^{page 111 note 1} Niebuhr, B. G., Röm. Gesch., ii, p. 550Google Scholar, who is followed by Mommsen, T., Röm. Munzw., p. 311, n. 63Google Scholar, E. Kornemann in P-W s.v. Coloniae, Pais, E., Stor. Crit. di Roma, ii, pp. 4–8Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 2} De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, ii, p. 152, n. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 3} Last, H. M. in Camb. Anc. Hist., vii, p. 510Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 4} Burger, C. P., Sechzig Jahre aus der älteren Geschichte Roms, p. 115Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 5} Livy vi, 13. 8 makes it clear that Circeii was colonized before 385.

^{page 111 note 6} Mommsen, T., Röm. Staatsr., ii ³, p. 638Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 7} Clason, J., Röm. Gesch., ii, p. 214Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 8} Beloch, J., Röm. Gesch. bis zum Beginn der pun. Kriege, p. 359Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 9} Lugli, G., Forma Italiae, Regio 1, vol. 1, part 2, pp. v, 2, 3Google Scholar (cf. Ashby, T. in Mélanges d'Arch. et d'Hist. de l'Ecole Franc. de Rome, xxv, 1905, pp. 158–209Google Scholar).

^{page 112 note 1} Bagnani, G., Roman Campagna and its Treasures, p. 163Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 2} See Ashby, T., Roman Campagna in Classical Times, p. 152Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 3} See Last, H. M. in Camb. Anc. Hist., vii, pp. 502 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 112 note 4} Op. cit., p. 469.

^{page 112 note 5} Tomassetti, G., Diss. dilla Pont. Accad. Rom. di Arch., Ser. ii, viii, 1903, pp. 45 f.Google Scholar; Ashby, T., Rom. Camp., p. 150Google Scholar; Bagnani, G., op. cit., p. 128Google Scholar; De Sanctis, G., op. cit., ii, p. 119Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 6} Mommsen, T., Röm. Gesch., i, p. 349Google Scholar; Stephenson, A., Public Lands and Agrarian Laws in the Roman Republic (Baltimore, 1891). p. 23Google Scholar: E. De Ruggiero, s.v. colonia in Diz. Epigr.; E. Kornemann, loc. cit.; De Sanctis, G., op. cit., ii, p. 431Google Scholar; Beloch, J., op. cit., p. 157Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 7} Mommsen adduces the silence of Diodorus (which is inconclusive), Livy's description of Labici as a colonia Romana (Livy applies this phrase to many of the pre–338 colonies), Cicero's statement that Labici was a municipium (after the Social War all the Latin colonies that so desired became such), the fact that Labici was on originally Latin territory whither Latin colonies were never sent (yet Ardea, also on territory originally Latin, undoubtedly received a colony).

^{page 113 note 1} Ostia also is said to have been a colony before 338, but excavation has revealed that the colony belongs to the late fourth century. There is also a notice in Livy ii, 16 of Latin colonies at Cora and Suessa Pometia, but mention of the Aurunci in the passage shows that Livy has confused Suessa Pometia with Suessa Aurunca and accordingly his notice is to be rejected.

^{page 113 note 2} When Livy viii, 14. 7 says that coloni were sent to Velitrae in 338 he is talking loosely. He expressly tells us (viii, 20. 9) that in 338 Velitrae had received the same treatment as Privernum suffered in 329, i.e. the land of local senators was confiscated and given to Roman settlers, but there was no formal colonization.

^{page 113 note 3} Röm. Gesch., i, p. 349.