[Artemisia] Largesse

[El Hermoso Dormiendo]

On Tuesday 11 November 2003 09:26 am, Greg Olsen wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> Stress *generous*, nothing about being a put-down.
On the other hand, ANOTHER quick internet search turns up:

Main Entry: gen·er·ous
Pronunciation: 'jen-r&s, 'je-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French genereus, from Latin 
generosus, from gener-, genus
Date: 1588
1 archaic : HIGHBORN

So we're back to the 'old' definition meaning 'the nobility' or 'the wealthy' 
and the implication that the 'period' definition of 'largesse' may very well
include connotations of snobbery...as does "noblesse oblige" as well, for
that matter (duty to the 'lesser people'...)
[...]
> 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.

I still don't "get" why "strive to be good at something" and "be a good
person" is insufficient.  Personally, I think trying to turn means of earning
a peerage into a 'checklist' of requirements would change the nature of SCA 
peerage completely.  Is it a "peerage" or a "merit badge"?  (No slur to the
Scouts intended, simply pointing out the difference between the two concepts.
On the subject of "being a good person" as relates to 'merit badges', see, 
for example, http://www.usscouts.org/mb/mb002.html and compare how peerages
are handled in the SCA...)

signed,
El Hermoso Dormiendo, with new, improved, more grammatically-correct nickname
(thanks, your excellency, for the correction!)