The claim that literary translations have traditionally been undervalued, whereas original works have been considered sacrosanc, is widespread and has often been taken for granted. While it is true that this has indeed often been the case, there is also evidence of opposing tendencies in translation history. This paper sets out, first of all, to examine the prevalence in historical data of different attitudes to translation and, second, to speculate about the reasons that may have led to the use of the above rhetoric. It is argued that there is a perceived need to defend translation and Translation Studies at the heart of this debate.