Translation has much more complicated problems in itself than in general accepted. Translation is almost impossible and very difficult especially when it comes to translation of literary works. In 1984, the researchers who were involved for many years in the study of literary translation in Gottingen university, Germany, declared with determination that linguistic theories of translation cannot contribute to the translation of literary works basically. We can assume that literary translation is something really subtle and specific. The reason why it is difficult to translate literary works is because literary translation is not a transposition of linguistic cords but is deeply related to cultural factors. For two thousand years traditional(prescientific) translation theory was concerned only with outstanding literary works. The most influential concept in the history of translation is the dichotomy of word and sense, which traditional translation theory never managed to overcome, and which still besets translation theory today. It was Cicero in the first century BC who departed from the dogma that translation necessarily consisted of word-for-word rendering and so formulated the alternative: "Non ut interpres … sed ut orator". For the next two thousand years translation theory was mainly limited to a heated discussion of this dichotomy. Well over a thousand years later, in 1530, M. Luther was to fight a similar battle with the Church authorities of his time over the translation of the Bible into Germany. He defended the same basic principles as St. Jerome`s, but his words were a good deal more aggressive. The debate over the merits of the "faithful" and the "free" - the latter culminating in the "belles infideles" - continued to rage in Europe, and it found eloquent expression in Germany during the early years of the 19th century, when translation blossomed again with the romantic movement. After the announcement of Schleichermacher`s well known treatise "Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens(1813)" the emphasis has shifted from the category "not … but" to the more tolerant alternative "either … or", Schleichermacher makes it clear in his treatise that favours the Method of Verfremdung, or translation that is faithful to the original. Apart from the polarized approach represented in the dichotomy, translation theory also presented the means of differenciating and categorizing translation types. This approach was the one adopted by Dryden(1680). Here he distinguishes between metaphrase and imitation; between these two extremes is paraphrase. The two dominated methods in translation studies recently are those focused on primarily literary works, rejecting theoretical presuppositions, normative rules and linguistic method and those focused on linguistic matters, claiming a scientific approach and rejecting alogical solutions and subjective speculation. Naturally literary translation dismissed any scientific linguistic analysis; linguists dismissed non-scientific literary analysis. The Prague Structuralists viewed texts as incorporated within serniotic networks and languages as codes of complex language elements that are confined according to certain rule. Levy also incorporated the interpretive aspect into his translation theory, basing such deduction upon W. Quine`s hypothesis that translation meaning can be logically interpreted. With the establishment of the semiotic horizons which come into play in the course of translation, and with the posting of the interpretative component which enables the translator to grasp the meaning of the text in question, Levy was in a position to present his translation theory. Of primary importance in Levy`s model is that the literary quality of the works of art should not be lost. To ensure the transfer of "literariness", Levy foregrounds the particular communicative aspect of specific formal features of the original author`s style that gives the works of art its specific character. Levy bases this aspect of his translation theory on another of the founding members of the Prague linguistic circle, V. Mathesius. The formalist`s belief that poeticity was a formal quality, something that could be separated out of work, is crucial to understanding Levy`s translation theory. In "La theorie de l`expression et la traduction(1970)" Miko reports on his progress, defining what he calls the "expressive categories" of language which lend it its artistic quality. Popovic`s project begins where the work of Levy and Miko leaves off: he begins the comparative work of locating the conformities and the differences that occur when a literary work is translated and explain the relationship of the translated work to the original. Instead of prescribing a technique which eliminates, loses and smooths over changes, he accepts the fact that losses, gains, and changes are the necessary parts of the process because of inherent difference of intellectual and aesthetic values in the two cultures. He introduces a new term "shift of expression" to characterize this process. The scholars of the Manipulation School viewed translation studies as a branch of comparative literature. This school is centered round the Dutch-speaking area and is represented mainly by scholars such as Lefevere, Lambert, Hermans and some Israeli scholars such as Toury and Even-Zohar. According to Hermans all translations imply, from point of view of the target literature, a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose. Hence their starting-point is the exact opposite of that represented by the linguistically oriented school. The translation theory of this school is based on the concept of the literary polysystem going back to the Russian Formalists and the Prague Structuralists. Such a polysystem is not only characterized by constant shifts and changes, but also by internal oppositions, including between primary and secondary models and types. Such primary texts are the innovative ones, introducing into a literary polysystem new ideas, new methods, new ways of looking at literature and world. The secondary texts are the conservative ones which confirm and uphold the existing system. From this essentially target-oriented starting-point, the Manipulation scholars have developed their own tenets, methods and theoretical models. Their emphasis on the target text naturally leads to a primary descriptive approach. In this view, literary translation is seen as one of the elements participating in the constant struggle for survival and domination.