<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.11.1-5.11.4</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:5.11.1-5.11.4</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="11" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The third kind of proof, which is drawn into the service of the case
                            from without, is styled a <foreign xml:lang="grc">παράδειγμα</foreign>
                            by the Greeks, who apply the term to all comparisons of like with like,
                            but more especially to historical parallels. Roman writers have for the
                            most part preferred to give the name of comparison to that which the
                            Greeks style <foreign xml:lang="grc">παραβολή,</foreign> while they
                            translate <foreign xml:lang="grc">παράδειγμα</foreign> by example,
                            although this latter involves comparison, while the former is of <pb n="v4-6 p.273"/> the nature of an example. </p></div><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For my own part, I prefer with a view to making my purpose easier of
                            apprehension to regard both as <foreign xml:lang="grc">παραδείγματα</foreign> and to call them examples. Nor am I afraid
                            of being thought to disagree with Cicero, although he does separate
                            comparison from example. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">de Inv.</hi> I. xxx. 49. </note> For he divides
                            all arguments into two classes, induction and ratiocination, just as
                            most Greeks <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> cp. Ar. <hi rend="italic">ah.</hi> I. ii. 18. </note> divide it into
                                <foreign xml:lang="grc">παραδείγματα</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐπιχειρήματα,</foreign> explaining <foreign xml:lang="grc">παράδειγμα</foreign> as a rhetorical induction. </p></div><div n="3" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The method of argument chiefly used by Socrates was of this nature: when
                            he had asked a number of questions to which his adversary could only
                            agree, he finally inferred the conclusion of the problem under
                            discussion from its resemblance to the points already conceded. This
                            method is known as induction, and though it cannot be used in a set
                            speech, it is usual in a speech to assume that which takes the form of a
                            question in dialogue. </p></div><div n="4" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For instance take the following question: <quote>What is the finest form
                                of fruit? Is it not that which is best?</quote> This will be
                            admitted. <quote>What of the horse? What is the finest? Is it not that
                                which is the best?</quote> Several more questions of the same kind
                            follow. Last comes the question for the sake of which all the others
                            were put: <quote>What of man? Is not he the finest type who is
                                best?</quote> The answer can only be in the affirmative. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>