One more tidbit from the (ongoing) deep-dive into ancient/classical Rome.
Latin and modern English pretty much agree on a broad definition of "patron." A patron looks out for something or someone. hen a customer patronises a business, s/he is interested in keeping it going--perhaps when there might be cheaper and/or more convenient equivalents. In the days when kings and nobles sponsored writers and artists, they were considered patrons. (Of course, a rising middle class meant that patronage tended to become more democratic, but the basic tenet still held.)
The resemblance ends there, however. The definition of patron (and the relationship between the patron and those he patronised) changed a bit over the centuries, but the basic idea ran more along the lines of reciprocal obligations.
Oddly, the patronised were called "clients," which sounds strange to modern ears, because the client in what was considered a socially inferior position--and, by definition, held less power. It doesn't map cleanly to the later feudal obligations of serf -> minor nobleman -> major nobleman -> king. But it was knit tightly into the social structure and roman ethos of trustworthiness.
A patron's obligations to his clients, depending on the time, could include financial support, brokering marriage arrangements, representing his client in court, use his influence to shield the client from the tax collector or to right some wrong done to the client.
The client would (most importantly) vote for his patron. But (again depending on the century), he might go to war with his patron. Or provide what services he was capable of performing. He might contribute money to the patron's efforts (political campaigning or religious services). If the client was powerful enough to have clients of his own, those sub-clients might be put to the use of the patron.
The eye-opening facet of this relationship was that it was binding on one's heirs. In essence, it became quasi-familial. Patrons and clients could not testify against each other in court. If a client died without an heir, his patron would inherit his property. That freed slaves automatically became clients of their owner was no surprise, but people conquered by a Roman army would (again, in certain points in history) be considered "clients" of the commanding general. Or the Emperor (which was sometimes one and the same).
Today, the only echo of this relationship can be found in the attorney-client / doctor-patient / confessor-sinner relationship. All are to some extent protected by law and professional ethics in a way that other business relationships aren't.
(Of course, in I/T, "client" has another meaning entirely. But rather than a client-patron relationship, it's a client-server relationship, which is where our definitions really go off the rails...)
When you dabble (as I do) in etymology, you're used to meanings outgrowing their words, or sometimes shrinking within them. And sometimes the meanings almost turn themselves inside out. As a business owner, I thought it was interesting how the meaning of client transitioned from one who relied on someone more powerful (sometimes for their sustenance) to the person who really holds the power in the relationship. Thus, client and patron have become almost equivalent in meaning, at least from a business's standpoint.
- - - - -
* A wink to the Zero Mostel vehicle.
