Abstract
This article examines Chesterman's translation strategies in Fitzgerald's two translations of Salaman and Absal by Jamī. The main issue is how Fitzgerald used various translation strategies proposed by Chesterman to transfer Jamī's work into English and what effects these strategies had on the target text. The main research question is how to explain Fitzgerald's rewriting and modification of the original text through these translation strategies. The research method is descriptive-analytical. The descriptive part examines Fitzgerald's translation strategies in the beginning and ending sections of the poem, and the analytical part analyzes the consequences of these strategies. The research findings show that Fitzgerald mainly used syntactic strategies such as changing form, changing expression, and literal translation in the first translation, and semantic and intentional strategies such as cultural filtering, information reduction, summarization, and naturalization in the second translation. These strategies led to changes in meaning, syntax, and intention in the target text, and Jamī's original work was not only rewritten but also interpreted and reinterpreted. The results indicate that Fitzgerald was able to create an acceptable work for English-speaking readers in the second translation, but at the cost of losing accuracy and fidelity to
Introduction
This article seeks to examine, within the framework of Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) proposed by Toury (1995), the shifts that Fitzgerald employed in his translation of Jāmī’s Salāmān va Absāl, while also analyzing his methods and strategies through Andrew Chesterman’s (1997) taxonomy of translation strategies. However, the study revolves around three main questions:
a) How did Fitzgerald utilize Chesterman’s proposed translation strategies to render Jāmī’s work into English?
b) What effects did these strategies have on the target text?
c) How can Fitzgerald’s rewriting and modifications of Jāmī’s Salāmān va Absāl be explained through these translation strategies?
Materials & methods
The research method of this article is descriptive-explanatory. In the descriptive section, Fitzgerald’s translation techniques and methods are analyzed through the lens of Chesterman’s translation strategies, adopting a primarily linguistic approach. In the explanatory section, the consequences of Fitzgerald’s translation strategies in rendering Salāmān va Absāl are discussed. The findings of this description and explanation can also be examined from the perspective of other culture-oriented approaches. The data for this study consists of selected verses from the opening and closing sections of Jāmī’s poem (Bombay, 1355 AH).
Chesterman categorizes translation strategies into three sub-groups: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic.

Syntactic strategies primarily manipulate the form and structure of the text (p. 94).
Semantic strategies modify the meaning and concept.
Pragmatic strategies alter the overall message itself, effectively changing the intended communication (ibid., p. 107).

A general comparison of the verses with Fitzgerald’s two translations, along with an examination of his abridged version in the second translation, reveals key differences in the application of these three strategy types:

In the first translation, Fitzgerald predominantly employed syntactic strategies, such as form shift, clause restructuring, and literal translation. These strategies led to syntactic and structural modifications in the target text.
In the second translation, Fitzgerald relied more on semantic and pragmatic strategies, including cultural filtering, information reduction, explicitation, summarization, and domestication/naturalization. These strategies had a more pronounced impact on the meaning and conceptual framework of the target text.
The first translation remains more faithful to the original text due to its use of syntactic strategies, introducing fewer alterations. In contrast, the second translation, through semantic and pragmatic strategies, rewrites and reinterprets the original, bringing it closer to the target language and culture.
While the second translation produces a more acceptable work for the target audience, it does so at the expense of precision and fidelity to the source text.

Ultimately, the fundamental differences between the two translations stem from divergent translation strategies:

The first translation adheres more closely to the original due to its syntactic approach.
The second translation, employing semantic and pragmatic strategies, engages in greater rewriting and reinterpretation of the source text.

Discussion &Result
As evidenced by the descriptive and analytical examination of the concluding verses of Jāmī’s Salāmān va Absāl, Fitzgerald employed diverse translation strategies. The key question, then, is: What are the findings and implications of this data analysis?
It appears that Fitzgerald’s application of Chesterman’s translation strategies in the two versions of Salāmān va Absāl aligns with his own evolving philosophy of translation. In the first translation, Fitzgerald sought to preserve the Eastern and mystical essence of Jāmī’s work, whereas in the second translation, he abandoned this approach in favor of a more liberal stance. This shift—from literal translation to interpretive/adaptive translation—mirrors the transition from syntactic and semantic strategies in the first rendition to dynamic, communicative, and pragmatic strategies in the second.
Ultimately, Fitzgerald’s translation strategies transformed the mystical ambiance of Jāmī’s work into a reconstructed literary piece within the English tradition. While his translation retained some of the original mystical and philosophical concepts, the macro-level alterations rendered the text more accessible to English readers—albeit at the cost of diluting the depth and contemplative richness of Jāmī’s Islamic mysticism. Consequently, Fitzgerald’s translation is perceived less as a direct transmission of Jāmī’s spiritual ethos and more as an independent literary-philosophical work in the English tradition—one that carries poetic and philosophical weight but does not fully encapsulate the profound Islamic mysticism and philosophy of the original. Some key findings are as follows:

Syntactic vs. Semantic Strategies:

The study reveals that Fitzgerald predominantly used syntactic strategies (e.g., literal translation, sentence restructuring) in his first translation, while the second translation relied more on semantic and pragmatic strategies, such as cultural filtering, summarization, naturalization, and selective omission.

Translator’s Role and Cultural Context:

Fitzgerald’s two translations reflect an evolutionary shift—from an adequate and source-oriented approach to a more acceptable, adaptive, and target-culture-friendly rendition.

Adequacy vs. Acceptability:

While the second translation is culturally more appropriate, it sacrifices some of the precision and fidelity to Jāmī’s original poem compared to the first version.

Strategies and Their Consequences:

Fitzgerald’s choice of strategies—syntactic in the first translation vs. semantic/pragmatic in the second—significantly altered the structure and form of Jāmī’s work, particularly in the later version.
His approach transitioned from a source-text-faithful translation (1856) to a target-culture-adapted, reader-acceptable rendition (1879), demonstrating the applicability of Chesterman’s theoretical framework.


Conclusion
This study underscores how translation strategies shape the reception of mystical and philosophical texts across cultures. Fitzgerald’s case illustrates the trade-off between fidelity and adaptability, highlighting the translator’s pivotal role in negotiating meaning between linguistic and cultural boundaries.