dulgence, founding his petition on many
topics of equity. I have now explained as well as I could every kind
of controversy, unless there is anything besides which you wish to
know.

XXXVIII. _C.F._ I wish to know that which appears to me to be the
only point left,--what is to be done when the discussion turns upon
expressions in written documents.

_C.P._ You are right to ask: for when that is explained I shall have
discharged the whole of the task which I have undertaken. The rules
then which relate to ambiguity are common to both parties. For each of
them will urge that the signification which he himself adopts is the
one suited to the wisdom of the framer of the document; each of them
will urge that that sense which his adversary says is to be gathered
from the ambiguous expression in the writing, is either absurd,
or inexpedient, or unjust, or discreditable, or again that it is
inconsistent with other written expressions, either of other men,
or, if possible, of the same man. And he will urge further that the
meaning which he himself contends for is the one which would have been
intended by every sensible and respectable man; and that such an one
would express himself more plainly if the case were to come over
again, and that the meaning which he asserts to be the proper one has
nothing in it to which objection can be made, or with which any fault
can be found; but that if the contrary meaning is admitted, many
vices, many foolish, unjust, and inconsistent consequences must
follow. But when it appears that the writer meant one thing and wrote
another, then he who relies on the letter of the law must first
explain the circumstances of the case, and then recite the law; then
he must press his opponent, repeat the law, reiterate it, and ask
him whether he denies that that is the expression contained in the
writing, or whether he denies the facts of the case. After that he
must invoke the judge to maintain the letter of the law. When he has
dwelt on this sort of corroborative argument he must amplify his case
by praising the law, and attack the audacity of the man who, when he
has openly violated it, and confesses that he has done so, still comes
forward and defends his conduct. Then he must invalidate the defence
when his opponent says that the writer meant one thing and wrote
another, and say that it is intolerable that the meaning of the framer
of the law should be explained by any one else in preference to the
l