man has received, or the injury which has been done him? Time would
fail me if I attempted to discuss all the difficulties which would
arise.

XIII. It may be argued that "we render men less willing to confer
benefits by not supporting the claim of those which have been
bestowed to meet with gratitude, and by not punishing those who
repudiate them." But you would find, on the other hand, that men
would be far less willing to receive benefits, if by so doing they
were likely to incur the danger of having to plead their cause in
court, and having more difficulty in proving their integrity. This
legislation would also render us less willing to give: for no one
is willing to give to those who are unwilling to receive, but one
who is urged to acts of kindness by his own good nature and by the
beauty of charity, will give all the more freely to those who need
make no return unless they choose. It impairs the credit of doing a
service, if in doing it we are carefully protected from loss.

XIV. "Benefits, then, will be fewer, but more genuine: well, what
harm is there in restricting people from giving recklessly?" Even
those who would have no legislation upon the subject follow this
rule, that we ought to be somewhat careful in giving, and in
choosing those upon whom we bestow favours. Reflect over and over
again to whom you are giving: you will have no remedy at law, no
means of enforcing repayment. You are mistaken if you suppose that
the judge will assist you: no law will make full restitution to
you, you must look only to the honour of the receiver. Thus only
can benefits retain their influence, and thus only are they
admirable: you dishonour them if you make them the grounds of
litigation, "Pay what you owe" is a most just proverb; and one