a few clarifications about roman patronage?

[muduri]

I'm using parts of Imperial Rome for a GURPS Hârn campaign in the Corani Empire. The patron/client and daily life sections have been useful so far, but I have a few questions for fleshing out the roleplaying that maybe someone more Romanized than me would know the answers to.

So fair enough, morning visits to patrons, and the enterprising poor often had multiple patrons. But 1) was the latter a more universal condition? I.e. would a typical middle- or upper-class citizen have say three patrons as well, or as you move up the social scale is it just one major one who played a more general role?

2) Relatedly, do I have it right that the lower-class clients would tend to crowd in en masse but a middle-to-upper class patron interaction would be more of a lengthy, one-on-one affair?

3) So, understood that a client could get dragged into an all-day obligation as part of a retinue. But what would be the shortest one of these interactions could last? More like five minutes of group pleasantries, or more like an hour of conversation to show respect?

4) Finally - this is the most subjective question - how earnest should I play these connections? How much flattery and venal dissimulation go into an interaction - or is it not unlikely either that the pair like each other or that they're just straightforward about their business relationship?

Many thanks, Romanophiles.

[patchwork]

1) upper class people don't have patrons by definition ;) they are the patrons. Two members of the upper class may be allies in an unequal relationship, but they wouldn't enter into the formal patron-client relationship. And yes, middle-class people - skilled artisans, small business owners, etc - are unlikely to get away with having multiple patrons. If your unskilled labor is busy when you want them, no big loss, but if (for example) a patron has accepted a pilot as a client in order to use their ship occasionally, and said pilot turns out to be busy running passengers for another patron, that patron-client relationship just ended. Badly.

2) not on a daily basis. It is acceptable, after all, for a patron to keep "his" members of the head count waiting around while he decides what to do with his day, but a middle-class client's time has value. If you have no tasks for them today, you release them first so that they can attend to their own business. A patron who consistently made his prosperous clients wait around would very quickly lose them to another patron.

3) the shortest? You don't see you patron at all and his house slave tosses you a small bag of coins and a picnic lunch. Could be 5 minutes, sure.

4) Surely that's a matter of the patron's personality? Also of the distance between patron and client socially. A senator does not make the head count flatter him, they couldn't even do it right. The guy who owns a couple of insulae and is bucking for entrance into the equites with his son getting a job as a lictor? That's going to look like a social relationship, whether venal flattery or honest bonhomie depending on the two individuals.

Glad to help. Ave imperator, nos morituri te salutamus and all that ;)

tl;dr: the very poor have to wait, but don't have to suck up. The well-to-do have to suck up but don't normally have to wait.

[Anaraxes]

(1) My understanding was that there was a hierarchy. Some patrons did have their own patrons. Only the very highest ranks lacked a patron.

(This makes me wonder how the salutatio really worked. It's not like it was actually scheduled to a clock. You couldn't deal with your clients and then go visit your patron, or you might keep him waiting. So you'd visit your patron first. This meant that your clients would be waiting; if they were themselves patrons, their own clients would be waiting. At least this automatically sorts out the waiting, so the people lowest on the scale wait the longest. But it seems like it would also provide an incentive to find shorter patron-paths.)

[Tuk the Weekah]

Originally Posted by patchwork

1) upper class people don't have patrons by definition ;) they are the patrons. Two members of the upper class may be allies in an unequal relationship, but they wouldn't enter into the formal patron-client relationship. And yes, middle-class people - skilled artisans, small business owners, etc - are unlikely to get away with having multiple patrons. If your unskilled labor is busy when you want them, no big loss, but if (for example) a patron has accepted a pilot as a client in order to use their ship occasionally, and said pilot turns out to be busy running passengers for another patron, that patron-client relationship just ended. Badly.

Sorta, but not really. The fundamental structure of the Principate was an extension of clientela, where the Emperor was Patron to everyone. Even during Republican Rome, a homo novus could have a patrician of a more established family--or simply a wealthy bugger like Crassus--as a mentor or patron.

Originally Posted by patchwork

2) not on a daily basis. It is acceptable, after all, for a patron to keep "his" members of the head count waiting around while he decides what to do with his day, but a middle-class client's time has value. If you have no tasks for them today, you release them first so that they can attend to their own business. A patron who consistently made his prosperous clients wait around would very quickly lose them to another patron.

Also, the patronus would not keep a cliens who himself had cliens waiting overlong; after all, preventing him from fulfilling his role as a patronus would be bad form. And above all, Republican Rome was obsessed with form.

The wikipedia entry on Roman Patronage is a pretty good summation of the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome

[Prince Charon]

What's the lowest level of GURPS Status where having clients (apart from your own family) is plausible, and what's the lowest level where it would be odd to not have such clients?

[Tzeentch]

Originally Posted by muduri

So fair enough, morning visits to patrons, and the enterprising poor often had multiple patrons. But 1) was the latter a more universal condition? I.e. would a typical middle- or upper-class citizen have say three patrons as well, or as you move up the social scale is it just one major one who played a more general role?

-- In Roman terms patronage was a two-way street (more akin to unequally applied Allies advantages in many respects). The client and patron were bound in a set of obligations to each other. By the time of empire the poor did not generally have a Patron in GURPS or Roman terms as they had nothing to offer in return. The idea that a Patron would just give you stuff without repayment of some sort would be considered rather laughable to even a generous Roman.
-- But patronage was a VERY broad concept in Roman times, and encompasses everything from professional relationships to intra-family dealings. But no, not everyone has the GURPS Patron advantage, nor was it considered a good thing to be a client to anyone.
-- Note that Debt (p. B26) was also more broadly used in Roman context - and you could be in favor-debt just as deeply as monetary-debt.

2) Relatedly, do I have it right that the lower-class clients would tend to crowd in en masse but a middle-to-upper class patron interaction would be more of a lengthy, one-on-one affair?

-- Depends on the Patron and what he was expecting to get out of the clients. The greater the difference in Status the less interaction, that goes without saying - but if the Patron was looking for something specific they may choose some clients to work with more closely (e.g. a favorite group of ruffians to escort him through the streets, or Attractive clients to hang around with him/her at the baths).
-- Note that the client-patron expectations changed quite a lot through time. It would be a mistake to think that the Republican attitudes persisted unchanged across the centuries or that the writers didn't have an angle they were playing in describing things.

3) So, understood that a client could get dragged into an all-day obligation as part of a retinue. But what would be the shortest one of these interactions could last? More like five minutes of group pleasantries, or more like an hour of conversation to show respect?

-- Could be literally minutes to show up, make a show of things and shout some accolades, collect your bread, and be on your way. But never forget that there was a favor being granted to the client. A favor that would be expected to repaid and that you were legally obligated to perform if within your means.

4) Finally - this is the most subjective question - how earnest should I play these connections? How much flattery and venal dissimulation go into an interaction - or is it not unlikely either that the pair like each other or that they're just straightforward about their business relationship?

-- Hard to say, honestly, as it would be different from family to family, region to region, and Patron to Patron. Think of clients as groupies or retinues to powerful people in best cases, as fans that are given trinkets at worst.

-- It was possible to be a client to someone of lower Status (this was surprisingly common for members of the Senatorial class, actually) but it was considered shameful and burdensome.