Knatchbull's Translation of Kalilah and Dimnah between Domesticarion and Foreignization

Introduction

This paper focuses on Knatchbull’s translation of Kalilah and Dimnah in the light of domesticating and foreignizing translation; or according to Pym, the former moves the reader to the author, and the latter moves the author to the reader[i]. Wyndham Knatchbull (1795-1868), a British clergyman and academic who was Laudian Professor of Arabic at the Oxford University, achieved his translation in 1819; he titled it as Kalila and Dimna, or the Fables of Bidpai, basing on the Arabic version edited by the French orientalist, De Sacy, in 1816. Knatchbull says that the aim of his translation is "to make resemblance between the original and the translation sufficiently striking, not be accused of having forgotten the duties of a translator"[ii]. If Sir Thomas North's version, in 1570, was the first English translation of Kalilah and Dimnah generally, Knatchbull's version was the first English translation of Kalilah and Dimnah directly from the Arabic source. So, De Sacy's Arabic edited-version will be the ST with which Knatchbull's translation will be compared, and using Cheikho's and Azzam's versions of Kalilah and Dimnah as a subsidiary ST. In Knatchbull's translation, focus will be on how the selected titles are translated, how Knatchbull has translated the introductory phrases in the frame tales; and how he has rendered the culture-specific items (proper names and common expressions).

          Knatchbull's Kalila and Dimna, or as The Fables of Bidpai has only fourteen chapters without the chapter of "Pigeon, fox and heron", because Knatchbull's translation was based on De Sacy's version which has fourteen chapters. In addition to the four introductory chapters, there are fourteen chapters, as follows: V. "The Lion and the Bull, or the emblem two friends whom a liar contrives to disunite", VI. "Investigation of the conduct together with the defence of Dimna", VII. "The Ring-dove, or the emblem of sincere friends, VIII “The Owel and the Crows, or the danger of being deceived by the enemy”, IX. “The Monkey and the Tortoise, or the emblem of the person who having obtained to what anted loses it again”, X. "The Monk and the Weasel, or the danger of haste in an affair with which we are but imperfectly acquainted", XI. "The Rat and the Cat, or the emblem of a person who has a great many enemies",  XII. "The King and the Bird, or the emblem of revengeful persons who are unworthy of trust", XIII. "The Lion and the Jackal, or the emblem of a man who wishes to be reconciled with one whom he has ill treated", XIV. "The History of Iladh, Beladh, Irakht, and the wise Kibarioun", XV. "The Lioness and the Horseman, or the emblem of a man who abstains from injuring another on account of the evil consequences to himself", XVI. "The Monk and his Guest, or the emblem of a man who forsakes one condition of life in or to embrace another", XVII. "The Traveller and the Goldsmith, the emblem of a man who bestows his favours an unworthy object", XVIII. "The King's Son and his Companions, the emblem of fate and of the inevitable consequences of the divine decrees"[iii]. So this chapterization of Knatchbull's translation of the book is in accordance with De Sacy's version.

Some selected titles of the tales in Knatchbull”s translation are examined in the light of the strategies of domesticating and foreignizing translation; the first sample is the following famous title of the chapter of باب الحمامة المطوقة وهو مثل إخوان الصفاء[iv] , as shown in table 1. Knatchbull translates this title as follows: "The Ring-dove"[v], using only one compound noun because it is the translation of باب الحمامة المطوقة in De Sacy[vi]; so, Knatchbull has chosen the most significant noun in the ST tale, i.e., the ring-dove, because the ST tale starts by mentioning "the ring-dove" as a hero; the tale itself revolves on "the ring-dove". Moreover, it should be noted that the phrase الحمامة المطوقة  consists of a noun and an adjective, while its rendering is a compound noun in the TT as "the ring-dove". Moreover, in the table of contents, Knatchbull adds rendering of the supplementary phrase to the title to be as "The Ring-dove, or the emblem of the sincere friends"[vii], to stand forباب الحمامة المطوقة وهو مثل إخوان الصفاء  in De Sacy's version[viii].

                                                                                                         Table 1

 Knatchbull renders the next title of البوم والغربان[xii] as follows: "The owls and the crows"[xiii]. It is clear that the translator keeps the system of the ST title in gender, number and word order. The ST title begins byالبوم  that is female in gender, plural in number and it is the first in the word order of the sentence; this noun is rendered by Knatchbull as "the owls". Moreover, Knatchbull follows the same strategy in translating the rest of the ST title, i.e., والغربان ,  as "and the crows" keeping its gender, number and word order in the TT title: "the owls and  crows"[xiv]. It is noteworthy that there are six words in English which meanغراب , all of them were used in English before Knatchbull's achievement of his translation; the first of them is "crow"  which has been used since the twelfth century according to Webster[xv]; also the word "raven" used since the twelfth century[xvi]; the third, i.e., "rook", has been used since the twelfth century; the fourth, "chough", used since the thirteenth century[xvii]; Finally, the last two words which are two compound nouns "jackdaw" and "night-heron" have been used since 1543 and 1784 respectively[xviii]. Nevertheless, Knatchbull decides to use only the "crow", and leaves all the other words that are related to it. The noun "Owl" is the only equivalent which stands for this kind of the birds; this word, “owl”, has no synonym in English; therefore, Knatchbull is obligated to use it. Finally, he translates the supplementary sentence of the ST title which is in the table of contents of the book, i.e., 'وهو مثل العدو الذى لا یغتر به[xix] as "or the danger of being deceived by the enemy”[xx], Knatchbull tries to imitate the ST sentence which is in the present passive voice, so he translates it in the present passive voice too, but there is an exegetic gloss in this translation "the danger".

                                                                                                     Table 2

Knatchbull translates باب القرد والغیلم[xxiii] as "the monkey and the tortoise"[xxiv]. He keeps the same strategy that he follows in translating the previous title where he maintains the same strategy: the ST title begins with the word القرد which is a singular noun with a definite article "the" followed by another noun. But the ST title is more specific than that in the TL one, here Knatchbull uses the strategy of "generalization" in his translation instead of the strategy of "specification", the former is TT oriented[xxv], which is used by Knatchbull where he uses the noun "the tortoise" to stand for الغیلم: the noun “tortoise” is general while its equivalentالغیلم  is specific, because the latter means the male tortoise[xxvi]. Knatchbull uses the strategy of generalization in translating الغیلم[xxvii].  

                                                                                                      Table 3

The following title باب السنور والجرذ[xxx], Knatchbull translates it as "the Rat and the Cat"[xxxi].  The first note is that the two nouns in the ST title, i.e., السنور and الجرذ , are different from their synonyms القط  and الفأر respectively; because the word السنور is a cat-like creature, while the word جرذ means a large rat, not a normal one  accord the dictionary of Al-Efsah Fi Al-Lugha[xxxii]. The second note is that "cat, rat and monkey" have been used in English since the twelfth century, according to Webster[xxxiii]. The third and last note is that there is no option for Knatchbull to choose an English equivalent of the ST word السنور, but the cat. Actually, in Arabic there are three synonymous words of this item, i.e., السنور, or cat: قِط,ضَیّون , and هِر[xxxiv]. But Knatchbull uses the domesticating strategy by using the equivalences ofالسنور  and  الجرذ as the “rat” and “cat”, even the second of them is hyponymy[xxxv]. Moreover, there is a final note that Knatchbull does not follow the same word order of the ST title, he reverses this word order, the ST title begins with السنور (the cat), but the TT title begins with the “rat” (الجرذ ).

Finally, Knatchbull translates the explanatory phrase in the ST title in the table of contents, i.e., فیه مثل الرجل کثر أعداؤه[xxxvi], as "or the emblem of a person who has a great many enemies"[xxxvii]; it is clear this is an exegetic translation, because there is an nexegetic gloss, i.e.,"who has a great many enemies", which is a translation of کثر اعداؤه, it is a grammatical transposition as shown in table 4.

                                                                                   Table 4

After examining samples of Knatchbull's translation of the titles Kalilah and Dimnah, and comparing them with their ST contrapuntal ones. Samples of the introductory phrases in the ST tales, and how Knatchbull has translated them, will analyze. The first introductory phrases in the main tale of the chapter, i.e., "الأسد والثور" , as follows:

The first note on this ST introductory sentence is that it begins with the verb قال; followed by subject and object, or followed by two names: دبشلیم, the king of India and بیدبا, the head of the philosophers. The king asks this wise man to make him up a fable about the two close friends whose friendship turned to enmity, because of jealousy. Knatchbull translates these introductory phrases as follows:

Knatchbull begins translation by determining the wise man, i.e., Bidpai, not the king Dabschelim as in the ST phrase. The Knatchbull's sentence is in the passive voice, while the ST one is in the active voice. Moreover, Knatchbull describes Bidpai only as "the chief of the Brahmins", while Bidpai, in the ST tale, is also the head of the philosophers. In addition, the second verb in the TT phrase is in the passive voice "commanded". It is clear that Knatchbull does not change the strategy of domestication, he has been adopting where he uses an idiomatic introductory phrase suitable for the TT readers. Though there are nine main verbs in ST phrase: قال, اضرب, یقطع, یحمل,ابتلى , یدخل, یلبث, تقطاع and تدابر[xlii]; there are only six verbs in the TT phrases, the main ones are, i.e., "summon", "command", "relate", "succeed" and "change"[xliii].

The author, Ibn al-Muqaffa, in his ST tale introduces the King Dabschelim firstly, while the translator, Knatchbull, presents the philosopher Bidpai first. Actually, some adjectives as "الکذوب" which is in the intensive form[xliv] and the imperative verb"اضرب"  are not present in the TT. Moreover, he continues in domesticating the TT, he translatesالمتحابین  by using two phrases as "two friends, whose mutual esteem and unreserved familiarity". So there is an exegetic gloss in this translation[xlv], and communicative translation[xlvi], which is considered a degree of free translation which is employed. In addition, Knatchbull tries to imitate the structure of the ST phrase فتقاطعا وتدابرا[xlvii] by translating these next semantic repetitions to end TT phrases as follows "in changing into hatred and revenge"[xlviii], but he uses two nouns: "hatred and revenge" instead of the two verbs: فتقاطعا وتدابرا in the ST, as shown in table 5.

                                                                                                       Table 5

In the next chapter, the chapter of "the ring-dove", after listening to the tale of the two close friends who have become enemies because of the hatred and jealousy of the deceitful liar; Knatchbull, the king of India, asks the wise "Baydapa" to tell him a fable of brethren of purity. Firstly, as shown in 18, it is clear that Knatchbull ignores the semantic repetition in the ST phrase "قد سمعت مثل المحتابین یقطع بینهما الخؤون المحتال" , and focuses on the initial verb in the second part of the SL introductory phrase. The ST introductory phrase reads as follows "قال الملک لبیدبا  ... فاضرب مثل إخوان الصفاء وکیف یکون بدء تواصلهم واستمتاع بعضهم من بعض"[li]. It begins with "قال الملک لبیدیا"; it is a verbal sentence, containing: verb in past tense followed by the subject and the prepositional phrase comes finally; while the TT introductory phrase is

Firstly, the structure of TT phrase is almost similar to the ST phrase: it begins with the subject, Dabschelim, followed by a verb in the past simple tense: "desired", and the object pronoun "him" comes finally. Knatchbull tries to a similar structure of the ST phrase, though he keeps the features of the English sentence which is a noun phrase in general. There is no problem in his translation of ""اضرب, and "مثل"  as he uses the English equivalents, i.e., "relate" for the former, and "story" for the latter; but the problem is his translation of "إخوان الصفاء" , he does not translate it directly, firstly, he translates it as "friends", then he uses a relative clause "who in their conduct towards each other displayed the affection and the disinterestedness of brethren"[liii], but both of clauses do not give the accurate meaning of إخوان الصفاء"", because he uses a paraphrase. Actually, the item إخوان الصفاء seems untranslatable. Knatchbull uses one word, i.e., "friends", and a relative clause in a phrase, i.e., “the friends, who in their conduct towards each other displayed the affection and the disinterestedness of brethren, together with the origin of their acquaintance”[liv]. The phrase "إخوان الصفاء" is very famous and it has inspired the Islamic Gnostic philosophers to write their famous book quoting this previous phrase of Ibn al-Muqaffa; their book is known to the public and scholars in the human tradition as The Brethren of Purity, in its Arabic title "إخوان الصفاء"[lv].

                                                                                                        Table 6

In the next introductory phrase, table 7 , "قال دبشلیم الملک لبیدبا الفیلسوف: قد  سمعت هذا المثل الرجل فاضرب لى مثل اهل الترات الذین لابد لبعضهم من اتقاء بعض"[lviii], in the chapter of "the King and the bird", Knatchbull follows the same strategy which he has followed before; the first part of this introductory phrase which is repeated in every chapter in the ST, i.e.,"قال دبشلیم الملک لبیدبا الفیلسوف", is in the active voice, Knatchbull renders it in the passive voice "Bidpai… was commanded by king Dabschelim"[lix], the former focuses  on the king while the latter focuses on the philosopher.

          The Knatchbull's concern is on the target reader, not on the author[lx]. He translates the next introductory sentence "فاضرب لی مثل أهل الترات الذین لابد لبعضهم من اتقاء بعض"[lxi] as "to relate the fable of the two vindictive characters, of whom one suspects and distrusts the other"[lxii]. He translates "فاضرب مثل" as "to relate the fable of"; andأهل الترات" " is rendered as "the two vindictive characters"; it is clear that the former is plural and the latter refers to just "two", that "the grammatical category of number" of the first is plural and of the second is in "duality"[lxiii]; finally, he translates"الذین لابد لبعضهم من اتقاء بعض"  as "of whom one suspects and distrusts the other", translatingاتقاء  as "suspects", and "distrusts"; none of these two verbs gives the full meaning of اتقاء, because this word in Arabic means "to protect  or to cover the thing from harm" according Lisan al-Arab[lxiv]. So, the TT phrases are more specific while the ST ones are more general, and there is translation loss[lxv] as shown in table 7.

                                                                                    Table 7

Analysis of the culture-specific items with their two aspects, the proper names and the common expressions, will assert this strategy. So both the proper names and the common expressions which belong to the culture-specific items will be examined in light of domestication and foreignization.                                                                                

To discover how Knatchbull translates the proper names in The Book of Kalilah and Dimnah, it is important to examine how he translates the most important six proper names in the book. These proper names which the reader meets first:"دبشلیم" , ""بیدبا, ""شنزبه, ""بندبه, ""کلیلة and [lxviii]""دمنة. Table 8 shows that Knatchbull translates these proper names as follows: “Dabschelim”, “Schanzabeh”, “Bandaneh”, “Kalila” and “Dimna”[lxix]; but he translates the last one, i.e., ""بیبدبا, as “Bidpai”[lxx]. The first three names are transliterated, while he uses the standard indigenous English equivalent Bidpai of "بیدبا". Transliteration, which is "the use of the TL spelling conventions for the written representation of SL expressions"[lxxi], is a type of cultural transposition, the advantage of this type is "that it allows the reader to reconvert the English back into Arabic script"[lxxii], and it gives "a stronger sense of the exotic"[lxxiii].

                                                                                     Table 8

The next two names  " "الطِّیطَوى and "وکیل البحر"[lxxvi], as in shown in table 9, are considered proper names. In the previous chapter, North translates the former in two different ways as a "linnet", and then as a "cocke" and his wife as "henne"[lxxvii]; while Jacobs, the editor of North's version, translates it in his introduction to the book as "linnet-cock"[lxxviii]. Both "الطِّیطَوى " and "وکیل البحر" are proper names because the author of the ST, i.e., Kalilah and Dimnah, personalizes them in the tale. The former, الطیطوى, is a species of pigeons[lxxix], the latter is a perplexing word even in Arabic; actually, none of the Arabic dictionaries, classical or modern, gives any definition of this noun, i.e., وکیل البحر"". So Knatchbull translates the former as "Titawi, a species of sea fowl"[lxxx], and the latter as "The genius of the sea"[lxxxi]. He capitalizes the former, considering it as a proper name, while he tries to give an approximate meaning of the latter, i.e., “the genius of the sea"; the meaning of this translation is the guarding-spirit of the sea or the Genii (or the ghost) of the sea; because spirit, according to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, “an imaginary creature with magic powers as :fairy and an elf”[lxxxii]. Here, Here Knatchbull mixes between the two contrasting strategies of domestication and foreignization, where he transliterates the former as Titawi, then he gives free translation as "the hen bird of a species of sea fowl"; or according to Newmark the first is SL biased, and the second is TL biased[lxxxiii].                        

                                                                                                       Table 9

          Moreover, Knatchbull – in  table 10- translates لغة البلخیین" " and "لسان  البلخیة"[lxxxvi] as "the language of Balk"[lxxxvii], while he translates "قوم من عظماء بلخ"[lxxxviii] as "the men of Balk"[lxxxix]; it is clear that he transliterates بلخ" "  as "Balk" dropping the last letter "h" which  forms, with  the letter "k", the voice ""خ. He does the same in transliterating the proper name ""رَوْزَبَة[xc] as "Rusbah"[xci] , a jackal and  the friend of Dimnah who tells him the death of his brother: Kalila; but the accurate pronunciation of this name is "رَوْزَبَة"[xcii], so the most accurate transliteration should  be "Rouzabah".

Finally, what proves that Knatchbull intends to be in TL bias his choice of  the  principal cook which is in De Sacy's version, neglecting that the pig who was criticized and attacked by the attendants in the king's court is in most of other versions; then, the pig was removed of his position as a principal baker because of his dirtiness; Knatchbull chooses "سید  الخبازین"[xciii] instead of the pig, i.e., سید الخنازیر"" in the other versions[xciv]; it seems that it is an error in copying the expression سید الخنازیر from the manuscript into De Sacy's version to be سید الخبازین, this mistake is corrected later in most of the versions of the book in the world. Knatchbull translates it as "the principal cook" in the tale which is present in many pages. Moreover, Knatchbull does this, because the TL readers respect the pig, while it is humiliated in the SL readers. What Knatchbull has done is a full domestication where he has used the translation by omission[xcv] as shown in table 10.

                                                                       Table 10  

 By examining the proper names in the chapter of [ci]"إیلاذ وبلاذ وإیراخت", Knatchbull's strategies of domesticating and foreignizing translation in translating the proper names are very clear. This chapter is full of proper names in the whole book; at least it contains sixteen proper names. The first of them is [cii]"بلاذ", the king of India, إیلاذ" " his vizir, إیراخت and "کورقناه"  the king's wives, جویر the king's son, "کباریون" the wise, and "کال الکاتب", the scribe. Then ""همیون, "بلخ"  ," "صنجین, "کازرون" –  or "کاسرون"  in Cheikho[ciii] – "رَهْزِین", "کیدور",  and "أرزون"[civ] are countries; finally, it is شجرة من الدوح[cv].

The first six proper names are characters, one is for a tree and the last five are settings. Knatchbull transliterates all these fourteen proper names; transliteration is a degree of transplantation[cvi]. He transliterates بِلاذ"", "إیلاذ" and "إیراخت" as “Beladh”, “Iladh” and “Irakht”, trying to keep the ST transcriptions of the words, using the diphthong "dh" for "z"; the first of these three ST proper names, ""بلاذ, contains four letters, the second contains five letters, and the last one contains six letters. While the transliteration of these pervious proper names, “Beladh”, “Iladh” and “Irakht”, contain six, five and six letters respectively. Therefore, there is no translation gain in the letters of the words except in the first.

In transliterating " "کُورقناه, the king's wife, and "جُویر" , the king's son[cvii], as "Hourkanat" and "Ghowir"[cviii], Knatchbull keeps the forms of the ST proper names, the only changes in the former are in "h" letter is instead of "k" letter in the initial of "Hourkanat". Moreover, it ends with "t" instead of "h". In the latter, there is a translation gain in "h" in "Ghowir", while there is no change in transliterating"کِباریون"  as "Kibarioun". Nevertheless, Knatchbull transliterates  "کال الکاتب"[cix] as “Kal Katab”[cx], he considers "الکاتب"  as a proper name, while it is an adjective; so he  changes this adjective into a proper name . He does the same when he thinks that the word ""دَوْح as a proper name in the phrase شجرة من الدَوْح" " in the chapter of "the owls and the crows"[cxi], so he transliterates "دوح" as "Dauah" in this sentence: "There was on a certain mountain, a tree of the kind called Dauah"[cxii]. All the Arabic dictionaries agree that the word"الدوحة" , its plural is" الدْوح" , means the great tree[cxiii].

The same thing Knatchbull does in transliterating the next seven proper names "همیون","بلخ" , "صِنجین" ,"کَازرون"  , "رِهْزین" , ""کَیْدور, "أرزون", as following: “Hymoun”, “Balk”, “Senjin”, “Kasroun”, “Rehzin[cxiv]”, “Kadour” and “Arzen”[cxv]; so there is no change  between the forms of the SL and TL words except in one  letter in بلخ" ", a province in Persia[cxvi] now in northern Afghanistan, according Hasse’s Arabic and Latin Glossary online, and in "کازرون", the former is changed into “Balk”; Knatchbull leaves the regular transliteration in English as Balkh and chooses to write it as "Balk" by dropping letter "h". The latter is changed into Kasroun replacing the letter "ز" in the ST word by letter "s" instead of "z"; it is clear that most of them are names of settings are fictional. By choosing transliterating these proper names, Knatchbull chooses to be SL bias, because transliteration is a strategy of transposition[cxvii], table 11.

                                                                                Table 11

The common expressions form one of the important elements in this analytical study to discover and explain the strategies which Knatchbull uses in his translation, and how he uses these strategies. The first of the common expressions in Knatchbull's translation of Kalilah and Dimnah is صاحب السلطان"" which is repeated many times in different forms in the book; at the same time it is common in the SL, i.e., Arabic. The previous common expression is repeated firstly as "صاحب السلطان"[cxxix]; ما صاحب السلطان فى ثقته"[cxxx] ";  "وزیر السلطان"[cxxxi], and "صحبة السلطان"[cxxxii]  in the phraseاحذرک صحبة  السلطان"[cxxxiii] ". In the SL there are many common expressions which warn from the sultan's companion as لا تصحبنّ ذوی السّلطان فی عمل which is a part of a verse, لا تصحبنّ ذوی السّلطان فی عمل ... تصبح على وجل تمسی على وجل[cxxxiv]  , in Al-Ekid Al-Farid. Knatchbull translates these four common expressions in four different ways, the first as "a minister"[cxxxv], the second as "the counselor"[cxxxvi], the third as "The confidence of sovereign”[cxxxvii], and the final one as “the friendship of the sovereign"[cxxxviii] or as “the friend of a sovereign"[cxxxix]. Though  the word  "صحب" is the root of these previous words, Knatchbull does not use the same root for his renderings of these four words, that means he is TL biasd, he domesticates by focusing on the TL reader not the SL author[cxl].

                                                                                         Table 12

 The next sample shows Knatchbull's strategy in translation is to domesticate; the following two common expressions prove that, these are"قال الأسد: فهو آکل عشب وأنا آکل لحم"  and "قال شتربة لدمنة: هو آکل لحم وانا آکل عشب"[cxlv]. Firstly, the SL common expression آکل لحم is famous, as in the speech of the prophet Mohamed's [cxlvi]"أکان أحدکم آکلًا لحم أخیه بعد موته؟" , and  in the famous Arabic  proverb آکل لحمی وَلَا أَدَعهُ لآکل[cxlvii]. The phrase آکل عشب is famous too in Arabic in different forms as in the Koranic verse [cxlviii]“لَآکِلُونَ مِنْ شَجَرٍ مِنْ زَقُّومٍ الواقعة” .

Knatchbull translates "فهوآکل عشب وأنا آکل لحم"   as "his food is grass and mine is flesh"[cxlix]; then in another place later, he translates آکلة لحم"[cl] " in the tale of "the horseman, lioness and jackal" as "eating flesh" or "eater of flesh". What common between them is that all these translations use "flesh" not meat, and that is the most accurate word in this place; finally, Knatchbull does not use the two standard equivalents now known in English for آکل عشب" " and ""آکل لحم: herbivore and carnivore respectively, the reason that he does not use any of them in his translation is that they were used in English only since 1854 and 1840[cli] and he achieved his translation in 1818, as shown in table 13. 

                                                                                     Table 13

 Knatchbull tries to balance between the SL and TL bias; so he translates the following four common expressions, or the culture-specific items:"مَنٍ"  in the sentence ""مئة مَنٍ مٍن الحدید[clvii], درهم" " in "عقل یوم واحد ثمنه مئة ألف درهم "[clviii], then, "دینار"  and بَدْرة  in the sentence اصابا فى طریق بدرة فیها الف دینار"[clix].  Firstly,"مَنٍ"  is a measurement of iron[clx], the second is  "درهم" a currency in a lot of Islamic countries made of silver, and the third – دینار" "– refers to currency made of gold[clxi]; and finally, “"بَدْرة is a purse  that contains ten thousand or one thousand dirhams according to Al-Khalil and Emara respectively[clxii]. Knatchbull chooses to translate these culture-specific items as follows: the first as a "pound", the second as "piece of silver" and the third as "a piece of gold”[clxiii] and finally, the fourth as "a purse containing a thousand dinars”[clxiv]. Firstly, Knatchbull does not use the English equivalent "dirham" of "درهم" because this word has been used in English only since 1839 according Webster[clxv], and he achieved his translation in 1819; while he uses the English equivalent “dinar” of "دینار" because this word has been was used in English since 1643[clxvi]. Though this fact, Knatchbull does not follow the same strategy in translating the same word; once, he translates "دینار" and "درهم" as as "piece of gold" and the third as "a piece of silver”[clxvii], in another place he uses “dinar”[clxviii] as an English equivalent of "دینار". It is understood why Knatchbull does not use the English equivalent “dirham”, but it is not logical to use two different equivalents of the same word: “piece of gold”, and “dinar’ to stand for “"دینار. 

Therefore, it was better for Knatchbull to use “dinar” in the two places as an equivalent of "دینار". In addition, he does not translate the term "بَدْرة" which means a purse containing ten thousand or one thousand dirhams[clxix], he does not translate it as a culture-specific item, i.e., common expression, but he renders its meaning in the ST; his translation is "a purse containing a thousand dinars"[clxx] though the Arabic dictionaries say that بَدْرة should contain ten thousand dirams; he chooses dinars constituent with the ST item which mention frankly that it contains "a thousand dinars". Finally, there is in the SL common expression containing the culture-specific item صفقة نقد خیر من بَدْرة نسیئة[clxxi].

Finally, Knatchbull domesticates the following common expression which is related strongly to the Islamic cultural circumstance, i.e., "القضاء والقدر" as shown in table 41, these two culture-specific items are always related together. In Arabic, the common expression is "إذا حان القضاء ضاق الفضاء"[clxxii], and there is a saying attributed to Ibn Abbas "إذا نزل القدر عمى البصر"[clxxiii]. Knatchbull translates them as "destiny" and "fate' without capitalizing[clxxiv], then he uses one word for these two culture-specific items: "Providence"[clxxv]. This means he targets the TL reader; he domesticates these two culture-specific items, table 14

                                                                                      Table 14

 Conclusion

In this paper, the research has focused on the analysis of the translations of the TT titles of the main tales, or frame tales; selected introductory phrases, and finally the culture-specific items (proper names and the common expressions) in Knatchbull's The Fables of Bidpai: Kalila and Dimna, comparing them with the Arabic sourcein The Book of Kalilah and Dimnah.

There are important features in Knatchbull's translation of these aspects. On the one hand, Knatchbull employs both the domesticating and foreignizing strategies of translation in translating the same item. It means that he does not follow a systematic strategy in his translation, so he moves from full domestication to partial foreignization. In domesticating translation, Knatchbull has used different strategies as omission, cultural transposition, cultural equivalence, and transliteration. Therefore, Knatchbull is TL bias, because he focuses on the TL readers, not on the author; he focuses on the message, not on the meaning. Secondly, Knatchbull seems TL oriented, that he translates the meaning of the culture-specific items as he does in rendering "دینار","درهم" ,  and "مَن" as “piece of gold”, “piece of silver”, and “pound”. On the other hand, in rendering the culture-specific items, i.e., proper names and common expressions, Knatchbull has followed the strategy of foreignizating translation, he has done in translating these proper names as "دبشلیم", "بیدبا, "شنزبه", "بندبة", "کلیة" and  "دمنة"  by using transliteration as “Dabschelim”, “Bidpai”, Shanzabahe”, “Kalila” and “Dimna”.

Moreover, Knatchbull sometimes exaggerated in using foreignizing translation as he has done in rendering the proper name "کال الکاتب"[cxc] as “Kal Katab”[cxci]. He thought the word "الکاتب"  as a proper name, while it is an adjective which modifies the proper name "کال". He has done the same thing in translating the noun "الدوح"[cxcii] which he thought it is a proper name, so he has rendered it as “Dauah”[cxciii]. It seems that Knatchbull is not accurate in this translation 0f these two words.

Also , Knatchbull, in his translation of Kalilah and Dimnah, rendering of the supplementary sentences of every title, he tries to imitate the style of the ST. Though it does not seem that Knatchbull learned any about the Schleiermacher’s theory of domesticating d foreignizing translation which he delivered his lecture in 1813, six years before Knatchbull’s translation of Kalilah and Dimnah. Knatchbull has applied Schleiermacher’s translation theory.

Fourthly, Knatchbull treated some tales in his translation of Kalila and Dimna in a dialogue instead of narration as he has done in the dialogue be between the lion and Dimnah in the tale of the lion and the bull[cxciv]; and between Dimna and his brother, Kalila[cxcv].