[Footnote 23:  Plautus, Truc., 691 (see [Probus] de ultimis syllabis, p. 263, 8 (Keil); C.I.L., XIV, p. 288, n. 9); Plautus, Trin., 609 (Festus, p. 544 (de Ponor), Mommsen, Abhand. d. berl.  Akad., 1864, p. 70); Quintilian I, 5, 56; Festus under “tongere,” p. 539 (de Ponor), and under “nefrendes,” p. 161 (de Ponor).]

[Footnote 24:  Cave has been attached rather more to Genazzano during Papal rule than to Praeneste, and it belongs to the electoral college of Subiaco, Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 182.]

[Footnote 25:  I heard everywhere bitter and slighting remarks in Praeneste about Cave, and much fun made of the Cave dialect.  When there are church festivals at Cave the women usually go, but the men not often, for the facts bear out the tradition that there is usually a fight.  Tomassetti, Della Campagna Romana, p. 183, remarks upon the differences in dialect.]

[Footnote 26:  Mommsen, Bull. dell’Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that the civilization in Praeneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin cities.]

[Footnote 27:  It is to be noted that this Marcigliana road was not to tap the trade route along the Volscian side of the Liris-Trerus valley, which ran under Artena and through Valmontone.  It did not reach so far.  It was meant rather as a threat to that route.]

[Footnote 28:  Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and Querquetula is not a question here at all.]

[Footnote 29:  Gatti, in Not. d.  Scavi, 1903, p. 576, in connection with the Arlenius inscription, found on the site of the new Forum below Praeneste in 1903, which mentions Ad Duas Casas as confinium territorio Praenestinae, thought that it was possible to identify this place with a fundus and possessio Duas Casas below Tibur under Monte Gennaro, and thus to extend the domain of Praeneste that far, but as Huelsen saw (Mitth. des k.d.  Arch, Inst., 19 (1904), p. 150), that is manifestly impossible, doubly so from the modern analogies which he quotes (l.c., note 2) from the Dizionario dei Comuni d’Italia.]

[Footnote 30:  It might be objected that because Pietro Colonna in 1092 A.D. assaulted and took Cave as his first step in his revolt against Clement III (Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 240), that Cave was at that time a dependency of Praeneste.  But it has been shown that Praeneste’s diocesan territory expanded and shrunk very much at different times, and that in general the extent of a diocese, when larger, depends on principles which ancient topography will not allow.  And too it can as well be said that Pietro Colonna was paying up ancient grudge against Cave, and certainly also he realized that of all the towns near Praeneste, Cave was strategically the best from which to attack, and this most certainly shows that in ancient times such natural barriers between the two must have been practically impassable.]

[Footnote 31:  To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that which looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.]