Clientes
The name originally applied to such inhabitants of Rome as had lost or given up the
citizenship of their own cities, and had settled in Roman territory. Here, having no legal
rights, they were compelled, in order to secure their personal freedom, to seek the protection
of some Roman citizen, a term which, in ancient times, could mean only a patrician. The
relation thus set on foot was called
clientela, and was inherited by the
descendants of both parties. Accordingly the client entered into the family of his patron
(
patronus), took his gentile name, and was admitted to take part in the
family sacrifices. The patron made over to him a piece of land as a means of support,
protected him from violence, represented him at law, and buried him after his death. The
client, on his part, accompanied his patron abroad and on military service, gave his advice in
legal and domestic matters, and made a contribution from his property if his patron were
endowing a daughter, or had to be ransomed in war or to pay a fine. The relation between
patron and client is also illustrated by the fact that neither party could bring an action
against the other in a court of law, or bear witness against him, or vote against him, or
appear against him as advocate. A man's duty to his client was more binding than his duty to
his blood relations, and any violation of it was regarded as a capital offence.
When Servius Tullius extended the rights of citizenship to the clients as well as to the
plebeians, the bond between patron and client still continued in force, although it gradually
relaxed with the course of time. At the end of the republican age the
status of client, in the proper sense of the word, had ceased to exist. Under the
Empire the
clientela was a mere external relation between the rich and
the poor, the great and the obscure. It involved no moral obligation on either side, but was
based merely on the vanity of the one party and the necessity of the other. It was no unusual
thing to find persons who had no settled means of subsistence trying, by flattery and servile
behaviour, to win the favour of the great. Even philosophers and poets, like Statius and Martial, are found in this position. The client performed certain services,
called on his patron in the morning, accompanied him on public occasions, and was in turn
invited to his table, received presents from him, and (if he could get it) a settled
provision. Instead of inviting their numerous clients, the rich would often present them with
a small sum of money called
sportula. The relation was entirely a free
one, and could be dissolved at pleasure by either party.
In the republican age whole communities, and even provinces, when they had submitted to the
Roman yoke, would sometimes become clients of a single
patronus. In this
case the
patronus would usually be the conquering general. Marcellus, for
instance, the conqueror of Syracuse, and his descendants, were patrons of Sicily. The
practical advantages which were secured to a foreign community by this permanent
representation at Rome are obvious. Accordingly we find that, under the Empire, even cities
which stood to Rome in no relation of dependence, such as colonies and
municipia, sometimes selected a
patronus. The
patronus was, in such cases, always chosen from among the senators or
equites. See Mommsen,
Abhandlung über das römische Gastrecht
und die römische Clientel (in
Römische Forschungen）
(Berlin, 1864-79); McLennan,
The Patriarchal Theory
(London, 1885); and Morey,
Outlines of Roman Law (New York,
1889).
