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 ) .
