277
Str. Why, my friend, the very example I employ requires another example. i.e. the nature of example is to be explained below by means of an example. The example of the letters of the alphabet is employed also in the Plat. Theaet. 202 ff, but the Stranger cannot properly refer to that, as he was not present at the time. Or is this a dramatic slip on Plato’s part?
277
Y. Soc. Indeed? What is it? Don’t hesitate to tell on my account.
277
Str. I will tell, since you on your part are prepared to listen. We know that children, when they are just getting some knowledge of letters—
277
Y. Soc. Well?
277
Str. Recognize the several letters well enough in the short and easy syllables, and can make correct statements about them.
277
Y. Soc. Yes, of course.
278
Str. And then again in other syllables they are in doubt about those same letters, and err in opinion and speech about them.
278
Y. Soc. Yes, certainly.
278
Str. Would not the easiest and best way to lead them to the letters which they do not yet know be this?
278
Y. Soc. What?
278
Str. To lead them first to those cases in which they had correct opinions about these same letters and then to lead them and set them beside the groups which they did not yet recognize and by comparing them to show that their nature is the same in both combinations alike, and to continue until the letters about which their opinions are correct have been shown in juxtaposition with all those of which they are ignorant. Being shown in this way they become examples There is here a play on the words παρα-τιθέμενα δειχθῇ, δειχθέντα δέ, παρα-δείγματα Placed beside, they are shown and being shown, they become paradigms, i.e. objects of comparison, i.e. examples. and bring it about that every letter is in all syllables always called by the same name, either by differentiation from the other letters, in case it is different, or because it is the same.
278
Y. Soc. Certainly.
