Beware the source text: five (re)translations of the same work, but from different source texts

Source text(ST), although a central concept in translation studies, has remained vaguely defined. This complicates the identification of a translation’s ST, which in turn creates problems for research. Associating translations with the incorrect ST(s) leads to questionable conclusions and categorizations, especially when dealing with the types of translation that are defined and theorized with reference to their relationship with their ST(s), such as retranslation, indirect translation, pseudotranslation and self-translation. Our case study of five Finnish translations of Jules Verne’sVingt mille lieues sous les merdemonstrates that these assumed retranslations have different STs. We adopt the notions ofworkandtextto establish the relationships among the translations and STs involved:textsare representations of awork, and awork, in turn, is a literary creation implied by its varioustexts. Although the five Finnish translations have different sourcetexts, they are all – as are their STs –textsof the samework. In other words, ifsource textis understood to be atext, the five translations are not, strictly speaking, retranslations; however, ifsource textis understood to be awork, then they are all retranslations of the samework. Therefore, the categorization of these translations – and thus also the points of view from which they can be studied – depends on whethersource textis defined as atextor as awork.