In her Czech form thereof Petruželková’s methodology is to transpose the activity to some place in the Middle East, changing huge numbers of the names, while leaving the storyline unaltered, even down to subtleties. She additionally incorporates a level of ambiguity, leaving certain things in the source content unknown in her transposition. Following Whittlesey 2012’s system for taking care of a wide assortment of transpositions, this paper will ask whether Petruželková’s transposition has prevailing with regards to protecting the first kind of Biggles Goes To War. The appropriate response is commonly positive, with a couple of reservations. Johns, W.E, 1938. Biggles Goes To War. tr. Alena Petruželková, Prague: Toužimský and Moravec, 1994. (1940; Biggles Letí na Jih) Whittlesey, Henry. 2012. A Typology of Derivatives: Translation, Transposition, Adaptation. Interpretation Journal Volume 16, No. 2, April 2012. From about the 1930’s to the late 1960’s Captain W.E. Johns’ Biggles stories, stories of warrior airplane and dogfights, were extremely well known among youthful teenagers in the UK. Regardless of their vehement Britocentric Imperial direction the accounts in interpretation additionally did very well outside the UK: I recall, matured 11, hearing a radio declaration of Johns’ demise including the remark: “It is said that even the Germans preferred them, in spite of the fact that Biggles was continually killing German planes.”1 Certain of the tales, nonetheless, make issues for target crowds outside the Britocentric Imperium and its social circle. One nation where Biggles clearly keeps on being very well known is the Czech Republic,2 when the split; almost all the hundred-odd books have been converted into Czech (see http://www.knizniarcha.cz/johns-w-e-biggles-kompletni-rada-95-knih). Indeed, defining moments throughout the entire existence of Czechoslovakia from the late 30’s until the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact might be coordinated to the accessibility, or scarcity in that department, of Biggles interpretations. Thirteen were interpreted during the period 1937-1940 (e.g., Biggles of the Camel Squadron (1937); Biggles in Africa (1938); Biggles in Spain (1939), and Biggles Goes to War (1940))3. The period 1946-1948 saw a further four: Biggles Flies East (1946), Biggles Learns to Fly, Biggles in Borneo (1947), and Biggles Defies the Swastika (1948). The happening to Socialist Czechoslovakia saw them become inaccessible once more, in spite of the fact that they returned quickly in 1968. II. THE CONCEPT OF RURITANIA AND ITS CONNOTATIONS Ruritania was first imagined in writing and culture by Anthony Hope in The Prisoner of Zenda. He portrayed it as a German-speaking, Roman Catholic nation, under an outright government, with profound social, yet not ethnic, divisions, as reflected in the contentions delineated in the narratives. Notwithstanding, a portion of Ruritania’s placenames (e.g., Strelsau, Hentzau), propose that a portion of the externally German names have a Slavic substratum, like, e.g., Leipzig, Dresden, Breslau, Posen, Gdingen, and so forth., similarly as with a portion of the individual names, e.g., Marshal Strakencz, Bersonin, Count Stanislas, Luzau-Rischenheim, Strofzin, Boris the Hound, Anton, and so on. >