366 praetoria. Compensation for improvements 



State contracts and industrial enterprises were not enough to employ 

 all the available capital. The ownership of land, now that politics 

 were not a school of ambition, was more than ever the chief source of 

 social importance. A man who could afford to own vast unremunerative 

 estates was a great personage. We may add that such estates, being 

 unremunerative, were less likely to attract the fatal attention of bad 

 emperors, while good rulers deliberately encouraged rich men to invest 

 fortunes in them as being an evidence of loyalty to the government. 

 The uneconomic rural conditions thus created are plainly referred to 

 in the staid remarks of the jurists. We read of estates owned for 

 pleasure (voluptaria praedia) 1 : of cases where it may be doubted 2 

 whether the fundus does not rather belong to the villa than the villa 

 to thefundus: and the use of the work praetorium* ( = great mansion, 

 palace, ' Court') for the lord's headquarters on his demesne becomes 

 almost official in the mouth of lawyers. Meanwhile great estates abroad 

 could be, and were, profitable to their owners, who drew rent from 

 tenants and were normally non-resident. Yet praetoria were some- 

 times found even in the Provinces. 



In connexion with this topic it is natural to consider the questions 

 of upkeep and improvements. The former is simple. As the tenant 

 has the disposal of the crops raised and gathered (fructus}, he is 

 bound 4 to till the soil, to keep up the stock of plants, and to see 

 that the drainage of the farm is in working order. Further detail 

 is unnecessary, as his liability must be gauged by the state of 

 the farm when he took it over. Improvements look to the future. 

 From the lawyers we get only the legal point of view, which is of 

 some interest as proving that the subject was of sufficient importance 

 not to be overlooked. Now it seems certain that a conductor or colonus 

 had a right of action to recover 6 from the dominus not only compen- 

 sation for unexhausted improvements, but his whole outlay on them, 

 if shewn to have been beneficial. Or his claim might rest on the fact 

 that the project had been approved 6 by the landlord. But it might 

 happen that a work beneficial to the particular estate was detrimental 

 to a neighbouring one. In such a case, against whom landlord or 

 tenant had the owner of that estate a legal remedy? It was held that, 

 if the tenant had carried out the work in question 7 without his land- 

 lord's knowledge, he alone was liable. If, as some held, the landlord 

 was bound to provide a particular remedy, he could recover the 

 amount paid under this head from his tenant. To insure the owner 



1 vii i is 4 . 2 vii 4 8, 10. 



3 xxxn gi 1 , L 16 198. Cf Juvenal I 75, Suet Aug 72, Gaius 37, Palladius I 8, n, 



24, 33- 



4 vii i 13, xn i 28 6 , xix 2 25 5 , 29, XLVII 2 26 1 , 62 8 , 7 9. 



5 xix 2 ss 1 , 6iP r . 6 XLIII 24 i3. 7 xxxix 3 4 2 3 , 5- 



