker (2006, p.122), framing by labeling is “any discursive process that involves using a lexical item, term, or phrase to identify a person, place, group, event, or any other key element in a narrative” to guide understanding and interpretation. 

For example, in more than one instance the translators choose to label certain aspects differently than the author. Sometimes, they opt for a more politically charged word in order to evoke certain narratives as shown in the following examples.

“.. to settle in Israel or America” (Lagnado, 2009, P.181)

"...الاستيطان في أمريکا أو في إسرائيل" (Lagnado, 2010,P.217)

In this example, the translators choose to translate the word “settle” with the politically charged word "استيطان" instead of the more neutral equivalent "استقرار", which is more applicable in this context. Once more, the translators’ choice of words evokes the Middle Eastern narrative of the Jews as the usurpers who build settlements on Palestinian lands.

     Moreover, they label those against the colonial powers as “patriotic” as seen in the following example, where the Arabic phrase may be back translated as “the patriotic Egyptians who resisted the occupation” (My translation).

“…those who resented the colonial influence and wanted Egypt for the Egyptians” (Lagnado, 2009, P.18).

".. الوطنيين المصريين المناهضين للاحتلال". (Lagnado, 2010, P. 35)

This manifests the narrative co-opted by the translators in favor of the Egyptians who actually prefer Egypt with no foreign interference. Using a loaded Arabic phrase to describe the rioters as “patriotic” shows the translators’ true sentiments against the British, which contradicts those of the Jewish author and her family. This label is another example that aims at widening the gap between the Jews and the rest of the Egyptians.

     A more interesting use of labeling is manifest in the target text through undermining any trace of describing Egypt, or any part of it, as “Jewish”. This is evident in the following set of examples.

“When could I see my street?” (Lagnado, 2009, P.320)

"متي يمکنني رؤية الملکة نازلي؟"          (Lagnado, 2010, P.359)

The translators opt for altering the label set by the author on Malaka Nazli Street as she refers to it as her own: “my street” by simply using its old name instead “Malaka Nazli”.

 “…colonial Cairo was no more, and Jewish Cairo was a distant memory” (Lagnado, 2009, P.10)

"فقاهرة الأربعينيات ويهودها صاروا ذکرى بعيدة" (Lagnado, 2010,P. 25)

In this example, the translators refuse to label Cairo as Jewish. They refrain from using the phrase “Jewish Cairo” to combine both “colonial” and “Jewish” instead into a phrase that could be back translated as “The Cairo of the forties and its Jews”.

“Egypt – Jewish Egypt – was finished and would never be again” (Lagnado, 2009, P.115).

"مصر ذات المواطن اليهودي انتهت ولن تعود ثانية" (Lagnado, 2010,P. 143)

This is another instance where the source text injects the phrase “Jewish Egypt”. This time the translators translate it into a phrase that may be back translated as “Egypt of the Jewish citizen”. This again reflects the translators’ refusal to acknowledge Egypt as a Jewish country.

In conclusion, upon the investigation of the framing incidents traced in the target text, it has become evident that the translators attempt to co-opt a competing narrative using both the textual and para-textual framing tools. They endeavor to frame the narrative in the source text in order to highlight the importance of cultural diversity, and at the same time undermine the Jewish claim of belonging. The Arabic translation of The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit perpetuates the narrative that Egypt is non-Jewish, and has through all times hosted and welcomed many non-Egyptians including Jews. The translators attempt to convey the sentiments of the author without her underlying narrative. Thus the target text pertains to the nostalgic sentiments of the Lagnados, but does not reflect their claim that they are Egyptian, which in turn replicates the Egyptian public narrative to which the translators are expected to subscribe.

Hence, it might be argued that the target text re-narrates the author’s ontological narrative in accordance with the horizon of expectation of the Arab, particularly Egyptian, audience. The translators manage to manifest their public narrative through a set of core textual and paratextual frames in order to guide the perception of their target readers.