PATRON– CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS HAVE been known since ancient times. The territory that had been under the control of the Roman Republic and later of the Roman Empire felt their influence. Since the times of Theodor Mommsen, historians have pointed out patronage as one of the underlying social institutions of Rome. The collapse of the empire did not destroy the clientele relations. By adopting the experience of the classical age, the medieval period adjusted and significantly expanded these social practices, which had been based on an unequal relationship between patron and client. Clientele existed in every region of Europe. Although it had its regional peculiarities, based on local tribal customs, the rules of relationships between the strong and the weak sides would nevertheless be the same.

In medieval Europe, two types of clientage existed, namely the horizontal and the vertical. The first type, horizontal clientage, implies relationships between friends, relatives, colleagues, and allies based on the clientelistic patterns, although the difference between a client and patron is hardly perceptible. The second type, vertical clientage, appears to be more obvious in terms of the difference between a client and a patron, since their relationships are similar to lord– servant relationships, though they share the same social background. Despite the differences, these two types of relationships are called clientelistic ones, since they, according to Sean Gilsdorf, have one common feature: both are imbalanced, although it is more evident in the second case than in the first.

The nobility of late medieval Podillya, despite its diversity, has been similar to any community of the Polish Kingdom and European states of that time. The meaning of the client– patron relationships in Podillya was no different from, for instance, the clientelistic relationships in France or Italy. However, in the case of Podillya, the reconstruction of clientelistic relationships is based on only a few sources. The starosta general of Kamyanets was presumably the primary beneficiary of the system, with the largest number of clients. The main difference here is the usage of the client or servant definitions, which are similar in form but different in meaning.