Discussion: Largesse

[Sir Edward]

I figured I'd kick off the discussion of knightly/chivalric virtues and start with the virtue of Largesse.

Largesse is generosity, but those of us here in the modern day may find the historical concept of it a little surprising. A truly chivalrous knight wasn't necessarily expected to be generous to those of a lower station in society. Helping the poor was "charity", but "largesse" is showing generosity to those above you, such as your lord. It could also extend laterally, to your fellow knights. But it was assumed, and highly valued, that a knight would bring gifts to his lord from the spoils of war, and other such sources.

I remember reading somewhere online about a historical account where a knight had come across a couple that was running away from their home. A young lady of high birth was running away with a commoner, perhaps the steward of the household or something along those lines. They had taken money, and were setting off for someplace where they could start over and be together. This sounds almost like a Hollywood movie at first, until you hear what the knight did. Upon learning of this, he took their money, sent them on their way, now destitute, and then returned to town and spent the money on his fellow knights, buying them food and drink. And then retold the story of how he obtained the money, and held it high as a shining example of his chivalry. He was showing the couple kindness by not dragging them back home, and yet deprived them of the funds that would have permitted them to commit this wrong-doing (mixing of classes, eloping, etc). He then showed Largesse by sharing his well-earned money with his fellow knights.

To the modern person, this sounds monstrous. But we have to remember how integral the classes and stations of society were in those times, and the importance that was placed upon it.

Bringing Largesse into the 21st century, how do you think it should be treated? Being generous to those around you is always a good thing of course, but do you think any of the historical notions have a place in today's society?

[Sir William]

That's funny...that almost sounds like one of those little story-asides from the tale of Erec and Enide, by de Troyes.  Didn't Erec come upon a commoner priest running away with a maiden to get married, and he treated them similarly?

Anyway.  To answer the question, in modern times such behavior would be frowned up, one would think, until you factor in politics and how the constituents of one are much more financially secure than the constituents of another- and said richer ones got their riches on the backs of the poorer ones...I'm sure they tell their 'war stories' over brandy and cigars and it is considered a good thing to have done so...maybe it would fit right in.

I always read such accounts (now, as opposed to when I was a child and thought it grand) and think to myself that toadying knows no chronology- it just is.

[Sir Patrick]

I think it does, but only in certain instances.  For example, let's say you win some kind of sales contest, or something at work.  The prize is a gift card to a restraunt  (spoils of war).  To treat your fellow workers (knights) to lunch with it would be both a display of generousity and largesse.  On the other hand, treating your boss (lord) to lunch would probably not be percieved as knightly in this day and age!  However, let's say that by coming in with the top sales, your contribution to the office enables your boss to obtain a bonus.  At that point, your spoils of war have enriched your lord in an acceptable manner.  In my opinion, our egalitarian society makes only lateral displays of largesse acceptable.  However, by putting in an honest day, one can still indirectly spread largesse vertically.

[Sir Brian]

In our modern era of universal relativism (I know that proclamation is almost an oxymoron),  such an account as you provided us with as an example, actually demonstrates more just how far society has progressed into its current state of insistent narcissism.

The far more subtleness of that knight’s largess was not the redistribution of the money from the impetuous and embezzling lovers but by the knight’s willingness to sacrifice his time and most importantly endure the burden of his conscience. Relieving the couple of their money certainly wouldn’t have been a difficult physical task for him to perform, yet the more difficult task would have been to carry the hurt and anguish and probably the vehement anger of the couple as he rode away with their pilfered hopes and dreams.

For that time in society, the knight did a most noble and honorable favor for the lovers though they certainly would’ve never thanked the knight for it. By taking such responsibilities upon him when the love-blinded couple could not or would not, the knight enabled them a harsh but precious opportunity to discover the true temperament of their affections. Since the lovers were of different ends of the societal scale and in spite of loving each other enough to take such drastic and permanent steps to be together, they would always be separated by their preconceived boundaries stemming from their origins. The knight had essentially leveled the psychological playing field for the couple by putting them into a dire situation with only themselves to manage. Will the couple’s love survive the stark and harsh realities of life or will they discover that their love affair was more of an infatuation? – Regardless of the lover’s results the knight will have to shoulder the burden of his decision to generously right an obvious wrong without ever knowing if the outcome was good or bad.

[Sir Patrick]

That is an interesting point, Sir Brian, and I must admit it perplexed me at first.  I had always asummed largesse to be generosity in bestowing gifts or wealth (though not in the same spirit as charity), but after reading your post I checked the definition online.  Webster's defines largesse as I had initally thought, but also says it is a generousity of spirit as well (the point of your post).  THAT certainly adds an entirely new dimension to the virtue and its application in the modern world (not to mention bumps it up a few notches on my heirarchy of knightly virtues!).

[Sir William]

That is a good point, Sir Brian....one that I did not consider.  In retrospect, he really DID do them a favor, although probably not in the manner he intended (as you pointed out).

In today's society, much more focus is given to 'looking the other way' or 'minding one's business' as the sayings go...I find myself doing the same at times and have to consciously re-align myself.  It is one of the reasons why a good deal of people give money to the poor...by doing so, they can alleviate feelings of guilt stemming from not doing more...whether its to a favorite charity or to the guy asking for a few coins on the street; people dig deep less out of a sense of caring for your fellow man and more along the lines of assuaging whatever guilt one feels for being in a better situation in life, or some deeper need.

[Sir Edward]

I think Sir Brian raises an interesting point. And I'm glad to see some really good discussion on this topic in general! Sometimes performing good deeds or serving a greater good can carry with it an emotional or spiritual burden. Generosity can take many forms, in the giving of money and material goods, but also giving of time, aid, labor, or even a kind word, so we probably should not forget that sometimes the sacrifice on the part of the giver might be a mental one.

In a way, I think a lot of people fall into a sort of cultural trap of feeling guilty about having more than others, whether comparing themselves to the poor and homeless, or to people in third world countries, or what have you. Generosity and good deeds should be more about the positive benefit it provides rather than compensating for a subconscious or even conscious level of guilt.

But that can also bring up an interesting philosophical question. Does a good deed lose value if the motivation behind it was less than pure? If someone donates $1000 to a cause because they genuinely want to help, is that worth more than $1000 donated to the same cause by someone whose only goal is to improve their reputation, or offset a bad deed they committed? While it's easy to say that they're equal, at least in terms of the result, it's also a dangerous concept to be able to buy yourself a certain amount of leniency for wrong doings.

[Sir Brian]

The later portion of your post Sir Edward is very prominent in the modern Christian church and the primary modus operandi of practically all the major denominations. – i.e. essentially they practice a faith based on “works”.
I believe many in society have an innate need to balance their inner turmoil with the most expedient method at their disposal (money being disposable in your example) so they can go back to the “me” part. 

I truly hope not to offend anyone with this next portion of my reply but whether you believe in Jesus and who he was or not; I firmly believe he was the supreme example of the virtue of largesse and provided many teachings on the subject and to what extent one should strive for:

Mark 12:41-43
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

Oh to be able to give freely and without stint all that you have truly is a wonderful virtue that I hope to attain within my lifetime.

[Sir William]

I think I can agree with you academically, Sir Brian- and while I do not aspire to such great heights, I do aspire and work towards being a better person in general.  The parable about the widow's mite is one of the most well-known as it speaks volumes about how skewed our society seems to have always been.

To spur it on somewhat, it isn't just modern Christianity (to the other two religions, Christianity will of course always be the 'new guy' in the Big 3 I like to call the 'Abrahamic' religions); if it were not for this (or specifically, Catholic clergy selling indulgences into Heaven) or other similar actions, there would have been no Reformation, no dissension among the ranks.  Is that a good thing?  I can't call it...I've no Divine inspiration in that regard.

And since I had to take a break to do something else, I'm no longer clear as to where I was going with that.  Sorry!

[Sir Patrick]

I believe many in society have an innate need to balance their inner turmoil with the most expedient method at their disposal (money being disposable in your example) so they can go back to the “me” part.  

I agree, and it is unfortunate that we see this attitude not just with "strangers" but within our own families.  Think of the spouses and parents who are more than happy to spend their money on their families, but never their time.  Largesse at home would go a long way to curing the world's ills.

EDIT: Spelling

[Sir Brian]

I agree, and it is unfortunate that we see this attitude not just with "strangers" but within our own families.  Think of the spouses and parents who are more than happy to spend their money on their families, but never their time.  Largesse at home would go a long way to curing the world's ills.

EDIT: Spelling

Excellent and very valid point Good Sir! As the old adage goes..."charity begins at home!" 

@ Paladin:
No worries. I only referred to Christianity as a member of the faith. I am not qualified to offer any valid opinions about any of the other non-Christian based faiths. 

[Sir Wolf]

wow what a great read. I haven't had the mind set to ponder yet for my answers

[Sir Edward]

Excellent points. Of course, I think we also need to consider though, how far does generosity/largesse go? Obviously no one is suggesting you give everything away and live on the streets. I would suggest that keeping your affairs in order, paying your debts, and seeing to your family's needs takes precedence. The latter is what made me consider this question.

Going back for a moment to the historical notion of Largesse as primarily being a grant of gifts to your superiors, or lord, I wonder if this initially evolved out of a desire amongst the knights to curry favor with their lords. You could almost see this becoming a form of competition... The lord will like me best if I bring him the best gifts and spoils of war. I could see how once this would become established, that it would thereafter be expected and encouraged.

Today, this would probably be seen as boot-licking. But it might still be encouraged.

[Sir William]

Boot licking is definitely still encouraged in some circles of power...just look at the lobbyists on the Hill, that's their FULL TIME JOB.

As a Fed, we're warned off of such...in fact, there are stringent guidelines w/regard to gift-giving among colleagues as well as for superiors (what an employee can give (based on costs) to a superior and vice versa).  I mean, its freakin POLICY if you can believe it.

[Sir Patrick]

Going back for a moment to the historical notion of Largesse as primarily being a grant of gifts to your superiors, or lord, I wonder if this initially evolved out of a desire amongst the knights to curry favor with their lords. You could almost see this becoming a form of competition... The lord will like me best if I bring him the best gifts and spoils of war. I could see how once this would become established, that it would thereafter be expected and encouraged.

If a knight gained spoils of war through his prowess, does not a lavish gift to a lord say (to everyone, not just the lord), "Look at what I can do!  I'm a big deal!"  At that pont, as knights try to outgift each other, is really about currying favor with the lord, or about being better than the other guy?  Granted, the one with the best gifts was probably granted favor, but would a lord give more and more power, wealth, and responsibility to someone who couldn't back it up?