Note 26 — BOOK V. CONCERNING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS.
S. P. (Samuel Parsons) Scott translation
The institution of patron and libertus, or client, adopted by the Visigoths almost without alteration, dates back to the primitive ages of Rome. The regulation was recognized by the Law of the Twelve Tables, and was modified by various enactments during the eras of the Republic and the Empire. Its survival, during all the vicissitudes attending the Roman domination, attests its peculiar adaptability to the national character, and to the political and social organization of the people who established it. It presents a greater analogy to the Highland clan than to any other modern institution, although marked and radical differences exist between the two; the strongest resemblance being in the devoted allegiance due to both the patronus and the chieftain. By the ordinary act of manumission the slave became a libertus or freedman; a term of much more limited significance than it has at present. The former master then became the protector and guardian of his freedman; and, in return for this protection, the latter was bound to perform certain duties, which he could not evade without the reproach of ingratitude, and the certainty of punishment. One of these obligations was that of military service, which differed from those subsequently required by the law of the Feudal System, only in that it was not especially rendered as a condition for the tenure of a fee. The relation of patron and client, which, under the Romans, could only be dissolved between individuals by death, or by the loss of his freedom by the client for misconduct or insolence, was not so strictly observed among the Visigoths. Under their system, the freedman had a right to transfer his allegiance to another patron; an act which caused the forfeiture to his former master, of at least half his property. Not only individuals, but churches, and municipal bodies, could exercise patronal rights. While the term client was generally applied by both nations to a manumitted slave, it had in fact, a much broader meaning; and denoted any person who voluntarily placed himself under the care or supervision of another of superior rank or power. This institution had more influence in preserving and perpetuating the distinctions of caste—that most pernicious and fatal of evils which cause the disintegration of nations and overthrow of governments—than any other arbitrary and oppressive regulation of ancient times.