Course · Learn family · autumn 2026课程 · 学习家族 · 2026 年秋

Reading Cicero: the Divinatio in Caecilium — a Latin reading course读西塞罗：《对凯基利乌斯的预审演说》拉丁文阅读课

Twenty-nine meetings, Tuesdays and Fridays from 2026-09-08 to 2026-12-25, two hours each. Four orientation meetings put the speech in its life, its court and its corpus; then the speech is read in order, cut at its own formal joints. Each reading meeting takes a stretch that the published divisions mark off, and states what all four of them call it — Heitland 1876, Sternkopf 1905, Stroh 1975, Watson 2025 — so that the passage has a formal question of its own, and the meetings that sit on a contested joint are the ones where that disagreement is the lesson. Woodcock stays as the fourth thread of each meeting, not as its spine. Every meeting below links the builds it runs on.二十九次课，周二与周五，自 2026-09-08 至 2026-12-25，每次两小时。前四次定向课把这篇演说放回西塞罗的生平、它的法庭和它的文集；此后按章逐读伍德科克《新拉丁句法》，对照演说的七十三节依次推进，条件句之前期中，结语之后期末。下面每一次课都链接它所依托的项目。

Audience: second- and third-year Latin, first-year morphology done. Each meeting is ninety minutes of reading and thirty of lab on the instruments linked here. Assessment as the plan records it: portfolio 30%, midterm 30%, final 40%; both exams draw unseen Latin only from the seven-book corpus. The briefs and threads are quoted from the syllabus file as written, in English.对象：拉丁语二、三年级，已完成一年级形态学。每次课九十分钟阅读、三十分钟在此处链接的工具上做练习。评估依计划所记：作业集 30%、期中 30%、期末 40%；两次考试的未见拉丁文只取自七卷文集。各次课的说明与线索按课程文件原文引用，为英文。

29meetings · 27 teach, 2 examine次课 · 27 次教学，2 次考试

73sections of the Divinatio, read in order节预审篇，依次阅读

25Woodcock chapters, 289 §§章伍德科克，289 节

395dossier loci for the orientation meetings定向课的文档出处

11Cicero builds the course runs on本课依托的西塞罗项目

What the speech is doing, and where the authorities disagree本篇之章法，及诸家异说

The meetings below are cut on the speech's own formal joints, not on a syntax sequence. A divinatio has no factum to try, only a faciendum, so the ordinary parts of a forensic speech fit it badly, and the four published divisions disagree about where the proof turns into refutation and where the peroration begins. Three joints are agreed: the exordium ends at §9, the division stands at §10, the first head begins at §11. Five are contested — §22, §47, §52, §71 and §73 — and each of those has a meeting of its own.下列各次课按伍德科克章节排序，此乃句法之序，非本篇之序。预审之讼无既成之事实可断，所断者将行之事，故庭辩常法之分段于此篇不甚相合；四家所定分段，于立论何时转为驳论，各执一说。三处则诸家皆同：序论止于第 9 节，分说在第 10 节，结语始于第 71 节中。

Quintilian *Inst.* 7.4.33 quotes Cicero's own division at §10 and then — *tamen* — gives the questions that were usual in this kind of hearing. Cicero substituted his own.昆体良《演说术原理》7.4.33 先引西塞罗第 10 节自定之分说，继以 *tamen* 举此类审断之常问。西塞罗以己意易之。
the genre's usual question此体常问	meaning释义	in the speech见于	note案
uter maiores causas habeat	which has the greater grievance	§§52-65	Caecilius' strongest ground; answered rather than asked
uter plus industriae aut uirium sit allaturus ad accusandum	which will bring more energy and force	§§27-51, 71	expanded far beyond its usual scope
uter id fide meliore facturus	which will do it in better faith	§§29-35, 58, 66-71	the praevaricatio charge; distributed as praeteritio, never proved (Stroh 1975, 177)

joint节点	Heitland 1876	Sternkopf 1905	Stroh 1975	Watson 2025
§9 · exordium ends序论止于	Exordium endsExordium 止	Einleitung endsEinleitung 止	Prooemium endsProoemium 止	Exordium endsExordium 止
§10 · the division分说	Divisio	transitio	Partitio	Partitio
§11 · first head第一目	probatio 1	Hauptteil 1	confirmatio I	Confirmatio I
§22 · second head第二目	probatio 2	—	confirmatio II	Confirmatio II
§47 · proof turns to refutation由立转破	—	—	Refutatio	Confirmatio III
§52 · or here或在此	probatio 4	Hauptteil 3	—	Reprehensio I
§71 · peroration结语	Peroratio	—	Peroratio	Conclusio

Cruces worth a meeting of their own值得专课讨论者

The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confirmatio I (11-22), 6-9 anticipate confirmatio II (22-26), giving A-B-A-B.
Stroh 1975, 186 f. — Teach 1-9 with 11-26, not before them. A syllabus that treats the exordium as preliminary matter loses the speech.
The narratio exists because the events leading to the two postulationes were in fact disputed, and Cicero declines to dispute them openly. Its non-probative character lets him suggest backgrounds that do not exist.
Stroh 1975, 185; quoted in part by Watson 2025, 22 — The narratio is evidence about the dispositio, not about the events.
It is highly probable that Caecilius, not Cicero, petitioned the praetor first: in a rhetorical duel the second place is the better one, and Cicero attacks while Caecilius answers.
Stroh 1975, 182-3 — The order of speaking is a formal datum about the proceeding and can be argued from.
dicebam habere eos actorem Q. Caecilium is deliberately ambiguous, and the dilemma Cicero performs at 4 is not his own but the jury's: he acts out their decision as already taken.
Stroh 1975, 186 with n. 40 — One of the two best short passages for teaching dispositio in the speech.
A small techne rhetorike in usum Caecilii: it opens and closes with the partes rhetoricae (hypokrisis, mneme, heuresis, taxis, lexis), has the officia oratoris set inside it (docere, movere, delectare), and names the three educational factors (physis, techne, melete).
Stroh 1975, 176 n. 15; cf. Craig 1985, 443-4 — A whole meeting on the parts of the art can be taught from three sections of Latin.
Cicero can neither prove the praevaricatio charge nor make it probable, and does not carry it through consistently: 36 ff. presuppose an incapable but honest Caecilius. The charge is delivered as praeteritio because it belongs to the fixed topics of the genre.
Stroh 1975, 177 — Quintilian's third quaestio (fides) is gestured at rather than argued; 29 says so: quibus ego nunc non utor.

Open the four divisions to scale, section by section打开四家分段图，可逐节查看 →

Sources and the long quotations behind every row: dossiers/divinatio-in-caecilium/STRUCTURE-DOSSIER.md. Sternkopf 1904–5 is not held here and is reported only as Stroh reports him. Every section of the Divinatio in the reader carries its own formal position under Dossier.各行所本及长篇引文见 dossiers/divinatio-in-caecilium/STRUCTURE-DOSSIER.md。Sternkopf 1904–5 本站未藏，仅据 Stroh 转述。读本中预审篇各节于疏证栏下皆载其章法定位。

The builds this course runs on本课依托的项目

Greenidge 1901 · Roman procedure atlasGreenidge 1901：罗马程序图谱

Civil in iure and in iudicio flows, Rome, municipal and provincial comparisons, Latin and Chinese glosses, with the complete annotated contents. Keep the criminal Divinatio context distinct.裁判官前程序与审判阶段的民事流程，罗马、自治市与行省的比较，中拉文释义及全卷注释目录；与预审演说的刑事程序语境分开。

used in meetings 2, 27用于第 2、27 次

Cicero · A life through its sources西塞罗：循史料读其一生

A biographical chronology with checked Latin and Greek passages, comparisons of competing accounts, geographical context and the connected Magalia catalogue.生平年表与已核对的拉丁、希腊段落，分歧记述的对读、地理背景，以及关联的籬廬项目目录。

used in meetings 1用于第 1 次

The Verrines reader维勒斯弹劾辞读本

Divinatio in Caecilium and In Verrem I + II.1–5: Latin, Peterson's apparatus, the Woodcock analyzer, and a passage dossier on all 73 sections with EN / 中文 translation.《对凯基利乌斯的预审演说》与《控维勒斯》：拉丁原文、Peterson 校勘、伍德科克分析器，以及预审篇全部 73 节的段落文档，附中英译文。

used in meetings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28用于第 3、4、5、6、7、8、9、10、11、12、13、14、16、17、18、19、20、21、22、23、24、25、26、27、28 次

The structure of the Divinatio预审篇之章法

Four published divisions of the speech into parts, laid out to scale against its 73 sections so their disagreement about where proof turns to refutation can be seen; with the cruces and nineteen long passages.四家所定分段，按全篇 73 节比例并列，立论何时转为驳论之异说一目了然；并附疑难各条与十九则长篇原文。

used in meetings 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28用于第 5、6、7、8、9、10、11、12、13、14、16、17、18、19、20、21、22、23、24、25、26、27、28 次

Woodcock · A New Latin Syntax伍德科克《新拉丁句法》

All 289 §§ with Cicero's own examples; each § lists the Divinatio loci the dossier anchors there. The course walks the chapters in order.全部 289 节，配西塞罗自己的例句；每节列出文档锚定于此的预审篇出处。本课按章节次序推进。

A Roman extortion trial as a system勒索案审判的制度与程序

The quaestio de repetundis as actors, statutes and a procedural flow, with 702 grounded records and a four-language glossary of the legal terms.勒索钱财案常设法庭作为行为者、法律与程序流程，附 702 条有据可查的记录和法律术语的四语术语表。

used in meetings 2, 14, 27用于第 2、14、27 次

The Verrine manuscripts维勒斯演说抄本

26 witnesses with their authority and family, plates from the holding libraries, and the sigla concordance for Peterson, Reeve and Watson.二十六种抄本及其依据与家族，收藏馆图版，以及 Peterson、Reeve、Watson 三家符号对照。

used in meetings 3用于第 3 次

Divinatio Wave Lab预审篇波形实验室

Fourteen instruments over the same 73 sections: span layers, referent chains, an argument map, a rhetorical heatmap. Machine-assisted; read the provenance note first.针对同一 73 节的十四种工具：跨度层、指称链、论证图、修辞热力图。机器辅助生成，请先读来源说明。

throughout贯穿全程

The court and its connections人事网络

Who was tied to whom in the trial: prosecution, defence, court, the Sicilian communities and Rome, as 28 parties and 39 ties, each marked by the kind of evidence that carries it — speech, biography, statute, stone, or modern argument alone.本案中何人与何人有谊：控方、辩方、法庭、西西里诸城与罗马，凡二十八方、三十九条关系，各标其所据之证为何：演说、传记、法条、石刻，抑或惟今人之辨。

throughout贯穿全程

The vocabulary词汇

Every word of the speech, counted and sorted: what lies beyond the Dickinson Core 1000, the words that carry more weight here than anywhere else in Cicero, the recurring verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, the repeated phrases and legal formulae, the people named, and the figures the commentary identifies. Each entry opens on the sentence where the word first stands.全篇每一个词，皆经统计并分列成表：Dickinson 核心 1000 词之外者、在西塞罗诸篇中独于此篇分量为重者、常见的动词名词形容词副词、重复出现的词组与法律定式、篇中人物，以及注释所指出的修辞之法。每一条皆可展开，见其首见之句。

used in meetings 5用于第 5 次

Cicero · Orations corpus西塞罗演说集

The 35 speeches for corpus-scale comparison: where a word or a phrase of the Divinatio stands in Cicero's whole forensic output.三十五篇演说，用于语料库规模的比较：预审篇的一个词或短语在西塞罗全部法庭演说中的位置。

used in meetings 1, 14用于第 1、14 次

Orientation · four meetings before the text定向：进入文本前的四次课 meetings 1–4第 1–4 次

1Tue 2026-09-08

Orientation I — Cicero's life through Latin biographical texts定向一：从拉丁传记文本读西塞罗生平

Cicero's public career and the people in it; the defender of the 80s-70s and the accusing advocate of 70. Latin biographical and autobiographical texts.

build项目Cicero: a life through Latin and Greek sources循拉丁与希腊史料读西塞罗生平

build项目The 35 speeches — Cicero's career in his own corpus三十五篇演说：西塞罗在自己语料中的生涯

Cicero's own retrospectives on his career and his choice to prosecute
The people: Verres, Hortensius, Caecilius, the Sicilians, Cicero's family and patrons
Nepos as a model of Latin biography (Atticus above all) for how a Roman life is narrated
Later Latin testimony on Cicero as advocate

Latin dossier · 121 loci, each with its Perseus text拉丁文档 · 121 处出处，各附 Perseus 原文

Chosen for this meeting; the Latin is pulled from the Perseus canonical TEI at build and re-checked by scripts/check_teach_dossiers.py. The dossier itself is a Markdown file kept with the course, not published here.为本次课所选；拉丁文在构建时自 Perseus 规范 TEI 提取，并由 check_teach_dossiers.py 复核。文档本身是随课程保存的 Markdown 文件，未在此发布。

Cic. Div. Caec. 1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The hinge sentence of the whole course: Cicero anticipates the jury's astonishment that a man who for so many years defended many and injured nobody has now, with his purpose changed, come down to accusing. Meeting 1 can open here and let every other text answer it.
Cic. Div. Caec. 2 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The biographical fact on which the whole prosecution rests, in Cicero's own words: he was quaestor in Sicily, left the province so as to leave the Sicilians a lasting memory, and they therefore came to him. This is the single passage that ties Meeting 1's biography to the speech the course reads.
Cic. Div. Caec. 4 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero says outright that he had given himself to defending men from earliest youth and is now dragged over to accusing by circumstance and obligation. The most explicit first-person career statement in the speech.
Cic. Div. Caec. 5 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero's resolution of his own problem: what looks like his accusation should be reckoned a defence, because he is defending many mortals, many communities, the whole province of Sicily, and only one man has to be accused. This is the argumentative move Meeting 1 exists to expose.
Cic. Div. Caec. 41 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero's own account of his forensic record — that few or none of his generation have defended more cases — followed immediately by the admission that he still shudders in body and mind when he thinks of the day he must speak. Career boast and stage fright in one period.
Cic. Div. Caec. 63 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero gives the precedents by name — Philo, Aurelius Scaurus, and above all Cn. Pompeius, refused leave to prosecute T. Albucius because he had been Albucius' quaestor, while C. Iulius got the case because the Sardinians asked him. Cicero says outright: 'quaestor enim Albuci fuerat, ut tu Verris'. The 70 BC contest is an exact replay.
Cic. Rosc. Am. 1 · Perseus ↗
The opening of Cicero's first public case opens exactly as the Divinatio does, with the audience's surprise that he of all people has stood up. Put the two exordia side by side and the students see a young advocate's signature move, and the whole 80s-to-70 arc, in two sentences.
Cic. Verr. 1.2 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Verres named and defined in four phrases that are in fact his cursus in order: depeculator aerari (quaestor), vexator Asiae atque Pamphyliae (legate), praedo iuris urbani (urban praetor), labes atque pernicies provinciae Siciliae. Set it beside Verr. 2.1.34, which turns the same four into the plan of the prosecution.
Cic. Verr. 1.6 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero's own account of the evidence-gathering journey: he covered the whole of Sicily in fifty days and collected the documents and grievances of every community and private person, while Verres' rival inquisitor never even reached Brundisium. Concrete, narrative, and it shows what prosecuting actually cost.
Cic. Verr. 1.36 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero declares himself the standing accuser of judicial corruption and promises to do it from the magistracy he has just won: this is the aedileship offered to the Roman people as a munus. The clearest place where advocacy and the cursus honorum are welded together in his own voice.
Cic. Verr. 2.2.65 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Heraclius and Epicrates come far out to meet Cicero, thank him in tears as he arrives at Syracuse, and want to travel to Rome with him — then are held back by the praetor. The Sicilian clientela of Div. Caec. 2 seen as a scene rather than a claim.
Cic. Verr. 2.3.6 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Hortensius keeps asking what injury or enmity drove Cicero to come down to accusing — the Divinatio's question, still live in the second action. Cicero sets aside officium and the Sicilians and answers on enmity itself, redefining inimicitiae as opposition of principle.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.35 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero on how he held his Sicilian quaestorship: as though everyone's eyes were fixed on him alone, as though he and his quaestorship were performing in some theatre of the whole world. The self-portrait that the Divinatio's opening presupposes, and unforgettable for students.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.180 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Someone will ask whether he really means to take on such labour and such enmities; Cicero answers that the same licence is not open to him as to the nobly born, on whom the Roman people's favours are conferred while they sleep. Then Cato as his model. The novus homo speaking about his own terms of life.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.189 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The last sentence of the whole Verrines is a prayer that hereafter he may be allowed to defend the good rather than be compelled to accuse the wicked. It closes the ring opened by Div. Caec. 1 and gives Meeting 1 its ending as well as its beginning.
Cic. Brut. 312 · Perseus ↗
Cicero dates his own debut: his first public case, for Sextus Roscius, brought him such standing that no case afterwards seemed unworthy of his patronage. Four lines that establish the starting point of the career the Divinatio looks back on.
Cic. Brut. 318 · Perseus ↗
Cicero's own chronology of these years, told as a synchronism of three careers: 'cum quaesturam nos, consulatum Cotta, aedilitatem peteret Hortensius. Interim me quaestorem Siciliensis excepit annus.' The single tidiest Latin sentence for putting the quaestorship on the timeline of the meeting.
Cic. Brut. 319 · Perseus ↗
Cicero's own retrospective label for the Verres case: after some five years among the leading patrons, 'in patrocinio Siciliensi' he came into his greatest contest, aedile-elect against consul-elect Hortensius. He calls the prosecution a patrocinium — exactly the redefinition of Div. Caec. 5, still standing twenty-four years later.
Cic. Planc. 64 · Perseus ↗
Cicero on his Sicilian quaestorship, sixteen years on: he thought at the time that people at Rome were talking of nothing but his quaestorship, and lists what he did — grain sent in a famine, fair dealing with traders and contractors, restraint towards the allies.
Cic. Planc. 65 · Perseus ↗
The Puteoli anecdote: Cicero comes home from Sicily certain that Rome has talked of nothing but his quaestorship, and a man at the baths asks him whether he is back from Africa. The funniest and most humane passage available on the office at the centre of this thread; §64 gives the self-praise it deflates, §66 the lesson he drew.
Cic. Planc. 66 · Perseus ↗
The lesson Cicero says he drew from Puteoli: the Roman people's ears are dull but their eyes sharp, so he made them see him daily — 'habitavi in oculis, pressi forum'. The working method behind the advocacy record boasted of at Div. Caec. 41.
Cic. Off. 2.50 · Perseus ↗
Writing in 44, Cicero lists the only proper grounds for prosecuting and names his own Verres case among them — 'ut nos pro Siculis, pro Sardis in Albucio Iulius'. The same Iulius/Albucius precedent he had used at Div. Caec. 63. Set the two side by side and the class watches one man's argument hold for twenty-six years.
Cic. Off. 2.51 · Perseus ↗
The rule that you must never arraign an innocent man on a capital charge, that defending the guilty is another matter, and that glory comes above all from defences — closing with his own youthful defence of Roscius against Sulla's power. Cicero's mature theory of the career Meeting 1 is narrating.
Cic. Clu. 139 · Perseus ↗
Confronted with his own words from the Verres prosecution, Cicero replies that a man is badly mistaken who thinks the speeches we delivered in court record our settled opinions: they belong to the cases and the moments, not to the speakers. A direct retrospective on his own accusation.
Cic. Mur. 17 · Perseus ↗
Cicero claims to have broken open the barriers of nobility so that access to the consulship lies open to merit as much as to birth, and adds that in his own canvass he beat Catiline in standing and Galba in influence. Read against Att. 1.2, where he plans to defend that same Catiline.
Cic. Att. 1.2.1 · Perseus ↗
Six lines of private letter: a son born, then 'we are thinking of defending Catiline our rival', the jury is the one we wanted, and if he is acquitted he will be more attached to us for the canvass. Choosing whom to defend, stated as calculation with no audience to persuade.
Quint. Inst. 4.1.49 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian quotes the opening move of the Divinatio itself: Cicero says he knows some are surprised that a man who for so many years has defended many and injured no one has come down to accusing Verres, and then turns it into a defence of the allies. This is exactly the Meeting 1 hinge — the defender of the 80s and 70s becoming the accuser in 70 — stated by a later reader as a technique with a name.
Cic. Div. Caec. 3 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Verres enters the speech here, and he enters inside the Sicilians' reported words, not Cicero's own. The three-year praetorship and the four vices (luxuries, crudelitas, avaritia, superbia) are the portrait the rest of the Verrines will fill in.
Cic. Div. Caec. 13 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Two living men are pointed at in court — C. Marcellus on the panel, Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus in the audience — and behind them a family that has held Sicily as a clientela since 212. This is how provincial patronage actually worked, and it is why Cicero's Sicilian standing is worth contesting.
Cic. Div. Caec. 27 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The direct interrogation of Caecilius as a person: what have you ever done, when did you ever test yourself? It opens the checklist of what an accuser must be, which the following sections run through one by one. Short, and every clause is a question a student can answer.
Cic. Div. Caec. 29 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Three named people used as evidence about a fourth: Potamo the scriba kept back in the province by Verres, and M. Caecilius, the prosecutor's own brother, living on close terms with the defendant. The best single passage in the speech for how Roman advocacy argues from prosopography.
Cic. Div. Caec. 32 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The sharpest statement of why Caecilius cannot prosecute: he was the man handling the money. 'eras enim tu quaestor, pecuniam publicam tu tractabas.' Two clauses, no ornament, and the whole conflict of interest is on the table.
Cic. Div. Caec. 39 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Lilybaeum sentence. Cicero places Caecilius' whole education in the province — Greek at Lilybaeum instead of Athens, Latin in Sicily instead of Rome — and so makes him a provincial rather than a Roman advocate. This is where the meeting's Lilybaeum thread actually lives in the Latin.
Cic. Div. Caec. 44 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Hortensius is present in the Divinatio without ever being named: 'homine disertissimo et ad dicendum paratissimo'. Cicero says he knows the man's every move because they have appeared on the same side and on opposite sides for years. The rivalry of the meeting is right here, in the third person.
Cic. Div. Caec. 45 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero predicts how Hortensius will destroy Caecilius, and the prediction includes a physical mannerism: 'in digitis suis singulas partis causae constituere'. Read it against Quint. 4.5.24, which independently records the finger-partitio as Hortensius' signature and says Cicero mocked it. Two texts, one gesture, 150 years apart.
Cic. Div. Caec. 47 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The rest of Caecilius' team: L. Appuleius the subscriptor, and the borrowed speech-book put together out of other men's orations by some schoolmaster. Introduces the supporting-prosecutor as an institution and shows what Cicero thinks a prepared amateur looks like.
Cic. Div. Caec. 56 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Caecilius at work as quaestor at Lilybaeum: he summons Agonis, frames the formula, sells her up, and Verres arrives and makes him hand the money back. It is the one narrative in the speech where Caecilius acts, and it takes place in the town the meeting is built around. Read §55 first for Agonis herself.
Cic. Verr. 1.19 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The best scene in the whole affair: Curio meets the crowd escorting Hortensius home from the consular election, ignores the new consul, picks Verres out of the throng at the Fabian arch and says 'renuntio tibi te hodiernis comitiis esse absolutum.' Elections, patronage and the courts in one sentence. Read §18 first for the setup.
Cic. Verr. 1.23 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Another Verres — Q. Verres of the Romilia tribe, a professional bribe-distributor trained by the defendant's father — offers 500,000 sesterces to keep Cicero out of the aedileship. The candidacy of Div. Caec. 69 is here shown under attack, with a price on it.
Cic. Verr. 1.33 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero turns from the jury and speaks to Hortensius directly: 'res omnis mihi tecum erit, Hortensi. dicam aperte.' Then he explains why he will give up the long speech and go straight to witnesses. The rivalry and the tactic in one place; read with Quint. 6.5.4, which analyses exactly this decision.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.34 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Verres' career laid out as the plan of the prosecution — quaestura, legatio Asiatica, praetura urbana, praetura Siciliensis — and then the first item narrated: quaestor to the consul Cn. Carbo, he took the army's pay and walked away. Career and character are the same document.
Cic. Verr. 2.2.83 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Sthenius of Thermae, 'hic qui nobis adsidet' — a Sicilian who is in the room, pointed at, and whose house Verres had stayed in as a guest before stripping it. The clearest example of what Cicero's Sicilian connections consist of: hospitium, and its violation.
Cic. Verr. 2.3.22 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Q. Apronius, chief of the tithe-collectors, introduced with 'quem videtis' and then 'aspicite, iudices, vultum hominis et aspectum'. Verres' instrument, present in court, described by having the jury look at him. A person-introduction that depends on the room.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.89 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Marcelli, patrons of Sicily since the capture of Syracuse, displaced: 'nunc Siculorum Marcelli non sunt patroni, Verres in eorum locum substitutus est.' Read against Div. Caec. 13, where the living Marcelli sit in court supporting Cicero. Provincial patronage as a contested inheritance.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.138 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero and his brother Quintus walk into the Syracusan council chamber, are received with honour, and are addressed by Diodorus son of Timarchides on behalf of the senate and people; Cicero answers that he will ask nothing of a chamber that has a gilded statue of Verres in it. The evidence-gathering journey of 70 BC, with Sicilians as speaking persons. Read §137 first.
Cic. Brut. 301 · Perseus ↗
Hortensius as a young man, in Cicero's retrospective obituary: the earliest advocate at the top of the profession, and a memory Cicero says he never saw matched in anyone. Gives the class an opponent worth beating before they meet him in the Divinatio.
Cic. Brut. 324 · Perseus ↗
Hortensius' whole career measured against Brutus' lifetime — he began pleading sixteen years before Brutus was born and defended Appius in his sixty-fourth year, a few days before his death. A good closing frame if the meeting wants Hortensius as a life rather than an obstacle.
Cic. Tusc. 5.64 · Perseus ↗
'cuius ego quaestor ... indagavi sepulcrum' — Cicero as quaestor hunting through the brambles outside Syracuse for Archimedes' tomb, which the Syracusans said did not exist. The one passage where the quaestorship is a scene rather than a claim. §65-66 finish it, ending 'nisi ab homine Arpinate didicisset'.
Quint. Inst. 6.5.4 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian's example of consilium is Cicero's handling of the Verres case: he chose to compress his own speaking time rather than let the trial run into the year in which Hortensius would be consul. One sentence that puts the calendar, the consular elections and the opposing counsel into the students' hands at the start of the course.
Quint. Inst. 4.5.24 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian credits Hortensius with great skill in partitio but records that his division counted out on the fingers, and that Cicero used to make light of it. This is the external confirmation of the gesture Cicero predicts at Div. Caec. 45 — put the two on one page.
Gell. NA 1.5.2 · Perseus ↗
Gellius on Hortensius: more famous than any orator of his day except Cicero, dressed with elaborate care, hands 'argutae admodum et gestuosae' while pleading, and abused in court as an actor. The physical presence behind the 'homo disertissimus' of Div. Caec. 44.
Gell. NA 1.5.3 · Perseus ↗
The retort: L. Torquatus calls him a dancing-girl, Dionysia, and Hortensius replies in a soft voice that he would rather be Dionysia than what Torquatus is — ἄμουσος, ἀναφρόδιτος, ἀπροσδιόνυσος. Worth teaching for the Greek punchline in a Latin sentence. Note for the renderer: this Perseus text carries two visible dittographies in the section ('acerbiusqueacerliusque', 'atqueatoue'); flag or normalise before it reaches students.
Nep. Att. 1 · Perseus ↗
The life opens on descent, equestrian rank, the father's means and love of letters, the boy's schooling and voice, and then names the schoolfellows: L. Torquatus, C. Marius the younger, M. Cicero. For a meeting on Cicero's career and the people in it, this is where Cicero first enters the biographical record, as a boy.
Nep. Att. 2 · Perseus ↗
The 80s as a private man lived through them: P. Sulpicius killed as tribune, the Cinnanus tumultus, the city split between Sullani and Cinnani, and departure for Athens. This is the decade behind the meeting's "defender of the 80s", narrated from outside the courts.
Nep. Att. 4 · Perseus ↗
Sulla keeps Atticus by him at Athens and is refused in oratio recta; later Atticus sends 250,000 sesterces to Cicero fleeing into exile; the return to Rome is dated L. Cotta L. Torquato consulibus. Three of the meeting's people appear in one chapter, and the chapter dates itself the Roman way.
Nep. Att. 5 · Perseus ↗
The uncle Q. Caecilius, eques Romanus, adopts Atticus by will and leaves him three quarters of the estate; the same chapter marries Atticus's sister to Quintus Cicero with Marcus as matchmaker, and sets Hortensius beside Cicero as Atticus's other intimate. Hortensius is the man who will defend Verres, so the meeting's cast is assembled here.
Nep. Att. 6 · Perseus ↗
Atticus declines the honores though they were open to him, never bid at a public auction, was never praes or manceps, and — the clause that matters for this course — neminem neque suo nomine neque subscribens accusavit. Read against a semester on the Divinatio, this chapter is the negative image of the whole speech.
Nep. Att. 9 · Perseus ↗
Nepos writes that calling Atticus prudens would be to say too little, ille potius divinus fuerit, si divinatio appellanda est perpetua naturalis bonitas. The word in the title of the course's speech appears here in its ordinary sense, in a chapter that also puts Atticus in court as sponsor at Fulvia's every vadimonium.
Nep. Att. 10 · Perseus ↗
The proscription seen from beside Cicero: Antony's hatred reaches Cicero and all his friends, and Atticus is struck off the list in Antony's own hand. It gives the class the end of Cicero's life without narrating it, which is exactly what a life of someone else can do.
Nep. Att. 11 · Perseus ↗
The chapter states that Atticus incurred no enmities at all — nullas inimicitias gessit — and closes on the sententia that carries the whole life, Sui cuique mores fingunt fortunam hominibus. It is the thesis of the book, and the exact opposite of the career the Divinatio belongs to.
Nep. Att. 13 · Perseus ↗
The narrative stops and the life turns to headings — house, slaves, reading at dinner, monthly expenditure from the ephemeris — and Nepos claims autopsy: saepe enim propter familiaritatem domesticis rebus interfuimus. This is the visible joint between the two halves of the form.
Nep. Att. 16 · Perseus ↗
Nepos says the rolls of Cicero's letters to Atticus, running from the consulship to the end, leave a reader wanting no continuous history of the period; and that reading them shows prudentiam quodam modo esse divinationem. It is at once the source-note for everything the course will say about Cicero's life and a second, sharper appearance of the word divinatio.
Nep. Att. 18 · Perseus ↗
Atticus's Liber Annalis, quo magistratus ordinavit, with every law, peace, war and notable event set at its own date and family descents woven in; then the separate stemmata made for Brutus and for the Marcelli, Scipiones, Fabii and Aemilii; then a Greek book on Cicero's consulship. The apparatus by which a Roman fixed a public life is described here from the inside.
Nep. Att. 19 · Perseus ↗
Haec hactenus Attico vivo edita a nobis sunt. nunc, quoniam fortuna nos superstites ei esse voluit, reliqua persequemur. The biographer discloses that the first part was published while his subject was alive and that he is now continuing after the death. There is no clearer statement in Latin of how such a book came to exist.
Nep. Att. 21 · Perseus ↗
The illness, the summoning of Agrippa, L. Cornelius Balbus and Sex. Peducaeus, and then a speech in oratio recta in which Atticus tells them he will stop feeding the disease and asks them not to argue. A long stretch of continuous, teachable direct speech at the point where the life turns to its close.
Nep. Att. 22 · Perseus ↗
Death dated pridie Kalendas Apriles Cn. Domitio C. Sosio consulibus, a funeral without pomp, burial at the fifth milestone on the Appian Way in the monument of Q. Caecilius, avunculi sui. The closing chapter returns to the uncle of chapter 5, so the class can see the whole life shut on itself.
Nep. Milt. 1 · Perseus ↗
The first life in the collection opens on the bare formula — name, patronymic, ethnic — and moves straight to a public commission and an oracle. Set beside Atticus 1 it lets the class see in one comparison what Nepos changed when the subject was a Roman of no office.
Nep. Them. 1 · Perseus ↗
An opening built on vices corrected by virtues, with the biographer stating his own narrative order — sed ab initio est ordiendus — and naming Thucydides for the judgement on the man's mind. Short, and it shows two formal moves at once.
Nep. Them. 9 · Perseus ↗
Nepos sets aside the majority version and gives his reasons for preferring Thucydides — nearest in date among those who wrote that period's history, and of the same city — then quotes a letter entire. It pairs directly with Hannibal 13 and with Gellius on Nepos's own error.
Nep. Alc. 1 · Perseus ↗
A whole character delivered in strings of adjectives, the virtues and the vices of the same man set against each other, closed by the observation that no one showed so much unlikeness within a single person. The most compact example in Nepos of the character sketch as a formal unit.
Nep. Epam. 1 · Perseus ↗
Before starting, Nepos addresses his readers, warns them against measuring Greek habits by Roman ones, and then lists the headings he will follow: descent first, then education and teachers, then character and abilities, then deeds. The plan of a Latin life stated in advance, and the same plan the Atticus follows.
Nep. Epam. 10 · Perseus ↗
The life ends by declaring enough has been said if one thing is added, and then settles the man's worth in a single measure: Thebes obeyed others before he was born and after he died, and led all Greece while he governed. A closing that states its own sufficiency.
Nep. Pelop. 1 · Perseus ↗
Nepos states the problem of his own genre in one sentence: if he sets out the events he will seem to be writing history rather than telling a life, and if he gives only the headings, readers with no Greek reading will not see the man's stature. This is the clearest Latin statement anywhere of what a vita is and is not.
Nep. Hann. 13 · Perseus ↗
Death at seventy, then three incompatible consular dates set side by side from Atticus's annalis, from Polybius and from Sulpicius Blitho, then the Greek books Hannibal wrote and the two eyewitness historians, then the announcement that the Roman commanders follow so that the two sets may be compared. A closing chapter that shows dating, source-conflict and the comparative plan of the book at once.
Nep. Cato 1 · Perseus ↗
A Roman career set out step by step: municipal origin at Tusculum, the move to Rome and the forum, first campaign at seventeen, tribunus militum in Sicily under named consuls, quaestor to Scipio, aedilis plebei, praetor with Sardinia. This is the template against which Cicero's own rise from Arpinum will be read all semester.
Nep. Cato 2 · Perseus ↗
Consulship, province, triumph, the quarrel with Scipio, the censorship exercised severely, and the summary judgement that for some eighty years he never stopped taking on inimicitiae for the state's sake and lost no standing by it. Read beside Atticus 6 and 11 it frames the choice Cicero makes in 70 when he takes the prosecution of Verres.
Gell. NA 15.28 · Perseus ↗
Gellius quotes Nepos's lost first book on Cicero's life, catches him making Cicero twenty-three at the Pro Roscio, and recomputes from the consuls of Cicero's birth (Q. Caepio and Q. Serranus, a.d. III Non. Ian.) to the consuls of the Pro Quinctio and then of the Pro Roscio; he then suggests Nepos shaved four years studio amoris et amicitiae. It brings this thread and the meeting together: the biographer of Atticus also wrote Cicero's life, and got Cicero's first great defence wrong.
Gell. NA 17.21.3 · Perseus ↗
Gellius cites Nepos in primo Chronico dating Homer about a hundred and sixty years before the founding of Rome, beside Cassius's Annales. Three lines, and they show the other half of Nepos's work — the chronographer standing behind the biographer, and behind Atticus's Liber Annalis at Att. 18.
Gell. NA 2.4 · Perseus ↗
This is the one ancient text that defines the procedure the whole course is named after. Gellius asks why a hearing to decide which of two or more rival prosecutors gets the accusatio or the subscriptio is called a divinatio, gives Gavius Bassus' etymology, judges it thin, and offers a better one. Reading it in Meeting 1 means the students meet the institution before they meet Cicero's speech. Note: the Perseus text here carries embedded scribal doublets (e.g. 'vocabulorumVocabilorum' at 2.4.3) that will render oddly.
Quint. Inst. 11.1.20 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian names the speech descriptively — 'contra Q. Caecilium de accusatore in Verrem constituendo' — and observes that although Cicero's fitness to plead was itself at issue, he took eloquence away from Caecilius rather than claiming it for himself, saying only that he had done everything to acquire it, not that he had. A precise later reading of the ethos of our text.
Quint. Inst. 12.7 (12.7.1–12) · Perseus ↗
The chapter asks the two questions Meeting 1 needs: will a good man ever accuse, and will he take money for pleading. Quintilian says the vir bonus would rather defend, but will not shrink from the name of accuser; that young men were thought to give a pledge to the state by prosecuting bad citizens; and he names the roll — Hortensius, the Luculli, Sulpicius, Cicero, Caesar, both Catos. Then he turns to fees, which sets up Plutarch's claim that Cicero took none.
Quint. Inst. 6.3.98 · Perseus ↗
The exchange in court at the Verres trial: Hortensius says he does not understand riddles, and Cicero answers that he ought to, since he keeps a Sphinx at home — a bronze Sphinx of great value that he had taken from Verres. Short, memorable, and it introduces both Hortensius and the fact that Verres' plunder was circulating among the defence.
Quint. Inst. 6.3.4 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian defends Cicero against the charge of joking too much, and makes a technical observation about the Verrines specifically: the flatter jokes in them Cicero ascribed to other people and set down as evidence, so that the more commonplace they are the more credible it is that they were not invented by the orator but were going round. A later reader's account of how the Verrine text was constructed. Warning: this section of the Perseus text has OCR slips (ilia for illa).
Quint. Inst. 12.1.16 · Perseus ↗
Cicero's public career compressed into a single Latin period: the consulship discharged most nobly, the province administered with complete integrity, the vigintiviratus refused, and in the civil wars a mind turned aside neither by hope nor by fear. For students meeting the career for the first time this is the most economical Latin summary in the corpus, and it is written by someone arguing a case about Cicero's character.
Quint. Inst. 10.1.112 · Perseus ↗
The capstone of Quintilian's assessment: in his own day Cicero was said to reign in the courts, and with posterity he came to be not the name of a man but the name of eloquence. Two clauses, both quotable, both about him precisely as a courtroom advocate — which is the register in which Meeting 1 should leave him.
Quint. Inst. 2.17.21 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian is arguing that an orator who uses the false for the true is not himself deceived, and his instance is Cicero boasting that he had spread darkness over the jury in the Cluentius case. It gives Meeting 1 the uncomfortable counterweight to the Divinatio's self-portrait of the honest advocate, and it does so in three words of Cicero's own that Quintilian preserves.
Gell. NA 1.5 · Perseus ↗
Four short sections that introduce Hortensius as a person: the most celebrated orator of his generation except Cicero, mocked in court for his dress and his actor's gestures, called 'Dionysia' after a dancing-girl by L. Torquatus, and answering in a soft voice that he would rather be Dionysia than what Torquatus is. Meeting 1 needs Verres' advocate to be a face, not a name.
Gell. NA 12.12 · Perseus ↗
Cicero wanted a house on the Palatine, had no cash, and took a quiet loan of two million sesterces from P. Sulla, who was at the time a defendant; when the loan came out he denied both the money and the purchase, and after buying the house laughed the lie off in the senate. Five short sections, and the perfect foil to Plutarch's claim that Cicero took neither fees nor gifts for pleading.
Gell. NA 1.7 (payload at §§1–8) · Perseus ↗
Gellius opens a copy of the fifth speech against Verres 'of proven reliability, made with Tiro's care and discipline', quotes a whole period from it about obscure men who travel abroad trusting in their citizenship, and then defends the reading 'futurum' against readers who wanted to correct it. Meeting 1 gets both a physical book of the Verrines and the beginning of a textual-critical habit. The chapter runs to twenty-one sections; the first five or six carry the point.
Gell. NA 10.3 (Cicero at §§7–14) · Perseus ↗
Gellius sets three Latin accounts of the same outrage side by side — Gaius Gracchus on M. Marius flogged at Teanum, Cicero on Gavius flogged at Messana, and Cato on Q. Thermus — and argues for Cicero. He quotes the Verrine at length, including 'civis Romanus sum' and the apostrophe to the name of liberty. It is the fullest surviving ancient reading of Cicero as an advocate, and it shows the class in Meeting 1 what the speeches they are about to study were famous for.
Plut. Cic. 7 · Perseus ↗
The single most important Greek chapter for this course. Plutarch says Cicero took neither fee nor gift for pleading, above all when he took up the case against Verres; that he won it by not speaking, calling witnesses instead because the praetors were pushing the trial into the last days; and then he names Caecilius, who wanted to push the Sicilians aside and prosecute Verres himself, and gives Cicero's joke about him. It also gives the Greek version of the Sphinx exchange with Hortensius.
Plut. Cic. 6 · Perseus ↗
The Sicilian quaestorship: appointed in a grain shortage, at first resented for the compulsory shipments to Rome, then honoured by the Sicilians as no governor had been; his successful defence of young Romans before the praetor of Sicily; and the deflating question on the road home, 'Where have you been all this time, Cicero?' This is the relationship on which the Sicilians' choice of him in 70 rests, and the chapter also explains his weakness for praise.
Plut. Cic. 3 · Perseus ↗
Cicero the defender of the 80s: study with Philo and the Mucii, service under Sulla in the Marsic war, retreat to Greek learning while the state slid into monarchy, then Chrysogonus' purchase of the dead man's estate, the parricide charge got up against young Roscius, nobody willing to help, Cicero taking the brief, winning, and leaving for Greece in fear of Sulla. Meeting 1 cannot state the 70 BC hinge without this chapter.
Plut. Cic. 5 · Perseus ↗
How Cicero became an advocate: the Delphic answer that he should make his own nature and not the opinion of the many his guide; the cautious first years in Rome, when the coarser sort called him 'a Greek and a schoolman'; then, pressed by his father and friends, his entry into συνηγορία and immediate pre-eminence; his study of the actors Roscius and Aesopus; and the warning that his relentless joking earned him a name for ill-nature.
Plut. Cic. 8 · Perseus ↗
The sequel to the trial: Verres condemned, Cicero assessed the damages at 750,000 and was accused of having lowered the figure for money; the grateful Sicilians brought him quantities of produce during his aedileship and he took no profit from it but used it to bring prices down. Then his property, Terentia's dowry, the inheritance, the house on the Palatine and the morning crowds that rivalled Crassus' and Pompey's. The advocate's standing, income and clientele in one chapter.
Plut. Dem. 2 · Perseus ↗
Plutarch explains that living in a small town and busy with public affairs he began to read Latin late in life, and that he came at the words through the things rather than at the things through the words; he can enjoy the beauty and speed of Latin expression but has not the leisure to study it properly. A class that is about to use the Life of Cicero as evidence should read the author's own statement of what he could and could not do with Latin.
Plut. Comp. Dem. et Cic. 3 · Perseus ↗
Plutarch's formal comparison puts Cicero's quaestorship in Sicily and his proconsulate in Cilicia and Cappadocia at the centre of his verdict: at a time when governors had turned from stealing to plundering, Cicero made a great display of contempt for money and of humanity; and unlike Demosthenes, who was reproached for writing speeches for hire, Cicero held out against the gifts of the Sicilians when he was aedile and of the Cappadocian king. This is the Greek statement of the very claim the Divinatio makes for him.
Tac. Dial. 37 (37.1–6) · Perseus ↗
Tacitus' speaker explains that great advocates were made by the standing and the size of their cases — 'de ambitu comitiorum, expilatis sociis et civibus trucidatis' — and states it flatly: Demosthenes is not made famous by the speeches against his guardians, nor Cicero a great orator by the defence of P. Quinctius or of Licinius Archias; Catiline and Milo and Verres and Antonius gave him that fame. For a first meeting this places the Verrines exactly where the tradition placed them.
Tac. Dial. 20.1 · Perseus ↗
Three questions in a row: who now will put up with an orator prefacing his weak health, who will wait through five books against Verres, who will endure those enormous volumes on pleas and formulae that we read in the Pro Tullio and the Pro Caecina. A useful cold shower at the start of a semester on one of those speeches, and it makes the students ask what changed.
Val. Max. 4.2.4 · Perseus ↗
Valerius records that Cicero defended A. Gabinius on a repetundae charge although Gabinius had driven him from the city in his consulship, and twice protected P. Vatinius, always hostile to his standing — 'without any charge of inconsistency, indeed with some credit'. Set against Quintilian 4.1.49, this shows the class that the Roman advocate's relations to friend and enemy were a subject of open moral argument, which is what the Divinatio is arguing about.
Sen. Suas. 6.22 · Perseus ↗
Livy's obituary of Cicero, preserved verbatim by Seneca the Elder: sixty-three years, a talent fortunate in its works and in their rewards, long prosperity broken by exile, by the ruin of the party he had stood for, by his daughter's death; he bore none of his adversities as a man should except his death; and if one weighed the faults against the virtues, he was a great and memorable man, one who would need a Cicero to praise him. The best single Latin verdict on the whole life, and the section just before it recalls that no part of the forum was without the trace of some famous pleading of his.
Plin. Ep. 3.4 · Perseus ↗
A working Roman advocate explains, in nine short sections and in the first person, why he agreed to prosecute a proconsul on behalf of a province: the envoys of Baetica asked the senate for him as advocatus against Caecilius Classicus, his colleagues tried to excuse him, the senate decreed he be given as patronus if the envoys could get his own consent, and he weighed the precedent of ancestors who prosecuted voluntarily to avenge wrongs done to guest-friends. Every consideration in the Divinatio recurs here 170 years later, from the other side of the tradition.
Cic. Div. Caec. 10 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The panel selected sixteen sections of the Divinatio but never the one where Cicero states the actual legal test the jury is about to apply — the two questions a court must ask when deciding which of two men gets the prosecution. Gell. NA 2.4 explains what the word means; this is the only passage that says what the hearing decides.
Cic. Div. Caec. 11 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The single largest hole in the selection. Div. Caec. 2 gives the quaestorship that created the clientela and Div. Caec. 63 gives the doctrine that accusation is patronage of allies; this is the passage where the two meet — the Sicilians physically present in court, having chosen Cicero. Nothing else in the list stages the moment the case begins.
Cic. Verr. 1.1 (actio prima §1) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The panel took §§2, 6, 19, 23, 33, 36 of the actio prima but skipped its opening — the one place that says why this trial mattered to anyone but Cicero and Verres. Without it the students meet an ambitious young advocate and never learn that the senatorial juries were under public attack and that this case was their test.
Cic. Div. Caec. 72 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Div. Caec. 41 has the professional self-assertion and the register shift; this has the reason for it. It is the fullest statement anywhere in the speech of what Cicero personally stands to lose, and it makes the meeting's whole premise — that a career is the thing at stake in a procedural hearing — explicit rather than inferred.
Cic. Div. Caec. 73 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The selection stops at §63 and never reaches the end of the speech. A first meeting that reads a speech should see how it closes, and this closing is short, is the formal request the whole hearing exists to answer, and pairs exactly with Off. 2.51, already selected, which states the same genitive-of-characteristic formula as doctrine.
Cic. Div. Caec. 9 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Div. Caec. 1, 4 and 5 pose the problem — a lifelong defender turning accuser — and the panel then jumps to §13. This is where Cicero answers it, with a verb of confession, and it is the hinge between the exordium already selected and the case-specific argument of §§10–11.
Cic. Imp. Pomp. 1 · Perseus ↗
Not one passage in the list comes from a speech to the people. Every Ciceronian locus is either a courtroom speech, a treatise, a letter or the Brutus, so students never see the third setting a Roman career runs through. This exordium also reuses, four years later and before a different audience, almost the same self-description as Div. Caec. 4 — the clearest possible demonstration that the Divinatio's first-person claim is a formula, not a confession.
Cic. Brut. 314 · Perseus ↗
The Brutus is represented only by 301, 312, 318, 319, 324 — the Hortensius notices and the Verres years. The autobiography's formative stretch is missing entirely, and this is its turning point: the two years of practice, the physical breakdown, and the decision to leave Rome. Without it the man who appears at Div. Caec. 1 with a defender's record has no history.
Cic. Brut. 316 · Perseus ↗
The other half of the same narrative, naming the Greek teachers and closing on the man who came back changed. It is the Latin text that Plut. Cic. 4 retells, so the two can be set side by side; and it explains the voice and delivery that Plut. Cic. 3 and 5, already selected, comment on from outside.
Plut. Cic. 1 (§§1.1–1.4) · Perseus ↗
The selection has six chapters of Plutarch's Cicero but not the opening. Thread 3 turns on how a Roman life begins — the panel chose the Nepotan openings of Miltiades, Themistocles, Epaminondas and Atticus precisely for that — and then omits the Greek opening of the life of the man the meeting is about. It runs mother, father, descent, the mocked cognomen, and ends on the Sicilian quaestorship, which is exactly where thread 2 starts.
Plut. Cic. 4 (§§4.1–4.5) · Perseus ↗
Plutarch's account of the same Athens–Asia–Rhodes journey as Brut. 314–316, with the same teachers named. Reading them together is a cheap and exact lesson in what a later biographer adds, drops and dramatises — and it gives the meeting its one moment where a Greek says out loud what a Roman's Greek education cost Greece.
Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.3 · Perseus ↗
Mur. 17 gives the novus homo argument made on someone else's behalf and Verr. 2.5.180 gives it as a complaint. Neither has Cicero making the claim about his own election, and De Lege Agraria is a whole speech nobody searched. This is the passage where the career the meeting is orienting to reaches its end point, and it argues from a comparative record of earlier novi homines rather than from sentiment.
Cic. Arch. 1 · Perseus ↗
Pro Archia is named in the index brief and nobody proposed a line of it. Its opening is the most widely taught first-person passage in the whole Ciceronian corpus and it does something no selected passage does: it makes Cicero's advocacy a debt to be repaid to a teacher, which is the same logic of obligation that Div. Caec. 2, 4 and 63 apply to a province.
Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.7 · Perseus ↗
The meeting reads a great deal about a governor who plundered his province and nothing about what a governor was supposed to be. The letters to Quintus are in the index and nobody searched them. This is Cicero writing to his own brother, mid-command, and grounding the whole of provincial administration in the governor's control of himself — the standard against which every charge in the Verrines is measured.
Sall. Cat. 23 · Perseus ↗
Sallust is in the index with two complete monographs and nobody searched him. Every Latin statement in the selection about what the nobility thought of a self-made advocate is made by Cicero himself. This is a near-contemporary and unsympathetic writer saying the same thing from the other side, in one sentence, and it lets the students test a first-person claim against an outside source before they are asked to trust Div. Caec. 1.
Cic. Att. 1.1.1 · Perseus ↗
The correspondence is represented by exactly one section. Att. 1.2.1 was chosen for the register contrast, and it earns that, but it does no prosopographical work. This is the first letter of the collection, and it does the thing thread 2 asks for better than anything else in the corpus: it introduces six named men in a single paragraph, each with a one-clause characterisation.
Cic. Verr. 2.2.1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The opening of the Sicilian book, and the shortest statement Cicero ever makes of why he took the case and what he understood himself to have taken on. It stands directly behind Div. Caec. 11 and lets the students see the same commitment restated after the divinatio was won.
Cic. Imp. Pomp. 2 · Perseus ↗
Immediately follows the exordium above and supplies a hard career datum the selection lacks: the praetorian election returned him at the head of the poll in every century, three times over. Verr. 1.19 was chosen for the election verb transferred to a verdict; this is the same verb in its literal setting.
Cic. Off. 2.49 · Perseus ↗
Off. 2.50 and 2.51 were both taken, but 2.49 is the section they depend on: it is where Cicero states that prosecution is one of the two recognised routes by which a young man makes his name, and names the earlier orators who took it. It converts the Divinatio's self-justification from a personal plea into a precedent list.

2Fri 2026-09-11

Orientation II — late-republican court procedure, and the legal register at corpus scale定向二：共和晚期法庭程序，与语料库规模的法律词汇

How a repetundae trial works, stage by stage, in Latin texts; legal terms and legalistic expressions across the Ciceronian corpus, with distributions and denominators.

build项目Greenidge: the criminal trial beside the civil paradigmGreenidge：刑事审判与民事范式对读

build项目The trial as a flow — every stage with its Latin records审判流程：每个阶段及其拉丁记录

build项目The legal terms — four-language glossary, attested in the Divinatio法律术语：四语术语表，预审篇中的实证

build项目Stage 4 · the divinatio itself第 4 阶段：预审本身

The stages of a quaestio de repetundis named in Latin
The register words: actor, accusator, subscriptor, patronus, defensor, praevaricatio, delatio, reiectio, comperendinatio
Statute and procedural language outside the speeches
Div. Caec. 10, the two-prong test, read in Latin

Latin dossier · 122 loci, each with its Perseus text拉丁文档 · 122 处出处，各附 Perseus 原文

Cic. Brut. 106 · Perseus ↗
Before any stage can be named, the class needs to know that the standing court is a datable Roman invention. Cicero dates the birth of the quaestiones perpetuae to Piso's repetundae law and pairs it in the same breath with the introduction of the ballot.
Cic. Div. Caec. 10 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
This is the thread's anchor: the whole divinatio is decided by a two-limb test that Cicero states once, in a single sentence, and then argues in that order for sixty sections. The TEI apparatus on this very section records minime (πZG1) against maxime (DΥ) — the polarity of the second limb is itself a manuscript variant, so students meet the test and its textual crux together.
Quint. Inst. 7.4.33 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian names the proceeding as a recognised class of iudicia and then paraphrases Cicero's own divisio from Div. Caec. 10. Reading the two side by side shows a student what the rhetorical tradition made of the very speech in front of them.
Gell. NA 2.4 · Perseus ↗
A whole short chapter devoted to defining divinatio as a stage of procedure and to arguing about why it carries that name. It is the closest thing the corpus has to a lexicon entry on the word, and it is easy Latin.
Cic. Div. Caec. 64 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
A divinatio from living memory described in procedural language: nuper cum in P. Gabinium … L. Piso delationem nominis postularet, et contra Q. Caecilius peteret. Two verbs, postulare and petere, for the two sides of the same contest, and the winning ground was again patronage of a province (Achaei patronum adoptarant).
Cic. Div. Caec. 49 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The prosecution is a team, and this section names its parts: subscriptores, primae partes in dicendo, and the grex moratorum qui subscriptionem sibi postularunt cuicumque vos delationem dedissetis. It is the single best sentence in the speech on how a prosecuting side was assembled.
Cic. Fam. 8.6.1 (Caelius to Cicero) · Perseus ↗
Caelius dates a domestic event by the interval between two procedural acts, which proves they were distinct and publicly datable moments. A letter, not a speech: the same technical vocabulary in ordinary correspondence.
Cic. Verr. 2.2.94 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The opening stage of a prosecution dramatised rather than described, and the Perseus text carries the edict in capitals: si qvis absentem Sthenivm rei capitalis revm facere vellet, sese eivs nomen receptvrvum. Then Pacilius steps forward, itaque defertur, and a date is fixed.
Cic. Inv. 2.58 · Perseus ↗
The handbook describes a case in which the charge as laid and the charge as subscribed diverge, and the whole defence turns on that gap. It shows the technical terms operating as a system rather than as isolated words.
Cic. Verr. 1.16 (act. pr.) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The empanelling stage in three clauses: usque ad eum finem dum iudices reiecti sunt … posteaquam reiectio iudicum facta est … et in sortitione … et in reiciendis iudicibus. It also dates the collapse of the bribery contract to that moment, so the procedure and the politics are inseparable in the sentence.
Cic. Att. 1.16.3 · Perseus ↗
The reiectio described as it looked in the room, with both sides striking for opposite reasons and the resulting panel described physically. Pairs with Verr. 1.1.16 to move from the term to the practice.
Cic. Verr. 2.2.77 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Gives the number: under the Cornelian laws a litigant outside the senatorial order may reject only three jurors. A concrete statutory limit students can hold on to, embedded in an argument about who is fit to judge.
Cic. Planc. 36 · Perseus ↗
Sets the ordinary regime against an exceptional one: the lex Licinia de sodaliciis let the accuser nominate the tribes, whereas the ambitus law kept alternate rejection. The contrast is what makes reiectio legible as a designed mechanism.
Cic. Planc. 41 · Perseus ↗
The arithmetic of jury selection stated in numerals: out of 125 nominated equestrian jurors the defendant struck 75 and kept 50. Nothing else in the corpus lets students count the panel this exactly.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.158 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Names the officer who actually ran the panel and the supplementary drawing by which he could be manipulated. It is the only passage on this thread that gives the court a named subordinate president and a technical verb for topping up a jury.
Cic. Q. fr. 2.1.2 · Perseus ↗
A senatorial motion reported in indirect discourse that makes the drawing of jurors a scheduling instrument in a political fight. Shows who physically performs the sortitio, and that it could be legislated around.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.26 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The most important procedural passage outside the Divinatio itself: comperendinatio defined (quod habet lex in se molestissimum, bis ut causa dicatur), attributed to Glaucia, contrasted with the older regime under the lex Acilia (antea vel iudicari primo poterat vel amplius pronuntiari), and set against ampliatio.
Cic. Verr. 1.34 (act. pr.) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Two litigation strategies in one balanced sentence: tua ratio est ut secundum binos ludos mihi respondere incipias, mea ut ante primos ludos comperendinem. This is the clearest statement anywhere of what comperendinatio meant tactically to each side.
Cic. Scaur. 29 · Perseus ↗
A hostile description of an opponent's handling of the same two stages, and the only place in the corpus that puts comperendinare and prima actio in adjacent clauses. Good for showing the stage names used as reproach.
Plin. Ep. 6.2.6 · Perseus ↗
Pliny sets the older statutory allowances against the water-clocks of his own day in one sentence, with a tricolon of time-units. It is short, memorable, and makes the point that comperendinatio was a grant of time, not a delay.
Cic. Cluent. 116 · Perseus ↗
The fullest statement anywhere in the corpus of what the assessment of damages is and is not. Cicero argues from repeated practice that it does not bind as a verdict, which forces students to see it as a distinct post-conviction stage.
Cic. Rab. Post. 9 · Perseus ↗
Cicero lists his own four roles in repetundae proceedings in four words, then states the rule about who could be named at the assessment and on what evidence. A single section that gives the officers and one stage's evidentiary rule together.
Cic. Rab. Post. 8 · Perseus ↗
Shows the assessment as a step that produces enforceable consequences — sureties, sale of goods, and a further action under the lex Iulia against third parties. It is the clearest text on what a litis aestimatio was for.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.96 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Perseus text preserves the heading of a document read into the record. Students see a court-document rubric in its own register, unlike anything in the surrounding oratory, and it is the archival face of the litis aestimatio.
Cic. Clu. 55 · Perseus ↗
A second quaestio described in the same technical vocabulary, which is what makes the register visible as a register rather than a Verrine idiosyncrasy: cum in consilium iri oporteret, quaesivit ab reo C. Iunius quaesitor ex lege illa Cornelia … clam an palam de se sententiam ferri vellet … prima actione condemnatus est.
Cic. Part. or. 126 · Perseus ↗
The continuation gives the defence's three arguments from the word itself: praevaricator is the opposite term to accusator, the ballot letter handed to the juror concerns the accuser, and the name pictures a man planted straddling both sides. The etymology and the procedural detail arrive together.
Plin. HN 18.19 · Perseus ↗
Pliny derives the forensic charge from ploughing a crooked furrow, in two sentences at the end of a long agricultural section. It is the concrete counterpart to Cicero's abstract definition, and shows the legal register borrowing from the field. Note the section is long (about 340 words); the payoff is at its end.
Cic. Part. or. 110 · Perseus ↗
Cicero stops mid-precept to say what he means by his own term: he is using accusator to cover every actor and petitor, because the same kinds of dispute arise where there is no accusation at all. It is the one place in the corpus where the cover-term relation among the three words is stated outright.
Cic. Part. or. 124 · Perseus ↗
A worked school example in which prosecution and defence advance rival definitions of praevaricatio over the same facts — the accuser wanting every corruption of a court by the defendant, the defender only corruption of the accuser. This is the meeting's legal register turned into an argument about what a word covers.
Gell. NA 2.4.1 · Perseus ↗
This is the only surviving ancient definition of the procedure the whole course is named after, and it is written from outside the courtroom, by an antiquarian who has to explain the term to readers who no longer meet it. Reading it first turns the title of Cicero's speech from a puzzle into a named stage of Roman practice.
Gell. NA 2.4.6 · Perseus ↗
The second explanation Gellius reports treats accusator and reus as paired terms neither of which can stand without the other, and says the divinatio exists because in this one kind of case the defendant already exists and the accuser does not yet. A definition of accusator by correlation rather than by description.
Gell. NA 5.13.4 · Perseus ↗
Gellius quotes Cato's censorial speech on the ranking of obligations, where patronus stands next after patrem and the duty runs toward a cliens. It is the other patronus, and setting it beside the courtroom sense keeps students from collapsing the two.
Gell. NA 6.3.13 · Perseus ↗
Tiro's criticism of Cato defines patroni by what they do in an opening: those who speak on behalf of defendants and must soften the jurors rather than threaten them. Gellius reports it as a rule about the role, and 6.3.17 then contrasts Cato speaking as a consular adviser and not as a patronus pleading.
Quint. Inst. 12.1.24 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian asks whether the name of orator can be granted to a traitor, a deserter and a praevaricator, and then measures even ordinary patroni against the same standard of good faith. The praevaricator is defined here by the fidelity he lacks.
Quint. Inst. 4.1.46 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian makes the speaker's first decision the choice between the persona of the litigator and that of the advocatus, and notes that in the schools either is free while in the forum it is rare for a man to be an adequate defensor of his own affair. The register distinction is here a practical choice about who is speaking.
Quint. Inst. 3.10.3 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian classes the divinatio, held de accusatore constituendo, under the comparative kind of case, alongside contests among delatores over who has earned a reward. The set text is given a place in the taxonomy of causes.
Quint. Inst. 12.7.1 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian's rule on taking cases: the good man prefers to defend, but must not shrink from the name of prosecutor when a public or private duty calls, because statutes are worth nothing unless someone with an adequate voice enforces them. That last clause is the strongest ancient formulation of why prosecution exists at all.
Cic. Div. Caec. 11 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Sicilians' choice is set out in four accusative phrases in a row, naming Cicero defensor of their disasters, ultor of their wrongs, cognitor of their right and actor of the whole case. The register vocabulary of the speech is assembled in a single period.
Cic. Div. Caec. 48 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Within a few lines Cicero uses actor of the man appointed to conduct the prosecution and actores of Greek stage players who take second and third parts and hold back so that the lead may shine. The two senses of the word stand next to each other in the same argument.
Cic. Div. Caec. 47 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Caecilius is said to arrive with trained and fluent subscriptores, against which Cicero sets the principle that the man who is princeps in agendo must himself be the best equipped, and then sizes up L. Appuleius as the proximus subscriptor. The hierarchy inside a prosecution is named.
Cic. Div. Caec. 50 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero objects to having a subscriptor added to him from the general public rather than from the men he brought himself, and quotes the opposing proposal that he be given a custos. The role is defined by what its holder is for.
Cic. Div. Caec. 70 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero quotes the objection that he wants to be thought an accusator after a career of defending, and answers that both accusing the wicked and defending the wretched belong to his age and office. The two role-names are held up side by side as choices a man makes.
Cic. Div. Caec. 24 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The mechanics of the vote, said out loud because Cicero is accusing Hortensius of planning to subvert them: non enim singulos ferre sententias, sed universos constituere; ceratam uni cuique tabellam dari cera legitima, non illa infami ac nefaria.
Cic. Verr. 2.2.22 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Naevius Turpio is introduced as the worst of the quadruplatores of that district and a man already condemned for iniuriae, and the praetor is said to have been looking for a calumniator. Two neighbouring terms of abuse for a paid accuser appear in one portrait.
Liv. 3.72.5 · Perseus ↗
In the Aricia and Ardea boundary dispute the Roman people is said to be about to take on the persona of a quadruplator and of an interceptor litis alienae. The apposition supplies a gloss of the word from within the sentence.
Cic. Quinct. 45 · Perseus ↗
Cicero asks Hortensius whether they can take up the persona of a petitor and lay down that of an accusator, and so argue about money without a man's civil standing at stake. The difference between a civil claim and a criminal charge is put as a difference between two role-names.
Cic. Q. Rosc. 53 · Perseus ↗
Cicero asks outright what difference there is between the man who litigates on his own behalf and the man appointed cognitor, and answers that whoever contests the suit in person claims for himself alone while claiming for another belongs only to a cognitor. A definition given as a question and an answer.
Cic. Caecin. 5 · Perseus ↗
Cicero says he would profess himself an adequate defensor because he could supply fides and diligentia, and then calls those the qualities required in an actor causae. The two terms are used of the same man in consecutive clauses.
Cic. Cluent. 58 · Perseus ↗
Caepasius adds fresh wounds to his own client's case until at moments he seems not to be defending but to be colluding. The narrative sets defendere against praevaricari as the two things the same speech might be doing.
Cic. Cluent. 110 · Perseus ↗
Cicero asks who had ever seen Quinctius in the place of a patronus, or even of a rather respectable advocatus. The two words are ranked in a single clause, with advocatus the lower and more crowded position.
Cic. Flac. 21 · Perseus ↗
Cicero recalls the old order of a trial: the accusator had spoken sharply, the defensor had answered in a lowered manner, and then came the third expected place, that of the witnesses. Three stages of a repetundae hearing are named in one sentence, each by the register word for the person who fills it.
Cic. Off. 2.51 · Perseus ↗
The rule against prosecuting an innocent man on a capital charge, followed by the asymmetric permission to defend a guilty one, and closed by the sentence that separates the judge's duty from the advocate's. It is the clearest statement in Cicero of why prosecution and defence are not mirror images.
Cic. Fam. 8.8.1 (Caelius) · Perseus ↗
Caelius reports that Sempronius Rufus prosecuted his own accusator and went down to the courts sine ullo subscriptore. The vocabulary of the Divinatio appears in a working letter, without explanation, as ordinary professional shorthand.
Gell. NA 10.20.2 · Perseus ↗
A jurist's formal definition of what a statute is, quoted verbatim by Gellius and then tested against real late-republican measures (the Pompeian command, Cicero's recall, the Clodius trial) which turn out to fail it. It gives the class a working distinction between four words the speeches use interchangeably.
Gell. NA 20.1.4 · Perseus ↗
The opening move of the set debate between a jurist and a philosopher over the style of the Twelve Tables: praised for compressed exactness on one side, charged on the other with being obscure, harsh, over-lenient, and in places unworkable as written. It is the single best passage in the corpus for asking what register statutory Latin actually has.
Gell. NA 20.1.13 · Perseus ↗
The Veratius anecdote: a statutory fixed penalty becomes so cheap that a rich bully pays it for sport, and the praetors respond not by amending the statute but by announcing in their edict that they will appoint assessors instead. In four sentences the class sees statute and edict as two different instruments operating on the same problem.
Gell. NA 20.1.45 · Perseus ↗
A continuous stretch of the Twelve Tables quoted as text, on the enforcement of an admitted debt. This is the archaic legal register itself rather than a description of it, and it is short enough to construe in class line by line.
Gell. NA 20.10.9 · Perseus ↗
Gellius explains a phrase still said in front of the praetor in his own day by tracing what the parties originally had to do, and then how, once Italy grew too large for the praetor to travel, litigants began doing something else entirely — carrying a clod of earth into the city to stand for the farm. The chapter also opens with a grammarian refusing the question on the ground that he teaches language, not law.
Gell. NA 17.7.1 · Perseus ↗
The words of an old statute on theft are quoted, and the following sections show three named jurists disagreeing about whether one verb form in it covers past thefts as well as future ones. This is legal interpretation reduced to a point of tense, and it is exactly the level at which a Latin class can join in.
Gell. NA 14.2.1 · Perseus ↗
Gellius is empanelled as a judge in private suits and describes what he had to learn: the technical vocabulary of adjournment and postponement, the statute governing the courts, and the jurists' commentaries he read to get it. The rest of the chapter is a real case in which the technical rules of proof and the character of the parties pull in opposite directions.
Gell. NA 16.10.8 · Perseus ↗
A single sentence listing the legal words that had already died — census classes, sureties and back-sureties, the fixed penalty, retaliation, the ritualised search for stolen goods — and naming the statute that put the old procedure to sleep. For a meeting about legal vocabulary at corpus scale, this is a Roman doing the same exercise on his own corpus.
Gell. NA 1.22.6 · Perseus ↗
A courtroom scene turning on the difference between two verbs an advocate might use of himself. The advocate uses the wrong one, the praetor tells him he is not an advocate at all, and when the man protests the praetor turns the word back on him. It is brief, funny, and makes the point about technical register better than any definition.
Gell. NA 10.15.31 · Perseus ↗
One sentence of a praetor's standing edict, quoted as text. The index has very little edictal Latin, and this is the cleanest specimen of it: the magistrate speaking in his own voice about the scope of his jurisdiction.
Cic. Off. 2.50 · Perseus ↗
Cicero lays down when a man may properly prosecute — for the commonwealth, in revenge for a wrong to his own, or as patron of a community — and among his examples he names his own appearance for the Sicilians. The Divinatio's central claim is here restated, years later, as an ethical rule.
Cic. Off. 1.33 · Perseus ↗
The passage on wrongs produced by over-clever but malicious construction of the law, where the proverb about the highest law being the highest wrong is said to have come from, followed by two cases of arbitrators exploiting the letter of an agreement. It supplies the vocabulary of vexatious and collusive litigation the Divinatio needs.
Cic. Off. 2.65 · Perseus ↗
Cicero on giving legal advice as a form of public service, and on the collapse in his own day of the standing that the knowledge and interpretation of the civil law used to carry. It places the jurist beside the advocate as the other professional in the courtroom world.
Cic. Off. 3.61 · Perseus ↗
A philosophical argument built entirely out of quoted formulary Latin: Cicero cites the words added to actions on good faith, to the action on a wife's property, and to fiduciary transactions, and reasons from those words. The Latin the students meet here is the actual wording of the praetor's formulae, embedded in prose they can also read.
Cic. Off. 3.71 · Perseus ↗
The closing move of that stretch: liability in the sale of slaves for defects, ill health, running away and theft rests not on statute but on the aediles' edict. It is one of the very few places outside the speeches where an edict is cited by name as the source of a rule.
Cic. Top. 28 · Perseus ↗
Cicero, writing for the jurist Trebatius, gives the civil law by enumerating its parts: statutes, senatorial decrees, decided cases, the authority of the jurists, magistrates' edicts, custom and equity. If the meeting needs one sentence that sets statute, edict and juristic opinion side by side as sources, this is it.
Cic. Top. 66 · Perseus ↗
The same formulary tags reappear here addressed to a jurist, with the list of relationships the jurists worked out under them — partner to partner, agent to principal, husband to wife. Read against De Officiis 3.61 it shows one writer using identical technical Latin in two different books for two different purposes.
Cic. Top. 51 · Perseus ↗
Cicero quotes the jurist Aquilius Gallus brushing away a question about what happened as no business of law but a matter for Cicero. It is the sharpest ancient statement of the division of labour between the man who knows the law and the man who argues the facts.
Cic. Top. 96 · Perseus ↗
Three and only three ways a written text can generate a dispute: it is ambiguous, its wording pulls against its intention, or another text contradicts it — and Cicero adds that the same three apply to wills, stipulations and anything else in writing. It is the compact Ciceronian version of what Quintilian spreads over several chapters.
Cic. Rep. 3.33 (Lactant. Div. inst. 6.8.6) · Perseus ↗
Because De Legibus is not in the index at all, this is the substitute that does the same work: Cicero describing natural law entirely in the technical verbs of Roman legislation — commanding, forbidding, amending, partially repealing, wholly repealing, exempting, and the roles of proposer and interpreter. The philosophical point is carried by the vocabulary of the statute book.
Cic. Fam. 7.11.1 · Perseus ↗
Cicero teasing the jurist Trebatius in the jurist's own dialect: a joke about there being no work for a legal expert during an interregnum, built on the technical designation of the party sued and on the term for asking the court for time. He then asks whether he has learned his civil law well enough. Four lines, and the register does all the work.
Quint. Inst. 12.7.3 · Perseus ↗
The line between the professional informer, whose trade is next door to brigandage, and the distinguished young man whose first prosecution stands as a pledge of good faith to the state. This is the exact distinction Cicero has to draw about himself in the Divinatio, stated as a general principle a century and a half later.
Quint. Inst. 7.5.5 · Perseus ↗
One sentence sorting every statute into six operations — it grants, it takes away, it punishes, it commands, it forbids, it permits — and then splits the possible disputes into those about the wording and those about the intention. It is the most teachable single line on statute in the index and worth memorising.
Cic. Div. Caec. 22 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The hinge into limb two, and it quotes §10 back almost word for word (a quo Verres minime se accusari velit). Read straight after §10 the class can match the two sentences on the page; it also repeats delatio detur, the technical phrase for what is at stake.
Cic. Div. Caec. 65 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The statutory principle behind limb one, stated as a rule rather than a plea: cum lex ipsa de pecuniis repetundis sociorum atque amicorum populi Romani patrona sit. It closes the argument opened at §11 and is the passage to set beside §10 when asking what the test is for.
Cic. Div. Caec. 73 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The final section: the actual thing the jurors are being asked to do, in four ablatives of respect (fide, diligentia, consilio, auctoritate). Short enough to read entire at the end of the hour and it names the procedural act — deligere — that the whole speech exists to influence.
Cic. Div. Caec. 29 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The substance of limb two: accusatorem firmum verumque esse oportet, followed by falsi accusatoris signa. This is where the class meets the idea later called praevaricatio — and the word praevaric- never occurs in this speech (searched), which is a fact worth putting in front of them.
Cic. Div. Caec. 32 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The disqualification in one clause: eras enim tu quaestor, pecuniam publicam tu tractabas. It shows how the office a man held becomes a bar to prosecuting his own governor, which is exactly the institutional point the meeting needs.
Cic. Div. Caec. 34 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
An institutional detail easy to miss: si tibi indicium postulas dari quod tecum una fecerit, concedo, si id lege permittitur. Cicero distinguishes turning informer under the statute from being awarded the prosecution — two different procedural things a shared accomplice might want.
Gell. NA 2.4.5 · Perseus ↗
Gellius' report of why the thing is called a divining: in other cases the juror follows what argumenta and testes have shown, but here parva admodum et exilia sunt quibus moveri iudex possit. That is precisely the evidentiary problem Cicero solves by offering the two-limb test.
Quint. Inst. 5.13.18 · Perseus ↗
One sentence in which Quintilian summarises the entire speech as a technique: petit accusationem in Verrem Q. Caecilius, quod fuerat quaestor eius; ipsum Cicero ut pro se videretur effecit. It gives the class an ancient rhetorician's reading of what Cicero did with limb two.
Cic. Verr. 1.6 (act. pr.) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The first stage after the divinatio: the accuser applies for a period of inquisitio, and the defence plants a rival prosecutor who asks for Achaea with a period two days shorter, purely to occupy the calendar. The whole abuse is visible in the Latin.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.30 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The same manoeuvre restated with the statutory numbers: cum ego mihi c et x dies solos in Siciliam postulassem, c et VIII sibi in Achaiam postularet, and the loss quantified — mensis mihi tris … eripuissetis ad agendum maxime adpositos. Read beside 1.6 it shows Cicero using two different figures for two different purposes.
Cic. Verr. 1.30 (act. pr.) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Why the calendar matters is spelled out juror by juror: tribunes of the plebs, a man entering office on the Nones of December, three tribuni militares designati — ex Kalendis Ianuariis non iudicabunt — and then subsortiemur etiam in M. Metelli locum. The composition of the panel is a function of the magisterial year.
Cic. Verr. 1.55 (act. pr.) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The procedural innovation stated as a departure from normal practice: in illa tum cum omnia dicta sunt testes dantur, hic in singulas res dabuntur — witnesses attached to each charge rather than heard after a continuous speech, with the same right of interrogation preserved for the other side.
Cic. Verr. 1.56 (act. pr.) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Sixty-four words that state the charge formally — haec primae actionis erit accusatio — put a figure on it (quadringentiens sestertium), list the evidence types, and close on the single word dixi. It is the whole first hearing reduced to a formula and worth reading entire.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.20 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The first hearing narrated day by day from the far side of the adjournment: una hora … primo die testium tanto numero citato … alter dies … tertius dies … reliquis diebus … his ludorum diebus interpositis. A whole actio as a sequence of days, in one period.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.25 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The speaking clock as a right: ne quam ego horam de meis legitimis horis remittam, and then the argument that the time was given for the accuser's benefit, so declining to use it takes nothing from the defence. Procedure argued as a matter of whose interest a rule serves.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.31 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The bribery contract had a date in it: cum ita caverent, si post Kalendas Ianuarias in consilium iretur. The calendar is not background to the corruption, it is a term of the corrupt bargain, written into a cautio.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.51 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Procedure used as circumstantial evidence: Verres kept his stolen statues on display quam diu alium praetorem cum iis iudicibus quos in horum locum subsortitus esses de te in consilium iturum putasti, and cleared the house posteaquam nostris testibus nos quam horis tuis uti malle vidisti. The defendant's furniture tracks the litigation calendar.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.34 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Fifty-two words containing the phrase reus, et reus lege comperendinatus — the adjournment as a status a man carries, defined by the statute. Short enough to use as a vocabulary card and vivid enough to remember.
Cic. Clu. 148 · Perseus ↗
Cicero reads a statute aloud, clause by clause, and the recita is in the text. Students meet real statutory Latin — iubet lex … quaerere de veneno … deque eius capite quaerito … qui venenum malum fecit, fecerit … qui eorum coiit, coierit — and Cicero's argument turns entirely on where the relative clause is attached.
Cic. Brut. 87 · Perseus ↗
The only occurrence of comperendinatus in the Ciceronian corpus outside the Verrines (searched): unum quasi comperendinatus medium diem fuisse, of the day Galba spent preparing after the publicani brought their case. The quasi marks the transfer, so the class can see a technical term being borrowed.
Sall. Cat. 18 · Perseus ↗
A repetundae prosecution colliding with the electoral calendar, from a non-Ciceronian pen: Catilina pecuniarum repetundarum reus prohibitus erat consulatum petere, quod intra legitumos dies profiteri nequiverat. It is the general case of what Verr. 1.25-31 shows in detail.
Cic. Div. Caec. 1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Fifteen sections of this speech survived review and its opening is not among them. The first sentence is where Cicero raises the objection to his own standing — years of defending, no prosecutions, now a sudden change — and promises to answer it. The two-prong test at 10 and the boasts compared at 65 are the working-out of a problem posed here, and the class cannot see the argument's shape without its first move.
Quint. Inst. 7 4.1.49 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian paraphrases the opening of the Divinatio almost word for word, reports how Cicero converted the objection into a claim (that prosecuting Verres simply is defending the allies), and files the manoeuvre under a named Greek figure. The panel already took 4.1.46 from this same chapter; this is the section where Quintilian is actually reading the set text, and the manuscript apparatus of Div. Caec. 1 itself points the reader here.
Cic. Verr. 1.1.2 (actio prima) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Six passages from the first action were selected and none of them says what the trial is for. Here Cicero names the defendant as brought into court, calls himself by the lead-prosecutor word the register thread is built on, and states the political stake — the standing of the senatorial order and the reputation of the courts. The rejection of jurors, the lot, the bought verdict and the calendar tricks are all moves in the contest this section defines.
Cic. Brut. 319 · Perseus ↗
The panel took Brutus 106 for the founding of the standing courts and Brutus 87 for one technical verb, but not the place where Cicero describes the Verres case as an episode in his own career. He calls the prosecution an act of patronage of Sicily, not an accusation, and dates it by the two men's elections. It supplies in three lines the biographical frame the whole meeting otherwise lacks.
Plut. Cic. 7.6 · Perseus ↗
Three passages were chosen for the assessment of damages (Cluent. 116, Rab. Post. 8-9, Verr. 2.1.96), all of them arguing about what that stage is and whether it counts as a trial. Plutarch reports what it looked like when it sat in this very case: Hortensius would not speak for Verres in the main hearing but was persuaded to appear at the assessment, and took a fee. Nobody searched Plutarch at all.
Plut. Cic. 8.1 · Perseus ↗
The one surviving figure for what the Verres assessment came to, and the report that Cicero was accused of having set it low for money. The meeting teaches the assessment stage from three Ciceronian passages in which Cicero is the prosecutor complaining about other men's assessments; this is the outside witness saying the same suspicion attached to his own.
Liv. 43.2.3 (171 BC) · Perseus ↗
Livy is in the index with 20,469 units and exactly one passage was taken from him. This is the earliest narrated proceeding of the kind the whole meeting is about: provincial delegations complain of extortion, the senate orders the praetor to give them a panel of five recoverers drawn from the senate, and lets them choose their own patrons. Every institution the class meets in the Divinatio — the injured province, the assigned officer, the patron chosen rather than imposed — is here in embryo, seventy years before the founding recorded at Brut. 106.
Liv. 43.2.6 · Perseus ↗
Verr. 2.1.26 was chosen because it says what the older regime allowed before the two-hearing rule: a verdict at once, or a renewal of the hearing. No passage in the whole set shows that older option actually being used. Here it is used twice on one defendant, in three words, and the outcome is recorded. It is the only narrative instance of the practice in the selected corpus and it makes Cicero's statute-history intelligible instead of merely asserted.
Sall. Iug. 40 · Perseus ↗
Sallust is represented by one passage about a candidate's timetable. This is the passage where a court is created: a tribune promulgates a bill defining who is to be investigated and for what, three presidents are elected under it, and Sallust judges how it was run. Set against Brut. 106, which the panel chose for the founding of the standing courts, it gives the class the other Roman way of making a court, and the vocabulary of the bill that makes one.
Cic. Mur. 25 · Perseus ↗
Nobody searched Pro Murena, and the meeting's second purpose is the legal register at corpus scale. This is Cicero's account of why the register looks the way it does: knowledge of which days one could go to law was held by a few, a clerk published the calendar, and the specialists answered by composing set forms of words so that they would still be needed. It is the historical claim that the whole lexicon thread presupposes and never states.
Cic. Mur. 26 · Perseus ↗
The style strand has four members and none of them is Cicero. Here he quotes the old set forms of a property claim and the presiding magistrate's own scripted words, then mocks them line by line — the one place in the corpus where a great practitioner reproduces the register verbatim in order to show what is absurd about it. Its manuscript apparatus cites Gell. NA 20.10, already selected: the class can read the ritual formula in Cicero's parody and Gellius's antiquarian explanation of the same words side by side.
Cic. Vat. 1 · Perseus ↗
The examination of witnesses is a stage of the trial with no representation in the entire set, though Verr. 1.1.55-56 announces that Cicero will restructure the case around it. The index holds the only surviving specimen of the thing itself — a whole speech that is an interrogation of a witness — and nobody searched it. The opening states the two things a speaker may do with a witness and why this one gets neither treatment.
Cic. Vat. 3 · Perseus ↗
Five passages were chosen for the collusive-prosecutor word (Part. or. 124 and 126, Cluent. 58, Quint. 12.1.24, Plin. HN 18.19) and every one of them is a definition, an etymology or a theorist's classification. This is the word used as a live accusation in court, against a man in the room, alongside the charge that he had equipped and put up the prosecutors himself. It is also the register of catching a witness in a lie under oath.
Cic. Luc. 146 · Perseus ↗
Thread 3 asks for legal language outside the speeches and was answered from Gellius, De Officiis and the Topica only. This is the single richest sentence of courtroom formula in the philosophical corpus, and it comes from an argument about knowledge, not about law: the form of words in which a Roman swore, the qualification a witness was required to attach to his own testimony, and the form in which sworn jurors were made to deliver a finding. Nobody searched the Academica.
Cic. De Or. 1.212 · Perseus ↗
De Oratore is 862 units, the largest Ciceronian treatment of law and speaking, and not one passage was proposed from it. This is Cicero's formal definition of the legal expert, built out of three infinitives naming the three things such a man does, with three named practitioners as instances. Off. 2.65 was chosen for two of those activities; this gives the full set and gives it as a definition, which is what thread 3 asked for.
Cic. De Or. 1.180 · Perseus ↗
Top. 96 was chosen for the standing question whether the words or the intention should prevail, stated abstractly. This is the case that made the question famous, described by one of the two advocates who argued it: the jurist arguing from what the document says, Crassus arguing from what the man who made it meant. Nobody proposed a passage in which the letter-and-intention problem is an actual contest with named sides.
Cic. Cluent. 146 · Perseus ↗
The meeting names officers — presiding praetor, president of the court, jurors, prosecutor, subscriber — from a dozen scattered passages, and never from a passage that says what the officers are for. This is the sentence that defines magistrates and judges by their relation to the statute, one as its servants, the other as its interpreters. It is also the climax of the one argument in the corpus about whether a statute reaches a defendant of the wrong rank, which is a procedural question the set never raises.
Cic. Cluent. 106 · Perseus ↗
The set covers the ballot (Div. Caec. 24 on the regulated wax, Part. or. 126 on the letter handed to the juror, Cluent. 55 on open or secret voting) but never mentions that a Roman juror had three options, not two. Here Cicero sorts one jury into those who convicted, those who acquitted and those who declared the case not clear to them, and praises the third group as the wisest. Without this the class will assume a two-way verdict and misread the whole ballot material.
Gell. NA 14.2.25 · Perseus ↗
Gell. NA 14.2.1 was chosen for a sitting judge's working vocabulary, and the chapter was then abandoned at its first section. Its close is the payoff: Gellius, unable to convict on character alone and unwilling to acquit, swears the third verdict and is thereby discharged from the case. It is the only first-person account in the whole set of a Roman deciding a case from the bench, and it completes a chapter the panel already selected.
Gell. NA 14.2.26 · Perseus ↗
The syntax strand has six members, and the single passage of pre-Ciceronian legal Latin among them is Gell. NA 20.1.45. This section quotes an early second-century BC speech verbatim on the rule of decision when neither side has documents or witnesses: chained conditionals, archaic morphology, and the standing phrase by which the defending party in a civil claim is designated — the same phrase Cicero parodies at Mur. 26. It gives the class an older stratum of the register to set against the statutory style.
Plin. Ep. 6.5.2 · Perseus ↗
Pliny is represented by one passage about the length of hearings. This one names, as powers granted to prosecutors by the extortion statute, exactly the two acts the panel selected separately from the Verrines — applying for days to gather evidence (Verr. 1.1.6) and serving notice on witnesses (Verr. 2.1.51) — and reports a senate debate about extending them to defendants. For a meeting billed as corpus-scale it is the strongest single demonstration that the register held its terms for a century and a half.
Plin. Ep. 3.9.6 · Perseus ↗
A whole province prosecuting its former governor, laying the charge against his associates by name at the same time and applying for an investigation into them — the shape of the Divinatio's case, narrated from the prosecutor's side by a man who did it. Pliny goes on to describe dividing the prosecution with a colleague and deciding in what order to take the defendants, which is what the ranking of lead speaker and subscribers at Div. Caec. 47-50 is for.
Cic. Part. or. 118 · Perseus ↗
The word the whole meeting is built on has a second technical sense — the judicial examination of slaves under torture — and no selected passage acknowledges it. Students who have learned the word as the name of a standing court will misread it everywhere it means an interrogation. This passage states the Roman rule about slaves and their own masters, names the two exceptions, and treats the results as a class of proof to be argued for or against. Part. or. 110, 124 and 126 were already taken; this is the same handbook on the evidence stage.
Tac. Dial. 19.5 · Perseus ↗
Tacitus is in the index and nobody searched him. The set makes much of allotted speaking time — the statutory hours of Verr. 2.1.25, the water-clocks and adjournments of Plin. Ep. 6.2.6 — without a passage that says the arrangement changed. Here the judges are described as men who decide by their own power rather than by law and who fix the time rather than receiving it, and who cut a speaker short. It is the far end of the same institutional line.
Tac. Dial. 20.1 · Perseus ↗
A later reader's verdict on the two Ciceronian texts this course reads most closely: who will sit through five books against Verres, or through the enormous volumes on the plea in bar and the formula. The style strand has no passage in which the legal register is judged from outside, and this one names the set texts while doing it.

3Tue 2026-09-15

Orientation III — the In Verrem corpus, the Divinatio, and prose rhythm定向三：《控维勒斯》文集、预审篇与散文节律

Rhetorical style and sentence construction in which the Divinatio stands for the whole In Verrem corpus; and what late antiquity took from this speech, including clausulae.

build项目The Verrines reader — Divinatio and the seven books, with the Peterson apparatus维勒斯弹劾辞读本：预审篇与七卷，附 Peterson 校勘

build项目The 26 manuscripts and the sigla concordance二十六种抄本与符号对照

build项目Wave Lab 04 · Contour Ribbons — the period as terrain波形实验室 04：轮廓带，句段作为地形

build项目Wave Lab 10 · Rhetorical Heatmap波形实验室 10：修辞热力图

Sentence architecture typical of the Verrines seen in the Divinatio
The passages later grammarians and rhetoricians quote from this speech
Clausula and prose rhythm: the loci Sacerdos/Probus, Diomedes and Pompeius cite
Div. Caec. 1-5 read in Latin

Latin dossier · 89 loci, each with its Perseus text拉丁文档 · 89 处出处，各附 Perseus 原文

Cic. Div. Caec. 1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The opening period, and the one section of this speech whose shape Quintilian actually reports back (Inst. 4.1.49). It is a single suspended sentence: a long conditional protasis carrying two balanced relative clauses, then the subject pronoun resumed and the apodosis released in two coordinated futures. Read first, before any theory, so the class hears the architecture before it is given a vocabulary for it.
Cic. Verr. 1.1.1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The exordium of the actio prima, set beside the Divinatio's. Both open a case about Verres, weeks apart, and both are built on the disgrace of the courts — but this one starts from the res, quod erat optandum maxime, where the Divinatio starts from the persona of the speaker. That contrast is the fastest way to show what a divinatio exordium has to do that an ordinary prosecution exordium does not.
Cic. Div. Caec. 11 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The clearest tetracolon in the speech: four members in anaphora, each an agent-noun governing a genitive, all in apposition to the same object. It is preceded in the same section by four asyndetic infinitives in indirect statement, so one section gives two accumulations of different kinds. Pair with Verr. act. pr. 2 and Verr. 2.5.118.
Cic. Div. Caec. 3 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
A four-member isocolon built entirely from abstract nouns, each with its own prepositional phrase, and the whole thing embedded in a long stretch of indirect speech reporting what the Sicilians said. Good for showing that the figure is structural, not ornamental: it survives being demoted into oratio obliqua. Pair with Verr. 2.1.9.
Cic. Div. Caec. 8 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The tightest antithesis in the speech: two groups set against each other in clauses of matching shape, then a three-member anaphora in which the third member varies the repeated word instead of repeating it exactly. Shows both the figure and the deliberate imperfection that keeps it from sounding mechanical. Pair with Verr. 2.1.9.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.9 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Verrine partner for both Div. Caec. 3 and Div. Caec. 8. It runs a fourfold antithesis of the not-X-but-Y type, then two parallel rhetorical questions, the second of which suspends a four-member series of temporal clauses with a three-noun series nested inside one member. Antithesis at word level and clause level in one section. Quintilian quotes this very sentence at 8.4.2 as his example of amplifying by substituting the stronger word.
Cic. Div. Caec. 7 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Two rhetorical questions in anaphora, the second opening into a tricolon of comparatives, and then a front-loaded pile of participles with the verb withheld to the last word and an antithesis in the final phrase. Three of the thread's four figures inside fifty-eight words. Pair with Verr. 2.5.179, whose participial series covers nearly the same ground in nearly the same words.
Cic. Div. Caec. 21 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Eight consecutive questions with nothing between them: four opening with one adverb, then four opening with a different interrogative. The clearest single specimen in the speech of how a question-barrage is organised, since the anaphoric word changes exactly where the line of attack changes. Pair with Verr. 2.5.179.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.179 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Verrine partner for Div. Caec. 7 and 21 at once. Repeated questions on the same verb, a four-member participial series inside one of them whose vocabulary all but repeats Div. Caec. 7, and then a four-member gerundive series carried as one long question. Puts beyond doubt that the barrage is the Verrines' habitual way of building a paragraph.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Verrine partner to Div. Caec. 38 and the opening of the art-theft book. A single negated statement suspends an inventory of provinces, towns, households, metals, stones and pictures, held open by repeated indefinite adjectives, and closes on an asyndetic tricolon of perfect subjunctives. It also opens with a three-way antithesis of what different parties call the same conduct.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.170 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Gavius climax and the most famous tricolon in Latin oratory: three clauses of rising gravity and then a fourth that refuses to complete the pattern, followed immediately by an admission that no word is adequate. The Verrine partner to Div. Caec. 57. Quintilian quotes it verbatim at 8.4.4 as his one example of amplification by degrees.
Cic. Div. Caec. 39 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The best suspended period in the speech. It begins with an asyndetic tricolon of gerundives, then stacks three conditional clauses — the third itself carrying a double antithesis of place-names — and holds the apodosis until all three have landed, closing on a four-member climax of coordinated infinitives. This is the passage to read aloud. Pair with Verr. 2.5.171; the compositional rule it obeys is stated by Cicero himself at De Or. 3.186.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.171 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Verrine partner to Div. Caec. 39, and the same architecture put to a different purpose. A stack of negated conditional phrases widens the imagined audience step by step from citizens to allies to animals to bare rock, all suspended before the apodosis; a second sentence then closes the movement. Immediately follows the Gavius climax, so the two Verrine specimens can be read continuously.
Cic. Div. Caec. 72 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
How the Divinatio lands. A triple anaphora on the same verb piles up what Cicero has at stake, then a paired conditional runs out to an antithesis between what was gathered piecemeal over a long time and what would be lost all at once. The penultimate section, so it also shows the speech's own approach to its close. Pair with Verr. 2.5.188.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.188 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The far end of the longest period in the Verrines: an apostrophe to the gods held open across roughly five sections finally resumes here with a plural pronoun and its main verbs, then puts two conditional clauses in front of a three-member close in which the same gerundive ending recurs three times. The Verrine partner to Div. Caec. 72, and the place where suspension and closing rhythm are visible in the same sentence. Worth reading with 2.5.184 open alongside, where the anaphora starts.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.184 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The head of the period that lands at 2.5.188: the anaphora of the second-person pronoun starts here and runs on through four more sections before any main verb arrives. Include it so the class can see where the suspension begins as well as where it ends; on its own it is also a clean specimen of three parallel members each expanded by a different relative clause.
Cic. De Or. 3.186 · Perseus ↗
Cicero's own statement of the rule the whole dossier illustrates: speech should be articulated into members, the members shaped, and the later members equal to the earlier or — better and more pleasing — longer. Read it after Div. Caec. 39 and Verr. 2.5.170 and the students will have found the rule before being told it. Note the URN edition here is perseus-lat1, not lat2.
Quint. Inst. 9.4.124 · Perseus ↗
The definition of the period, its members and its cut-off phrases, with the names Cicero used for it — and the illustrative example is a Verrine sentence, the one at Verr. 2.5.118 that is already in this dossier. Gives the class the working vocabulary for the units they are being asked to see, tied to a text they will have read.
Quint. Inst. 8.4.4 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian quotes the Gavius climax verbatim as his single example of amplification by degrees, and the next section explains why the fourth member cannot be capped. The pairing with Verr. 2.5.170 lets the class check its own reading against an ancient professional's, on the same words.
Quint. Inst. 4.1.49 · Perseus ↗
The keystone of the whole thread. Quintilian paraphrases Div. Caec. 1 almost word for word — qui per tot annos defenderit multos, laeserit neminem, ad accusandum Verrem descenderit — then says Cicero goes on to show hanc ipsam esse sociorum defensionem, which is Div. Caec. 5, and names the figure πρόλημψις. One rhetorician reading our exact anchor sections and labelling their move. Nearby 4.1.31 adds that the Verrine exordium is drawn ab opinione.
Quint. Inst. 9.2.17 · Perseus ↗
The second assigned locus. Quintilian names the speech by its ancient title (the speech against Q. Caecilius) and classes its opening move as one of five species of praesumptio, listing it first, ahead of examples from Pro Rabirio Postumo and others.
Quint. Inst. 9.2.59 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian quotes Div. Caec. 4 verbatim — dicebam habere eos actorem Q. Caecilium — as his example of ἠθοποιία applied to one's own past words. The apparatus criticus printed with Div. Caec. 4 in this edition cites Quint. ix. 2. 59 as a witness for the word order, so a second of the anchor sections turns out to be a school text and a manuscript witness at once.
Cic. Div. Caec. 4 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The source of the clause Quintilian quotes at 9.2.59, and again the apparatus names Quintilian 9.2.59 as a witness — here for the word order of two words, against the reading of one manuscript family. The section also carries the speech's central self-positioning: Cicero forced from advocacy into prosecution.
Quint. Inst. 11.1.20 · Perseus ↗
A fourth Quintilian citation of this speech, not in my brief but squarely on thread. Quintilian names the speech again and reports how Cicero handled the comparison of speaking ability: he detracted from his opponent rather than claiming eloquence for himself. Read with 11.1.19, where Quintilian quotes two other Ciceronian modesty formulas.
Cic. Div. Caec. 40 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The passage Quintilian is describing at 11.1.20: Cicero anticipates the taunt that he claims all these qualities for himself, and answers that he has not attained them but has worked at them since boyhood. Reading it against Quintilian's report shows how accurately, or not, a later critic summarised.
Quint. Inst. 7.4.33 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian's technical account of the procedure itself: trials for choosing a prosecutor, which he says are called divinationes, and he sets out the two-part division Cicero used. This is where the speech stops being an example and becomes the definition of a genre.
Quint. Inst. 5.13.18 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian compresses the entire Divinatio into one clause: petit accusationem in Verrem Q. Caecilius, quod fuerat quaestor eius; ipsum Cicero ut pro se videretur effecit. It shows what the speech looked like to a professional reader — an argument turned inside out — and gives the class a one-sentence summary to test against the speech.
Quint. Inst. 7.2.2 · Perseus ↗
A sixth notice, and the most casual — Quintilian lists the question whether Caecilius will rightly prosecute Verres alongside whether Roscius committed parricide and whether Manlius aims at kingship, as standard specimens of a definite conjectural question. The speech has become a stock example, cited without explanation.
Gell. NA 13.25.9 · Perseus ↗
Favorinus cites our speech as in libro eiusdem M. Tulli, qui De Constituendo Accusatore est — the Divinatio under its ancient title — and quotes Div. Caec. 19 as a specimen of one thing said in many words. The title alone is worth the class's time, and 13.25.10 goes on to quote Div. Caec. 11. The payoff comes in 13.25.11: the words mean the same, but quia cum dignitate orationis et cum gravi verborum copia dicuntur ... et aures et animum saepius feriunt.
Gell. NA 13.25.11 · Perseus ↗
Favorinus's answer to his own question, on the second Divinatio quotation: he grants that the four verbs mean much the same thing, and defends them anyway on the ground that they strike the ears and the mind more often. The verdict, not just the question.
Cic. Div. Caec. 19 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The prosopopoeia in which the province is made to speak. Gellius 13.25.9 quotes this section verbatim and asks of it exactly the question this meeting asks: does the repetition make the sentence better measured and better fitted, or is it mere doubling? The single strongest link in the dossier between a Divinatio passage and an ancient judgement about its rhythm.
Cic. Div. Caec. 41 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The best textual-criticism-meets-rhythm section in the speech. The apparatus records that Priscian attests both orders of a three-word group here, one order in one branch of the tradition and the other in the rest; the editor notes that Priscian defends both. A variant that is purely a question of word order — and therefore purely a question of cadence — with a late-antique grammarian as the witness on each side.
Cic. Div. Caec. 57 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Not on the assigned list but the most heavily mined section in the speech: the apparatus records that Priscian did not have one adverb the manuscripts carry, that Rufinianus omitted a two-word phrase, and that Priscian read a different tense in the following verb. Two late-antique witnesses disagreeing with the manuscript tradition about exactly the small connective words that set a cadence. Also carries the Circe simile and a three-member comparative series.
Quint. Inst. 9.4.70 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian takes one sentence from the fifth Verrine, says its cadence is harsh if you stop where it seems to end, and shows that the following colon rescues the run. An actual clausula analysis of an actual Verrine sentence, by name.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.117 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The sentence Quintilian analyses at 9.4.70 — and quotes again at 8.4.19 for a different reason. Its apparatus cites both Quintilian passages as textual witnesses, and cites Zielinski, the modern student of Ciceronian clausulae, on a neighbouring word.
Quint. Inst. 8.4.19 · Perseus ↗
The second Quintilian citation of that same Verrine sentence, here to illustrate amplification by deliberately belittling the earlier charges so the later ones land harder. His wording differs from the manuscripts in several small points, which is why the apparatus names him.
Gell. NA 1.7.20 · Perseus ↗
The payoff of that chapter, and pure prose rhythm: Gellius argues that one of two equally correct forms sounds fuller and more agreeable to the ear, and that the alternative would let the sentence end on a defective and feeble rhythm. He says so of a specific verb in a specific Ciceronian sentence.
Gell. NA 13.21.15 · Perseus ↗
Gellius reports that Cicero preferred one ablative form to another in the fifth Verrine because it struck him as smoother and more polished, the ordinary form being coarser and more old-fashioned. Section 13.21.16, which follows, gives a second Verrine instance from Tironian copies of proven antiquity.
Gell. NA 10.3.13 · Perseus ↗
Gellius sets Verr. 2.5.162-163 against Gracchus and Cato on the same theme and judges the three. This is a full ancient exercise in comparative stylistics — including the remark at 10.3.15 about the reader with an agresti aure who prefers the older, plainer manner — and it is the meeting's late-reception question in its most usable form.
Gell. NA 10.3.15 · Perseus ↗
Gellius's verdict on that comparison: he concedes that some readers prefer the older, plainer manner, and characterises the Ciceronian alternative by its brilliance, its charm, and its shaping of the words — a rhythmic term. Then he sends the doubter to Cato.
Tac. Dial. 20.1 · Perseus ↗
Aper asks who nowadays would sit through five books against Verres. The most quotable single sentence on the reception of this corpus, and it is hostile — a reminder that canonisation and impatience arrived together.
Tac. Dial. 23.1 · Perseus ↗
Aper says he will not mock a notorious Ciceronian pun on Verres's name, nor the cadence Cicero placed at the end of a sentence in every third thought throughout his speeches. Read with 22.5 immediately before, where the prescription is to vary the composition and not close every clause the same way.
Tac. Dial. 22.5 · Perseus ↗
The prescription that sets up 23.1: vary the composition, and do not end every clause in one and the same way. Short, and it states the rhythmic norm against which Cicero is about to be measured.
Tac. Dial. 37.6 · Perseus ↗
Maternus argues that it was Catiline, Milo, Verres and Antonius who made Cicero a great orator, not the speeches for Quinctius or Archias. The Verrine corpus named as one of the four cases that made the reputation.
Plin. Ep. 1.20.10 · Perseus ↗
Pliny quotes the short self-interrupting exchange from the fourth Verrine as proof that even published speeches keep improvised-sounding figures. Quintilian quotes the very same words at 9.2.61, and the two citations differ in the case of the first noun.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.5 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Cicero source for that exchange. Its apparatus names both Quintilian and Donatus as witnesses for the disputed noun phrase, and Zielinski for a spelling — three later authorities on one short section.
Quint. Inst. 11.3.90 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian names two Verrine periods and rules that the orator must not act them out — no leaning posture for the one, no writhing or cry of pain for the other. Reception at the level of delivery rather than text.
Cic. Div. Caec. 27 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The longest well-built period among the assigned sections: two short questions, then one enormous interrogative carrying a chain of four infinitive phrases, then a fresh imperative sentence that resets the tempo. The right passage for showing that Cicero alternates between long and short units rather than sustaining one length.
Cic. Div. Caec. 45 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The tempo change: after two long sentences the section breaks into short clipped questions, one of them a bare three-noun series, another a three-verb asyndeton. This is Cicero writing in what Quintilian calls incisa rather than periods. Pair it directly with Quint. Inst. 9.4.122, which defines the unit. The apparatus also notes that Priscian attested the rare verb form at the very end, so the last word of the section is itself a late-antique testimonium.
Cic. Div. Caec. 65 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The close of the argument. Two alternative self-descriptions are set out in direct speech as a matched pair, each a first-person perfect plus a relative expansion, and then the whole is resolved by one comparative question. The best specimen in the speech of a long unit built to end.
Cic. Orat. 210 · Perseus ↗
The passage where Cicero names the In Verrem corpus as the place he used rhythmical prose, and names the specific stretches: the praise of Sicily in the second book of the accusation, and the narratives of Henna, Segesta and Syracuse in the fourth. This single section is the hinge of the whole meeting — it is Cicero's own statement that the Verrines are the demonstration piece for his rhythmic doctrine.
Cic. Orat. 213 · Perseus ↗
Cicero, who says he was standing there, segments a speech of Carbo aloud for the reader: two cut members of two feet each, then longer members of three, then a full period. It is the only place in Latin where an ancient reader marks up a passage into incisa, membra and ambitus in front of us.
Cic. Orat. 214 · Perseus ↗
The continuation and the single most important passage on this thread: the crowd shouted at the double trochee, and Cicero then runs the experiment — reverse the word order, keep every word and the whole sense, and the effect is gone. Read 213 and 214 together as one specimen.
Cic. Orat. 215 · Perseus ↗
Cicero's own catalogue of the endings he thinks fall well: the cretic, and the paean in both its forms, with the warning that any one of them repeated too often is first noticed, then cloying, then despised. This is the reference list the students need in hand before they scan anything in the Divinatio.
Cic. Orat. 232 · Perseus ↗
Cicero performs the word-order experiment three times over on three consecutive periods of his own Pro Cornelio, giving the original and the disordered version each time. The Carbo case at 214 is someone else's sentence; this is Cicero taking apart his own. Quintilian later repeats the first of the three (Inst. 9.4.14), so this is also a transmission specimen.
Cic. De Or. 3.173 · Perseus ↗
The De Oratore account of where clausulae come from: the old writers wanted the pauses in prose marked by the sense of the words rather than by the copyist's marks, and Isocrates is credited with first binding loose prose to measure. The historical charter of the whole doctrine, and the passage where the term clausula is defined by its function.
Cic. De Or. 3.183 · Perseus ↗
The technical core: the two forms of the paean are defined by syllable quantity with Latin word-examples supplied, then the cretic is defined and said to be its near equal by ear rather than by count. This is the one place where the feet the class will be scanning are actually defined with examples rather than named.
Cic. De Or. 3.192 · Perseus ↗
The shortest and clearest statement of why endings matter more than beginnings: in verse every part is attended to equally, but in prose few notice the opening and most notice the close — so the closes must be varied or they will be rejected either by the judgement or by mere satiety. Six lines, and it justifies the entire session.
Cic. Lig. 1 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian at Inst. 9.4.73 names this as the place where the close of Cicero's very first sentence accidentally forms the opening of an iambic senarius. A Ciceronian exordium with a diagnosed rhythmic fault, identified by an ancient critic — the negative control for everything else on this thread. Its apparatus also carries an editor's note preferring a simple verb over the compound on rhythmical grounds, and a reading from Aquila Romanus.
Quint. Inst. 9.4.14 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian repeats Cicero's own dismantling of the Pro Cornelio period from Orat. 232, with the same original and the same disordered version, and adds his own image for what the disordering does. Set beside Orat. 232 it shows an experiment being transmitted intact across a century and a half of teaching.
Quint. Inst. 9.4.73 · Perseus ↗
The famous verdict: Cicero's signature two-word close is by Quintilian's day already too frequent, and it begins an eight-foot verse; the opening of the Pro Ligario ends in the opening of a senarius; and Demosthenes' openings do the same thing in Greek. Three named specimens in four lines, all three of which are separately in this dossier.
Quint. Inst. 10.2.18 · Perseus ↗
Three lines on imitation gone wrong: Quintilian knew men who thought they had captured Cicero's manner if they put his favourite two-word cadence at the end of a sentence. The sharpest available statement of what a clausula is not, and the natural close of the session.
Dem. Cor. 1 · Perseus ↗
The Greek control. Quintilian at Inst. 9.4.63 and again at 9.4.73 names the opening words of this speech as the Demosthenic parallel to Cicero's habitual cadence, and calls Demosthenes' composition severe by contrast. Reading the first sentence of the De Corona lets the class hear what the comparison is actually about instead of taking Quintilian's word for it.
Cic. Div. Caec. 2 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The second movement of the exordium turns from self-defence to narrative, and does it with a cum-clause that carries a consecutive ut inside it. It is the cleanest specimen in the speech of subordination stacked three deep without losing the thread.
Cic. Div. Caec. 5 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The hinge of the exordium: the asyndetic ablative catalogue officio, fide, misericordia, multorum bonorum exemplo, vetere consuetudine institutoque maiorum, then the paradox that this accusatio is really a defensio. Quintilian 4.1.7 prescribes precisely this move, which makes the pairing self-evident in class.
Cic. Div. Caec. 6 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The longest and most architecturally ambitious period in the exordium: a counterfactual condition interrupted by a parenthesis (marked by dashes in this edition) and closed by a rhetorical question. If the meeting wants one sentence to show what a Ciceronian ambitus can carry, this is it.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.115 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The conferte hanc pacem cum illo bello antithesis, which Cicero later quotes back at himself in Orator 167 as his own specimen of rhythm arising from antithesis. Having both texts in the dossier lets the class hear a sentence and then read its author explaining why it sounds the way it does.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.162 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The most famous period in the corpus, and the one Gellius 10.3.12 singles out for its diutina repraesentatio — the imperfect caedebatur instead of the perfect caesus est. It is the standing answer to what the Divinatio's exordium was promising the court it would deliver.
Cic. Orator 167 · Perseus ↗
Cicero quotes his own fourth Verrine (ut illa sunt in quarto accusationis) as his exhibit for rhythm produced by antithesis. This is the single clearest place where the In Verrem corpus and the theory of prose rhythm are joined by Cicero himself, which is exactly what the meeting is for.
Cic. Orator 199 · Perseus ↗
The best short statement of the principle the class needs in order to read Div. Caec. 1 as a period rather than as a long sentence: the ear waits for the end and rests there, so the whole comprehensio must be launched from the start toward that close.
Quint. Inst. 4.1.7 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian prescribes that the speaker be thought to have come to the case ductus officio ... maximeque, si fieri poterit, reipublicae. Div. Caec. 5 opens adductus sum, iudices, officio, fide, misericordia. The precept and the performance can be put on one page, and the students will see the match without being told.
Quint. Inst. 9.4.103 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian transmits Cicero's dichoreus example (cuius exemplum Cicero ponit, patris dictum sapiens temeritas filii comprobauit), which lets the class watch a technical doctrine being handed down and slightly reshaped. Note also that this section's other rhythm specimen is the phrase Romanus sum, which happens to be where Verr. 2.5.162 puts its weight.
Gell. NA 1.7.19 · Perseus ↗
From the chapter whose own argument promises aspersa pauca de modulis numerisque orationis, quos Cicero avide sectatus est. Here Gellius argues that Cicero chose potestatem over potestate for the sound, and at 1.7.20 that he wrote explicavit rather than explicuit because otherwise inperfecto et debili numero verborum sonus clauderet. A later reader explaining a Ciceronian choice purely by rhythm.
Amm. Marc. 19.12.18 · Perseus ↗
The one genuinely late-antique passage I could resolve that holds up the Ciceronian persona the Divinatio exordium constructs: Imitandus sit Tullius, cum parcere vel laedere potuisset ... ignoscendi quaerens causas, non puniendi occasiones. The verb pair parcere / laedere sits close to Div. Caec. 1's defenderim multos, laeserim neminem. Offer it as a thematic parallel only: Ammianus writes ut ipse affirmat but names no work, and I could not locate his Ciceronian source in this index, so the connection to the Divinatio must be presented as suggestive, not demonstrated.
Gell. NA 2.4.1 (with 2.4.3–6) · Perseus ↗
The single most conspicuous absence in the dossier. Seventy-odd loci discuss this speech and not one explains the word in its title. Gellius devotes a whole short chapter to defining the procedure and debating the etymology, and nobody searched for it — the dossier reaches for Quint. 7.4.33 instead, which codifies the question the divinatio asks but never says what the thing is or why it is so called.
Cic. Off. 2.50 (with 2.49, 2.51) · Perseus ↗
The dossier reads Div. Caec. 1–5 as syntax and figures, and has Quint. 11.1.20 for self-praise, but has nothing from Cicero stating the moral rule the exordium is negotiating. Here, forty years later, he lays down that one should accuse only for the state's sake or as a province's patron — and names his own Sicilian case as the example. The exordium's whole problem, restated by its author as doctrine.
Cic. Div. Caec. 64 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
No one proposed a passage in which Cicero himself describes how a divinatio is decided. Here he cites an actual earlier contest — Piso against a different Q. Caecilius over the prosecution of Gabinius — and says what settled it: the province had adopted Piso as its patron. The institutional logic of the whole speech, argued from precedent inside the speech.
Cic. Brut. 319 · Perseus ↗
The Brutus is absent from the dossier entirely — a whole Ciceronian work on oratory and style, held in the index as phi039, that nobody searched. This section is Cicero's own retrospective naming the Sicilian brief as the greatest contest of his career and setting it as aedile-designate against consul-designate Hortensius. The biography strand has only two entries and neither is by Cicero.
Cic. Brut. 317 · Perseus ↗
A meeting on Ciceronian style has no characterisation of the style Cicero was competing against, though Hortensius is the advocate across the aisle in this entire corpus. Cicero here contrasts Cotta's relaxed manner with Hortensius' ornate, sharp, more agitated one and says which he set himself to match. Nothing in the dossier gives the class a contrast case for the period-building it studies.
Plut. Cic. 7.5 (with 7.4, 7.6) · Perseus ↗
The dossier contains no narrative of the occasion of the speech at all. Plutarch's Cicero is in the index (tlg0007.tlg055) and nobody searched it. This is the only place in the index that tells the story from outside: Caecilius named, his attempt to push the Sicilians aside, the joke Cicero made about it, and at 7.6 Hortensius taking his fee as an ivory sphinx.
Quint. Inst. 12.10.12 (with 12.10.13–14) · Perseus ↗
The dossier's reception half is almost entirely admiring or gently satirical (Tacitus). The hostile ancient criticism of Cicero's rhythm is missing, and this is its primary source: contemporaries called him swollen, Asianist, redundant, and — the word that matters here — broken in his composition. 12.10.14 then names the Atticists as the party behind it. The whole Atticism/Asianism frame is absent from the dossier.
Quint. Inst. 10.1.106 (with 10.1.105) · Perseus ↗
The dossier includes Dem. Cor. 1 on the ground that the Roman argument was conducted with Greek examples in view, but includes no ancient statement of the comparison. Quintilian makes it explicitly and in exactly the terms of this meeting: one closes his periods more tightly, the other more broadly. Without this the Demosthenes locus is a bare juxtaposition.
Gell. NA 12.10.6 · Perseus ↗
The lexicon strand has effectively one entry. This is a second, independent case of Gellius collating copies of the Verrines, and unlike Gell. 1.7 and 13.21.15 it states the method outright: he found the reading in the most reliable exemplars, whereas the common books have the other form. The dossier claims at Div. Caec. 19 that Gellius' copy was better than some of ours; this is where he explains how he knows.
Gell. NA 2.6.8 (with 2.6.7) · Perseus ↗
The dossier selects Div. Caec. 2 for the accumulation populati atque vexati but never asks what force the second verb carried. Gellius devotes a chapter to defending exactly that verb against the charge of weakness, citing Cato and then this Verrine sentence as proof of its violence. A precise, unnoticed join between two things already in the dossier.
Gell. NA 12.13.17 · Perseus ↗
A third unsearched Gellius chapter quoting the Verrines, this time for idiom rather than for form or sense: Gellius researches how the older writers used a preposition and produces a sentence from the third Verrine as his authority. The lexicon strand is bare and this is a different kind of case from the other two.
Cic. Div. Caec. 73 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The dossier treats 72 as the peroration and stops. 73 is the actual last sentence of the speech, and it does something 72 does not: after a long indirect construction it lands its imperative in final position. For a meeting on suspension and closure, ending the anchor text one section early leaves out the one cadence the whole speech is built toward.
Cic. Div. Caec. 23 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The dossier has prosopopoeia of a province (19) but not the sharper case: Cicero impersonating Hortensius, in direct speech, pleading with the jury in a run of very short members. It is on thread 3's own rhythm list and was passed over. It is also the natural partner to Div. Caec. 45, which the dossier selected for cut members without giving the specimen where the cut members are put in an opponent's mouth.
Cic. Div. Caec. 48 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Simile is a whole figure type with no representative anywhere in the dossier, which is built entirely from periods, tricola, antitheses and questions. This is the speech's set-piece comparison — the second and third actors on the Greek stage holding back so the lead may shine — and it turns on the double sense of actor, stage-performer and prosecutor. It is on thread 3's rhythm list and unrepresented.
Cic. Verr. 2.4.38 (with 2.4.39–40) · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Every one of the eleven Verrine loci in the dossier is grand style — perorations, question-barrages, vast suspended periods. Yet the dossier itself includes Orator 210 for the point that Cicero deployed rhythm selectively by kind of passage. The class is given no plain narrative against which to test that claim. This is the Diodorus story: short main clauses, historic present, plain sequence, and only at the end a lift into mythological comparison.

4Fri 2026-09-18

Group assignment, no meeting — read the whole Divinatio in translation小组作业（不上课）：通读预审篇译本

Each group reads all 73 sections in English/Chinese, identifies the passages and aspects it will own, and submits a findings report.

build项目Read the whole Divinatio with the EN / 中文 translation配合中英译文通读预审篇

The whole speech, section by section, as a reading list with its arcs marked

Latin dossier · 63 loci, each with its Perseus text拉丁文档 · 63 处出处，各附 Perseus 原文

Cic. Div. Caec. 1 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
PRIMARY for the exordium (1-5). The speech opens by naming the objection it exists to answer — a man who has spent years defending and has injured no one has suddenly turned prosecutor — and in the same period promises that once the judges know his reasons they will both approve the act and think no one should be preferred to him as actor. The arc's business and the speech's proposition are in one sentence.
Cic. Div. Caec. 5 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The close of the exordium arc, where the objection is converted into the claim: what looks like his accusation is to be reckoned a defence — of many people, many communities, the whole province — so that in prosecuting one man he has barely left his own practice. Groups that want the exordium can see where it lands.
Quint. Inst. 4.1.49 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian cites this very opening as the model case of forestalling what seems to stand in your way, reports the answer Cicero gives to it, and gives the figure a Greek name. It confirms from outside that sections 1-5 are a recognised shape and not just a preamble.
Cic. Div. Caec. 9 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
PRIMARY for the bridge (6-9). One sentence gathers the courts' disgrace, the people's daily complaint and the order's exposure, states that the single remedy is for fit and honest men to take up the cause of the state and the laws, and has Cicero admit that this is why he joined the part of the commonwealth in the worst trouble. This is exactly the arc's business: a private obligation becoming a public argument.
Cic. Div. Caec. 8 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The diagnosis the bridge rests on: those who want the courts kept with the senate complain there are no fit prosecutors, those able to prosecute want severity restored, and the tribunate, the jury-panel question and the censorship are all named as symptoms of the same discontent. A group that takes the bridge needs this section to see what crisis section 9 answers to.
Quint. Inst. 12.7.1 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian's rule on whether a good man may prosecute: he will rather defend, but he must not shrink from the name of accuser, since the laws are worth nothing unless a fit voice enforces them. It is the standing Roman question that the bridge answers, stated as doctrine, and the sections that follow it carry the allies' complaints and the young man's public pledge that Div. Caec. 72 also uses.
Cic. Div. Caec. 10 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
PRIMARY for the contentio (10-26). It announces the transition explicitly and then lays down the two things the judges are to look at in appointing a prosecutor: whom the injured parties most want, and whom the accused least wants. This is the speech's partition, and everything down to section 51 answers to it.
Cic. Div. Caec. 19 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The first criterion at full stretch: the province is given a single voice, states what was taken from its cities, dwellings and shrines, claims it back under the law, and then, because it cannot in fact speak, chooses its own prosecutor. Favorinus in Gellius picks precisely this sentence out of the speech, so it is also the passage with an ancient reader attached.
Cic. Div. Caec. 23 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The second criterion made visible. Cicero reports the defence's great advocate openly asking the judges to prefer Caecilius, on the ground that this is a cheap and respectable favour which costs them nothing and yet delivers the acquittal. A group choosing the contentio should see the passage where the contest's real stake is spoken aloud.
Gell. NA 2.4 · Perseus ↗
The whole short chapter is on why this kind of hearing was called a divinatio. Gellius' opening sentence — cum de constituendo accusatore quaeritur — is almost verbatim Cicero's own phrase at Div. Caec. 10. It is the best single text in the index for a group that wants to own the institution rather than a purple passage.
Quint. Inst. 7.2.2 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian sets the question of this speech — whether Caecilius will rightly prosecute Verres — alongside whether Roscius committed parricide and whether Manlius aims at kingship, as a conjectural question about what is going to happen. One line, and it states the proposition the whole speech has to carry.
Plut. Cic. 7.5 · Perseus ↗
The contest reported from outside, in Greek: Plutarch says Caecilius wanted to shoulder the Sicilians aside and prosecute Verres himself, and records Cicero's jibe against him. It confirms what the contentio arc claims was at stake. The anecdote carries an ethnic and religious slur, reported by Plutarch as a witticism, and a group that takes it should be told so in advance.
Cic. Div. Caec. 27 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
PRIMARY for the comparison of persons (27-51). It opens the arc by asking what Caecilius can actually do, spells out what it means to sustain a public case, then offers to teach him how many qualities a prosecutor needs — and names the first, unblemished integrity, on the ground that no one may demand an account of another's life who cannot render his own. The arc's method is announced here.
Cic. Div. Caec. 29 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The second requisite, that a prosecutor be steady and genuine, followed by the marks of a false one: the reconciliation with Verres before leaving Sicily, the secretary kept back in the province, the brother living on close terms with the defendant. Keeping this beside 27 and 39 lets a group see that the arc is a three-part structure and not a stream of abuse.
Cic. Div. Caec. 39 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The third requisite, ability, stated as the demand the case itself makes: everything must be set out, argued fully and copiously, and made welcome to hear; and even with natural gift and the best schooling in Greek and Latin letters, holding such a case together by diligence, memory, delivery and stamina would be hard. It also carries the jab about where Caecilius learned his letters.
Cic. Inv. 1.34 · Perseus ↗
The textbook grid behind the comparison arc: the young Cicero's own list of what is attributed to persons — name, nature, manner of life, fortune, bearing, disposition, pursuits, purposes, deeds, chances, sayings — as the material from which proofs are drawn. Sections 27-51 walk this list. The next section spells out the schooling and upbringing head that Div. Caec. 39 uses.
Cic. Div. Caec. 61 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
PRIMARY for the rule and narratio arc (52-62). Cicero sets his view against Caecilius' in one antithesis — the one thing you think puts you ahead is the one thing that should disqualify you — and then states the rule received from the ancestors, that a praetor stands in a parent's place to his quaestor, no bond being graver than the shared lot, province, duty and public office. This is the arc's business and the speech's decisive move.
Cic. Div. Caec. 56 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The narratio the arc is named for: the Agonis affair told as a story with a trial inside it — the quaestor's summons, the formula put to the recuperatores, the adjudication, the sale of the woman's goods, and Verres afterwards making his quaestor pay it all back. The only sustained narrative in the speech, and it is there to destroy Caecilius' claim to have been wronged.
Quint. Inst. 5.13.18 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian in one clause records the whole manoeuvre of sections 59-62: Caecilius sought the prosecution on the ground that he had been Verres' quaestor, and Cicero made that very ground appear to speak for himself. Listed among the ways of showing an opponent's point to be superfluous or actually yours.
Cic. Div. Caec. 63 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
PRIMARY for the exempla and peroration arc (63-73). Three precedents in which the right to bring the charge was refused to a man bound to the defendant, one of them matching this case point for point — a quaestor of the accused against a man asked to act by a province — followed by the statement that taking up enmities for the allies has always been the most honourable ground for prosecuting. The arc's business: turning the rule of section 61 into precedent, and precedent into a standard of honour.
Cic. Div. Caec. 65 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The whole choice compressed into a comparison the judges can hold in mind: which is the finer thing afterwards to be able to say — that you prosecuted the man whose quaestor you had been, or that you prosecuted at the request of allies who chose you to defend their rights and fortunes. It sits at the seam between the rule arc and the exempla arc and states what both are for.
Cic. Div. Caec. 70 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The sneer of section 69 answered: what does the man mean, wanting to be thought a prosecutor when he used to defend, and at his age, when he is standing for the aedileship? Cicero replies that at his age and above it, and at the highest office, it belongs to a man both to prosecute the wicked and to defend the wretched — and that the one remedy for the sick courts is that the most honourable men come forward. Note that section 69 ends on the colon that introduces this, so the two should be read together.
Cic. Div. Caec. 69 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The second exempla catalogue, of great men who prosecuted: Lentulus, once leader of the senate, against Aquilius with Rutilius Rufus as his junior; Africanus, twice consul and censor, calling Cotta into court. Then the turn to the present, where what nobody wondered at in Africanus is pretended to be a wonder in Cicero. Its sentence runs on into section 70, so pair them.
Cic. Div. Caec. 73 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The last section, and the shortest thing in the speech that can stand alone. The choice is handed back to the judges by the four qualities the case demands, Cicero disclaims any injury to his own standing if they prefer Caecilius, and then warns them what the Roman people will conclude about them and their order if they do. The arc, and the speech, ends on the judges' exposure.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.21 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The divinatio's argument re-used after the divinatio was won. Looking back over the first hearing, Cicero itemises what it was his business to establish — that he came to prosecute with a cause, and no cause more honourable than being appointed and chosen by so distinguished a province; that he served the state; that he showed the defendant guilty. The exordium and bridge arcs in retrospect.
Gell. NA 13.25.9 · Perseus ↗
How the speech was read later. Favorinus, arguing about whether paired words are redundant, cites this speech under the title On Choosing a Prosecutor and quotes from it the opening of the Sicily-with-one-voice passage (section 19) and the charge sentence (section 11), then in the following sections analyses the piling of terms in both.
Cic. Div. Caec. 22 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The second prong cashed out. §§11-21 argue the first (what the Sicilians want); at 22 Cicero pivots — alterum illud, credo, obscurum est — and turns the criterion into an argument from Verres' own visible behaviour. A group owning §10 needs this to see the test actually run.
Cic. Mur. 56 · Perseus ↗
Cicero, now defending, states the inverse of his own Divinatio position in one chiasmus: accusers who came non qui odio inimicitiarum ad accusandum, sed qui studio accusandi ad inimicitias descenderint. A group owning §10 can set his two tests against the standard he applies when the shoe is on the other foot.
Cic. Div. Caec. 3 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Correction to the reading list as briefed: Verres is first named here, not at §11. The name arrives inside the Sicilians' reported plea, attached to the theft of their gods — C. Verres ex delubris religiosissimis sustulisset. A group owning 'the naming' must start here or its thesis is wrong.
Cic. Div. Caec. 11 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The naming that matters procedurally: the first time the name stands in a formal statement of the charge, in one long sentence with dicitur at the end holding four infinitives. Then the sentence turns and Cicero names himself four times over (me defensorem, me ultorem, me cognitorem, me actorem).
Gell. NA 13.25.11 · Perseus ↗
Favorinus takes the charge-sentence of §11 apart word by word and asks whether depopulatus esse, vastasse, exinanisse, spoliasse are not all one and the same thing. A group owning §11 gets a second-century reader arguing about their passage.
Cic. Verr. 1.1.2 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The same man named in the actio prima, a year later, with the case already won: reus in iudicium adductus est C. Verres, then a four-term appositional string, depeculatorem aerari, vexatorem Asiae atque Pamphyliae, praedonem iuris urbani, labem atque perniciem provinciae Siciliae. The exact comparandum for §11.
Cic. Verr. 2.1.121 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Cicero reports the Sicilian puns on the name and then disowns them: ius tam nequam esse verrinum, and Sacerdotem exsecrabantur qui verrem tam nequam reliquisset. He calls them neque perfacete dicta neque porro hac severitate digna and keeps them anyway.
Tac. Dial. 23.1 · Perseus ↗
Aper lists ius verrinum with rota Fortunae and esse videatur as the three things about Cicero that only self-styled antiqui still admire. The naming thread gets a reception end-point: the joke survives a century and a half and is by then an embarrassment.
Cic. Div. Caec. 20 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The second, smaller invented speech in the same arc: si tibi, Q. Caecili, hoc Siculi dicerent — and the Sicilians address Caecilius directly, te non novimus, nescimus qui sis, numquam te antea vidimus. Then Cicero drops the fiction: nunc hoc dicunt. A group owning §19 gets a matched pair.
Quint. Inst. 9.2.31 · Perseus ↗
The licence for §19 stated as doctrine: urbes etiam populique vocem accipiunt. Two lines, and it tells a group that Sicily's speech is a recognised figure with a Greek name and a contested Latin one.
Quint. Inst. 9.2.32 · Perseus ↗
Quintilian grades the same figure by boldness and gives the rule that explains §19's syntax: in his, quae natura non permittit, hoc modo mollior fit figura — then quotes Cicero's si mecum patria ... sic loquatur as the softened form and the direct address to Catiline as illud audacius genus.
Cic. Cat. 1.27 · Perseus ↗
Cicero's own most famous personification, and the one Quintilian pairs with the theory at 9.2.32: si mecum patria, quae mihi vita mea multo est carior ... loquatur, and the patria cross-examines the consul by name. The direct comparandum for what Sicily does at §19.
Cic. Div. Caec. 48 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The set-up for the custos exchange and a fine piece of writing in its own right: Caecilius' subscriptores are sized up, and the section closes with the simile of Greek actors, where the man playing secundarum aut tertiarum partium holds back so the lead can shine.
Cic. Div. Caec. 49 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Names the pool the custos would come from — illo grege moratorum, qui subscriptionem sibi postularunt cuicumque vos delationem dedissetis — men who asked for a place on whichever side won. It sets up §50's demand as an insult before the demand is even quoted.
Cic. Div. Caec. 55 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The Agonis story opens here, and Cicero frames it before he tells it: id quoque ad rem pertinere arbitror, qualis iniuria dicatur quae causa inimicitiarum proferatur. The injury Caecilius claims is going to be produced by his opponent, not by him.
Cic. Div. Caec. 57 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The turn: Verres overrules his own quaestor and for one paragraph is est adhuc ... non Verres, sed Q. Mucius — until repente e vestigio ex homine tamquam aliquo Circaeo poculo factus est Verres. The single most enjoyable sentence in the speech and a gift to any group.
Cic. Div. Caec. 58 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The trap the Agonis story was built to spring: whatever Caecilius answers, he loses. utrum te perfidiosum an praevaricatorem existimari mavis? A group owning §§55-57 needs this to see what the anecdote was for.
Cic. Div. Caec. 59 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Caecilius' one remaining claim — quaestorem illius fuisse — turned against him. Cicero concedes the tie would matter if the question were who was closer to Verres, then denies it can license an attack.
Cic. Verr. 2.3.87 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Shows what the servi Venerii of the Agonis story became under Verres — temple slaves used as revenue agents. Closes with the inversion ut aratores in servorum numero essent, servi in publicanorum. The institutional backdrop to §§55-56, in Cicero's own later words.
Cic. Verr. 2.3.6 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Hortensius kept asking the question Cicero puts to Caecilius at §§58-59 — quibus inimicitiis aut qua iniuria adductus ad accusandum descenderim? — and here Cicero answers it with six parallel rhetorical questions redefining enmity as disagreement about values.
Cic. Div. Caec. 71 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The premise the peroration is built on, stated as a maxim of public safety: nulla salus rei publicae maior est quam eos qui alterum accusant non minus de laude, de honore, de fama sua ... pertimescere. Then the application — Caecilius has nothing to lose, and therefore will not try.
Cic. Div. Caec. 72 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The peroration's governing image: A nobis multos obsides habet populus Romanus — Cicero's career is security lodged with the Roman people against his own performance. Then three habet clauses and the conditional that closes the section on total loss.
Cic. Verr. 2.5.35 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
What §72's hostages actually were, in Cicero's own accounting: ita quaestor sum factus ut mihi illum honorem tum non solum datum, sed etiam creditum et commissum putarem, and the quaestorship lived quasi in aliquo terrarum orbis theatro. The peroration's premise stated at length.
Plut. Cic. 8.1 · Perseus ↗
The sequel to §72 as narrative: the Sicilians came to Rome loaded with gifts during Cicero's aedileship, and he took no profit but used their generosity to bring down market prices. Also reports the damaging rumour that he had set Verres' damages too low for money.
Quint. Inst. 6.1.1 · Perseus ↗
The frame for judging §§71-73: Quintilian's opening account of the peroratio and its two resources, rerum repetitio and adfectus. Lets a group ask which of the two Cicero uses here, and notice that he does almost no enumeration at all.
Cic. Off. 2.50 · Perseus ↗
The dossier argues for twenty-odd loci about whether Cicero may prosecute, and never puts Cicero's own settled doctrine on the table. Forty years later he lays down the rule: prosecute rarely, and never except for one of three reasons — for the republic, for revenge, or as an advocate's duty to clients — and he names his own Sicilian prosecution as the example of the third. A group reading the Divinatio in translation can hold the speech's entire self-justification against its author's later theory of it. De Officiis is in the index and nobody searched it.
Cic. Brut. 130 · Perseus ↗
Off. 2.50 warns of the disgrace of being called an accuser and names the man it happened to; this is where Cicero elaborates the judgment on him — a man of great name, with an excellent father, who made a practice of accusing, called a disgrace to his family. It sits immediately after a sentence distinguishing a man's counsel from his patronage, so the two status-nouns the exordium of the Divinatio turns on stand side by side. Brutus is in the index and nobody searched it; lexicon is the thinnest strand in the dossier and this is an unforced instance of it.
Liv. 43.2.3 · Perseus ↗
Nobody searched Livy, and Livy holds the closest institutional ancestor of the first prong of §10. In 171 BC the senate ordered five recuperatores from the senatorial order for each defendant and gave the Spanish delegations the power to take whatever patroni they wished; 43.2.4-5 shows them summoned back into the curia and naming four, and 43.2.7 shows the two provinces splitting over which of the four they wanted. The choice of a province's own advocate is thus visible as a formal Roman procedure a century before Verres.
Plin. Ep. 3.4.4 · Perseus ↗
The whole shape of Div. Caec. 1-9 replayed under Trajan, from an author nobody searched. A Baetican delegation petitions the senate for a named advocate against their late proconsul; his colleagues try to get him excused; the senate decrees he be given to the provincials as patronus if they can obtain his own consent; the envoys are brought back in and ask a second time, invoking a standing bond of patronage and his earlier service to them. Pliny then gives his reasons at 3.4.5-8 in exactly the place where Cicero gives his.
Quint. Inst. 9.2.59 · Perseus ↗
The apparatus printed at Div. Caec. 4 cites this passage as a witness for its text — and here is the passage doing the citing, quoting that sentence to illustrate a figure: the speaker's imitation of his own past words and deeds, which Quintilian says asserts more often than it mocks. The dossier already values the Cat. 1.27 entry for showing a quotation used as textual evidence; this is the same move made on the Divinatio itself, and no one found it. It also drags §4 into reach, the section where Cicero says he tried to push the case onto Caecilius — the moment the whole contest is generated, and a section the dossier skips.
Cic. Div. Caec. 2 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The dossier takes §1, §3 and §5 from the exordium and skips the one section that supplies the fact everything else rests on: Cicero was quaestor in Sicily, left the province on terms that made the Sicilians count him among their protectors, and they came to him in their public capacity, repeatedly. Without it a group has the speech's argument but not its premise, and cannot say why the first prong of §10 applies to Cicero rather than to anyone else.
Cic. Div. Caec. 18 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The dossier's §19 entry credits that section with the claim that the extortion law belongs to the injured allies — but the claim is made here, and §19 is the personification built on top of it. A group that owns §19 as the dossier presents it owns the ornament without its premise. This section also states the contrast that gives the law its point: citizens recover stolen money by ordinary civil action, and this law exists because the allies have no such remedy.
Cic. Div. Caec. 31 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
§29 gives the collusive prosecutor as an abstraction and nothing in the dossier shows what the collusion consisted of; across 73 sections the only glimpse of Verres' actual conduct is §3's four abstract nouns and the Agonis story. Here the abstraction cashes out as a dilemma with no exit: raise the grain charge and you convict yourself of the same act in the same province in the same year; drop it and your prosecution is built around a silence. §30 immediately before supplies the only figures anywhere in the speech, and §32 after states the doctrine in a single clause.
Cic. Div. Caec. 41 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Sections 35-44 are the stretch where Cicero must argue he is the better advocate without praising himself — he says as much at §36, that arrogance about talent and eloquence is the most offensive kind — and the dossier takes only §39 from it, the snobbish argument about education. This is the section that solves the problem: instead of claiming ability, he reports that after more cases than almost anyone of his age, the thought of the day he must rise with the defendant summoned makes him shudder in his whole body.
Cic. Div. Caec. 50 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Thread 2 promises groups 'the custos exchange at 49-50' and the dossier stops at §49. The demand itself lands at the very end of this section and Cicero's answer follows in §51, so as the dossier stands a group asked to own the exchange has neither half of it. This is a straightforward completeness failure against the meeting's own stated purpose.
Cic. Div. Caec. 53 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
The dossier names an arc 'the rule and narratio 52-62' but its earliest entry for that arc is §55, the Agonis story. The rule is here: not only who ought to avenge but who is able to, with the ruling that a man who has only one of the two is beaten by a man who has both. It is the second statement of the partition that governs the whole back half of the speech, and it is invisible to anyone reading the arc's label alone.
Cic. Div. Caec. 6 · Perseus ↗ · reader读本
Syntax is the thinnest strand in the dossier — two entries, one of them Quintilian talking about syntax rather than a passage exhibiting it. This is the best specimen of a suspended period in the speech: a stack of counterfactual protases with a purpose clause nested inside them, the apodosis held back to a closing question, printed between dashes because the editor had to decide where the sentence's spine runs.

The exordium, the division, and the first head · §§1–30序论、分说与第一目：第 1 至 30 节 meetings 5–14第 5–14 次

5Tue 2026-09-22

§§1–5 — Exordium (Watson 2025)§§1–5：Exordium 序论（Watson 2025）

§§1–5. the exordium runs to §9 in every division; two meetings read it entire. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: Exordium; Sternkopf 1905: Einleitung; Stroh 1975: Prooemium; Watson 2025: Exordium.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876Exordium

Sternkopf 1905Einleitung

Stroh 1975Prooemium

Watson 2025Exordium

Why here何以断于此 the exordium runs to §9 in every division; two meetings read it entire

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§1§1 §2§2 §3§3 §4§4 §5§5

also drawn on另涉§8§8 §15§15 §26§26 §72§72

Woodcock伍德科克II · The Infinitive Mood. Accusative + Infinitive §§20–37II · 不定式；宾格加不定式 §§20–37 X · The Subjunctive in Subordinate Clauses. Final Noun-Clauses §§131–146X · 从句中的虚拟式；目的名词从句 §§131–146 XVII · The Gerund and Gerundive §§201–207XVII · 动名词与动形词 §§201–207

build项目The word lists: what the speech asks beyond the Core 1000, and which words carry it词表：本篇于核心 1000 词之外所需者，及承载全篇之词

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 Brunt 1988Brunt 1988 Altay Coşkun 2010Altay Coşkun 2010 van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§1–5. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it Exordium — quibus rebus adductus ad causam accesserit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Einleitung — Daß die Einleitung die §§ 1—9 umfaßt, darüber kann gar kein Zweifel herrschen; Stroh 1975 calls it Prooemium — with narratio 2-5 woven in, nicht ganz suo loco; Watson 2025 calls it Exordium — Anticipatio 1; Narratio 2-5; Exordium continued 6-9. Recorded as difficult here: The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confir; The narratio exists because the events leading to the two postulationes were in fact disputed, and Cicero decl.第 1 至 5 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 Exordium，谓 quibus rebus adductus ad causam accesserit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Einleitung，谓 Daß die Einleitung die §§ 1—9 umfaßt, darüber kann gar kein Zweifel herrschen；Stroh 1975 名之为 Prooemium，谓 with narratio 2-5 woven in, nicht ganz suo loco；Watson 2025 名之为 Exordium，谓 Anticipatio 1; Narratio 2-5; Exordium continued 6-9。此处所记疑难：序论其实是提前搬来的立论，借自辩之名而行：第 2 至 5 节预取立论一（第 11 至 22 节），第 6 至 9 节预取立论二（第 22 至 26 节），成 A-B-A-B 之形；之所以有陈事一节，是因为两次申请之前的经过本有争议，而西塞罗不愿公开去争。陈事不负举证之责，正好让他暗示一些并不存在的来龙去脉。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock II (The Infinitive Mood. Accusative + Infinitive), rules §29, §32, §33, at §1, §2, §3, §4, §5 of the speech; Woodcock X (The Subjunctive in Subordinate Clauses. Final Noun-Clauses), rules §134, §136, §139, at §1, §2, §3, §4, §5 of the speech; Woodcock XVII (The Gerund and Gerundive), rules §201, §202, §203, §206, at §1, §4, §5 of the speech. The dossier picks out: ad accusandum (§1, gerund of purpose); miratur me … descendere (§1, accusative + infinitive).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 II（不定式；宾格加不定式）第 29、32、33 条，见于本篇第 1 节、第 2 节、第 3 节、第 4 节、第 5 节；伍德科克 X（从句中的虚拟式；目的名词从句）第 134、136、139 条，见于本篇第 1 节、第 2 节、第 3 节、第 4 节、第 5 节；伍德科克 XVII（动名词与动形词）第 201、202、203、206 条，见于本篇第 1 节、第 4 节、第 5 节。读本注释于此段所举：ad accusandum（第 1 节）；miratur me … descendere（第 1 节）。

Strand线索 quis vestrum; period anatomy begins; D1 due

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: Exordium; Sternkopf 1905: Einleitung; Stroh 1975: Prooemium; Watson 2025: Exordium
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 1-5: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock II, X, XVII — acc.+inf., the subjunctive in subordinate clauses, gerund and gerundive

6Tue 2026-09-29

§§6–8 — Exordium (Watson 2025)§§6–8：Exordium 序论（Watson 2025）

§§6–8. same stretch, third meeting. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: Exordium; Sternkopf 1905: Einleitung; Stroh 1975: Prooemium; Watson 2025: Exordium.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876Exordium

Sternkopf 1905Einleitung

Stroh 1975Prooemium

Watson 2025Exordium

Why here何以断于此 same stretch, third meeting

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§6§6 §7§7 §8§8

also drawn on另涉§1§1 §5§5 §22§22 §43§43 §59§59

Woodcock伍德科克III · Functions of the Ablative §§38–55III · 夺格的功能 §§38–55 XIV · Questions, Direct and Indirect §§169–183XIV · 直接与间接疑问 §§169–183 XVI · Conditional Clauses §§191–200XVI · 条件从句 §§191–200

written on this论及此段者L. H. G. Greenwood (tr.) 1928L. H. G. Greenwood (tr.) 1928 Luca Grillo 2015Luca Grillo 2015 A. H. J. Greenidge 1901A. H. J. Greenidge 1901 Brunt 1988Brunt 1988

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§6–8. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it Exordium — quibus rebus adductus ad causam accesserit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Einleitung — Daß die Einleitung die §§ 1—9 umfaßt, darüber kann gar kein Zweifel herrschen; Stroh 1975 calls it Prooemium — with narratio 2-5 woven in, nicht ganz suo loco; Watson 2025 calls it Exordium — Anticipatio 1; Narratio 2-5; Exordium continued 6-9. Recorded as difficult here: The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confir.第 6 至 8 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 Exordium，谓 quibus rebus adductus ad causam accesserit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Einleitung，谓 Daß die Einleitung die §§ 1—9 umfaßt, darüber kann gar kein Zweifel herrschen；Stroh 1975 名之为 Prooemium，谓 with narratio 2-5 woven in, nicht ganz suo loco；Watson 2025 名之为 Exordium，谓 Anticipatio 1; Narratio 2-5; Exordium continued 6-9。此处所记疑难：序论其实是提前搬来的立论，借自辩之名而行：第 2 至 5 节预取立论一（第 11 至 22 节），第 6 至 9 节预取立论二（第 22 至 26 节），成 A-B-A-B 之形。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock III (Functions of the Ablative), rules §43, §45, §49, §53, at §6, §8 of the speech; Woodcock XVI (Conditional Clauses), rules §197, §198, §199, at §6 of the speech. Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock XIV (Questions, Direct and Indirect) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: homo singulari cupiditate, audacia, scelere praeditus (§6, ablative of description); quodsi … non haberem … non petissent … non intercederet … profiterer (§6, mixed unreal conditions).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 III（夺格的功能）第 43、45、49、53 条，见于本篇第 6 节、第 8 节；伍德科克 XVI（条件从句）第 197、198、199 条，见于本篇第 6 节。本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 XIV（直接与间接疑问）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：homo singulari cupiditate, audacia, scelere praeditus（第 6 节）；quodsi … non haberem … non petissent … non intercederet … profiterer（第 6 节）。

Strand线索 ablative of cause as ethos

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: Exordium; Sternkopf 1905: Einleitung; Stroh 1975: Prooemium; Watson 2025: Exordium
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 6-8: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock III, XIV, XVI — the ablative, questions direct and indirect, conditionals

7Fri 2026-10-09

§§9–10 — Exordium / Partitio (Watson 2025)§§9–10：Exordium 序论、Partitio 分项（Watson 2025）

§§9–10. two agreed joints in two sections: the exordium ends at §9, and the division stands at §10. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: Exordium / Divisio; Sternkopf 1905: Einleitung / transitio; Stroh 1975: Prooemium / Partitio; Watson 2025: Exordium / Partitio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876Exordium / Divisio

Sternkopf 1905Einleitung / transitio

Stroh 1975Prooemium / Partitio

Watson 2025Exordium / Partitio

joint关节§9 · agreed第 9 节 · 公认 §10 · agreed第 10 节 · 公认

Why here何以断于此 two agreed joints in two sections: the exordium ends at §9, and the division stands at §10

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§9§9 §10§10

also drawn on另涉§1§1 §2§2 §3§3 §11§11 §24§24 §33§33

Woodcock伍德科克I · The Accusative Case §§1–19I · 宾格 §§1–19 XX · Relative Clauses (qui) and the Constructions of cum §§229–239XX · 关系从句（qui）与 cum 的用法 §§229–239 XXIII · Reported Speech (oratio obliqua) §§262–271XXIII · 间接引语 §§262–271 XXIV · Subordinate Clauses in O. O. §§272–279XXIV · 间接引语中的从句 §§272–279

written on this论及此段者Luca Grillo 2015Luca Grillo 2015

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§9–10. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it Divisio — place per Quint. 3.9.1; Sternkopf 1905 calls it transitio — eine transitio κατ' ἐξοχήν: Cicero turns to his real theme; Stroh 1975 calls it Partitio — announces at least the first two main parts of the confirmatio; Watson 2025 calls it Partitio — how to choose a prosecutor. The stretch contains §9 (the exordium ends), §10 (the division stands here). Recorded as difficult here: The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confir.第 9 至 10 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 Divisio，谓 place per Quint. 3.9.1；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 transitio，谓 eine transitio κατ' ἐξοχήν: Cicero turns to his real theme；Stroh 1975 名之为 Partitio，谓 announces at least the first two main parts of the confirmatio；Watson 2025 名之为 Partitio，谓 how to choose a prosecutor。段内有关节：第 9 节、第 10 节。此处所记疑难：序论其实是提前搬来的立论，借自辩之名而行：第 2 至 5 节预取立论一（第 11 至 22 节），第 6 至 9 节预取立论二（第 22 至 26 节），成 A-B-A-B 之形。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock XX (Relative Clauses (qui) and the Constructions of cum), rules §233, §236, at §9, §10 of the speech; Woodcock XXIV (Subordinate Clauses in O. O.), rules §272, at §9, §10 of the speech. Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock I (The Accusative Case), Woodcock XXIII (Reported Speech (oratio obliqua)) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: ut homines idonei atque integri causam rei publicae legumque susciperent (§9, appositional noun-clause); fateor me … accessisse (§9, acc.+inf. after a verb of admission).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 XX（关系从句（qui）与 cum 的用法）第 233、236 条，见于本篇第 9 节、第 10 节；伍德科克 XXIV（间接引语中的从句）第 272 条，见于本篇第 9 节、第 10 节。本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 I（宾格）、伍德科克 XXIII（间接引语）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：ut homines idonei atque integri causam rei publicae legumque susciperent（第 9 节）；fateor me … accessisse（第 9 节）。

Strand线索 the Sicilians' reported voice; dicitur with four infinitives

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: Exordium / Divisio; Sternkopf 1905: Einleitung / transitio; Stroh 1975: Prooemium / Partitio; Watson 2025: Exordium / Partitio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 9-10: each section entire
The joint itself: §9 — the exordium ends; §10 — the division stands here
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock I, XX, XXIII, XXIV — the accusative, qui and cum, and oratio obliqua with its subordinate clauses

8Tue 2026-10-13

§§11–13 — Confirmatio I (Watson 2025)§§11–13：Confirmatio I 立论一（Watson 2025）

§§11–13. the first head begins at §11, where Stroh's partitio also ends. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: Partitio / confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 1

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 1

Stroh 1975Partitio / confirmatio I

Watson 2025Confirmatio I

joint关节§11 · agreed第 11 节 · 公认

Why here何以断于此 the first head begins at §11, where Stroh's partitio also ends

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§11§11 §12§12 §13§13

also drawn on另涉§2§2 §33§33 §56§56 §69§69

Woodcock伍德科克XXI · Causal and Concessive Clauses §§240–249XXI · 原因与让步从句 §§240–249

written on this论及此段者David Mankin (ed.) 2011David Mankin (ed.) 2011 van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§11–13. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 1 — quod se Siculi maxime velint; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 1 — die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts; Stroh 1975 calls it Partitio — announces at least the first two main parts of the confirmatio; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio I — the candidate most desirable to the victims. The stretch contains §11 (the first head begins). Recorded as difficult here: The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confir; The narratio exists because the events leading to the two postulationes were in fact disputed, and Cicero decl.第 11 至 13 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 1，谓 quod se Siculi maxime velint；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 1，谓 die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts；Stroh 1975 名之为 Partitio，谓 announces at least the first two main parts of the confirmatio；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio I，谓 the candidate most desirable to the victims。段内有关节：第 11 节。此处所记疑难：序论其实是提前搬来的立论，借自辩之名而行：第 2 至 5 节预取立论一（第 11 至 22 节），第 6 至 9 节预取立论二（第 22 至 26 节），成 A-B-A-B 之形；之所以有陈事一节，是因为两次申请之前的经过本有争议，而西塞罗不愿公开去争。陈事不负举证之责，正好让他暗示一些并不存在的来龙去脉。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock XXI (Causal and Concessive Clauses), rules §240, §241, §244, at §11, §12, §13 of the speech. The dossier picks out: Siciliam provinciam C. Verres … depopulatus esse … vastasse … exinanisse … spoliasse dicitur (§11, personal passive with four infinitives); me defensorem … me ultorem … me cognitorem … me actorem … esse voluerunt (§11, quadruple anaphora of predicative accusatives).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 XXI（原因与让步从句）第 240、241、244 条，见于本篇第 11 节、第 12 节、第 13 节。读本注释于此段所举：Siciliam provinciam C. Verres … depopulatus esse … vastasse … exinanisse … spoliasse dicitur（第 11 节）；me defensorem … me ultorem … me cognitorem … me actorem … esse voluerunt（第 11 节）。

Strand线索 narrative tenses against a speech with almost no narrative

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: Partitio / confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 11-13: each section entire
The joint itself: §11 — the first head begins
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XXI — causal and concessive clauses

9Fri 2026-10-16

§§14–16 — Confirmatio I (Watson 2025)§§14–16：Confirmatio I 立论一（Watson 2025）

§§14–16. inside the first head. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 1

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 1

Stroh 1975confirmatio I

Watson 2025Confirmatio I

Why here何以断于此 inside the first head

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§14§14 §15§15 §16§16

also drawn on另涉§10§10 §13§13 §27§27 §28§28 §35§35 §40§40

Woodcock伍德科克IV · Functions of the Dative. Impersonal Passive §§56–68IV · 与格的功能；非人称被动 §§56–68

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§14–16. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 1 — quod se Siculi maxime velint; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 1 — die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts; Stroh 1975 calls it confirmatio I — quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae — anticipated by §§2–5; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio I — the candidate most desirable to the victims. Recorded as difficult here: It is highly probable that Caecilius, not Cicero, petitioned the praetor first: in a rhetorical duel the secon.第 14 至 16 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 1，谓 quod se Siculi maxime velint；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 1，谓 die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts；Stroh 1975 名之为 confirmatio I，谓 quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae — anticipated by §§2–5；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio I，谓 the candidate most desirable to the victims。此处所记疑难：先向长官提出申请的很可能是凯基利乌斯而非西塞罗：对辩之中后发者占便宜，而全篇是西塞罗进攻、凯基利乌斯应答。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock IV (Functions of the Dative. Impersonal Passive), rules §62, §67, §68, at §15, §16 of the speech. The dossier picks out: quarum duarum si adessent … minuerentur (§14, unreal condition on the absentees); qui praesentes vos orant atque obsecrant … ut … ne discrepet (§14, indirect petition; ut…ne).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 IV（与格的功能；非人称被动）第 62、67、68 条，见于本篇第 15 节、第 16 节。读本注释于此段所举：quarum duarum si adessent … minuerentur（第 14 节）；qui praesentes vos orant atque obsecrant … ut … ne discrepet（第 14 节）。

Strand线索 praeteritio on non dicam; apostrophe with the imperatives

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 14-16: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock IV — the dative, and the impersonal passive

10Tue 2026-10-20

§§17–19 — Confirmatio I / Digressio (Watson 2025)§§17–19：Confirmatio I 立论一、Digressio 旁论（Watson 2025）

§§17–19. Watson opens a digressio here; the other three run straight on. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I / Digressio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 1

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 1

Stroh 1975confirmatio I

Watson 2025Confirmatio I / Digressio

Why here何以断于此 Watson opens a digressio here; the other three run straight on

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§17§17 §18§18 §19§19

also drawn on另涉§2§2 §5§5 §14§14 §25§25 §30§30 §41§41

Woodcock伍德科克IX · Alternatives to the Subjunctive (Duty / Necessity / Permission / Possibility). Direct Commands & Prohibitions §§122–130IX · 虚拟式的替代形式：义务、必要、许可、可能；直接命令与禁止 §§122–130

written on this论及此段者Brunt 1988Brunt 1988 Lintott 2008Lintott 2008 L. H. G. Greenwood (tr.) 1935L. H. G. Greenwood (tr.) 1935 van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§17–19. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 1 — quod se Siculi maxime velint; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 1 — die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts; Stroh 1975 calls it confirmatio I — quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae — anticipated by §§2–5; Watson 2025 calls it Digressio — lex de pecuniis repetundis.第 17 至 19 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 1，谓 quod se Siculi maxime velint；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 1，谓 die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts；Stroh 1975 名之为 confirmatio I，谓 quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae — anticipated by §§2–5；Watson 2025 名之为 Digressio，谓 lex de pecuniis repetundis。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock IX (Alternatives to the Subjunctive (Duty / Necessity / Permission / Possibility). Direct Commands & Prohibitions), rules §122, at §17, §18, §19 of the speech. The dossier picks out: cum hoc constet, Siculos a me petisse (§17, causal cum; the settled fact); reliquum est iam ut illud quaeramus (§17, subject ut-clause).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 IX（虚拟式的替代形式：义务、必要、许可、可能；直接命令与禁止）第 122 条，见于本篇第 17 节、第 18 节、第 19 节。读本注释于此段所举：cum hoc constet, Siculos a me petisse（第 17 节）；reliquum est iam ut illud quaeramus（第 17 节）。

Strand线索 synonymic doublets; the irony of 13

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I / Digressio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 17-19: each section entire
Why the divisions part here, and what turns on it
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock IX — duty, necessity, possibility; commands and prohibitions

11Fri 2026-10-23

§§20–21 — Confirmatio I (Watson 2025)§§20–21：Confirmatio I 立论一（Watson 2025）

§§20–21. Watson closes the digressio and returns to the first head. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 1

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 1

Stroh 1975confirmatio I

Watson 2025Confirmatio I

Why here何以断于此 Watson closes the digressio and returns to the first head

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§20§20 §21§21

also drawn on另涉§1§1 §7§7 §8§8 §9§9 §16§16 §25§25

Woodcock伍德科克XII · Generic and Consecutive Clauses (qui) §§155–159XII · 泛指与结果关系从句（qui） §§155–159

written on this论及此段者Giuseppe La Bua 2019Giuseppe La Bua 2019 Giuseppe La Bua 2019Giuseppe La Bua 2019 du Plessis 2016du Plessis 2016

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§20–21. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 1 — quod se Siculi maxime velint; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 1 — die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts; Stroh 1975 calls it confirmatio I — quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae — anticipated by §§2–5; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio I — the candidate most desirable to the victims.第 20 至 21 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 1，谓 quod se Siculi maxime velint；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 1，谓 die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts；Stroh 1975 名之为 confirmatio I，谓 quem maxime velint actorem esse ii quibus factae esse dicantur iniuriae — anticipated by §§2–5；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio I，谓 the candidate most desirable to the victims。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock XII (Generic and Consecutive Clauses (qui)), rules §155, at §20 of the speech. The dossier picks out: quisquam tam impudens reperietur qui … audeat? (§20, consecutive relative after tam); The imagined speech (§20, te non novimus, nescimus qui sis, numquam te antea vidimus; sine nos …).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 XII（泛指与结果关系从句（qui））第 155 条，见于本篇第 20 节。读本注释于此段所举：quisquam tam impudens reperietur qui … audeat?（第 20 节）；The imagined speech（第 20 节）。

Strand线索 anaphoric quis est qui; the relative-mood drill; Sicily personified

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 1; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 20-21: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XII — generic and consecutive qui

12Tue 2026-10-27

§22 — Confirmatio I / Confirmatio II (Watson 2025)§22：Confirmatio I 立论一、Confirmatio II 立论二（Watson 2025）

§22. the second head begins here for Heitland, Stroh and Watson; for Sternkopf nothing happens until §27. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 1 / probatio 2; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I / confirmatio II; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I / Confirmatio II.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 1 / probatio 2

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 1

Stroh 1975confirmatio I / confirmatio II

Watson 2025Confirmatio I / Confirmatio II

joint关节§22 · contested第 22 节 · 有争

Why here何以断于此 the second head begins here for Heitland, Stroh and Watson; for Sternkopf nothing happens until §27

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§22§22

also drawn on另涉§2§2 §3§3 §5§5 §9§9 §23§23 §51§51

Woodcock伍德科克XI · Final Relative & Adverb-Clauses. Other Methods of Expressing Purpose. The Supine §§147–154XI · 目的关系从句与副词从句；表达目的的其他方法；目的分词 §§147–154

Why this passage此段何以重要 §22. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 2 — quod se Verres minime velit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 1 — die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts; Stroh 1975 calls it confirmatio II — quem minime velit is qui eas iniurias fecisse arguatur — anticipated by §§6–9; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio II — the candidate least desirable to the accused. The stretch contains §22 (second head begins (Heitland, Stroh, Watson) or not until 27 (Sternkop). Recorded as difficult here: The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confir; Cicero can neither prove the praevaricatio charge nor make it probable, and does not carry it through consiste.第 22 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 2，谓 quod se Verres minime velit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 1，谓 die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts；Stroh 1975 名之为 confirmatio II，谓 quem minime velit is qui eas iniurias fecisse arguatur — anticipated by §§6–9；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio II，谓 the candidate least desirable to the accused。段内有关节：第 22 节。此处所记疑难：序论其实是提前搬来的立论，借自辩之名而行：第 2 至 5 节预取立论一（第 11 至 22 节），第 6 至 9 节预取立论二（第 22 至 26 节），成 A-B-A-B 之形；通谋一项，西塞罗既不能证明，也不能说到可信，前后并不一贯：第 36 节以下所设想的凯基利乌斯是无能而不失诚实的。这项指控以略过之法说出，因为它本是此体裁的固定题目。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock XI (Final Relative & Adverb-Clauses. Other Methods of Expressing Purpose. The Supine) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: ecquis umquam tam palam de honore, tam vehementer de salute sua contendit quam ille …? (§22, the a fortiori of fear); te actore quem eorum adfuturum putas …? (§22, nominal ablative absolute; the witness-problem).本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 XI（目的关系从句与副词从句；表达目的的其他方法；目的分词）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：ecquis umquam tam palam de honore, tam vehementer de salute sua contendit quam ille …?（第 22 节）；te actore quem eorum adfuturum putas …?（第 22 节）。

Strand线索 period and reading path taught as method; the Greek forensic exordium

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 1 / probatio 2; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio I / confirmatio II; Watson 2025: Confirmatio I / Confirmatio II
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 22: each section entire
The joint itself: §22 — second head begins (Heitland, Stroh, Watson) or not until 27 (Sternkopf)
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XI — final relative and adverb-clauses, and the supine

13Fri 2026-10-30

§§23–26 — Confirmatio II (Watson 2025)§§23–26：Confirmatio II 立论二（Watson 2025）

§§23–26. the second head for three divisions, still argumentatio 1 for Sternkopf. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 2; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio II; Watson 2025: Confirmatio II.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 2

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 1

Stroh 1975confirmatio II

Watson 2025Confirmatio II

Why here何以断于此 the second head for three divisions, still argumentatio 1 for Sternkopf

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§23§23 §24§24 §25§25 §26§26

also drawn on另涉§6§6 §7§7 §10§10 §12§12 §20§20 §21§21 §40§40

Woodcock伍德科克XIII · Consecutive Adverb-Clauses and Noun-Clauses (ut) §§160–168XIII · 结果副词从句与名词从句（ut） §§160–168

written on this论及此段者van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010 Andrew R. Dyck 2008Andrew R. Dyck 2008 Lintott 2008Lintott 2008 Michael C. Alexander 1990Michael C. Alexander 1990

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§23–26. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 2 — quod se Verres minime velit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 1 — die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts; Stroh 1975 calls it confirmatio II — quem minime velit is qui eas iniurias fecisse arguatur — anticipated by §§6–9; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio II — the candidate least desirable to the accused. Recorded as difficult here: The prooemium is an argumentatio pulled forward under the pretext of self-justification: 2-5 anticipate confir; Cicero can neither prove the praevaricatio charge nor make it probable, and does not carry it through consiste.第 23 至 26 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 2，谓 quod se Verres minime velit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 1，谓 die Wünsche der beiden Parteien — what each side wants, in two sub-parts；Stroh 1975 名之为 confirmatio II，谓 quem minime velit is qui eas iniurias fecisse arguatur — anticipated by §§6–9；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio II，谓 the candidate least desirable to the accused。此处所记疑难：序论其实是提前搬来的立论，借自辩之名而行：第 2 至 5 节预取立论一（第 11 至 22 节），第 6 至 9 节预取立论二（第 22 至 26 节），成 A-B-A-B 之形；通谋一项，西塞罗既不能证明，也不能说到可信，前后并不一贯：第 36 节以下所设想的凯基利乌斯是无能而不失诚实的。这项指控以略过之法说出，因为它本是此体裁的固定题目。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock XIII (Consecutive Adverb-Clauses and Noun-Clauses (ut)), rules §168, at §23, §26 of the speech. The dossier picks out: da mihi hoc; concede … quod cum dederis … illud dederis, ut is absolvatur cuius ego causa laboro (§23, the mask drops); id dicam quod tacitus tu mihi adsentiare (§23, the silent assent).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 XIII（结果副词从句与名词从句（ut））第 168 条，见于本篇第 23 节、第 26 节。读本注释于此段所举：da mihi hoc; concede … quod cum dederis … illud dederis, ut is absolvatur cuius ego causa laboro（第 23 节）；id dicam quod tacitus tu mihi adsentiare（第 23 节）。

Strand线索 rhetorical question; hypophora; the contentio closes

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 2; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 1; Stroh 1975: confirmatio II; Watson 2025: Confirmatio II
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 23-26: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XIII — consecutive ut

14Tue 2026-11-03

§§27–30 — Digressio (Watson 2025)§§27–30：Digressio 旁论（Watson 2025）

§§27–30. Sternkopf's argumentatio 2 opens; Heitland's probatio 3; for Watson this is digressio. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 3

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 2

Stroh 1975Confirmatio

Watson 2025Digressio

Why here何以断于此 Sternkopf's argumentatio 2 opens; Heitland's probatio 3; for Watson this is digressio

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§27§27 §28§28 §29§29 §30§30

also drawn on另涉§17§17 §31§31 §33§33 §34§34 §62§62 §65§65

Woodcock伍德科克V · Functions of the Genitive §§69–77V · 属格的功能 §§69–77

build项目actor / accusator in the glossary, with its passages术语表中的 actor / accusator 及其文本

build项目Corpus scale: the 35 speeches语料库规模：三十五篇演说

written on this论及此段者van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010 JAMES M. MAY 2002JAMES M. MAY 2002 Professor M L Clarke 1953Professor M L Clarke 1953 Ann Vasaly 1993Ann Vasaly 1993

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§27–30. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 3 — quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 2 — quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores; Stroh 1975 calls it Confirmatio — the constructively probative part; Watson 2025 calls it Digressio — on the ideal prosecutor. Recorded as difficult here: Cicero can neither prove the praevaricatio charge nor make it probable, and does not carry it through consiste.第 27 至 30 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 3，谓 quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 2，谓 quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores；Stroh 1975 名之为 Confirmatio，谓 the constructively probative part；Watson 2025 名之为 Digressio，谓 on the ideal prosecutor。此处所记疑难：通谋一项，西塞罗既不能证明，也不能说到可信，前后并不一贯：第 36 节以下所设想的凯基利乌斯是无能而不失诚实的。这项指控以略过之法说出，因为它本是此体裁的固定题目。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock V (Functions of the Genitive), rules §72, §77, at §27, §30 of the speech. The dossier picks out: cognosce ex me, quoniam hoc primum tempus discendi nactus es (§27, the schoolmaster's irony); quo tempore aut qua in re … specimen aliquod dedisti … tute tui periculum fecisti? (§27, the empty record).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 V（属格的功能）第 72、77 条，见于本篇第 27 节、第 30 节。读本注释于此段所举：cognosce ex me, quoniam hoc primum tempus discendi nactus es（第 27 节）；quo tempore aut qua in re … specimen aliquod dedisti … tute tui periculum fecisti?（第 27 节）。

Strand线索 actor/accusator/patronus/defensor at corpus scale; lab = integrative rehearsal

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 27-30: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock V — functions of the genitive

Midterm期中 meeting 15第 15 次

15Fri 2026-11-06

MIDTERM期中考试

Examination.

Strand线索 institutions, figures on unseen Verrines Latin, membership reasoning

The long middle, the turn, and the peroration · §§31–73中段、转折与结语：第 31 至 73 节 meetings 16–28第 16–28 次

16Tue 2026-11-10

§§31–35 — Digressio (Watson 2025)§§31–35：Digressio 旁论（Watson 2025）

§§31–35. the twenty sections §§27-46 are one stretch in every division; four meetings read them. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 3

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 2

Stroh 1975Confirmatio

Watson 2025Digressio

Why here何以断于此 the twenty sections §§27-46 are one stretch in every division; four meetings read them

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§31§31 §32§32 §33§33 §34§34 §35§35

also drawn on另涉§1§1 §4§4 §6§6 §13§13 §14§14 §15§15 §19§19 §20§20

Woodcock伍德科克XV · Quominus and Quin. Clauses after Verbs of Fearing §§184–190XV · quominus 与 quin；畏惧动词后的从句 §§184–190

written on this论及此段者Jonathan Powell 2004Jonathan Powell 2004 George Long (ed.) 1858George Long (ed.) 1858

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§31–35. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 3 — quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 2 — quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores; Stroh 1975 calls it Confirmatio — the constructively probative part; Watson 2025 calls it Digressio — on the ideal prosecutor.第 31 至 35 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 3，谓 quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 2，谓 quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores；Stroh 1975 名之为 Confirmatio，谓 the constructively probative part；Watson 2025 名之为 Digressio，谓 on the ideal prosecutor。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock XV (Quominus and Quin. Clauses after Verbs of Fearing), rules §187, at §31, §33, §34 of the speech. The dossier picks out: sin praetermittes, qualis erit tua ista accusatio, quae … pertimescat? (§31, horn B; the crux); utrum … praetermittes an obicies? (§31, the dilemma; horn A).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 XV（quominus 与 quin；畏惧动词后的从句）第 187 条，见于本篇第 31 节、第 33 节、第 34 节。读本注释于此段所举：sin praetermittes, qualis erit tua ista accusatio, quae … pertimescat?（第 31 节）；utrum … praetermittes an obicies?（第 31 节）。

Strand线索 dilemma as conditional architecture; frumentum vocabulary against Verr. 2.3

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 31-35: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XV — quominus, quin, and verbs of fearing

17Fri 2026-11-13

§§36–39 — Digressio (Watson 2025)§§36–39：Digressio 旁论（Watson 2025）

§§36–39. same stretch. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 3

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 2

Stroh 1975Confirmatio

Watson 2025Digressio

Why here何以断于此 same stretch

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§36§36 §37§37 §38§38 §39§39

also drawn on另涉§44§44

Woodcock伍德科克XXII · Clauses of Comparison §§250–261XXII · 比较从句 §§250–261

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 W. Jeffrey Tatum 2018W. Jeffrey Tatum 2018 Professor M L Clarke 1953Professor M L Clarke 1953 Giuseppe La Bua 2019Giuseppe La Bua 2019

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§36–39. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 3 — quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 2 — quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores; Stroh 1975 calls it Confirmatio — the constructively probative part; Watson 2025 calls it Digressio — on the ideal prosecutor. Recorded as difficult here: A small techne rhetorike in usum Caecilii: it opens and closes with the partes rhetoricae (hypokrisis, mneme, .第 36 至 39 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 3，谓 quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 2，谓 quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores；Stroh 1975 名之为 Confirmatio，谓 the constructively probative part；Watson 2025 名之为 Digressio，谓 on the ideal prosecutor。此处所记疑难：这是为凯基利乌斯而设的一部小型修辞术：首尾都是修辞之分部（hypokrisis、mneme、heuresis、taxis、lexis），中间嵌入演说家的三职（docere、movere、delectare），并点出教育的三要素（physis、techne、melete）。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock XXII (Clauses of Comparison) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: aut enim id mihi satis est quod est de me opinionis, quidquid est, aut … maius id commemorando facere non possum (§36, the dilemma that ends the topic); nihil dico de meo ingenio; neque est quod possim dicere, neque si esset dicerem (§36, the double refusal).本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 XXII（比较从句）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：aut enim id mihi satis est quod est de me opinionis, quidquid est, aut … maius id commemorando facere non possum（第 36 节）；nihil dico de meo ingenio; neque est quod possim dicere, neque si esset dicerem（第 36 节）。

Strand线索 mixed and unreal conditions; the future-participle periphrasis at 44

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 36-39: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XXII — clauses of comparison

18Tue 2026-11-17

§§40–46 — Digressio (Watson 2025)§§40–46：Digressio 旁论（Watson 2025）

§§40–46. same stretch, to the eve of Stroh's turn. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 3

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 2

Stroh 1975Confirmatio

Watson 2025Digressio

Why here何以断于此 same stretch, to the eve of Stroh's turn

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§40§40 §41§41 §42§42 §43§43 §44§44 §45§45 §46§46

also drawn on另涉§1§1 §4§4 §24§24 §27§27 §30§30 §31§31 §49§49 §57§57 §63§63

Woodcock伍德科克VIII · The Moods. The Subjunctive Used Independently §§105–121VIII · 语气；独立使用的虚拟式 §§105–121

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 Andrew R. Dyck 2008Andrew R. Dyck 2008 Sophia Papaioannou 2017Sophia Papaioannou 2017 van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§40–46. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 3 — quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 2 — quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores; Stroh 1975 calls it Confirmatio — the constructively probative part; Watson 2025 calls it Digressio — on the ideal prosecutor.第 40 至 46 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 3，谓 quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 2，谓 quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores；Stroh 1975 名之为 Confirmatio，谓 the constructively probative part；Watson 2025 名之为 Digressio，谓 on the ideal prosecutor。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock VIII (The Moods. The Subjunctive Used Independently), rules §113, §114, §121, at §40, §41, §43 of the speech. The dossier picks out: utinam quidem essent! (§40, the optative answer); quam longe tu te ab his rebus abesse arbitrare … quae et quantae sint suspicari potes? (§40, the a fortiori landed).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 VIII（语气；独立使用的虚拟式）第 113、114、121 条，见于本篇第 40 节、第 41 节、第 43 节。读本注释于此段所举：utinam quidem essent!（第 40 节）；quam longe tu te ab his rebus abesse arbitrare … quae et quantae sint suspicari potes?（第 40 节）。

Strand线索 the orator's kit; gerundive attraction carrying ethos

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio; Watson 2025: Digressio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 40-46: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock VIII — the moods, and the subjunctive used independently

19Fri 2026-11-20

§47 — Digressio / Confirmatio III (Watson 2025)§47：Digressio 旁论、Confirmatio III 立论三（Watson 2025）

§47. Stroh's boundary between confirmatio and refutatio: from here the opponent's arguments are reported. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio / Refutatio; Watson 2025: Digressio / Confirmatio III.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 3

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 2

Stroh 1975Confirmatio / Refutatio

Watson 2025Digressio / Confirmatio III

joint关节§47 · contested第 47 节 · 有争

Why here何以断于此 Stroh's boundary between confirmatio and refutatio: from here the opponent's arguments are reported

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§47§47

also drawn on另涉§2§2 §9§9 §17§17 §28§28 §45§45 §46§46 §64§64 §69§69

Woodcock伍德科克VII · The Use of Participles §§88–104VII · 分词的用法 §§88–104

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 JAMES M. MAY 2002JAMES M. MAY 2002 Gesine Manuwald 2007Gesine Manuwald 2007

Why this passage此段何以重要 §47. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 3 — quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 2 — quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio III — subscriptores. The stretch contains §47 (Stroh's boundary between confirmatio and refutatio: from here the oppo).第 47 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 3，谓 quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 2，谓 quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio III，谓 subscriptores。段内有关节：第 47 节。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock VII (The Use of Participles) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: The double protasis (§47, si … potueris, si … verbo uno discesseris — the generous-looking exam); huiusce rei iudicium iam continuo video futurum (§47, the audition-thesis).本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 VII（分词的用法）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：The double protasis（第 47 节）；huiusce rei iudicium iam continuo video futurum（第 47 节）。

Strand线索 ethos of fear; the unreal with a future participle

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Confirmatio / Refutatio; Watson 2025: Digressio / Confirmatio III
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 47: each section entire
The joint itself: §47 — Stroh's boundary between confirmatio and refutatio: from here the opponent's arguments are reported
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock VII — the use of participles

20Tue 2026-11-24

§§48–51 — Confirmatio III (Watson 2025)§§48–51：Confirmatio III 立论三（Watson 2025）

§§48–51. refutatio for Stroh, still confirmatio for Watson, still probatio 3 for Heitland. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Confirmatio III.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 3

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 2

Stroh 1975Refutatio

Watson 2025Confirmatio III

Why here何以断于此 refutatio for Stroh, still confirmatio for Watson, still probatio 3 for Heitland

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§48§48 §49§49 §50§50 §51§51

also drawn on另涉§5§5 §10§10 §12§12 §13§13 §19§19 §24§24 §27§27 §35§35

Woodcock伍德科克VI · Further Uses of the Ablative and Genitive §§78–87VI · 夺格与属格的其他用法 §§78–87

written on this论及此段者Ann Vasaly 1993Ann Vasaly 1993 Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 Václav Marek (ed.) 1983Václav Marek (ed.) 1983

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§48–51. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 3 — quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 2 — quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Confirmatio III — subscriptores.第 48 至 51 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 3，谓 quod ea sine quibus causa sustineri non possit Caecilium deficiant: integritatem 27-28, veritatem 29-35, facultatem agendi 35-51；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 2，谓 quam multa esse oporteat in eo, qui alterum accuset — with the excursus on the subscriptores；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Confirmatio III，谓 subscriptores。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock VI (Further Uses of the Ablative and Genitive), rules §82, §84, at §48, §49 of the speech. The dossier picks out: The Greek-actor simile (§48, ut in actoribus Graecis … sic faciet alienus); habet alienum, hunc tamen a subselliis (§48, the man from the benches).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 VI（夺格与属格的其他用法）第 82、84 条，见于本篇第 48 节、第 49 节。读本注释于此段所举：The Greek-actor simile（第 48 节）；habet alienum, hunc tamen a subselliis（第 48 节）。

Strand线索 facessieris and the grammarians' testimonium

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 3; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 2; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Confirmatio III
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 48-51: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock VI — further uses of the ablative and genitive

21Fri 2026-11-27

§§52–55 — Reprehensio I (Watson 2025)§§52–55：Reprehensio I 驳论一（Watson 2025）

§§52–55. de la Ville de Mirmont's and Watson's boundary for the refutation; Heitland has no refutatio at all. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 4; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio I.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 4

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Refutatio

Watson 2025Reprehensio I

joint关节§52 · contested第 52 节 · 有争

Why here何以断于此 de la Ville de Mirmont's and Watson's boundary for the refutation; Heitland has no refutatio at all

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§52§52 §53§53 §54§54 §55§55

also drawn on另涉§14§14 §42§42 §44§44 §50§50 §63§63

Woodcock伍德科克XIX · Temporal Clauses §§214–228XIX · 时间从句 §§214–228

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 Brunt 1988Brunt 1988

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§52–55. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 4 — quod ipse maiores causas habeat quam Caecilius; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Reprehensio I — iniuria non facta. The stretch contains §52 (de la Ville de Mirmont's and Watson's boundary for the refutatio/repre).第 52 至 55 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 4，谓 quod ipse maiores causas habeat quam Caecilius；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Reprehensio I，谓 iniuria non facta。段内有关节：第 52 节。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 The syntax these sections actually carry: Woodcock XIX (Temporal Clauses), rules §221, at §53 of the speech. The dossier picks out: quid enim dices? an id quod dictitas, iniuriam tibi fecisse Verrem? arbitror (§52, the concession); qui si te recte monere volet, suadebit tibi ut hinc discedas neque mihi verbum ullum respondeas (§52, the prompter's best line).这几节实际所见的句法：伍德科克 XIX（时间从句）第 221 条，见于本篇第 53 节。读本注释于此段所举：quid enim dices? an id quod dictitas, iniuriam tibi fecisse Verrem? arbitror（第 52 节）；qui si te recte monere volet, suadebit tibi ut hinc discedas neque mihi verbum ullum respondeas（第 52 节）。

Strand线索 sermocinatio, the adversary quoted; the custos file closes

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 4; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio I
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 52-55: each section entire
The joint itself: §52 — de la Ville de Mirmont's and Watson's boundary for the refutatio/reprehensio; Heitland has no refutatio at all
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XIX — temporal clauses

22Tue 2026-12-01

§§56–58 — Reprehensio I (Watson 2025)§§56–58：Reprehensio I 驳论一（Watson 2025）

§§56–58. inside Watson's first reprehensio. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 4; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio I.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 4

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Refutatio

Watson 2025Reprehensio I

Why here何以断于此 inside Watson's first reprehensio

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§56§56 §57§57 §58§58

also drawn on另涉§3§3 §11§11 §19§19 §24§24

Woodcock伍德科克no new chapter — the clause system consolidated on the Agonis narrative本次不新授章节，就阿戈尼斯一事的叙述整合从句系统

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§56–58. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 4 — quod ipse maiores causas habeat quam Caecilius; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Reprehensio I — iniuria non facta. Recorded as difficult here: Cicero can neither prove the praevaricatio charge nor make it probable, and does not carry it through consiste.第 56 至 58 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 4，谓 quod ipse maiores causas habeat quam Caecilius；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Reprehensio I，谓 iniuria non facta。此处所记疑难：通谋一项，西塞罗既不能证明，也不能说到可信，前后并不一贯：第 36 节以下所设想的凯基利乌斯是无能而不失诚实的。这项指控以略过之法说出，因为它本是此体裁的固定题目。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 No chapter is introduced here. These sections put back to work Woodcock XV (Quominus and Quin. Clauses after Verbs of Fearing), Woodcock XVII (The Gerund and Gerundive), Woodcock XXIV (Subordinate Clauses in O. O.), Woodcock II (The Infinitive Mood. Accusative + Infinitive), all of them read by now. The dossier picks out: iudicium dat statim, SI PARET EAM SE ET SVA VENERIS ESSE DIXISSE (§56, the formula quoted); Lilybaeum Verres venit postea; rem cognoscit, factum improbat, cogit … adnumerare et reddere (§56, Verres the restitutor).本次不新授章节。这几节所重用者为已读诸章：伍德科克 XV（quominus 与 quin；畏惧动词后的从句）、伍德科克 XVII（动名词与动形词）、伍德科克 XXIV（间接引语中的从句）、伍德科克 II（不定式；宾格加不定式）。读本注释于此段所举：iudicium dat statim, SI PARET EAM SE ET SVA VENERIS ESSE DIXISSE（第 56 节）；Lilybaeum Verres venit postea; rem cognoscit, factum improbat, cogit … adnumerare et reddere（第 56 节）。

Strand线索 narratio of the wrong; the praeponere ring at 54

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 4; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio I
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 56-58: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: no new chapter — the clause system consolidated on the Agonis narrative

23Fri 2026-12-04

§§59–60 — Reprehensio II (Watson 2025)§§59–60：Reprehensio II 驳论二（Watson 2025）

§§59–60. Watson's second reprehensio opens. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 4; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio II.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 4

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Refutatio

Watson 2025Reprehensio II

Why here何以断于此 Watson's second reprehensio opens

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§59§59 §60§60

also drawn on另涉§16§16 §23§23 §41§41 §49§49 §50§50 §55§55

Woodcock伍德科克no new chapter — oratio obliqua consolidated on the necessitudo argument本次不新授章节，就 necessitudo 一段整合间接引语

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§59–60. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 4 — quod ipse maiores causas habeat quam Caecilius; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Reprehensio II — quaestor eius qui accusatur.第 59 至 60 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 4，谓 quod ipse maiores causas habeat quam Caecilius；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Reprehensio II，谓 quaestor eius qui accusatur。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 No chapter is introduced here. These sections put back to work Woodcock XVI (Conditional Clauses), Woodcock XVII (The Gerund and Gerundive), Woodcock XII (Generic and Consecutive Clauses (qui)), Woodcock II (The Infinitive Mood. Accusative + Infinitive), all of them read by now. The dossier picks out: nisi forte illud, quod dicturum te esse audio, quaestorem illius fuisse (§59, the reported plea); in contentione suscipiendarum inimicitiarum ridiculum est putare causam necessitudinis ad inferendum periculum iustam videri oportere (§59, the maxim).本次不新授章节。这几节所重用者为已读诸章：伍德科克 XVI（条件从句）、伍德科克 XVII（动名词与动形词）、伍德科克 XII（泛指与结果关系从句（qui））、伍德科克 II（不定式；宾格加不定式）。读本注释于此段所举：nisi forte illud, quod dicturum te esse audio, quaestorem illius fuisse（第 59 节）；in contentione suscipiendarum inimicitiarum ridiculum est putare causam necessitudinis ad inferendum periculum iustam videri oportere（第 59 节）。

Strand线索 the Venus story; the drop in register

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 4; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio II
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 59-60: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: no new chapter — oratio obliqua consolidated on the necessitudo argument

24Tue 2026-12-08

§§61–65 — Reprehensio II (Watson 2025)§§61–65：Reprehensio II 驳论二（Watson 2025）

§§61–65. Heitland's fifth head opens: the argument from custom and the ancestors. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 5; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio II.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 5

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Refutatio

Watson 2025Reprehensio II

Why here何以断于此 Heitland's fifth head opens: the argument from custom and the ancestors

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§61§61 §62§62 §63§63 §64§64 §65§65

also drawn on另涉§44§44 §60§60

Woodcock伍德科克XVIII · Impersonal Verbs §§208–213XVIII · 非人称动词 §§208–213

written on this论及此段者Michael C. Alexander 1990Michael C. Alexander 1990 Brunt 1988Brunt 1988 du Plessis 2016du Plessis 2016 JAMES M. MAY 2002JAMES M. MAY 2002

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§61–65. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 5 — quod vetus consuetudo institutumque maiorum sibi suffragetur; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Reprehensio II — quaestor eius qui accusatur.第 61 至 65 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 5，谓 quod vetus consuetudo institutumque maiorum sibi suffragetur；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Reprehensio II，谓 quaestor eius qui accusatur。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock XVIII (Impersonal Verbs) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: ac vide quid differat inter meam opinionem ac tuam (§61, the frame); sic enim a maioribus nostris accepimus … (§61, the maxim and the anatomy).本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 XVIII（非人称动词）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：ac vide quid differat inter meam opinionem ac tuam（第 61 节）；sic enim a maioribus nostris accepimus …（第 61 节）。

Strand线索 necessitudo; quaestor and praetor as institutions

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 5; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Reprehensio II
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 61-65: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XVIII — impersonal verbs

25Fri 2026-12-11

§§66–70 — Digressio (Watson 2025)§§66–70：Digressio 旁论（Watson 2025）

§§66–70. Watson's second digressio: the exempla of men who prosecuted for allies. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 5; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Digressio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 5

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Refutatio

Watson 2025Digressio

Why here何以断于此 Watson's second digressio: the exempla of men who prosecuted for allies

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§66§66 §67§67 §68§68 §69§69 §70§70

also drawn on另涉§61§61 §62§62 §63§63

Woodcock伍德科克XXV · Conditional Clauses in O. O. Repraesentatio. §§280–289XXV · 间接引语中的条件句；repraesentatio §§280–289

written on this论及此段者Thomas D. Frazel 2009Thomas D. Frazel 2009 Michael C. Alexander 1990Michael C. Alexander 1990 van der Blom 2010van der Blom 2010 Cicero 2006Cicero 2006

Why this passage此段何以重要 §§66–70. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it probatio 5 — quod vetus consuetudo institutumque maiorum sibi suffragetur; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Refutatio — from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary; Watson 2025 calls it Digressio — consuetudo maiorum.第 66 至 70 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 probatio 5，谓 quod vetus consuetudo institutumque maiorum sibi suffragetur；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Refutatio，谓 from §47 on the opponent's arguments begin to be reported — Stroh's ground for the boundary；Watson 2025 名之为 Digressio，谓 consuetudo maiorum。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 Read here but not exercised in these sections: Woodcock XXV (Conditional Clauses in O. O. Repraesentatio.) — the chapter is read against the speech as a whole. The dossier picks out: clarissimi viri nostrae civitatis temporibus optimis hoc sibi amplissimum pulcherrimumque ducebant (§66, the golden-age frame); nuper Cn. Domitium scimus M. Silano diem dixisse propter unius hominis Aegritomari … iniurias (§67, the descending a fortiori).本次所读而这几节未见其例者：伍德科克 XXV（间接引语中的条件句；repraesentatio）；此章须就全篇取例。读本注释于此段所举：clarissimi viri nostrae civitatis temporibus optimis hoc sibi amplissimum pulcherrimumque ducebant（第 66 节）；nuper Cn. Domitium scimus M. Silano diem dixisse propter unius hominis Aegritomari … iniurias（第 67 节）。

Strand线索 the comparative doublet; fides

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 5; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio; Watson 2025: Digressio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 66-70: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: Woodcock XXV — conditional clauses in oratio obliqua; repraesentatio

26Tue 2026-12-15

§71 — Digressio / Conclusio (Watson 2025)§71：Digressio 旁论、Conclusio 结论（Watson 2025）

§71. the peroration begins mid-section, at quam ob rem hoc statuere, iudices, debetis. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: probatio 5 / Peroratio; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio / Peroratio; Watson 2025: Digressio / Conclusio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876probatio 5 / Peroratio

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Refutatio / Peroratio

Watson 2025Digressio / Conclusio

joint关节§71 · contested第 71 节 · 有争

Why here何以断于此 the peroration begins mid-section, at quam ob rem hoc statuere, iudices, debetis

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§71§71

also drawn on另涉§64§64 §65§65 §66§66

Woodcock伍德科克no new chapter — oratio obliqua across the exempla本次不新授章节，考察诸 exempla 中的间接引语

Why this passage此段何以重要 §71. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it Peroratio — se eum esse cui tanta causa committi possit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Peroratio — resümierend; Watson 2025 calls it Conclusio — final comparatio on the sententia of 71. The stretch contains §71 (the peroration begins mid-section for Heitland, Stroh and Watson; Ster).第 71 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 Peroratio，谓 se eum esse cui tanta causa committi possit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Peroratio，谓 resümierend；Watson 2025 名之为 Conclusio，谓 final comparatio on the sententia of 71。段内有关节：第 71 节。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 No chapter is introduced here. These sections put back to work Woodcock XII (Generic and Consecutive Clauses (qui)), Woodcock XIII (Consecutive Adverb-Clauses and Noun-Clauses (ut)), Woodcock XXIV (Subordinate Clauses in O. O.), all of them read by now. The dossier picks out: quam ob rem hoc statuere, iudices, debetis, Q. Caecilium … non nimis … acturum (§71, the formal instruction); habet enim nihil quod in offensione deperdat; ut turpissime flagitiosissimeque discedat, nihil de suis veteribus ornamentis requiret (§71, the ground and the cruelest litotes).本次不新授章节。这几节所重用者为已读诸章：伍德科克 XII（泛指与结果关系从句（qui））、伍德科克 XIII（结果副词从句与名词从句（ut））、伍德科克 XXIV（间接引语中的从句）。读本注释于此段所举：quam ob rem hoc statuere, iudices, debetis, Q. Caecilium … non nimis … acturum（第 71 节）；habet enim nihil quod in offensione deperdat; ut turpissime flagitiosissimeque discedat, nihil de suis veteribus ornamentis requiret（第 71 节）。

Strand线索 exemplum as a proof-type, not a figure; the catalogue of prosecutors

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: probatio 5 / Peroratio; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Refutatio / Peroratio; Watson 2025: Digressio / Conclusio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 71: each section entire
The joint itself: §71 — the peroration begins mid-section for Heitland, Stroh and Watson; Sternkopf calls that division a mistake and keeps §§71-72 in the argumentatio
The syntax the passage exercises: no new chapter — oratio obliqua across the exempla

27Fri 2026-12-18

§72 — Conclusio (Watson 2025)§72：Conclusio 结论（Watson 2025）

§72. Sternkopf keeps §72 in the argumentatio; for the other three it is already the peroration. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: Peroratio; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Peroratio; Watson 2025: Conclusio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876Peroratio

Sternkopf 1905Hauptteil 3

Stroh 1975Peroratio

Watson 2025Conclusio

Why here何以断于此 Sternkopf keeps §72 in the argumentatio; for the other three it is already the peroration

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§72§72

also drawn on另涉§67§67 §68§68 §69§69

Woodcock伍德科克no new chapter — causal and temporal in argument from law本次不新授章节，考察法理论证中的原因与时间表达

build项目Sources of procedural authority程序权限的法源

build项目The statutes in order — lex Calpurnia to lex Iulia立法沿革：从卡尔普尔尼乌斯法到尤利乌斯法

build项目Stage 1 · the court and the law that tried Verres第 1 阶段：法庭与审判维勒斯的法律

Why this passage此段何以重要 §72. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it Peroratio — se eum esse cui tanta causa committi possit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Hauptteil 3 — die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's; Stroh 1975 calls it Peroratio — resümierend; Watson 2025 calls it Conclusio — final comparatio on the sententia of 71.第 72 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 Peroratio，谓 se eum esse cui tanta causa committi possit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Hauptteil 3，谓 die äußere Begründung der beiderseitigen Ansprüche: a negative part against Caecilius' grounds and a positive one for Cicero's；Stroh 1975 名之为 Peroratio，谓 resümierend；Watson 2025 名之为 Conclusio，谓 final comparatio on the sententia of 71。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 No chapter is introduced here. These sections put back to work Woodcock III (Functions of the Ablative), Woodcock IV (Functions of the Dative. Impersonal Passive), Woodcock X (The Subjunctive in Subordinate Clauses. Final Noun-Clauses), Woodcock XVII (The Gerund and Gerundive), all of them read by now. The dossier picks out: a nobis multos obsides habet populus Romanus … omni ratione erit dimicandum (§72, the hostage-metaphor); habet honorem … habet spem … habet existimationem (§72, the inventory of hostages).本次不新授章节。这几节所重用者为已读诸章：伍德科克 III（夺格的功能）、伍德科克 IV（与格的功能；非人称被动）、伍德科克 X（从句中的虚拟式；目的名词从句）、伍德科克 XVII（动名词与动形词）。读本注释于此段所举：a nobis multos obsides habet populus Romanus … omni ratione erit dimicandum（第 72 节）；habet honorem … habet spem … habet existimationem（第 72 节）。

Strand线索 the lex de repetundis; the mirari ring at 1 and 69

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: Peroratio; Sternkopf 1905: Hauptteil 3; Stroh 1975: Peroratio; Watson 2025: Conclusio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 72: each section entire
What the stretch is doing, with all four divisions agreeing on its name
The syntax the passage exercises: no new chapter — causal and temporal in argument from law

28Tue 2026-12-22

§73 — Conclusio (Watson 2025)§73：Conclusio 结论（Watson 2025）

§73. Sternkopf's peroration is this section and nothing before it, beginning at Quapropter, iudices, vestrum est deligere. What the four published divisions call this stretch — Heitland 1876: Peroratio; Sternkopf 1905: Epilog; Stroh 1975: Peroratio; Watson 2025: Conclusio.

what this stretch is此段属何

Heitland 1876Peroratio

Sternkopf 1905Epilog

Stroh 1975Peroratio

Watson 2025Conclusio

joint关节§73 · contested第 73 节 · 有争

Why here何以断于此 Sternkopf's peroration is this section and nothing before it, beginning at Quapropter, iudices, vestrum est deligere

Divinatio · read预审篇 · 阅读§73§73

also drawn on另涉§70§70 §71§71 §72§72

Woodcock伍德科克no new chapter — the peroration: future imperative and gerundive本次不新授章节，考察结语中的将来命令式与动形词

build项目Wave Lab 09 · Pragmatic Map — moves and dispositio波形实验室 09：语用图，论证步骤与布局

written on this论及此段者Giuseppe La Bua 2019Giuseppe La Bua 2019 Giuseppe La Bua 2019Giuseppe La Bua 2019

Why this passage此段何以重要 §73. What the editions say the stretch is for: Heitland 1876 calls it Peroratio — se eum esse cui tanta causa committi possit; Sternkopf 1905 calls it Epilog — der kurze Epilog in dem einzigen § 73, beginning at Quapropter, iudices, vestrum est deligere; Stroh 1975 calls it Peroratio — resümierend; Watson 2025 calls it Conclusio — final comparatio on the sententia of 71. The stretch contains §73 (Sternkopf's peroration: the whole of it, and nothing before it, beginn).第 73 节。诸家所言此段之用：Heitland 1876 名之为 Peroratio，谓 se eum esse cui tanta causa committi possit；Sternkopf 1905 名之为 Epilog，谓 der kurze Epilog in dem einzigen § 73, beginning at Quapropter, iudices, vestrum est deligere；Stroh 1975 名之为 Peroratio，谓 resümierend；Watson 2025 名之为 Conclusio，谓 final comparatio on the sententia of 71。段内有关节：第 73 节。

The syntax, and this passage句法与此段之关系 No chapter is introduced here. These sections put back to work Woodcock III (Functions of the Ablative), Woodcock V (Functions of the Genitive), Woodcock X (The Subjunctive in Subordinate Clauses. Final Noun-Clauses), Woodcock XIV (Questions, Direct and Indirect), all of them read by now. The dossier picks out: vestrum est deligere quem existimetis facillime posse … sustinere fide, diligentia, consilio, auctoritate (§73, the charge to the bench); vos si mihi Q. Caecilium anteposueritis, ego me dignitate superatum non arbitrabor (§73, the ring's true close; the measured grace).本次不新授章节。这几节所重用者为已读诸章：伍德科克 III（夺格的功能）、伍德科克 V（属格的功能）、伍德科克 X（从句中的虚拟式；目的名词从句）、伍德科克 XIV（直接与间接疑问）。读本注释于此段所举：vestrum est deligere quem existimetis facillime posse … sustinere fide, diligentia, consilio, auctoritate（第 73 节）；vos si mihi Q. Caecilium anteposueritis, ego me dignitate superatum non arbitrabor（第 73 节）。

Strand线索 providete against divinatio; the whole-speech rings

What this stretch is, formally: Heitland 1876: Peroratio; Sternkopf 1905: Epilog; Stroh 1975: Peroratio; Watson 2025: Conclusio
The continuous reading, Div. Caec. 73: each section entire
The joint itself: §73 — Sternkopf's peroration: the whole of it, and nothing before it, beginning at Quapropter, iudices, vestrum est deligere
The syntax the passage exercises: no new chapter — the peroration: future imperative and gerundive

Final期末 meeting 29第 29 次

29Fri 2026-12-25

FINAL期末考试

Examination.

Strand线索 unseen passage: parse, map, translate; figure and register analysis; one composition