^{page 108 note 1} Cf. R.E., s.v. ‘Antisemitismus’ (Supplem. v. 33 ff.).

^{page 108 note 2} Flavii Josephi opera, ed. Niese, B., vol. v, De Judaeorum Vetustate sive Contra Apionem libri 2, Berlin, Weidmann, 1889.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} Flavii Josephi opera, ex versione latina antiqua, ed. Boysen, C., Pars6Google Scholar, De Judaeorum Vetustate sive Contra Apionem libri 2, C.S.E.L. xxxvii. 6 (Vienna, 1898).Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 4} It must be noted that, on the other hand, more than one passage has been wrongly suspected. For instance at 1. 224 Spanheim proposed and Reinach puts a crux before wondering if one should read or . Upon closer examination the pronoun that seemed impossible to maintain reveals itself to be a perfectly legitimate form: the neuter plural means here ‘things in everyday life’ (cf. Kuhner-Gerth, i. 645. 5Google Scholar). I had conjectured (from before realizing this. At 2.283 the word seems ‘suspectum’ to Reinach, who thinks that the whole expression is in contrast with ‘la mise en commun des biens’ of 2. 291 but it is a fact (which seems to have escaped the attention of all critics) that means, in the latter passage, charitable contribution, alms, or charitable disposition (cf. L.S.J., s.v., III). The reverse of the medal is represented by the right emendations that have been undeservedly forgotten: for instance, nobody seems to remember Boysen's excellent restoration at 2. 2 which is confirmed by Josephus, himself, Antiq. 2. 3. 1Google Scholar and by Herodian, 2. 9. 9Google Scholar 2. 14. 2 6. 3. 1 7. 5. 1 Exhaustive information as to the usus auctoris can be found in Schmidt, W., ‘De Fl. Josephi elocutione’, Neue Jahrb., Suppl. xx (1894), 245 ff., an exemplary study.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} Nebuchadnezzar's three around the ‘Altstadt’ seem to have been not new constructions, but merely restorations of the already existing old walls. Cf. von Gutschmid, , p. 511.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} In Polyaen, . 7. 6. 5Google Scholar we readHdt. 1. 191. 4 mentions the sinking of the water after the course was diverted:Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} The structure of the sentence is clear, in so far as the words depend upon with we should expect something like

^{page 112 note 1} Von Gutschmid, who on the one hand speaks of ‘der allein statthafte Aorist’, on the other seems to believe that the form used by both Berosus and Josephus was the imperfect

^{page 112 note 2} Reinach would venture to read or but both his attempts are far from convincing.

^{page 112 note 3} In the minuscule writing, an open π can be confused with K, and the ligature tλ can be mistaken for

^{page 112 note 4} ‘Suidas’ explainsapart from the already quoted passage cf. also Philo, , fragm. p. 28 Harris,Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 1} In Ctesias, summarized by Diod, . Bibl. 2. 7. 3Google Scholar (cf. Gilmore's, edition of Ctesias, pp. 38–39) the wording is clear (the erection of the walls is erroneously ascribed to Semiramis instead of to Nebuchadnezzar):Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} The difference in the material used (cf. Unger, , Babylon [Berlin-Leipzig, 1931], p. 60) points, however, to die ‘Altstadt’ receiving more consideration.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} On hebraisms in Josephus, cf. Schmidt, W., op. cit.Google Scholar, Index Verborum, , s.v. Hebraismi (p. 547)Google Scholar. The same scholar has shown (ibid., p. 435) that Josephus very often uses a participle in the genitive abso- lute without any subject, when this can be supplied from the context, as is die case here.

^{page 115 note 1} Of course the infinitive under discussion takes an object, when this is other than the one depending upon the leading verb, cf. e.g. Thuc, . 2. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} The is so disturbing that the Latin translator wrote si vero ambulare per multum desertion poterant et expersequentibus repugnabant, non omnes repente post diem septimum inguinibus vtdnerati sunt: Boysen rightly notes that ‘interpres cum sequentibus iunxit, et pro adverbio habuit’.

^{page 116 note 1} ‘among the first’ may refer to rank, status (cf. Horn, . Il. 15. 643Google Scholar, Luc, . Scyth. 3Google Scholar; this is the meaning required by our conjecture) , chronological order (cf. Isaeus, 7. 40Google Scholar), or the place occupied in a multitude (cf. Luc, . Paras. 49Google Scholar). was the usual form (cf. also Hdt, . 8. 69. 1Google Scholar and Plato, , Resp. 7. 522 c)Google Scholar; occurs only in Luc, . Scyth. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} As he does in Antiq. 3. 224 ff. and especially 4. 196 ff., Josephus does not make mention of any penalties regarding die slaves, who in fact are not taken into consideration by the Jewish laws.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} The are, of course, not considered to be legal persons: they cannot bear witness, for instance (Antiq. 4. 219Google Scholar); no free Jew is allowed to marry a ‘for decorumiand the proprieties of rank’ (Thackeray, , Antiq. 4. 244).Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} Cf. also The Jewish Encycl., s.v. ‘Capital Punishment’.

^{page 117 note 4} This did not escape glossators, who (cf. Thes., s.v.) translated insidiator. The nominal nature of the word is shown by the objective genitive which often accompanies it.

^{page 117 note 5} Both and denote the idea of trying, attempting; the absence of the article gives to a hypothetical value (‘any attempters’), corresponding to