And here is my attempt, inadequate though it no doubt is:Ὁ Ἀλέξανδρός φησιν, ὡς δύο ὄντων τῶν ἀνωτάτω προβλημάτων, θέσεώς τε καὶ ὑποθέσεως, καὶ τῆς μὲν θέσεως ζητήσεως οὔσης καθολικῆς ἄνευ προσώπου ὡρισμένου, ὑποθέσεως δὲ ζητήσεως ἐπὶ μέρους ἐν ὡρισμένοις προσώποις, τρεῖς αἱ διαφοραὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν·
ζητοῦσι γὰρ ἅπαντες περὶ τῶν ἤδη γεγονότων ἢ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἔσεσθαι ἢ περὶ τῶν ὄντων· οὐκοῦν τῶν πολιτικῶν λόγων τρεῖς εἰσιν ὑποθέσεις, ἐγκώμιον, συμβουλή, δίκη.
διαφέρουσι δ’ αὗται ἀλλήλων τοῖς χρόνοις, τοῖς πράγμασι, τοῖς τέλεσι, τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς, ἐφ’ ὧν οἱ
λόγοι γίγνονται.
τοῖς μὲν δὴ χρόνοις διαφέρουσιν, ὅτι αἱ μέν εἰσιν αἱ δίκαι [καὶ] περὶ τῶν ἤδη γεγονότων, αἱ δὲ
συμβουλαὶ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων, οἱ δὲ ἔπαινοι περὶ τῶν ὄντων καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων· ἐπαινοῦμεν γὰρ οὐ μόνον εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀγαθός, ἀλλὰ καὶ [εἰ] προσδοκῶντες ἔσεσθαι.
τῇ δὲ τῶν χρόνων διαφορᾷ ἕπεται καὶ ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων· τὰ μὲν γὰρ γέγονε πράγματα, τὰ δὲ μέλλει, τὰ δ’ ἐνέστηκεν.
ἔτι δ’ ἔστι τοῦ μὲν ἐγκωμίου ἔπαινος καὶ ψόγος, τῆς δὲ δίκης ἀπολογία καὶ κατηγορία, τῆς δὲ
συμβουλῆς προτροπὴ καὶ ἀποτροπή.
τοῖς δὲ ἀκροαταῖς, ὅτι ἐν μὲν ταῖς συμβουλαῖς αὐθένται εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκροώμενοι· βουλεύονται γάρ, τί αὐτοῖς πρακτέον ἐκείνοις καὶ τί μὴ πρακτέον·
ἐν ταῖς δὲ δίκαις οἱ κριταὶ ὡς περὶ ἰδίων σκεπτόμενοι, εἰ πέπρακται τὰ ὑπ’ ἄλλων γενόμενα, κρίνουσιν, ἢ εἰ δικαίως ἢ οὔ·
τὸ δὲ τῶν ἐγκωμίων εἶδος οὔτε αὐθέντας ἔχει οὔτε κριτάς, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀκροατάς, ὅθεν καὶ ἐπιδεικτικὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον κέκληται.
I would much appreciate corrections and improvements. With regard to αὐθέντης, Alexander seems to be bringing out a difference between deliberations and public eulogies. In the latter, the listeners are passive, whereas in deliberations, those who listen also act ie they also speak and thus play an active part in the proceedings. αὐθέντης seems to mean something like 'independent actor' or somesuch. Any thoughts?Alexander says: As there are two over-arching matters, thesis and foundational supposition, and the thesis being a general discussion without a defined aspect, but the foundational supposition being a discussion with defined aspects in part, there are three natural distinctions to be made.
For all are seeking for the things that have already been, and the things that are about to be, and the things that are; likewise, there are three essential forms of political life: the eulogy/panegyric, the discussion/deliberation, and the court-case/judgement.
But these differ from one another in times, in circumstances, in events, [and] in the hearers, upon whom the speeches come.
Now they differ in respect of time, because the judgements concern things which have already happened, whereas the deliberations concern things which are about to be, and the eulogies concern the things which are and which will be. For we praise, not only if someone is good, but also if we are expecting that they will be.
Also, the difference with respect to circumstances is in accord with the difference in respect to time. For circumstances have been, are about to be, and [currently] are.
But still [with regard to] the public speech, there is [both] praise and censure, [with regard to] judgement (or lawsuit) there is defence and accusation/prosecution, [with regard to] deliberation there is exhortation [persuasion] and dissuasion.
And [they differ] with respect to the listeners, because in deliberations the ones who hear are [also] the ones who speak and act [having autonomy so to do]. For they deliberate upon what is to be done to them and what is not to be done to those ones.
In the court cases, the judges, considering carefully as concerning their own, judge as to whether the things that have occurred have been done by others, or as to whether the things that have happened have occurred justly or not;
{Are these two questions? 1) Was the deed done by the defendant? 2) If it was done by the defendant, did they do it justly or unjustly?}
but the form of public speeches has neither independent actors nor judges, but only hearers, on which account also, such a kind has been called a matter of display [only].
Andrew