The following is an English translation of Bartolo da Sassoferrato’s Tractatus de Insigniis et Armis, originally published ca. 1350. The English translation is care of A Grammar of Signs: Bartolo da Sassoferrato’s Tract on Insignia and Coats of Arms by Osvaldo Cavallar et al, published in 1994.
I have made some minor corrections based on the original Latin text.
The index below is not part of the 1994 English translation. I translated it from Hauptmann’s Latin, checked against his German. My Latin is somewhat lacking, so please point out any inaccuracies to me via email.
Those who hold insignia and coats of arms by grant have the sole use of them.
The arms granted to Bartolus and his successors are a red lion with two tails on a golden field.
How, when, and by whom one who bears another’s coat of arms or insignia may be prohibited.
A notary may not assume another’s sign, and if he does, he may be prohibited.
A papermaker may be prohibited from using another maker’s mark.
The coat of arms or insignia of a house pass to all descendants of that agnatic line.
With whom the mark of a partnership must remain once the partnership is dissolved.
How insignia or coats of arms are to be painted, affixed, and borne.
The horse is to be depicted upright and rearing, as though leaping.
The lamb is depicted as though walking flat along the ground.
The right foot must always go first when an animal is depicted.
In banners one regards the side that faces the bearer, not the reverse.
The face of an animal painted on trumpet banners must not look toward the trumpet.
How insignia consisting of a variety of different colors are to be painted.
The foremost and upper position is nobler than the rear and lower.
Gold is nobler than the other colors, and by it the sun is figured.
In coats of arms borne on clothing, the upper part must face the head and the lower part the feet.
The nobler part of the coat of arms must face the right side.
In coats of arms painted on a person’s back, the nobler part must face the person’s left side.
Why our way of writing is more rational than the writing of the Hebrews.
In coats of arms painted on caparisons, the nobler part must face the horse’s head.
How coats of arms are to be painted on bed covers, on walls, and in other fixed places.
Let us consider the insignia and coats of arms that are borne on banners and shields.
1. First, whether it is permitted to bear them, and second, if it is permitted, how they are to be painted and borne. I say that some insignia are proper to a rank or office and that anyone may bear them if he holds that rank or office, as for example the insignia of proconsuls or legates, or, as we can indeed see today, the insignia of bishops. And anyone who has that rank can bear these insignia. This is not permitted to others, and if someone who is not entitled to them bears them he incurs the charge of fraud. And so I think that those who bear the insignia of the doctor of law when they are not doctors are liable to that penalty.
2. Some insignia are proper to anyone of a particular rank—for example, any king, prince, or other potentate has his own coat of arms and insignia, and it is permitted to no one else to bestow them or to depict them on their own belongings. I believe that this means that one cannot copy the insignia as such; however, it is not prohibited to use such insignia as an accompaniment—for instance, to place the insignia of a king, lord, count, or commune on one’s own coat of arms as a sign of subjection. And this is a common practice.
3. Some insignia or coats of arms belong to private persons, either nobles or commoners, and some of these have coats of arms and insignia which they bear by the grant of an emperor or other lord. I have seen the Serene Prince Charles IV, Emperor of the Romans and King of Bohemia, grant many insignia and coats of arms. Among other concessions, the prince gave me (his counselor) and my agnates a red lion with two tails on a golden field. And there is no doubt that it is permitted to such persons to bear such insignia, for it is sacrilegious to question the power of a prince. If something is forbidden without the authority of a judge, then it is certainly permissible by his authority.
4. Some assume coats of arms and insignia on their own initiative, and we should consider whether they are permitted to do it. I think that they are permitted. Just as names are created to identify persons, so insignia and coats of arms are devised for this purpose. Anyone is permitted to use such names for himself, and thus anyone can bear these insignia and depict them on his own belongings, but not on another’s.
5. I ask whether someone is permitted to bear the same coat of arms or insignia as another or whether he can be prohibited. It seems that he is permitted because anyone can assume the name of another, and many may have the same name. Therefore, anyone can assume the coat of arms of another, and many can bear the same insignia and place them on their belongings since this is done for the purpose of identification. It also seems, however, that he can be prohibited, for if we were the first to adopt the sign and thus it belongs to us, it cannot be taken away except by our own consent. But this fundamental principle of ownership cannot be applied here. It applies when several persons cannot use the same object at the same time; however, it does not apply to the use of a facility such as a square, a bath, or a theater.
Furthermore, the sign that someone bears is not really identical to the same sign borne by another; rather, they are different, although they might appear to be alike. Therefore, concerning the initial question, I say first that one can prohibit or seek to prohibit another from using his sign if he is injured by it because the other party bears the coat of arms with contempt or treats it shamefully.
Second, a third party who is harmed can lodge a complaint about the improper use of the coat of arms, and by his petition the bearer can be prohibited from using it.
Third, if a judge, by virtue of his office, sees that such use may cause public scandal and confusion among the subjects, he can prohibit it lest the people be deceived.
6. Having established these three points, I make the following distinctions. Sometimes someone assumes a coat of arms that another has borne from antiquity and it does not affect or damage the original bearer, nor can he be harmed because of the likeness. For exampel, a German went to Rome at the time of the jubilee, where he found a certain Italian bearing a coat of arms and insignia of his ancestors, and he wanted to lodge a complaint against the other bearer. Certainly, he could not do it, for the distance between their respective permanent places of residence is so great that the original bearer could not be harmed by the other. Therefore, as in those cases in which someone uses a facility accessible to all, a complaint cannot be lodged without a good reason.
7. Sometimes it may happen that the use of a coat of arms or insignia by one individual may impinge on another who uses the same insignia. If a person who has many enemeis and against whose life many are plotting assumes the coat of arms and insignia of another peaceful or quiet person, certainly it matters much to the latter, and he can see to it that the former is prohibited. Just as a complaint can be lodged against someone who bears a coat of arms or insignia contemptuously, all the more can a complaint be lodged to prevent one from being mistakenly killed or injured in place of another who has adopted the identical coat of arms. Similarly, one can appeal to a judge whose concern is the peace of the people, if the person assuming the coat of arms of another is a public threat.
Sometimes it may happen that hte use of the same coat of arms or insignia may impinge on many members of the community. Let us provide an example of insignia other than those which are borne for coats of arms. Suppose that there is a very skilled craftsman—a smith—who places certain marks on his swords and other products he makes, by which one recognizes that those products are made by that master. And therefore such merchandise sells well and is in high demand. In this case, I think that if another smith uses the same mark, he can be prohibited because when the work of one is in fact taken as the work of another it damages the people.
8. The same argument applies to the signs used by notaries. A notary can be prohibited from using the sign of another notary. The same applies to the signs used by merchants. The same also applies to the watermarks used by paper makers, and to similar cases for the reasons stated above. Disputes over the use of these signs will come under the authority of a judge, as was said above.
9. Next, I ask what are the advantages of having coats of arms by imperial grant. There are many.
First, they are of greater dignity, as we say in the case of a testament made before the emperor.
Second, one cannot be prohibited by another from bearing such coats of arms.
Third, if two persons assumed the same coat of arms and it is not clear who had them first, the one who had them from the prince is preferred.
Fourth, if a question of precedence arises regarding military persons on the battlefield or somewhere else, then the coats of arms granted by the prince should have precedence.
The aforesaid apply when all other things are equal—namely, when those who have coats of arms are of equal rank; otherwise, the coat of arms of the one of greater dignity should have precedence.
10. I ask how such coats of arms or insignia pass on to successors. I reply that some coats of arms belong to a house or agnation. These pass on to all agnates, whether or not they are heirs of the father or his ancestors. When an inheritance is divided, coats of arms cannot be transmitted to a single heir. They do not belong to the cognates or those related by marriage.
11. And it is possible to ask whether bastards or illegitimate children can use these insignia. It seems that they cannot, as they are not legitimately from the family or agnation. But this practice is not observed in Tuscany by custom and this custom ought to stand. When the number of those who bear the same coats of arms increases, it is customary for some to add a new element to their coats of arms, just as a personal name is added to the family name, in order that they may be recognized and distinguished from others, and this is permitted.
12. There are also certain insignia that belong to some partnerships of merchants; and in this context, since the partnership does not pass on to the heirs, transmission of such insignia by inheritance does not have to be considered. But with whom will the trademark remain when the partnership has been dissolved? It is not fair that all the partners have the right to use the same trademark, as has been said. I respond that, if there were someone in the company who was the head and very close to being the master of the company, he should keep the trademark, since it should remain with the one who was in the position of greatest honor. But if there were not such a person, then it should remain with the one who had the greatest share in the partnership.
What if all are equals? Then the use of the trademark ought to be decided by lot. Nevertheless, I think that if, after the company has been dissolved, one merchant continues the business, the trademark should belong to him, since his business does not affet the former partners. Similarly, although the partnership has been dissolved, the business nevertheless remains with him. Therefore, it would be unfair if the trademark, which is the accessory of the business itself, did not stay with the merchant who continues the businesss.
Some trademarks are proper to a particular craft or skill, and here it should be noted that sometimes they are connected to the nature of the place in which the product is made. For example, in the March of Ancona, there is a certain renowned town named Fabriano, where the manufacture of paper is the main business. Here there are many paper mills, and some of them produce better papper, although even here the skill of the worker is of considerable importance. And here each sheet of paper has its own watermark by which one can recognize the paper mill. Therefore, in this case the watermark should belong to the one to whom the mill itself belongs, no matter whether it remains in his possession by right of ownership or lease, or by any other title, wholly or in part, or even in bad faith. During the entire time in which he has possession of the mill, he cannot be prohibited from using the watermark, as with other rights to immovable property. The same applies to the lessee of such buildings.
Some insignia of a craft depend on the characteristics of the craftsman, as we see in the trademarks placed on swords and other products of metal. In this case, all who work in the same shop use that trademark, since the head master of that shop approves of those works. But if they should separate, then the trademark should belong to the head of the shop. If perhaps all were equals and they fail to come to an agreement, then the question of who has the right to use the trademark should be decided by lot.
13. Next we should consider how these coats of arms and insignia are to be painted, attached, and borne. Wherefore, it should be known that they are borne sometimes on banners, sometimes on clothing, shields, bed coverings, and other similar objects, and sometimes they are depicted or represented on walls and buildings. Let us say something about each of these cases.
It should be known that some of these insignia are taken from existing objects; for example, many make use of some animal, castrum, mountain, flower, or similar objects. Sometimes the insignia are simple and do not depict preexistent objects, in which case they consist of a variety of colors, either dividied in half or quarters, with horizontal, diagonal, or vertical bands, and the like. Sometimes they are of mixed nature. With this said, let us consider how they are borne.
14. Signs that refer to preexistent objects are displayed on banners. In this case, I say that art imitates nature as much as posisble. Whence, the insignia ought to conform to the essence and nature of the things they depict and not otherwise. WIth regard to the nature of the banner, since it is placed on a staff according to the use for which the banner is designed, the staff precedes and the banner follows. Therefore, whatever animal is depicted on the banner should have its head looking at the staff since it is in conformity with nature for the head to be in front. The same applies to every object and figure which has a front and back as in the preceding example. Then the front should always face the staff; otherwise, it may seem to be moving backwards like a monster. But if only the front part of some object is used in coats of arms and insignia, as some, for instance, use the head of a ram, ox, or other animal—in that case, the head cannot face the staff, but faces sideways.
15. One might wonder how these animals should be depicted, whether standing upright, or walking on the ground, or in some other way. I reply that these animals should be depicted in their noblest positions, so that they might evince their own strength. As we see from antiquity, it was common to represent and depict the emperor in his majesty, the pontiff in his pontifical robe.
16. Concerning this, I say that some animals are wild by nature, and these animals must be portrayed in a fierce stance, such as the lion, bear, and similar animals. Therefore, the lion is represented upright, raised, gnawing with its teeth, and clawing with its paws, and similar animals are depicted in the same way. From this stance, indeed, these animals better show their strength.
17. Some animals are not fierce, and in this case, too, we must consider their noblest posture, but in a different way. Therefore, if someone bears a horse on his coat of arms, he should not depict it upright and raised, since this is an inappropriate stance for a horse. Rather, a horse should be depicted slightly upright and with the front part somewhat elevated, as if the horse is running and leaping, since its strength is shown more in this posture.
18. But if someone bears a lamb, then he ought to depict it as if walking on all fours on the ground, since its strength is shown more in this position. The same observation applies all other animals and birds.
19. With regard to feet, it should be noted that the right foot is always first because ,as has been said above, the right side is the source of motion. To represent such a figure otherwise would mean that it is clumsy, which is inappropriate; but a further doubt arises here.
What if only one side of the abnner is painted, so that from one side it seems that the right foot is first, but from the other side it seems that the left foot is first? This inconsistency will be more apparant for those who bear some letter or letters for their coat of arms, since from one side the letters are correct, while from the other side they do not look like letters, which becomes evident if one looks at the written page from the reverse side.
20. Concerning letters, the solution to this inconsistency is that, just as one looks at the side that faces the writer, not the opposite side, so on the banner one looks at the part that faces the bearer, not the other. That which is on the other side is not the part that mainly concerns us but is there by accident, just as, when someone sees himself in the mirror, what is actually on the right side appears to be on the left. The aforesaid is true for banners and flags that are attached to a staff and hoisted upright.
21. If we speak about banners and flags hanging from trumpets which are designed to be placed on the lips of the trumpeters and carried in a horizontal plane, then the head or the front part of the designed object should not face the trumpet as if it were a staff. The trumpet is not the front but the top, and therefore the front of the image should face the front part of the banner when the trumpet is lying flat and is being carried. And this should clarify the above-mentioned doubts.
22. Sometimes it might happen that in coats of arms figures face each other—for example, when two animals look at each other or when an animal faces an object. In that case, there is no need for further investigation, because where uncertainty exists there is room for conjecture.
23. Concerning our second point, when coats of arms are made of simple signs—for instance, a variety of certain colors—then, in order to understand how they should be borne, let me say that nobler things should be preferred and placed in a privileged position, and also that the right and top are nobler than the left and bottom.
Having said this, I say that sometimes coats of arms are divided into two parts, as when someone carries a bicolored banner, and banners can be further divided either horizontally or vertically. And in this case, if you are in doubt, the nobler color should be at the top—that is, the part facing the sky—or in front—that is, the part next to the staff. If the colors are divided into quarters, then the nobler color should be in the top and foremost quarter—that is, next to the staff. If the bands are vertical, then the nobler color should be next to the staff. If the bands are diagonal, then the nobler color should face the sky. If the bands are vertical, then, since the staff itself is the main element here, the nobler part should be next to the staff. All these points can be demonstrated from what I have already said.
24. But there is a question as to which color is nobler. And one must know that one color is said to be nobler than another either with respect to what the color stands for or with regard to its inherent qualities. In the first sense, the color gold is said to be noblest, since light is presented by gold. If someone wishes to depict the beams of the sun, the most luminous body, he cannot do it in a more appropriate way than by using golden beams, because it is agreed that nothing is nobler than light. And so in Scripture the sun stands for the most outstanding object, for it says “the righteous will shine as bright as the sun,” and elsewhere, “his face shown like the sun.” And because of the nobility of gold, no one can wear golden garments except the prince.
25. The next noble color is purple or red, which stands for fire. Fire is nobler than all the other elements and is the second luminous body after the sun. And because of the nobility of the color, no one may wear garments of purple or red except the prince. And it is said in the above-cited laws that this color is nobler than the others.
26. The next noble color is blue, which stands for air. Air is a transparent and diaphonous body and is highly receptive to light. It is the next element after fire and is nobler than the other two. Therefore, these colors are said to be nobler than the others based on what they represent.
27. In what way are colors said to be nobler with respect to their inherent qualities? I say that as light is very noble, its opposite, namely darkness, is very base. Therefore, if one considers the colors in themselves, the color white is the noblest because it comes closest to light. The color black is the basest because it comes closest to darkness. The colors in between are more or less noble according to the extent to which they approach whiteness or blackness. This seems to be the position of Aristotle in his book, De sensu et sensato.
28. I said before that sometimes coats of arms are worn on the clothes of a person. In this case, the top part should be placed toward the head, the bottom toward the feet. Similarly, the nobler part of the coat of arms, when placed on the front side of a person (for example, on the chest), should be oriented toward the right side. For that side is nobler and is the source of motion, as was said earlier.
29. There are, however, questions about how coats of arms should be worn on a person’s back. In order to give an answer to this, I will first present the question which I discussed with some Jews while I was learning Hebrew. They said that our method of writing [from left to right] is not rational: we begin writing from the left side, drawing the letters toward the right side, and thus what should be the source of motion becomes the end and what should be the end becomes the beginning. The Jewish method of writing, in contrast, is rational, because they begin writing on the right side and move to the left. In order to settle this question, I said that something is said to be done rationally with respect to the end to which it is directed. And therefore the end is said to be the determining reason in the mind of the actor. This is obvious and can be proved by law. If the end in the mind of the actor is rational he is still said to function rationally, even though the end is not achieved. Writing is made to be read; to be read is to be seen by the eyes, and therefore reading is performed through sight. To see is a passive operation, as the philosophers say. The image of scripture as perceived by our eyes acts on them, so that the eyes become the recipient of an action, which is evident also because they can be injured by reading. In order that writing might affect our eyes, this action must begin on the right side of the writing, because that side is the source of motion and action. But the right side of the writing that faces us is, from our perspective, the left side, just as, if a person turns his face in my direction, his right side is on the left from my perspective. And so it appears that we in our writing operate more rationally, since we consider the end, namely, that writing may begin from the right side, while according to Jewish custom it begins from the left side.
Therefore, for the question at hand—namely, in what way coats of arms should properly be depicted when worn on the back of a person’s clothing—I say that the part of the coat of arms which is the foremost and nobler part should be placed toward the left side of the person bearing them. The reason is that coats of arms hsould be arranged so that anyone looking at them might see them correctly. Thherefore the face of the coat of arms will be on the correct side from the perspective of the person’s back.
Imagine that a man has his head on backwards. Without doubt, the side which was the left will be the right from the perspective of the person’s back. Or suppose that someone wishes to engrave some letters on a blade. He will doubtless begin from the left side, which with regard to the letters, will be the right side, as was said above. This can be better exemplified in the engraving of a seal. The engraver indeed begins writing in the same manner as the Jews, moving from right to left, in orderr the the impression on the wax conforms to the Christian manner of writing. And this is an excellent example that can be employed when debating with the Jews.
30. It also appears from this that letters and coats of arms on seals should be incised backwards, since they are for imrpessing on wax or other material, and that which is backwards on the seal will be correct on the wax or other material. Therefore, we should look at the end for which it is made, not that which is made. If a coat of arms is incised on some other object, not for making a seal but to be seen as it is, then it should be incised directly.
31. Sometimes coats of arms are depicted on shields. In a similar way, the part of the shield directly in front of the right side of the carrier is the principal part, appears from what we said before.
32. Sometimes coats of arms are placed and depicted on both sides of a caparison. The nobler part of the arms should face the head of the horse, so that if many come to serve the horse or rider, some from the left, some from the right, each one sees the nobler part at head of the horse. It would be monstrous for one to face the head, another the tail. However, when a coat of arms cannot be accessed from either side, because it stands in the front or in the back, then the right side should be painted as usual.
33. Sometimes coats of arms are depicted on bed covers and on similar objects. And in this case, the object on which the coat of arms is to be depicted should be viewed as others are expected to see it. Some parts of the covers lie flat on the bed, and some hang down from it. The part on the section lying flat follows the pattern of a person lying on the bed. On the section hanging down, the design of the coat of arms follows the pattern of a person standing up.
Sometimes coats of arms are even depicted and painted on walls and buildings. In this case, if the place where the coat of arms is painted is a wall, then it should be treated as a wall with the front facing us; thus one knows how to distinguish the right side of a wall. And thus the face or nobler part of the coat of arms should be turned toward the right side. The aforesaid is true unless for a good reason one does otherwise.
What if a figure of a prince or another preeminent person, or perhaps a royal coat of arms, has to be painted in the middle of a wall? In this case, the coats of arms that are depicted on both sides of that figure should be turned toward the figure, thus disregarding left or right, as, for example, with a group of persons who are turning toward their superior. But if the place where the coat of arms is depicted is, for example, the ceiling of a room or a court, then from what was said above one can determine which is the top and bottom of the coat of arms.
Now imagine a person depicted on the ceiling and facing us, consider his right and left side, and thus the correct method of painting and the correct determination of the right and left side of the person will be evident from what was said before. If the place where the coat of arms is painted is on the ground or floor, then in the same way consider the head and feet and imagine the person lying there and facing us. And so one will know the right and left and will find the rational way to paint.
Nevertheless, keep one thing in mind: that although someone can carve or paint his own insignia on the floor, he is not permitted to carve or paint the insiginia of his lord or persons of higher rank on the floor.
This tract on insignia and arms was compiled by Bartolo da Sassoferatto, illustrious professor of law (I do not believe he had completed it), and was published after Bartolo’s death by Niccolò Alessandri, his son-in-law and eminent doctor of law, when he held his first public disputation on 20 January 1358.