ken by force." Nay, there are many things which would cause
us to cease to feel gratitude for a benefit, not because the benefit has
been taken from me, but because it has been spoiled. Suppose that a man
has defended me in a lawsuit, but has forcibly outraged my wife; he has
not taken away the benefit which he conferred upon me, but by balancing
it with an equivalent wrong, he has set me free from my debt; indeed, if
he has injured me more than he had previously benefited me, he not only
puts an end to my gratitude, but makes me free to revenge myself upon
him, and to complain of him, when the wrong outweighs the benefit; in
such a case the benefit is not taken away, but is overcome. Why, are
not some fathers so cruel and so wicked that it is right and proper for
their sons to turn away from them, and disown them? Yet, pray, have they
taken away the life which they gave? No, but their unnatural conduct in
later years has destroyed all the gratitude which was due to them for
their original benefit. In these cases it is not a benefit itself, but
the gratitude owing for a benefit which is taken away, and the result
is, not that one does not possess the benefit, but that one is not laid
under any obligation by it. It is as though a man were to lend me money,
and then burn my house down; the advantage of the loan is balanced by
the damage which he has caused: I do not repay him, and yet I am not
in his debt. In like manner any one who may have acted kindly and
generously to me, and who afterwards has shown himself haughty,
insulting, and cruel, places me in just the same position as though I
never had received anything from him: he has murdered his own benefits.
Though the lease may remain in force, still a man does not continue to
be a tenant if his landlord tramples down his crops, or cuts down his
orchard; their contract is at an end, not because the landlord has
received the rent which was agreed upon, but because he has made it
impossible that he should receive it. So, too, a creditor often has to
pay money to his debtor, should he have taken more property from him in
other transactions than he claims as having lent him. The judge does not
sit merely to decide between debtor and creditor, when he says, "You did
lend the man money; but then, what followed? You have driven away his
cattle, you have murdered his slave, you have in your possession plate
which you have not paid for. After valuing what each has received,
I ord