ancient history help! Client & Patron (1 Viewer)

2vague

New Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
17
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
helo, ive been given my first yr12 ancient assessment about client-patron relationship. ive asked my teacher to explain it but he never answer my questions so i dont have a clear idea of what it is exactly.

can anyone give me a definition thast understandable???:)
plz and ty
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Re: ancient history help!

I assume you're talking about Rome? You should say which period, so we can give you evidence...

It's a pretty simple concept, although it's very foreign to us.

Basically in theory it was socially high (wealthy/popular/big family) patricians taking younger patricians or plebians under their wing. In early Rome, usually this would mean the patron taking on one to three clients and spending time with them.

In the later republic, I suppose from about 150ish, it became a complex relationship between one patron and anywhere from 10 to 200 clients, usually plebs. The patron would grant them favours, for example acting for them in court, arranging business prospects and employment, lending them money, etc.

From memory, the clients used to visit the patron in groups on a regular basis (I believe daily or weekly), to report in. The visits would entail the patron ensuring that everyone was acting well, although there is evidence that shows that the patrons eventually just used the visits to pay the clients (in food or money) and instruct them how to vote or how to conduct their business.

In the end of the republic and the early empire, patrons really had no contact with their clients and literally had lines of needy clients outside their houses. The patrons used to screw over the clients by pretending to help them in some big way, but were really manipulating them for political and profit reasons. The clients ended up using their patrons as dispute resolutions: Say Sam owes Joe money, but Joe says that the money is not owed. Sam would go to his patron and tell him what happened. Sam's patron would then go knock on Joe's patron's door and get it sorted out.

It became so contrived in the end, that people would literally be afraid of some peasant because he was the client of some big-wig aristocrat. Someone's client ended up becoming someone's property.

With politics, the patrons loved taking on artists. In exchange for a nice play about him, x politician (patron) would give the playwright (client) a nice bag of money. In the late republic, wannabe consuls would spend huge amounts of money in patronage, with the hopes that it would get them into office.

The thing to note is that whilst a patron could have hundreds of clients, a client could only have one patron. The system enforced a strict Roman hierachy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

2vague

New Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
17
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
well, my task is to write during the time of pompeii so, ~70AD or something???
but if i have to write about a client who needs money and a patron who needs political power, i dont see why my patron has to convince his client to well, be his client, because thats what i have to do. wouldnt there not be the need for convincing since the client is in need of money, he wud just agree?

but thank you for the reply. it has helped me understand more.
ty
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
2vague said:
well, my task is to write during the time of pompeii so, ~70AD or something???
but if i have to write about a client who needs money and a patron who needs political power, i dont see why my patron has to convince his client to well, be his client, because thats what i have to do. wouldnt there not be the need for convincing since the client is in need of money, he wud just agree?

but thank you for the reply. it has helped me understand more.
ty
Well see that's why it was complex.

Sometimes, two patrons would go for one client. For example, some nobody military captain suddenly becomes adopted by a consul, a bunch of people are going to want to patron him in order to get on his (and his adoptive-family's) good side.

Most of the time, this kind of thing happened with the arts - especially things like plays. A person would write a play that went very well, he might have several people contending to be his patron.

If you were a clever person, you wouldn't want to just take the first patron available - you wanted to set your goal high. It was pretty difficult (I believe impossible) to dump a patron and move onto someone better.

That being said, it is still very difficult to understand, I don't fully understand it myself. I'm also unsure of how it was in Pompeii, it may have been different to Rome, being less urban.

Ah, sorry I should have added this: a big trend in Roman history is that the class of wealthy/prominent non-aristocrats start becoming very important. I believe that in many cases, patronage became a formality and more beneficial for the patron himself. I said in my post above that patronage was basically a patron screwing over a client - this was the case in the late republic and early empire. After the four emperors, so the Flavian dynasty (ie the time of Pompeii), being a non-patrician was far less of a stigma, so being a client wasn't so practically important to people. Being a prominent non-patrician without a patron, though, was difficult because of things like property ownership and such.

Anyway, sorry if I confused you. This is a lesson for everyone to make sure you're clear with which period you're referring. :p :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top