In this talk I investigate several explications of 'analyticity' and discuss how each of these notions fares with respect to the following two questions: (1) Does this notion of analyticity cover all the intuitive examples of apriori justified belief, (2) Does this notion (as it should) have epistemic significance, i.e. does it explain how or why a proposition that is analytic in this sense is apriori justified? I suggest that both questions should be answered in the negative. And hence, that the traditional rationalistic view, according to which the justification for apriori beliefs consists in rational insight into necessities, is to be preferred over the moderate empiricist's claim that the justification for apriori beliefs relates exclusively to the analyticity of the propositions believed.