Pseudo-Asconius on the Divinatio伪阿斯科尼乌斯《预审篇》注

Two details here are not in the Divinatio and can be checked against the other speeches. Arrius is real: Cicero says twice that Q. Arrius was expected in the province and did not come (Verr. 2.2.37, 2.4.42), which is why Verres' single year became three. Sacerdos is real too (Verr. 2.1.27, 2.1.104). The commentator is compressing Cicero, not inventing.此处有两点不见于《预审篇》，可与其余诸篇相核。阿里乌斯确有其事：西塞罗两次说昆图斯·阿里乌斯本应到任而未至（《控维雷斯》二之二 37、二之四 42），维雷斯一年之任因此成了三年。萨凯尔多斯亦然（同书二之一 27、104）。可见注家是在压缩西塞罗，不是凭空编造。

Three things follow. First, the scholiast knows a speech of Cicero's at Lilybaeum that we do not have; it is not in the corpus and this is one of the few notices of it. Second, his exception clause is not what Cicero says. Cicero's claim in the Verrines is narrower and sharper: one city only, Messana, sent envoys to praise Verres (Verr. 2.2.13), and Syracuse's public commendation was extracted, as Heraclius' evidence showed (Verr. 2.2.15). The scholiast has flattened that into two cities standing apart from the prosecution. Third, the phrase ad accusandum descendere is lifted straight out of Div. Caec. 1 — the commentator is quoting the speech he is introducing.由此可得三事。其一，注家知道西塞罗在吕利巴埃乌姆有一篇演说，而此篇今已不存；集中无之，此处即为数不多的记载之一。其二，他所说的例外，与西塞罗所言不同。西塞罗在《控维雷斯》中的说法更窄也更利：全岛只有墨萨纳一城遣使称誉维雷斯（二之二 13）；至于叙拉古的公开褒辞，据赫拉克利乌斯之证，乃是逼取而来（二之二 15）。注家把这些简化成两座城不与控告。其三，ad accusandum descendere 一语径取自《预审篇》第 1 节，注家所引，正是他所要引介的那篇。

Cicero says the same things but never in one breath, and never as a list of families: he names M. Metellus as the praetor who would take the court next year, Q. Metellus as consul-elect, and L. Metellus as the governor in place (Verr. 1.26, 1.27). The Scipiones are the scholiast's own addition and cannot be checked. What the sentence does show is that a late reader, with the speeches in front of him, thought the point of the case was the standing of the men on the other side.西塞罗说的是同样的事，却从不一口气说完，也从不列作家族名单：他分别点出马尔库斯·梅特路斯是次年将主持法庭的裁判官，昆图斯是当选执政官，路奇乌斯是在任的行省长官（《控维雷斯》一之 26、27）。至于西庇阿诸人，则是注家自己所加，无从核对。这一句真正显示的是：一位晚出的读者，手执诸篇，认为此案的关节就在对造诸人的地位。

The second ground is the one worth pausing on, because it is an argument about procedure: the grant of an inquisitio — the period and the powers to gather evidence in the province — was the expensive part of a repetundae prosecution, and Caecilius is offering to do without it. Cicero's answer is not that the offer is false but that a prosecutor who needs no evidence is a prosecutor who intends to lose. The word praevaricator, which the scholiast uses here, does not occur anywhere in the Divinatio itself.第二条最值得停下来看，因为那是就程序而发的一条论证：勒索案的控告中，查证之权，即赴行省搜证的期限与权力，是最费事的一段，而凯基利乌斯表示可以不要。西塞罗的回答不是说这话不实，而是说：一个不需要证据的控告人，正是打算输掉的控告人。注家此处所用 praevaricator 一词，《预审篇》全篇不见。

The six heads are not equal in kind — the first, fourth and sixth are about the man, the second and third about the province, the fifth about competence — and the scholiast does not say which sections carry which. But the last line is a structural claim, and it can be tested against the text: a break between a part about Cicero and a part about the contest falls where every modern division also puts a joint, at the end of the exordium. What the scholiast does not give is any of the later joints, which is where the modern disagreement lies.这六目并不同类：第一、第四、第六说其人，第二、第三说行省，第五说其能；注家也没有说哪一目属于哪几节。但末一句是关于结构的断言，可以拿原文来验：说自己的一部分与说争讼的一部分，其分界正落在今人诸家分段都设关节之处，即序论之末。注家所未给的，是此后的各处关节，而今人之异说恰在那里。

The first explanation turns on coniectura, which is a fixed term in the handbooks: in an ordinary criminal quaestio the opening issue is the coniectural one, an fecerit, whether the man did it, and it is settled by reasoning from signa and argumenta to a deed nobody saw, from motive, character, opportunity and traces; con-icere is that act of throwing the indications together. The same word covers the reading of dreams and portents, and a coniector is a professional interpreter of them, so a court that argues from signs is already doing something divination-shaped. The scholiast's distinction survives that: every court reasons from signs, and the name divinatio still attaches to this proceeding, where what is asked about has yet to be done.第一说的关键在 coniectura 一词，此词在教本里有定解：寻常刑事常设法庭所争的头一个争点即属推断之争（an fecerit，其人做了没有），凭迹象与论据以定无人目睹之事，所据者动机、品行、时机、痕迹；con-icere 者，正是把诸般迹象合于一处这一动作。此词又兼指释梦、解兆，其业者称 coniector，故循迹象而推的审判，本已带几分占卜之相。注家的分别正落在此外：凡法庭皆凭迹象推求，而 divinatio 之名仍归于此一程序，因为此处所问之事尚未做成。

For the second explanation there is no other ancient witness: this sentence is the whole of the evidence that a divinatio panel sat unsworn. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, made that panel the single exception to the rule that jurors of a quaestio swore before taking their seats, and the footnote he cites for it quotes these words and nothing further, while the lex repetundarum carries the oath twice among its rubrics, once before the jurors take their seats and once before they deliberate, and carries no exception. What keeps the report coherent is where a divinatio falls in the order of business: the name has not yet been laid, so there is no charge to swear to, and the panel that hears the contest need not be the panel that tries the case. Gellius 2.4 preserves a further explanation of the word resting on the same fact — the defendant exists and the prosecutor does not yet.第二说所称之事，其唯一的古代依据就是这一句。Greenidge 在 The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time 印本第 474 页，把预审的陪审团定为陪审员就座前宣誓这一通则的唯一例外，而他为此所引的脚注，录的也只有这一句；勒索追偿法的标题目录两次言及此誓，一在陪审员就座之前，一在入议之前，于例外则无一字。此说仍能自洽，在于预审在程序中的位置：其时名尚未呈，无案可誓；而听此争者之团，未必就是日后审案之团。革利乌斯 2.4 另记一解，所据正是同一事实：被告已有，控告者尚无。

The third explanation is the one that has done the most work in modern scholarship, because sine testibus et sine tabulis is a statement about what kind of hearing this was: no evidence, only argument. It is also the phrase this library had been quoting without the two theories that stand beside it. Stangl's own source-note on these lines points to the Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.11.18, Quintilian 3.10.3 and 7.4.33, and Gellius 2.4 — that is, the scholiast is working from the same handbook tradition that the magalia structure page sets out, and Gellius 2.4 is where the everyday sense of divinatio for this procedure is discussed.第三说在今人的研究中用得最多，因为 sine testibus et sine tabulis 是对这场听审性质的判断：无证据可举，只有论证。本站此前所引的也正是这一语，而其旁并立的两说却未及。斯坦格尔于此数行的出处注，指向《致赫伦尼乌斯修辞学》1.11.18、昆体良 3.10.3 与 7.4.33，以及革利乌斯 2.4；可见注家所据，与本站章法一页所陈的，正是同一套教本传统，而 divinatio 一词就此程序的通行义，即见于革利乌斯 2.4。

Every element of this can be matched in Cicero — the courts on trial in the public mind at Verr. 1.1-2 and 2.1.4, the worn-out allies at 1.7, the collusive prosecutors throughout the Divinatio, Glabrio at Verr. 1.4 and 1.51 — with one exception. The clause about Sulla and the equestrian juries is the scholiast's own framing, and it is the piece of context a modern reader most needs and Cicero least supplies: he is arguing before a senatorial panel that its own composition is what the trial will decide, and he never says outright that the law changing it was already in the air. It passed that same year.其中每一项都可在西塞罗书中找到对应：法庭在众人心中自身受审，见《控维雷斯》一之 1 至 2 与二之一之 4；盟邦疲敝见一之 7；通同作弊的控告人则遍见《预审篇》；格拉布里奥见一之 4 与 51。惟有一项例外。关于苏拉与骑士陪审的那一句，出自注家自己的措辞；而这恰是今日读者最需要、西塞罗最不肯给的背景：他在元老组成的审判团面前立论，说审判团的组成正由此案决定，却始终不明说改易此制的法案已在酝酿。那法案就在同一年通过。

The last clause is the part that was missing from every second-hand citation, and it changes what the classification means. Caecilius was not simply claiming the prosecution against Cicero: he was claiming it either instead of Cicero or alongside him — which is why the issue is comparative, and why Cicero has to argue not only that he is the better man but that a joint prosecution would be worse than either. Stangl records that his manuscripts differ here (actore is his own reading, against auctore in S and M and aut a in the printed vulgate), so the shape of the claim rests on an editorial decision; the page says so where it uses it.末一句正是所有转引都漏掉的部分，而它改变了这一归类的意思。凯基利乌斯并非只是与西塞罗争控告之权：他所求的是取而代之，或与之并列。惟其如此，这一争点才属比较之属；也惟其如此，西塞罗才不但要论自己更宜，还得论合控之弊甚于二者独任。斯坦格尔记其抄本于此处不一：actore 是他自己的读法，S 与 M 作 auctore，旧刊本作 aut a；可见这一主张的形貌系于校订之断。本站凡用及此处，皆注明其事。