PATRISTIC THEOLOGY. 



PATRONYMIC. 



3-0 



Con-anlinopU. Thus we read in the history of the <Urk am, of the 

 -~ Ida. ci Rome' meaning the governor or representativ. of the 

 open* in that city, and the title was afterwards assumed by 





mat council. or supreme lagiaUtur.. 

 MMWim: MMterad in the go 



patrician was given to the members of the 

 ' lure, and their descendants, and tlu-ir 



golden book. After the decree of 



Fbruarr"lf, oatted " La serraU del maggior consiglio,' no new 

 member wo. introduced into the council, but all the descendant* of 

 thoM who had once sat in the great council, on arriving at twenty- 

 nre an of age, wen by right members of the sovereign assembly, 

 and patricians of Venice. " Patrizio Veneto" was a title of nobility, 

 equal to that of any feudal noble not of a sovereign 



IJTother parts of Italy, such as Genoa and Rome, the word patrician 

 -tf and is stHl used in common language to denote a member of the 

 hereditary nobility, independently of any feudal tiUe. 



PATRISTIC THEOLOGY. [THEOLOOY.] 



PATRON. [BENEFICE ; PARISH.] 



PATRO'NUS, derived from paler, a " father, as materna is formed 

 from m*l*r, a " mother." The relation of Patron and Client (dim*) in 

 ancient Rome is discussed in the article CLIENT; but the relation 

 between a freedman (librrtia) and his patronus requires a few words of 



In the Roman polity persons were divided, with respect to status or 

 condition, into freemen (liberi) and slaves (erri). Freemen were 



master who manumitted him became his patronus. The slave who was 

 manumitted received the gentile name of his patronus. (See Lactant. 

 Div. Instit.' iv. 8. ; Plin. ' Hist Nat' xxv. 8, and xxxi. 3 ; Pers. ' Sat' 

 v. 78.) The relation between patronus and libertus resembled in 

 many respects that between patronus and cliens ; but it appears that 

 their mutual rights and obligations were rather regulated by public 

 opinion than fixed by any positive enactment. The patronus on the 

 one hand was bound to take the libertus under his protection ; and the 

 libertus on his part was bound to assist his patronus by every means in 

 his power, but the only case hi which he was compelled by the law to 

 do so, was when the patronus or his children had become too poor to 

 support themselves. In such a case, if the patronus or his children 

 proved to the satisfaction of the governor of the province (pratet) 

 their necessitous condition, he might direct the libertus to allow a 

 monthly payment for their support (D. 25. 3. 9). 



The most important part however of the connection between the 

 patronus and the libertus was the right which the former had in 

 certain cases to the property or a portion of the property of the latter 

 upon his death. This right was founded upon the fact, that the law 

 regarded patroni as the adgnati of their liberti, and consequently they 

 succeeded to the property like any other adgnati. By a law of the 

 Twelve Tables, if the libertus died intestate and left no heir (tints 

 hertt'i, the patronus succeeded to his property. (Gaii. ' Comm.' iii. 40 ; 

 Justin. ' Inst.' iii. 8. 1.) If the heir was a son born of his own body 

 (naluralu), no one had a right to complain ; but it appeared to the 

 Romans a great injustice that an adopted son or daughter, or a wife 

 (in manu), should deprive the patron of his right to the property. 

 This injustice was remedied by the pnctor's edict, which enacted that 

 the patron's right should be barred only by the libertus leaving natural 

 sons, whether under his power at the time of his death, or sui juris, or 

 adopted by another during his life, provided they had not been disin- 

 herited, ami that if a libertus who had no natural sons made a will, he 

 should be obliged to leave half of his property to his patronus ; and if 

 he left none of his property, or less than half, the bonorum possessio 

 of half should be given to the patronus, even against the words of the 

 will ; if the libertus died intestate, leaving an adopted son, a wife (in 

 man*), or a daughter-in-law (in maim flii ejui), half of the property 

 was also given to the patronus. (' Gaius,' iii. 40, 41 ; ' Institut.,' iii. 

 8.1.) 



By the Lex Papia the rights of patrons to the property of their rich 

 freedmen were still further increased. By this law it was enacted, 

 that if a libertus died leaving property to the value of 100,000 sester- 

 cea, a portion of his property (vtrilit pan) went to his patronus, 

 whether he had made a will or died intestate, provided he hod fewer 

 than three children. If he left only one son or one daughter, half of 

 his property went to his patronus, as if he had died leaving no sou or 

 daughter ; if be left two children, a third went to the patronus, but if 



three, the patronus had no claim to any portion. 

 ' Institut., 1 ul 8. 2.) 



(Gaius iii. 42; 



With regard however to the property of a liberta, the ancient law 

 sufficiently protected the rights of the patronus, and he therefore had 

 no occasion to have recourse to the edict of the prater. For since the 

 patronus was the tutor of the liberta, she could not make a will with 

 out his consent, and consequently could not leave her property to any 

 one else. (Oaius, iil 43 ; Ulp., ' Kr.' uix. 2.) The Lex Papia 



however set free a liberta who had brought forth four children front 

 the tutela of her patronus. (Gaius iii. 44 ; Ulp., ' Kr.' xxix. 8.) 



The patrona, previous to the passing of the Lex I'apia, had no 

 greater right to the property of the libertus than was granted to the 



patronus by the Twelve Tables, and could not, like the patron u*, 

 obtain by the pnetor's edict the half of the property of a libertus who 

 had !. ft only an adopted son or a wife or daughter-in-law. By the 

 Lex Papia, however, an ingenua patrona, who had brought forth two 

 children, and a libertina patrona, who hod brought forth throe, obtained 

 almost the same rights as the patronus possessed by t 

 edict ; and an ingenua patrona who had brought forth three children 

 obtained the same privileges as were given to the patronus by that 

 law ; but a libcrtina patrona in uo case obtained the rights granted to 

 the patronus by the same law. (Oaius, iii. 49, 60 ; Ulp., ' Kr.' xxix. 

 5,0.) 



The rights of a patronus to the property of a libertus only extended 

 to his direct herodes, sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, &c., and never 

 belonged to his collateral heirs (eitranti kertdet). (Gaius, iii. 53.) 

 A patronus was able to assign a libertus (adtignare librrlum) to one of 

 his sons to the exclusion of his other children, so that on the death of 

 a libertus, the son to whom the libertus had been assigned was alone 

 entitled to the property, which was due to the patronus by the jus 

 patronatus. (' Institut., 1 iii., tit. 9 ; Dig.,' 60. 16. 107.) 



All the preceding remarks respecting the succession of the patronus 

 to the property of the libertus, only apply to the property of those 

 liberti who were Roman citizens. Those liberti who \ 

 [LATINPM Jus], or Dediticii, had in fact no power over the disposal of 

 their property. The Latini liberti had the privileges of freemen while 

 alive, but " they lost their life and their liberty at the same time," and 

 their property, like the pecvlia of slaves, come by the Lex Junia to the 

 persons who had manumitted them (Gaius., iii., 66 ; ' Institut.,' iii. 8.4.) 

 The succession to the property of the liberti Latini diflered also in 

 many other important particulars, which Gaius has pointed out 

 (iii. 57-62), from the succession to the property of those liberti who 

 were Roman citizens. By a decree of the senate passed in the reign of 

 Claudius during the consulship of Lupus and Largus, it was enacted 

 that the property of the Latini should pass first to those who had 

 manumitted them and their children not disinherited by name, and 

 afterwards to their other heirs. (Gaius, iii. 63; ' Institut.,' iii. 8.4.) 

 By a constitutio of Trajan, it was enacted that if a Latin libertus 

 obtained from the Emperor the jus Quiritium without the knowledge 

 or against the will of his patronus, he should enjoy the privileges of a 

 Roman citizen while he lived, but should be regarded as a Latinus at 

 the time of his death, and should have uo power of leaving his children 

 as his heredes ; and that he should only be allowed to make a will so 

 far as to leave his patronus his heir, or if the latter were unwilling to 

 become his heir, of substituting another in his place. (Gaius, iii. 72.) 

 This constitutio however was a little altered by one of Hadrian, who 

 gave with certain conditions the same privileges to those Latini who 

 had obtained the jus Quiritium from the Emperor, as to ^ those who 

 had obtained it by a decree of the senate or the Lex MMn, Sentia. 

 (Gaius, iii. 73.) 



These laws were however very much altered by Justinian. He gave 

 to the liberti Latini and Dediticii the same privileges as those liberti 

 possessed who were Roman citizens. He also enacted, that if a 

 libertus or liberta left less property than amounted to the value of 1QO 

 aurei, the patronus had no claim to any portion of the property, 

 provided they mode a will; but if they died intestate, leaving no 

 children, then the patronus succeeded to the property by the law of 

 the Twelve Tables. If the property of the libertus or liberta was of 

 more value than 100 aurei, and they left children, the patronus had 

 also no claim to any port of the property; but if those liberti or 

 libertiO who left no children died intestate, the patronus succeeded to 

 the whole of the property, and if they made a will without leaving any 

 part of their property to the patrouus, then he had a right to a third 

 of the property, and not to a half, as was formerly the case. (' Instit.,' 

 iii. 8.8.) 



(Gaius, iii. 89-70; Ulpian, Fraym., xxvii. 1-5; xxviii. 7; xxix. 1-7; 

 Jtutitutionei, iii., tit. 8, De Stuxettione Libertorum ; tit. 9, De Ad-siy- 

 nationc Libertorum: Digest. 37, tit. 14, De Jure J'atronalia ; 88, tit. 2, 

 De limit Libertorum; 38, tit. 4, De AtUiynandii Liberia; CMtitio 

 Leyum Mamie, et Roman., xvi, 8, 9 ; Unterholzner, Vrber dot patrona- 

 titche Erbrecht, in the Zeittchrifl fUr Ottthiclitliche KechttKutentchaft, 

 6th voL, 1st part, Berlin, 1823 ; and the articles CUKXT, LATINUM Jus, 

 and LIBEBTINUS, in this work.) 



PATRO'NYMIC (traerfaniuKiii) is a name given by grammarians to 

 those words which express the name of a person's father or ancestor. 

 Thus Achilles is called Pelides (the son of Peleus), Agamemnon is 

 styled Atrides (the son of Atreus), &c. In the English language we 

 have no words of this description, but in Sanscrit and Greek they are 

 very common, especially in Sanscrit, which has as many as thirteen 

 different terminations to form such words, namely, a, ati, dyana, 

 dyani, Ayanya, intya, irya, tya, Ira, aira,kiiyani, ki, ya. In Greek the 

 most common masculine termination is idei, as Cecrop-idet, a descendant 

 of Cecrops ; some patronymics are formed by adding ion, as Kron-'nm, 

 the ion of Knmot, 4c. Feminine patronymics in Greek are commonly 

 formed by adding id (in the nominative it), as Tantal-it, gen. Tantal- 

 id-ot, the daughter of Tantalus. In Lithuanian some patronymics are 



-, 



formed by adding na, as Janow-na, the son of Janow or John (Pott's 

 ' EtymologischeForschungen,' vol. ii., p. 679) ; which termination may 

 perhaps be connected with the Latin an-ui, which forms such patrony- 

 mic* as Octati-anut, one of the family of Octavius, jt'mili-anui, one ot 



