276 JOURNAL OF PAPYROLOGY
provinces a n d possessed a highly developed n a t i o n a l law of a n a l m o s t i n d e s t r u c t i b l e v i t a l i t y , was c e r t a i n l y a p a r t i c u l a r l y u n f a -v o u r a b l e c o u n t r y for a n e x p a n s i o n a n d good knowledge of t h e R o m a n law. I t seems t h a t even in t h e postclassical epoch it h a s n e v e r played a n y i m p o r t a n t p a r t in t h e h i s t o r y of t h e R o m a n juris-p r u d e n c e , in sjuris-pite of t h e f r a g m e n t s f r o m t h e Gaius i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d other legal works w h i c h were f o u n d t h e r e .
G i u s e p p e I g n a z i o L u z z a t t o , Ricerche suWapplica-zione delle costituzioni imperiali nelle provincie (estr. dagli Scritti di diritto r o m a n o in onore di C. F e r r i n i p u b b l . dalla Regia U n i v e r s i t a di P a v i a 1943).
A careful s c r u t i n y of imperial c o n s t i t u t i o n s ascertains t h e f a c t t h a t each province r e p r e s e n t e d an a u t o n o m o u s legislative c o m m u -n i t y . To u -n d e r s t a -n d t h e rôle a -n d sig-nifica-nce of t h e R o m a -n L a w in t h e whole E m p i r e i t is necessary t o d e t e r m i n e t h e local laws e n a c t e d in each R o m a n province. These conclusions c o r r e s p o n d t o those I h a d r e a c h e d 20 years ago in m y ,,Geschichte der Reze-ption des römischen Privatrechts" for E g y p t .
R . T a u b e n s c h l a g , The Roman authorities and the Local Law in Egypt before and after the С. A. ( J o u r n a l of j u r . p a p . V 121-142).
R . T a u b e n s c h l a g , Die römischen Behörden und das Volksrecht vor und nach der C. A. (Sav. Z. 69, 102-127).
F e r n a n d d e Y i s s c h e r , La cittadinanza romana (Ann. Sem. giur. U n i v . di C a t a n i a I I I , 1949 p. 17 f f ) .
This article c o n t a i n s on p. 15/16 i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s on t h e C. A.
W . L . W e s t e r m a n n , Concerning Urbanism and Anti-Ur-banism in Antiquity ( F a r o u k I U n i v e r s i t y Rull, of t h e F a c u l t y of A r t s vol. I V 1949 p . 81 - 95).
I n this essay j u r i s t s will be i n t e r e s t e d in t h e a u t h o r ' s r e m a r k s on p . 15/16: , , R y Caracallas decree m o s t of t h e f r e e i n h a b i t a n t s of t h e metropolies a n d villages t h r o u g h o u t t h e E m p i r e b e c a m e R o m a n citizens. This r e s u l t e d in these places in t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of Councils, selected b y c o m p u l s o r y a p p o i n t m e n t f r o m t h e r a n k s of t h e local well-to-do. Privileges a n d social a d v a n t a g e s which
SURVEY OF LITERATURE 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 5 2 277 had once a d h e r e d only t o t h e B o u l e u t a i (the Council Members) of these larger cities which had m u n i c i p a l a u t o n o m y were n o w widely s p r e a d t o t o w n a n d c o u n t r y people of t h e same, or of lower, economic s t a n d i n g . T h e extension of privileges s o u n d s well. W h a t is really m e a n t , was t h e equalization of t o w n a n d c i t y w i t h classes of t h e c o u n t r y s i d e u n d e r a n increasingly b u r d e n s o m e personal d o m i n a t i o n . Specifically it m e a n t t h a t t h e well-to-do of t h e small t o w n s , n o w f o r c e d i n t o t h e councils, were responsible collectively a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r a n a m o u n t of t a x e s f r o m t h e i r t o w n or village district which was previously f i x e d . T h e p l e a s a n t social distinctions of t h e Councillors h a d long since t u r n e d i n t o h a e v y f i n a n c i a l b u r -d e n s " . T h e a u t h o r shows t h a t t h e u r b a n c o m m u n i t i e s a n -d t h e c o u n t r y s i d e were u n i t e d in f a c t in a c o m m o n m i s e r y recognized b y b o t h sides. Characteristic is t h e r e m a r k b y t h e p r e f e c t : in L o n d . I n v . 2565 „ T h e a r g u m e n t b a s e d u p o n p r o s p e r i t y or t h e d e c h n e of p r o s p e r i t y , is e q u a l l y valid for t h e villages a n d t h e cities".
C. B r a d f o r d W e l l e s , The Population of Roman Dura (in Coleman N o r t o n ' s S t u d i e s in R o m a n econ. a n d soc. hist, in honor of A. C. J o h n s o n 1952 p. 251 f f ) .
I n this i n t e r e s t i n g d e m o g r a p h i c s t u d y t h e a u t h o r raises also t h e old q u e s t i o n of t h e C.A. in v i r t u e of w h i c h t h e i n h a b i t a n t s of D u r a in general, received t h e R o m a n citizenship. W h a t t h i s m e a n t in t h e f i r s t place was t h a t one p r e f i x e d an , , A u r e l i u s " t o his n a m e . T h e absence of t h e „Aurelius" however, is no proof t h a t a m a n was n o t e n t i t l e d t o i t . W h a t privileges or w h a t obligations t h e C. A. did convey, b e y o n d t h a t of calling oneself Aurelius in a d d i t i o n t o w h a t e v e r n a m e one h a d b e f o r e ? I t is well k n o w n t h a t t h i s Aure-lius was a k i n d of p r a e n o m e n a n d t h a t t h e n e w citizens h a d no r i g h t of t h e tria nomina. W h a t e v e r is m e a n t b y P . Giessen 40 t h e a u t h o r suspects t h a t an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of its effect will be r e a c h e d only t h r o u g h such evidence as t h a t of D u r a . If D u r a was a πολίτευμα in t h e sense of P . Giessen 40 it c e r t a i n l y „ r e m a i n e d " . If t h e B e d o u i n were dediticii, a d i s t i n c t i o n t o which t h e y would seem t o h a v e as good or as b a d a claim as t h e E g y p t i a n fellahin, t h e n on t h e resto-r a t i o n of Adolf W i l h e l m ( A J A [2-nd s e resto-r . ] , X X X V I I I (1934) p . 178/180) t h e y should h a v e r e m a i n e d outside t h e n e w πολίτευμα, t h e municipium of D u r a . I t would seem t h a t t h e evidence of P . D u r a 19 ( R e p . V I I / V I I I p. 4 3 3 — 4 1 ) p o i n t e d t h a t w a y , f o r in 227 t h e villagers are d e f i n i t e l y n o t Aurelii (cf. m y L a w I I 26 f f ) .
