CITY PATRONESSES IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Classical Antiquity 27.1 (2008) 115-162, 2008

This paper studies the meaning and function of the titles "patroness" and "mother" of collegia in Italy and the Latin-speaking provinces of the Roman Empire in the first three centuries . It is investigated why some collegia co-opted female patrons or appointed "mothers." What was expected from these women and was there any difference between a "mother" and a patroness of a collegium? On the basis of epigraphic evidence it is argued that patrona collegii and mater collegii were no empty titles but denoted distinct functions exercised by different classes of women. Whereas patronesses were, as a rule, outsiders to the collegium they patronized, "mothers" were mostly social climbers from within the ranks of the collegia. Though both types of women acted on behalf of the collegia, they did so in a different way. Moreover, they were honored differently. Collegia, therefore, had good reasons to distinguish between the titles they gave them.

Journal of Roman Studies 106 (2016)

This project aims to examine how Augustus used the patron-client relationship in stabilizing his position as princeps of the Roman state. The relevant ancient sources for Octavian/Augustus’ actions and the nature of patronage in Rome along with some modern scholarly views on Augustan patronage will provide a basis for a close examination of the workings of and the reasoning behind Augustus’ use of this traditional republican institution. I will discuss Augustus’ patronage of both the Roman elites (senators and equestrians) and the Roman plebs. From these examinations it will become evident that Augustus used his patronage to acquire a type of auctoritas different than the militaristic and political type he already held. This focus on a more social auctoritas will add to the scholarly discussion of Augustus’ self-promotion as well as acknowledge that Augustan patronage was not confined to one specific sphere of society.

Res Historica

The relationships between the cultores deorum and their patrons seem to meet all the criteria of the classic definition of Roman patronage put forward by A. Wallace-Hadrill. Firstly, there is no doubt that there was a 'reciprocal exchange of goods and services' between the patron and the college. The exchange took place on many levels, and the economic aspect was not necessarily the most important one. Secondly, the exchange was asymmetrical and permanent. In exchange for material and non-material support, colleges bestowed honours on their patrons, which strengthened the social prestige of the latter, at the same time creating a positive image of the colleges themselves. Both sides tried to give their relationship a permanent, formalised, and public character. Traces of these attempts are left not only in the well-documented custom of displaying tabulae patronatus in the collegial seat and the patron's house. The patron frequently included information about the corporate patronage in his cursus honorum, whereas colleges could honour their patron's birthday with one of the official corporate celebrations. In this way, the relationships between the patron and the college took on features which clearly differentiated them from acts of euergetism, not to mention regular economic transactions. A wealthy, generous, and most importantly influential patron was not only a desirable symbol of prestige for every corporation, but also a guarantee of the efficient functioning of the organisation that could rely on his or her support not only in its daily activity but also in crisis situations. Religious associations had to reconcile themselves to the homines novi of the local elites. The patron of the cultores Herculis in Interamna Nahars, T. Flavius T.f. Isidorus, who evidently proudly emphasises his promotion to the ordo equester, which was the pinnacle of his municipal career, is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Interestingly, the cultores deorum looking for patrons for their associations clearly tried to find ingenui. Although patrons of religious colleges include some liberti, these are rare cases. Wealthy freedmen are usually benefactors of colleges, but the latter did not attach themselves in a permanent way by means of the institution of patronage. This is understandable considering the fact that one of the main tasks of a patron was to represent the college in its contacts with the local 1 This article is an expanded version of Chapter 6 of my book: «Cultores deorum». Stowarzyszenia religijne w Italii w okresie wczesnego cesarstwa (I-III w. n.e.), Toruń 2015. 2 See mainly R.P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge 1982; A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society, London 1989. 3 The basic analysis of corporate patronage is still G. Clemente's extensive article, where he mainly discussed in detail the social profile of the personages chosen by collegia as patrons (G.

The paper deals with the problems of essence, dynamics and types of clientela in Late Antiquity. Clientship was of importance in social relations in epoch of Late Antiquity. The practice of civilian patronage continued throughout the fifth and sixth century. The author is coming to the conclusion that the new type of patronal relations in the form of intellectual patronage of barbarians and spiritual patronage in clerical environment were originated in Late Antiquity.

Most students of Roman society labor, still, in the shadow of Mommsen' s Staatsrecht. Though its various inadequacies have long been recognized, the edifice that Mommsen built remains a comfortable, if complex, home base from which we venture out into the jungle of Roman social relations and religious life at our peril. There are, it is true, local guides, the same ones who directed Mommsen, but once they have left the paths laid out by legal rules, often we do not know where they are leading us. Munzer and Syme blazed prosopographical trails through the cultivated heart of the territory, and Gelzer and Wissowa cleared pockets in the vegetation, from which we can observe the social behavior and religious customs of the dominant species. But if we want to understand the mechanisms of power and the tools of social organization that linked those in the deep woods to the cultural center, we must, in a sense, learn the unwritten laws of the jungle that our informants live by but never bother to explain. The two books under review are provisional primers of this complex code. Each sets out to explore the ways in which an ancient institution that lay outside the formal state political structures served to distribute power and perpetuate the social order. In feeling their way across territory that has been traversed before but never adequately mapped, both employ, in addition to the traditional local experts, the theoretical guidance of sociology and cultural anthropology in order to acquire a better lay of the land. In this they exemplify a current and productive trend in the Anglo-American approach to the social history of the ancient world. Interdisciplinary perspective and a broad similarity of underlying theme are not all the two works have in common. Both are collections of essays that originated as seminar papers delivered during the middle and late 1980s, at Leicester and Nottingham Universities (Patronage in Ancient Society: hereafter, Patronage) and at the Institute of Classical Studies, London (Pagan Priests: hereafter, Priests); both, despite the claims implicit in their broadly inclusive titles, are largely concerned with the world of late Republican and early Imperial Rome; both

2006

alone survived, one might well conclude that patrons of communities served their clients primarily in the courts. So much, at any rate, is expressly attested by Fronto when he advises Cirta, his origo, to seek as patrons the leading orators of the day (ep. ad am. II, 10). So, too, was the younger Pliny active on behalf of his municipal clients both as prosecutor and as defender. The epigraphical evidence, however, suggests a much wider variety of benefactions and services. This paper addresses one aspect of benefaction, namely that conferred by administrators who had the responsibility for bringing criminals to justice and who had the means (troops at their disposal) to do so. They were solicited as municipal patrons because they could confer the benefaction of quies, a euphemism for law and order. 2. The Epigraphical background Municipal patrons are attested widely and at all times in the epigraphic record of the Roman Empire. Patronage, patrocinium, assumes officium, a mutual relationship based on benefaction and service rendered by two parties of different status. Though the epigraphical record provides ample information about the names and status of patrons and clients, it is remarkably silent about the nature and variety of the benefactions conferred. It is, for example, virtually impossible to connect the honor of patronage with a specific benefaction; indeed, there is very little evidence which explains how benefaction sometimes led to cooptation and sometimes did not. Moreover, though we can, through a variety of indications, frequently date an epigraphical text closely, there is usually no indication which of the specific offices and/or activities led to patrocinium publicum; that is, an individual may have been coopted for reasons very different from those which led to the inscription. Even with these limitations, no student of patronage, ancient or modern, would doubt that some exchange of goods and/or services did take place. This analysis is directed at one class of patrons, imperial prefects, whose benefactions have been overlooked by scholars. As inscriptions do not provide specific references to benefactions conferred, scholars have had to approach the problem indirectly. Because patronage is usually mentioned in the context of other public honors, it is assumed that there is indeed some connection; that is, the community coopted an individual precisely because of the benefactions it might receive through the exercise of the patron's administrative office. Provincial governors, as is well known, regularly became the patrons of communities in the province they administered; so too did a great variety of other imperial officials of both senatorial and equestrian status. Among these officials, one prominent group is remarkable for the rarity of cases of municipal patronage; this group includes the highest of the equestrian prefects, the praefecti praetorio. In the third century, if not before, these officials held positions in Italy which were in some respects analogous to those of governors in the provinces. Moreover, they held the highest offices an eques might reach in his career. Though the governors in, for example, the Spanish or African provinces, frequently became municipal patrons, we have comparatively few cases in which the prefects were coopted as patrons of Italian towns, and this despite the fact that they were certainly the most influential men of their day, indeed, they are exactly the kind of men (one would think) whom Italian communities would want to secure as patrons.

Unpublished paper on imperial patronage in Late Antique Rome, held on a conference in Oxford organized by Yuri Marano in 2011.

Akroterion, 2014

In the sociology of literature over the ages, patronage is undoubtedly one of the most pervasive themes.! The late 1st century AD presents no exception. Though the early Empire lacked a patron having the renown of Maecenas (d. 8 BC), it is nonetheless eminently worthy of study in this regard in view of two contemporary writers-Martial (AD 40-c.103) and Statius (c.45-c.96). Despite manifest differences in style and temperament between these poets, both can be described as occasional poets (i.e. poets composing for specific social occasions) and this fact alone renders patronage highly apposite. Concentrating therefore on that period, I wish here to examine the phenomenon of literary patronage within the context of Roman mores. Broadly speaking, patronage of letters must be situated in the characteristically Roman system of patron-client relations. Topics to be discussed include its terminology and mechanics, origins, its purpose and value-material or otherwise-and the poet's economic position in society, and finally its continuity over Roman history. This study is undertaken in the form of a survey of some of the more important critical literature on the subject to have appeared in recent times, but i hope it can serve at the same time as a general introduction to the subject. The definition of the patron-client relationship offered by the social scientist Robert R. Kaufman provides a convenient starting-point. He has described this phenomenon as a "special type of dyadic exchange" which (a) "occurs between actors of unequal power and status", (b) "is based on the principle of reciprocity; that is, it is a self-regulating form of interpersonal exchange, •the maintenance of which depends on the return that each actor expects to obtain by rendering goods and services to the other and which ceases once the expected rewards fail to materialize" and (c) is "particularistic and private, anchored only loosely in public law or community norms" (Kaufman 1974:285).2