Patronage

[romanonick]

Is it reasonable to assume that in order to 'get on' in the Roman world from grass roots level one was wholly dependant on the support of a patron ?
Is it also reasonable to suggest that even a sublimely gifted artisan capable of 'setting himself up' in his chosen trade would still need the active support of such a personage in order to succeed? In other words - money was not necessarily 'everything' in order to 'get started'.
However, on the other hand in order to court a patron for the first time, would money in cash terms rather than the potential of future earning based on a skill to income level be the opening gambit?
- Am I answering my own question here I wonder - you had to have both!!!! :? roll: - and family backing would have helped as well!!!!!!!!!!

My example could be an 'unconnected' but outstanding craftsman with minimal funding but having bags of enthusiasm and a highly marketable product base having high profit potential - a sort of Richard Branson if you will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Romanonick/Nick Deacon.

[Carlton Bach]

It's kind of a chicken/egg thing. If you had a good idea or product, you would attract patronage once you got into business with it, and if you wanted to go into business, capital or not, you'd solicit patronage. Technically, you didn't need a patron (a free man didn't - a freedman always had legal obligations to his patron and a slave to his owner), but you'd want it. Patronage is not a very constricting or limiting arrangement much of the time. Often it was more in the natire of venture capital or symbiotic advertising. Your patron would gain status through your achievements, so he'd have an interest in spreading the word, and he was much better placed for the purpose. Assume you invented some process of making particularly clear, colourful glass. You could, on your own, keep turning out a few pieces a day and make good money. Or you could send some to a prospective patron to gain recognition and wealthier customers. A good deal of the big money in the Roman world was in elite consumption, so a maker of luxury goods or novelties practically needed patronage. That hypothetical glassmaker, for example, might see his pieces on the table of an equestrian who gives a set to his senatorial patron next Saturnalia. Next summer, the emperor sees them and asks and - you're set in business for life. Well, except if we're talking Caligula.

There were selfmade businesspeople in the Roman world and they succeeded brilliantly. A large number of them were freedmen - you had a better shot at professional training as a house slave - but there were also free men among them. But real success would require patronage, which would feed success, which opened the avenues to higher patronage.

Think of it as the Roman equivalent of outside investment.

[romanonick]

Many thanks, Volker. That's twice in as many days you've given me such erudite advice! Laudes!
Another thing - on the same theme - did patrons fund individuals/enterprises in much the same way as latterday banks - long term loans, crippling interest, default/penalty payments etc etc. In that sense (if true) could that have encouraged wealthy patrons (or just the wealthy!) to structure private banking organisations outside of state control? Did such banking organisations exist?
Was 'outside of state control' even recognised as an ethos?

Sorry, lots more questions !! You'll see from all this that my knowledge of the Roman finance world is a big fat 'nil'!

Regards,

Romanonick/Nick Deacon

[Carlton Bach]

Many thanks, Volker. That's twice in as many days you've given me such erudite advice! Laudes!
Another thing - on the same theme - did patrons fund individuals/enterprises in much the same way as latterday banks - long term loans, crippling interest, default/penalty payments etc etc. In that sense (if true) could that have encouraged wealthy patrons (or just the wealthy!) to structure private banking organisations outside of state control? Did such banking organisations exist?
Was 'outside of state control' even recognised as an ethos?

Sorry, lots more questions !! You'll see from all this that my knowledge of the Roman finance world is a big fat 'nil'!

I honestly don't know that much more about finance, but TMK there was a clear distinction between loans and business partnerships. Loans were a respectable business for upper-class people to be in and could be given for just about any purpose, including business ventures. I am not aware that long-term loans of the kind used by start-up businesses today were common, but as I said I don't know that much about the details. Some contracts were found in Pompeii, they might be useful for the puirpose. Generally, the Romans were pretty sophisticated about property law.

One arrangement that was reasonably common was for a patron to provide premises and equipment in return for a cut of the proceeds. The preferred arrangement here was to have slaves or freedmen at work because of their legal obligations towards their patron/owner, but there's no reason free men couldn't do the same deal. Even independent businesspeople on their own premises could benefit from patronage, though. You didn't have to be in need of help to want a patron.

State control of the banking system in Roman times was not a concept they recognised. THe idea of 'banking system' was barely recognised. By and large, as far as the law went, these were private property transactions, and even when they took on clearly political dimensions (as in the case of Seneca's loans to British princes), intervention, if it happened at all, was on a case-by-case basis. Rome had no banking corporations and no SEC. On the other hand, neither did it have a Bill of Rights, and when the emperor said your loans were forfeit for the good of the state then they were.