Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies

Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies

Translators as Agents of Intertextual Change: Hekmat's Intertextual Appropriation and Domestication of Shakespeare for Iranian Nationalism

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Marzieh Malekshahi 1
Ghodrat Hasani 2
1 Assistant professor, Translation Studies, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran( Corresponding Author):
2 Assistant professor, Translation Studies, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran.
10.22075/jlrs.2024.33558.2442
Abstract
This article examines the intersection of translation, intertextuality, and identity construction through the lens of Ali Asghar Hekmat’s domesticating translations of Shakespeare during the nationalist Pahlavi era in Iran. Drawing on theorizations of intertextuality, the study analyzes how Hekmat strategically severed Shakespeare’s English textual connections and wove the plays into a new Persian intertextual fabric to advance ideological narratives of ancient Iranian identity. Contextualizing Hekmat’s works within the prevailing ancientist discourse reveals his radical efforts to thoroughly recast genre, rhetoric, and discourse to align Shakespeare with Iranian literary tradition. This instrumental domestication served to legitimize Pahlavi nationalism by appropriating foreign cultural capital. However, Hekmat’s extensive rewriting problematically erases Shakespeare’s essence to promote ideological motives, raising vital ethical questions about the limits of translation. The analysis illuminates the profound impact of sociocultural context on intertextual mediation in translation and its entanglement with identity construction.
Keywords
Intertextuality
Iran
Domestication
Nationalism
Translation
  • Abrahamian, E. (1982). Iran between two revolutions. Princeton University Press.
  • Allen, G. (2011). Intertextuality. London: Routledge.
  • Azarang, A. (2017). Tarikh vatahavvol-e nashr: Daramadi be barrasi-ye nashr-e ketabdar Iran azaghaz ta astaneh-ye enqelab [History and evolution of publishing: An introduction to the study of book publishing in Iran from the beginning to the eve of the revolution]. Tehran: Khaneh Ketab.
  • Bigdeloo, R. (2002). Bastan-garai dar tarikh-e moaser-e Iran [Ancientism in contemporary Iranian history]. Tehran: Markaz Publications.
  • Cascallana, B. G. (2006). Translating cultural intertextuality in children's literature. In J. Van Coillie & W. P. Verschueren (Eds.), Children's literature in translation: Challenges and strategies (pp. 97-110). Manchester: St. Jerome.
  • De Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics(Vol. 1). London: Longman.
  • Desmet, K. T. M. (2007). Intertextuality/intervisuality in translation: The jolly postman's intercultural journey from Britain to the Netherlands. In G. Lathey (Ed.), The translation of children's literature: A reader (pp. 122-133). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Edalatpour, H. (2019). Karbordi nazariyeye ensejame matni dar tahlile ravabete ensejami beyne motune mokhtalef [Application of the Theory of Cohesion in Analyzing Coherence among Different Texts]. Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies, 10(20), 341-364. DOI: 22075/jlrs.2018.11537.1041
  • Farahzad, F. (2009). Translation as an intertextual practice. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 16(3-4), 125-131. DOI:1080/09076760802547462
  • Federici, E. (2007). The translator's intertextual baggage. Forum for Modern Language Studies, 43 (2), 147-160. DOI::1093/fmls/cqm005
  • Hatim, B. (1997). Intertextual intrusions: Toward a framework for harnessing the power of the absent text in translation. In K. Simms (Ed.), Translating sensitive texts: Linguistic aspects (pp. 29-45). Amsterdam: Rodpi.
  • Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (2005). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
  • Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2019). Translation an advanced resource book. Routledge.
  • Hekmat, A. A. (1956). Panj hikayat [Five tales]. Lahore.
  • Hekmat, A. A. (n.d.). Rumyu va Zhulet Vilyam Shekspir: Mogayeseh ba Layli Majnun Nezami Ganjavi [Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare: A comparison with Layla and Majnun by Nezami Ganjavi]. Tehran: Baroukhim.
  • Irwin, W. (2004). Against intertextuality. Philosophy and Literature, 28(2), 227-242. DOI:1353/phl.2004.0030
  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. Columbia University Press.
  • Lefevere, A. (Ed.). (2002). Translation/history/culture: A sourcebook. London: Routledge.
  • Mashayekh, P., Seyyed Sadeqi, S. M., & Hamidi, S. J. (2020). Barrasi tatbiqi anva'e binamattaniyyate zhenet ba nazariyeye balaghat-e eslami dar she'r-e Hafez [Comparative study of different types of genes with Islamic rhetorical theory in Hafez poetry]. Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies, 11(22), 415-442. DOI: 22075/jlrs.2019.17151.1427
  • Milani, A. (2003). HEKMAT, ʿALI-AṢḠAR. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved December 7, 2023, from https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hekmat-ali-asgar
  • Munday, J. (2009). Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric review, 5(1), 34-47. DOI: 1080/07350198609359131
  • Rampone Jr, W. R. (2023). Shakespeare’s Global Sonnets: An Introduction. In Shakespeare’s Global Sonnets: Translation, Appropriation, Performance(pp. 1-14). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  • Robyns, C. (1994). Translation and discursive identity. Poetics Today, 15(3), 405-428. DOI:2307/1773316
  • Saglia, D. (2002). Translation and Cultural Appropriation: Dante, Paolo and Francesca in British Romanticism. Quaderns: Revista de traduccio7: 95-119.
  • Shakespeare, W. (2005). Romeo and Juliet. ICON Group International, Inc.
  • Venuti, L. (1993). Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice, 7(2), 208-223. DOI: 1080/09502369308582166
  • Venuti, L. (2017). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies
Volume 16, Issue 40
Spring 2025
Pages 271-298