The whole Argumentum — 8 paragraphs, 22 sentences, 100% of what Stangl prints between the heading and the beginning of the commentary proper. Each paragraph is given entire, with the narration that places it, a rendering of every sentence into English and into Chinese, and a note on what it settles. Three pages of this site had been quoting this text from other people's footnotes.全篇提要俱录于此：凡 8 段、22 句，占斯坦格尔于标题与注释正文之间所刊者的百分之 100。每段全录，前后各系以说明其所在的叙述，逐句译为英文与中文，并附一则按语，说明此段所定为何。本站此前有三处页面，所引此书皆自他人脚注转录。
The text, and where it comes from本文及其所出
Text本文
Pseudo-Asconius, Argumentum Divinationis (the ancient scholia on Cicero's Divinatio in Q. Caecilium)
pp. 185,1 – 186,17 (the whole Argumentum, down to the beginning of the Enarratio)
Copy used所用之本
the project's own library (362 pp., Internet Archive scan of the Olms reprint= printed pp. 185-186)
How it was read校读之法
The OCR text layer was extracted with pdftotext -layout, then every line quoted here was re-read against the page rendered at 400 dpi. Stangl's own editorial brackets are kept: [ ] marks what he deletes, < > what he supplies.
Rights版权
The scholia are ancient; Stangl's edition was published in 1912 and is in the public domain. Quoted here in full for the Argumentum only.
Checked 2026-09-07. Every paragraph below was matched against the edition at build time; a paragraph that is not in Stangl's text, or a set of sentences that does not reconstitute its paragraph, stops the build.校于 2026-09-07。以下每一段皆于生成时与原书比对；凡不见于斯坦格尔本文之段，或诸句不能复原其段者，生成即止。
Pseudo-Asconius is the name given to a set of scholia on Cicero's Verrine speeches which travelled under the name of Asconius Pedianus and are not his. The commentator is late — later than the fourth century on most accounts — and he is not an independent witness to the trial: much of what he says about Verres' career he has taken out of Cicero's own speeches, as Stangl's source-notes show line by line. What he is good for is something else. He tells us how the speech was read in a school of rhetoric: what kind of case it was held to be, what technical name its issue had, and why the procedure was called a divinatio at all. Two of the three answers he gives to that last question are found nowhere else.伪阿斯科尼乌斯是一组注解的作者之名，这些注解依附于西塞罗《控维雷斯》诸篇，旧题阿斯科尼乌斯·佩迪阿努斯所作，其实非是。此人时代甚晚，多数说法定在四世纪以后；就本案而言，他并非独立的见证：他所述维雷斯的仕历，大半取自西塞罗自己的演说，斯坦格尔的出处注逐行标明了这一点。他的价值在别处。他让我们看见这篇演说在修辞学堂里是怎样被读的：此案被认作何体、其争点的术语名称为何，以及这一程序何以称为预审。他就最后一问所给的三说之中，有二说别处不见。
Stangl's editorial marks are kept as he prints them: [ ] encloses what he deletes, < > what he supplies. Where a reading is his own against the manuscripts, the note under that paragraph says so.斯坦格尔的校订符号一仍其旧：[ ] 内为其所删，< > 内为其所补。凡其读法与抄本相异而出于己意者，该段之后的按语必予说明。
1The case, as the scholiast sets it out注家所述本案之始末Stangl 185,1-7
The Argumentum opens the way a rhetorical commentary was expected to open: with the consuls, so that the year is fixed, and then with the defendant's career, so that the reader knows what offices are in the charge. Everything in this first sentence can be found in Cicero — Stangl's note says so, and points to Div. Caec. 6 and Verr. 1.2, 2.1.41 and 2.1.97 — but the scholiast has arranged it as a single period with the postulatio at the end, which Cicero never does.这篇提要的开头，正是修辞学注解应有的开头：先出执政官之名以定其年，再述被告的仕历，好让读者知道控辞所涉的是哪几任官职。这第一句里的事，皆可在西塞罗书中找到，斯坦格尔的注即如此说，并指向《预审篇》第 6 节与《控维雷斯》一之 2、二之一之 41 与 97；但注家把这些编成一个长句，把提出控告一事放在句末，而西塞罗从不这样写。
Cn. Pompeio primum et M. Crasso coss. C. Verres, perfunctus quaestura legatione praetura urbana, patre C. Verre et praetextato filio et filia nupta, uxorem habens, cum successisset in Sicilia C. Sacerdoti praetori eamque non sibi succedente Arrio per triennium tenuisset atque in ea fuisset libidinose avare crudeliterque versatus, succedente tandem in eadem provincia Metello repetundarum reus ab Siculis postulatus est.
Cn. Pompeio primum et M. Crasso coss. C. Verres, perfunctus quaestura legatione praetura urbana, patre C. Verre et praetextato filio et filia nupta, uxorem habens, cum successisset in Sicilia C. Sacerdoti praetori eamque non sibi succedente Arrio per triennium tenuisset atque in ea fuisset libidinose avare crudeliterque versatus, succedente tandem in eadem provincia Metello repetundarum reus ab Siculis postulatus est.
In the first consulship of Cn. Pompeius and M. Crassus, C. Verres — having served out a quaestorship, a legateship and the urban praetorship, with his father C. Verres living, a son still in boy's dress and a daughter married, and himself a married man — after succeeding the praetor C. Sacerdos in Sicily and holding the province for three years, because Arrius did not come out to succeed him, and after conducting himself there licentiously, greedily and cruelly, was at last, when Metellus succeeded him in that same province, prosecuted by the Sicilians on a charge of extortion.在庞培与克拉苏第一次同任执政官之年，维雷斯已历任财务官、副将与城内裁判官；其父维雷斯尚在，一子尚着童袍，一女已嫁，他自己也已娶妻。他在西西里接萨凯尔多斯之任，又因阿里乌斯未来接替而据其地三年；在那里行事纵欲、贪婪而残忍。到梅特路斯终于接任同一行省时，他被西西里人以勒索之罪提请究治。
Two details here are not in the Divinatio and can be checked against the other speeches. Arrius is real: Cicero says twice that Q. Arrius was expected in the province and did not come (Verr. 2.2.37, 2.4.42), which is why Verres' single year became three. Sacerdos is real too (Verr. 2.1.27, 2.1.104). The commentator is compressing Cicero, not inventing.此处有两点不见于《预审篇》，可与其余诸篇相核。阿里乌斯确有其事：西塞罗两次说昆图斯·阿里乌斯本应到任而未至（《控维雷斯》二之二 37、二之四 42），维雷斯一年之任因此成了三年。萨凯尔多斯亦然（同书二之一 27、104）。可见注家是在压缩西塞罗，不是凭空编造。
The next sentence is the one that matters for the Divinatio, because it states in a single line what Cicero spends nine sections establishing: that he was compelled, and that the tie was old. It also does something Cicero does not do. It names the exceptions.下面一句于《预审篇》最为要紧，因为西塞罗用九节才立起来的事，它一句说尽：他是被迫的，而这层关系由来已久。它还做了一件西塞罗不做的事：把例外点了出来。
Qui omnes, praeter Syracusanos ac Mamertinos, M. Tullium, illo tempore florentem defensionibus amicorum, ad accusandum descendere compulerunt, iam pridem illis necessitudine copulatum, quod quaestor in Sicilia fuisset praetore Sex. Peducaeo, et quod, cum decederet, in illa oratione quam Lilybaei habuit multa his benigne promisisset.
Qui omnes, praeter Syracusanos ac Mamertinos, M. Tullium, illo tempore florentem defensionibus amicorum, ad accusandum descendere compulerunt, iam pridem illis necessitudine copulatum, quod quaestor in Sicilia fuisset praetore Sex. Peducaeo, et quod, cum decederet, in illa oratione quam Lilybaei habuit multa his benigne promisisset.
All of them, except the Syracusans and the Mamertines, compelled M. Tullius — at that time flourishing on the defence of his friends — to come down to prosecuting; a man long since bound to them by an obligation, because he had been quaestor in Sicily under the praetor Sex. Peducaeus, and because, on leaving, in that speech which he delivered at Lilybaeum, he had made them many generous promises.除叙拉古人与墨萨纳人之外，他们全体逼着图利乌斯下场去做控告人。其时他正以为友人辩护而声名日隆。他与他们早有名分：一则因为他曾在裁判官佩杜凯乌斯手下任西西里财务官，二则因为离任之际，他在吕利巴埃乌姆所作的那篇演说里，对他们许下了许多好意的承诺。
Three things follow. First, the scholiast knows a speech of Cicero's at Lilybaeum that we do not have; it is not in the corpus and this is one of the few notices of it. Second, his exception clause is not what Cicero says. Cicero's claim in the Verrines is narrower and sharper: one city only, Messana, sent envoys to praise Verres (Verr. 2.2.13), and Syracuse's public commendation was extracted, as Heraclius' evidence showed (Verr. 2.2.15). The scholiast has flattened that into two cities standing apart from the prosecution. Third, the phrase ad accusandum descendere is lifted straight out of Div. Caec. 1 — the commentator is quoting the speech he is introducing.由此可得三事。其一，注家知道西塞罗在吕利巴埃乌姆有一篇演说，而此篇今已不存；集中无之，此处即为数不多的记载之一。其二，他所说的例外，与西塞罗所言不同。西塞罗在《控维雷斯》中的说法更窄也更利：全岛只有墨萨纳一城遣使称誉维雷斯（二之二 13）；至于叙拉古的公开褒辞，据赫拉克利乌斯之证，乃是逼取而来（二之二 15）。注家把这些简化成两座城不与控告。其三，ad accusandum descendere 一语径取自《预审篇》第 1 节，注家所引，正是他所要引介的那篇。
Having given the prosecution its motive, the scholiast gives the defence its weight — and in doing so he sets out, in one sentence, the whole map of connections that the trial had to get past. This is the passage that most repays reading against Cicero's own account at Verr. 1.18-29.既已说明控方的动机，注家接着交代辩方的分量；这一句之内，本案所必须冲破的整张关系网便已铺陈完毕。此段最宜与西塞罗《控维雷斯》一之 18 至 29 的自述对读。
Accessit eis non ignobilis futura ideo de Verre victoria, quia a Metellis, Scipionibus et multis aliis nobilibus viris et praecipue ab Hortensio ipso defenderetur, facile et principe in senatu propter nobilitatem et in foro ob eloquentiam rege causarum et eodem consule designato cum Q. Metello fratre Metellorum, alterius praetoris Siculi, alterius praetoris urbani.
Accessit eis non ignobilis futura ideo de Verre victoria, quia a Metellis, Scipionibus et multis aliis nobilibus viris et praecipue ab Hortensio ipso defenderetur, facile et principe in senatu propter nobilitatem et in foro ob eloquentiam rege causarum et eodem consule designato cum Q. Metello fratre Metellorum, alterius praetoris Siculi, alterius praetoris urbani.
There was this further inducement for them, that a victory over Verres would for that very reason be a famous one, because he was being defended by the Metelli, by the Scipiones and by many other men of noble family, and above all by Hortensius himself — easily first man in the senate by his birth and king of the courts in the forum by his eloquence, and at the same time consul-elect along with Q. Metellus, one of the brothers Metellus, of whom one was praetor in Sicily and the other praetor at Rome.对他们还有一层引动：正因如此，胜过维雷斯便是一场不小的胜利。因为为他辩护的，是梅特路斯诸人、西庇阿诸人以及许多别的贵族，尤其是霍尔滕西乌斯本人：论门第，他在元老院中稳居首列；论辩才，他在广场上是讼案之王；而他其时又与昆图斯·梅特路斯同为当选执政官。这位昆图斯是梅特路斯兄弟之一，其兄弟之中，一人正任西西里长官，一人任城内裁判官。
Cicero says the same things but never in one breath, and never as a list of families: he names M. Metellus as the praetor who would take the court next year, Q. Metellus as consul-elect, and L. Metellus as the governor in place (Verr. 1.26, 1.27). The Scipiones are the scholiast's own addition and cannot be checked. What the sentence does show is that a late reader, with the speeches in front of him, thought the point of the case was the standing of the men on the other side.西塞罗说的是同样的事，却从不一口气说完，也从不列作家族名单：他分别点出马尔库斯·梅特路斯是次年将主持法庭的裁判官，昆图斯是当选执政官，路奇乌斯是在任的行省长官（《控维雷斯》一之 26、27）。至于西庇阿诸人，则是注家自己所加，无从核对。这一句真正显示的是：一位晚出的读者，手执诸篇，认为此案的关节就在对造诸人的地位。
Now the scholiast turns to the hearing itself. What follows is the only ancient summary we have of what Caecilius argued — Cicero answers him throughout the speech but never sets his case out in order, because it is not in his interest to. Note that the scholiast calls him domo Siculus, from a Sicilian family, which Cicero implies at Div. Caec. 15-17 without ever quite saying.注家至此转入听审本身。以下是古人对凯基利乌斯所执之论的惟一一份提要：西塞罗通篇都在回应他，却从不把他的主张按次序摆出来，因为那样做对自己不利。请注意注家称其人 domo Siculus，即出于西西里之家；这一点西塞罗在《预审篇》第 15 至 17 节暗示而终未明言。
His ita constitutis extitit Q. Caecilius Niger, domo Siculus, [et] quaestor Verris et eiusdem, ut ipse dicebat, inimicus, qui se potius accusatorem contenderet [se] constitui oportere, has afferens causas: unam, quod ab eo laesus et ob hoc iure illi sit inimicus, quare praevaricator esse non possit; alteram, quod, cum quaestor ei tum fuerit, etiam sine inquisitione crimina noverit Verris; tertiam, quod Siculus pro Siculis agat.
His ita constitutis extitit Q. Caecilius Niger, domo Siculus, [et] quaestor Verris et eiusdem, ut ipse dicebat, inimicus, qui se potius accusatorem contenderet [se] constitui oportere, has afferens causas:
Things standing thus, up came Q. Caecilius Niger, a Sicilian by family, Verres' quaestor and — so he said himself — Verres' personal enemy, contending that he rather ought to be appointed prosecutor, and bringing forward these grounds:情势既是如此，昆图斯·凯基利乌斯·尼革尔出面了。他出于西西里之家，曾任维雷斯的财务官，又照他自己的说法，是维雷斯的私仇。他主张应当指定他来作控告人，所举的理由如下：
unam, quod ab eo laesus et ob hoc iure illi sit inimicus, quare praevaricator esse non possit;
first, that he had been injured by him and was for that reason rightfully his enemy, and so could not be a collusive prosecutor;其一，他曾受其害，因而与之为仇乃是理所当然，所以不可能是通同作弊的控告人；
alteram, quod, cum quaestor ei tum fuerit, etiam sine inquisitione crimina noverit Verris;
second, that since he had been his quaestor at the time, he knew Verres' crimes even without an inquiry;其二，他当时既任其财务官，即便不去查证，也已知道维雷斯的罪状；
tertiam, quod Siculus pro Siculis agat.
third, that as a Sicilian he was acting on behalf of Sicilians.其三，他身为西西里人，是在替西西里人出面。
The second ground is the one worth pausing on, because it is an argument about procedure: the grant of an inquisitio — the period and the powers to gather evidence in the province — was the expensive part of a repetundae prosecution, and Caecilius is offering to do without it. Cicero's answer is not that the offer is false but that a prosecutor who needs no evidence is a prosecutor who intends to lose. The word praevaricator, which the scholiast uses here, does not occur anywhere in the Divinatio itself.第二条最值得停下来看，因为那是就程序而发的一条论证：勒索案的控告中，查证之权，即赴行省搜证的期限与权力，是最费事的一段，而凯基利乌斯表示可以不要。西塞罗的回答不是说这话不实，而是说：一个不需要证据的控告人，正是打算输掉的控告人。注家此处所用 praevaricator 一词，《预审篇》全篇不见。
5Cicero's six heads, and the division of the speech西塞罗所立六目，并全篇之分Stangl 185,21-186,3
Against three grounds the scholiast sets six heads, and then states the division of the speech in one line. This is the sentence that a syllabus wants: it is the earliest surviving statement of how the Divinatio is put together, and it is a two-part division, not the four or five parts that modern editors argue over.对方三条理由之外，注家为西塞罗立了六目，随后用一句话交代全篇之分。这正是编课程表的人所要的一句：它是《预审篇》结构的现存最早说法，而且只分为两大部分，不是今人所争的四段或五段。
Huiuscemodi propositionibus Cicero designatus aedilis his capitibus respondet: accusatorem eum esse oportere qui invitus cogitur religionis officio, rogatus ab omnibus Siculis; qui pro re p. agit; quem volunt qui accusant; quem metuit qui accusatur; qui idoneus est facundia et innocentia; qui hoc facit imitatione maiorum. Divisio principalis: una de se ipso, altera de contentione sui et Caecilii.
Huiuscemodi propositionibus Cicero designatus aedilis his capitibus respondet:
To propositions of this kind Cicero, aedile-elect, replies under these heads:对这一类主张，当选市政官西塞罗依下列各目作答：
accusatorem eum esse oportere qui invitus cogitur religionis officio, rogatus ab omnibus Siculis;
that the prosecutor ought to be the man who is compelled against his will by a binding obligation, having been asked by all the Sicilians;控告人应当是这样一个人：他为名分之责所迫，并非情愿，而全体西西里人都来请他；
qui pro re p. agit;
who acts on the commonwealth's behalf;他是为国家出面的；
quem volunt qui accusant;
whom those who bring the charge want;提出控告的人所要的是他；
quem metuit qui accusatur;
whom the man on trial fears;受审的人所怕的是他；
qui idoneus est facundia et innocentia;
who is fit for it by eloquence and by an unblemished life;他在辩才与操守两端都足以当此任；
qui hoc facit imitatione maiorum.
who does this in imitation of our ancestors.而他这样做，是效法先人。
Divisio principalis: una de se ipso, altera de contentione sui et Caecilii.
The principal division: one part about himself, the other about the contest between himself and Caecilius.全篇的主要分段：一部分说他自己，另一部分说他与凯基利乌斯之争。
The six heads are not equal in kind — the first, fourth and sixth are about the man, the second and third about the province, the fifth about competence — and the scholiast does not say which sections carry which. But the last line is a structural claim, and it can be tested against the text: a break between a part about Cicero and a part about the contest falls where every modern division also puts a joint, at the end of the exordium. What the scholiast does not give is any of the later joints, which is where the modern disagreement lies.这六目并不同类：第一、第四、第六说其人，第二、第三说行省，第五说其能；注家也没有说哪一目属于哪几节。但末一句是关于结构的断言，可以拿原文来验：说自己的一部分与说争讼的一部分，其分界正落在今人诸家分段都设关节之处，即序论之末。注家所未给的，是此后的各处关节，而今人之异说恰在那里。
6Why the procedure is called a divinatio此一程序何以名为预审Stangl 186,4-8
This is the passage the rest of the site has been citing at second hand. It is worth having whole, because the three explanations in it are not variants of one idea: they are three quite different theories of the word, and the scholiast reports them without choosing. The word divinatio never occurs in Cicero's speech.本站他处所转引的，就是这一段。全录为宜，因为其中三说并非一义之异文，而是关于这个词的三种颇不相同的解释；注家一一列出，不作取舍。divinatio 一词，西塞罗篇中全不出现。
Divinatio dicitur haec oratio, quia non de facto quaeritur hic coniectura, set de futuro, quae est divinatio uter debeat accusare. Alii ideo putant divinationem dici, quod iniurati iudices in hac causa sedeant et, quod velint, praesentire de utroque possint; alii, quod res agatur sine testibus et sine tabulis, et his remotis argumenta sola sequantur iudices et quasi divinent.
Divinatio dicitur haec oratio, quia non de facto quaeritur hic coniectura, set de futuro, quae est divinatio uter debeat accusare.
This speech is called a divinatio because here the inquiry is not into a fact by conjecture, but into the future — and a divination is just this: which of the two ought to prosecute.这篇演说称为预审，是因为此处所问的不是以推断求既成之事实，而是问将来之事；所谓预知，正是此意：二人之中该由谁来控告。
Alii ideo putant divinationem dici, quod iniurati iudices in hac causa sedeant et, quod velint, praesentire de utroque possint;
Others think it is called a divinatio because in this case the jurors sit unsworn, and are able to foresee, as they please, about either man;另有人以为称作预审，是因为此案的陪审员不经宣誓而就座，可以随其所愿，对两人预先有所悬揣；
alii, quod res agatur sine testibus et sine tabulis, et his remotis argumenta sola sequantur iudices et quasi divinent.
others, because the matter is conducted without witnesses and without documents, and, these being absent, the jurors follow arguments alone and, as it were, divine.还有人以为，是因为此事的审断不用证人、不用文书；此二者既去，陪审员便只能循论证而行，仿佛在占卜。
The third explanation is the one that has done the most work in modern scholarship, because sine testibus et sine tabulis is a statement about what kind of hearing this was: no evidence, only argument. It is also the phrase this library had been quoting without the two theories that stand beside it. Stangl's own source-note on these lines points to the Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.11.18, Quintilian 3.10.3 and 7.4.33, and Gellius 2.4 — that is, the scholiast is working from the same handbook tradition that the magalia structure page sets out, and Gellius 2.4 is where the everyday sense of divinatio for this procedure is discussed.第三说在今人的研究中用得最多，因为 sine testibus et sine tabulis 是对这场听审性质的判断：无证据可举，只有论证。本站此前所引的也正是这一语，而其旁并立的两说却未及。斯坦格尔于此数行的出处注，指向《致赫伦尼乌斯修辞学》1.11.18、昆体良 3.10.3 与 7.4.33，以及革利乌斯 2.4；可见注家所据，与本站章法一页所陈的，正是同一套教本传统，而 divinatio 一词就此程序的通行义，即见于革利乌斯 2.4。
Then, without transition, the scholiast gives the political situation in a single ablative-absolute chain — seven of them, one after another. For a page that maps the trial's connections this is the densest ancient sentence there is: it names the jury question, the provinces, the collusive prosecutors, the popular demand, the presiding praetor and the rank of the men on the panel.接着，注家不作过渡，径以一串独立夺格交代当时的政局，一连七个。就一张要画出本案关系的图而言，古人的句子中再没有比这更密的了：陪审之争、诸行省、通同作弊的控告人、民间的要求、主持的裁判官，以及审判团中人的身分，一一在内。
Agitur enim causa senatoriis iudiciis in invidia apud populum constitutis de corruptione multorum, vexatis provinciis omnibus ac sociis p. R. fessis toto orbe terrarum, accusatoribus praevaricatione infamibus, flagitante plebe iudicia equestris ordinis quae fere ante annos X victor Sylla sustulerat, cognoscente de pecuniis repetundis M'. Glabrione praetore, et amplissimis quibusque senatorii ordinis iudicantibus, summa expectatione cunctorum.
Agitur enim causa senatoriis iudiciis in invidia apud populum constitutis de corruptione multorum, vexatis provinciis omnibus ac sociis p. R. fessis toto orbe terrarum, accusatoribus praevaricatione infamibus, flagitante plebe iudicia equestris ordinis quae fere ante annos X victor Sylla sustulerat, cognoscente de pecuniis repetundis M'. Glabrione praetore, et amplissimis quibusque senatorii ordinis iudicantibus, summa expectatione cunctorum.
For the case is being tried at a time when the senatorial courts stand in ill repute with the people on account of the corruption of many; when all the provinces have been harried and the allies of the Roman people are worn out throughout the world; when prosecutors are disgraced by collusion; when the plebs is clamouring for courts of the equestrian order, which the victorious Sulla had abolished about ten years before; when M'. Glabrio as praetor is hearing the charge of extortion, and the most eminent men of the senatorial order are sitting in judgment — with everyone in the highest expectation.此案付审之时，元老所司的法庭因多人受贿而为民众所恶；诸行省备受骚扰，罗马人民的盟邦举世疲敝；控告人则因通同作弊而声名狼藉；平民正吵着要把审判交还骑士阶层，而那是约十年前胜利的苏拉所废；勒索钱财一案由裁判官格拉布里奥主持，元老阶层中最显要的人物在座听断；举国上下，翘首以待。
Every element of this can be matched in Cicero — the courts on trial in the public mind at Verr. 1.1-2 and 2.1.4, the worn-out allies at 1.7, the collusive prosecutors throughout the Divinatio, Glabrio at Verr. 1.4 and 1.51 — with one exception. The clause about Sulla and the equestrian juries is the scholiast's own framing, and it is the piece of context a modern reader most needs and Cicero least supplies: he is arguing before a senatorial panel that its own composition is what the trial will decide, and he never says outright that the law changing it was already in the air. It passed that same year.其中每一项都可在西塞罗书中找到对应：法庭在众人心中自身受审，见《控维雷斯》一之 1 至 2 与二之一之 4；盟邦疲敝见一之 7；通同作弊的控告人则遍见《预审篇》；格拉布里奥见一之 4 与 51。惟有一项例外。关于苏拉与骑士陪审的那一句，出自注家自己的措辞；而这恰是今日读者最需要、西塞罗最不肯给的背景：他在元老组成的审判团面前立论，说审判团的组成正由此案决定，却始终不明说改易此制的法案已在酝酿。那法案就在同一年通过。
The Argumentum closes with the technical classification, in the vocabulary of the rhetorical schools. This is the single line the magalia structure page has been citing as 'Ps.-Asconius p. 186,15 St.', taken from Stroh's footnote. Here it is with the sentence that follows it, which explains what the comparison actually is.这篇提要以术语上的归类作结，所用皆修辞学堂的语汇。本站章法一页所引的 Ps.-Asconius p. 186,15 St. 即此一行，原是自施特罗的脚注转录。此处连同其下一句一并列出，那一句才说明所比者究竟为何。
Genus causae honestum; status: qualitas negotialis comparativa de constituendo accusatore, qui potissimum de duobus aut qui solus accuset; dicit enim Caecilius actore se accusandum esse Verrem aut a se quoque.
Genus causae honestum;
The kind of case: honourable;本案之体：正大者；
status: qualitas negotialis comparativa de constituendo accusatore, qui potissimum de duobus aut qui solus accuset;
the issue: a qualitative one, of the practical sort, and comparative, concerning the appointment of a prosecutor — which of two is to be preferred, or which is to prosecute alone;其争点：属性质之争，就事务而言，且为比较之属，所争者为控告人的指定，即二人之中当取谁，或当由谁独任；
dicit enim Caecilius actore se accusandum esse Verrem aut a se quoque.
for Caecilius says that Verres ought to be prosecuted with himself as conductor of the case, or else by himself as well.因为凯基利乌斯说，控告维雷斯当以他为主持，否则也该有他一份。
The last clause is the part that was missing from every second-hand citation, and it changes what the classification means. Caecilius was not simply claiming the prosecution against Cicero: he was claiming it either instead of Cicero or alongside him — which is why the issue is comparative, and why Cicero has to argue not only that he is the better man but that a joint prosecution would be worse than either. Stangl records that his manuscripts differ here (actore is his own reading, against auctore in S and M and aut a in the printed vulgate), so the shape of the claim rests on an editorial decision; the page says so where it uses it.末一句正是所有转引都漏掉的部分，而它改变了这一归类的意思。凯基利乌斯并非只是与西塞罗争控告之权：他所求的是取而代之，或与之并列。惟其如此，这一争点才属比较之属；也惟其如此，西塞罗才不但要论自己更宜，还得论合控之弊甚于二者独任。斯坦格尔记其抄本于此处不一：actore 是他自己的读法，S 与 M 作 auctore，旧刊本作 aut a；可见这一主张的形貌系于校订之断。本站凡用及此处，皆注明其事。
What this text settles, and what it unsettles此文所定者与所动者
Reading the Argumentum whole rather than in citation changes three things on the pages that had cited it. Two of them are corrections to this site.把这篇提要通读，而不只看转引的片段，本站此前引用它的几处便有三事须改；其中两事是对本站的订正。
Was Cicero aedile-elect at the divinatio, or still a candidate?预审之时，西塞罗是当选市政官，还是仍在竞选？
The scholiast calls him designatus aedilis at 185,21. Stangl's own note flags the difficulty on the same page — 'des. aed.', at v. Div. 70 — and Div. Caec. 70 is decisive: Cicero there has the objection put in the present tense, ea iam aetate, cum aedilitatem petat, 'at his age, when he is standing for the aedileship'. At the divinatio he was a candidate. By the first hearing in August he was elected, and says so himself: erit tum consul Hortensius … ego autem aedilis (Verr. 1.37).注家于 185,21 称其为当选市政官。斯坦格尔在同一页的注中即指出此处有疑：des. aed.，参《预审篇》70。而《预审篇》第 70 节所言可以定案：西塞罗在那里把对方的责难用现在时说出，ea iam aetate, cum aedilitatem petat，即到了这个年纪还在竞选市政官。可见预审之时他仍是候选人。至八月初审，他已当选，并自道其事：到那时霍尔滕西乌斯是执政官，而我不过是个市政官（《控维雷斯》一之 37）。
On the map: The map's note on Cicero now distinguishes the two moments instead of calling him aedile-elect throughout.关系图所改：关系图中西塞罗一条的说明，现已把这两个时点分开，不再一概称其为当选市政官。
Which Sicilian communities stood apart from the prosecution?西西里诸城中，哪几城不与控告？
Ps.-Asconius says the Sicilians compelled Cicero praeter Syracusanos ac Mamertinos — all except Syracuse and Messana. Cicero's own claim is narrower: Messana alone sent a public deputation to praise Verres (Verr. 2.2.13), and the Syracusan commendation was extorted, as Heraclius' evidence showed at the first hearing (Verr. 2.2.15). Both cities do stand apart in Cicero too, but for different reasons and with different degrees of willingness. The map keeps them in different columns and now cites the scholiast beside each.伪阿斯科尼乌斯说，西西里人逼西塞罗出面，惟叙拉古与墨萨纳除外。西塞罗自己的说法要窄：公开遣使称誉维雷斯的只有墨萨纳一城（《控维雷斯》二之二 13）；叙拉古的褒辞则是逼取而来，初审时赫拉克利乌斯之证已明其事（同书二之二 15）。两城在西塞罗笔下确也不与控告，但缘由不同，出于自愿的程度也不同。关系图仍把二者分列，并在两处各引注家之说。
On the map: Both city nodes now carry the scholiast's sentence alongside Cicero's.关系图所改：两城的节点现已在西塞罗之说旁并列注家之语。
A speech of Cicero that we do not have一篇今已不存的西塞罗演说
The scholiast reports that on leaving Sicily Cicero delivered a speech at Lilybaeum in which he made the provincials many generous promises (185,10-11). No such speech survives, and the Divinatio does not mention it; Cicero says only that he left the province so as to leave a lasting memory of his quaestorship (Div. Caec. 2). This is one of the few notices of the lost speech, and it is the scholiast's, not Cicero's — which is exactly the kind of claim the map marks as resting on the commentator alone.注家记载，西塞罗离西西里时在吕利巴埃乌姆作了一篇演说，对行省人许下许多好意的承诺（185,10-11）。此篇今不存，《预审篇》亦未提及；西塞罗只说自己离任时使那里留下长久的记忆（《预审篇》第 2 节）。这是关于这篇佚作为数不多的记载之一，而其出处是注家，不是西塞罗；关系图所标的正是这一类惟系于注家的说法。
On the map: Recorded here; not asserted on the map, because only the commentator carries it.关系图所改：此事记于本卷；关系图不作断言，因为惟注家一家有此说。
How to cite this page本页引用之法
Pseudo-Asconius, Argumentum Divinationis, in T. Stangl (ed.), Ciceronis orationum scholiastae II (Vienna 1912; repr. Hildesheim 1964), pp. 185,1–186,17. Text, translation and commentary: magalia.wiki, Pseudo-Asconius on the Divinatio (2026), https://magalia.wiki/cicero-reader/pseudasconius.html伪阿斯科尼乌斯《预审篇提要》，见斯坦格尔编《西塞罗演说古注集》第二卷（维也纳 1912 年；希尔德斯海姆 1964 年重印），第 185 页第 1 行至第 186 页第 17 行。本文、译文与解说：籬廬 magalia《伪阿斯科尼乌斯〈预审篇〉注》（2026 年），https://magalia.wiki/cicero-reader/pseudasconius.html
The Latin is Stangl's and is in the public domain. The English and Chinese renderings and the narration are this build's, and are new work; they are not a translation of any modern edition, and no modern commentary is reproduced here.拉丁原文出斯坦格尔本，已入公有领域。英文与中文译文及前后叙述皆本页新撰，非迻译今人任何版本；此处亦不转录今人任何注释。