1)BIrniae....41600fire
ZEITSCHRIFT
DER SAVIGNY-STIFTUNGFOR
RECHTSGESCHICHTE
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
TH. MAYER-MALY, D. NRR,A. LAUFS, W. DORIS,M. HECKEL, P. MIKAT, K.W. NRR
SECHSUNDNEUNZIGSTER BAND
CIX. BAND DER ZEITSCHRIFT FOR RECHTSGESCHICHTE
ROMANISTISCHE ABTEILUNG
WEIMAR 1979VERLAG HERMANN BOHLAUS NACHFOLGER
Sonderdruck / Ins Buckhandel einzek nicht kauflich/
John Nicole, Patronum cooptare303
Patronum cooptare, patrocinium deferre:Lex Malacitana c. 61*
The vocabulary of patronage, like the institution itself, is not easily grasped,in part because the Romans used a variety of words to describe the same institu-tion. Hence, fides, cdientela, patronatua and patrocinium were employed to character-ize different perspectives and various aspects of the same relationship.
This problem is particularly acute when one considers chapter 61 of the lezMalacitana. The chapter in questions reads:
ne quis patronum publiee municipibus municipii Flavi Malacitani cooptatopatroeiniutnve cui deferto, nisi ex maioris partis decurionum decreto (ILS6089 = FIRA Nr. 24).
The question to be discussed here is whether the formulae patronum cooptare and
patrocinium deferre refer to one or more specific kinds of patronage. Might one beconsidered retrospective and the other prospective in terms of the patronalservices? Or, does patronum cooptare imply the grant of general responsibilitieswhile patrocinium deferre specific ones? Or, alternatively, are these expressionssimply redundant? These questions are important, for communities employed the
patronal relationship for various purposes and may have devised distinct formu-
lae to define particular functions).
The first problem to be considered is whether Roman lawgivers did employapparently repetitious combinations of formulae in order, for example, to preventthe circumvention of the regulation or to ensure its enforcement. That they didso may be observed in another municipal charter, the lex Ureonensia, two passages
of which are relevant for this discussion. In chapter 97, the text reads:
ne quis Ilvir nev quis pro potestate in ea colonia facito neve ad decurionesreferto neve decurionum decretum facito fiat, quo quis colonial colonise patronussit atoptetur praeter eum . . . (ILS 6087).
Though there is no reference to a distinction between patronum cooptare andpatrocinium deferre, this chapter does regulate two distinct formulae (patronuaesse and patronua adoptari) whioh were apparently being used to designatepatrons in contemporary deoreta. It is however highly unlikely that the twoexpressions used here were meant to produce different kinds of patrons or patrons
with different functions.
In chapter 130 of the same charter the language is more fulsome:
ne quis Ilvir aedilis praefectus coloniae Genetivae Iulise quicunque erit addecuriones colonise Genetivae referto neve decuriones consulito neve decretum
 For comments and suggestions I would like to thank C. P. Jones and D.Niirr.
1) The legea Uraonentria and Malacitana mention a variety of patronal rela-tionships. The title was given to individuals (and their descendants) who foundedthe colony, who distributed land among the citizens (ILS 6087, c. 97), and tothose who acted as patroni causae in internal affairs (ILS 6089, o. 67). Moreover,special regulations affected the designation of patroni of senatorial status (ILS6087, a. 130).

304MiszellenJohn Nicols, Patronum cooptare305

deourionum facito neve de ea re in tabulas publioas referto neve referri iubeto nevequis decurio de ea re, qua de ea re agetur, in decurionibus sententiam dieito nevedecretum deourionum scribito, neve in tabulas publicas referto, neve referundumourato, quo quis senator senatorisve filiva populi Romani eoloniae Genetivaepatronus atoptetur sumatur fiat nisi ...
Here again there is no reference to patrocinium, but three formulae are mentionedby which a patron might be designated: patronue atoptetur, patronus suma,tur andpatronus fiat. Nevertheless, the general context of this chapter indicates that theintention of this provision (and that of a. 97) is not to distinguish between differentkinds of patrons, but to regulate the various means and procedures by which the
patron of a community might be designated.
To ensure the efficacy of a regulation, the lawgivers specifically mentioned thevarious formulae which were currently being employed in reference to a particularinstitution. Nor was this tendency unusual at other points in these charters. Acommon conclusion to the various regulations is: eui volet cuique per ham legem
licebat actio petitio peraecutio eetoz). These three words ( actio, petitio, persecutio)though of different origins are variously considered as `°... eine sinnlose Han-fung synonymer Begriffe" or as formal regulations " . (die) jede Lucke zuschliellen and jeden Umgehungsversuch zu verhindern suchten"3). Now that theprinciple has been established that the lawgivers employed various formulae inthe charters in order to achieve one result, we may consider whether the two
expression used in the lex Malacitana, c. 61, refer to the same institution.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary makes the following distinctions between thewords patronue, patronatue and patrocinium. The first is the person who has under-taken the protection of another, the second is defined as the status or position ofa patron and the third as the exercise of the functions of a patron. It is the last ofthese three which comes closest to the English word "patronage". By thesedefinitions, the formula patronum cooptare found in this law and on bronzetabulae patronatue would be equivalent to the official bestowal of patronatue4),i.e., to the bestowal of the status or dignity of patron on an individual. Theexercise of the function implied by the dignity would be considered patrocinium.
Theoretically, then, there seems to be a distinction between these words.
This conclusion would appear to be supported by the fact that patrocinium
usually refers to the activities of an advocate or, in particular, to his plea.5) Hence,patrocinium deferre in this formula might be interpreted to mean specifically theappointment of an advocate by a community and not to the bestowal of a generalpatronage of the community. In this interpretation, the formula patrociniumdeferre would appear to create a patronise eaueae municipii Malacitani and not apatronita municipii9.
2)Cf. lex Ureonensis cc. 125-126, 128-132; the lex Salpeneana (ILS 6088)0. 26 and the lex Malacitana, cc. 62, 67.
3)On this problem, see F. Sturm, Stipulatio Aquiliana, Munchen 1972,
147-149, 157ff. and 163.
4)On the tabulae, of. ILS 6094ff. and below.
5)Cf. Plin. epp. VI, 21. 1, IX, 7. 1 and Cod. II, 7. 9 and the references given
in the Oxford Latin Dictionary.
9 Such a patronue causae would represent the community in external rela-tions; the appointment of a patronue caueae for internal affairs is regulated in
c. 67.
In praotioe, however, the theoretical distinction between patronum cooptare(as a general patronage) and patrocinium deferre (as a specific legal service of anadvocate) does not appear to have been observed in the patronage of communities.Three examples illustrate this problem.
The lex Malacitana specifies that the designation of a patron of the communitybe confirmed by a decretum decurionum. A number of these honorary decrees,known as tabulae patronatue, have survuved7). Although the texts of the individ-ual tabulae vary considerably, they generally record that the community cooptedsomeone as its patron and that he has received the community in fidem clientelam-gue euam. A tabula from Mauretania dating to the reign of Nero reads:
Q. Julius Q. f. Qui Seoundus legatus pro/praetore hospitium fecit cum/de-curionibus et colonis colonic/Julia Augusta Legionis VII Tupusuctu sibi/liberisposterisque suis eosque pa/trooinio suo tuendos recepit ... (CIL VIII 8837)8)
What is interesting here is that patrocinium is employed where fides clientelague,normally appears and that it is considered the complement of hospitium. Hence,it is very likely that patrocinium here refers to a general, rather than to a specific,patronage.
In an inscription from Peltuinum in Italy, a decretum decurionum for NummiaVaria is recorded in which the following formulae appear together:
ut merito debeat ex consensu universorum patrona praefecturae nostraefieri plaoere universis conscriptis Nurnmiae Variae ... pro splendore digni-tatis suae patrocinium praefecturae nostrae deferri ... et singulas universosquenos remque publioam nostram in olientelam domus suae recipere dignetur
(CIL X 3429)
Here too it is probable that the authors of the decretum considered patrona fieri,patrocinium deferri and in clientelam recipere to describe the same relationship.
A third example is an inscription from Banasa in Mauretania which dates toA.D. 162. It reads:
Aurelii Banasitani ex decreto splendidissi/mi ordinis Q. Claudium Ferocem/Q. Filium Aeronium Montanum patronumisibi liberisque ac posteris suis co-optaverunt/Q. Claudius Ferox Q. fil. Aeronius Montanus item/patrocinium in serecepit(AE 1948), 115)
This inscription is particularly important because it specifies, as required by thelex Malacitana, that the cooptation of the patron result from a decretum decurionumMost significant for this discussion is, however, the emphasis given by the ex-pression it(em) patrocinium in se recepit as an exact complement of patronumcooptare. These three examples show conclusively that, in regards to the patronageof communities, the Romans did not in practice make a clear distinction betweenthe status of the patron and the exercise of the duties implied by the assumptionof the status. In this context, both formulae refer to the bestowal of a generalpatronage.
7)On this form, R. Cagnat, Cours dEpigraphie latine4, Paris 1914, 330 andL. Har man d , Le Patronat sur les Collectivitia publiques, Paris 1957, 332ff.
8)The data of this and the two following documents is assured by the mentionof the relevant consuls at the beginning of the inscription. They and the mamesof the legati who were appointed to cary out the decree have been omitted here.
20 Zeitschrift far Itechtsgeschichte. XCVI. Rom. Abt.

306
 Miszellen
 

Even if one accepts that the two formulae are linguistic variations which de-scribe one phenomenon, it is possible that patronum cooptare and patrociniumdeferrs might refer to different aspects of a general patronage. In this case, theformer might be viewed as retrospective, "for services rendered", and the latterprospective, that is, for services "to be rendered". There is however no evidencefor such a meaning in the context of the patronage of communities.
Among the tabula. pakionatue, there is no indication that patrocinium has thisprospective meaning. Rather, it appears to be the case that patronum cooptarealone included both the prospective and retrospective services. For, in the onecase in which such a distinction is made (. °was atlas curae eiue meritogratiaa agere debut, juturumque ut tentae virtutis vir auxilio sit futurus municipionegro) , namely in the decree eoopting Pomponius Bassus as patron of Ferentinum(TtaS 6106), the community requests Bassus to accept it (i.e., the community) inhis clientele and allow himself to be eoopted patron. Moreover, Pliny the Younger,in refering to his cooptation as patron of Tifernum (me patronum cooptavit)states that he was paene adhuc puerum at the time (IV, 1.4) indicating that thecommunity was anticipating services in the future, rather than rewarding thoseof the past).
In summary, there is, first, no reason to think that, of the two formulae dis-cussed here, one has a general meaning and the other a specific or that one isretrospective and other prospective. In the context of the patronage of communi-ties, the two are synonymous. Secondly, it is manifest that the vocabularly ofpatronage must be treated with considerable caution. In the context discussedhere, the two formulae refer to the same institution, but, in other situations, theyclearly do not.
Stanford (Cal.)/MiinchenJohn Nicols
) On this letter, see J. Nicols, Pliny and the Patronage of Communities,Hermes (forthcoming).