of the family. Such property as he possessed may have been merely a peculium, the small accumulation of cattle and means of husbandry which his master allowed him to form; had the client wronged a citizen, we may assume that his body might be surrendered in reparation of the damage (noxae deditio); the origin of Roman occupation of land on sufferance (precario) may perhaps be traced to the permission by the patron to till a little plot of land which might be resumed at will;[1] in default of direct heirs (sui heredes) such personal belongings as the client possessed may have fallen to the members of the protecting clan (gentiles), for it was to the clan rather than to the family that he was attached.
The description which we possess of the mutual obligations of patrons and clients,[2] although it contains many primitive elements, obviously refers to a time when the client was allowed to possess property of his own and was often a man of considerable wealth, but when, in spite of this power, he does not seem to have appeared in person in the public courts. It was the duty of the Patricians to interpret the law to their clients, to accept their defence in suits, and to represent them when they were plaintiffs.[3] The client, on the other hand, was bound to help to dower the daughter of the patron if the latter was poor; to pay the ransom if he or his son were captured by enemies; and, if his lord was worsted in a private action or incurred a public fine, to defray the expense from his own property. If any of these duties were violated by the client, he was held guilty of treason (perduellio), and as the secular arm suspended him from the unlucky tree, so the religious power devoted to the infernal gods the patron who had woven a net of fraud for his dependant.[4] Even after the effective infliction of religious sanctions had disappeared, the duty to the client ranked only second to that which was owed by a guardian to his ward.[5] The earliest(Dionys. ii. 10). If representation in the civil courts is meant, it must have resembled that of the paterfamilias, who sues in his own right, for procuratory was unknown in early Roman procedure (Just. Inst. iv. 10 "cum olim in usu fuisset alterius nomine agere non posse").]*
- ↑ Savigny Recht des Besitzes (7th ed.) p. 202. On the general condition of the client see Ihering Geist des röm. Rechts i. p. 237.
- ↑ Dionys. ii. 9, 10.
- ↑ [Greek: exêgeisthai ta dikaia . . . dikas lagchanein . . . tois egkalousin hypechein
- ↑ Verg. Aen. vi. 609 "fraus innexa clienti." Cf. Servius ad loc.
- ↑ Gell. v. 13 "Conveniebat . . . ex moribus populi Romani primum juxta parentes locum tenere pupillos debere, fidei tutelaeque nostrae creditos; secundum
