Chapter CXXIV. CONCERNING COATS OF ARMS AND PENNONS IN GENERAL NOW we have another task, namely, to enquire whether all men may bear at will the arms, banners, and pennons, that soldiers usually carry and that they have painted on cloths, on tapestries in rooms, and on walls, and, generally, where it pleases them.

Before I proceed with this matter you must know that, in general, we have two distinct kinds of such coats of arms. There are some made or ordained for a position of dignity for instance, the eagle is made to stand for the imperial dignity, the fleur-de-lis for the household of France, the leopard for England ; and it is the same for all other kings. Likewise, there are those for lesser dignities : ermine for the Duke of Brittany, the silver cross for the Count of Savoy ; and so on for all others who occupy like dignities, whether they be princes or viscounts, and who have each by long prescription their special arms. And no man whatsoever may bear such arms without a difference, nor affix them in his house or town, except him who is chief lord of that dignity. And if any man did so he would be punished. For this reason we see that the uncles and brothers and other relations of kings and other princes never bear the unaltered arms of their house, but make certain differences therein.

Then we have certain arms according to office, as in the case of the Capitoliers of Toulouse who, during their term of office, bear the town arms. This is by reason of office. And the consuls of Montpellier, if they were to go in arms, would bear an apple gules, for these are the arms of the consulate. And if any other man took upon himself to bear these arms, or to hang them in his house, or to have them in his possession with intent to keep them, he would be punished as a forger. So much for that matter.

Chapter CXXV. CONCERNING THE ARMS OF ALL GENTLEMEN IN PARTICULAR
WE must consider in this chapter the arms of gentlemen, whether barons or small landowners. We have to ask whether another, who is not of their blood, may bear their arms at will. This question must be clearly understood, for I cannot find it plainly set forth by our masters.

There are certain barons, and other gentlemen, whose predecessors had their arms by gift of the Emperor, or by gift or privilege of kings. Hence our masters said that such arms should not be borne by one not of that blood. And I hold this true, if it be understood of that country which is subject to him who has bestowed the arms. But if the King of France had given a silver lion to my line, what harm would result if Germans in Germany bore similar arms ? They would certainly not be punished by law.

We have also another kind of arms that a man assumes at his pleasure. You must know that men's names were invented to show the distinction between persons. Such names any man may choose at pleasure, either the father for his son or the godfather for his godson. And further, a man may change his name, provided he does not do so for purposes of fraud but merely to have a pleasanter name. The same is true of arms. So, such arms as may be chosen at pleasure each may take as he wishes, and may have them painted on his horse and on his belongings, but not on the belongings of others.

Chapter CXXVI. CONCERNING THE ARMS OF ALL GENTLEMEN BOTH BARONS AND OTHERS LET us consider another matter which in law is still more doubtful. My father, by his own wish, has adopted as arms a cow gules with three stars above it. Another person of the same locality, who has no connection with my father, wishes to adopt and bear these same arms. My father decides to oppose this, because he takes great pleasure in these arms. I ask whether he may do so. The contrary appears to be the case, and I prove this clearly. A man is allowed to take at will another man's name, and there may be in the same house, town, or village, several men called by the same name, for the law allows this. Why then should there not be in a town several men bearing the same arms ?

But let something be said on the other side. Common things belonging to no person in particular, such as birds, seafish, deer, wild boar, hinds, and hares, are the property of the man who takes them first. And since no man in our countryside has taken these arms before him, it appears as if my father, being the first, is in the right.

On this question our masters come to the following conclusion : if a man, or his house, has adopted a new coat-of-arms and has worn it publicly, lords should not support any other man of that town or region who desires to adopt it, for such arms are adopted for the sake of distinction and difference, and in such a case we should have no distinction by which to recognise people, and the result would be confusion. Further, it is the lord's business to see that no one of his subjects causes shame or injury to another or encroaches on his rights. It would appear that the second man who takes the arms does it maliciously and in contempt of the first, with a view to enmity and strife, so that it is the sovereign's duty to find a remedy. Again, it is not a good argument to say that there can be several men of the same name in one town, for one man can be distinguished from another, and the difference is also to be ascertained from the surname. But in the case of identical arms mistakes might easily arise as to their ownership. For these reasons I think that the sovereign should intervene.

Chapter CXXVII. IS A GERMAN WHO FINDS A FRENCHMAN BEARING HIS ARMS FREE TO OFFER HIM WAGER OF BATTLE?
LET us examine another question which might well arise. A German takes himself to Paris to see the King's court, and to become acquainted with the gentle manners of France. He meets a knight or squire bearing the arms of his house, and confronts him, as roughly as the Germans are accustomed to do, denying his right to bear such arms.

The Frenchman replies courteously " Worthy Sir, what are you saying ? Am I not allowed to bear the arms that my father and ancestors have borne so long that memory runneth not to the contrary ? "

" By Heaven," says the German, " my house is more ancient and more gentle than yours, and the arms you bear belong to us. I say you do wrong to bear them, and if you wish to defend yourself in the matter, there is my gage."

The Frenchman replies politely : " I do you no injury, but all the same I am ready to defend myself against your charge."

Now I ask whether the King, when the dispute is brought before him, should decide for wager of battle.

It appears that he should, for the German is of the more ancient house and has borne the arms first, and if he was first he has the better claim, and as he has no witnesses to bring before the King, and wishes to prove it by his body, it would seem that combat should take place.

Our masters, however, do not agree with this view. The reasons why there should be no combat are patent and manifest ; for the two men do not belong to the same kingdom and hence there can be no confusion between them in warfare, nor can any great harm result to the King. Nor can the German be dishonoured in his own country because his arms happen to be borne by a Frenchman in France, unless this were done for a dishonest purpose. For suppose a French knight, a man of evil life, a great vagabond and pillager, were to take the arms of a very worthy German, a good knight, and then, bearing them, were to carry fire into Burgundy, or steal cattle, or rob everyone he meets in Lorraine. If the worthy German knight offered his gage against such knight and before the King, on such facts, his complaint would be sufficiently well founded ; but even then I do not say that the King should decree battle. If the King, on sure information, found the story true, I do not dare to speak of the gibbet or of beheading, for I am a clerk. But if he administered good and strict justice in the affair I should not be astonished thereat. On the other hand I do not see that the law allows him to ordain trial by combat against a man who is a criminal, or who can be proved to be of evil and unjust life.

Chapter CXVIII. THOSE WHO WEAR THE ARMS OF ANOTHER IN ORDER TO COMMIT A FRAUD MUST BE PUNISHED
FOR this offence of bearing another man's arms punishment may be incurred in various ways. Suppose a soldier of modest descent comes from the Germanies to the King of France, bearing the arms of an ancient house of his country which has the long reputation of numbering in it very good men-at-arms. If he does this to receive more honour, more authority, more credit, or to receive a larger retinue or more pay, I consider that, at the instance or request of a complainant or other sufficient person, the King may very well punish him.

Again, take the case of a sovereign mastercraftsman in Paris, who forges very skilfully swords or bassinets, putting on them a certain mark, as is the custom. If another master, living at Troyes, counterfeited this mark for the sake of a better sale of his goods I would say that he too could be punished. I would decide similarly in the case of one notary who forged the seal of another, or in the case of travelling merchants who acted thus. The reason is the same in each case, and if the contrary were upheld there would be an excess of frauds.

Chapter CXXIX. OF THE COLOURS OF COATS OF ARMS

Of colour of gold
As our masters have spoken in diverse places of the banners and arms of great princes, I will not discuss the question as to which arms are the richest, for all comparisons are odious, but I should like to say something as to colours.

I say, then, that among colours some are more notable than others because of what they, according to their nature, represent. Thus we say that the colour gold is the noblest in the world, because gold of its nature is bright and shining and is full of virtue, and so comforting that the doctors give it as a sovereign cordial to the man who is sick unto death. It represents the sun, which is a very noble body if we think of its light, for the law says that there is nothing nobler than light. And because of this excellence the Scripture says that just and holy persons shine like the sun. Also because of this same lofty property the Son of God, at His transfiguration before the apostles, showed His most noble face shining like the sun. The ancient laws ordered that no man but a prince should bear this colour. Hence I say that the noblest colour is gold.

The second colour called purple
The second colour is purple, that we call in French red or vermilion, and it represents fire. And fire is, in its constitution, next to the sun, the most shining and most noble of the elements. This colour too, according to ancient laws, should be rarely worn except by great princes or those nearest them in blood.

Of the colour azure
The third colour is azure, and this by its figure represents the air, which, after fire, is the noblest of the elements, and is of its nature subtle and penetrating, and apt to receive luminous influences.

The colour white
The fourth colour is white, which is the noblest after azure, for it is nearer than any other to shilling and luminous bodies. Hence it is a very noble colour, and signifies purity and innocence. And the Scripture says that the clothing of our Lord appeared to the apostles white as snow. And this colour white stands for water, which after air is the noblest and most worthy element.

The colour black
The remaining colour is black, which stands for the earth and so signifies grief, for it is further from light than the others, and the nearest to darkness. Hence for the death of a prince, or the loss of a battle, the conquered clothe themselves in this colour ; and it is the lowest and humblest colour. For the same reason the religious, who should make no account of vain glory, clothe themselves in it.