¹ Also, not seen: Corradi, G., Il Mondo classico, i (1931), 56–65.Google ScholarGoguel, M., Rev. d'hist. et de philos. relig. (1930), 288–93.Google ScholarZancan, L., Att. R. Ist. Veneto (lettere ed arti) xci, ii (1931–1932), 51–64.Google Scholar Pasquali, La Cultura NS x, 253.

^{page 186 note 1} Accessible examples in Bruns, Fontes ⁷ , No. 172 c, nos. 25, 31, 33. The tituli were specially important as evidence of the ius sepulchri: Wamser, F., De iure sepulcrali Romanorum quid tituli doceant (Darmstadt, 1887, Giessen Diss.), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Disputed by Zancan (supra, p. 184, n. 1): cf. Sanctis, De, Riv. di Fil. lx (1932), 129Google Scholar, and Cuq, , Rev. hist, de Droit xi (1932), 125–6.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} Cumont, p. 265.

^{page 186 note 4} See however Wenger, p. 376, citing Bellum Alexandrinum 65.

^{page 186 note 5} Dittenberger, Syll. ³ 814. It begins: Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ λέγει but Νέρων occurs later.

^{page 186 note 6} Bell, H. I., Jews and Christians in Egypt (1924), p. 23.Google Scholar The letter itself is fully entitled.

^{page 187 note 1} Literature and discussion: Bell, H. I., Aegyptus xii (1932), 173–84.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 2} Mgr. A. S. Barnes reached substantially the same conclusion later, but independently.

^{page 187 note 3} This may seem meticulous, but a later experience of Carcopino's, M. (Rev. hist. clxvi (1931), 434–5Google Scholar) shows that Fröhner's notes on the provenance of his treasures are very exact.

^{page 187 note 4} The population of Galilee (‘Galilee of the Gentiles,’ Matt. iv, 15) was mixed. Hence no great weight attaches to Père Tonneau's contention that Nazareth is an unlikely source of a Greek inscription; still, an urban district would be more likely. The MSS. (Mark v, 3, etc.) are indecisive as to the district in which the demoniac τὴν κατοίκησιν εἶχεν ἐν μνήμασιν, but it seems to have been in the Decapolis. It is notable that this particular form of violation of sepulture, which is specially penalised by the praetorian edict, is not mentioned by our text.

^{page 188 note 1} Detailed discussion, Cumont, pp. 244 ff.; Cuq (l930), P. 393, and (1932) pp. 111–3; Wenger, PP; 377 ff.

^{page 188 note 2} Plutarch, Marcellus 24, 7: καὶ γὰρ τὰ διαγράμματα τῷν ἀρχόντων ῎Ελληνες μὲν διατάγματα, ῾Ρωμαῖοι δὲ ἔδικτα προσαγορεύουσιν. Cf. Wilcken, U., Zeitschr. Sav.-Stift. (RA) xlii (1921), 129.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 3} Stroux, J. and Wenger, L., Die Augustus-Inschrift auf dem Marktplatz von Kyrene (1928), pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} Cuq (1930), p. 394.

^{page 188 note 5} Conventional for dolo malo, and thus signifying ‘maliciously’ in the general legal sense. Cuq cites an early example from the law engraved on the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi (SEG iii, 378, c, 11. 10, 15, 21).

^{page 188 note 6} Indicating the death-penalty, since we are dealing with peregrini. Cf. Levy, E., Die röm. Kapitalstrafe (Heidelberg, 1931), p. 41Google Scholar, n. 31.

^{page 188 note 7} Plato, Respub. 380 c: Σύμψηϕός σοί εἰμι, ἔϕη, τούτοῦ τοῦ νόμον, καί μοι ἀρέσκει. Cf. the Cyrenean Inscription, 11. 61, 67, 70 (the Emperor), and 1. 137 (the Senate).

^{page 189 note 1} Cuq cites Gaius 3, 209: actionem eius delicti nomine praetor introduxit. Cf. Brown, pp. 28–9.

^{page 189 note 2} Paul, Sent. 1, 21, 4: qui corpus perpetuae sepulturae traditum vel ad tempus alicui loco commendatum nudaverit et solis radiis ostenderit, piaculum committit. Cf. § 8. The opening of the grave is a frequent object of sepulchral penalties: cf. Wamser (supra, p. 186, n. 1), pp. 32–5.

^{page 190 note 1} Ulpian D. 47, 12, 3, 4. Ulpian-Labeo D. 11, 7, 8 pr. Marcian D. 11, 7, 39. Pliny, Epist. 68–9 (73–4). Paul, Sent. 1, 21, 1. Wamser (supra, p. 186, n. 1) pp. 35 sq.

^{page 190 note 2} Paul D. 47, 12, 11: … si corpora ipsa extraxerint vel ossa eruerint …

^{page 190 note 3} In his first article (1930) M. Cuq made the special offence consist in removal of a corpse with violence.

^{page 191 note 1} (1932), p. 114.

^{page 191 note 2} LI. 21 and 113–4.

^{page 192 note 1} Mommsen, Strafrecht, pp. 812 ff. Wenger, pp. 381–5.

^{page 193 note 1} Mommsen, Strafrecht, p. 821. Cumont, pp. 262–3, 268: Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, pp. 100–1. The Roman sepulchral inscriptions are later, and not entirely similar: Merkel, J., Ueber die sog. Sepulcralmulten in Götting. Festschr. f. Jbering, 1892, pp. 78 ff.Google Scholar Further literature in P-W art. Sepulcralmulten (Pfaff), to which add (not seen) Morel, M., Le ‘sepulchrum’ (Extr. Ann. Un. Grenoble, N.s. (lettres-droit) v, 1928Google Scholar) reviewed by Monier, R., Rev. hist. de Droit viii (1929), 357–61Google Scholar; cf. ibid. vi (1927), 303–4.

^{page 193 note 2} Reconstruction of the edict, as revised by Julianus, Salvius, Lenel, O., Das Edictum Perpetuum ³, pp. 222–3Google Scholar. Bruns, , Fontes ⁷, p. 220Google Scholar. Girard, , Textes ⁵, p. 150Google Scholar.

^{page 193 note 3} Schulz, Fr., Zeitschr. Sav.-Stift. (RA) xlvii (1927), p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 4} But the compilation of the Sententiae is now generally held to have been post-classical. Levy, E., Zeitschr. Sav.-Stift. (RA) 1 (1930), pp. 272 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 5} Merkel (supra, n. 1), pp. 118–9 (offprint pp. 40–1). Mommsen, Strafrecht, p. 821. Cf. BGU 1024 (end of fourth century), cited by Wenger.

^{page 194 note 1} Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, pp. 100–1. Cf. Wenger, pp. 392–3.

^{page 196 note 1} Bell, , Jews and Christians in Egypt, p. 25Google Scholar: κα Ιονδέοις δὲ ἔντικρυς κελεύωι μηδὲν πλήωι ὧν πρότερον ἒσχον περιεργάζεσθαι … εἰ δὲ μή, πάντα τρόπον αὐτοὺς ἐπεξελεύσομαι καθάπερ κοινήν τεινα τῆς οἰκουμένης νόσον ἐξεγείροντας.

^{page 197 note 1} By the Romans probably, as Carcopino, pp. 88–90, argues from the corrupt passage Antiq. Iud. 5, 515–9.

^{page 197 note 2} Paul, Sent. 1, 21, 4 (quoted supra, p. 189, n. 2). Marcian D. 11 , 7, 39. Wamser (supra, p. 186, n. 1), pp. 35 sq.