argues either from a “likelihood,” that is—a cause which might produce a given effect, though it is not certain to do so; or else from a “sign,” that is—an effect which might have been produced by a given cause, though it might also have been produced by something else. To prove that A murdered B, you may argue from the “likelihood” that he would do so, because he was known to have been at feud with him; or from the “sign” that A had blood upon him. Let us observe some of the “enthymemes” in the speech of Antony:—
| (1.) | “He hath brought many captives home to Rome, Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Cæsar seem ambitious? |
| (2.) | When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept; Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. |
| (3.) | You all did see, that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, |
These three arguments are based on “signs;” acts of Cæsar are adduced as showing in him a disinterestedness, a tenderness of heart, and a modesty which would be incompatible with selfish ambition. But the reasoning is not conclusive, since the acts mentioned might have flowed from other sources than good qualities of the heart—they might have been done “with a motive.” However, there is fully as much cogency here as can ordinarily be expected to be found in the deductions of an orator. The only inductive reasoning of which oratory is capable is the “example,” or historical instance. Instead of gathering sufficient instances to establish a
