Pseudotranslation. In Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke (eds), 2018, The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation. Oxford: Routledge, 382-393. [PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION, Sept 2017] 382 25 Pseudotranslation Brigid Maher La Trobe University ORCID 0000-0001-5091-6541) Email: b.maher@latrobe.edu.au Introduction A pseudotranslation, sometimes also known as a fictitious translation, is a text that is presented and/or widely received as a translation, but for which no single corresponding source text has ever existed (cf. Toury 1995, 40). Most scholars use the terms ‘pseudotranslation’ and ‘fictitious translation’ interchangeably, though some, such as Anikó Sohár (1998, 1999), draw a distinction between the two. Sohár reserves the term ‘fictitious translation’ for cases in which, in addition to the apparently translated text, a publication is accompanied by fictitious bibliographical information about the supposed source text, such as its original title or date of publication. Pseudotranslations are accorded considerable importance within the field of translation studies. One of the first scholars in the field to devote attention to the phenomenon was Gideon Toury (1984). His work in Descriptive Translation Studies sought to direct the focus of the discipline towards the role of a translation in the target culture, and emphasised the concept of ‘assumed translation’, whereby a text that a given culture considers and treats as a translation should be assumed to be one unless evidence proves otherwise. Toury’s case studies of pseudotranslations such as Papa Hamlet emphasise the usefulness of these examples in revealing what in the target culture are considered to be key features and roles of translation. Papa Hamlet, published in Germany in 1889, was presented as translated from a Norwegian original written by an as-yet-undiscovered author. Both the author and the source text were invented, however, and the true (German) authors were only revealed some months later. With this text, the authors succeeded in introducing a new and innovative kind of writing into the German literary system, one whose critical reception was very much shaped by the origins of its apparent author, and which was unlikely to have been received as positively had it simply been presented, from the outset, as the German original it was (Toury 1995, 47-52). Over the last thirty or so years, many more investigations within the field of translation studies have looked at examples of pseudotranslation from throughout history. This research has provided valuable insights into the motivations behind the choice to produce a pseudotranslation, the reception of pseudotranslations, and what the phenomenon can tell us about ‘genuine’ translation in a given literary system at a given time.