Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

CLIENS. CLIENS. 9x5
master to his liberated slave (libertus) was also. ex- scendants were thus connected with the gens of the
pressed by the word patronus, and the libertus was patronus. It was the glory of illustrious families to
the cliens of his patronus. Any Roman citizen have many clients, and to add to the nnumber
who wanted a protector, might attach himself to a transmitted to them by their ancestors. But the
patr-nus, and would thenceforward be a cliens. clients were not limited to the 77iU/or'col: the
Strangers who came into exilium at Rome might colonies, and the states connected with Rome by
do the same (jus applicationis, Cic. de Or. i. 39). alliance and friendship, and the conquered states,
Distinguished Romans were also sometimes the had their patrons at Rome; and the senate frepatroni of states and cities, which were in a cer- quently referred the disputes between such states
tain relation of subjection or friendship to Rome to their patrons, and abided by their decision.
(Sueton. Octavian. Caesa?-, 17); and in this re- Dionysius gives a tolerably intelligible statement,
spect they may be compared to colonial agents, or whether true or false, of the relation of a patron and
persons amongus, who are employed to look after client. What persons actually composed the body
the interests of the colony in the mother country; of clients, or what was the real historical origin of
except that among the Romans such services were the clientela, is immaterial for the purpose of unnever remunerated directly, though there might be derstanding what it was. It is clear that Dioan indirect remuneration. (Cic. Div. 20, Pro nysius understood the Roman state as originally
Sullc, c. 21; Tacit. Or. 36.) This relationship consisting of patricii and plebeii, and lie has said
between patronus and cliens was expressed by the that tile clients were the plebs. Now it appears,
word Clientela (Cic. ad Att. xiv. 12), which also from his own work and from Livy, that there were
expressed the whole body of a man's clients. clientes who were not the plebs, or, in other words,
(Tacit. Ann. xiv. 61.) In the Greek writers on clientesand plebs were not convertible ternms. This
Roman history, patronus is represented by wrpoer-d- passage, theol, has little historical value as ex-rS: and client, by 7rensaX-s. (Plut. Tib. Gracch. plaining the origin of the clients. Still something
13, Alarius, 5.) may be extracted from the passage, though it is
The clientela, but in a different form, existed as impossible to reconcile it altogether with all other
far back as the records or traditions of Roman evidence. The clients were not servi: they had
history extend; and the following is a brief notice property of their own, and freedom (lil)erts). Conof its origin and character, as stated by Dionysius sistently with what Dionysius says, they might be
(Antiq. Roen. ii. 9), in which the writer's terms Roman citizens in the wider sense of the term civis,
are kept -: enjoying only the commercium and connubium, but
Romulus gave to the eb'rrptiat the care of re- not the suffragium and honores, which belonged to
ligion, the honores (6ipXcLv), the administration of their patroni. [CIvITAS.] It would also be conjustice, and the administration of the state. The sistent with the statement of Dionysius, that there
87iyo-srcol (whom in the preceding chapter he has were free men in the state who were not patricii,
explained to be the 7rAhqeio,) had none of these and not clientes; but if such persons existed in
privileges, and they were also poor; husbandry the earliest period of the Roman state, they must
and the necessary arts of life were their occupation. have laboured under great civil disabilities, and
Romulus thus entrusted the art;or-7coi to the safe this also is not inconsistent with the testimony of
keeping of the WraoCpicloi (who are the eviraeTpi[a), history. Such a body, if it existed, must have
and permitted each of them to choose his patron. been powerless; but such a body might in various
This relationship between the patron and the client ways increase in numbers and wealth, and grow
was called, says Dionysius, patronia. (Compare up into an estate, such as the plebs afterwards was.
C(ic. Rep. ii. 9.) The body of clientes might include freedmen, as it
The relative rights and duties of the patrons and certainly did: but it seems an assumption of what
the clients were, according to Dionysius, as follow requires proof, to infer (as Niebuhr does) that,
(Dionys. ii. 10, and other passages):. because a patronus could put his freedman to death,
The patron was the legal adviser of the cliens; he could do the same to a client; for this involves
he was the client's guardian and protector, as he a tacit assumption that the clients were originally
was the guardian and protector of his own children; slaves; and this may be true, but it is not known.
he mainitained the client's suit when he was wronged, Besides, it cannot be true that a patron had the
and defended him when another complained of power of life and death over his freedman, who
being wronged by him: in a word, the patron was had obtained the civitas, any more than he had
the guardian of the client's interest, both private over an emancipated son. There is also no proof
and public. The client contributed to the marriage that the clientela in which liberti stood was hereportion of the pation's daughter, if the patron was ditary like that of the proper clients. The body
poor; and to his ransom, or that of his children, if of clientes might, consistently with all that we
they were taken prisoners; he paid the costs and know, contain peregrini, who had no privileges at
damages of a suit which the patron lost, and of all; and it might contain that class of persons who
anly penalty in which he was condemned; he bore had the commercium only, if the commercium exa part of the patron's expenses incurred by his dis- isted in the early ages of the state. [CIVITAS.]
charging public duties, or filling the honourable The latter class of persons would recluire a patronus
places in the state. Neither party could accuse the to whom they might attach themselves for the proother, or bear testimony against the other, or give tection of their property, and who might sue and
his vote against the other. The clients accom- defend them in all suits, on account of the (here
panied their patroni to war as vassals. (Dionys. x. assumed) inability of such persons to sue in their
43.) This relationship between patron and client own name in the early ages of Rone.
subsisted for many generations, and resembled in The relation of the patronus to the cliens, as reall respects the relationship by blood. It was a presented by Dionysius, has an analogy to the
connection that was hereditary; the cliens bore the patria potestas, and the form of the word patronus
gentile name of the patronus, and he and his de- is consistent with this.
u 4