Abstract
Although often generally regarded as an inferior translation practice, indirect (or mediated) translation has always been widely used. It is not restricted either to minor, (semi-)peripheral languages or lowbrow fiction as one might assume, or to one or more historical eras.
It is not a dominant approach to translation nowadays in the West for the translation of literature, but it is not marginal either. Moreover, from a historical and/or global point of view, it might prove to be if not dominant, than widely accepted as a normal practice.
In some respects, such as technical translation, non-directness might proof a dominant practice. The paper explores the idea of non-directness in translation from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives.