is not strong enough to overcome his inherent disbelief in the
adequacy of purely scientific explanation.
PATROCLES (c. 312–261 B.C.), a Macedonian general and writer on geographical subjects, who lived during the reigns of Seleucus I. and Antiochus I. When in command of the fleet of Seleucus (285) he undertook a voyage of exploration on the Caspian Sea to discover possible trade routes, especially for communication with the peoples of northern India. He came to the conclusion that the Caspian was a gulf or inlet, and that it was possible to enter it by sea from the Indian Ocean. The only information as to his work (even the title is unknown) is derived from Strabo. After the death of Seleucus, Patrocles was sent by his successor Antiochus to put down a revolt in Asia Minor, and lost his life in an engagement with the Bithynians.
See Strabo ii. 68, 74, xi. 508, xv. 689; Diod. Sic. xix. 100; Plutarch, Demetrius, 47; Pliny, Nat. Hist. vi. 21; Photius, cod. 224 (on Memnon); C. W. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, ii. 442; E. H. Bunbury, Hist. of Ancient Geography, vol. i. (1879); W. W. Tarn, “Patrocles and the Oxo-Caspian Trade Route” in Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xxi. (1901).
PATROL (Fr. patrouiller, connected with patte, foot), a verb meaning to move up and down or traverse a specified " round "
or “beat” in a district in a town, camp or other place, or on a
stretch of water on a river or sea, for the purpose of watching
and protecting the same, or for reconnoitring the numbers or
positions of an enemy. As a substantive the term is used of the
detachment of troops or police employed.
PATRON, a word of which the various meanings in European
languages are derived and transferred from that of the Lat.
patronus, whose position in Roman law and antiquities is treated
below (Patron and Client). The most general application
of the word in these transferred senses is that of an influential
supporter or protector. The earliest use of the word in English
appears to have been in the special ecclesiastical sense of the
holder of an advowson, the right of presentation to a benefice.
From this meaning is deduced that of the person in whom lies
the right of presenting to public offices, privileges, &c., still
surviving in the title of the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury
in Great Britain. From the earliest Christian times the saints
took the place of the pagan tutelary deities (Di tutelares) and
were in this capacity called tutelares or patroni, patron-saints.
To them churches and other sacred buildings are dedicated, and
they are regarded as the protectors and guardians of countries,
towns, professions, trades and the like. Further, a person may
have a patron-saint, usually the one on or near whose festival
he has been born, or whose name has been taken in baptism.
A full list of saints, with the objects of the peculiar patronage of each, is given in M. E. C. Walcott’s Sacred Archaeology (1868).
PATRON AND CLIENT (Lat. patronus, from pater, father;
clientes or cluentes, from cluere, to obey), in Roman law. Clientage
appears to have been an institution of most of the Graeco-Italian
peoples in early stages of their history; but it is in Rome
that we can most easily trace its origin, progress and decay.
Until the reforms of Servius Tullius, the only citizens proper
were the members of the patrician and gentile houses; they alone
could participate in the solemnities of the national religion, take
part in the government and defence of the state, contract
quiritarian marriage, hold property, and enjoy the protection
of the laws. But alongside of them was a gradually increasing
non-citizen population composed partly of slaves, partly of freemen,
who were nevertheless not admitted to burgess rights.
To the latter class belonged the clients, individuals who had
attached themselves in a position of dependence to the heads
of patrician houses as their patrons, in order thereby to secure
attachment to a gens, which would involve a de facto freedom.
Mommsen held that the plebs consisted originally of clients only;
but the earliest records of Rome reveal the possibility of a man
becoming a plebeian member of the Roman state without
assuming the dependent position of clientship (see Patricians);
and long before the time of Servius Tullius the clients must
be regarded as a section only of the plebeian order, which also
contained members unattached to any patronus. The relationship
of patron and client was ordinarily created by what, from the
client’s point of view, was called adplicatio ad patronum, from
that of the patron, suscecptio clientis—the client being either a
person who had come to Rome as an exile, who had passed
through the asylum, or who had belonged to a state which Rome
had overthrown. According to Dionysius and Plutarch, it was
one of the early cares of Romulus to regulate the relationship,
which, by their account of it, was esteemed a very intimate
one, imposing upon the patron duties only less sacred than those
he owed to his children and his ward, more urgent than any he
could be called upon to perform towards his kinsmen, and whose
neglect entailed the penalty of death (Tellumoni sacer esto).
He was bound to provide his client with the necessaries of life;
and it was a common practice to make him a grant during
pleasure of a small plot of land to cultivate on his own account.
Further, he had to advise him in all his affairs; to represent him
in any transactions with third parties in which, as a non-citizen,
he could not act with effect; and, above all things, to stand by
him, or rather be his substitute, in any litigation in which he
might become involved. The client in return had not only
generally to render his patron the respect and obedience due by
a dependant, but, when he was in a position to do so and the
circumstances of the patron required it, to render him pecuniary
assistance. As time advanced and clients amassed wealth, we
find this duty insisted upon in a great variety of forms, as in
contributions towards the dowries of a patron’s daughters,
towards the ransom of a patron or any of his family who had
been taken captive, towards the payment of penalties or fines
imposed upon a patron, even towards his maintenance when he
had become reduced to poverty. Neither might give evidence
against the other—a rule we find still in observance well on in
the 1st century B.C., when C. Herennius declined to be a witness
against C. Marius on the ground that the family of the latter had
for generations been clients of the Herennii (Plut. Mar. 5). The
client was regarded as a minor member (gentilicius) of his patron’s
gens; he was entitled to assist in its religious services, and bound
to contribute to the cost of them; he had to follow his patron to
battle on the order of the gens; he was subject to its jurisdiction
and discipline, and was entitled to burial in its common sepulchre.
And this was the condition, not only of the client who personally
had attached himself to a patron, but that also of his descendants;
the patronage and the clientage were alike hereditary.
The same relationship was held to exist between a freedman and
his former owner; for originally a slave did not on enfranchisement
become a citizen; it was a de facto freedom merely that he
enjoyed; his old owner was always called his patron, while he and
his descendants were substantially in the position of clients,
and often so designated.
In the two hundred years that elapsed before the Servian constitutional reforms, the numerical strength of the clients, whether in that condition by adplicatio, enfranchisement or descent, must have become considerable; and it was from time to time augmented by the retainers of distinguished immigrants admitted into the ranks of the patriciate. There seems also to have been during this period a gradual growth of virtual independence on the part of the clients, and it is probable that their precarious tenure of the soil had in many cases come to be practically regarded as ownership, when a patron had not asserted his right for generations. The exact nature of the privileges conferred on the clients by Servius Tullius is not known. Probably this king guaranteed to the whole plebeian order, including the clients, the legal right of private ownership of Roman land. At the same time he imposed upon the whole order the duty of serving in the army, which was now organized on a basis of wealth. The client had previously been liable to military service at the command of the gens. Now he was called upon to take his part in it as a member of the state. As a natural corollary to this, all the plebeians seem to have been enrolled in the tribes, and after the institution of the plebeian assembly (concilium plebis) the clients, who formed a large part of the order, secured a political influence which steadily increased. It is not certain how soon they acquired the right to litigate in person on their own behalf, but their possession of this right
