Debate　on　literal　translation　and　free　translation　has　been　in　existence　for　a　long　time．Some　people　hold　that　literal　translation　should　be　the　main　method，while　others　insist free　translation　is　more　efficient．However，it　is　meaningless　to　discuss　them　separately　since　more　factors　should　be　taken　into　consideration，such　as　the　definition　and　norms　of　translation，a　translator’s　purpose　and　competence　and　the　age　the　translator　lives　in.　In　this　paper，　we　put　emphasis　on　the　balance　of　the　two　means　in　translation　activity.　Literal　translation　and　free　translation　are　the　two　main　forms　of　translation　which　are　not　incompatible　or　contrary　but　complementary.　Literal　translation　obeys　the　rules　and　principles　of　translation　which　aims　to　maintain　the　original　idea　of　the　source　language　as　much　as　possible.　When　there　are　obstacles　confronting　literal　means，　which　are　difficult　or　even　impossible　to　get　over　with，　free　translation　makes　its　way　up　to　the　stage，　for　free　translation　can　also　express　the　general　idea　of　the　original　text　which　is　，　in　fact，　easier　to　be　accepted　by　readers.　Since　translation　is　supposed　to　show　what　the　source　language　intends　to　express，　distortion　is　to　be　avoided.　Besides，　culture，　a　factor　that　plays　a　key　role　in　affecting　translation，　is　also　to　be　taken　into　consideration.　The　point　is　that　it　could　be　an　ideal　way　to　combine　literal　translation　and　free　translation　to　deal　with　a　thorny　problem　in　practice．Roger　Bell’s　the　theory　of　Concept　Box（2001：86）　tells　us　that　literal　translation　and　free　translation　are　not　omnipotent　when　used　separately，　that　is，　a　good　translation　should　involve　both　of　the　two　means.
　　Translation　is　a　complicated　and　systematic　process.　Literal　translation　and　free　translation　are　merely　two　basic　approaches　involved　in　this　field.　After　a　careful　study　of　the　issues，　the　fact　that　both　of　the　means　remain　useful　and　efficient　in　various　situations　is　again　proved　and　a　good　translator　is　supposed　to　be　capable　of　using　them　flexibly.
　　First，　a　literal　approach　or　free　approaches　both　have　their　own　merits　and　shortcomings.　Literal　translation　strives　to　fully　reproduce　the　content　and　style　of　the　source　language　text　as　well　as　retaining　as　many　original　rhetorical　devices　and　main　sentence　structures　as　possible.　We　should　always　bear　in　mind，　however，　that　literal　translation　should　never　be　confused　with　word-for-word　translation.
　　Free　translation，　conversely，　is　a　good　supplementary　approach.　It　doesn’t　pay　so　much　attention　to　the　form　and　details　of　the　original　text　as　literal　means　does.　Though　being　under　less　influence　of　the　rules　and　codes　of　translation　and　more　flexible　than　that　of　literal　translation，　it　nonetheless　conveys　the　essence　of　the　original　work.　Besides，　the　faithfulness　of　the　translated　version　to　the　original　text　should　never　be　neglected，　which　means　a　translator’s　complete　understanding　of　the　work　is　essential　to　avoid　unnecessary　misinterpretation　as　a　result　of　either　adding　extra　content　or　omitting　important　details. 　　Secondly，　as　what　has　been　generally　agreed，　the　two　major　translation　approaches　do　not　form　a　diametric　contrast，　instead，　they　have　been　“twin　sisters”　ever　since　the　work　of　translation　came　into　being，　both　in　the　East　and　the　West.　An　excellent　translation　should　involve　both　of　the　two　means　and　an　excellent　translator　is，　to　some　extent，　someone　who　can　blend　the　two　approaches　properly　and　effectively.
　　No　matter　how　much　analysis，　how　many　studies　or　debates　people　undertake　on　liberal　versus　literal　translation，　one　indisputable　fact　is　that　a　mastery　of　English　or　other　languages　is　the　essential　prerequisite，　for　only　after　one　is　familiar　enough　with　another　language，　could　he　have　a　correct　understanding　of　things　either　spoken　or　written　in　that　language.　As　for　translators，　only　when　he　knows　the　text　to　be　translated　or　interpreted　well　enough　can　he　make　the　right　decision　of　employing　the　most　suitable　way　to　reproduce　it　in　the　target　language　with　great　correctness.　In　this　sense，　both　literal　and　liberal　translation　are　free　of　the　antagonism，　a　concept　people　are　inclined　to　have　upon　mentioning　them，　and　work　as　a　complementary　pair　in　the　process　of　translation　activity.
　　Thirdly，　it　is　meaningless　to　make　a　mere　discussion　on　translation　theories　without　the　actual　translation　practice，　for　it　is　through　practice　that　people　get　the　first-hand　information.　The　rules　and　principles　of　translation　are　not　absolute　truths；　instead，　they　are　constantly　under　test　and　open　to　adjustments.　Therefore，　a　better　way　to　command　translation　is　practice，　for　mere　theories　are　far　away　from　getting　one　fully　prepared　for　the　problems　and　as　the　saying　goes：　“Practice　makes　perfect.”