Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

ISSN: 0907-676X (Print) 1747-6623 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Patronage as ‘a productive network’ in translation:

a case study in China

Liping Bai

To cite this article: Liping Bai (2009) Patronage as ‘a productive network’ in translation:
a case study in China, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 17:4, 213-225, DOI:
10.1080/09076760903254646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760903254646

Published online: 14 Dec 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1233

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2009, 213
225

Patronage as ‘a productive network’ in translation: a case study in China

Liping Bai*

Centre for Translation, Hong Kong Baptist University

(Received 4 December 2008; final version received 1 May 2009)

Patronage is an important social and literary phenomenon widely discussed in

various fields of the humanities and the social sciences. Lefevere considers
patronage as ‘something like powers (persons, institutions) that can further or
hinder the reading, writing, and rewriting of literature’ and points out that it is
important to understand power in the Foucaultian sense. According to Foucault,
power is ‘much more than a negative instance whose function is repression’, but in
Lefevere’s discussion we may find the words ‘hinder’, ‘discouraging’, ‘censoring’
and ‘destroying’, which could give a negative impression of a patron. Through the
analysis of a patron
translator relationship in twentieth-century China, this article
reveals the prior function of a patron, i.e. to support instead of hindering the work
of a translator, and demonstrates that a patron
translator relationship can be a
harmonious collaboration, especially when the translator and his/her patron share
some common principles and purposes. Like Foucault’s power, patronage
‘traverses and produces things’, ‘induces pleasures, forms knowledge, produces
discourse’; thus, ‘it needs to be considered as a productive network’. In the field of
translation studies, patronage thus could be understood positively as the action of
persons or organizations that offer financial support or use their influence to
advance a translation activity.
Keywords: patronage; translation; power; patron
translator relationship

Introduction and literature review on patronage

There is no denying that patronage is a very important social and literary
phenomenon widely discussed in various fields of humanities and in the social
sciences.1 For instance, Lytle considers that ‘lay patronage was a permanent feature
of English society’, and ‘new patronage’ was ‘a practical necessity for English
religion’ (Lytle, 1981, p. 111). Elizabeth I, for instance, inherited from her father and
grandfather a tradition of literary patronage, within which the Prince had the
obligation to support writers, poets or scholars, and the latter were encouraged to
espouse the policies of the country or engage in literary activities which could benefit
the kingdom. For such service, they could get royal positions or other rewards. Thus,
patronage was considered ‘an instrument for the formation and direction of public
opinion’ (Rosenberg, 1955, p. 1). Marotti elucidates the role patronage played in the
social, economic, political life and literature as follows:
In the Tudor and early Stuart period, patronage affected all aspects of English social,
economic, and political life. Hence its influence on literature was inevitable . . . Literary

*Email: bailiping@yahoo.com

ISSN 0907-676X print/ISSN 1747-6623 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09076760903254646
http://www.informaworld.com
214 L. Bai

patronage was really inseparable from the systems of social and political patronage. Both
amateur and professional, courtly and non-courtly writers, those who addressed
recognized benefactors and those who communicated their work to an audience of
social equals, were involved in the society’s system of patronage . . . almost all English
Renaissance literature is a literature of patronage. The poetry of Daniel, Drayton, and
Shakespeare, the courtier verse of Oxford, Dyer, and Ralegh, elaborate productions like
Harington’s Ariosto translation and Spencer’s The Faerie Queene, the numerous
historical, scientific, and devotional books of the period
work in all forms and genres,
whether intended for print or manuscript circulation, are related to the structure of
patronage in the society. (Marotti, 1981, p. 207)
With a wide range of meanings throughout Western history, the word ‘patronage’
may have manifold definitions depending on its application in different fields of
study. For instance, in the medieval church, patronage refers to the person who had
the right to nominate a parish clergyman. In political science, it refers to ‘the power
and the acknowledged right of a political authority to appoint people to positions of
responsibility following its own opinion, preference or interest’ (Bogdanor, 1991,
p. 423). In a footnote, when comparing patronage and preferment, Freedman points
out that ‘patronage refers to appointments of government jobs as a reward for
political support’2 (Freedman, 1994, p. 2).
In the field of literary and translation studies, it is Lefevere who consciously
theorizes patronage in the literary system, but he is not the first scholar who embarks
on this issue in the field of literature. In Rosenberg’s work Leicester: Patron of letters
(1955), the author studies the relationships between Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
and his protégés
who were historians or scholars or translators or Puritans
in
sixteenth-century England. There is a whole chapter dedicated to the discussion of the
relationship between Leicester, the patron, and translators such as Arthur Golding,
Sir Thomas North, James Sanforde, George Gascoigne, William Blandie, Robert
Peterson, Timothe Kendall and others (Rosenberg, 1955, pp. 152
183). In Bennett’s
English books and readers 1475 to 1557 (1952), English books and readers 1558 to 1603
(1965) and English books and readers 1603 to 1640 (1970), which are also a source of
references for Lefevere’s discussions, there are independent chapters (‘Patronage’ and
‘Translations and translators’) dealing with the issues about patronage as well as the
relationship between patrons and translations/translators (see Bennett, 1952, pp. 40

53, 152
177; 1965, pp. 30
55, 87
111; 1970, pp. 23
39, 67
77).
Lefevere holds that there are two factors that may ensure that ‘the literary system
does not fall too far out of step with the other subsystems society consists of’: the
first is represented by the professionals, such as teachers, critics, reviewers and
translators, who would repress certain works which are opposed to the dominant
concepts about literature; and the second factor is ‘patronage’, which Lefevere sees as
‘something like powers (persons, institutions) that can further or hinder the reading,
writing, and rewriting of literature’ (Lefevere, 1992a, pp. 14
15). Lefevere further
clarifies three elements of patronage: namely the ideological constraint, economic
provision and social status. If the three components are all dependent on one patron,
this type is called undifferentiated patronage; otherwise it is differentiated (ibid.
pp. 16
17). Both persons and institutions with power can act as patrons, who can
either support or hinder a translation activity.
The definition of patronage here, in effect, is not Lefevere’s earliest one. In his
1984 article entitled ‘The structure in the dialect of men interpreted’, he thus
explicates patronage:
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 215

Some people who play a part both in the literary system and in its environment, the
culture at large, act as patrons, and it should be stressed that the word has both positive
and negative connotations. A ‘patron’ is any kind of force that can be influential in
encouraging and propagating, but also in discouraging, censoring and destroying works
of literature. Patrons can be individuals, and they come most readily to mind in this
guise: we think of Maecenas or Louis XIV or the Chinese emperor or the Sultan. But
they can also be institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Communist Party,
the BBC. (Lefevere, 1984, p. 92)
This earlier explanation about patronage is similar to the later one and underlines
the connotations of patronage, that is, it could be either positive or negative. It is
worth noticing that Lefevere uses ‘force’ in his 1984 definition, but ‘power’ in the
1992 interpretation. He points out that it is important to understand the term ‘power’
in ‘the Foucaultian sense’, ‘not just, or even primarily, as a repressive force’ (Lefevere,
1992a, p. 15).
One of the significant features of Foucault’s idea on power is his emphasis on its
productive nature. For him, power is productive, and this assertion marks a
distinction to the negative conception of power manifested in radical and Marxist
writing, ‘where power is seen as repressing, constraining, distorting, and so on’
(Philp, 1983, p. 35). In Foucault’s works, we may find vehement remarks on the
negative interpretation of power: ‘We must cease once and for all to describe the
effects of power in negative terms: it ‘‘excludes’’, it ‘‘represses’’, it ‘‘censors’’, it
‘‘abstracts’’, it ‘‘masks’’, it ‘‘conceals’’. In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it
produces domains of objects and rituals of truth’ (Foucault, 1979, p. 194). But in
Lefevere’s work, patronage is considered a ‘control factor’ (1992a, p. 15) and we may
find such words as ‘hinder’, ‘discouraging’, ‘censoring’, and ‘destroying’ about
patronage, which could obviously give a negative impression of a patron. In one of
his early articles, he says that all writing of literature is under ‘two constraints’, one
of which is patronage (Lefevere, 1985, p. 232); in the chapter entitled ‘The power of
patronage’ in his book Translation/history/culture, he began with this statement on
the restrictions exerted by patrons upon translators: ‘Translators tend to have
relatively little freedom in their dealing with patrons, at least if they want to have
their translations published’ (Lefevere, 1992b, p. 19).
Lefevere’s seemingly ambivalent definition on patronage may give rise to the
following questions: if a person/institution does not support, but only ‘hinders’ or
‘discourages’ or ‘censors’ or ‘destroys’ the translation/translating, can he/she/it be
considered a patron of this translator? If a person/institution supports first, but later
‘hinders’ the translation, can he/she/it still be a patron? If so, why does a translator
seek such a patron who ‘hinders’ his translation activity? What is the prior function
of a patron? We could further ask: how close is the relationship between a patron and
a translator? What extent of independence or freedom does a translator have?
Let us consider the original meaning of the word ‘patron’ first. In fact, the
English term ‘patron’ directly follows the Latin word patronus in the meaning
‘protector’ and ‘defender’. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word
‘patronage’ has the meanings ‘the action of a patron in using money or influence to
advance the interests of a person, cause, art, etc.’, ‘protection, defence’, ‘justification,
support; advocacy’ (Simpson et al., 2008). And the word ‘patron’ refers to ‘a person
standing in a role of oversight, protection, or sponsorship to another’ (Simpson et al.,
2008). In Gundersheimer’s article ‘Patronage in the Renaissance: An exploratory
approach’, he says: ‘Patronage, broadly defined as ‘the action of a patron in
216 L. Bai

supporting, encouraging, or countenancing a person, institution, work, art, etc.’ has

been clearly established as one of the dominant social processes of pre-industrial
Europe’ (Gundersheimer, 1981, p. 3). Kent and Simons consider that ‘all would agree
with’ this assertion (Kent & Simons, 1987, p. 1). In other words, scholars generally
agree to the definition quoted here, which is actually not made by Gundersheimer,
but is from The Oxford Universal Dictionary (Onions, 1955, p. 1449). This definition
is not much different from that given in the Oxford English Dictionary as mentioned
above. All these definitions contain rather positive significance! The patron may have
influence to hinder an activity or prevent someone from doing something, but
according to the definition(s) provided here, we may find that to hinder is not its
original meaning.
In practice, we may find many cases in which translators are generally strongly
supported by their patrons either economically or spiritually. In the following, we will
analyse a translation activity in twentieth-century China and explore the patron

translator relationship between Liang Shiqiu3 (1903
1987) and Hu Shi4
(1891
1962), two prominent literary figures in Chinese intellectual history: hopefully
it can shed some light on at least part, if not all, of the above questions.

A case study on the patron translator relationship5
Liang Shiqiu was an important writer, critic, lexicographer and translator in modern
China. He first came to national attention for his ‘war of words’ with Lu Xun (1881

1936), the leading leftist writer of the 1930s, on various issues related to literature and
translation. Liang was the translator of The love letters of Abelard and Heloise,
August Strindberg’s Married, George Eliot’s Silas Marner, The weaver of Raveloe and
Mr. Gilfil’s love story, Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, Emily Brontë’s Wuthering
heights, etc; yet, he is mostly remembered as the first Chinese translator who finished
the rendition of the complete works of Shakespeare.
When talking about Liang’s translation of Shakespeare, another more important
literary figure must be mentioned: that is Hu Shi, without whose initiation and
support Liang would not have started this gargantuan task. Besides his numerous
articles and translations, Hu Shi was also a man with ‘power’ both inside and outside
academia at his time: he was one of the advocates and leaders of the New Culture
Movement and was remembered as one of the most prominent and influential
intellectuals in modern China. He was a professor at Peking University and also took
the presidency of this renowned university (1946
1948); in addition he also took
other positions such as ambassador to the USA (1938
1942) and president of the
Academia Sinica in Taipei (1958
1962).
An institution was also related to Liang’s translation of Shakespeare,
namely the China Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Culture
(hereafter ‘The China Foundation’). The China Foundation
was established in 1924 with the purpose of distributing the proceeds of the Second
Remission of the Boxer Indemnity to promote education and culture, and later in
1927 the Translation and Compilation Committee was founded (Compil-
ing Committee of Education Chronicle of the Ministry of Education, 1948, pp. 1568,
1573). In 1930, Hu took up the post of chairman of the Committee, under which
Liang started this Shakespeare project.
The China Foundation had ample funding at that time. For example, in 1930, the
year when Hu assumed the position of chairman, the Foundation received an
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 217

amount of 1,432,808 dollars of Boxer Indemnity and 486,913 dollars of other income
(Wang, 1974, p. 326). It was only in 1942 during the Sino-Japanese War that a
shortage of income brought the work in the Translation and Compilation Committee
to an end (Compiling Committee of Education Chronicle of the Ministry of Edu-
cation, 1948, p. 1573). The sufficiency of funds, at least in the 1930s, ensured that some
translation projects, including the translation of Shakespeare, could be carried out.

Hu as the initiator of Liang’s translation of Shakespeare

It took more than 30 years (1931
1967) for Liang to finish the translation of
Shakespeare. It can be said that there would not be Liang’s Shakespeare had it not
been for Hu’s support and ‘enthusiastic initiation’ (Liang, 1970, p. 98).
When Hu took up the post of chairman of the Translation and Compilation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the China Foundation, the translation of the
complete works of Shakespeare was only one of his ambitious plans. Hu’s New
Culture Movement had greatly shattered the status of the old literary forms; now it
was time to construct a new paradigm of literature. It was greatly important to
imbibe nourishment and introduce new literary styles from the outside world; thus
translation played an essential role during this period. For Hu, one of the most
important things was to translate the first-class works from the West, among which
Shakespeare was the nonpareil. A considerable number of translations, including
Francis Bacon’s Novum organum, René Descartes’s Discourse on method, a number of
Greek tragedies, the works of Thomas Hardy, Conrad and Dumas fils, and many
others such as Robinson Crusoe or The travels of Marco Polo, were arranged by this
Committee and were subsequently published by the Commercial Press.
In his letter to Liang dated 23 December 1930,6 Hu informed him that he had
officially taken the position at the Translation and Compilation Committee and
7
would like to invite Wen Yiduo (1899
1946), Chen Tongbo (1896
1970),
Xu Zhimo (1897
1931), Ye Gongchao (1904
1981) and Liang, all of
whom were important intellectuals in twentieth-century China, to discuss the
translation of the complete works of Shakespeare. Hu considered that the most
important issue was to decide on the type of language to use in the translation, and
suggested that they could experiment at first
Wen and Xu trying verse and Chen
and Liang prose. After the experiment, they would decide whether to use prose or
both prose and verse. Payment was also mentioned in Hu’s letter: Hu was optimistic
about the expected sales of the translation and offered the translators the highest rate
of payment (Liang, 1970, p. 94).
Two months later, Hu worked out a more detailed plan about the translation
project, including translation procedures, allocations, payment, translation style, as
well as translation strategies, which was explicated in Hu’s next letter to Liang, dated
25 February 1931.8 The plan was carefully made through discussions between Hu
and Liang, Ye and Xu; a Tentative arrangement for the translation of the complete
works of Shakespeare, which was made by Liang with slight modification by Hu, was
proposed; and a Translation Committee for translating Shakespeare was formed by
Wen, Liang, Chen, Ye and Xu, with Wen as chairman. It was tentatively scheduled
that the translation would be finished within five years, with each translator finishing
one play in about half a year. Within the committee, the translators would maintain
close cooperation with each other. After each play was translated, it would be
circulated among the other four members for proofreading, and annual meetings
218 L. Bai

were also suggested to be held during the summer vacation to exchange views and
discuss translation problems.
The translation style and strategies were also stipulated. It was recommended on
the whole to use rhythmic prose to translate. For difficult passages, it was suggested
to provide detailed footnotes. For the sake of uniformity, translators were required to
submit a list of transliterations of proper names so that one of the members could
standardize them. Translations done by non-committee members could also be
accepted on the condition that they met the standards. The payment for the
translation was also arranged in detail, including payment for the translation, books
and other miscellaneous expenses; and before translating, the translators could
receive an advance sum. It was provisionally suggested that at first Xu should
translate Romeo and Juliet, Ye Merchant of Venice, Chen As you like it, Wen Hamlet
and Liang Macbeth (Liang, 1970, pp. 96
97).
From the above analysis, we may see that Hu as well as the Translation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the China Foundation acted as the initiator
and patron of this translation project. But unfortunately only Liang took this
arduous task and the other four did not take part for various reasons. In the 1930s,
the Translation and Compilation Committee had sent seven plays translated by
Liang to the Commercial Press for publication
namely Hamlet (1936), Macbeth
(1936), King Lear (1936), Othello (1936), The merchant of Venice (1936), As you like it
(1936), and The tempest (1937)
and Liang himself sent Twelfth night directly to the
Commercial Press and had it published in 1939. During the process of Liang’s
translation, he also received Hu’s guidance. For example, in his letter to Liang dated
11 April 1936,9 Hu forwarded him the questions raised by one of the editors for his
reference (see Liang, 1970, p. 108).
When the Sino-Japanese War broke out, the work of the Translation Committee
had to come to an end. After the People’s Republic of China was founded and the
Kuomintang government moved to Taiwan in 1949, great changes took place in
China. Such changes naturally affected the translation activities in China in general
and the role of patronage in particular in various ways. One of the consequences was
that such great social changes distracted the attention of both of Liang and Hu on
the Shakespeare project, and delayed the completion of this translation. However,
Liang still had Hu’s encouragement and spiritual support. When they later met in
Taiwan, Hu encouraged Liang to finish translating the complete works of
Shakespeare, and said he would hold a grand banquet when Liang finished this
project (Liang, 1989a, p. 20).

The consensus between Liang and Hu in terms of translation strategies

Liang’s translation methods are concisely enumerated in the ‘Foreword’ to his version
of The complete works of Shakespeare.10 Liang pointed out that his translation was
mainly in baihua (vernacular Chinese) prose, but the rhymed parts and episodes
were translated into rhymed language; as for the parts which were difficult to
understand, he would make notes to elucidate when necessary; and he would also
provide annotations when it was not possible to translate some puns and allusions
(Liang, 1979, p. 1). Here we could find a consensus between Liang and Hu in terms
of the means to translate.
While Hu’s letter to Liang on 23 December 1930 proposed having experiments
first before they decided whether to use prose throughout or both prose and verse, the
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 219

Tentative arrangement for the translation of the complete works of Shakespeare did not
specify what kind of literary style they should follow, but suggested rhythmic prose. It
can be said that Liang’s use of prose to translate is the result of the experiment
suggested by Hu.
Before Liang’s translation project, there were also other intellectuals who
endeavoured to introduce Shakespeare’s works to the Chinese audience
for
example, there were Lin Shu’s (1852
1924) versions of Henry VI (1916), Henry
IV (1916), Julius Caesar (1916), Richard II (1916) and Henry V (1925). But Lin was
strongly criticized by Hu as a sinner against Shakespeare, as Lin’s versions were in
narrative wenyan (classical Chinese) (Hu, 1918/1989, p. 357). Thus one thing is
certain: Hu would definitely not allow the use of wenyan, but baihua, in the new
Shakespeare translation project. Liang’s use of baihua is safely in line with Hu’s tenet
on literature and culture.
As one of the leaders in the New Culture Movement, Hu was the person who
strongly advocated the use of baihua, instead of wenyan, in literary works. Since 1917,
Hu had published a series of articles
e.g. ‘Wenxue gailiang chuyi’
[‘Tentative suggestions for a reform of literature’] in the journal Xin Qingnian
[New Youth]
to promote the use of baihua in literary works and was warmly
encouraged and supported by Chen Duxiu , the editor of this journal.
Although encountering some opposition from various sides, the New Culture
Movement was very successful; one of its greatest achievements was that baihua,
which had long been at the periphery of the Chinese literary system, now, through
Hu’s efforts, entered into the central position in the literary system as well as the
social system at large. In October 1919, the National Alliance of Educational
Associations suggested that the government should promote baihua; on 12 January
1920, the Ministry of Education stipulated that baihua be used in the first and second
grades of primary schools, and in March such policy was extended to all grades and
later to all middle schools. In 1920 and 1921, baihua was officially recognized as the
national language (Chow, 1967, p. 279). Just as Hsia comments, Hu was the first
intellectual who asserted the ‘dignity and importance’ of baihua as a medium for
literature (Hsia, 1999, p. 7).
Hu was not only a patron, but also an influential professional (in Lefevere’s
sense), and, no doubt, also had some adversaries
the scholars/professionals who
held very different opinions on various cultural and literary issues. Among others,
Mei Guangdi (1890
1945) and Wu Mi (1894
1978) founded a journal
entitled Xueheng (or Critical Review) , in which wenyan instead of baihua was
mainly employed, to express their different literary and cultural stance in the 1920s
and 1930s.11 Both Mei and Wu were disciples of the Harvard professor Irving Babbitt
(1865
1933), the leader of the literary movement ‘New Humanism’, which Mei and
Wu took as a mighty weapon to fight against Hu and other advocates of the New
Culture Movement. It is hard to imagine that Liang shared a prominent similarity
with Mei and Wu
he was also a student of Irving Babbitt, and was greatly
influenced by his teacher’s literary and social thought, and he also actively promoted
Babbitt’s thoughts through his writings and translations in China.12 Liang once
compiled an anthology entitled Baibide yu renwen zhuyi [Irving
Babbitt and humanism], which included several important translations by Wu Mi and
others, and had it published by Xinyue shudian (Crescent Moon Bookstore)
220 L. Bai

in 1929. But in terms of using baihua or wenyan, Liang stood on Hu’s side. He did not
consider it wise to introduce Babbitt’s thoughts in wenyan, and said it was a pity that
the Critical Review employed wenyan at the time when baihua was widely used, as the
use of wenyan could cause misunderstandings among readers, thus hindering the
dissemination of Babbitt’s thoughts in China (Liang, 1977, p. 2). Liang was more
than a translator; he was also an independent professional. His preference for baihua
was definitely not because of the pressure from Hu, but due to his own free will. It
was not Hu who chose him; rather, they chose each other
there was a mutual
understanding or rapport between them, though certain differences inevitably
existed.
The Tentative arrangement for the translation of the complete works of Shakespeare
stipulated that detailed footnotes should be added for difficult passages, and in
Liang’s ‘Foreword’ we may see that he also emphasized this point. When Liang
recalled the process of translating, he said that among the earlier translations there
were fewer footnotes, yet more and more in the later ones. It was because of Hu’s
suggestion and encouragement to add annotations that he also became more
attentive to providing detailed footnotes in his translation (Liang, 1970, p. 110). Thus
this patron
translator relationship not only made the translation possible, but also
affected the translation strategies. There are, of course, also certain shortcomings of
the strategies Liang employed; for instance, the use of many footnotes may keep the
original flavour as much as possible, but, on the other hand, the language may not
appear very natural or idiomatic and thus not well suited for the stage. It seems that
neither Hu nor Liang considered stage performance their priority. There are both
advantages and disadvantages of certain translation methods, and a translator
generally had only one choice, which could be made neither solely by the translator
nor by the patron, but through negotiation between both parties; it may not
necessarily have been a Hobson’s choice offered by the patron.
Liang was also one of the influential literati in the twentieth century and did not
rely exclusively on Hu ideologically or financially. Both Liang and Hu were initiators
of the literary monthly Crescent Moon Monthly , of which Liang was one of
the chief editors and Hu the de facto leader, though his name did not appear on the
editorial board, and both of them were generally seen as chief members of the
Crescent Moon School , a literary school in 1920s and 1930s China. Both
strongly criticized the government at that time (e.g. they wrote many articles to
denounce autocracy and advocate democracy in Crescent Moon Monthly and other
publications), and both were animadverted upon by some common adversaries. Like
Hu, Liang also took certain government posts: he was a member of the National
Council (1938) and the director of the National Institute for Compilation and
Translation (1949
1950). In financial terms, although Liang received translation fees
from Hu’s Translation and Compilation Committee, it was surely not his major
source of income. Liang as a translator did retain considerable freedom and
independence, which, he considered, was inherited from Hu
he once said that he
greatly appreciated something Hu said: ‘The lions and tigers always walk alone,
whereas only foxes and dogs gather in a horde!’ (Liang, 1989b, p. 105; my
translation). Liang definitely was not a fox that needed the protection of a big tiger
like Hu, but with the latter’s initiation, support and encouragement the Shakespeare
translation project became possible and fruitful, and that Herculean task was
eventually finished in 1967.
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 221

Discussion and conclusion: patronage, a ‘productive network’

There is no doubt that Hu acted as Liang’s patron in this Shakespeare project, at
least in the 1930s. This is also a case in which the patron at the same time was one of
the most influential professionals during that period. Hu initiated, encouraged and
strongly supported Liang’s translational work, and we cannot associate such terms as
‘hinder’ or ‘discourage’ or ‘censor’ or ‘destroy’ with the patron
translator relation-
ship between them.
A patron is a person or organization who or which may have some privilege, but it
does not mean that such a person or organization is necessarily a patron. In the 1920s
and 1930s, there were also some very prominent people, such as Lu Xun or Qu
Qiubai (1899
1935), who were definitely not Liang’s patrons, as there were
sharp differences between them in terms of various issues concerning literature,
translation and politics. If a person ‘hinders’ or ‘discourages’ or ‘censors’ or
‘destroys’ a translator’s work, this person, more often than not, is not his/her patron;
of course, this person can be a patron within another patronage system, within which
he/she supports, rather than hinders, some other translation activity. If the translator
is unfortunately under an unfavourable patron, most probably, if circumstances
permit, he/she will try to find another one who really supports his/her work. It is true
that a person or institution can support a writer or a translator; he/it also has the
potential to suppress a writer or translator. But in the latter case, more often than
not, he/it might not be considered as a patron any more.
Of course, there are cases when a patron who is unsatisfied with the translator
could hinder the latter’s translating. But under such circumstances, the translator
could make some adjustments or amendments and thus could gain the latter’s
support again. Otherwise, there could be a deterioration of the relationship, which is
doomed to be broken. Yet under such circumstances, the translator, more often than
not, could have the right to find a new patron.
The existence of patronage is due to an inequality of resources between
translators and their patrons. Patrons are generally in a position to have more
material/spiritual resources, sources which translators generally do not have direct
access to. Translators, on the other hand, provide their translations, or even bring
reputation to their patrons, and in this way patrons could acquire even more
resources. There could be a win
win patron
translator relationship benefiting both
parties.
In the case of Liang and Hu, we find a harmonious relationship, even like that
between friends, though Hu enjoyed more fame and prestige. Going back in history,
we also find cases when friendship was involved in a translator
patron relationship:
for instance, during the Renaissance, a friend could be a patron, and friendship
was ‘both a fundamental value and an essential social relationship’ (Lytle, 1987,
p. 47). If the translator’s principles in life or translation per se are similar to those of
the patron, and both parties can be on good terms with each other, this could be an
ideal form of patron
translator relationship, a kind of collaboration to reach a
common goal.
This study indicates that, at least in the case of Liang and Hu, the translator

patron relationship is a loose one. It is established voluntarily and may also end in the
same way, and a translator oftentimes could have the freedom to choose or not to
choose a patron. Hu originally invited five translators to translate Shakespeare
collectively, yet only Liang accepted the invitation. Liang, like many intellectuals in
222 L. Bai

modern China, valued the independence of thinking and personal freedom very
much, and his relationship with the patron was based on personal will and mutual
understanding. After Hu and Liang moved to Taiwan, Liang did not receive financial
support from Hu and the China Foundation. It can be said that this patron

translator relationship then became looser than before, and Liang mainly received
Hu’s encouragement and spiritual support rather than financial support.
Patronage is a complicated issue in translation studies and it may appear in
different guises in different situations, so it is hard to establish a law which could
explain every aspect of the patron
translator relationship. This case study demon-
strates a positive and constructive side of patronage. Foucault, from whom Lefevere
borrowed the meaning of ‘power’, says that power is ‘much more than a negative
instance whose function is repression’, and to take power as ‘the force of a
prohibition’ is ‘wholly negative, narrow, skeletal’ (Foucault, 1980, p. 119). When
studying patronage, we should also avoid only looking at patronage from such a
perspective. From this study on Liang and Hu, we find patronage
here I borrow
Foucault’s words on this power
truly ‘traverses and produces things’, ‘induces
pleasures, forms knowledge, produces discourse’, and thus, ‘it needs to be considered
as a productive network which runs through the whole social body, much more than
a negative instance whose function is repression’ (ibid., p. 119). In the field of
translation studies, patronage can thus be positively defined as the action of persons
or organizations that offer financial support or use their influence to advance a
translation activity; a patron is a sponsor or a supporter of a translation activity.
A patron may surely have certain restraint upon a translator, but it is important to
bear in mind that this is not the primary function of patronage.

Notes
1. There is considerable literature related to patronage. For example, in the field of political
science, Patronage: An American tradition (Freedman, 1994) is a work studying the
patronage system in America. In this book, the author also lists some most frequently
cited studies on patronage in the field of political science (see Freedman, 1994, p. ix). In
the field of religious studies, patronage is also taken into consideration. For example, in
John K. Chow’s work Patronage and power: A study of social networks in Corinth (1992),
he attempts to use patronage as a heuristic tool to investigate some issues in the church at
Corinth. There is also research done on the relationship between artists and their patrons
in Europe, e.g. Francis Haskell’s Patrons and painters: Art and society in Baroque
Italy (1980). As ‘one of the dominant social processes of pre-industrial Europe’
(Gundersheimer, 1981, p. 3), patronage is also a subject of Renaissance studies. In May
1977, there was a symposium entitled ‘Patronage in the Renaissance’ held at the Folger
Shakespeare Library; in May 1983, another conference with the theme ‘Patronage, art
and society in the Renaissance’ was held in Melbourne. The papers delivered were later
collected in Lytle and Orgel (Eds.) (1981) and Kent et al. (1987), respectively. These
articles explore such issues as patronage in the church and state, patronage and society,
arts, literature, theatre, etc.
2. In Brewer’s politics: A phrase and fable dictionary, patronage is similarly defined as ‘the
use of political power to allocate jobs to supporters and relatives, frequently in return for
political loyalty of hard cash’ (Comfort, 1993, p. 444).
3. The name was also spelled ‘Liang Shih-ch’iu’.
4. The name was also spelled ‘Hu Shih’.
5. This part has referred to one of my Chinese articles (Bai, 2001).
6. The following is an excerpt of this letter:
‘Dear Shiqiu,
[ . . .] I have officially taken the position at the Translation Committee . . . I would like
to invite Yiduo , Tongbo , Zhimo , Gongchao and you to discuss the
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 223

translation of the complete works of Shakespeare. We hope to finish the translation

within five or ten years . . .
It is essential to decide on what type of language to use. I suggest that Yiduo and
Zhimo try verse and Tongbo and you try prose. After the experiments, we will be able to
decide whether to use prose only or both.
As for the payment, you will get the highest rate. Such books generally do not sell
badly, and we can also reserve the copyright.’
(Liang, 1970, p. 94; my translation)
7. Chen Tongbo was also named Chen Xiying :
8. The following is an excerpt of this letter:
‘Dear Yiduo and Shiqiu,
I have received your mail dated on February 13. When Gongchao came here and read
it, he agreed to most of your suggestions. I have not replied to you until now as I was
waiting for Zhimo. When he arrived yesterday he read and approved of your plan with
my slight modification.
Attached please find my revised version, which is almost the same as Shiqiu’s, except
that I modified no. 6 and added no. 9 and 10.
I think no. 6 is more feasible than the original suggestion.
No. 9 was suggested by Shiqiu in Qingdao.
No. 10 is for the purpose of accepting good translation from those outside the
Committee.
Please examine the above items and let me know your opinion.’
(Liang, 1970, p. 96; my translation)
9. The following is Hu’s mail to Liang dated 11 April 1936:
‘Dear Shiqiu,
I have just received a mail from the Commercial Press. There are several queries about
your translation of Othello in the letter. Please kindly check again. Attached please find
your manuscript and the original letter. Since these are only scholarly discussions,
I believe you will not mind . . .’
(Liang, 1970, p. 108, my translation)
10. The following is this ‘Foreword’:
1. This translation is based on the version edited by M. J. Craig published
by Oxford University Press.
2. The greater part of the original text is blank verse, a small part is prose, and a smaller
part rhymed couplets. The translation is mainly Baihua (vernacular Chinese)
prose, but the rhymed parts and episodes are translated into rhymed language to
indicate the difference.
3. . . . There are many parts which are difficult to understand, and the translator only
bases his translation upon one certain edition, and makes notes to clarify when
necessary.
4. The original has a great number of puns and all kinds of allusions and the translator
will make notes when it is not possible to translate.
5. The original has many bawdy expressions which are all translated to keep the
authenticity.
6. The translator tries to keep the punctuation of the original.
(Liang, 1979, p. 1; my translation with my emphasis)
11. To get more information about the translations of the journal Xueheng, please refer to Bai
and Chu (2008).
12. For more information on how Babbitt influenced Liang’s worldview and his selection of
Western works for translation into Chinese, please refer to Bai (2004).

References
Bai, L. (2001). Zanzhu yu fanyi: hushi dui liangshiqiu fanyi shashibiya de yingxiang [Patronage
and translation: Hu Shi’s influence upon Liang Shiqiu’s translation of Shakespeare’s
Works]. Chung Wai Literary Monthly, 30(7), 159
177.
224 L. Bai

Bai, L. (2004). Babbitt’s impact in China: The case of Liang Shiqiu. Humanitas, 17(1
2), 46
68.
Bai, L. & Chu, C.-y. (2008). Wu Mi yu xueheng zazhi de fanyi [Wu Mi and the translations in
the journal Critical Review]. Translation Quarterly, 49, 40
72.
Bennett, H.S. (1952). English books and readers 1475 to 1557. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bennett, H.S. (1965). English books and readers 1558 to 1603. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bennett, H.S. (1970). English books and readers 1603 to 1640. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bogdanor, V., (Ed.) (1991). The Blackwell encyclopaedia of political science. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chow, Tse-tsung (1967). The May Fourth movement: Intellectual revolution in modern China.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Compiling Committee of Education Chronicle of the Ministry of Education. (1948). The
second China education chronicle. Shanghai: Commercial Press.
Freedman, A. (1994). Patronage: An American tradition. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972
1977 (Colin
Gordon, Ed.; Colin Gordon et al., Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Gundersheimer, W.L. (1981). Patronage in the Renaissance: An exploratory approach. In G.F.
Lytle, & S. Orgel (Eds.), Patronage in the Renaissance (pp. 3
23). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Hu, Shi (1918/1989). Jianshe de wenxue geming lun (guoyu de wenxue*wenxue de guoyu) [On
a constructive literary revolution: The literature of national language and the national
language of literature]. In Chen Jingan, Hushi yanjiu ziliao [Research materials on Hu Shi]
(pp. 342
357). Beijing: Beijing shiyue wenyi chubanshe.
Hsia, C.T. (1999). A history of modern Chinese fiction (3rd ed.). Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Kent, F.W., & Simons, P. (1987). Renaissance patronage: An introductory essay. In F.W. Kent,
et al. (Eds.), Patronage, art, and society in Renaissance Italy (pp. 1
21). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Lefevere, A. (1984). The structure in the dialect of men interpreted. Comparative Criticism, 6,
87
100.
Lefevere, A. (1985). Why waste our time on rewrites? The trouble with interpretation and the
role of rewriting in an alternative paradigm. In T. Hermans (Ed.), The manipulation of
literature: studies in literary translation (pp. 215
243). London: Croom Helm.
Lefevere, A. (1992a). Translation, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. London:
Routledge.
Lefevere, A., (Ed.) (1992b). Translation/history/culture: A sourcebook. London: Routledge.
Liang, Shiqiu (1970). About the translation of Shakespeare. In Liang Shiqiu et al. (Eds.), Fanyi
de yishu [The art of translation] (pp. 93
110). Taipei: Chenzhong chubanshe.
Liang, Shiqiu (1977). Guanyu baibide xiansheng jiqi sixiang [About Mr. Babbitt and his
thought]. In Liang Shiqiu & Hou Jian (Eds.), Guanyu baibide dashi [About Master Babbitt]
(pp. 1
7). Taipei: Juliang chubanshe.
Liang, Shiqiu (1979). Xu [Foreword]. Shashibiya Quanji [The complete works of Shakespeare]
(p. 1). Taipei: Yuandong tushu gongsi.
Liang, Shiqiu (1989a). Yingxiang wo de jiben shu [Several influential books]. In Chen Zishan
(Ed.), Liang Shiqiu wenxue huiyilu [Liang Shiqiu’s literary memoir] (pp. 15
29). Changsha:
Yuelu chubanshe.
Liang, Shiqiu (1989b). Before and after the Crescent Moon. In Chen Zishan (Ed.), Liang
Shiqiu wenxue huiyilu [Liang Shiqiu’s literary memoir] (pp. 124
127). Changsha: Yuelu
chubanshe.
Lytle, G.F. (1981). Religion and the lay patron in Reformation England. In G.F. Lytle, &
S. Orgel (Eds.), Patronage in the Renaissance (pp. 65
114). Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Lytle, G.F. (1987). Friendship and patronage in Renaissance Europe. In F.W. Kent, & P.
Simons (Eds.), Patronage, art, and society in Renaissance Italy (pp. 47
61). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 225

Lytle, G.F., and Orgel, S. (Eds.). (1981). Patronage in the Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Marotti, A.F. (1981). John Donne and the rewards of patronage. In G.F. Lytle, & S. Orgel
(Eds.), Patronage in the Renaissance (pp. 207
234). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Onions, C.T. (Ed.). (1955). The Oxford universal dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Philp, M. (1983). Foucault on power: A problem in radical translation? Political Theory, 11(1),
29
52.
Rosenberg, E. (1955). Leicester: Patron of letters. New York: Columbia University Press.
Simpson, J., et al. (Eds.). (2008). Oxford English dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wang, Shuhuai (1974). Gengzi peikuan [Boxer indemnity]. Taipei: Institute of Modern History,
Academia Sinica.
Xu, Zhen’e, Wu Mi & Hu Xiansu (Trans.) (1929). Baibide yu renwenzhuyi [Irving Babbitt and
humanism]. Shanghai: Xinyue shudian.