ABSTRACT
As in any kind of translation, one can discern a number of actors involved in retranslating, and their loyalties form a network of influences and responsibilities. The ethics of retranslating therefore merits some serious consideration. One finding emphasised in Koskinen and Paloposki is the lack of transparency in peritexts and paratexts. The discourses on retranslating and revising tend to circulate a number of commonly held assumptions, and in many occasions retranslation research has also fallen prey to repeating these entirely untested claims. While some scholars still continue probing the relevance of the hypothesis, more interesting research has for some time been conducted using other frameworks. Once the research moves away from a select set of cases, the nature of findings is less dramatic but more varied. Putting the Retranslation Hypothesis aside will allow researchers to concentrate their efforts into understanding the rhizome of causes, motives, aims, outcomes and responses related to reprocessing translated literary texts.
