i An-Najah National University Faculty of Graduate Studies Religious Culture in Mutran’s and Jabra’s Translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet By Ameer Jamal Mahmoud Assi Supervised by Dr. Bilal Hamamra This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Linguistics and Translation, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. 2018 iii Acknowledgment As my thesis has come to an end, I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to my formidable supervisor, who has been an endless fountain of knowledge, Dr. Bilal Hamamra, without whose criticism, patient guidance and meticulous proofreading, this thesis would not have been completed. I thank him for showing me directions otherwise I will not be aware of. I am grateful to the support of my professors and friends, who make An-Najah National University a stimulating study environment to work and think critically. My profound debt of gratitude goes to my supportive family: the soul of my father, my mother, my brothers and sisters and my fiancée for their unfailing encouragement and prayers throughout my study. Without whose determined efforts, there would not have been a thesis so, of course, my biggest debts are to them. v Table of Contents Subject Page Defense Committee Members ii Acknowledgments iii Declaration iv Table of Contents v List of Tables vii List of Figures vii Abstract ix Chapter One 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.1.1 Language and Culture 1 1.1.2 Translation and Culture 3 1.1.3 Religious Culture 5 1.1.4 Translators’ Ideology and Axiology 8 1.1.5 The Translation of Shakespeare’s Plays 11 1.1.6 Mutran’s Domestication of Religious Culture in Hamlet 13 1.1.7 Jabra’s Foreignization of Religious Culture in Hamlet 15 1.1.8 Qur’anic Intertextuality 17 1.1.9 Shakespeare’s Hamlet as a Biblical Text 18 1.2 Statements of the Problem 19 1.3 Purpose of the Study 19 1.4 Research Questions 20 1.5 Methodology 20 Chapter Two 23 2.1 Literature Review 23 2.2 Theoretical Framework 25 vi Subject Page Chapter Three: Data Analysis 32 3.1 Translation of Eschatology 32 3.2 Translation of Ethical Criteria 37 3.3 Translation of Religious Artifacts 41 3.4 Translation of Religious Constructions and Sites 46 3.5 Translation of Religious Events 50 3.6 Translation of Religious Groups 58 3.7 Translation of Religious Personages 63 3.8 Translation of Religious Greetings 71 3.9 Translation of Religious Activities 76 3.10 Translation of Supernatural Beings 82 3.11 Translation of References of Revelation 87 Chapter Four: Conclusions and Recommendations 92 Reference 95 ب الملخص vii List of Table Table No. Title Page Table (1) Eschatology 33 Table (1) Ethical Criteria 38 Table (3) Religious Artifacts 42 Table (4) Religious Constructions and Sites 47 Table (5) Religious Events. 51 Table (6) Religious Groups 59 Table (7) Religious Personages 64 Table (8) Religious Greetings 72 Table (9) Religious Activities 77 Table (10) Supernatural Beings 83 Table (11) References of Revelation 88 viii List of Figure Figure No. Title Page Figure (1) Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ scale of cultural transposition 26 Figure (2) Hervey’s and Higgins’ model of translating proper names 29 Figure (3) The triple-analytical model 31 Figure (4) Jabra’s ST writer biased 35 Figure (5) Mutran’s TT reader biased 36 Figure (6) Jabra’s ST writer biased 39 Figure (7) Mutran’s TT reader biased 40 Figure (8) Jabra’s TT reader biased 44 Figure (9) Mutran’s TT reader biased 45 Figure (10) Jabra’s ST writer biased 48 Figure (11) Mutran’s TT reader biased 49 Figure (12) Jabra’s ST writer biased 53 Figure (13) Mutran’s TT reader biased 54 Figure (14) Jabra’s TT reader biased 56 Figure (15) Mutran’s TT reader biased 57 Figure (16) Jabra’s TT reader biased 60 Figure (17) Mutran’s TT reader biased 62 Figure (18) Jabra’s ST writer biased 67 Figure (19) Mutran’s TT reader biased 68 Figure (20) Jabra’s and Mutran’s TT reader biased 70 Figure (21) Jabra’s ST writer biased 74 Figure (22) Mutran’s TT reader biased 75 Figure (23) Jabra’s ST writer biased 80 Figure (24) Mutran’s TT reader biased 81 Figure (25) Jabra’s TT reader biased 85 Figure (26) Mutran’s ST writer biased 86 Figure (27) Jabra’s ST writer biased 89 Figure (28) Mutran’s TT reader biased 91 ix Religious Culture in Mutran’s and Jabra’s Translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet By Ameer J. M. Assi Supervised by Dr. Bilal Hamamra Abstract This research is designed in order to examine Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious cultural traits in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and to study the impact of foreignization and domestication on their translations of Hamlet. In addition, this study will provide 11 subcategories of religious cultural traits and find strategies to scrutinize Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious culture in the play. This research follows a descriptive, quantitative approach where the collected data is taken from the selected English ST in Shakespeare’s Hamlet (2002), followed by two selected target texts of Jabra’s (1959) and Mutran’s (2013) given translations of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Following Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ scale of ‘cultural transposition’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ model of translating proper names and ‘the triple-analytical model’ , this study reveals that Mutran domesticates or Arabizes Hamlet by employing Quranic intertextuality. In addition, this study shows that Mutran undermines his purpose of translation by moving the target reader to the source text. In contrast to Mutran's adherence to the target culture, Jabra perceives Shakespeare's texts including Hamlet as theological ones which demand a faithful translation. However, he undermines his doctrine of faithful translation by moving the source text to the target audience. While x both translators are affected by their religious culture – Christianity and Islam – which punctuate their translations, the study concludes that faithful translation is contradictory in terms. 1 Chapter One 1.1 Introduction: 1.1.1 Language and Culture: Language and culture have a complementary relationship in that both reinforce each other’s dynamics (Nida, 2001; Bassnett, 1980). Language is the mouthpiece of culture, expressing the collective systems of beliefs and norms shared by a cultural community. Jiang (2000) points out that “Language and culture make a living organism; language is flesh, and culture is blood. Without culture, language would be dead” (p. 328). Jiang’s analogy is a formidable metaphor that represents both language and culture as a single body of a living creature with flesh and blood. The function of language and culture is similar to that of flesh and blood. Language is a flesh that takes nourishment from blood in this case. Language and culture influence each other as substantiated by the dialectics of denotation and connotation. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) define denotative meaning as “That kind of meaning which is fully supported by ordinary semantic conventions, such as the convention that ‘window’ refers to a particular kind of aperture in a wall or roof” (p. 52). The stability of denotative meaning of a given word dilapidates when it is used in a different context. Such instability initiates the latter term which is connotative meaning. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) argue that 2 connotative meaning represents shades of meanings attributed to a word after being intended by a certain culture and used in a certain context. Difficulties in translation arise at the level of connotative meaning because a given word may have the same denotative meaning in different languages, but different connotative meanings. For example, at the denotative level, the owl means a bird in both English and Arabic. However, when it comes to a connotative level, translators have to take into consideration that Arabic and English belong to different cultures. In the English culture, the owl conveys a positive connotation and symbolizes wisdom. But within Arabic culture, the owl carries a negative connotation and symbolizes bad omen. An important example taken from Hamlet is when Hamlet advises his mother not to allow his uncle to call her ‘his mouse’ (Act 3, Scene 4, p. 110, L. 182). At the level of denotation mouse is an animal in both English and Arabic cultures. However, the connotations of this word differ in Arabic culture and Early Modern English one. On the one hand, in Arab culture, the mouse symbolizes dirt, ugliness and diseases. On the other hand, the mouse in early modern English culture is an euphemism for the female. Hamlet advises his mother not to let Claudius to treat her as his mouse/ mistress. The use of connotative and denotative meanings in literary texts can be differentiated from non-literary texts by privileging connotative meaning over denotative meaning of a given word. Newmark (1988) 3 stresses that both denotations and connotations are privileged one over the other whether they are in literary or non-literary texts. On the one hand, within a non-literary text, denotative meaning is emphasized over connotative meaning. On the other hand, within a literary text, connotative meaning is favored over denotative meaning. In fact, meaning within a literary text is considered as cultural specific and it has to be interpreted connotatively according to the culture it is derived from. For example, the term ‘white dove’ in a non-literary text as a documentary program refers to a specific kind of flying birds, but if the same term is used within a literary text, it carries various connotative implications such as peace and love. In the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious culture in Shakespeare’s Hamlet from English into Arabic, each language has its own cultural specific concepts which vary from one culture to another. Translation and culture share reciprocal bonds because the process of translation involves giving a new life to culture by transferring it from one language into another. 1.1.2 Translation and Culture: Translators have endured hard labor and face difficulties to overcome the differences between English and Arabic cultures. Also, they come up with an satisfactory translation during the process of translating a source culture into a target culture. Nida and Reyburn (1981) state that 4 “Difficulties arising out of differences of culture constitute the most serious problems for translators and have produced the most far-reaching misunderstandings among readers” (p. 2). Therefore, the translators’ duty is to bridge linguistic and cultural gaps. To do so, they have to possess a fair cultural background for both source and target cultures (Mailhac, 1996, p. 132; Nair, 1996, pp. 78-79). The translation of cultural issues from one language into another is playing an important role to outline translation problems regarding the different culture each language belongs into. Newmark (1988) defines culture as “The way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression” (p. 94). Newmark’s definition shows that culture is a living style and it is declared by a cultural community who uses a specific language as a way of representing themselves. Newmark (1988, p.95) adapted Nida’s (1964) typology when he established a list of terms in how he divided cultural items into five categories as follows: (1) Ecology: Winds, hills, plains, ice, etc. (2) Material culture: (a) Food (b) Clothes (c) Houses and towns (d) Transport (3) Social culture: Work and leisure. 5 (4) Organizations: Customs, activities, procedures, concepts (a) Political and administrative (b) Religious (c) artistic (5) Gestures and habits: Non-verbal actions, such as ‘spitting’. Each language has its own words that are attributed to its own culture according to the previously given five categories. However, difficulties arise if translators misunderstand a given cultural term and fail to capture its intended or social meaning, such as the given example of ‘owl’ and its problematic translation from one culture into another. Therefore, it is important for translators to be familiar of these categories in order to be able to provide an acceptable translation for them in the target language. The following part includes the bottom line of this research which is religious culture and how Jabra and Mutran approached it in their translation of religious culture in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. 1.1.3 Religious Culture: Religious culture illustrates the ways a cultural community deals, reacts and interacts with religious rituals and deities. Nida (1961) stated that “The religious culture includes those features which represent an adjustment to ‘supernatural’ phenomena, e.g., gods, spirits, divine sanctions; revelation, and rites” (p. 147-148). Religious culture consists of specific features that stand for metaphysical and supernatural concepts such as gods, angels, rituals, etc. 6 As a result of the sacredness of such terms and their specificity, the translation of religious culture is problematic because each culture has its own religious terms which may not be easy to translate into another different culture. Nida (1964, p. 94) argued that: In matters of religious culture the problems of translation are often the most perplexing. The names for deity are a continual difficulty. The native word may have a heavy connotative significance which makes it awkward to use. On the other hand a foreign word often implies an “alien” God. The term ‘God’ has different references for both Muslims and Christians. On the one hand, ‘God’ for Muslims means Allah ‘اهللا’ and it refers to only one god, ‘the only God and the only creator’. On the other hand, ‘God’ for Christians means the ‘Holy Trinity’ in how it refers to three gods in one as (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). As a result, there is a wide religious cultural gap between different cultures which have different concepts of the term ‘God’. In their discussion of religious culture, neither Nida (1964) nor Newmark (1988) subcategorized religious culture the way I did in this research. I subcategorize religious culture into 11 categories: 1- Eschatology: a subcategory of religious culture which stands for theological beliefs of death, judgment and the final destination of humankind. According to al-Maany Dictionary, It is defined as “the branch of theology that is concerned with such final things as […] 7 the end of the world”. Also, it includes supernatural powers that interfere with humans’ lives, such as miracles, heaven and hell. 2- Ethical Criteria: a branch of religious culture which regulates humans` behavior, such as beliefs, obedience, generosity, revenge and courage. 3- Religious Artifacts: a part of religious culture which includes all the forged paraphernalia and the manufactured tools used to serve a religious and cultural purpose, such as swords, arrows, veils, inky cloak and prayer rugs. 4- Religious constructions and sites: an element of religious culture that involves any place used for religious purpose, such as a church, a mosque or a cemetery. 5- Religious Events: a section of religious culture that stands for positive or negative events related to religions, such as doomsday. 6- Religious Groups: an aspect of religious culture that represents groups of people who share similar religious cultural ideology; and give their complete loyalty to their king, such as ‘Liegemen to the Dane’. 7- Religious Personages: a division of religious culture that stands for both proper names and generic nouns which typifies religious personages, such as ‘Cain’. 8 8- Religious Greetings: a fraction of religious culture which represents greetings which are derived from a religion or culture and carry religious cultural connotations, such as ‘adieu’. 9- Religious Activities: a chunk of religious culture which stands for specific rituals and activity practiced according to religious norms as specialized religious activities, such as ‘prayers’ 10- Supernatural Beings: a portion of religious culture that stands for any supernatural, metaphysical or extra ordinary referent which is beyond the laws of nature, such as God, Allah, ghosts, angels, devils, etc. 11- References of Revelation: a side of religious culture that stands for divine and heavenly revelation of God’s will to mortals whether that disclosure was written (Bible), oral (Qur’an), or via a vision during sleeping, such as ‘filial obligation’. 1.1.4 Translators’ Ideology and Axiology: Many translation scholars such as House (1977), Hatim (2001), Baker (2006) and Munday (2008) have pointed out that translators are not passive mediators who keep themselves away or invisible during the translation process. Their intervention in translation varies between two extremes according to what House (1977) called covert and overt translation. The former refers to the process in how translators cover the features of the ST’s foreignness in the TT. Translators make the given 9 translation disguised as a second original which doesn’t sound alien in accordance with the naturalness of TL. The latter means that the translation of the given ST in the TT is apparently foreign and sounds alien regarding the naturalness of TL. Ideology and axiology are two crucial concepts in the translation of religious culture. Ideology is a multi-functional term with multi-layer meanings which vary according to the context and the field in which it is used. Simpson (1993, p. 5, italics in original) puts it as: From a critical linguistic perspective, the term normally describes the way in which what we say and think interacts with society. And ideology therefore derives from the taken- for-granted assumptions, beliefs, and value-systems which are shared collectively by social groups. And when an ideology is the ideology of a particularly powerful social group, it is said to be dominant. Simpson affirms that our cognition and used language are all tied to the society we are interacting with. Ideology uses language as means to dominate the cognition of the social group by sharing the same ideology. There is a personification in how Simpson concretized a term such as ideology to be presented as a king who dominates a particular powerful social group because the term dominant is related to a powerful person who controls others. 10 Ideology in the translation of religious culture discerns the way language is used as a social practice. Ideology affects the use of language by using it as a tool to control intentions within the translation of religious culture (Hodge and Kress, 1993). Therefore, the translation of religious culture is affected mainly by the ideology that lies behind the purpose of the translation set by a particular commission. Ideology varies from language into another, culture into another and social group into another. Also, the process of translating religious culture differs according to whether the translator is implementing the ideology of the given source culture, his own axiology or the ideology of the target culture into which he is translating. Axiology stands for the individual use of language. Beaton (2007) defined axiology as a “Socially constituted evaluation” (p. 274), presenting individual perspectives of values and beliefs that are manifested in someone’s own discourse. Within the context of translation, axiology refers to the way translators see the world from their own individual perspective so as to handle the dominant values and beliefs in a society. In the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious culture, both ideology and axiology are playing a crucial role in the lexical choices offered by Jabra and Mutran during their given translation which is affected by the dynamics of ideology and axiology. They either subjugate the translators’ axiology and absorb the fermented ideology of the ST, or unleash the translators’ axiology and subjugate the ideology of the given 11 ST. Baker (2006) stressed that “Translators and interpreters can and do resort to various strategies to strengthen or undermine particular aspects of the narratives they mediate, explicitly or implicitly” (p. 105). This study examines the ways Jabra and Mutran approached ideology and axiology in their translation of religious cultural terms in Shakespeare`s Hamlet from English into Arabic. I contend that Jabra adapted the ideology of the ST over his axiology while Mutran favored his axiology over the ideology of the ST. On the one hand, Jabra followed the ideology of the ST, preserving the Christian ideology of the ST in the TT. Therefore, Jabra’s axiology vanished by his use of the ideology of the ST. On the other hand, Mutran employed his axiology, distancing himself from the ideology of the ST. He replaced the ST religious cultural terms by using Islamic terms in the TT to fit the Arabic context. As a result, the ideology of the ST expunged in the TT by his use of his personal axiology that affected his given translation and allowed it to be distinguished from the original. 1.1.5 The Translation of Shakespeare’s Plays: Shakespeare’s plays captivated the inspiration of many Arab literature scholars and translators who move between the extremes of foreignization and domestication. On the one hand, Mutran (1872-1949) adapted the naturalness of TT. On the other hand, Jabra (1920-1994) privileged the ST, treating Shakespeare`s Hamlet as ‘sacred texts’. 12 Therefore, both Jabra and Mutran followed different strategies that affected and distinguished their translations form each other. The translations of Shakespeare’s plays from English into Arabic beget a new trend for examining great foreign literary work by Arab scholars. This new trend allowed Arab scholars to analyze the influence of the translations of Shakespeare’s plays on the Arabic literatures. Also, it created a golden opportunity for Arab scholars such as Jabra and Mutran to realize the richness of Shakespeare’s plays. In addition, this new trend allowed Arab scholars and writers to measure the extent of Shakespeare’s assimilation into Arab culture. Shakespeare’s plays widely flourished in the Arab world nearly in the second half of the twentieth century when Arab scholars began their efforts and published their translations of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, Jabra provided a translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet which was classified as an authoritative translation because it was treated as a direct rewriting of the original (Tounsi, 1989). Jabra was among many scholars and translators who were commissioned after the second half of the twentieth century to translate all Shakespeare’s literary works from English into Arabic. Jabra picked Shakespeare’s plays because they were the dominant great masterpieces which invaded the conscious of Arab scholars and writers at that time. Then, the second step was to examine and evaluate the given translations of 13 Shakespeare’s plays and examine to what extent they matched the original texts. 1.1.6 Mustran’s Domestication of Religious Culture in Hamlet: During the process of translation, translators are guided by the strategies they adapt. They either follow the SL and ignore the TL or respect the TL and neglect the SL. Regarding the latter, translators in this case favored the naturalness and fluency of the TL over the originality of the SL and this is what Venuti (1995) called domestication as a TL-biased strategy. Venuti (1995) defined domestication as “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bring the author back home” (p. 20). Domestication in translating religious cultural elements functions in way that makes a given translation possesses both fluent and transparent style, including reduction of strangeness of the original for TL readers. The advantage of applying domestication while translating a given text is that the target audiences/readers will understand TT easily without encountering any strangeness, or coming across inaccurate elements that may hinder their comprehensions (Venuti, 1995) The translation of Shakespeare’s plays surpassed all the boundaries and reached everywhere including the Arab world. Many of great Arab writers and translators such as Mutran and Jubran were inspired by Shakespeare’s plays and translated most of his plays. Each translator followed a strategy that fulfills his purpose by either following the SL or TL. Khalil Mutran (1872-1949), the Lebanese-born poet who immigrated 14 to Egypt, picked domestication as his dominant strategy in his translation of Shakespeare’s Plays. In his translation of Othello, Mutran applied what he called as the ‘Arabaization’ of Shakespeare’s tragedy. Also, he attributed an Arabic tongue to Shakespeare by domesticating all of his given original elements and religious cultural items to be presented in the TT as a resurrection of a new original (Mutran, 1976). Mutran domesticated the original Christian religious cultural terms by using Islamic religious cultural expressions to motivate the spirit of Arabic originality in his given translation. “Mutran`s position demonstrates a concern for issues related to performance as well as to textuality, and he uses religious discourse to justify his use of a non-classical idiom for the secular text he is translating” (Quoted in Ghazoul, 1998, p. 4). Mutran asserts his use of arabization, the other face of domestication, by adapting the given hadith (saying) of our Prophet Mohammed as “I have been ordered to address people according to their comprehension” (Quoted in Ghazoul, 1998, p. 4). Therefore, the interference of Mutran’s axiology by implementing his personal Arabic beliefs and Islamic norms marked his given translation and oppressed the ideology that occupied the original. Mutran’s justifications for adopting domestication can be justified as an indirect representation of the ST in his given TT. He pardoned himself from the constraints of the original and stuck to the target ones. Therefore, his intended aim was to move the writer toward the target readers. However, Mutran sometimes violated his domestication of Hamlet and 15 applied foreignization in his given translations without pointing out any justification for doing so. 1.1.7 Jabra’s Foreignization of Religious Culture in Hamlet: Foreignization favors the SL over the TL regarding all its elements including structural aspects and cultural norms. This means that during the process of translation, the translator sticks to the norms of the ST by following SL rather than TL. Venuti (1995) illustrates foreignization as “an ethnodeviant pressure on those (cultural) values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad” (p. 20). In other words, by retaining the foreignness of the original, the translator deliberately breaks the conventions of the TL as an attempt to keep the originality of the ST. In his translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Jabra (1920-1994), a prominent Palestinian translator, novelist, poet, critic and painter, privileged the historical and cultural background of the original over its modernization, treating Shakespeare’s plays as ‘sacred texts’ (Jabra, 1986, p. 142). Jabra criticized the translations of Shakespeare’s plays by Arab scholars including Mutran as fragile translations which seemed inaccurate and couldn’t reach the merit of Shakespeare’s values. Jabra stated that he planned to render Shakespeare’s plays in a way that keeps the same flow of form and content to preserve the sacredness of the original in the TT (Jabra, 16 1986). Therefore, Jabra sacrificed the naturalness of a TT for the pursuit of keeping the sacredness of the original text. Zaki (1978) described Jabra’s translation of Hamlet as “a genuine attempt to produce a faithful rendition of Shakespeare’s play” (p. 281). In his use of foregnization, Jabra stressed that he preserved the spirit of the original. He tended “to transplant the text, making sure that it is accompanied by some of its native soil” (Quoted in Ghazoul, 1998, p. 5). Jabra kept his axiology aside by retaining the ideology of the ST in a way that imitates the same conceptual religious culture of the original text regardless of the ideology of the TT. Jabra used foreignization in his translation of Shakespeare so as to maintain the identity and the taste of the original. Ghazoul (1998) stated that Jabra pondered “on the organic images and how to render the details in relation to the core as creatively and as coherently as possible” (p. 5). Jabra’s translations are distinguished form Mutran’s by being an ST- biased, privileging the originality of the ST over the naturalness of TT. However, even though he gave his full loyalty to the original and adapted foreignization, Jabra sometimes broke his norms of original translation and employed domestication in his translation of religious culture in Shakespeare`s Hamlet. 17 1.1.8 Qur’anic Intertextuality: There is either a direct or indirect connectivity between texts in a way that they can’t be completely isolated from each other. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002, p. 139) argue that: No text, and no part of any text, exists in total isolation from others. Even the most innovative of texts and turns of phrase from part of a whole body of speaking and writing by which their originality or unoriginality is measured. We shall give the term intertextual level of textual variables on which texts are viewed as bearing significant external relations to other texts in a given culture or cultures. Texts tempt to endure relations to other existed texts in a way that refutes the state of isolating a current text from other texts. Such connectivity evokes within a current text either a forthright or a disguised apparition of other previously existed texts or parts of texts. The latter mechanism is called intertextuality. Hatim (2001) defined intertextuality as “a standard of textuality which taps our knowledge of previously encountered texts and regulates how text types, genre conventions and ultimately discursive formations evolve” (p. 34). Translators have to keep in mind that while translating any given text, whether it consists of a single word or run into thousands, it is treated as a single chunk of meaning rather than separated words, phrases or 18 sentences (Hatim, 2001). Therefore, it is impossible to attribute complete meaning to a part of a given text. Intertextuality stands for correlations between newly-made and already-existed texts. It is an expression that alludes to a license to reuse old texts in new contexts. Many scholars such as Kristeva (1980) and Barthes (2001) examined intertextuality profoundly to provide a fair illustration for such an expression and its importance in the field of translation. On the one hand, Kristeva stressed that the use of texts is limitless and endless. They cannot be captivated in one product or restricted in one context. Also, the use of intertextualituy released texts form their limits to be active within producers and users of them in various contexts (Kristeva, 1980). On the other hand, Barthes (2001) redeemed texts from authority by ending authors’ ownership of texts. He intended to negotiate the stability of how to translate and understand the text away from its author and to grant it several meanings regarding various contexts in which it is used. Therefore, Barthes’ illustration of intertextuality typifies a termination of authors’ era and a resurrection of readers’ new regime. In other words, meanings are attributed to texts according to contexts in which they are used. 1.1.9 Shakespeare’s Hamlet as a Biblical Text: Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a revenge tragedy of blood that dramatizes the legacy of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Hamlet enacts the conflation 19 between sexuality and murder, conflating the carnal with the charnel. In the widest sense of the word, Hamlet is a theological text riddled with Pagan and Christian discourses with respect to the rituals of suicide, sexuality and revenge. Bilal Hamamra says that ‘Hamlet is a conflict / a negotiation between bodies and spirits which embody the renaissance aesthetics and imagination of embodiment and disembodiment’ (private communication, 14 March 2018). 1.2 Statements of the Problem: The main problem that this research is going to include in Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of religious culture in Shakespeare’s Hamlet from English into Arabic is that there are no precise or specific translation strategies for religious cultural terms. Also, none of the scholars who examined religious culture appeared to provide subcategories that underlie religious culture. Another problem that this research seeks to examine is related to Mutran’s and Jabra’s adopted strategies in their translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet from English into Arabic regarding Foreignization and Domestication. 1.3 Purpose of the Study: This research is designed in order to examine Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious culture in Shakespeare’s Hamlet with particular reference to the impact of foreignization and domestication on their 20 translations of Hamlet. In addition, it will provide 11 subcategories of religious culture and recommends strategies to scrutinize Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious culture in Hamlet. 1.4 Research Questions: This research seeks to answer the following questions: 1- What are the subcategories that underlie religious culture in Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet from English into Arabic? 2- Are Jabra and Mutran consistent in the use of froeignization and domestication as strategies in their translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet? 3- What is the impact of applying foreignization or domestication on the translation of religious cultural terms of Shakespeare’s Hamlet? 1.5 Methodology: This research will follow the descriptive analysis method, i.e. the researcher is going to collect data, organize it, then depict it in order to give a full description of data collection. The collected data is taken from the selected English ST which is Shakespeare’s Hamlet (2002), followed by two selected target texts of Jabra’s (1959) and Mutran’s (2013) published translations of Shakespeare’s 21 Hamlet. Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations are selected because they portray the religious cultural items differently by following two translation strategies, such as foreignization and domestication, which occupy one opposite edge of the extremes for each one by being either a ST or a TT biased. The collected data is presented in a table that includes one category of religious culture, page number and line, examples from the ST, Jabra’s and Mutran’s already given Arabic translation of the ST religious cultural items and texts from the Holy Qur’an that encloses Mutran’s Qur’anic intertextuality. The analysis of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of the religious cultural categories will be presented by applying two translation models. On the one hand, eschatology, ethical criteria, religious artifacts, religious constructions and sites, religious events, religious groups, religious greetings, religious activities, supernatural beings and references of revelation will be measured by applying Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002, p. 29) scale of ‘cultural transposition’. The scale includes four models of translation which are ‘exoticism and calque’, ‘cultural borrowing’, ‘communicative translation’ and ‘cultural transplantation’ that vary between the two extremes of being either a ‘Source-culture bias’ or ‘Target-culture bias’ On the other hand, I will examine the translation of religious personages by applying Hervey’s and Higgins’ (1992, p. 29) model of 22 translating proper names. It is a combination of four translation strategies which are ‘exoticism’, ‘transliteration’, ‘conventional equivalents’ and ‘cultural transplantation’ that vary within two opposite extremes. Jabra’s and Mutran’s used strategies will be analyzed in accordance with which one of the two extremes each one followed in his given translations. Therefore, I will use ‘the triple-analytical model’ which is a combination of Vermeer’s (1989/2004, p. 234) ‘skopos theory’, Schleiermacher’s (1813/2004, p. 49) ‘two paths of translation’ and Venuti’s (1995, p. 20) theories of ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ in translation. 23 Chapter Two 2.1 Literature Review: The translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been a main source of inspiration for many scholars and translators who conducted many studies that examined the processes of translating the given ST regarding its used strategies and outcomes. Delabastita (1993, p. 13-14) scrutinized the translation of Shakespeare’s wordplay in the context of Hamlet by contextualizing the meanings of the ST in accordance with both cultural and linguistic meanings by stating that: Texts are made within and in response to a particular context, which is alluded to, thematized, commented on, or presupposed in any other way. Accordingly, we may believe that texts contain a load of cultural meanings on top of (next to, within) their linguistic meanings. The study was built upon relating the translations to the historical, ideological context the text existed in and to the content which is an interwoven entity of both cultural and linguistic meanings. The main concern that dominated the study is the linguistic level because most of the examined elements were all related to the linguistic aspect of the translation. Also, the cultural aspect was given a short space and discussed superficially. However, in his illustrations of the cultural aspects in Hamlet, Delabastita overlooked religious culture without any attempt to examine the religious culture that forms the nature/essence of Hamlet. 24 Aaltonen and Ibrahim (2016) commented on the translation of allusions in Hamlet, arguing that “Allusions in Hamlet are intrinsic to the Shakespearean text and its meaning, but at the same time they are culture specific” (p. 124). Allusions typify the process of intertextuality in that a given text alludes to a pre-text classified as ‘culture specific’. The translation of ‘culture specific’ items undergoes certain challenges because their meaning vary from language to another regarding the cultural differences between them. However, this study outlines culture-specific meanings without any attempt to allude Hamlet to the religious culture embodied in Shakespeare’s theological text, Hamlet. Boullata and Deyoung (1997) examined the applicability of ‘Arabization’ within the translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet from English into Arabic by stating that “By resorting to ta’rib (Arabization) rather than straightforward translation, the men of the Arab theater were trying to bring these plays closer to the tastes and the environment of the audience” (p. 180). The term ‘Arabization’ as a translation strategy involves a complete adaptation of the original in a way that a given translation carries both the taste and the identity of the TT. In the words of Venuti (1995), they adopt the strategy of domestication. Boullata and Deyoung (1997) justified applying ‘Arabization’ during the translation of Hamlet by stressing that “Some of the originals underwent drastic changes by virtue of the adapter’s freely omitting, condensing or altering the source” (p. 180). This justification dilapidates 25 the stability of the originality by unleashing the ‘adapter’s’ manipulations to be implemented ‘freely’. The ‘drastic changes’ in this context typifies excessive domestication of the given ST in the TT. 2.2 Theoretical Framework: The translation of religious cultural elements in the text doesn’t involve only a linguistic shift from language into another, but it also includes a religious cultural transfer from culture into another. The analysis of the translations of the religious cultural categories will be done by applying two translation models to find out the models that Jabra and Mutran applied in their translations of Hamlet. On the one hand, eschatology, ethical criteria, religious artifacts, religious constructions and sites, religious events, religious groups, religious greetings, specialized religious activities, supernatural beings and references of revelation will be examined by applying the scale of ‘cultural transposition’. Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) define ‘cultural transposition’ as “The process of transferring the contents of an ST from one culture to another” (p. 29). They provide a scale that underlies their process of cultural transposition and subcategorizes it into four models of translation that vary between the two extremes of being either a ‘Source-culture bias’ or a ‘Target-culture bias’ as the following figure shows: 26 Figure (1): Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ scale of cultural transposition. 1- Exoticism and calque are known to be the extreme options of source- culture bias because they are located on the left edge of the scale and can be defined as the following: a- Exoticism: Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) defines it as “One which constantly uses grammatical and cultural features imported from the ST with minimal adaptation, and which thereby constantly signals the exotic source culture and its cultural strangeness” (p. 29-30). b- Calque: Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) defines calque as “An expression that consists of TL words and respects TL syntax, but is unidiomatic in the TL because it is modeled on the structure of an SL expression” (p. 31). 2- Cultural borrowing: Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) put it as “It introduces a foreign element into the TT […] cultural borrowing does not involve adaptation of the SL expression into TL forms” (p. Exoticism and Calque Cultural borrowing Communicative translation Cultural transplantation Target-culture bias Source-culture bias 27 32). This equals what they called also as ‘transliteration’ to be as the similar other side of cultural borrowing. 3- Communicative translation: Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002) argue that “A communicative translation is produced, when, in a given situation, the ST uses an SL expression standard for that situation, and the TT uses a TL expression standard for an equivalent target culture situation” (p. 17) 4- Cultural transplantation: Dickins, Hervey and Higgins (2002, p. 32) defined cultural transplantation up the inverse of exoticism as: At the opposite end of the scale from exoticism is cultural transplantation, whose extreme forms are hardly translations at all, but more like adaptations- the wholesale transplanting of the entire setting of the ST, resulting in the entire text being rewritten in an indigenous target culture setting. I will use the scale of cultural transposition in this research to explain the models presented by Jabra and Mutran employed in their translation of religious culture in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. On the other hand, I will examine the translation of proper names within the category of religious personages following Hervey’s and Higgins’ (1992) model of translating proper names which is a combination of four translation strategies which include exoticism, transliteration, conventional equivalents and cultural transplantation that vary within two opposite extremes. Hervey and Higgins argue that: “Either the name can be taken over unchanged from the ST to 28 the TT, or it can be adopted to conform to the phonic/graphic conventions of the TL” (p. 29). The given four strategies are listed and defined according to the hierarchy of the two extremes: alienating or naturalizing the translation of the given proper name. 1- Exoticism: Hervey and Higgins (1992) consider it as one strategy of translating proper names that “is tantamount to literal translation, and involves no cultural transposition” (p. 29). This strategy doesn’t respect the naturalness of the TT and involves a given translation like an intruder in the TT. 2- Transliteration: Hervey and Higgins (1992) put it as one strategy of translating proper names that “is less extreme: conversional conventions are used to alter the phonic/graphic shape of a ST name so that it comes more into line with TL patterns of pronunciation and spelling” (p. 29). Transliteration strategy means coming up with a proper name in the TL that carries the closest style and pronunciation of the original one. 3- Conventional equivalents: Hervey and Higgins (1992) state that “Some names do not need transliteration, but have standard indigenous TL equivalents” (p. 29). This means that in the case of having ‘standard indigenous TL equivalents’ the translator has to fulfill his/her translation by avoiding transliteration and picking the already existed TT equivalent that completely stands for the original proper name. 29 4- Cultural transplantation: Hervey and Higgins (1992) define it as one strategy of translating proper names in which “is the extreme degree of cultural transposition. SL names are replaced by indigenous TL names that are not their literal equivalents, but have similar cultural connotations” (p. 29). This typifies a complete adaptation of the given ST proper name in the TT. I derived the following diagram to adapt Hervey’s and Higgins’ (1992) initiated model of translating proper names to examine Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious cultural proper names in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Figure (2): Hervey’s and Higgins’ model of translating proper names. I conceptualize ‘the triple-analytical model’, a combination of Vermeer’s, Schleiermacher’s and Venuti’s theories in translation, to analyze the adopted strategies in Jabra’s and Mutran’s translations of religious culture in Hamlet. On one hand, Skopos Theory is a translation theory which was initiated by Hans Vermeer in the 1970s. The term ‘skopos’ is derived from Greek and it stands for ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’. In fact, Vermeer’s theory combines both the skopos of translation and the real Exoticism Cultural transplantation Conventional equivalents Transliteration Target-culture bias Source-culture bias 30 action of translating. Vermeer (1989/2004) argues that “What the skopos states is that one must translate, consciously and consistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text. The theory doesn’t state what the principle is: this must be decided separately in each specific case” (p. 234). Vermeer’s translation theory focuses on the purpose of translating a given ST into a TT and the function of the given ST in a given TT. The flexibility of Skopos theory is shown in the flexibility it allows to the same given text to be translated in different ways in accordance with the purpose it is attributed to. Therefore, translator’s justification of their used strategies during their translation will be provided by the application of skopos techniques. Furthermore, the given translation will be analyzed according to the translators’ stated purposes. Munday (2008) provides a commentary that supports Vermeer’s theory by stressing that “In skopos theory, knowing why an ST is to be translated and what the function of the TT will be are crucial for the translator” (p. 79). In other words, instead of rendering randomly, there must be a particular purpose for doing the translation of an ST and a function that has to be achieved in a TT. On the other hand, we have Schleiermacher’s two-paths strategy of translation. Schleiermacher (1813/2004) puts it as: “Either the translator leaves the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him, or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer toward him” (p. 49). Schleiermacher’s strategy is divided into two 31 opposite ends. The first one is to favor the ST writer and sacrificing the TT reader by ‘alienating’ the TT elements and bringing him towards the ST writer, or alternatively to a side with the TT reader and sacrifices the ST writer by ‘naturalizing’ the TT and bringing the ST writer towards the TT reader. These proposals equal Venutie’s domestication and foreignization as the following figure shows: Figure (3): The triple-analytical model. Skopos ST writer biased TT reader biased VS. Domestication Foreignization 32 Chapter Three Data Analysis 3.1 Translation of Eschatology: Eschatology, which includes theological beliefs of death, judgment and the final destination of humankind, typifies a subcategory of religious culture in the context of Jabra`s and Mutran`s translation of Shakespeare`s Hamlet. I will examine the translation of eschatology by applying Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. In addtion, I will analyze the translation strategies applied by Jabra and Mutran by attempting the triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of eschatology from both source and target texts. 33 Table (1): Eschatology Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 p.61 l.86 Leave her to heaven, ِإْن ُكل ِإال َكذَب الرُسَل َفَحق ِعَقاِب  دع هللا عقابها اتركها للسماء ﴾14/﴿ص  َوَجاَدُلوا ِباْلَباِطِل ِلُيْدِحُضوا ِبِه اْلَحق .﴾5/َفَأَخْذُتُهْم َفَكْيَف َكاَن ِعَقاِب ﴿غافر 2 p.51 l. 244 Hell جهنم َجَهَنم  َُم وَال َيِجُدوَن َعْنَها ُأوَلِئَك َمْأَواُهْم َجَهن . ﴾121/﴿النساء َمِحيًصا 3 p.43 l. 126 I`ll cross it though it blast me سأتعرض له ولو سأجابهه ولو حطمني َمَحقني  َدَقاِت َبا َوُيْرِبي الص ُه الرَيْمَحُق الل .﴾276/﴿البقرة  ِذيَن آَمُنوا َوَيْمَحَقُه الَص الل َوِلُيَمح . ﴾141/اْلَكاِفِريَن ﴿آل عمران Eschatology 4 p.43 l. 136+137 Or if thou hast uphoarded in thy life extorted treasure in the womb of earth, او ان كنت ايام حياتك قد خزنت في جوف االرض ماًال اغتصبته حراماً إن تكن في حياتك قد َخَبأَت كنزًاُسْحتاً  ْحِتاُلوَن ِللساُعوَن ِلْلَكِذِب َأكَسم .﴾42/﴿المائدة  ْثِم َوَتَرٰى َكِثيًرا ِمْنُهْم ُيَساِرُعوَن ِفي اْإلِ .﴾62/﴿المائدةَواْلُعْدَواِن َوَأْكِلِهُم السْحَت 34 Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 5 p.48 l.155 It is not (nor it cannot come to) good ال خير فيها ولن تنتهي الى الخير َعِمَلت ساَء ما وساءت عقباه  ٌٌة ُمْقَتِصَدٌة َوَكِثيرِمْنُهْم َساَء َما منُهْم ُأم ﴾66/﴿المائدة َيْعَمُلونَ  ا َوُمَقاًما ﴿الفرقانَها َساَءْت ُمْسَتَقر66/ِإن﴾.  15/َوَال َيَخاُف ُعْقَباَها ﴿الشمس﴾ . 6 p.96 l. 170 O, confound the rest! معاَذ اهللا تزد...ال قاتل اهللا البقية!  ي َأْحَسَن َمْثَواَيُه َربِه ِإنَقاَل َمَعاَذ الل .﴾23/﴿يوسف  َمْن َوَجْدَنا ِه َأْن َنْأُخَذ ِإالَقاَل َمَعاَذ الل . ﴾79/َمَتاَعَنا ِعْنَدُه ﴿يوسف 35 The first example, ‘Leave her to heaven’, is a biblical belief about Heaven as a destination where mortals ascend for judgment. ‘اتركها للسماء’, a direct denotative meaning of the original, is Jabra’s translation of the original ‘Leave her to heaven’. Jabra’s translation is an example of calque (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra’s calquing foreignizes the biblical connotations of ‘Leave her to heaven’. He preserves the originality of the biblical eschatology, moving the target reader to the ST and sacrificing, in doing so, the naturalness and fluency of the TT: Figure (4): Jabra’s ST writer biased. is Mutran’s translation of the original ‘Leave her to ’دع هللا عقابها‘ heaven’. In his translation of the given ST religious cultural term, Mutran uses the connotative meaning ‘دع هللا عقابها’ which is a specific religious cultural term that used particularly in an Islamic context. Unlike Jabra, Mutran uses cultural transplantation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) Skopos VS. Calque ST writer biased TT reader biased Domestication Foreignization 36 so as to domesticate the biblical connotations of ‘Leave her to heaven’. His use of the term ‘دع هللا عقابها’ is a direct intertextuality from the Holy Qur’an’s expressions as mentioned above. By applying my triple-analytical model, Mutran’s skopos was to move the text to the target readers, privileging the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST: Figure (5): Mutran’s TT reader biased. To conclude, on the one hand, the analysis of Jabra’s translation of the given ST eschatology is shown as a justification of his place at the left edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. His translation is a foreignization of the original because he favors the ST, ignoring the naturalness and fluency of the TT religious cultural item. On the other hand, the analysis of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as a justification of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. His given translation is a Skopos VS. Cultural transplantation ST writer biased TT reader biased Domestication Foreignization 37 domestication of the original; he replaces the source biblical religious expressions with a target Islamic religious cultural term. 3.2 Translation of Ethical Criteria: Ethical Criteria, which subjugates and shapes humans’ behavior, reflects a subcategory of religious culture in the context of Jabra`s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I will examine the translation of ethical criteria by applying Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. I will, also analyze the translation strategies used by Jabra and Mutran by applying the triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of ethical criteria from both source and target texts. 38 Table (2): Ethical Criteria Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 p.59 l.10 To revenge, آلخذ بالثأر االنتقام 2 p. 39 l.6 You come most carefully up on your hour. جئت في موعدك بكل دقة جئت في الميقات بالدقة إن الصالة كانت على المؤمنين - 1 . ﴾103﴿النساء / كتابا موقوتا يوم الفصل كان ميقاتا إن - 2 .﴾17/بأالن﴿ إلى ميقات يوم معلوم - 3 .﴾50/الواقعة﴿ Ethical Criteria 3 p.41 l.56 Before my God, I might not this believe Without the sensible and true avouch of mine eyes. وهللا ما كنت ألصدقه لوال شهادة صادقة محسوسة من عيني أنا َأعَتِرف بين يدي ربي أنني لوال شهادة عيني َلما آمنت 4 p.44 l.165 And do in part believe it. ألصدق بعضه واني َأَفُتْؤِمُنوَن ِبَبْعِض اْلِكتَاِب َوَتْكُفُروَن  وإِني ُأؤِمُن ببعضه .﴾85/ِبَبْعٍض ﴿البقرة 5 p.197 For god’s love let me hear! ناشدتك اهللا تكلم بربك تكلم 39 The first example, ‘To revenge’, is a biblical belief, about avenging the innocent killed mortals in order to redeem their souls and as an accomplishment of a released verdict. ‘االنتقام’, a direct denotative meaning of the original, is Jabra’s translation of the original ‘To revenge’. Jabra’s translation is an example of calque (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra, in his given translation of the orgional, foreignized its biblical connotations. Therefore, Jabra is an ST cultural biased. Jabra preserves the originality of the biblical religious ethical criteria of the given English ST, moving the target reader to the ST and sacrificing, in doing so, the naturalness and fluency of the TT: Figure (6): Jabra’s ST writer biased. Calque Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Domestication Foreignization 40 is Mutran’s given ‘metatext’ of ‘To revenge’. In his ’آلخذ بالثأر‘ translation of the given ST religious cultural term, Mutran used the connotative meaning ‘دع آلخذ بالثأر’ which is a specific religious cultural term that is used particularly in the Islamic context. Unlike Jabra, Mutran applied communicative translation strategy (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) so as to domesticate the biblical connotations of revenge. Mutran sacrifices the originality of the biblical expression to promote a resurrection of an Islamic religious cultural term as an apparition of new TT. By applying the triple-analytical model, one can notice that Mutran favors the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST: Figure (7): Mutran’s TT reader biased. To conclude, Jabra’s translation is a foreignization of the original while Mutran`s is a domestication of the ST. Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Communicative translation Domestication Foreignization 41 3.3 Translation of Religious Artifacts: Religious Artifacts, which consists of paraphernalia and the manufactured tools used to serve a religious and cultural purpose, typifies an element of religious culture in the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I will examine the translation of religious artifacts by applying Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. I will, also examine the translation strategies applied by Jabra and Mutran by following the triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of religious artifacts from source and target texts. 42 Table (3): Religious Artifacts Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare ’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 p.147 l. 52 Stoups قوارير كؤوس  ٌد ِمْن َقَواِريَرُه َصْرٌح ُمَمرَقاَل ِإن .﴾44/﴿النمل  ُروَها َتْقِديًراٍة َقد َقَواِريَر ِمْن ِفض . ﴾16/﴿االنسان 2 p.43 l.140 Shall I strike it with my partisan? أأضربه بسيفي أأضربه برمحي Religious artifacts 3 p.46 l.77 inky cloak دثارَي االسود عباءتي الحالكة 4 p.50 l.224 Armed, you say? قلتما "مدجج ؟بالسالح" في ِشَكٍة تامٍة من السالح قلتما؟ 43 The first example ‘Stoups’, is a biblical cultural artifact that holds holy water in Christian churches. Shakespeare’s use of such an expression in the given ST has great density of religious implications and cultural value upon its target readers in a way that typifies a specific cultural taste and a particular religious identity. However, the ST carries neither a direct equivalent nor a direct denotative meaning in Arabic, but rather a close communicative meaning. Therefore, Jabra and Mutran adapt the full term to fit the target context by applying different methods of translation. is Jabra’s given ‘metatext’ of the original ‘Stoups’. In his ’كؤوس‘ translation of the given ST religious cultural expression, Jabra uses the term ‘كؤوس’ which is a connotative meaning of the original. Jabra’s translation is an example of communicative translation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra violates his translation conventions of being an ST cultural biased, by domesticating the biblical connotations of ‘Stoups’. Jabra sacrifices the originality of the biblical religious artifact subverting his perception of the original as a sacred text. While Jabra’s fulfilled skopos is to move the text to the target reader, he privileges the naturalness and fluency of the TT over the originality of the ST as the following figure shows: 44 Figure (8): Jabra’s TT reader biased. is Mutran’s given ‘metatext’ of the original ‘Stoups’. In his ’قوارير‘ translation of the given ST, Mutran used the connotative meaning ‘قوارير’ which is a specific religious cultural expression that used particularly in an Islamic religious context. Mutran’s cultural transplantation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) domesticates the biblical connotations of ‘Stoups’. Mutran’s use of ‘قوارير’ in his translation is a direct intertextuality from the Holy Qur’an’s expressions as shown in the following verses:  ﴿ ٌد ِمْن َقَواِريَرُه َصْرٌح ُمَمرالنمل﴾٤٤َقاَل ِإن . “He said, “It is a palace paved with glass.”” (THE ANT (an-Naml): 27: 44)  ﴿ ُروَها َتْقِديًراٍة َقد االنسان﴾١٦َقَواِريَر ِمْن ِفض . “Crystal of silver—they measured them exactly.” (MAN(al-Insan): 76:16 ) Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Communicative translation Domestication Foreignization 45 Mutran approximates the text towards the target readers, privileging the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST as the following figure shows: Figure (9): Mutran’s TT reader biased. To conclude, on the one hand, Jabra appears to have violated his norms in that he domesticates the biblical artifact, in his given translation, in example B. On the other hand, the analysis of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as a justification of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in our triple-analytical model. His given translation is a domestication of the original because he intends to prefer the TT reader to satisfy the naturalness and fluency of the TT. In addition, by his implication of intertextuality, he replaces the source biblical religious cultural item with a target Islamic religious cultural term. Skopos V ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Domestication Foreignization 46 3.4 Translation of Religious Constructions and Sites: Religious Constructions and Sites, which stands for any place or construction used for religious purposes, represents a part of religious culture in the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I will survey the translation of religious events by following Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. Furthermore, I will examine the translation strategies employed by Jabra and Mutran by applying the triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of religious constructions and sites from both source and target texts. 47 Table (4): Religious Constructions and Sites Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 P.151 I.357 Thine eternal cell في حجرتك السرمدية في كهفك الخالد 2 p.61 l.82 Let not the royal bed of Denmarkbe a couch for luxury and demand incest. وال تدع سرير ملك الدانمرك يتحول الى فراش للفجور والزنى اللعين بذوي القربى ال تدع مهد ال "دانمرك" الملكي مهدًا للَشَبِق والَخَنا  اَس ِفي اْلَمْهِد َوَكْهًالُم النَوُيَكل اِلِحيَن ﴿آل مران 46/َوِمَن الص﴾ Religious constructions and sites 3 p.132 L.1 Grave-yard مقبرة مقبرة  َٰى ُزْرُتُم اْلَمَقاِبر2/﴿التكاثر َحت﴾. 4 p.48 l.154 to incestuous sheets الى مهد الحرام االشرعة الزانية! 48 The first example ‘Thine eternal cell’, which is a biblical religious cultural site, symbolizes the everlasting-dwelling at graves. ‘ في حجرتك a direct denotative meaning of the original, is Jabra’s given ,’السرمدية ‘metatext’ of the original ‘Thine eternal cell’. Jabra’s translation is an example of calque (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra’s direct translation of the given religious event foreignized its biblical connotations. Therefore, Jabra is an ST cultural biased. He kept the originality of the biblical site of the given English ST, moving the target reader to the ST and sacrificing, in doing so, the naturalness and fluency of the TT: Figure (10): Jabra’s ST writer biased. is Mutran’s given ‘metatext’ of the original ‘Thine ,’في كهفك الخالد‘ eternal cell’. In his translation of the given ST religious cultural term, Mutran uses the connotative meaning ‘في كهفك الخالد’ which is connotatively distanced from the original. Unlike Jabra, Mutran used cultural Skopos VS. Calque ST writer biased TT reader biased Domestication Foreignization 49 transplantation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) so as to domesticate its biblical connotations. He sacrifices the originality of the ST biblical event, privileging the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST: Figure (11): Mutran’s TT reader biased. To conclude, on the one hand, the analysis of Jabra’s translation of the given ST religious constructions and sites is shown as a good reason of his place at the left edge of the two extremes in our triple-analytical model. In fact, his translation is a foreignization attempt of the original. On the other hand, the analysis of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as a confirmation of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. Therefore, his given translation is a domestication attempt of the original. Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Domestication Foreignization 50 3.5 Translation of Religious Events: Religious Events, which includes both positive and negative events derived from religion, typifies a branch of religious culture in the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I will scrutinize the translation of religious events by applying Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. Furthermore, I will examine the translation strategies employed by Jabra and Mutran by applying the triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of religious events from both source and target texts. 51 Table (5): Religious Events Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 p.42 l.120 Almost to doomsday يوم حتى القيامة تقريبا كأَن اليوَم يوُم النشور  ُشوُرِلَك الن َفَأْحَيْيَنا ِبِه اْألَْرَض َبْعَد َمْوِتَها َكذَٰ . ﴾9/ْ﴿فاطر  قال تعالى: وٕاليه النشور  ﴿ / 15الملك﴾ .  َفاْمُشوا ِفي َمَناِكِبَها َوُكُلوا ِمْن ِرْزِقِه َوإَِلْيِه . ﴾15/النُشوُر ﴿الملك 2 p.40 l.37 That if again his apparition come, فاذا جاء هذا الطيف ثانية حتى إذا بدا الطيف كعادته  َبْل َبَدا َلُهْم َما َكاُنوا ُيْخُفوَن ِمْن َقْبُل ﴾28/﴿األنعام  ٰى ِحيٍنُه َحتَبْاِد َما َرَأُوا اْآلَياِت َلَيْسُجُنن . ﴾35/﴿يوسف Religious events 3 p.42 l.115 The graves stood tenantless, فرغت القبور من فيها خلت القبور من سكانها  َه َيْبَعُثالل اَعَة آِتَيٌة َال َرْيَب ِفيَها َوَأنالس َوَأن . ﴾7/َمْن ِفي اْلُقُبوِر ﴿الحج  ُهْم ِإَلٰىَيْوَم َيْخُرُجوَن ِمَن اْألَْجَداِث ِسَراًعا َكَأن . ﴾43/ُيوِفُضوَن ﴿المعارجُنُصٍب 52 4 p.42 l.118 Disastering the sun1 حلت الكوارث في الشمس َواْنَشقِت السَماُء َفِهَي َيْوَمِئٍذ َواِهَيٌة  وانشقت الشمس .﴾16/﴿الحاقة  َرْت ﴿التكويرْمُس ُكو1/ِإَذا الش﴾. 5 p.42 l.118 And the moist star…was sick with eclipse وذلك الكوكب الرطب مرض.... بالخسوف َوُخِسَف سلطان الليل  ْيِل ُمْظِلًماَما ُأْغِشَيْت ُوُجوُهُهْم ِقَطًعا ِمَن اللَكَأن .﴾27/﴿يونس  8/َوَخَسَف اْلَقَمُر ﴿القيامة﴾.  َماِء َأْن َيْخِسَف ِبُكُم اْألَْرَضَأَأِمْنُتْم َمْن ِفي الس .﴾16/﴿الملكَفِإَذا ِهَي َتُموُر 6 P.43 l.138 …..spirits oft walk in death, .... معشر االرواح تطوفون بعد الموت .....أرواح الموتى فتهب من مراقِِدها هائمةً  َقاُلوا َيا َوْيَلَنا َمْن َبَعثََنا ِمْن َمْرَقِدَنا .﴾52/﴿يس 7 p.43 l.144 `Tis gone لقد توارى لقد خرج  َر ِبِه َيَتَواَرٰىِمَن اْلَقْوِم ِمْن ُسوِء َما ُبش .﴾59/﴿النحل 8 p.43 l.148 And then it started like a guilty thing Up on a fearful summons فأجفل عندئٍذ كمجرم جائه استدعاء مخيف عندئذ َوَجَف كوجيف المجرم إذا أخذته صيحة شديدة فيتوارى  8النازعات / ﴿قلوب يوم آن واجفة﴾.  6/الحشر﴿أوجفتم﴾.  ْيَحُة َوِمْنُهْم َمْن َخَسْفَنا َوِمْنُهْم َمْن َأَخَذْتُه الص . ﴾40/ِبِه اْألَْرَض ﴿العنكبوت 53 The first example ‘doomsday’ is a biblical event of resurrection after death. يوم القيامة’, a direct denotative meaning of the original, is Jabra’s translation of the original ‘doomsday’. Jabra’s translation is an example of calque (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra’s calquing, in his translation of the given religious event, foreignized its biblical connotations; and is presented to be the extremist option of the cultural transposition scale. Therefore, Jabra is an ST cultural biased. He preserved the originality of the biblical event of the given English ST, moving the target reader to the ST and sacrificing, in doing so, the naturalness and fluency of the TT: Figure (12): Jabra’s ST writer biased is Mutran’s translation of the original ‘doomsday’. In his ’يوُم النشور‘ translation of the given ST religious cultural expression, Mutran uses the connotative meaning ‘يوُم النشور’ which is a specific religious cultural term Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Calque Domestication Foreignization 54 that used particularly in Islamic context. Unlike Jabra, Mutran uses cultural transplantation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) so as to domesticate its biblical connotations. Mutran manipulates his given translation, to achieve the same intended function of the original, taking advantages of the intertextual level. His use of the term ‘يوُم النشور’ is a direct intertextuality from the Holy Qur’an’s expressions as mentioned above. Mutran sacrifices the originality of the ST biblical religious event to promote a resurrection of an Islamic religious cultural term as an apparition of new religious event. By following my triple-analytical model, Mutran’s skopos was to move the text to the target readers, privileging the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST: Figure (13): Mutran’s TT reader biased. Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Domestication Foreignization 55 Example 4 ‘Disastering the sun’, which is a biblical event that precedes ‘doomsday’, foreshadows the end of life on earth. Shakespeare’s use of such an expression in the given ST carries great density of religious implications and cultural functions upon its reader in a way that typifies a specific cultural taste and a particular religious identity. However, the term ‘Disastering’ has neither a direct equivalent nor direct denotative meaning in Arabic, but rather, close communicative meanings. Therefore, Jabra and Mutran adapt the whole expression to fit the target context by applying different methods of translation. is Jabra’s translation of the original ’حلت الكوارث في الشمس‘ ‘Disastering the sun’. In his translation of the given ST religious cultural item, Jabra uses the term ‘حلت الكوارث في الشمس’ which is a connotative meaning of the original. Jabra’s translation is an example of communicative translation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra violates his translation conventions of being an ST cultural biased, by domesticating the biblical connotations of ‘Disastering the sun’. Jabra sacrifices the originality of the biblical religious event of the given English ST regardless of any attempt to preserve it or support his claim of treating the original as a sacred text. By following the triple- analytical model, Jabra’s skopos is to move the text to the target reader. Also, he favors the naturalness and fluency of the TT over the originality of the ST as the following figure shows: 56 Figure (14): Jabra’s TT reader biased is Mutran’s given ‘metatext’ of the original ’وانشقت الشمس‘ ‘Disastering the sun’. In his translation of the given ST religious cultural expression, Mutran uses the connotative meaning ‘ الشمسوانشقت ’ which is a specific religious cultural term which is used particularly in Islamic context. Mutran`s cultural transplantation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) domesticates the biblical connotations of ‘Disastering the sun’. Mutran sacrifices the originality of the ST biblical religious event to promote a resurrection of an Islamic religious cultural term as an apparition of new religious event. By applying the triple-analytical model, Mutran’s skopos is to move the text to the target readers. Moreover, he privileges the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST as the following figure shows: Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Communicative translation Domestication Foreignization 57 Figure (15): Mutran’s TT reader biased To conclude, on the one hand, the analysis of Jabra’s translation of the given ST religious events is shown as a justification of his place at the left edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. In fact, his translation is a foreignization of the original because he intends to favor the ST writer to satisfy the originality of the ST. Also, he sacrifices the TT readers by ignoring the naturalness and fluency of the TT religious cultural item. However, Jabra violates his norms in that he domesticates the religious event, in his given translation in example 4. On the other hand, the analysis of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as a justification of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. His given translation is a domestication of the original because he intends to privilege the TT reader to satisfy the naturalness and fluency of the TT and to sacrifice the ST writer by ignoring Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Domestication Foreignization 58 the originality of the given ST religious cultural expression. In addition, by his implication of intertextuality, Mutran replaces the source biblical religious event with a target Islamic religious cultural term. 3.6 Translation of Religious Groups: Religious Groups, which includes groups who share similar religious culture and obey the doctrine of their kings, typifies a subcategory of religious culture in the context of Jabra`s and Mutran`s translation of Shakespeare`s Hamlet. I will examine the translation of religious groups by following Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. I will, also analyze the translation strategies implemented by Jabra and Mutran by applying the triple-analytical model. The following table includes the only available example of religious groups from both source and target texts. 59 Table (6): Religious Groups S ub ca te go ry o f re li gi ou s cu lt ur e N o. P ag e an d li ne nu m be r S ha ke sp ea re ’s H a m le t Ja br a’ s T ra ns la ti on M ut ra n’ s T ra ns la ti on Q ur an ’n ic In te rt ex tu al it y R el ig io us gr ou ps 1 p. 39 l.16 Liegemen ِبَطاَنةِ مواليان  ِذيَن آَمُنوا َالَها الَيا َأي َتتِخُذوا ِبَطاَنًة من ُدوِنُكْم ﴿آل ﴾118/عمران The first example ‘Liegemen’ is a term which typifies obedient followers whose full loyalties are extended to their king. According to Dictionary.com, ‘Liegemen’ means ‘faithful followers’. Shakespeare’s use of such an expression in the ST carries great density of religious implications and cultural functions upon its reader in a way that renders a specific cultural taste and a particular religious identity. However, the term ‘Liegemen’ has neither a direct equivalent nor direct denotative meaning in Arabic, but rather, a close communicative meaning. Therefore, Jabra and Mutran adapted the full term to fit the target context by applying different methods of translation. is Jabra’s translation of the original ‘Liegemen’. In his ’مواليان‘ translation of the given ST religious cultural item, Jabra uses the term which is a connotative meaning of the original. Jabra’s translation is’مواليان‘ an example of a communicative translation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 60 2002). Jabra violates his translation conventions of being an ST cultural biased, by domesticating the cultural connotations of ‘Liegemen’. Jabra sacrifices the originality of the religious group of the given English ST regardless of any attempt to preserve it or support his claim of treating the original as a sacred text. By following my triple analytical model, it is obvious that Jabra’s fulfilled skopos was to move the text to the target reader. Also, he privileges the naturalness and fluency of the TT over the originality of the ST as the following figure shows: Figure (16): Jabra’s TT reader biased is Mutran’s given ‘metatext’ of the original ‘Liegemen’. In ’ِبَطاَنةِ ‘ his translation of the given ST religious cultural expression, Mutran used the connotative meaning ‘ ِِبَطاَنة’ which is a specific religious cultural term used particularly in Islamic context. Mutran’s cultural transplantation Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Communicative translation Domestication Foreignization 61 (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) domesticates the cultural connotations of ‘Liegemen’. Mutran’s use of ‘ ِِبَطاَنة’ in his translation has a specific connotative meaning that undermines a similar function of the original. It is a religious cultural bound expression in Islamic culture that implies intertextuality. In fact, Mutran manipulates his given translation to achieve the same intended function of the original by taking advantages of the intertextual level. I.e. his use of the term ‘ ِِبَطاَنة’ is a direct intertextuality from the Holy Qur’anic expression:  ِخُذوا ِبَطاَنًة من ُدوِنُكْم ﴿آل عمرانِذيَن آَمُنوا َال َتتَها ال118/َيا َأي﴾ . “O you who believe! Do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm.” (FAMILY OF IMRAN (Ali 'Imran):3: 118) Mutran sacrifices the originality of the ST religious group to promote a resurrection of an Islamic religious cultural term as an apparition of a new religious event. By following my triple-analytical model, Mutran’s skopos is to move the text to the target readers. He also privileges the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST as the following figure shows: 62 Figure (17): Mutran’s TT reader biased To conclude, on the one hand, Jabra violates his norms in that he domesticates the religious group, in his given translation. Also, he privileges the naturalness of the TT over the originality of the ST. On the other hand, the analysis of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as a justification of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. His given translation is a domestication of the original because he intends to privilege the TT reader to satisfy the naturalness and fluency of the TT. Mutran sacrifices the ST writer by ignoring the originality of the given ST religious cultural term. By his implication of intertextuality, Mutran also replaces the source religious cultural expression with a target Islamic religious cultural term. Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Domestication Foreignization 63 3.7 Translation of Religious Personages: Religious Personages which includes both proper names and generic nouns typifys a branch of religious culture in the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare`s Hamlet. I intend to examine the translation of religious personages by following Hervey’s and Higgins’ (1992) model of translating proper names. I tried to find out Jabra’s and Mutran’s used strategies by applying my triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of religious personages from both source and target texts. 64 Table (7): Religious Personages Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Qur’anic Intertextuality 1 p.134 l.74 Cain قابيل قايين 2 p.45 l.35 To old Norway, الى الشيخ ملك النرويج الى ذلك الملك الشيخ  َعاُء َوَأُبوَنا َشْيٌخٰى ُيْصِدَر الرَقاَلتَا َال َنْسِقي َحت . ﴾23/َكِبيٌر ﴿القصص  ٌَذا َبْعِلي َشْيًخا َقاَلْت َيا َوْيَلَتٰى َأَأِلُد َوَأَنا َعُجوز َوهَٰ . ﴾72/﴿هود  َلُه َأًبا َشْيًخا َكِبيًرا َفُخْذ َها اْلَعِزيُز ِإنَقاُلوا َيا َأي . ﴾78/َأَحَدَنا َمَكاَنُه ﴿يوسف  ِلَتُكوُنوا ُشُيوًخا ُكْم ثُمِلَتْبُلُغوا َأُشد ثُم .﴾67/﴿غافر Religious personages 3 p.44 l.8 Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen, وٕاذن فهذه التي كانت زوجًة ألخينا والتي هي اآلن ملكتنا فمن ذلك, أننا اخترنا هذه السيدة التي هي أختنا باألمس حليلة لنا اليوم  ِذيَن ِمْن َأْصَالِبُكْمَوَحَالِئُل َأْبَناِئُكُم ال .﴾23/﴿النساء 65 Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Qur’anic Intertextuality 4 p.48 l.149 Like Niobe all tears وكلها دمع، مثل نايوبي . ﴾66/ِإن َربَك ُهَو اْلَقِوي اْلَعِزيُز ﴿هود  وأي بكاء عزيز  اَنا َوَأْهَلَنا َفَلمَها اْلَعِزيُز َمسَدَخُلوا َعَلْيِه َقاُلوا َيا َأي . ﴾88/الضر ﴿يوسف 5 p.96 l.169 Husband ًبعلٍ زوجا  َوٕاِن اْمَرَأٌة َخاَفْت ِمْن َبْعِلَها ُنُشوًزا َأْو ِإْعَراًضا َفَال ﴾128/ُجَناَح َعَلْيِهَما َأْن ُيْصِلَحا َبْيَنُهَما ﴿النساء .  َذا َبْعِلي َشْيًخا َقاَلْت َيا َوْيَلَتٰى َأَأِلُد َوَأَنا َعُجوٌز َوهَٰ . ﴾72/﴿هود 66 The analysis of the first given example will start by illustrating the historical and biblical religious cultural background that underlies the proper name ‘Cain’. Cain, Adam’s and Eve’s eldest son is the first murderer. Shakespeare dramatizes the legend of Cain in Hamlet; Claudius is Cain who kills his brother Abel/Old Hamlet. Jabra’s translation ‘قين’ is an example of transliteration (Hervey Higgins, 1992). Jabra accommodates the ST in the TT to be written and pronounced by the phonic/graphic systems of the Arabic TT. However, the applied model respected only the linguistic level without paying any attention to the Biblical connotations of the original proper name ‘Cain’. Therefore, Jabra is considered as an ST cultural biased. Jabra’s transliterating of the given proper name foreignizes its biblical connotation. He preserves the originality of the biblical religious personages of the given English ST regardless of any attempt to achieve the religious cultural function of the given ST on TT. Jabra’s fulfilled skopos is presented to be a ST writer biased because he moves the target reader to the ST. He privileges the originality of the ST by sacrificing the naturalness and fluency of the TT as the following figure shows: 67 Figure (18): Jabra’s ST writer biased. is Mutran’s given Arabic equivalent translation of the ST ’قابيل‘ ‘Cain’. According to al-Ma’any dictionary, the proper name ‘قابيل’ is an Arabic and Islamic religious personage of Adam and Eve’s first son. In his translation of the original English proper name, Mutran’s given translation is an example of conventional equivalents (Hervey and Higgins, 1992). Therefore, unlike Jabra, Mutran uses an already made ‘standard indigenous TL equivalents’ that carries the same effect of the original proper name in the target text. As a result, Mutran’s offered translation is classified as TT cultural biased because he presents a religious cultural item that stands for the same given ST but within the taste and the identity of the Arabic and Islamic religious culture. Following the triple-analytical model, Mutran domesticates the given term to fit the context of the Islamic and Arabic reader. He sacrifices the Skopos ST writer biased TT reader biased VS. Transliteration Foreignization Domestication 68 originality of the ST by privileging the naturalness and fluency of the TT. Therefore, Mutran’s given translation of the original proper name tends to locate his translation towards the TT reader because of his use of ‘conventional equivalents’ which functions the same of what domestication strategy stands for as the following figure shows: Figure (19): Mutran’s TT reader biased Example 2 ‘To old Norway’ is classified as religious personages because it consists of a generic noun. This Generic noun typifies an old title attributed to the old king of Norway in accordance with his old age and higher status; and is used as a religious cultural title by ordinary people to address their kings. Jabra’s translation ‘الى الشيخ ملك النرويج’ and Mutran`s translation ‘ الى are examples of cultural transplantation (Hervey and ’ذلك الملك الشيخ Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Conventional equivalents’ Foreignization Domestication 69 Higgins, 1992). Jabra’s adoption of the strategy of domestication undermines his translation purpose of foreignizing the source text. Therefore, both translators as the example above reveals are TT cultural biased. Jabra’s and Mutran’s use of ‘الشيخ’ in their given translation has a specific connotative meaning that undermines the function of the original term. It is a religious cultural bound expression in Islamic culture that implies intertextuality. In fact, Jubra and Mutran manipulate their given translation to achieve the same intended function of the original by taking advantages of the intertextual level. I.e. Their use of the term ‘الشيخ’ is a direct intertextuality from the Holy Qur’an’s expressions as shown in the following verses:  َعاُء َوَأُبوَنا َشْيٌخ َكِبيٌر ﴿القصصٰى ُيْصِدَر الر23/َال َنْسِقي َحت﴾ . “They said, “We cannot draw water until the shepherds depart, and our father is a very old man.”” (HISTORY (al-Qasas):28: 23)  َلُه َأًبا َشْيًخا َكِبيًرا َفُخْذ َأَحَدَنا َمَكاَنُه ﴿يوسف َها اْلَعِزيُز ِإن78/َقاُلوا َيا َأي﴾ . “They said, “O noble prince, he has afather, a very old man, so take one of us in his place.”" (JOSEPH (Yusuf):12: 78) Following the triple-analytical model, Jabra and Mutran domesticate the given term to fit the context of the Islamic and Arabic reader. They both sacrifice the originality of the ST by privileging the naturalness and fluency 70 of the TT; and move the ST to the target readers. Based on the analytical model, Jabra’s and Mutran’s given translations of the original proper name tend to locate their translation towards the TT reader because of his use of ‘cultural transplantation’ which functions as a domestication strategy as the following figure shows: Figure (20): Jabra’s and Mutran’s TT reader biased. To conclude, on the one hand, the analysis of Jabra’s translation of the given ST religious personages is shown as a justification of his place at the left edge of the two extremes in the triple-analytical model. His translation is a foreignization attempt of the original. However, Jabra violates his norms in that he domesticates the proper noun, in his given translation in example 2. On the other hand, the analysis of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as a Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Foreignization Domestication 71 justification of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in my triple- analytical model. His actual translation is a domestication of the original because Jabra intends to privilege the TT reader to satisfy the naturalness and fluency of the TT. He sacrifices the ST writer by ignoring the originality of the given ST religious cultural term. In addition, by his implication of intertextuality, Mutran replaces the source religious cultural expression with a target Islamic religious cultural term. 3.8 Translation of Religious Greetings: Religious Greetings, which represent all used greetings that have reciprocal religious and cultural connotations, represent a subcategory of religious culture in the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I will examine the translation of religious events by following Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. Furthermore, I will examine the translation strategies employed by Jabra and Mutran by applying my triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of religious greetings from both source and target texts. 72 Table (8): Religious Greetings Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 p.61 l.91 Adieu, ًسالماً وداعا  َوَلَقْد َجاَءْت ُرُسُلَنا ِإْبَراِهيَم ِباْلبقْشَرٰى . ﴾69/َقاُلوا َسَالًما َقاَل َسَالٌم ﴿هود  اِإْذ َدَخُلوا َعَلْيِه َفَقاُلوا َسَالًما َقاَل ِإن . ﴾52/ِمْنُكْم َوِجُلوَن ﴿الحجر 2 p. 39 l.3 Long live the king !يحيا الملك عاش الملك 3 p. 39 l.17 Give you good night طاب ليلكم ليلة سعيدة 4 p. 39 l. 18 O, farewell honest soldier آ، وداعًا ايها الجند الكرام انصرف بسالم أُيها الُجندي األمين Religious greeting 5 p. 39 l.18 Holla, Barnardo! إيه "برناردو" َهُلْو برنردو 6 p. 39 l.20 Welcome, good Marcellus. مرحبًا بمرسلس الكريم. مرحبا أُيها الجواد "مرسلس" 7 p.48 l.159 Hail to your lordship! السالم عليك يا سيدي الَتِجلة لسمِوكم 8 p.51 l. 253 Farewell أستودعكم اهللا الوداع 73 The first example ‘Adieu’, is a biblical religious cultural greeting. According to Vocabulary.com, ‘Adieu’ is a term that acquired into English from a French origin. It is used instead of the term goodbye to grant a leaving person good wishes. Shakespeare’s use of such an expression in the given ST has great density of religious implications and cultural functions upon its reader in a way that represents a specific cultural taste and a particular religious quality. is Jabra’s translation of the original ‘Adieu’. In his translation ’وداعاً ‘ of the given ST religious cultural item, Jabra uses the term ‘ ًوداعا’ which is a direct denotative meaning of the original. Jabra’s translation is an example of calque translation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra’s direct translation of the given religious greeting foreignizes its biblical connotations. Therefore, Jabra is an ST cultural biased. He protects the originality of the biblical religious greeting of the given English ST, moving the target reader to the ST and sacrificing, in doing so, the naturalness and fluency of the TT: 74 Figure (21): Jabra’s ST writer biased. is Mutran’s translation of the original ‘Adieu’. In his ’سالماً ‘ translation of the given ST religious cultural expression, Mutran uses the connotative meaning ‘ ًسالما’ which has an Islamic religious cultural connotation. Unlike Jabra, Mutran uses cultural transplantation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002) so as to domesticate its biblical connotations. By doing so, Mutran sacrifices the originality of the ST biblical greeting. By applying the triple-analytical model, Mutran’s sided attempt is to move the text to the target readers, privileging the naturalness and fluency of the TT over originality of the ST: Skopos VS. Calque ST writer biased TT reader biased Foreignization Domestication 75 Figure (22): Mutran’s TT reader biased To conclude, on the one hand, the analysis of Jabra’s translation of the given ST religious greetings supports once again his place at the left edge of the two extremes in my triple-analytical model. His translation is perceived as a foreignization attempt of the original because he privileges the ST writer to satisfy the originality of the ST. In addition, Jabra sacrifices the TT readers by ignoring the naturalness and fluency of the TT religious cultural expression. By contrast, the examination of Mutran’s translation of the given ST religious cultural term is shown as an affirmation of his place at the right edge of the two extremes in the triple- analytical model. Therefore, his given translation depends upon domesticating the original text. Skopos VS. ST writer biased TT reader biased Cultural transplantation Foreignization Domestication 76 3.9 Translation of Religious Activities: Religious Activities, which stands for all particular ceremonial activities that have reciprocal religious and cultural religious connotations, stands for a branch of religious culture in the context of Jabra’s and Mutran’s translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I will analyze the translation of religious activities by following Dickins’, Hervey’s and Higgins’ (2002) model of cultural transposition. Furthermore, I will study the translation strategies employed by Jabra and Mutran by applying my triple-analytical model. The following table includes examples of religious activities from both source and target texts. 77 Table (9): Religious Activities Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 1 p.139 l. 249 Thou pray’st not well. دعاؤك ليس بخير إنك ال تحسن الصالة  ي ِفي اْلِمْحَراِب ﴿آل َفَناَدْتُهاْلَمَالِئَكُة َوُهَو َقاِئٌم ُيَصل .﴾39/عمران  ي َعَلْيُكْم َوَمَالِئَكُتُه ﴿األحزابِذي ُيَصل43/ُهَو ال﴾.  َالَة ِذيَن ُيْؤِمُنوَن ِباْلَغْيِب َوُيِقيُموَن الصال .﴾3/﴿البقرة 2 p.62 l.132 I will go pray اني ذاهب الصلي سأمضي وُأصلي  ي ِفي اْلِمْحَراِب ﴿آلَفَناَدْتُه اْلَمَالِئَكُة َوُهَو َقاِئٌم ُيَصل . ﴾39/عمران  ي َعَلْيُكْم َوَمَالِئَكُتُه ﴿األحزابِذي ُيَصل43/ُهَو ال﴾.  َالَة ِذيَن ُيْؤِمُنوَن ِباْلَغْيِب َوُيِقيُموَن الصال .﴾3/﴿البقرة 3 p.46 l.61 I do beseech you give him leave to go. أتوسل اليكم ان تأذنوا بذهابه فأضرع أن تمنحه اإلجازة بالسفر  ُعوَنُهْم َيَتَضراِء َلَعلر َفَأَخْذَناُهْم ِباْلَبْأَساِء َوالض .﴾42/﴿األنعام  ُعوَنرُهْم َيضاِء َلَعلر َأَخْذَنا َأْهَلَها ِباْلَبْأَساِء َوالض ِإال . ﴾94/ألعراف﴿ا  ِهْم َوَماَوَلَقْد َأَخْذَناُهْم ِباْلَعَذاِب َفَما اْسَتَكاُنوا ِلَرب . ﴾76/َيَتَضرُعوَن ﴿المؤمنون 78 Subcategory of religious culture No. Page and line number Shakespeare’s Hamlet Jabra’s Translation Mutran’s Translation Quran’nic Intertextuality 4 p.47 l.101 ‘tis a fault to heaven, ارادة تمردت على السماء المعصية ألمر اهللا  َه َما َأَمَرُهْم َوَيْفَعُلوَن َما ُيْؤَمُروَنَال َيْعُصوَن الل .﴾6/﴿التحريم Religious activities 5 p.47 l.118 Let not thy mother lose her prayers, على تضيع امك توسالتها لعلك ال ُتَخِيب رجاء أمك، وابتهاَلها اليك  ِه َعَلى اْلَكاِذِبيَن ﴿آلَنْبَتِهْل َفَنْجَعْل َلْعَنَت الل ثُم .﴾61/عمران 6 p.48 l. 150 O God تاهللا رباه  َك َلِفي َضَالِلَك اْلَقِديِم ﴿يوسفِه ِإن95/َقاُلوا َتالل﴾  ِها ُكْنُتْم َتْفَتُروَن ﴿النحلتَاللَعم 56/َلُتْسَأُلن﴾ . 7 p.48 l. 132 O God, God أي الهي. أي رباه، رباه الهي 8 p.62 I will go pray اني ذاهب الصلي سأمضي وُأصلي  ي ِفي اْلِمْحَراِب ﴿آلَفَناَدْتُه اْلَمَالِئَكُة َوُهَو َقاِئٌم ُيَصل .﴾39/عمران  ي َعَلْيُكْم َوَمَالِئَكُتُه ﴿األحزابُهَوِذي ُيَصل43/ال﴾. َالَة ﴿البقرة ِذيَن ُيْؤِمُنوَن ِباْلَغْيِب َوُيِقيُموَن الص3/ال﴾. 9 p.101 l.341 I pray you أبتهل اليك ارجوك  ِه َعَلى اْلَكاِذِبيَن ﴿آلَنْبَتِهْل َفَنْجَعْل َلْعَنَت الل ثُم . ﴾61/ عمران 79 The first example ‘Thou pray’st not well’, is a biblical activity. Shakespeare’s use of such an activity in the given ST is based on Christian norms. It carries a great density of religious implications and cultural functions upon its reader in a way that represents a specific cultural taste and a particular religious mark. is Jabra’s translation of the original ‘Thou pray’st not ’دعاؤك ليس بخير‘ well’. In his translation of the given ST religious cultural expression, Jabra uses the phrase ‘دعاؤك ليس بخير’ which is a direct biblical connotative meaning of the original. Jabra’s translation is an example of exoticism translation (Dickins, Hervey and Higgins, 2002). Jabra’s translation of the given religious greeting foreignizes its biblical connotations. Therefore, Jabra is an ST cultural biased. He preserves the originality of the biblical specialized religious activity of the given English ST, moving the target reader to the ST and sacrificing, in doing so, the naturalness and fluency of the TT: 80 Figure (23): Jabra’s ST writer biased. ‘ الصالةإنك ال تحسن ’ is Mutran’s translation of the original ‘Thou pray’st not well’. In his