Adaptation Studies has done much to draw attention to the various forms and modes of rewriting in literature and visual media during the last quarter of a century. However, the emergence of the discipline was actually a natural consequence of the work of translation scholars like André Lefevere, Susan Bassnett, Mary Snell-Hornby, Theo Hermans, and Lawrence Venuti, beginning in the mid-’80s of the last century, which positioned translation as a form of rewriting. André Lefevere’s ‘Beyond Interpretation or the Business of (Re)Writing’ (1987) was a path-breaking essay. Julie Sanders’ monumental work Adaptation and Appropriation (2006) owes much to the work of these translation scholars. Although adaptation studies has concentrated largely on inter-semiotic rewritings, especially rewritings for the theatre and the screen, it has also tackled intra-linguistic rewritings involving such processes like (to quote, John Milton, one of the theorists of the discipline), ‘recontextualization, tradaptation, spinoff, reduction, simplification, condensation, abridgement, special version, reworking, offshoot, transformation, remediation, and re-vision’ (Milton 2009: 51). But, as Georges L. Bastin has pointed out, adaptation has a long history in the West, dating back to classical Roman times (Bastin 2006 [2011]: 5). What the ‘Rewriting-Culture turn’ in Translation Studies, which happened in the 1980s, and adaptation studies did was to give adaptation practices a theoretical foundation (Munday 2008: 127-31).