XXVIII. Modica præsumptio cogit amantem de coamante suspicari sinistra. XXIX. Non solet amare quem nimia voluptatis abundantia vexat. XXX. Verus amans assidua, sine intermissione, coamantis imagine detinetur. XXXI. Unam feminam nihil prohibet a duobus amari, et a duabus mulieribus unum. Of these articles, the translation of a few may suffice. The allegation of marriage is an insufficient plea against love. No one should love two people at the same time. Without exceeding good reason no one should be forbidden to love. No one need love unless persuasion invite. It is not seemly to love one whom it would be unseemly to marry. A new love banishes an old one. Love readily yielded is lightly held. The establishment of courts for the maintenance of principles such as these may seem unnecessary. Yet they had their raison d'être. In cases of tort and felony the lord of a fief possessed the right of justice high and low. There are crimes now which the law cannot reach. It was the same way then. There were controversies which no mere man could adjust. To remedy the defect the wives of the lords created tribunals of their own. In the English dominions on the Continent generally, as also in Flanders, Champagne and Provence, these courts were frequent. In describing them Nostradamus said that "disputes arising from the beautiful and subtle questions of love were submitted to illustrious ladies who, after deliberation, rendered judgments termed, 'Lous arrêsts d'amours.'" Of the beautiful and subtle questions here is one: A confidant charged by a friend with messages of love found the lady so to his liking that he addressed her in his own behalf. Instead of being repulsed he was encouraged. Whereupon the injured party brought suit. Maître André, prothonotary of the court, relates that the plaintiff prayed that the fraud be submitted to the Countess of Champagne, who, sitting in banco with sixty ladies, heard the complaint and, on deliberation, rendered judgment as follows: "It is ordered that the defendants henceforth be debarred the frequentation of honest people." Here is another instance. A knight was charged by a lady not to say or do anything in her praise. It so fell about that her name was lightly taken. The knight challenged the defamer. Thereupon the lady contended that he had forfeited all claim to her regard. Action having been brought the court decided that the defence of a lady being never illicit the knight should be rehabilitated in favor and reinstated in grace. Which, the prothonotary states, was done.