first of all, the exaggeration of his own action; and
next, the comparison of the actions of those men who have had rewards
conferred on them with his own; and lastly, he will urge that other
men will be repelled from the pursuit of virtue if he himself is
denied the reward to which he is entitled.

But the means of conferring the rewards are taken into consideration
when any pecuniary reward is asked for; for then it is necessary to
consider whether there is an abundance of land, and revenue, and
money, or a dearth of them. The common topics are,--that it is
desirable to increase the resources of the state, not to diminish
them; and that he is a shameless man who is not content with gratitude
in requital of his services, but who demands also solid rewards. But,
on the other hand, it may be urged, that it is a sordid thing to
argue about money, when the question is about showing gratitude to a
benefactor; and that the claimant is not asking wages for a piece of
work, but honour such as is due for an important service.

And we have now said enough about the statements of cases; now it
seems necessary to speak of those controversies which turn upon the
letter of the law.

XL. The controversy turns upon the letter of the law when some doubt
arises from the consideration of the exact terms in which it is drawn
up. That arises from ambiguity, from the letter of the law, from its
intention, from contrary laws, from ratiocination, and definition. But
a controversy arises from ambiguity, when it is an obscure point what
was the intention of the writer, because the written words mean two or
even more different things. In this manner:--"The father of a family,
when he was making his son his heir, left a hundredweight of silver
plate to his wife, in these terms:

"Let my heir give my wife a hundredweight of silver plate, consisting
of such vessels as may be chosen. After he was dead, the mother
demands of her son some very magnificent vessels of very valuable
carving. He says that he is only bound to give her those vessels which
he himself chooses." Here, in the first place, it is necessary to show
if possible that the will has not been drawn up in ambiguous terms,
because all men in ordinary conversation are accustomed to employ that
expression, whether consisting of one word or more, in that meaning in
which the speaker hopes to show that this is to be understood. Then
it is desirable to prove that from both the preceding a