A brief survey of Hungarian heraldry from 1405 to 1600 by Lothar von Katzenellenbogen Recently I discovered a beautifully illustrated book of Hungarian heraldry, öt Évszázad Címeri, (Megjelent; 1987). In addition to containing over 100 color illustrations of arms from grants of arms made from 1405 to 1918, it also contains what appears to be a complete illustrated roll of arms for the same time period. It also, presumably, contains a survey of Hungarian heraldry, and the circumstances surrounding the granting or confirmation of the arms. I say presumably, because the book's only fault is that it is in Hungarian, which I don't speak. While the illustrations are self-explanatory, I was only able to puzzle out the names of the family, the date of the grant, and the place where the arms were granted from the information in the text. Because of this I make no pretense to know anything about the historical or social influences on these arms. How arms were granted, who used arms, who granted arms, and answers to other heraldic questions must wait for a Hungarian-speaking commenter. In spite of this, many interesting facts can be gleaned from looking at the color illustrations of arms. All of the pictures are close-up shots of the arms in a charter granting (or confirming, I don't know which) arms to a person. All of the devices are nicely done, often with elaborate compartments, supporters, and a crest. Below each illustration, the family, date, and location of the grant appear, along with what is possibly a Hungarian blazon of the device. I only trust my Hungarian far enough to list the date of the device and the blazon in my roll. (In Spring of 1995, I got my wish. Someone posted a preliminary version of this article to an Internet site, and I eventually got email from a native Hungarian. Not only had my correspondent read the book I was using for reference, he was also extremely familiar with Hungarian heraldry and geneology. In addition to making me realize that I was in way over my head, he set me straight about a few points. First, my source is not as complete as I imagined it was. öt Évszázad Címeri is actually a roll of grants of arms which are held in the state library in Budapest. For various reasons, some Hungarians entrusted grants of arms made to them or their ancestors to the state archives and they eventually became the property of the state. My reference, as extensive as it is, represents a mere fraction of the thousands of grants of arms made over the years. I can only trust that the arms held in the national library are truly representative of Hungarian heraldry as a whole. I think they are, but until I find a truly comprehensive and reliably dated source for Hungarian heraldry, I cannot prove my suspicions. My correspondent basically agreed with my conclusions but he made a few corrections which I have incorporated into this version of my article. Unfortunately, there are precious few books on Hungarian heraldry in any language and none in English. I was told that I was lucky to have stumbled upon the one decent reference currently in print.) General Considerations Based on my study of this book, I have come to realize that Hungarian heraldry is as unusual as Polish heraldry in its choice of charges and defiance of the "rules" of heraldry. In fact, my first reaction when I saw the emblazons in the book was "This looks like bad SCA heraldry!" While many Hungarian devices do follow the "rules" for "good" heraldry, enough of them violate the Rules for Submission that it would be a challenge to fully integrate authentic looking Hungarian heraldry into S.C.A. heraldry under the current rules. Tinctures and Field Treatments Hungarian heraldry, like most other Period heraldry almost never uses Purpure. In of the 84 color illustrations and the 613 black and white illustrations which date to before 1651, I can't find any extensive use of purpure. Vert is more common than in other contemporary styles of heraldry, largely owing to the extensive use of mounts, bases, and mountains. Of the remaining tinctures, gules, azure, and sable appear to be the most common field colors, with the metals trailing in popularity. Field treatments seem to have been rarely used. I could find no instance of the most common furs - vair and ermine - much less the more unusual ones. Occasionally a simple field treatment based on ordinaries will appear but barry, bendy, and fretty are the only ones which I have seen. These field treatments always use a simple line of division. Semés seem to have never been used. Field Divisions and Ordinaries Hungarian heraldry seems to have not used the Cross, the Saltire, or the Chevron. I could find no instances of these charges as a primary charge. The field divisions Per Chevron, Quarterly, Per Bend, and Per Fess were the most common field divisions. Of these, Per Fess was far and away the most popular since it was a common motif to have the field parted per fess with a demi-creature of some sort issuing from the line of division. The Per Pale line of division seems to have been used only as a way to impale arms, though there are occasional instances of it as the field division for a primary charge. Lines of Division Complex lines of division seem to be as rare as field treatments. I saw one instance of Embattled, one instance of Nebuly, several instances of Wavy, and one very unusual example of Rayoneé in the illustrations (one of few Period exemplars of Rayoneé that I know of!). The lines of division Engrailed, and Indented, so common in Anglo-Norman heraldry, seem not to have been used in Hungary. Counterchanging occasionally occurs. Charges I have identified the following characteristics of charges in Hungarian heraldry: 1) Crowns and crests are very common. I was very popular to have a demi-creature or some other charge issuing from a crown or, occasionally, a torse. The crown seems to have been the ubiquitous base for Hungarian helmet crests, irregardless of the rank of the bearer. Sometimes, the charge(s) on the helmet are identical to the charge(s) on the device itself. Typically, the crown is in base and the charge issues from the crown filling up the rest of the space on the device. 2) Demi-beasts are very common. Because of the above practice and the practice of parting a field per fess, demi-beasts are far more common in Hungarian heraldry than they are in any other style. Lions appear to the most popular charge, but stags, bears, and human figures also appear with regularity. Where there is a "crest" of a crown or a field division per fess it is almost a certainty that the demi-creature will issue from the crown or the line of division respectively. Where there is a solid field, occasionally, the demi-beast will issue from the dexter side or from the base. Occasionally though, the demi-beast will appear couped. 3) Maintained charges are very common. From the earliest times, if an animate charge makes up the primary charge group it is likely to be maintaining a charge in its hand, paw or claw. Swords would seem to head the list of maintained charges, but maces, and sprigs of plants are also common enough. It seems though that virtually any inanimate charge used in Hungarian heraldry could be used as a maintained charge. 4) Hungarian heraldry is "bloody". Animals commonly appear with arrows or swords through their necks or bodies. They might also be shown being struck by a sword held by a disembodied arm. There are also a few instances of one animal attacking another animal (a dog attacking a bear, a hawk trussing a duck) or a full human figure killing an animal. The Turk's head is less common in Hungarian heraldry than is popularly believed. It first appears in a grant of arms from 1418, and occasionally occurs thereafter, but it is rarely a primary charge. It is much more likely to appear impaled on a sword held by a human figure or an arm. Representations of Turks being shot with arrows or arquebuses, skewered by lances, or hacked down by swords are almost as common as disembodied Turk's heads. Inevitably, in these scenes you have a distinctly Hungarian soldier (A mustachioed man wearing a pointed helmet or going bare-headed and wearing the distinctive frogged tunic) cutting down a hapless Turk or standing over the fallen and decapitated body of a Turk. In all instances, the wounded animal or recently-deceased Turk is likely to be distilling goutes of blood. 5) The Rule of Tincture is occasionally violated. Occasionally, there will be an instance where a dark-colored charge appears on a dark-colored field. Also, Hungarian heraldry appears to have been much less fussy about identifiability of parti-colored charges against the field than S.C.A. heralds. It seems to have been acceptable practice for at least half (or more) of a charge to have poor contrast against the field. 6) Picture heraldry is not uncommon. From the middle of the 15th c. on "landscape" heraldry occasionally crops up. This is usually a simplified scene with a human figure in it. For example, one device has a craftsman at his bench, with the bench forming sort of a "base" to the shield, and tools scattered randomly across this "base". Another example has a picture of a farmer cutting a field of wheat. These scenes tend to get slightly more complex in later Period. 7) Occasionally "slot machine" heraldry occurs. It was a typical motif in Hungarian heraldry to have a primary charge flanked by either two mullets of six or a mullet of six and an increscent or decrescent. These secondary charges could appear in chief or in fess. Sometimes a third, unrelated, charge was added in base creating "slot machine" heraldry. 8) Complex heraldry occasionally occurs. Sometimes a device appears which is "excessively naturalistic" or "unblazonable" by S.C.A. standards. This usually occurs with landscape heraldry or when there is a scene with a number of human figures. 9) The use of the base, mount, or mountain is common. Bases, mounts, or mountains are regularly used in Hungarian heraldry, but they are far less common than commonly believed. As a very rough estimate, I'd venture that they are present in about 25%-50% of all devices. Also, a Hungarian device is as likely to use a plain base, or a mountain as a mound. These charges do not necessarily have to be Vert though this is common. Fords and bases which use an unusual line of division (rayoneé, nebuly) occasionally appear and sometimes a diminutive ordinary is placed on the base. When a device appears with a base, mount, or mountain, the "crown and crest" motif almost never appears, and vice versa. What Charges Were Commonly Used? Of the animals, lions, bears, and deer seem to be the most common. Wolves, dogs, goats, sheep, and horses also appear. Boars don't seem to have been used as a charge. Birds commonly used in Hungarian heraldry include the eagle, the stork, the crow, and the ostrich.There are other "rare birds" such as the pelican or the duck. Martlets seem to have never been used. Snakes and fish occasionally appear, the fish tend to be "generic fish" and the snakes are always emblazoned as undoyant. Fish of all sorts are far less common in Hungarian heraldry than in other types of heraldry. Monsters aren't that common, though there are several devices which have horned women (one with rams horns, one with stag's antlers), several with griffins, one with a legless dragon, and one with a dragon in annulo (one of two examples of this that I have been able to date to Period.). Hungarian heralds don't seem to have developed quite the fantastic menagerie as heralds in other countries did. Likewise, most of the stylized inanimate heraldic charges, such as annulets, roundels, and maunches never appear in Hungarian heraldry. Crescents and mullets of six appear with regularity, fleur-de-lys, escallops, and roses appear occasionally, but no other stylized heraldic charges occur. When these stylized charges (other than crescents and mullets of six) do appear, they usually appear as tertiary charges on an ordinary. Bordures, tressures, and orles seem to not have been used. Crowns, animals, human figures, and armored arms holding swords (which may or may not issue from chief, side, or a cloud) are common. Arrangement of Charges Charges in Hungarian heraldry were usually arranged in one of several ways. 1) A primary charge (or primary charge group) with or without a mount. This is far and away the most common arrangement. 2) Two charges arranged in pale, with one charge typically being a demi-creature issuant from the line of division of a per fess field. 3) A primary charge surrounded by a group of secondary charges, usually either mullets of six, or a mullet of six and an increscent. Sometimes an unrelated third charge was added in base. 4) Around a line of division (like two and one with a per chevron line of division or in bend with a bend sinister line of division). 5) Hungarian heraldry tended to be more open to unusual positions of charges than other countries. For example, there is a device which has a charge within a dragon in annulo. Number of Charges Hungarian heraldry tended heavily towards a single primary charge or two or three secondary charges (with or without an ordinary in the middle of the device). Large groups of secondary charges, or secondary charges arranged in anything but the default positions don't seem to have occurred. Charged ordinaries occasionally occur, but they are rare. When they do occur they use three simple tertiary charges of an identical type. Adaptation to S.C.A. Heraldry Obviously a lot of Hungarian-style heraldry would be unregisterable in the S.C.A. since it is so different from what we think of as being "good" heraldry. There is a substantial fragment of heraldry which can be adapted to the current RfS, especially in light of the recent Laurel ruling on Regional Style. The following blazons would be plausible, SCA-legal, Hungarian-style arms. Per fess gules and sable, a demi-stag salient issuant from the line of division pierced through the neck by an arrow fesswise argent and a mullet of six Or. Or, upon a mountain of three peaks issuant from base vert statant affronty a Hungarian swordsman vested gules maintaining a sword enfiled of a Turk's head all proper. Azure, upon a base vert a horse courant bearing a man armed cap-a-pie maintaining a lance argent and in chief a mullet of six and an increscent Or. Azure, a demi-wolf maintaining a sword Or. Gules, issuant from dexter side a dexter arm armored embowed fesswise argent maintaining a sword proper and a demi-wolf issuant from base argent. How the RfS and Laurel Precedents Might Be Relaxed If the College of Arms decides that Period exemplars should override the RfS and previous Laurel Precedents, here are ways in which the rules could be relaxed to accommodate Hungarian style heraldry. 1) Relax the "Slot Machine" rule. Three different charges in a two and one arrangement around a primary charge were occasionally found in Hungarian heraldry. As long as there is a primary charge, "slot machine" heraldry seems to have been acceptable. 2) Further relax the restrictions on tincture violations. As long as good contrast existed with even part of the charge Hungarian heraldry seemed to have "allowed" dark charges on dark fields. If there is only a single primary charge or charge group, or a simple group of secondary charges in a standard arrangement on a field of one tincture then violation of the Contrast rule should be allowed, as long as the charge is not obscured by overall charges, or other charges which make it hard to identify. This rule should give some extra flexibility to azure, vert, or gules charges on gules, since gules is chromatically a much "lighter" color than the others. (Likewise, a case might be made for not allowing sable, azure, or vert on purpure, or vice-versa. Not only was use of purpure very rare in Period, it also has poor contrast with these tinctures.) 3) Drop the ban on registering crests as charges. If a crest is on a fielded badge or a device, then it should be treated like any other charge, not a crest. 4) Drop ban on limits on use of the crown as a charge. Allow some sort of crown to be used as a generic charge by any member of the SCA. As long as there is no use of a crown in conjunction with a Laurel wreath there is no way that a device with a crown on it could be seen as being kingdom or principality arms. Creatures issuant from crowns are a commonly encountered charge in Hungarian heraldry, and, essentially, the crown is an "artistic motif" along the lower edge of the demi-beast. There is ample evidence in Hungarian heraldry that crowns were used as a generic charge and were not reserved to royalty. ??