It passes in the world for a generous and magnificent saying, that “it is a shame for a man to be outdone in courtesy;” and it is worth the while to examine, both the truth of it, and the mistake. First, there can be no shame in a virtuous emulation; and, secondly, there can be no victory without crossing the cudgels, and yielding the cause. One man may have the advantage of strength, of means, of fortune; and this will undoubtedly operate upon the events of good purposes, but yet without any diminution to the virtue. The good will may be the same in both, and yet one may have the heels of the other; for it is not in a good office as in a course, where he wins the plate that comes first to the post: and even there also, chance has many times a great hand in the success. Where the contest is about benefits; and that the one has not only a good will, but matter to work upon, and a power to put that good intent in execution; and the other has barely a good-will, without either the means, or the occasion, of a requital; if he does but affectionately wish it, and endeavor it, the latter is no more overcome in courtesy than he is in courage that dies with his sword in his hand, and his face to the enemy, and without shrinking maintains his station: for where fortune is partial, it is enough that the good-will is equal. There are two errors in this proposition: first, to imply that a good man may be overcome; and then to imagine that anything shameful can befall him. The Spartans prohibited all those exercises where the victory was declared by the confession of the contendant. The 300 Fabii were never said to be conquered, but slain; nor Regulus to be overcome, though he was taken prisoner by the Carthaginians. The mind may stand firm under the greatest malice and iniquity of fortune; and yet the giver and receiver continue upon equal terms: as we reckon it a drawn battle, when two combatants are parted, though the one has lost more blood than the other. He that knows how to owe a courtesy, and heartily wishes that he could requite it, is invincible; so that every man may be as grateful as he pleases. It is your happiness to give, it is my fortune that I can only receive. What advantage now has your chance over my virtue? But there are some men that have philosophized themselves almost out of the sense of human affections; as Diogenes, that walked naked and unconcerned through the middle of Alexander’s treasures, and was, as well in other men’s opinions as in his own, even above Alexander himself, who at that time had the whole world at his feet: for there was more that the one scorned to take than that the other had it in his power to give: and it is a greater generosity for a beggar to refuse money than for a prince to bestow it. This is a remarkable instance of an immovable mind, and there is hardly any contending with it; but a man is never the less valiant for being worsted by an invulnerable enemy; nor the fire one jot the weaker for not consuming an incombustible body; nor a sword ever a whit the worse for not cleaving a rock that is impenetrable; neither is a grateful mind overcome for want of an answerable fortune. No matter for the inequality of the things given and received, so long as, in point of good affection, the two parties stand upon the same level. It is no shame not to overtake a man, if we follow him as fast as we can. That tumor of a man, the vain-glorious Alexander, was used to make his boast, that never any man went beyond him in benefits; and yet he lived to see a poor fellow in a tub, to whom there was nothing that he could give, and from whom there was nothing that he could take away.
People often say it's shameful for someone to be outdone in courtesy. This sounds generous and noble, but we should examine whether it's true or mistaken. First, there's no shame in virtuous competition. Second, there can be no victory without both sides engaging and one yielding. One person may have advantages in strength, resources, or fortune. These will certainly affect the outcome of good intentions, but they don't diminish virtue. Both people may have equally good intentions, yet one may outdo the other. Good deeds aren't like races where whoever crosses the finish line first wins the prize. Even in races, chance often plays a big role in success. Consider a contest of kindness where one person has good intentions plus the resources and power to act on them. The other person has only good intentions, without the means or opportunity to repay kindness. If the second person sincerely wishes to repay and tries their best, they're no more defeated in courtesy than a soldier who dies with sword in hand, facing the enemy without retreating. When fortune is unfair, equal goodwill is enough. This proposition contains two errors. First, it suggests a good person can be overcome. Second, it imagines something shameful can happen to them. The Spartans banned all contests where victory was declared by the opponent's surrender. The 300 Fabii were never called conquered, only slain. Regulus wasn't called overcome, though the Carthaginians captured him. The mind can stand firm against fortune's greatest malice and injustice. The giver and receiver remain on equal terms. We call it a draw when two fighters are separated, even if one has lost more blood. Someone who knows how to owe a favor and sincerely wishes to repay it cannot be defeated. Every person can be as grateful as they choose. It's your good fortune to give. It's my fate that I can only receive. What advantage does your luck have over my virtue? Some people have philosophized themselves almost out of human feelings. Take Diogenes, who walked naked and unconcerned through Alexander's treasures. In his own opinion and others', he stood above Alexander himself, who then had the whole world at his feet. Diogenes scorned to take more than Alexander had power to give. It shows greater generosity for a beggar to refuse money than for a prince to give it. This shows a truly unmovable mind, and there's hardly any competing with it. A person isn't less brave for being beaten by an invincible enemy. Fire isn't weaker for failing to burn fireproof material. A sword isn't worse for failing to split an impenetrable rock. A grateful mind isn't overcome by lacking matching fortune. The inequality of things given and received doesn't matter, as long as both parties have equal good intentions. There's no shame in failing to overtake someone if we follow as fast as we can. That swollen ego Alexander used to boast that no one ever surpassed him in giving benefits. Yet he lived to see a poor man in a tub to whom he could give nothing and from whom he could take nothing away.
Nor is it always necessary for a poor man to fly to the sanctuary of an invincible mind to quit scores with the bounties of a plentiful fortune; but it does often fall out, that the returns which he cannot make in kind are more than supplied in dignity and value. Archelaus, a king of Macedon, invited Socrates to his palace: but he excused himself, as unwilling to receive greater benefits than he was able to requite. This perhaps was not pride in Socrates, but craft; for he was afraid of being forced to accept of something which might possibly have been unworthy of him; beside, that he was a man of liberty, and loath to make himself a voluntary slave. The truth of it is, that Archelaus had more need of Socrates than Socrates of Archelaus; for he wanted a man to teach him the art of life and death, and the skill of government, and to read the book of Nature to him, and show him the light at noon-day: he wanted a man that, when the sun was in an eclipse, and he had locked himself up in all the horror and despair imaginable; he wanted a man, I say, to deliver him from his apprehensions, and to expound the prodigy to him, by telling him, that there was no more in it than only that the moon was got betwixt the sun and the earth, and all would be well again presently. Let the world judge now, whether Archelaus’ bounty, or Socrates’ philosophy, would have been the greater present: he does not understand the value of wisdom and friendship that does not know a wise friend to be the noblest of presents. A rarity scarce to be found, not only in a family, but in an age; and nowhere more wanted than where there seems to be the greatest store. The greater a man is, the more need he has of him; and the more difficulty there is both of finding and of knowing him. Nor is it to be said, that “I cannot requite such a benefactor because I am poor, and have it not;” I can give good counsel; a conversation wherein he may take both delight and profit; freedom of discourse, without flattery; kind attention, where he deliberates; and faith inviolable where he trusts; I may bring him to a love and knowledge of truth; deliver him from the errors of his credulity, and teach him to distinguish betwixt friends and parasites.
A poor man doesn't always need to retreat into his own mind to settle debts with those who have abundant wealth. Often, what he cannot repay in material goods, he can more than make up for in dignity and value. Archelaus, a king of Macedon, invited Socrates to his palace. But Socrates declined, saying he was unwilling to receive greater benefits than he could repay. This perhaps wasn't pride in Socrates, but strategy. He was afraid of being forced to accept something that might have been unworthy of him. Besides, he was a man of liberty and reluctant to make himself a voluntary slave. The truth is, Archelaus had more need of Socrates than Socrates had of Archelaus. The king needed a man to teach him the art of life and death, and the skill of government. He needed someone to read the book of Nature to him and show him the light at noon-day. He needed a man who, when the sun was in eclipse and he had locked himself up in horror and despair, could deliver him from his fears. He needed someone to explain the phenomenon by telling him there was nothing more to it than the moon passing between the sun and the earth, and that all would be well again soon. Let the world judge now whether Archelaus' wealth or Socrates' philosophy would have been the greater gift. Anyone who doesn't understand the value of wisdom and friendship doesn't know that a wise friend is the noblest of presents. Such a friend is a rarity barely to be found, not only in a family, but in an entire generation. They are needed nowhere more than where there seems to be the greatest abundance of everything else. The greater a man is, the more he needs such a friend, and the more difficulty there is in both finding and recognizing him. It cannot be said, "I cannot repay such a benefactor because I am poor and have nothing." I can give good counsel. I can offer conversation in which he may find both delight and profit. I can provide honest discourse without flattery, kind attention when he deliberates, and unbreakable faith when he trusts. I may bring him to love and knowledge of truth. I can deliver him from the errors of his gullibility and teach him to distinguish between friends and parasites.