Sir Clegus presents us with the same moral ambiguities as Guigmar. To what extent can his generosity be considered a flaw as opposed to a virtue? How can virtues and flaws be considered objects within the text?
ENGL 365 | Medieval Object Ecologies
Dr. Myra Seaman | Fall 2014
The generosity of Sir Cleges could easily be considered a flaw. Especially from a modern standpoint. We might look down on him as irresponsible, spending all his money (to the point that he has to sell off property and possessions!) on large parties and minstrels. But, in the tradition of knightly courtesy, he would have been expected to keep a large household fed and to be generous with those around him. It’s plain that, in the text, his spending is not considered a flaw.
As to virtues and flaws considered as objects: I think this is an interesting idea but I’m not sure how to apply it to the text. Both Sir Cleges and his wife are described with any number of virtuous descriptors: “so gentyll and fre” (15), “meke as meyd” (21), and “grete almusfolke” (31). On top of that, she’s beautiful while he’s tall and strong. All the descriptions of Cleges and Clarys are favorable. Were his “generosity” to be considered a flaw, it would act upon Cleges differently in the text. There would be some shame associated with his poverty and he would not be so quick to go see the king. On the other hand, his meekness is not demonstrated at all. I think the idea of his being “meke as meyd” can be laid to rest after the whole 1/3 of 12 blows thing.
One virtue that isn’t discussed but is really present in the text is piety. Of all the virtues of Cleges, this is the one I think has the most potential for object-ness. His piety is was obligates him to throw this huge Christmas party. His piety is what brings about the out of season cherries. Piety, more than generosity, lays the path that Sir Cleges walks throughout the poem.
I do think that the generosity of Sir Cleges is borderline irresponsible in that he bankrupts his family and loses everything in order to throw large parties at his estate. This is only how I feel from a modern perspective. From a medeveil fiction perspective, I believe that the most telling aspects of Cleges true virtues lie in his intentions when it comes to spending money. Sir Cleges and his wife are pious and unendingly generous people who want to spread the festivity of Christmas with members of the community who may need a place to gather and be joyous. Although fiscal awareness would have painted Cleges as a much more responsible husband, father, and knight; this is a medieval tale which follows an exaggerated rise and fall. The character had to spend everything and lose everything in order for there to be a story.
I think that in medieval lays such as this, which are written for an audience of community members, play with aspects such as virtues and flaws in order to keep a story concrete and to follow a pattern of righteousness. Good characters who are truly good at heart but possess serious flaws which lead to the fall of their honor deserve to be given the opportunity to make up for their mistakes. I believe that yes, Cleges is a flawed character and it doesn’t matter because he is good at heart and God (a very important contributor to his tale) knows this which makes him a good character in a Medieval text.
Sir Cleges is right in caring for the poor, but his flaw is that it’s done in an irresponsible way, especially when he and his family are left homeless because of it. He doesn’t seem to take into a account that he does have a family to care for, or even his kids’ futures. Just in general, having an emergancy fund.
I would have to say a modern equalivant could be donating money to charity because you see starving children on the TV or giving a homeless person money when they are begging. You don’t know why those children on TV are starving or why a homeless person is asking for money; and you don’t know that the “famine” that those children are suffering in, is not a natural disaster, but a political tactic; or that the homeless person you gave money to, is actually to do but heroin.
Maybe in some ways because he fits the folklore trope of the Spendthift Knight, Cleges can’t really understand the spector of poverty that haunts the people he does try to help, of living paycheck to paycheck and afraid that you can’t provide for your loved ones. Ultimately, it is Cleges owe fault for the situation he is in, but ultimately, he does learn his lesson.
Ultimately, it was Sir Cleges’ generosity and kindness that was the object that guided the whole story. It established him as a good man, a good Christian man who gave to the poor generously, but then it also became his downfall into poverty because he did not receive the same kindness when he was in desperate need of it. His generosity as an object ultimately led him back into the eyes of the King which saved his family in the end. It carried a theme of karma, or rather the Golden Rule in this situation.