Page:The Ancient City- A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.djvu/309

 CHAP. I. PATRICIANS AND CLIENTS. 303 The distinction between these two classes of men was manifest in what concerned material interests. The property of the family belonged entirely to the chief, who, however, shared the enjoyment of it with the younger branches, and even with the clients. But while the younger branch had at least an eventual right to this i^roperty, in case of the extinction of the elder branch, the client could never become a proprietor. The land that he cultivated he had only in trust; if he died, it returned to his patron ; Roman law of the later ages preserved a vestige of this ancient rule in what was caWed Jus ajjplicationis. The client's money, even, did not belong to him ; the patron was the true owner of it, and could take it for his own needs. It was by virtue of this ancient rule that the Roman law required the client to endow the daughter of the patron, to pay the patron's fine, and to furnish his ransom, or con- tribute to the expenses of his magistracy. The distinction is still more manifest in religion. The descendant of the pater alone can perform the ceremonies of the family worship. The client takes a part in it; a sacrifice is offered for him; he does not offer it for himself. Between him and the domestic divinity there is always a mediator. He cannot even replace the absent family. If this family becomes ex- tinct, the clients do not continue the worship ; they are dispersed. For the religion is not their patrimony ; it is not of their blood, it does not come from their own ancestors. It is a borrowed religion ; they have not the enjoyment or the ownership of it. Let us keep in mind that according to the ideas of ancient generations, the right to have a god and to pray was hereditary. The sacred tradition, the rites, the sacramental words, the powerful formulas which