Firstly, it is aimed at proving that there is a single principle governing the choice of any portion of the original – from morpheme to the entire text – for the role of the unit of translation (UT). <...> It is based on the role a linguistic unit plays in the bigger form of which it is an integral part. <...> If it makes its individual input into the meaning of the whole then it should be given special attention in translation, i.e. at some stage of re-coding made a UT. <...> But if the meaning of the whole larger construction is such that it is not made up by putting together the meanings of its composite pars – a situation termed idiomatic – then (and only then) the entire whole is taken as a unit of translation. <...> The paper also shows that when theorists declare that there is only one linguistic entity which can be qualifi ed as a UT – in some works this is the sentence, in others, the entire text – they are using the term in their own interpretation and not in the meaning that was give the term by its authors. <...> But it is essential for any theory that its terms, in the case discussed – the term ‘unit of translation’ – be applied by all in one and the same meaning, and exactly in the meaning that was given it at inception. <...> Because the UT was defi ned as a portion of the original text, it would seem that the text as a whole cannot serve as a UT. <...> The second aim of the paper, however, is to show that there are certain types of texts that answer the same requirements for serving as a UT that are valid for all other linguistic units. <...> These are poetical texts of such fi neness that places them onto their own highest level of linguistic structures. <...> It is these texts that for purposes of re-coding demand being taken as a whole, i.e. as an undivided unit of translation. <...> Keywords: unit of translation, variability, the translator’s choice, linguistic units with idiomatic properties, translation of poetry, text as a unit of translation. <...> Introduction universally accepted mainly The term Unit of Translation (UT) is not by (though not solely) because of the belief of translation theorists its indefi nite relations to other <...>