But if this affection seem incredible, then either a reason must be rendered, as did Antigone. For when she had said, _she loved her brother better than her husband or children_; she added, _for husband and children I may have more; but another brother I cannot, my parents being both dead_. Or else a man must use this form of speaking; _I know this affection of mine seems strange to you; but nevertheless it is such_. For it is not easily believed that any man has a mind to do any thing that is not for his own good. Besides in a _narration_, not only the actions themselves, but the passions and signs that accompany them, are to be discovered. And in his _narration_ a man should make himself and his adversary be considered for such and such, as soon and as covertly as he can. A _narration_ may have need sometimes not to be in the beginning. In _deliberative_ orations, that is, wheresoever the question is of things to come, a _narration_, which is always of things past, has no place. And yet things past may be recounted, that men may _deliberate_ better of the future. But that is not as _narration_, but _proof_; for it is _example_. There may also be _narration_ in _deliberatives_, in that part where crimination and praise come in. But that part is not _deliberative_, but _demonstrative_. ========== CHAPTER XVI. OF PROOF OR CONFIRMATION, AND REFUTATION. _Proofs_ are to be applied to something controverted. The controversy in _judicial_ orations is, whether it has been _done_; whether it has been _hurtful_; whether the matter be _so great_; and whether it be _just, or no_. In a question of _fact_, one of the parties of necessity is faulty; for ignorance of the _fact_ is no excuse; and therefore the _fact_ is chiefly to be insisted on. In _demonstratives_, the _fact_ for the most part is supposed: but the _honour_ and _profit_ of the fact are to be _proved_. In _deliberatives_, the question is, whether the thing _be like to be, or likely to be so great_; or whether it be _just_; or whether it be _profitable_. Besides the application of the _proof_ to the question, a man ought to observe whether his adversary have lied in any point without the cause. For it is a sign he does the same in the cause. The _proofs_ themselves are either _examples_, or _enthymemes_. A _deliberative_ oration, because it is of things to come, requireth rather _examples_ than _enthymemes_. But a _judicial_ oration, being of things past, which have a necessity in them, and may be concluded syllogistically, requireth rather _enthymemes_. _Enthymemes_ ought not to come too thick together: for they hinder one another’s force by confounding the hearer. Nor ought a man to endeavour to prove everything by enthymeme, lest like some philosophers he collect what is _known_, from what is _less known_.