Even accepting that translation is technically possible,there is still the matter of its place in the literary hierarchy.Darkening any gloss on translation is the shadow of the original text,towering up"like a lifeless block of resistance."The dividing line between original and translation has been one of the assumed constants of translation theory and commentary,as jealously guarded as the frontier between two hostile nations,and rarely challenged.This supposedly inviolable border,however,is not an eternal truth:for centuries,from the Romans down to Chaucer and Shakespeare,it was common for so-called original works to incorporate large portions of texts from other languages.Around the early seventeenth century,however,attitudes began to change.Not only did the distinction between original and translation harden,but the sacred authoritv of the original was established.One reason for this attitude js technological:the rise of the printing press and the printed book brought forward the identity of the book's creator,which prioritized the notion of authorship and along with it the author's claim of copyright.Another is philosophical,stemming from both Biblical tradition and the Platonic notion of poetry as being divinely inspired and therefore levels above any attempt to replicate it.Finally,and regardless of the translator's talent,perhaps the most resistant aspect of the divide between translation and original derives from the fact that translation,by introducing one or more additional actors into the process,poses an uncomfortable challenge to our most deep-seated and cherished notions of how art is created.If we consider a work of art to be the unique expression of the artist's inner resources,then any adaptation of it,any reworking by an outside agency can only be seen as a pale imitation,more or less indicative of the"real thing"but by definition inferior to it.Rather than see this as a drawback,I recommend we consider it a liberation,an acknowledgment that the translator,freed from the unpleasant task of trying to establish exact equivalences,can now concentrate on the much more rewarding,and perfectly possible,task of doing justice to the source text by bringing her own talents to its cause.Again,this is not to say that there's no significant difference between a translation and its source.What we can question is the longstanding value system,by recognizing what the translator's literary skills bring to the mix.To present a work as aptly as possible,to re-create it in all its beauty and ugliness,takes sensitivity,empathy,flexibility,attentiveness,and tact.And,perhaps most of all,it takes respect for one's own work,the belief that one's translation is worth judging on its own merits（or flaws）,and that,if done properly,it can stand shoulder to shoulder with the source text.