Document generated on 08/13/2022 5:08 a.m.

Meta
Journal des traducteurs
Translators’ Journal

Beware the source text: five (re)translations of the same work,

but from different source texts
Laura Ivaska and Suvi Huuhtanen

Volume 65, Number 2, August 2020 Article abstract

Source text (ST), although a central concept in translation studies, has
URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1075838ar remained vaguely defined. This complicates the identification of a translation’s
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1075838ar ST, which in turn creates problems for research. Associating translations with
the incorrect ST(s) leads to questionable conclusions and categorizations,
See table of contents 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’s Vingt mille lieues sous les
Publisher(s)
mer demonstrates that these assumed retranslations have different STs. We
Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal adopt the notions of work and text to establish the relationships among the
translations and STs involved: texts are representations of a work, and a work,
ISSN in turn, is a literary creation implied by its various texts. Although the five
Finnish translations have different source texts, they are all – as are their STs –
0026-0452 (print) texts of the same work. In other words, if source text is understood to be a text,
1492-1421 (digital) the five translations are not, strictly speaking, retranslations; however, if
source text is understood to be a work, then they are all retranslations of the
Explore this journal same work. Therefore, the categorization of these translations – and thus also
the points of view from which they can be studied – depends on whether
source text is defined as a text or as a work.
Cite this article
Ivaska, L. & Huuhtanen, S. (2020). Beware the source text: five (re)translations
of the same work, but from different source texts. Meta, 65(2), 312–331.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1075838ar

Tous droits réservés © Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2020 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit
(including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be
viewed online.
https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/

This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.

Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal,
Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to
promote and disseminate research.
https://www.erudit.org/en/
 Beware the source text: five (re)translations of the
same work, but from different source texts

laura ivaska
University of Turku, Turku, Finland
[email protected]

suvi huuhtanen
no affiliation*
[email protected]

RÉSUMÉ
Le texte source, bien qu’un concept central en traductologie, reste un terme défini de
manière vague. Ceci rend difficile l’identification du texte source des traductions, ce qui
crée des problèmes pour la recherche. Associer les traductions aux faux textes sources
mène à des conclusions et catégorisations douteuses, surtout lorsqu’on traite les types
de traductions définis et théorisés en référence à leurs liens avec leurs textes sources,
tels que la retraduction, la traduction indirecte, la pseudo-traduction et l’auto-traduction.
Notre étude de cas de cinq traductions finnoises de Vingt mille lieues sous les mers de
Jules Verne démontre que ces retraductions supposées ont différents textes sources.
Nous adoptons les concepts œuvre et texte afin d’établir les relations parmi les traduc-
tions et les textes sources concernés : textes sont des représentations d’une œuvre, et une
œuvre, à son tour, est une création littéraire qui est impliquée par divers textes. Bien que
les cinq traductions finnoises aient des textes sources différents, elles sont toutes – et
leurs textes sources également – textes de la même œuvre. En d’autres termes, si le texte
source est un texte, les cinq traductions ne sont pas, au sens strict, des retraductions ;
cependant, si le texte source est une œuvre, ils sont des retraductions de la même œuvre.
Par conséquent, la catégorisation de ces traductions – et donc aussi les points de vue à
partir desquels ils peuvent être étudiés – dépend de la définition du texte source comme
un texte ou comme une œuvre.

ABSTRACT
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 question-
able 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’s Vingt mille lieues sous les mer demon-
strates that these assumed retranslations have different STs. We adopt the notions of
work and text to establish the relationships among the translations and STs involved: texts
are representations of a work, and a work, in turn, is a literary creation implied by its
various texts. Although the five Finnish translations have different source texts, they are
all – as are their STs – texts of the same work. In other words, if source text is understood
to be a text, the five translations are not, strictly speaking, retranslations; however, if
source text is understood to be a work, then they are all retranslations of the same work.
Therefore, the categorization of these translations – and thus also the points of view from
which they can be studied – depends on whether source text is defined as a text or as a
work.

Meta LXV, 2, 2020

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 312 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 313

RESUMEN
Aunque consiste en un concepto central en traductología, el texto fuente, ha quedado un
término definido de manera vaga, lo que dificulta la identificación del texto fuente de las
traducciones et por ende acarrea problemas para la investigación. Asociar las traduccio-
nes a textos fuentes erróneos lleva a categorizaciones y conclusiones poco confiables,
sobre todo cuando se estudian los tipos de traducción definidos y teorizados con refe-
rencia a sus textos fuentes, tales como la retraducción, la traducción indirecta, la seudo-
traducción y la autotraducción. Nuestro estudio de caso de cinco traducciones fineses
de Vingt mille lieues sous les mers de Jules Verne demuestra que estas supuestas retra-
ducciones tienen diferentes textos fuentes. Adoptamos los conceptos obra y texto con el
fin de determinar las relaciones entre las traducciones y los textos fuentes estudiados:
textos son representaciones de una obra, y una obra, a su vez, es una creación literaria
implicada por sus diversos textos. A pesar de tener textos fuentes diferentes, las cinco
traducciones fineses son, al igual que sus textos fuentes, textos de la misma obra. En
otras palabras, si el texto fuente es un texto, lea cinco traducciones no son, en sentido
estricto, retraducciones; sin embargo, si el texto fuente es una obra, son retraducciones
de la misma obra. Por consiguiente, la categorización de estas traducciones, así como
los puntos de vista a partir de los cuales se pueden estudiar, dependen de la definición
del texto fuente como texto o como obra.

MOTS- CLÉS/KEY WORDS/PALABRAS CLAVE

texte source, texte et œuvre, retraduction, traduction indirecte, traduction compilative
source text, text and work, retranslation, indirect translation, compilative translation
texto fuente, texto y obra, retraducción, traducción indirecta, traducción compilativa

1. Introduction
The concepts of source text and target text are central in translation studies, yet they
seem to have remained undertheorized – just like the adjacent concept of the original
(Baer 2017). If translation is a text for which “there is another text, in another lan-
guage/culture, which has both chronological and logical priority over it” (Toury
1995/2012: 29; see also Apter 2005), it may become necessary to locate this other text
– the source text (ST). If STs are not correctly identified, the comparison of transla-
tions with their assumed STs is on shaky ground (see, for example, Toury 1995/2012:
100-101; Shengyu 2018: 38) and, by consequence, so are the theories derived from
such comparisons. One problem is that the ST does not necessarily equal what is
commonly understood as “the original text.”
Our initial idea was to compare Otto Joutsen’s 1916 indirect Finnish translation
of Jules Verne’s Vingt mille lieues sous les mers (1869/1870)1 with four (direct) Finnish
(re)translations of the novel to see if translating indirectly really results in “a lesser
degree of precision and an increasing number of deviations” (Edström 1991: 12; see
also Dollerup 2000: 23) as compared with translating directly. However, the five
translations are so different from each other that comparison was difficult. This
observation led us to question whether these translations really were based on the
same ST – even if they are all translations of the same novel. As Paloposki and
Koskinen (2010: 41) put it, “categorization and labeling may be misleading” and in
fact our initial categorization of the four translations as direct translations proved
questionable.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 313 2021-02-08 19:20

 314 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

As Toury (1995/2012: 94) points out, “there will always be the possibility that the
assumed translation under study will be found not to have been derived from a par-
ticular assumed ST after all, or not from it alone.” In fact, although “[t]he standard
Western model of translation posits a kind of exclusive, binary and unidirectional
relationship between source text and target text” (Delabastita 2008: 239), the reality
is often more complicated (see also Meylaerts 2006). Unfortunately, the information
regarding the source text(s)/language(s) of translations on title pages and bibliogra-
phies may be inaccurate, incomplete or even lacking (Toury 1995; Poupaud, Pym, et
al. 2009; Paloposki and Koskinen 2010; among others), and therefore it can be easy
to arrive at wrong conclusions. The careful assessment of the ST(s) of a translation,
however, could lead to the discovery that the translation has no ST and that it is
actually a pseudotranslation, “a text that is presented as a translation while it is in
fact not a translation” (Du Pont 2005: 328; see also Toury 1995; Popovič 1976). Or, it
could turn out that the ST is not in the language in which the text was first written,
as is the case of indirect translation, which is understood as “a translation based on
a text (or texts) other than (only) the ultimate source text” (Ivaska and Paloposki
2018: 43, note 1), or that it is based on several STs (Rizzi 2008; Ivaska and Paloposki
2018), in which case it could be labeled a compilative translation. Similarly, retrans-
lations, defined as “second or later translation[s] of a single source text into the same
target language” (Koskinen and Paloposki 2010: 294; emphasis added), could be
established to actually have different STs (see, for instance, Paloposki and Koskinen
2010), leading to the conclusions that they are, strictly speaking, not retranslations.
The importance of identifying the ST(s) of translations, however, does not lie
only in being able to correctly categorize them. Rather, this is also important because,
just as “any account of an instance of translation that is wrongly located in space and
time […] is bound to be misleading and result in shaky or wrong accounts” (Toury
1995/2012: 19, note 2), identifying the wrong ST(s) can also lead into invalid conclu-
sions. For example, thinking that Janina (1847/1882), Emilia Dobrzańska’s Polish
translation of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre (1847), was based (solely) on an English
ST, Hadyna (2016: 79) first attributed “one of the most notable errors […] to the
translator’s misunderstanding of the original.” However, she later found out that the
passage in question had actually been translated from a French mediating text and
that the Polish translation renders the meaning of the French – the de facto ST of the
passage – correctly. In other words, there is no translation error, but Hadyna could
reach this conclusion only after carefully reassessing what is – or, in this case, are –
the translation’s STs.
In this article, we discuss the difficulty of identifying and defining source texts
and present a case study of five assumed (re)translations of one novel, of which the
(re)translations nevertheless have different source texts. We adopt the notions of work
and text to be able to discuss such complex textual relationships and to show how
the source text does not (always) correspond to the “original text.” In addition, we
show how the categorizing of translations and the kind of questions one can ask
change depending on how source text is defined.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 314 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 315

2. Theoretical background
2.1.  Definitions of source text
How does translation studies define source text? Rather vaguely, if at all, it seems. For
example, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker and Saldanha
1998/2009), the Handbook of Translation Studies (Gambier and van Doorslaer
2010–2014), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (Malmkjær and Windle
2011) and The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (Millán and Bartina 2013)
all lack an article on source text, and even on text in general. The focus on the target
culture/text in recent years may explain this (see Baer 2017), but it is nevertheless
surprising considering how central a concept source text is for translation studies.
Palumbo (2009: 108) defines source text succinctly, yet not very successfully, as
“[t]he text to be translated, sometimes also called ‘foreign text’.” The introduction of
the term foreign text does not lead to a better understanding of what a source text is.
Also, we could debate whether Palumbo’s choice of tense is correct: is a text already
a source text before any translating takes place – even if the text is prepared with
translation in mind (see Dollerup 2000) – or does it become one only after translat-
ing takes place (see Emmerich 2011; Littau 1997)?
A more extended definition of source text can be found in Shuttleworth and
Cowie’s Dictionary of Translation Studies (1997):
The text (written or spoken) which provides the point of departure for translation.
Except in the case of INTERSEMIOTIC and INTRALINGUAL translation, the source
text will be in a different language (SOURCE LANGUAGE) from the translation (or
TARGET TEXT) which the translator produces from it. The source text will typically
be an original text written in SL; however, in the case of INDIRECT TRANSLATION
[…], it may itself be a translation of another text in another language. (Shuttleworth
and Cowie 1997: 157-158)
This definition views a ST as a singular, unified entity (“the text”; “the source
text”; “a translation of another text”). Although translating from a translation is
acknowledged, the possibility for a compilative translation, defined as “a translation
which makes use of a number of source texts” (Toury 1995/2012: 100, note 4; see also
Assis Rosa, Pięta, et al. 2017; Crisafulli 1999; Ivaska 2021), is not considered, and the
same applies to support translation, which entails translators checking other transla-
tions of the text “in order to see whether colleagues have found satisfactory solutions
to certain problems” (Dollerup 2000: 23).2 According to the above definition, the ST
and the translation are in the same language only in cases of intersemiotic and intra-
lingual translation. Thus, a retranslation using a previous translation into the same
language as a (supporting) source would not count as interlingual (re)translation.3
Another problem with this definition is that ST and original text are considered
equal (“The source text will typically be an original text”). This relationship is prob-
lematic, as Pym discusses in his Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for
Moments of Perplexity and Dispute, in which he defines source text as the “[s]tandard
term for the text that you translate from” (Pym 2011: 92). He also notes that “[t]he
theoretical problem is that all texts incorporate elements from previous texts, so in
principle no text can be a primal ‘source.’ Common parlance refers more readily to
‘the original,’ which promotes the same illusion of primacy” (Pym 2011: 92). Pym
seems to be suggesting that no text is ever truly original within the universe of all

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 315 2021-02-08 19:20

 316 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

the texts in the world because some level of (unintended) intertextuality is unavoid-
able (see also Littau 1997; Bassnett 1998; Paloposki 2001; Scott 2006). This illusion of
originality exists also on the level of an individual work. Novels, for example, can
exist simultaneously in several forms, such as editions and (re)translations in various
languages. Sometimes there might even be small differences between the hardback
and the paperback – because someone has spotted typos or because the translator
has changed their mind – like Emily Wilson, who in 2017 translated Homer’s Odyssey
into English, recently disclosed on Twitter.4 In such situations, which version is the
“original”? Complexities of this and similar kinds make equating (source) text with
original an oversimplification: sometimes it can be difficult – if not impossible – to
pinpoint one version that is more “original” than the others.

2.2. The multiple, unstable (source) text

There are often several candidates for a ST from which the translator – or whoever
is responsible for the choice of the ST(s) (see for instance Emmerich 2017) – needs to
choose (Crisafulli 1999; see also Frei 2012; Kothari 2005; Wu and Fernández Díaz
2017). This can make it difficult to identify the correct ST(s) of translations, which in
turn complicates the categorization of the translations. For example, Virginia Woolf’s
novels were “typeset and printed in both the U.K. and the U.S. from two separate
sets of proofs” (Emmerich 2017: 2), and naturally either version can serve as a ST.
What if one translation is done from the U.K. and another from the U.S. version – are
they translations of the same novel? Or if the first translation into language A is from
the U.K. and the second from the U.S. version – is the latter a retranslation?5 What
if one part of a translation is based on the U.K. and another on the U.S. version (see
Wu and Férnandez Díaz 2017)? Or what if the author revises a published text (see
Baer 2017; Toury 1995/2012; van Hulle 2015) or self-translates6 their works – which
version should be used as a ST, and what if different translators use different versions
(see Woods 2006)?
Because novels sometimes exist simultaneously in several forms, establishing the
exact ST(s) may require extensive detective work (see, for instance, Fernández Muñiz
2016). However, as “the published text is but one phase in the text’s evolution”
(Cordingley and Montini 2015: 2), an evolution that begins before the text’s publica-
tion, we need to ask: does a text become a text only once it is published, or already
in manuscript form – can an unpublished text serve as a ST? And what should we
do about the fact that “behind every manuscript there lurks other, lost manuscripts
and any number of unrecorded hours of mental activity” (Scott 2006: 108) – can a
ST exist in oral or other non-physical form (see Apter 2005; Hung 2005)?
When the possibility of a non-physical ST is taken into account, establishing
what served as the ST(s) of a translation might become outright impossible. For
example, the ST may have existed only in the mind of the translator, without ever
taking any tangible form, when they were producing a pseudotranslation (see Apter
2005) or a compilative translation (see Shengyu 2018; Ivaska 2021).7 Locating the ST
may also be challenging if the ST is “one of a kind, […] utterly unique” (Emmerich
2017: 6), such as Karen Emmerich’s ST for her English translation of Vassilis
Vassilikos’ novel Γλαύκος Θρασάκης (1974), translated as The Few Things I Know
About Glafkos Thrassakis (2002). Since the publisher of the translation demanded

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 316 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 317

that the book be shortened, the author himself tore out 150 pages of a Greek version,
leaving the translator with a “physically altered copy of an out-of-print edition of a
novel that had already appeared in numerous other versions in Greek” (Emmerich
2017: 6) as her ST. In fact, sometimes the translator may be the only one with access
to and/or knowledge on what the ST(s) of a particular translation were, and the
researcher may, unfortunately, have “no way, let alone a foolproof one, to distinguish
between texts whose sources have simply vanished and texts which never had a
single-text source” (Toury 1995/2012: 48).
In other words, identifying the exact ST(s) may be difficult because there can be
several candidates, because the translator may have used a unique copy, or because
the text never had a physical form. However, picking up a version and comparing it
with the translation might lead to incorrect conclusions. Dedner, for example, has
observed one such instance:
Earlier scholars compared Büchner’s translation with Hugo’s original [of the plays
Lucrèce Borgia and Marie Tudor] and were amazed at the liberties the translator
Büchner had allowed himself. Their amazement was ill-founded since it was they who
had taken the liberty of comparing Büchner’s translation from 1835 with a much later
and much changed version of the French text. (Dedner 2012: 125-126)
To avoid this kind of missteps, the ST(s) should be carefully established before
making comparative analyses. This seems especially important when dealing with
phenomena like retranslation, pseudotranslation, indirect translation, revision, back-
translation, adaptation and self-translation, as these categories are defined and dis-
tinguished from each other at least partly on the basis of their relationship with their
ST(s) (see Gambier 1994, among others).

2.3. The work, the (source) text, the translation

If, for research purposes, it is necessary to identify the ST(s) of a translation, how to
confront the fact that a text may exist in multiple forms, and how to conceptualize
the connections between the various translations of a novel that were done from
different STs? In other words, how to describe the relationship between different texts
that stem from the same root? Or what to do if one is unable to locate the exact ST(s)
of a translation – does it mean that research becomes impossible? One approach to
dealing with such situations can be found in textual scholarship,8 in which a literary
product can be described with two distinct terms, text and work: “From the receiver’s
perspective, a work is the imagined whole implied by all differing forms of a text that
we conceive as representing a single literary creation” (Shillingsburg 1984/1996: 43;
emphasis added). In other words, a text is one form of a work – or, the other way
round, texts are different representations of a work.
The evolution of a work may begin as a non-physical text (an idea) and may then
transform into various physical texts – in one or several languages. Then, the “process
of textual transformation continues […] after the work’s publication through its re-
editions, its retranslations and its different reception by heterogeneous communities
of readers” (Cordingley and Montini 2015: 2; emphasis in the original). In brief, works,
whether translated or not, often exist in several forms – texts – none of which is neces-
sarily the last or the definitive version. Similarly, trying to locate the first or the origi-
nal version is difficult. Even authors themselves can create multiple texts of their works.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 317 2021-02-08 19:20

 318 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

For example, as van Hulle (2015) explains, Beckett self-translated his L’innommable
(1953) from French into English (The Unnameable, 1958) adding a phrase to the ending
– thus making “the original less complete” (van Hulle 2015: 46) – and later, when the
French version was republished, this additional phrase was also included in that lan-
guage-version. In other words, the relationship between a ST and a target text is not
always as straightforward as it may seem: translations can cause their STs to evolve (see
also Emmerich 2017) or they can even function as STs for further (indirect) transla-
tions, implying that the relationship between STs and translations is not unidirectional
and binary (see Dollerup 2004; Delabastita 2008). However, both the French and the
English versions of Beckett’s novel are texts of the same work. Similarly, in the case of
the Virginia Woolf novel whose U.K. typesetting and printing differ from those of the
U.S. version, the story Woolf imagined is the work, whereas both the U.K. and the U.S.
print versions are its texts. Regardless of which of these versions is used as a ST, all
subsequent translations are representations of the same work.9

3. The five Finnish translations of Vingt mille lieues sous les mers
Jules Verne’s Vingt mille lieues sous les mers was originally published between 20 March
1869 and 20 June 1870 in Magasin d’Éducation et de Récréation, a periodical aimed at
young readers. It has since been published in several versions (texts), including new
editions and translations.10 For this case study, we have identified five book-length
translations into Finnish (see Table 1). We will study these translations to see if they
have the same source text. The aim is to understand whether they really are retransla-
tions of the same source text, keeping in mind the definition of retranslation as a
“second or later translation of a single source text into the same target language”
(Koskinen and Paloposki 2010: 294; emphasis added).
The first Finnish translation, Otto Aleksanteri Joutsen’s Sukelluslaivalla maapal-
lon ympäri [Around the globe in a submarine], came out in 1916, forty-seven years
after the story was first published in French. The title page does not mention Joutsen’s
source language/text. The translation, published by WSOY, is abridged, at 400 pages
and approximately 79,000 words. It was reprinted in 1918 and 1934.
In 1926, Verne’s novel was published in a (re)translation by another publisher,
Karisto. This version was initially published in two parts: Merten alitse [Crossing
under the seas], translated by Väinö Hämeen-Anttila, and Kapteeni Nemo [Captain
Nemo], translated by Urho Kivimäki. The title page explicitly states that the transla-
tions were done from French. There were no reprints in this two-volume format, but
in 1968 the translations were published in a second revised edition. The revisions were
done by an anonymous reviser – both Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki had passed away
– and the novel was turned into a trilogy, the parts being titled Merten alitse, Kapteeni
Nemo, and Nautilus. The trilogy was reprinted in 1969 and 1977, whereas the fifth
edition in 1991 was published in one volume under the name Kapteeni Nemo ja
Nautilus [Captain Nemo and the Nautilus]. The sixth and latest reprint appeared in
1998, again in one volume. In any format, the translation by this duo, with approxi-
mately 530 pages and about 105,000 words, is the longest of the Finnish translations.
A Finnish translation of the novel also appeared in the USSR in 1934-1935, pub-
lished by Valtion Kustannusliike Kirja. The publisher was based in Petrozavodsk, the
current capital of the Republic of Karelia in the modern-day Russian Federation. At

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 318 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 319

the time of the translation’s publication, Finnish was one of Soviet Karelia’s official
languages, which explains why a Finnish translation was published there. The trans-
lation consisted of two parts, Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri I [Around the globe
in a submarine I] (1934) and Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri II [Around the globe
in a submarine II] (1935). No translator is mentioned on the title page, but the names
of the editors, H. Mäkelin (Part I) and Aune Rautio (Part II), are given. Length-wise,
this version, having 406 pages and about 79,000 words, seems slightly abridged.
The publishing house WSOY, which had published Joutsen’s translation in 1916,
released the novel in a new translation in 1955. This translation, by Martta Tynni,
carries the same title as Joutsen’s translation, Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri
[Around the Globe in a Submarine]. Tynni’s translation is 317 pages and about 67,000
words long (whereas Joutsen’s is 400 pages and around 79,000 words) and, according
to the title page, it has been slightly abridged. Tynni’s translation has been reprinted
six times (1957, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1995, and 2000).
Lastly, Vingt mille lieues sous les mers was translated into Finnish by Kristina
Haataja and published by Minerva in 2008. Haataja’s translation, titled Kapteeni
Nemo: Merten syvyyksissä [Captain Nemo: in the depths of the seas], is the shortest
of all with only 287 pages and roughly 57,000 words, and it is also the only one with
no illustrations. According to the title page, the book was translated from French. At
the time of writing, the translation has been reprinted once, in 2011.

Table 1
Bibliographic information of the Finnish translations of the novel

1. Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri [Around the globe in a submarine]

First Published 1916
Publisher Porvoo: WSOY
Translator(s) Otto Aleksanteri Joutsen
Translation Info Translated into Finnish by O. A. Joutsen. (“Suomentanut O. A. Joutsen.”)
Pages 400 (ca. 79,000 words)
Source Language Not mentioned
Illustrations Yes
Reprints 1918; 1934
2a. Merten alitse* + Kapteeni Nemo° [Crossing under the seas + Captain Nemo]
2b. Merten alitse* + Kapteeni Nemo*° + Nautilus° (2nd revised ed.) [Crossing under the seas +
Captain Nemo + Nautilus]
2c. Kapteeni Nemo ja Nautilus*° (5th ed.) [Captain Nemo and Nautilus]
First Published 2a. 1926
2b. 1968
2c. 1991
Publisher Hämeenlinna: Karisto
Translator(s) Väinö Hämeen-Anttila* and Urho Kivimäki°
Translation Info 2a. Translated from the French language into Finnish by V. Hämeen-
Anttila (“Ranskankielestä [sic] suomentanut V. Hämeen-Anttila”) +
Translated from the French language into Finnish by Urho Kivimäki
(“Ranskankielestä [sic] suomentanut Urho Kivimäki”)
2b. Translated by Väinö Hämeen-Anttila, revised 1968 (“Suom. Väinö
Hämeen-Anttila, tark. 1968”) + Translated by Väinö Hämeen-Anttila
and Urho Kivimäki, revised 1968 (“Suom. Väinö Hämeen-Anttila ja
Urho Kivimäki, tark. 1968”) + Translated by Urho Kivimäki, revised
1968 (“Suom. Urho Kivimäki, tark. 1969”)
2c. Last reprint in 1998: Translations into Finnish, revised in 1968
(“Suomennokset tarkistettu vuonna 1968”)

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 319 2021-02-08 19:20

 320 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

Pages 2a. 247+286=533 (ca. 105,000 words)

2b. 188+172+178=538
2c. 526
Source Language French
Illustrations Yes
Reprints 2a. none
2b. 1969; 1977
2c. 1998
3. Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri I + II [Around the globe in a submarine I + II]
First Published 1934 (part I); 1935 (part II)
Publisher Petrozavodsk (USSR): Valtion Kustannusliike Kirja
Translator(s) Anonymous
Translation Info Part I: Editor in chief H. Mäkelin (“Отв. редктор Х. Мякелин”); Part II:
Editor in chief Aune Rautio (“Отв. редктор Ауне Раутио”)
Pages 156+250=406 (ca. 79,000 words)
Source Language Not mentioned
Illustrations Yes
Reprints No11
4. Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri [Around the globe in a submarine]
First Published 1955
Publisher Helsinki: WSOY
Translator(s) Martta Tynni
Translation Info From the original work 20.000 lieues sous les mers slightly abridged and
translated into Finnish by Martta Tynni (“Alkuteoksesta 20.000 lieues
sous les mers hieman lyhentäen suomentanut Martta Tynni”)
Pages 317 (ca. 67,000 words)
Source Language French
Illustrations Yes
Reprints 1957; 1964; 1970; 1976; 1995; 2000
5. Kapteeni Nemo: Merten syvyyksissä [Captain Nemo: in the depths of the seas]
First Published 2008
Publisher Helsinki: Minerva
Translator(s) Kristina Haataja
Translation Info Translated from French into Finnish by Kristina Haataja (“Ranskan
kielestä suomentanut Kristina Haataja”)
Pages 287 (ca. 57,000 words)
Source Language French
Illustrations No
Reprints 2011

4. Methods
To identify the source text(s)/language(s) of each Finnish translation, we ask: Is the
ST in French? If not in French, then what language(s)? We first looked for clues on
the source texts/languages in materials, such as correspondence, found in the trans-
lators’ archives. Joutsen discusses the translating of Vingt mille lieues sous les mers
in letters to the publisher, archived at the National Archives of Finland (NAFI).
Hämeen-Anttila’s archives at NAFI and the Finnish Literature Society Archives, like
Kivimäki’s archives at NAFI, do not contain any mentions of translating Verne. As

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 320 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 321

for Tynni, we have been unable to locate her archives, and the same applies to Haataja
(who is still alive). We looked for additional information on the translators’ lives in
various sources to find further clues as to their possible source texts/languages and
to contextualize their translations.
Textual comparison of the translations with their possible STs is another way to
identify the source text(s)/language(s), and it forms the core of our analysis. To enable
a rich analysis, we analyze four chapters from different parts of the novel that deal
with different themes: one is the first chapter (“Un écueil fuyant” in the original),
two are from the middle (“Une forêt sous-marine” and “La foudre du capitaine
Nemo”) and one from the end (“Les poulpes”). The comparison builds on Huuhtanen
(2016). When the analysis requires comparison with a French version, we refer to a
version that was easily accessible: the 40th, illustrated edition published in 2010 by
Librairie Générale Française.

5. Uncovering the source text(s)/language(s) of the five Finnish

translations
Otto Joutsen’s correspondence with his publisher reveals that he translated the novel
indirectly from English and Swedish. It was common to translate French literature
indirectly in that era (Suomela-Härmä 2007), and according to online database
Fennica,12 the National Bibliography of Finland, at least two other novels by Verne
from the late 1800s are indirect translations.13 In a letter, Joutsen explains how he
had – without success – ­ tried to get a copy of Vingt mille lieues sous les mers in French
because he was not happy with using the English version he had at his disposal:14 he
feared that converting measurements back from the English system into the metric
system would not result in the same numbers that Verne had used, especially since
the numbers were often preceded by the word “about” in the English translation.15
Therefore, the publisher sent Joutsen a Swedish translation, but because Joutsen
suspected that it had also been translated from English, he concluded that it was best
to use both translations side by side.16 Thus, Joutsen’s translation is not only indirect,
but also compilative. However, Joutsen refers to the English as “the original”17, which
suggests that he might have used it as his primary ST – or perhaps the English version
was “original” for him because it was chronologically his first ST.
Väinö Hämeen-Anttila worked at the Karisto publishing house as an editor and
CEO (Simojoki 1950), wrote and edited books, and translated English and French
authors such as Defoe, Kipling, and Dumas. Urho Kivimäki also worked at the
Karisto publishing house (Simojoki 1950) and translated literature, mostly from
German and French. Comparison of Kivimäki’s and Hämeen-Anttila’s translations
with a French version of the novel has produced no evidence suggesting that they did
not translate Vingt mille lieues sous les mers from French. Of course, it is difficult to
ascertain that they did not use any other language-version(s) as their ST(s). In any
case, the most interesting aspect of their translation, from the point of view of this
study, is that it was successively recycled, as will be discussed next.
The anonymous 1934-1935 USSR translation appropriates Joutsen’s and
Kivimäki’s translations. Comparison makes evident that the first part of Sukellus­
laivalla maapallon ympäri is an almost exact copy of the first 192 pages of Joutsen’s
translation, except that it has been shortened from about 38,000 to approximately

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 321 2021-02-08 19:20

 322 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

30,000 words and a few words have been changed, apparently to modernize the style
(see Examples 1a, Joutsen’s translation, and 1b, the USSR translation; texts in square
brackets are our glosses of the examples that are being analyzed). The second part of
the translation is not a copy of Joutsen’s translation, but a slightly revised and short-
ened (from approximately 57,000 to around 49,000 words) version of Kivimäki’s
Kapteeni Nemo with the wording being overall very similar (see Examples 2a,
Kivimäki’ version, and 2b, the anonymous Soviet translation). In other words, this
version is some kind of intralingual compilative plagiarism or revision.
1) Mais, en ce moment, le Nautilus, soulevé par les dernières ondulations du flôt, quitta
son lit de corail à cette quarantième minute exactement fixée par le capitaine.
[But, at that moment, Nautilus, lifted by the last waves of the tide, left its coral bed
at that fortieth minute exactly set by the captain.]
(Verne 1869-1870/2010: 268)
a) Mutta samassapa jättikin vuoksen viimeisten maininkien irtitempaama
Nautilus rosoisen korallivuoteensa täsmälleen 2,40 iltapäivällä, kuten kapteeni
oli luvannut.
[But in that instant, wrenched by the last swells of the high tide, Nautilus left
its rough coral bed exactly at 2,40 in the afternoon like the captain had pro-
mised.]
(Verne 1869-1870/1916: 175, translated by Joutsen)
b) Mutta samassapa jättikin nousuveden viimeisten maininkien irti tempaama
Nautilus rosoisen korallivuoteensa täsmälleen 2,40 iltapäivällä, kuten kapteeni
oli luvannut.
[But in that instant, wrenched by the last swells of the high water, Nautilus left
its rough coral bed exactly at 2,40 in the afternoon like the captain had pro-
mised.]
(Verne 1869-1870/1934: 143, translator anonymous)
2) Ce combat avait duré un quart d’heure. Les monstres vaincus, mutilés, frappés à
mort, nous laissèrent enfin place et disparurent sous les flots.
[That battle had lasted for a quarter of an hour. The defeated, mutilated, beaten-to-
death monsters finally left us and disappeared under the waves.]
(Verne 1869-1870/2010: 545)
a) Taistelua oli kestänyt viisitoista minuuttia. Masennetut, ruhjotut, kuolemaa
tekevät kummitukset luovuttivat tanteren ja katosivat aaltoihin.
[The battle had lasted for fifteen minutes. The discouraged, mutilated, dying
ghosts ceded the ground and disappeared in the waves.]
(Verne 1869-1870/1926: 239, translated by Kivimäki)
b) Taistelua oli kestänyt viisitoista minuuttia. Masennetut, ruhjotut [sic] kuolemaa
tekevät kummitukset luovuttivat meille tantereen ja katosivat aaltoihin.
[The battle had lasted for fifteen minutes. The discouraged, mutilated dying
ghosts ceded the ground to us and disappeared in the waves.]
(Verne 1869-1870/1935: 209, anonymous translator)

According to Fennica, Martta Tynni’s translation career was short (1955-1961)

with three works by Verne, a novel by another French author, Paul Berna, and six
children’s books by the French writer Madeleine Grize, which Tynni translated
together with L. Aro. Tynni was also a lecturer of French at the University of Helsinki
from 1971 to 1973;18 she must have had an excellent command of French at least by

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 322 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 323

the 1970s. Considering that Tynni’s translation has the same publisher and title as
Joutsen’s, one might expect for it to be a revision, but it is not. Joutsen used English
and Swedish STs, but the textual analysis of Tynni’s translation of Vingt mille lieues
sous les mers suggests that she used a French ST, as Examples 3a (Joutsen) and 3b
(Tynni) demonstrate. It also shows that Joutsen was rightly worried about converting
measurements from the English system back into the metric system:
3) […] une tôle de quatre centimètres […]
[a metal sheet four centimeters thick]
(Verne 1869-1870/2010: 38)
a) […] 3½ sm. vahvuisissa rautalevyissä […]
[in iron sheets 3½ centimeters thick]
(Verne 1869-1870/1916: 13, translated by Joutsen)
b) […] neljän senttimetrin vahvuisen teräslevyn […]
[of a steel sheet four centimeters thick]
(Verne 1869-1870/1955: 9, translated by Tynni)
The title page of Tynni’s translation states that the translation is abridged. Milton
(2001) observes that there are several ways to abridge a translation, the easiest being
to translate an existing abridged version. Tynni’s ST may have been an abridged
French version or a full-length version. In the latter case, the ST could be the same
as Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s, but considering how heavily Tynni’s translation
is abridged (it has about 67,000 words, as compared to the approximately Hämeen-
Anttila and Kivimäki’s 105,000), it becomes difficult – if not impossible – to compare
her version to Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s to verify similarities and differences,
let alone to compare Tynni’s translation to French versions in order to figure out the
exact ST. In any case, we can say with certainty that her ST is different at least from
Joutsen’s and the USSR version.
Kristina Haataja is a translator, language teacher, and journalist who has spent
most of her life in Paris. Prior to translating Vingt mille lieues sous les mers in 2008
– as well as Verne’s Le tour du monde en 80 jours (1872) under the title Maailman
ympäri 80 päivässä (2008) and Cinq Semaines en ballon (1863), titled Kuumailmapallolla
Afrikan halki (2009) in Finnish – she had already translated other French authors,
such as Marguerite Duras, Virginie Despentes, and Emmanuel Carrère. She has also
written fiction both in French and in Finnish, and hence we have no reason to suspect
that she could not have translated Verne directly from French. However, comparison
with the other Finnish translations reveals that Haataja’s translation draws on
Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s translation. Even if Haataja’s abridged translation
is much shorter than Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s (57,000 as compared to 105,000
words), her translation is divided into paragraphs following Hämeen-Anttila and
Kivimäki’s example, the syntax is very similar, and some word choices are duplicated
so systematically that the source of influence is indisputable, such as in the case of
the not-so-common and poetic word lakkapää (see Example 4):
4) [J]’apercevais même les «moutons» écumeux que leur crête brisée multipliait sur
les eaux.
[I even noticed foamy “sheep” which their breaking crests multiplied in the water.]
(Verne 1869-1870/2010: 200)

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 323 2021-02-08 19:20

 324 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

a) Olinpa huomaavinani myöskin ”lakkapäitä,” joita murtuneesta aallosta pärs-

kähteli pinnalle.
[I think I even noticed foamy “whitecaps” that from the broken wave bursted
to the surface.]
(Verne 1869-1870/1926: 169, translated by Hämeen-Anttila)
b) Olin huomaavinani myös lakkapäitä, joita pärskähteli pinnalle murtuneista
aalloista.
[I think I even noticed foamy whitecaps, that bursted to the surface from the
broken waves.]
(Verne 1869-1870/2008: 110, translated by Haataja)

However, some passages suggest that Haataja used also a French ST:
5) Il était probable qu’ils venaient des îles voisines ou de la Papouasie proprement
dite.
[It was likely that they came from the neighbouring islands or from the actual
Papua.]
(Verne 1869-1870/2010: 257)
a) Heitä saapui tietenkin lähisaarilta tai itse Uudesta Guineasta.
[They were of course arriving from the near-by islands or from the actual New
Guinea.]
(Verne 1869-1870/1926: 215, translated by Hämeen-Anttila)
b) On mahdollista, että he olivat saapuneet naapurisaarista tai varsinaisesta
Papuasiasta.
[It is possible that they had arrived from the neighbouring islands or from the
actual Papua.]
(Verne 1869-1870/2008: 134-135, translated by Haataja)

It remains unclear why, instead of translating simply from a French ST, Haataja
ended up making what Alvstad and Assis Rosa (2015: 17) would call a compilative
inter- and intralingual retranslation, which they define as the “use of the source text
and of one or several previous translations into the target language,” or what
Washbourne (2013: 619) calls a comparison-revision/retranslation, in which “the
most successful parts are retained, the weaker parts shored up.”19 Perhaps Haataja
was familiar with Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s translation as a reader, and their
version thus represents for her the canonical translation from which she did not want
to deviate too much;20 or, it might have been simply the publisher’s decision or
demand that Haataja should stay close to Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s translation.
Milton (2001) suggests that it can be cheaper to recycle an existing translation rather
than translate from scratch, but as Şahin, Duman, et al. (2015: 197) note, retransla-
tions that recycle previous translators’ work have not been discussed in detail “partly
due to the complexity of the problem and partly because of the vulnerability of the
situation.” Şahin, Duman, et al. presumably refer to the fact that phenomena such as
editing, revising, and recycling raise the question of “how much change can there be
in the revision process for the translation still to be the same, i.e. under the name of
the previous translator, and where is the line to be drawn to a new translation?”
(Paloposki and Koskinen 2010: 44). Whatever the motivations behind the choice to
use a French version and a previous Finnish translation as the STs, Haataja’s transla-
tion presents an interesting case of yet another type of a (combination of) ST(s) that

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 324 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 325

can be found behind a translation. What makes it particularly interesting for this
study is that following Shuttleworth and Cowie’s (1997) definition of source text, this
translation would need to be categorized as an intralingual translation because one
of the STs is in the same language as the translation itself.
To sum up the findings (also presented in Table 2), we can conclude that
Joutsen’s translation is an indirect, compilative translation: his correspondence
reveals that the STs are an English and a Swedish translation, and that he had no
access to a French version. As for Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s translation,
we have found no evidence suggesting that it is anything but a direct translation,
whereas the anonymous USSR translation is some sort of an intralingual compila-
tive plagiarism/revision that appropriates Joutsen’s and Kivimäki’s translations.
Two interpretations are possible when it comes to the fourth translation, by Tynni,
which is done directly from French like Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s transla-
tion, but is abridged: either Tynni used an abridged French version as her ST, in
which case her ST is different from Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s, or she had a
full-length French version as her ST which she translated only partly in her Finnish
translation, in which case the ST Tynni had at her disposal might be the same ver-
sion of the novel as Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s. Finally, the fifth translation,
by Haataja, is perhaps the most interesting as it shows use of both a French version
and a previous Finnish translation as its sources; it evades clear-cut categorizations
and could be described as a compilative inter- and intralingual retranslation, or as
a comparison-revision/retranslation.
This careful assessment of each translation’s source texts has made new qualities
of the source and target texts become evident, which translates into new research
opportunities: we could compare Joutsen’s, the USSR and Haataja’s versions as they
are all compilative in nature, or we could study Tynni’s and Haataja’s translations,
which are both abridgements, or examine closer the USSR and Haataja’s versions,
which both make explicit reference to earlier Finnish translations. Similarly, delving
deeper into the forms of source texts and the categorization of translations can help
notice new research avenues to further our understanding of what source text is. In
this case study, some of the topics that could be further explored include: How to
hypothesize compilative retranslations which draw from previous translations into
the same language, that is, what hypotheses should one apply to Haataja’s translation,
for example: the ones regarding retranslation, those formulated on indirect transla-
tion or something else, such as hypotheses on intralingual translation? How much
can a translator rely on previous translations before their translation becomes com-
pilative? Where is the line between retranslation and revision? What to do with the
cases where one part of a retranslation/plagiarism is based on one and the other part
on another text, like the anonymous USSR translation?

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 325 2021-02-08 19:20

 326 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

Table 2
The STs and translation types of the Finnish translations

Translation Source Text(s) Type of Translation

English translation + Swedish
Joutsen Indirect, compilative translation
translation
Hämeen-Anttila and
French version Direct translation
Kivimäki
Joutsen’s translation + Kivimäki’s Intralingual compilative
Anonymous USSR
translation plagiarism/revision
Tynni (Abridged?) French version Direct (abridged) translation
Abridged compilative inter- and
(Abridged?) French version +
intralingual retranslation?
Haataja Hämeen-Anttila and Kivimäki’s
Abridged comparison-revision/
translation
retranslation?

6. Conclusions
The concept of source text remains undertheorized. As this study shows, it is not suffi-
cient to conceptualize source text as equal to an “original” – in fact, “the concept of the
original […] is a modern invention, belonging to a materialist life, and carries with it all
kinds of commercial implications about translation, originality and textual ownership”
(Bassnett 1998: 38; see also Hung and Wakabayashi 2005; Baer 2017). Adopting the
notions of work and text helps in establishing the relationships between the different
versions – editions, (re)translations; in the first language or in translation – of a novel,
for example: a work is represented by the different texts, that is, its different versions. If
source text is considered equal to “original,” the existence of different texts is neglected.
Such a discourse seems to liken source text with work, although the work, as Shillingburg’s
(1996: 43) definition states, exists only through the texts that represent it.
Although identifying the source texts of translations is not always easy, it can be
crucial in order to reach meaningful conclusions when dealing with topics where the
source text-target text relationship is central, such as retranslation. The analysis of
the five Finnish (re)translations of Jules Verne’s Vingt mille lieues sous les mers makes
evident that the five translations have different source texts (see Table 2). This raises
the question whether it is meaningful to compare them to learn something about
retranslation, at least if we adopt Koskinen and Paloposki’s (2010: 294) definition of
retranslation as a “second or later translation of a single source text into the same
target language.” Another way to look at the situation is to acknowledge that the five
Finnish translations are all texts of the same work – Jules Verne’s Vingt mille lieues
sous les mers. This means that these translations could be compared among them to
see what kind of elements the different texts of a work share or how they differ from
each other. In this case, the comparison could also include versions in languages
other than Finnish, as they are also texts of the same work by Verne. In other words,
the points of view from which the five translations can be studied depends on whether
source text is defined as a text or as a work.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 326 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 327

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Katja Vuokko for sharing with us the letters in which Joutsen writes
about translating Vingt mille lieues sous les mers indirectly. We would also like to thank Katja
Vuokko, Outi Paloposki, Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov, and the anonymous reviewers for their
feedback on our manuscript. Laura Ivaska’s research was funded by a grant from the Kone
Foundation.

NOTES
* Suvi Huuhtanen graduated with a MA in French translation studies from the University of
Tampere in 2016.
1. See the Appendix for the bibliographic information of the different versions of the novel consulted
in this study
2. In Dollerup’s (2000: 23) definition, support translation entails translators checking “translations
into languages other than their own target language,” but Washbourne (2013: 617) argues that
“other same-target translations should be considered support translations as well.”
3. However, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate retranslations and edited versions, which puts
the category of retranslation into question; “the actual categorizing of translations into first and
subsequent translations, which has formed the basis for almost all theorizing about retranslations,
is ultimately misleading – unless we accept the claim that retranslation can be anything, from a
slight editing of a previous translation to a completely different text. […] even if two separate
translators were mentioned in bibliographies as having translated the same source text, was it really
a question of two different translations?” (Paloposki and Koskinen 2010: 37; see also Tarvi 2005).
4. Wilson wrote: “People fairly regularly ask me about changes between the paperback and hardback
of my Odyssey translation. I made a number of small changes, mostly for metrical reasons, to
improve the rhythm and flow. A few were for other reasons, eg typos, or changing my mind.”
Wilson, Emily (22 August 2019): Twitter. Consulted on 20 October 2019, <https://twitter.com/
EmilyRCWilson/status/1164512553487257600>.
5. The fact that (assumed) retranslations might have different STs has not been sufficiently addressed.
Similarly, “[t]he discussion on retranslations thus far have not taken into account cases where parts
of the text have been retranslated, perhaps more than once, whilst other parts have only been translated
once, and some parts have been edited, reprinted or abridged” (Paloposki and Koskinen 2010: 39).
6. Self-translation is here understood as “the translation of an original work into another language
by the author himself” (Popovič 1976: 19).
7. If translation is understood to involve just one ST – a claim subject to debate – then the process
of making a compilative translation can be seen to consist in first comparing several texts and
creating a new (source) text that did not exist previously and then translating this text. The de facto
ST of the compilative translation might never take a physical form, but materials in the translator’s
archives, such as translation drafts, and textual comparison of the versions involved in the process
can offer clues to understanding how the translator created the de facto ST and what it was like
(see van Hulle 2015; Fernández Muñiz 2016; Solberg 2016; Shengyu 2018; Ivaska 2021).
8. Textual scholarship deals with “describing, transcribing, editing or annotating texts and physical
documents” (Katajamäki and Lukin 2013: 8) and comprises disciplines such as textual criticism
and genetic criticism.
9. It is another discussion where one work ends and another begins (for instance, adaptations: texts
or works?).
10. For example, UNESCO’s Index Translationum holds 4836 records of Verne’s works, making Verne
one of the world’s most translated authors. Among UNESCO’s records, 399 are translations of
Vingt mille lieues sous les mers, but the list is incomplete; for example, it lacks the first Finnish
translation. Similarly, the Fennica database of the National Library of Finland returns 250 hits
with the key word Jules Verne (28 January 2018).
11. Fennica does not list reprints. However, the National Bibliography of Finland cannot be expected
to have information on books published outside of Finland.
12. Fennica (2020): National Library of Finland. Consulted on 28 April 2020, <https://fennica.linne-
anet.fi>.
13. According to Fennica, Voyage au centre de la Terre (1864) was translated via Swedish by B. Lagus
under the title Matkustus maan keskipisteeseen (1879) and Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 327 2021-02-08 19:20

 328 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

(1872) from W. Christian’s German by Martti Humu under the title Matka maan ympäri 80:ssa
vuorokaudessa (1895).
14. This is perhaps no surprise considering that “the early English translations of Verne’s Voyages
Extraordinaires were extremely shoddy […] and abridged […] (often from 20 to 40% of the origi-
nal)” (Evans 200: 80).
15. Joutsen, Otto (24 February 1915): Letter to WSOY. WSOY Archives, National Archives of Finland.
16. Joutsen, Otto (27 March 1915): Letter to WSOY. WSOY Archives, National Archives of Finland.
Joutsen, Otto (28 April 1915): Letter to WSOY. WSOY Archives, National Archives of Finland.
17. Joutsen, Otto (28 April 1915): Letter to WSOY. WSOY Archives, National Archives of Finland.
18. Helsingin yliopiston opettaja- ja virkamiesluettelo 1918–2000. Visited on January 26, 2018, https://
www.helsinki.fi/sites/default/files/atoms/files/helsingin_yliopiston_opettaja_ja_virkamiesmatrik-
keli_1918_2000_0.pdf.
19. See also, for example, Zhang and Ma’s (2018) discussion on intertextuality in retranslation and
Washbourne’s (2016) discussion on the line between retranslation, revision, and plagiarism.
20. In an article about her experience translating Verne, Haataja (2018: 9) analyzes Verne’s style and
concludes how it is “difficult to imagine anything more timeless than an adventure story aimed at
young readers and nostalgia aimed at adults. Both can be found in Jules Verne’s novels […] The
translator must choose their words wisely to make sure that they are valid for the next one hundred
years or so” (our translation).

REFERENCES
Alvstad, Cecilia and Assis Rosa, Alexandra (2015): Voice in Retranslation: An Overview and
Some Trends. Target. 27(1):3-24.
Apter, Emily (2005): Translations with no original: Scandals of textual reproduction. In: Sandra
Bermann and Michael Wood, eds. Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 159-174.
Assis Rosa, Alexandra, Pięta, Hanna, and Bueno Maia, Rita (2017): Theoretical, method-
ological and terminological issues regarding indirect translation: An overview. Translation
Studies. 10(2):113-132.
Baer, Brian James (2017): De-sacralizing the origin(al) and the transnational future of Transla-
tion Studies. Perspectives. 25(2):227-244.
Baker, Mona and Saldanha, Gabriela, eds. (1998/2009): Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan (1998): When is a translation not a translation? In: Susan Bassnett and André
Lefevere, eds. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilin-
gual Matters, 25-40.
Cordingley, Anthony and Montini, Chiara (2015): Genetic translation studies: An emerging
discipline. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies. 14:1-18.
Crisafulli, Edoardo (1999): The translator as textual critic and the potential of transparent
discourse. The Translator. 5(1):83-107.
Dedner, Burghard (2012): Intertextual layers in translations: Methods of research and editorial
presentation. Variants. 9:115-131.
Delabastita, Dirk (2008): Status, origin, features: Translation and beyond. In: Anthony Pym,
Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Inves­
tigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 233-246.
Dollerup, Cay (2000): Relay and support translations. In: Andrew Chesterman, Natividad
Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier, eds. Translation in Context. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-26.
Dollerup, Cay (2004): The vanishing original. Hermes. 32:185-199.
Du Pont, Olaf (2005): Robert Graves’s Claudian novels: A case of pseudotranslation. Target.
17(2):327-347.
Edström, Bert (1991): The transmitter language problem in translations from Japanese into
Swedish. Babel. 37(1):1-14.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 328 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 329

Emmerich, Karen (2011): The afterlives of C. P. Cavafy’s unfinished poems. Translation Studies.
4(2):197-212.
Emmerich, Karen (2017): Literary translation and the making of originals. New York: Bloomsbury.
Evans, Arthur B. (2005): Jules Verne’s English translations. Science Fiction Studies. 32(1):80-103.
Fernández Muñiz, Iris (2016): Tracking sources in indirect translation archaeology: A case
study on a 1917 Spanish translation of Ibsen’s Et Dukkehjem (1879). In: Turo Rautaoja,
Tamara Mikolič Južnič, and Kaisa Koskinen, eds. New Horizons in Translation Research
and Education 4. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, 115-132.
Frei, Charlotte (2012): A obra literária a tradução directa e a tradução indirecta ou a importân-
cia da arquelogia critic-textual [Direct or indirect translation of literary works, or the
importance of critical-textual archeology]. In: Juan J. Lanero Fernández and José Luis
Chamosa, eds. Lengua, traducción, recepción: En honor de Julio César Santoyo. Vol. 2. León:
Universidad de Léon, 195-222.
Gambier, Yves (1994): La retraduction, retour et détour. Meta. 39(3):413-417.
Gambier, Yves and van Doorslaer, Luc (2010–2014): Handbook of translation studies. Vol. 1-4.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haataja, Kristina (2018): Jules Vernen kertomusten ajattomuus kääntäjän näkökulmasta [The
timelessness of Jules Verne’s stories from a translator’s point of view]. Synteesi. 2(2018):7-9.
Hadyna, Dagmara (2016): A relayed translation: Looking for the source text of the first Polish
translation of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre. Studia Litteraria Universitatis Iagellonicae
Cracoviensis. 11(2):73-81.
Hung, Eva (2005): Translation in China – An analytical survey: First century B.C.E. to early
twentieth century. In: Eva Hung and Judy Wakabayashi, eds. Asian Translation Traditions.
London/New York: Routledge, 67-107.
Hung, Eva and Wakabayashi Judy (2005): Introduction. In: Eva Hung and Judy Wakabayashi,
eds. Asian Translation Traditions. London/New York: Routledge, 1-16.
Huuhtanen, Suvi (2016): Kotouttaminen, vieraannuttaminen ja uudelleenkääntäminen Jules
Vernen Vingt mille lieues sous les mers -teoksen suomennoksissa [Source- and target-­
oriented translation in the Finnish (re)translations of Jules Verne’s Vingt mille lieues sous
les mers]. Master’s thesis, unpublished. Tampere: University of Tampere.
Ivaska, Laura (2021): The genesis of a compilative translation and its de facto source text. In:
Ariadne Nunes, Joana Moura, and Marta Pacheco Pinto, eds. Genetic Translation Stud-
ies: Conflict and Collaboration in Liminal Spaces. London: Bloomsbury, 71-87.
Ivaska, Laura and Paloposki, Outi (2018): Attitudes towards indirect translation in Finland
and translators’ strategies: Compilative and collaborative translation. Translation Studies.
11(1):33-46.
Katajamäki, Sakari and Lukin, Karina (2013): Textual Trails from Oral to Written Sources:
An Introduction. RMN Newsletter. 7:8-17.
Koskinen, Kaisa and Paloposki, Outi (2010): Retranslation. In: Yves Gambier and Luc van
Doorslaer, eds. Handbook of Translation Studies. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 294-298.
Kothari, Rita (2005): The fiction of translation. In: Eva Hung and Judy Wakabayashi, eds.
Asian Translation Traditions. London: Routledge, 263-273.
Littau, Karin (1997): Translation in the age of postmodern production: From text to intertext
to hypertext. Forum for Modern Language Studies. 33(1):81-96.
Malmkjær, Kirsten and Windle, Kevin, eds. (2011): Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meylaerts, Reine (2006): Heterolingualism in/and translation: How legitimate are the other
and his/her language? An introduction. Target. 18(1):1-15.
Millán, Carmen and Bartrina, Francesca, eds. (2013): The Routledge Handbook of Translation
Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Milton, John (2001): Translating classic fiction for mass markets. The Translator. 7(1):43-69.
Paloposki, Outi (2001): Originality and the defence of translation. The Translator. 7(1):71-89.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 329 2021-02-08 19:20

 330 Meta, LXV, 2, 2020

Paloposki, Outi and Koskinen, Kaisa (2010): Reprocessing texts: The fine line between retrans-
lating and revising. Across languages and Cultures. 11(1):29-49.
Palumbo, Giuseppe (2009): Key Terms in Translation Studies. London: Continuum.
Popovič, Anton (1976): Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: Univer-
sity of Alberta.
Poupaud, Sandra, Pym, Anthony, and Torres Simòn, Esther (2009): Finding translations: On
the use of bibliographical databases in translation history. Meta. 54(2):264-278.
Pym, Anthony (2011): Translation research terms: A tentative glossary for moments of perplex-
ity and dispute. In: Anthony Pym, ed. Translation Research Projects 3. Tarragona: Intercul-
tural Studies Group, 75-110.
Rizzi, Andrea (2008): When text is both a pseudotranslation and a translation. In: Anthony Pym,
Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies:
Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
153-162.
Şahin, Mehmet, Duman, Derya, and Gürses, Sabri (2015): Big business of plagiarism under the
guise of (re)translation: The case of Turkey. Babel. 61(2):193-218.
Scott, Clive (2006): Translating the literary: Genetic criticism, text theory and poetry. In: Susan
Bassnett and Peter Bush, eds. The Translator as Writer. London: Continuum, 106-118.
Shengyu, Fan (2018): The lost translator’s copy: David Hawkes’ construction of a base text in
translating Hongluomeng. Translation Review. 100(1):37-64.
Shillingsburg, Peter L. (1984/1996): Scholarly Editing in the Computer Age: Theory and Practice.
3rd ed. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Shuttleworth, Mark and Cowie, Moira (1997): Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Simojoki, Aukusti (1950): Arvi A. Karisto osakeyhtiö 1900-1950: Kerrontaa 50-vuotiselta toimi-
kaudelta [Anonymous society Arvi A. Karisto from 1900-1950: the story of a 50-year term].
Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Solberg, Ida Hove (2016): Finding the X factor: Support translation and the case of Le deuxième
sexe in Scandinavia. In: Turo Rautaoja, Tamara Mikolič Južnič, and Kaisa Koskinen,
eds. New Horizons in Translation Research and Education 4. Joensuu: University of Eastern
Finland, 86-114.
Suomela-Härmä, Elina (2007): Ranskan kirjallisuus [French literature]. In: Hannu Kalevi
Riikonen, Urpo Kovala, Pekka Kujamäki, et al., eds. Suomennoskirjallisuuden historia
1-2 [History of literature translated into Finnish 1-2]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden
Seura, 104-118.
Tarvi, Ljuba (2005): The problems of managing the ’translation stock’: Freelancing vs. freeboo-
ting. Norwich Papers. 13:125-140.
Toury, Gideon (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Toury, Gideon (1995/2012): Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Rev. ed. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Hulle, Dirk (2015): Translation and genetic criticism: Genetic and editorial approaches to
the ‘untranslatable’ in Joyce and Beckett. Linguistica Antverpiensia. 14:40-53.
Washbourne, Kelly (2013): Nonlinear narratives: Paths of indirect and relay translation. Meta.
58(3):607-625.
Washbourne, Kelly (2016): Revised Translations: Strategic Rationales and the Intricacies of
Authorship. Translation and Literature. 25:151-170.
Woods, Michelle (2006): Translating Milan Kundera. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Wu, Yuanqiong and Fernández Díaz, Natalia (2017): Translating the fluid texts of Hong Lou
Meng. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies. 4(3):236-252.
Zhang, Huanya and Ma, Huijian (2018): Intertextuality in retranslation. Perspectives. 26(4):576-592.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 330 2021-02-08 19:20

 beware the source text : five (re)translations of the same work 331

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Bibliographic information of the different versions of the novel consulted in
this study
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/2010): Vingt mille lieues sous les mers. Paris: Librairie Générale Française.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1916): Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri [Around the globe in a sub-
marine]. (Translated from English and Swedish by Otto Joutsen) Porvoo: WSOY.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1926): Merten alitse [Crossing under the seas]. (Translated from French
by Väinö Hämeen-Anttila) Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1926): Kapteeni Nemo [Captain Nemo]. (Translated from French by
Urho Kivimäki) Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1934): Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri I [Around the globe in a subma-
rine I]. (Translated anonymously from French) Petrozavodsk: Valtion Kustannusliike Kirja.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1935): Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri II [Around the globe in a
submarine II]. (Translated anonymously from French) Petrozavodsk: Valtion Kustan-
nusliike Kirja.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1955): Sukelluslaivalla maapallon ympäri [Around the globe in a sub-
marine]. (Translated from French by Martta Tynni) Helsinki: WSOY.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1968): Merten alitse [Crossing under the seas]. (Translated from French
by Väinö Hämeen-Anttila) Rev. ed. Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1968): Kapteeni Nemo [Captain Nemo]. (Translated from French by
Urho Kivimäki) Rev. ed. Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1968): Nautilus. (Translated from French by Urho Kivimäki) Rev. ed.
Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/1991): Kapteeni Nemo ja Nautilus [Captain Nemo and the Nautilus].
(Translated from French by Väinö Hämeen-Anttila and Urho Kivimäki) Rev. ed.
Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Verne, Jules (1869-1870/2008): Kapteeni Nemo: Merten syvyyksissä [Captain Nemo: in the depths
of the seas]. (Translated from French by Kristina Haataja) Helsinki: Minerva.

Appendix 2: Bibliographic information for other literary works

Beckett, Samuel (1953): L’Innommable. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Beckett, Samuel (1953/1958): The Unnameable. (Translated from French by Samuel Beckett)
New York: Grove Press.
Brontë, Charlotte (1847): Jane Eyre: An Autobiography. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
Brontë, Charlotte (1847/1882): Janina: powieść [Janina: a novel]. (Translated from English by
Emilia Dobrzańska) Warsaw: Gebethner i Wolff.
Homer (ca. 700 BCE/2017): The Odyssey. (Translated from Ancient Greek by Emily Wilson)
New York: Norton.
Vassilikos, Vassilis (1974): Γλαύκος Θρασάκης [Glafkos Thrassakis]. Athens: Πλειάς [Pleiades].
Vassilikos, Vassilis (1974/2002): The Few Things I Know About Glafkos Thrassakis. (Translated
from Greek by Karen Emmerich) New York: Seven Stories Press.
Verne, Jules (1863): Voyage au centre de la Terre. Paris: Pierre-Jules Hetzel.
Verne, Jules (1864): Cinq Semaines en ballon. Paris: Pierre-Jules Hetzel.
Verne, Jules (1872): Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours. Paris: Pierre-Jules Hetzel.
Verne, Jules (1863/1879): Matkustus maan keskipisteeseen [Travel to the center of the Earth].
(Translated from Swedish by B. Lagus) Helsinki: Edlund.
Verne, Jules (1872/1895): Matka maan ympäri 80:ssa vuorokaudessa [Travel around the Earth
in 80 days]. (Translated from German by Martti Humu) Helsinki: Edlund.
Verne, Jules (1872/2008): Maailman ympäri 80 päivässä [Around the world in 80 days]. (Trans-
lated from French by Kristina Haataja) Helsinki: Jyväskylä Minerva.
Verne, Jules (1863/2009): Kuumailmapallolla Afrikan halki [With a hot air balloon across
Africa]. (Translated from French by Kristina Haataja) Helsinki: Jyväskylä Minerva.

Meta 65.2.corr 3.indd 331 2021-02-08 19:20