[Artemisia] Largesse

[Greg Olsen]

Therasia wrote:
<snipped dictionary definition of largesse>
>That's right: largesse - in period, the tool of the left-handed
put-down 
> of one's social inferiors through the giving of money or goods. The
difference 
> between largesse and generosity is the difference between Carnegie and
Smithson. 

Actually Therasia, the etymology of largesse listed does not correspond
to the definition given.  That definition is the modern definition, or
in other words how it's meaning got changed through time. 

A quick internet search brings this up
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=largesse&r=67)
"[Middle English largesse, from Old French, from large, generous, from
Latin largus.]"
Stress *generous*, nothing about being a put-down.  

>From the same page...
"Largess \Lar"gess\, Largesse \Lar"gesse\, n. [F. largesse, fr. large.
See Large, a.] 1. Liberality; generosity; bounty. [Obs.]"
Here we see the "period" or obscure definition given.  Still no mention
of it being a put-down issue, left-handed or otherwise.

Unfortunately I'm at work now and can't break out Lull, DeChargny, et al
to give their actual medieval in-context definitions verbatim, or even
Maurice Keen's dissected definition of Largesse from period, but from
what I can remember they make no mention of it being "left-handed" or a
"put-down" or anything of similar meaning.  I will give you that
Largesse did sometimes mean helping those in need, and in period that
may have meant giving to those in a lower station (although I am dubious
as to how often that may have actually happened). I think this
corresponds to the sense Noblesse Oblige (we'll get back to that). But
it was also standard practice that you were expected to host visiting
nobility, especially higher-ups. This would also be Largesse.

Now it can be argued that Noblesse Oblige is simply a nice way of saying
"left-handed put-down of one's social inferiors." But then by following
that logic fairly closely you could say the same thing about
philanthropy. I guess my point is that Largesse can be seen a put-down,
or even used as a put-down, but I everything that I have read from
primary sources leads me to believe that it didn't actually mean that.
And more importantly, it shouldn't be interpreted that way into the SCA
context especially if you subscribe to the idea of "the middle ages as
they should have been" and you take the virtues of chivalry at face
value.

I do think you raise a valid point that the virtues of chivalry espoused
in the middle of our period may not be the best way to rate Peers, and
as I have said earlier in this discussion, everyone's going to have a
different list of criteria, some based on earlier or later period
philosophies, some from their own modern gut, and most I think with a
combination.  That's fine and there's no way to change that.  But I
think there is some value in delving into the virtues as expressed by
Lull, DeChargny and their relative contemporaries, and I also think that
it is a fine jumping off point for people to *begin* thinking about peer
criteria, but it's foolish to believe that it will ever be or should be
the only yardstick.

Gregory




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia/attachments/20031111/ffa87b26/attachment.htm