Patronage

Lefevere shows how translation in medieval Europe was almost always commissioned by either those in power or the aristocracy. In such cases, the translator had very limited freedom with respect to what and how s/he could translate. These patrons have taken on different faces today. They can be representatives of an elected government, government institutions that commission translations, publishers, and critics. As Lefevere puts it: “If translators do not stay within the perimeters of the acceptable as defined by the patron (an absolute monarch, for instance, but also a publisher's editor), the chances are that their translation will either not reach the audience they want it to reach or that it will, at best, reach that audience in a circuitous manner” (7). In almost all cases the patron will be the representative of the dominant ideology. Critics can also be seen as limiting the translator's freedom because they demand the translator's conformity to the dominant aesthetic discourse. Translations of works that radically depart from conventional forms of literature would find it difficult to find a foothold in the receptor culture, unless the author of the source text has a formidable reputation. James Joyce's Finnegans Wake is a case in point. Apart from the practical difficulty in translating it, the translator will have to explain the poetics of this work to the receptor culture.

Just as patrons encourage the translations of certain works, there can be severe discouragement as well of the translation of some other works. Philemon Holland has commented about this in his preface to the translation of Pliny; he mentions the objections raised by some people to the translation of Pliny, and sets about to answer those criticisms. So has Jean de Breche de Tours who translated Hippocrates. He mentioned the opposition of people with vested interests who did not want these medical texts to be out in the public domain. Similarly, the scriptures are sensitive texts. The authorities of institutionalised religion generally frown on translations of scriptural texts into the language of the common man. The opposition to the vernacular translation of the Bible is well documented. The Quran also is encouraged to be read in its original language version of Arabic. In these cases, translations are perceived to have the potential to become blasphemy by subverting the word of God.