This page accompanies this Vatan Companion Page
From the Encyclopedia Royalis Iurraka (edition of 975)
On the Right to Bear Arms
The following is excerpted from the writings of Annette de Baerle (801–864), last Marchioness of the Westmarch. Though her marriage to Ivan de Duilhac, Duke of Taladaria, brought the Westmarch formally into Iurrak, she is remembered less for her politics than for her curious and unseemly devotion to letters. That a woman should concern herself with law is, of course, peculiar and hardly worthy of imitation. Some have wondered whether parts of this treatise were corrected, or perhaps composed, by a more suitable hand. Yet it must be admitted, reluctantly, that the work is suspiciously thorough and disquietingly accurate. For this reason it is preserved here, though with due caution to the reader.
The Right to Bear Arms is among the two central privileges of noble station, together with the Right to Hospitality. It is an ancient principle, older than any charter still extant, and its origin lies in the codifications of the ancestor realms that preceded Selinus. From that time it has been observed in Mur, in Selinus, in Iurrak, and even further abroad. It is worth noting that neither the Elves nor the Dwarves share our concept of the Armsright, to such an extent that it is treated instead as a general right. This creates a legal conundrum: is it to be judged that all elves and dwarves are issued an Armsright by their sovereign, or none?
The principle itself is plain. The right to violence belongs first to the sovereign. From the sovereign flows the same right to his nobles, who are but the extensions of his own person. Thus only nobles may wield weapons in their own name, as their authority is inherent. All others must bear arms only by the express leave of a noble, their authority deferred. In this lies the difference between noble and commoner; one acts as a font of justice, the other only by delegation. The author notes, however, with some satisfaction, that this right is so central to our concept of nobility that it is still completely inalienable from women. Indeed, in Selinus where our rights are otherwise few, a noble woman may wield any weapon without a male’s consent and may also arm her own guards. Yet if her guards are to operate beyond her direct presence, she must be able to write, something that is sadly not universal in the education of Selinan noble ladies.
This distinction carries into law. A noble who slays a commoner seldom meets with punishment. In Iurrak, the dead man’s kin may seek compensation, though in practice they must often do so before the court of the very noble who did the slaying, as the court of a more senior lord is unlikely to be accessible. In Selinus no such petitions are heard, save where another noble takes exception for his own purposes. In Mur the practice lies midway, for compensation may be demanded, yet only in the court of the lord who granted the Armsright in question. Where nobles stand opposed to nobles, the judgment lies with the next higher lord, often the King himself.
From this follows that heraldry and Armsrights are closely related. A noble may bear arms without device, for his person itself is heraldry. Commoners, however, must display the arms of the lord who authorises their bearing. To act otherwise is an act of banditry or rebellion.
The penalties for unlawful bearing of arms are grave. Impersonation of a noble is punishable by the full measure of treason, namely hanging, drawing, and quartering. More commonly, failure to prove an Armsright is usually treated more lightly, resulting in a fine and perhaps confiscation, depending on the mood of the constable. More severe still is the crime of raising arms against the realm, which is adjudged by summary execution and is the fate generally served to bandits and the like. The same transgression can thus be made as grave as a noble or his constables choose. It must be noted that the financial incentive of a fine has been known to keep many a bandit alive where this was not in the best interests of a lord’s domain.
Yet the law does not forbid mere possession of weapons. Only when they are borne in readiness to strike does the crime arise. A sword hung upon the wall may be innocent, while the same sword at the belt may be treason. Interpretation is ever at the whim of the officer, which is both the strength and the weakness of the law.
Thus it may be seen that the Right to Bear Arms is no mere form, but a central pillar of sovereignty. It distinguishes the noble from the subject, and the ruler from the ruled. Without it, there is no order but only anarchy, where each man may wield violence for himself.
De Baerle’s conclusions are expressed with a clarity, rigor and intelligence impossible for a woman. Impossible! The very suggestion that a lady of noble birth, barely trained in letters, could produce such a work unaided is laughable. No, no, a learned man must have written this, or at the very least guided her hand. The strange satisfaction expressed in the second paragraph betrays the feminine touch, but the rest is far too sound to be hers. I will not, cannot, accept that such scholarship came from a woman. Yet my colleagues, blinded by novelty, have forced me to include it here under her name. Readers are advised to apply proper skepticism.
Marginal note, by Zorthen Linhad (date unknown), in the Encyclopedia copy in the library at Castle Peyrepertuse
I cannot allow this nonsense to stand. I stayed with the Duke and Duchess of Taladaria for several months in the 840s and 850s, owing to my mother, Qaya, of the earth-elven House Linhad and her bond with House de Baerle. I spent many an engaging evening in conversation with the Duchess. She was a scholar of rare brilliance, sharp of wit and precise in judgment. She was her husband’s most important advisor and presided over the Duke’s Court in her husband’s stead the majority of the time. The treatise above is entirely hers, word for word, sprung from her mind and hand alone. The buffoon who edited this work proclaims only his own ignorance.
Zorthen Linhad, half brother of Maximilien de Baerle, Duchess Annette’s great-great-grandfather.
