Tractatus de Insigniis et Armis (Latin and English)

Latin

Horum gratia de insigniis et armis, quae quis in vexillis et clypeis portat, videamus. Primo, an hoc sit licitum, et eo casu, quo est licitum, qualiter sint pingenda et portanda. Circa quod dico, quod quaedam sunt insignia dignitatis vel officii, quae portare potest quilibet habens illam dignitatem vel officium: ut insignia proconsularia et legatorum: ut l. 1. de offic. procons. et leg. et de rer. div. l. sanctum sicut de facto videmus hodie insignia episcoporum; et ista potest portare quilibet, habens illam dignitatem, ut dicunt leges. Aliis autem portare non licet; immo portans incurreret crimen falsi: ut ff. de falsis l. eos § fin. et ideo puto, quod ille, qui portat insignia doctoratus, cum non sit doctor, teneatur illa poena.

English

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.

Latin

Quaedam sunt insignia cuiuslibet singularis dignitatis. Ut videmus quilibet rex, quilibet princeps et ceteri potentiores habent arma sua et insignia. Et ista nemini alteri licet deferre vel suis rebus depingere: ut C. de his qui pot. nom. l. 1 et nota in auth. de mand. princ. § penult. Quod intellige principaliter; sed accessorie non est prohibitum, ut puta, in signum subiectionis superponere propriis insigniis insignia domini regis vel comitis, et hoc de consuetudine observatur.

English

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.

Latin

Quaedam sunt insignia seu arma privatorum hominum, seu nobilium vel popularium. De istis quidam reperiuntur qui habent arma et insignia, quae portant ex concessione imperatoris vel alterius magni domini. Ut vidi concedi multis a serenissimo principe Carolo IV. Romanorum Imperatore nec non rege Bohemiae; et mihi tunc consiliario eius concessit inter cetera, ut ego et ceteri de agnatione mea leonem rubeum cum caudis duabus in campo aureo portaremus. Et istis licet portare talia insignia nec est dubium. De principis enim potestate disputare sacrilegium est ut C. de crim. sacrileg. l. 3 ad idem C. de div. rescr. l. sacrilegii. Ad idem C. ut nemi. lic. sine iud. aut. in rubr. et nig. Si enim sine iudicis auctoritate prohibetur, ergo cum iudicis auctoritate permittitur.

English

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.

Latin

Arma autem quidam et insignia sibi assumunt propria auctoritate, et istis an liceat videndum est, et puto, quod licet. Sicut enim nomina inventa sunt ad cognoscendum homines, C. de inge. ma. l. ad. recognosc., ita etiam ista insignia ad hoc inventa sunt. ff. de rer. div. l. sanctum. Sed talia nomina cuilibet licet imponere sibi ad placitum, ut dicta l. ad recognosc. et ff. de fals. l. falsi nom. in pr. Ita ista insignia cuilibet licet portare et impingere in suo, tamen non in alieno; ut C. ut nem. lic. sine iud. aut. l. 2 et ibi nota per gl. in verb. aliquis.

English

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.

Latin

Sed quaero unus portat certa arma vel insignia, alius vult portare eadem: an liceat vel prohiberi possit? Videtur, quod possit portare, quia quilibet potest sumere nomen alterius: ut ff. ad trebell. l. facta § si vero nom. et de legat. 2. l. cum filius § pater et possunt esse plures eiusdem nominis; ut l. duo sunt Titii ff. de test. tut. et de leg. 2. l. sed et si quis servum § si inter duos; ergo potest quis sumere arma aliena, et plures eadem insignia portare vel rebus imponere possunt, cum utrumque fiat ad cognoscendum. Contrarium videtur ff. de reg. iur. l. id quod nostrum; si enim prius est nostrum, sine facto nostro a nobis aufferri non potest. Sed hoc non bene facit; loquitur enim in his, quibus plures in solidum uti non possunt. Alias secus, ut in usu plateae, balnei, theatri et similium. l. ut certo § si duobus vehiculum ff. commoda. Praeterea signum, quod portat alius, non est unum et idem, immo sunt diversa, habentia tamen eandem similitudinem. Ad decisionem ergo praedictorum praemitto, quod signum alienum portare prohibere potest ille, cuius est signum, seu petere, quod prohibeatur, si ex hoc ipse iniurietur, quia forte ille cum vituperio portat seu tractat. C. de episc. aud. l. mimae et est expressum ext. de excess. prael. c. dilecta, alias de concess. praeb. c. dilectus; arg. C. de Iudae. l. Iudaeos quosdam. Secundo de hoc potest conqueri quilibet tertius qui laeditur, et ad ipsius petitionem prohiberi oportet. C. de his qui potent. nom. et nota in authen. de mand. prin. § penul. Tertio iudex ex officio suo, si viderit hoc ad scandalum posse esse et dissensionem subditorum, potest prohibere. Arg. C. de Lati. lib. toll. l. 1. § sed et qui domini ubi circa eos, qui pileati incedunt, lex Iulia statuit, ne populus decipiatur; expressius extra de Iud. c. in nonnullis.

English

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.

Latin

His praemissis in quaestione praemissa distinguitur, quod, si unus assumit arma, quae alius portavit ab antiquo, et illius non interest, nec ex hoc verisimiliter laedi potest. Exemplum: Unus Theutonicus tempore indulgentiae ivit Romam, ubi reperit quendam Italicum portantem arma antiquorum suorum et insignia. Volebat de hoc conqueri; certe, non poterat. Tanta est enim distantia inter utrumque locum sive domicilium, quod ex hoc ille primus laedi non posset, et in his, in quibus quadam publica facultate quis occupat sibi usum, non licet conqueri nisi ex magna causa; ut ff. ne quid in flumi. publ. l. 1 § sunt autem, qui putant.

English

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.

Latin

Quandoque potest contingere, quod alterius potest multum interesse. Quid enim, si odii plenus, cuius vitae multi insidiantur, assumat arma et insignia hominis quieti et pacifici? Certe illius interest et poterit facere eum prohiberi, si vituperose portet, ut dictum est; multo fortius potest peti prohibitio, ne ex hoc propter unionem armorum alius pro alio occidatur vel iniurietur. Item si ex hoc pudor primi aliquo modo laedatur; arg. dictae ll. mimae et l. Iudaeos, et per officium iudicis, ad quem spectat quies popularis; ut ff. de offic. praefect. urb. l. 1 § quies. Quandoque potest contingere, quod multorum de populo interest. Ponamus exemplum in aliis insigniis, quam in his, quae portant pro armis. Pone quemdam fabrum esse doctissimum, qui in gladiis et aliis operibus suis facit certa signa, ex quibus opus ipsius magistri esse cognoscitur et per hoc tales merces melius venduntur et avidius emuntur; tunc puto, quod, si alius faceret tale signum posset prohiberi, quia ex hoc populus laederetur; acciperetur enim opus unius pro opere alterius. Arg. l. 1. de Lat. lib. toll. et de Iudae., c. in nonnullis.

English

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.

Latin

Et eadem ratione dico de insigniis, quibus utuntur notarii; ut C. de assess. l. nemo § nec callidis et in auth. de instr. caut. § sed et si instr. et § oportet et quod ibi not. ubi si aliquis signum alterius acciperet, posset prohiberi. Idem in signis, quibus utuntur fabricatores cartarum de papyro in similibus per easdem rationes, et hoc similiter expedietur iudicis officio, ut dictum est.

English

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.

Latin

Sed secundum hoc quaero, quid relevet habere ista arma ex concessione principis? Respondeo: multum. Primo, quia est maioris dignitatis, sicut dicimus in testamento facto coram principe. C. de testam. l. omnium. Secundo, quia non possunt ab alio prohiberi illa portare. Tertio, quia si duo assumpserunt eadem arma seu eadem insignia, nec de prioritate nec de posterioritate apparet, praefertur ille, qui a principe habuit. l. si duas. ff. de excus. tut. Quarto, quia, si esset in exercitu vel alio loco, et quaereretur, quis deberet praecedere, debent praeferri illius arma, quae a principe sunt concessa. ff. de albo scri. l. fin. et ext. de maior. et obed. c. per tuas et arg. l. si duas ff. de excus. tut. Et praedicta intelligo ceteris paribus, scilicet quod alias illi, qui habent arma, sint aequalis dignitatis; alias praecederent arma illius, qui esset in maiori dignitate. Arg. ff. de albo scrib. l. 1 et C. de consul. l. 1 lib. 12.

English

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.

Latin

Quaero, qualiter ista arma vel insignia transeant in successorem? Respondeo: quidam sunt insignia unius domus vel agnationis, et ista transeunt in omnes de illa agnatione descendentes, sive sint heredes patris vel avi eorum, sive non. Arg. ff. de relig. l. familiaria et l. seq., nec per divisionem possunt assignari uni. Arg. C. de relig. si sepulcrum. Ad cognatos vero, vel affines non pertinent, ut C. de relig. l. ius familiarum.

English

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.

Latin

Ex hoc posset quaeri, an bastardi vel spurii possint uti illis insigniis? et videtur, quod non, quasi non sint de familia vel de agnatione, ut l. pronuntiatio § 2 ff. de verb. signif. Contrarium tamen observatur in Tuscia de consuetudine, cui standum est. Quando tamen multiplicantur hi, qui portant talia insignia vel arma, consuetum est per aliquos, aliquid apponi ultra, ut ab aliis dignoscantur et discernantur, quod licet, sicut nomini additur praenomen. Quaedam vero sunt insignia alicuius societatis aliquorum negotiatorum et hic, cum societas ad heredem non transeat non est de his tractandum.

English

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.

Latin

Sed apud quem remanebit signum societate divisa? Quod enim omnes utantur eo signo non est aequum, ut dictum est. Respondeo: si quidem erat unus in societate, qui erat capitaneus et quasi magister societatis, sicut dicitur in simili: ff. de legat. 2 l. peculium § 1, tunc apud eum debet remanere signum, quia ipse erat inter ceteros maioris honoris. Arg. ff. de fid. instr. l. fin. Si vero hic non erat, tunc apud eum remanebit, qui erat socius maioris quantitatis, ut ff. famil. hercisc. l. si quae sunt cautiones. Quid, si omnes sunt aequales? Tunc sorte dirimendum est, ut dicta l. si quae sunt cautiones. Puto tamen, quod, si dissoluta societate remanet unus negotiator, alii non, quod apud eum qui remanet negotiator debet remanere signum. Huius est ratio, quia aliorum non interest; item, quia, quamvis dissoluta societas est, tamen negotiatio remanet penes illum unum; ergo iniquum est, quod signum, quod erat accessorium negotiationi separetur ab ea. Arg. C. communia utriusque iud. l. possessionum. Quaedam vero sunt signa artificii cuiusdam seu peritiae, et hic advertendum. Quandoque sunt signa quaedam artificii, in quibus principaliter operatur qualitas loci. Exemplum: In Marchia Anconitana est quoddam nobile castrum, cuius nomen est Fabrianum, ubi artificium faciendi chartas de papyro principaliter viget, ibique sunt aedificia multa ad hoc; et ex quibusdam aedificiis meliores chartae proveniunt, licet etiam ibi faciat multum bonitas operantis. Et ut videmus, hic quodlibet folium chartae habet suum signum, per quod significatur, cuius aedificii sit charta. Dic ergo, quod isto casu apud illum remanebit signum, apud quem remanebit aedificium ipsum, in quo fit. Sive iure proprietatis, sive iure conductionis sive aliquis alio titulo sive in totum, sive pro parte sive in mala fide remaneat toto tempore, quo teneat, non potest prohiberi uti signo, sicut in ceteris iuribus realibus. Arg. ff. de serv. rust. praed. l. via constitui § fi et ff. si serv. ven. l. 2 § fi et l. seq. et ff. quemadm. serv. amit. l. usu et l. seq. idem in conductore talium aedificiorum. Arg. ff. loca l. sed addes § illud et l. videamus § item prospicere. Quaedam vero sunt insignia artificii, in quo principaliter bonitas artificis operatur, ut videmus in signis, quae apponuntur in spatis, gladiis et aliis operibus metallorum, et isto casu omnes, qui stant in una statione, possunt uti isto signo, quasi magister principalis istius stationis approbet illa opera, ut in auth. de tabell. § nos autem et no. in gloss. in verbis ipsis per se, quae incipit et cave tibi in fi. gloss. Si vero separentur, tunc signum debet remanere apud ipsum, qui principaliter erat in statione. Arg. ff. de fid. instru. l. fi. Et supra dixi: Sed si forte omnes erant aequales, tunc invicem conveniant et apud quem remaneat illud signum sorte dirimetur, ut d. l. si quae cautiones ff. fami. erciscun.

English

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.

Latin

Secundo principaliter est videndum, qualiter ista arma seu insignia sunt pingenda, infigenda et portanda? Ad quod sciendum est, quod quandoque portantur in vexillis et vexillulis, quandoque in vestibus hominis, quandoque in clypeis, quandoque in coopertoriis lectorum et in similibus locis stabilibus. Circa quodlibet praedictorum aliqua videamus. Ubi sciendum est, quod ista insignia quandoque sumuntur ex aliqua re existente, ut multi assumunt aliquod animal, vel castrum, vel montem, vel florem vel aliquod simile. Quandoque ista insignia non assumuntur ab aliqua re existente, sed sunt signa simplicia, scilicet variationes quorumdam colorum vel per dimidia, vel quarteria, vel per aliquas listas rectas, transversas vel similes, quandoque mixtim ex utroque.

English

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.

Latin

His praemissis videamus, qualiter portentur in vexillis illa signa, quae significant aliquam rem praeexistentem. Ad quod dico, quod ars imitatur naturam in quantum potest; unde ista insignia debent esse secundum naturam rei, quam figurant, et non aliter. Arg. l. si pater in fi. et l. seq. ff. de adopt. et ff. de sta. hom. l. non sunt liberi. De natura autem vexilli, cum portatur in hasta secundum illum usum, ad quem vexillum destinatur, hasta praecedit, vexillum sequitur. Unde quodcunque animal, quod debet designari in vexillo, facies eius debet respicere hastam, cum de natura faciei sit antecedere. Idem et in omni re et figura, quae habet partes, quae denotantur per ante et post, ut in praecedente exemplo dictum est. Tunc enim semper anterior pars rei debet esse versus hastam; alias animal videretur retro cedere tamquam monstrum. Sed si alicuius rei pars anterior solum habeatur pro armis et insigniis, ut sunt quidam, qui faciem arietis vel bovis pro suo signo portant, tunc non potest pars anterior respicere hastam, sed a latere respicit.

English

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.

Latin

Sed dubitatur, qualiter dicta animalia debeant designari, utrum quasi stent erecta, an quasi per terram plane ambulent, vel quomodo? Respondeo: Dicta animalia debent designari de nobiliori actu eorum, et etiam quo magis suum vigorem ostendunt, ut ff. de sta. hom. l. quaeritur, ff. de acquir. rer. dom. l. quicquid § cum partes. Sic etiam ab antiquo usitatum esse vide-mus, quod princeps in maiestate, pontifex in pontificalibus designantur et depinguntur.

English

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.

Latin

Nunc ad propositum dico, quod quaedam animalia sunt, quorum natura fera est, ut ff. de postul. l. un. §. bestias, et ista debent designari in actu feroci, ut leo, ursus et similia. Figuratur ergo leo erectus, elevatus, mordax ore et radens pedibus, et idem in similibus animalibus; in hoc enim actu magis vigorem suum ostendunt.

English

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.

Latin

Quaedam sunt animalia non ferocia et in his inspici debet nobilior eorum actus diversimode. Unde, si quis equum pro suis armis portaret, non deberet eum designare rectum et elevatum; hoc enim vitium esset in equo; ideo debet eum designare erectum et elevatum parte anteriori aliqualiter, quasi equus saliens; in hoc enim actu magis vigor eius ostenditur.

English

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.

Latin

Sed si quis pro suis armis agnum portet, tunc eum designare debet quasi plane ambulantem per terram; in hoc enim actu maxime eius vigor ostenditur. De quibus et omnibus aliis animalibus similia dicenda sunt.

English

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.

Latin

Circa pedes etiam advertendum est, quod semper pes, qui antecedit, sit pes dexter, quia pars dextera est principium motus; alias significaret talem figuram laevam esse, quod vitium esset; ut ff. de aedi. edic. l. qui clavum § item sciendum. Sed hic erat dubium: Quid, si in una parte vexilli figuretur, tamquam pes dexter praecedat, ab alia parte videbitur pes sinister praecedere. Haec autem incongruitas magis evidenter apparet in his, qui pro suis armis aliquam literam, vel literas portant. Nam ab una parte sunt literae rectae, ab alia, parte communiter non est forma literarum, quod apparet, si quis literas scriptas a latere converso respicit.

English

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.

Latin

Sed dicendum est, quod sicut in literis respicitur illa pars, quae respicit scribentem, non pars conversa, ita in vexillo inspicitur pars, quae respicit portantem, non alia; quod enim ex alia parte est, non ex principali proposito contingit, sed per accidens; sicut si quis se ipsum in speculo aspiciat; quod enim in se dexterum est, in speculo sinistrum apparebit. Et praedicta vera in vexillis et vexillulis, quae portantur in hasta, cuius natura est, ut elevata portetur et recta, ut ff. de servi. rust. praed. l. qui sella in prin.

English

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.

Latin

Sed si loquimur de vexillis et vexillulis, quae portantur in tubis, quarum natura propria est, ut ad os tubicinum positae (sint), quasi per planum gerentes appositum? Tunc facies rei designatae vel pars anterior non debet inspicere tubam sicut hastam; non enim tuba est pars anterior, sed superior, et sic debet aspicere partem anteriorem illus vexilli tubae plane iacentis portati. Et praedicta vero in dubio quando de proprietate armorum et quid inspiciant, tractatur.

English

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.

Latin

Sed quid, si portentur duo animalia se invicem inspicientia vel respicientia aliquid? Tunc non est locus praedictae investigationi, quia in incertis, non in certis, locus est coniecturis: l. continuus § cum ita ff. de verb. obl. et no. in l. tres denuntiationes C. quomodo et quando iudex.

English

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.

Latin

Circa secundum vero, quando arma sunt quaedam signa simplicia et varietates quorumdam colorum, tunc advertendum est qualiter debent portari. Et praemitto, quod nobilior color debet praeferri et in nobiliori loco poni. C. de offic. praefec. urb. l. un. et de offic. rect. prov. l. potioris gradus et de consuli l. 1 lib. 12. Item praemitto, quod locus prior et superior est nobilior posteriore et inferiore, ut in d. l. potioris, et ff. de al. scri. l. un. Hoc praemisso dico, quod arma quandoque variantur per medi-um, ut quia quis portat bandderia duorum colorum; tunc aut dividuntur per medium ante et post (aut supra et infra). In istis casibus in dubio etiam color nobilior debet esse supra, nimirum in ea parte, quae respicit coelum, vel ante, nimirum in ea parte, quae respicit hastam. Si vero variatur per quarteria, tunc nobilior color debet esse in quarterio superiori et anteriori prope hastam. Si vero variatur per listas directas, tunc lista nobilioris coloris debet esse prope hastam. Si vero variatur per listas transversales, tunc lista nobilioris coloris debet esse versus coelum. Si vero listae vel bandae sunt pendentes, tunc cum hasta habet se tamquam pars prior in banderia, ideo pars magis elevata debet respicere hastam. Ista omnia probantur ex praesuppositis.

English

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.

Latin

Sed si dubitatur, quis color sit nobilior, tunc advertendum est diligenter. Nam color unus est nobilior altero, respectu eius, quod repraesentat secundum se. Primo color aureus est nobilior; per eum enim repraesentatur lux; si quis enim vellet figurare radios solis, quod est corpus magis luminosum, hoc non posset congruentius facere, quam per radios aureos. Constat autem, quod nil luce nobilius, et certe nihil est. C. de sum. trinit. et fide cath. epistola inter claras; ibi: nihil est enim, quod lumine clariore praefulgeat, et C. ne fil. pro pat. auth. habita, ibi; totus mundus illuminatur. Et ideo in sacra pagina pro re maximae excellentiae figuratur, ut ibi: fulgebunt iusti sicut sol, Matth. 7, et alibi: resplenduit facies eius sicut sol, Matth. 23, et propter huius nobilitatem nulli licet portare vestes aureas nisi principi C. de vesti. holo. et aura. l. 1 et 2 lib. 11.

English

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.

Latin

Sequens color nobilis est color purpureus seu rubeus, qui figurat ignem; qui est super alia elementa et nobilius elementorum est, et corpus post solem secundario luminosum. Et propter eius nobilitatem nulli licet portare vestes comptas eius colore, ut C. de vest. holo. l. 2 et 4 et 5 lib. 11 et in dictis legibus exprimitur, dictum colorem esse nobiliorem aliis.

English

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.

Latin

Sequens post praedictos color est azureus: per eum enim figuratur nobilis aer, qui est corpus transparens et diaphanum et maxime receptivum lucis, et est elementum sequens post ignem nobilius aliis. Unde praedicti colores propter id, quod repraesentant, dicuntur nobiliores.

English

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.

Latin

Qualiter autem colores dicuntur nobiliores secundum se, dico, sicut lux est nobilissima, eius contrarium, ut tenebrae sunt vilissimae. Sic in coloribus secundum se color albus est nobilior, quia magis appropinquat luci. Color niger est infimus, quia magis appropinquat tenebris. Colores autem medii sunt nobiliores et minus nobiles secundum plus et minus, quod appropinquant albedini vel nigredini. Istud videtur dictum Aristotelis in lib. de sensu et sensato.

English

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.

Latin

Dixi, quod quandoque ista arma portantur super vestibus hominum; tunc istud, quod in armis habet se ut pars superior, debet esse versus caput hominis; quod vero habet se ut inferior, versus pedes. Item in eo, quod depingitur in anteriore parte hominis ut in pectore, pars nobilior armorum debet respicere latus dextrum. Est enim illa nobilior pars et principium motuum, ut in praecedentibus dictum est.

English

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.

Latin

De eo vero, quod depingitur a parte posteriori hominis potest dubitari. Pro cuius declaratione praemitto illam quaestionem, quae fuit inter Iudaeos et me, dum Hebraicam addiscebam. Dicebant enim, quod mos scribendi noster non erat rationabilis; incipimus enim a latere sinistro scribere et trahimus literam ad latus dextrum, et illud, quod debet esse principium motus, est terminus, et illud, quod debet esse terminus, est principium. At modus scribendi eorum est rationabilior, quia incipiunt a latere dextro et vadunt versus sinistrum. Ad quod tollendum dicebam, quod aliquid rationabiliter debet fieri, respectu finis ad quem ordinatur. Ideo finis dicitur primus intellectus et prima intentio operantis, et haec naturaliter sunt vera et probantur per leges. Nam si finis, intellectus operantis, sit rationabilis, etiamsi postea non sequatur effectus, dicitur rationabiliter operari. ff. de negot. gest. l. sed an ultro § 1. cum si. Sed scriptura praedicta fit ut legatur. Legi autem est oculis inspici; ff. de his quae in testa. del. l. 1 § 1; et sic legere fit per visum. Videre autem est pati, ut physici dicunt; scriptura autem repraesentata in oculis nostris agit in oculos nostros; oculi autem pati, dicuntur, quod patet, quia ex hoc laeduntur. Cum ergo scriptura agat in oculos, debet ista actio incipi a latere dextro ipsius scripturae, quia illud latus est principium motus seu actionis. Sed latus dextrum scripturae, quae nos respicit, est respectu lateris nostri sinistrum. Sicut si homo volvat vultum suum versus meum directo, latus eius dextrum respectu mei est sinistrum. Et sic apparet, quod nos in scribendo magis rationabiliter operamur. Inspicimus enim finem, sic ut a latere dextro scriptura in omnibus incipiat operari. Secundum morem Iudaeorum incipit a latere sinistro. Ad propositam quaestionem, qualiter arma debeant pingi rationabiliter a parte posteriori super vestes hominis, dico, quod illa pars armorum, quae se habet ut anterior vel ut nobilior, debet esse versus latus sinistrum hominis portantis. Ratio: quia illius arma si quis ante aspiciat recta illa videat; facies ergo istius arma sic a parte posteriori. Sed fingo, unum hominem habere suam faciem retro; procul dubio latus, quod erat sinistrum ex parte posteriori erit dextrum. Sed pone aliquem velle scribere latine in speculis alicuius; absque dubio incipiet in parte sinistra: quoniam illo respectu literae erunt ad dextram partem ut supra est ostensum.

English

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.

Latin

Ex his etiam apparet, quod literae et arma debent incidi in sigillis per conversum; quoniam id fit ad finem imprimendi in ceram vel aliam materiam et remanet rectum. Et sic inspicere debemus finem, ad quem fit, non id, quod fit. Si vero incideretur in aliqua re non ad sigillandum, sed ut sic esset, tunc debet incidi directe.

English

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.

Latin

Quandoque dicta arma depinguntur in clypeis. Tunc similiter pars clypei, quae secundum naturam portandi respicit latus dextrum; illa enim assumitur ut potior, ut patet ex his, quae dicta sunt.

English

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.

Latin

Quandoque portantur et pinguntur in coopertis equorum et tunc sive a parte dextra sive a parte sinistra debet respicere pars nobilior caput equi. Monstruosum enim esset, quod unus caput equi respiceret et alius caudam. Hoc autem quod nulli liceret magis accideret; et cum deberent stare in fronte vel in groppa, tunc latus dextrum respicerent, secundum ea, quae dicta sunt. (?)

English

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.

Latin

Quandoque depinguntur in coopertis lectorum et similium; et tunc debet inspici ea res, in qua debet pingi, cum stat in suo proprio esse. Sunt enim in coopertis lectorum quaedam partes, quae circumdant lectum, quaedam vero, quae plane iacent supra. Et in parte iacenti formam pingendi sumunt a forma hominis iacentis in lecto, in parte vero pendenti in lecto, assumatur forma pingendi arma a forma hominis recte stantis. Quandoque figurantur vel pinguntur in parietibus vel aliis stabilibus locis et tunc, si quidem locus, ubi pingitur, habet se ut paries, consideratur paries ut faciem suum volvat versus nos et sic latus dextrum parietis quis cognoscet et sic facies nobilior armorum volvatur versus partem dexteram. Praedicta vera nisi ex causa aliter fieret. Quid enim si in medio unius parietis depingatur statua principis vel alterius excellentis vel forte arma regia? Tunc alia arma, quae ab utraque parte depinguntur, debent illam statuam vel ipsius arma inspicere. Nam si statua … (et ita) a dextris vel sinistris volvantur, ad similitudinem hominum circum dominum existentium; homines enim se volvunt versus eum. Sed si locus, ubi pingitur, habet se ut coelum, veluti camerae vel aulae? Tunc ex dictis in praecedenti libro cognoscendum est, ubi dicatur caput aulae vel ubi caput camerae. Postea finge hominem iacentem et vultum versus nos volventem, ex quo considera dextram partem et sinistram et sic modum depingendi et ingressum, ut ex praecedentibus patet. Si autem locus ubi depingitur habet se ut solum seu terra, tunc eodem modo considera caput et pedem. Finge hominem iacentem ibi et volventem vultum versus nos et cognosces dextram sive sinistram, ex quo modum rationabilem depingendi invenies. Unum tamen scias, quod licet arma quis et insignia sua posset in terra sculpere vel depingere; tamen arma alicuius domini sui vel maioris non licet in terra sculpere vel pingere, ut C. ne. li. sig. Salva. Christi etc. in rubro et nigro.

Et tantum de isto tractatu.

Hunc tractatum de insigniis et armis editum a Do. Bartolo a Saxoferrato, publicavit post mortem dicti Do. Bartoli Do. Nicolaus Alexander, legum doctor generque suus, octavo die Ianuarii.

English

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.