persons to perform them? Many honourable, most admirable and highly
virtuous acts cannot take place without a second person. Fidelity
is praised and held to be one of the chief blessings known among
men, yet was any one ever on that account said to have kept faith
with himself?

XI. I come now to the last part of this subject. The
man who returns a kindness ought to expend something, just as he
who repays expends money; but the man who returns a kindness to
himself expends nothing, just as he who receives a benefit from
himself gains nothing. A benefit and gratitude for it must pass to
and fro between two persons; their interchange cannot take place
within one man. He who returns a kindness does good in his turn to
him from whom he has received something; but the man who returns
his own kindness, to whom does he do good? To himself? Is there any
one who does not regard the returning of a kindness, and the
bestowal of a benefit, as distinct acts? 'He who returns a kindness
to himself does good to himself.' Was any man ever unwilling to do
this, even though he were ungrateful? nay, who ever was ungrateful
from any other motive than this? "If," it is argued, "we are right
in thanking ourselves, we ought to return our own kindness;" yet we
say, "I am thankful to myself for having refused to marry that
woman," or "for having refused to join a partnership with that
man." When we speak thus, we are really praising ourselves, and
make use of the language of those who return thanks to approve our
own acts. A benefit is something which, when given, may or may not
be returned. Now, he who gives a benefit to himself must needs
receive what he gives; therefore, this is not a benefit. A benefit
is received at one time, and is returned at another; (but when a
man bestows a benefit upon himself, he both receives it and returns