Burghers and Heraldry: On the Usage of Heraldic Signs by Burghers in Early Modern Hungarian Kingdom*

Heraldry today belongs undoubtedly to one of the most dynamically developing branches of auxiliary history, as far as Slovak historiography is concerned. Only relatively recently, fundamental works were published that describe in detail the development of this discipline in Slovakia, as well as off ering a modern perspective on Slovak heraldic terminology.1 Scholarly research has been particularly impressive regarding state symbolism, and communal, county-level and especially noble heraldry. The past two decades have seen a relatively high number of heraldic and genealogical lexicons relating to noble family heraldry.2 These are interesting to the academic community but also to a wider reading public, which is benefi cial because until now this type of publication was absent in Slovak heraldry scholarship.3 Other publications tracked the development of noble arms in Slovakia, as well as works on the links between heraldry and phaleristics.4 It is equally encouraging that heraldic source books are beginning to be published, including the soon to be published, much anticipated collection of grants of arms from Slovakia.5

Heraldry today belongs undoubtedly to one of the most dynamically developing branches of auxiliary history, as far as Slovak historiography is concerned. Only relatively recently, fundamental works were published that describe in detail the development of this discipline in Slovakia, as well as off ering a modern perspective on Slovak heraldic terminology. 1 Scholarly research has been particularly impressive regarding state symbolism, and communal, county-level and especially noble heraldry. The past two decades have seen a relatively high number of heraldic and genealogical lexicons relating to noble family heraldry. 2 These are interesting to the academic community but also to a wider reading public, which is benefi cial because until now this type of publication was absent in Slovak heraldry scholarship. 3 Other publications tracked the development of noble arms in Slovakia, as well as works on the links between heraldry and phaleristics. 4 It is equally encouraging that heraldic source books are beginning to be published, including the soon to be published, much anticipated collection of grants of arms from Slovakia. 5 * This article was written as part of project APVV-16-0383: PamMap: Comprehensive memory portal and historic towns atlas of Slovakia (Bratislava and Košice).
Studies into burgher (non-noble) heraldry are more complicated, and this area has stood in the shadows for a long time for Slovak heraldic scholars. 6 In the 1985 academic symposium in Námestovo on the state of research by auxiliary history departments, for instance, burgher heraldry was not even mentioned; or at least, it is absent from the published symposium proceedings. 7 The subsequent decades have seen the fi rst scholarly studies and articles which mapped, on the basis of case studies, the situation in certain chosen localities. Despite previous assumptions which tended to marginalize burgher heraldry in Hungary, quite the opposite has been revealed. The wide use and richness of burgher heraldic symbolism was particularly surprising. The published studies therefore gave us a preliminary, basic overview of the breadth and development of heraldic use in our towns. It has become evident that burgher heraldry in Hungary developed along similar lines to that of neighbouring Central European countries. A wealth of typological similarities and choices of burgher symbolism, as well as the manner of using burgher heraldic marks, are particularly comparable to those of Austrian, southern German and Czech urban environments. This is without doubt a phenomenon deriving from the intensive German colonization of medieval Hungarian (today Slovak) towns not only during the Middle Ages, but also during the Early Modern Era. 8 Nevertheless, we also notice some Hungarian deviations which we focus on below. It is clear, therefore, that we shall require further and deeper studies to understand the complexities of this area, including studies of an interdisciplinary heraldic, sigillographic, prosopographic and genealogical nature.
Hungarian historiography and heraldic research, both current and historical, does not focus suffi ciently on this topic. This is odd, since family heraldry has a rich tradition with our southern neighbours. What research there is focuses mainly on noble families, and heraldic studies related to burghers and their marks are published only sporadically. Older works by E. Tompos and Cs. Csorba are nevertheless still relevant, and they present similar fi ndings to those by Slovak authors. Hungarian historiography also feels the absence of a complex synthesis relating to burgher heraldry. 9 The author of this text has a long-term focus on the use of heraldic marks in Hungarian towns. In 2002 he presented a study on the development of burgher heraldry, including the classifi cation of symbolism and use of personal marks, i.e., arms of burghers and non-nobles. He also published several studies on burgher heraldry in the Hungarian capital Prešporok (Pressburg, today's Bratislava), the vineyard towns of the Little Carpathians and Central Slovakian mining towns. 10 He has begun to defi ne the basic direction of further research and pointed to the need of heraldic research of citizenry not only of royal towns, but also in smaller feudal towns and townships. 11 In terms of basic research, we still do not have satisfactory data on the use of burgher heraldic seals in the context of diplomatic production in towns. We are aware of only minimal sources on trade symbolism used chiefl y by master artisans of lesser-known crafts, and similarly we know little about the links between burgher and guild heraldry. Similarly, there is yet to be systematic primary research into the heraldry of town intelligentsia (preachers, organist, schoolmasters, artists, scribes, lawyers and public notaries). It is necessary to connect the heritability issue of burgher marks with the genealogical research of their families. Certainly, the most fascinating area of study is burgher ennoblement and the subsequent transformation of their arms, which also requires focused genealogical and prosopographic work. Here we must admit an important advantage enjoyed by Slovak research into burgher heraldry, and that is the wealth of surviving archival material. This makes a successful study into this subject eminently possible.
The period of probably the greatest use of burgher heraldry in Hungarian towns was during the Early Modern Era, between 1500 and 1750. As such, this study focuses on this time and includes a number of thematic areas that revealed themselves during sigillographic research.

Ennoblement of burghers and changes in their heraldic marks
One of the most interesting phenomena of social development in post-Mohacs Hungary was the signifi cant growth in ennoblements. As a rule, the Habsburg monarchs ennobled soldiers, royal offi cials and the familiars of magnates and dignitaries of the realm. However, another particular social group granted nobility in the Early Modern period consisted of the inhabitants of royal and mining towns -particularly members of the patriciate and town elites. It appears that even the royal court supported this trend. For instance, a successful career in town administration became an accomplishment worthy of ennoblement. However, this process of ennobling town elites occurred in diff erent timeframes across diff erent Hungarian free royal towns. In the capital we can roughly defi ne it to 1570-1600. Whilst in the fi rst half of the sixteenth century only some individuals of the senate were nobles, by 1600 almost every senator of Bratislava was either newly ennobled or, indeed, a noble by birth. If a non-noble was voted into the senate, soon after he successfully petitioned for noble status for himself and his family. Senators from Hungarian (Magyar) and Croatian artisan classes, who were pushed into the senate as supporters of the Catholics, also soon became noblemen. The master blacksmith Michael Bán was raised to this status in 1618, the haberdasher Caspar Bella alias Gömbköthő in 1612, another haberdasher, Martin Galgóczy in 1629, the barber and wound healer Caspar Várady in 1635, locksmith Peter Szilvassy and butcher John Otth in 1651, to be followed by others. 12 Of course, families outside of the town administration were also ennobled. The right to arms and noble privileges were also obtained by members of the urban intelligentsia, town offi cials and wealthy merchants, as well as successful artisans. 13 They all continued to pay taxes from their urban properties and they bought themselves out of military duty, and were therefore precisely documented in towns. The 1597 rollcall of Bratislava burghers included 79 such individuals ("armalists"). 14 The majority of the recently ennobled Bratislava patriciate continued their urban way of life. They continued to make their living principally by trade or craft; but with some families we see an intention to blend into the Hungarian nobility. They sought positions in royal service and offi ces and tried to become related to noble families. Such marriages were, counter-intuitively, particularly interesting to impoverished gentry and descendants of noble exiles from the south, as well as to educated young nobles working in royal offi ces of the capital. A contributory part to this intermingling with the Hungarian nobility were attempts by the richest members of the city elite to purchase the free noble country possessions outside of town. Importantly, this kind of ownership transformed their legal status, and from mere possessionless "armalists", they became county nobles with the right to engage with the county administration and apply for royal posts. And so, for instance, the Bratislava Hoffi ngers became owners of a noble estate in Deutsch Jahrndorf in Moson county; the Heindls and Schrembsers bought estates in Rajka; the Pecks and Karners owned estates in the Rye Island (Žitný ostrov, Csalloköz); and the Schmuggers, estates in Veľké Leváre. Some secured their ownership even further with royal donations. 15 Modern heraldic study should also be concerned with the issues surrounding burgher ennoblement; since with the gaining of noble status a burgher, or his family branch, was also granted a hereditary coat of arms. Often the appearance of the latter was suggested or co-produced by the petitioner himself, who sent it to the royal chancellery drawn into the ennoblement application. 16 It is important to note a Hungarian particularity in respect to this. In the Kingdom of Hungary, contrary to in Imperial lands, there was no legal mid-position between burgher and noble status. In Austrian and Bohemian lands, for example, the monarch could grant hereditary arms to burghers and other individuals by way of a document, without also granting nobility. These gained a coat of arms, sometimes even the right to feudal possession (Wappen und Lehenartikel), but not nobility. A similar jurisdiction to issue grants of arms for burghers was exercised by Imperial palatine counts (Hofpfalzgraf ). 17 This produced a numerous group of armigerous burghers whose families thus had hereditary arms. Yet, it remained a burgher coat of arms, however complete (with helm, mantling and crest). The closed or tilting helmet was used as a rule. It lacked the coronet and was replaced by the torse. These armigerous burgher families could subsequently petition for ennoblement, but did not always do so.
It was not possible for Hungarian burghers to petition for this kind of hereditary coat of arms. Then again, an advantage for them was that with a grant of arms they also gained noble status and noble arms. Since the burghers themselves were directly involved in co-creating their noble arms, it is evidently very interesting to explore the extent to which they carried through their original personal marks or symbols. We studied this phenomenon with a number of elite urban Bratislava (Pressburg) families of the Early Modern period. It became clear that only rarely have their original burgher arms, and individual fi gures from them, been incorporated into newly granted noble arms. Those that were used were mostly so-called canting arms. This is seen with the mayoral families of Klee, Aichinger or Kögl, who were among the fi rst in the Hungarian capital to be ennobled during the sixteenth century. These fi ndings are published in an earlier study. 18 By contrast, families whose members used trade symbolism or personal trade marks (including the Laussers and Schrembsers) preferred noble coats of arms depicting entirely diff erent symbols. Their noble heraldic achievement was principally evidence of their newly acquired privileged social standing. But there remained families who did not cease to use their burgher signs, particularly merchants with their personal marks, even after ennoblement -since they fulfi lled a function. This can be seen with the Burgstaller family of Bratislava mayors. 19

Transformations of the heraldic arms of the Feyrtag and Welligrand families
It was possible to use the sources to successfully map and document the heraldic changes subsequent to ennoblement of further burgher families living in the Hungarian capital. We have chosen two families -Feyrtag and Welligrand -which until now have not been the subjects of any heraldic or genealogical work. In the Early Modern period the Feyrtags (Feyertag, Fayrtagh, Freytag) were among the most eminent burgher families of Bratislava. We may consider them as a typical example of a family which gradually ascended from the craftsman class to the city elite. So far, it is possible to trace the family genealogy from the master furriers, brothers Thomas Feyrtag ( †before 1590) and Andrew Feyrtag ( †after 1590). Thomas was more signifi cant for the family; he sat in the greater city council and owned a house on the main square. His widow married the nobleman and royal offi cial Salamon Streitberger. 20 This relation probably ushered the furrier family into the city's noble community. Thomas's descendants became familiar with the social environment of their father-in-law and they themselves, later, gained noble titles. 21 We do not know exactly when this was, since the date of the ennoblement is unknown and neither is it mentioned in older genealogical literature. However, the earliest Feyrtags appear in the lists of Bratislava nobility in the years 1640, 1643 and 1650. 22 A more signifi cant ascent of the Feyrtags in the capital city was probably limited by their Protestant faith, to which they were loyal after ennoblement. This made it impossible for them to apply for the higher royal posts then resident in Bratislava. The family became extinct in the second half of the seventeenth century.
We can also trace the Feyrtag ennoblement through heraldic sources. We are familiar with the seals of Thomas Feyrtag's son, Joachim ( †before 1624) pressed in 1603 and 1623, and of his grandson Lawrence from 1633. 23 They depict diff ering heraldic charges. In 1603, Joachim still used his personal mark on the seal, inserted into the escutcheon within a cartouche. This mark was a combination of his initials and an upward pointing arrow (fi g. 1). We know that he worked in the services of the Bratislava town chamber, and later as a Bratislava merchant. His eponymous elder son, Joachim, entered the Imperial service in Vienna, where he became a member and subsequently a corporal of the city guard. Around this time the family was raised to the nobility, and it appears that this was Imperial, not Hungarian nobility. When Joachim Feyrtag the younger married in 1611, documents already identifi ed him as a noble. 24 Joachim's younger son Lawrence Feyrtag ( †1653) entered the services of the Imperial protestant nobleman Melchior Beringer von Königshofen, who was a courtier of Emperor Ferdinand II and worked as a military offi cial in Hungary. Lawrence himself because an Imperial courtier later on, but was not given a more important offi ce. 25 The earlier seals of Joachim (1623) and Lawrence from 1633 already depict the noble arms of the Bratislava Feyrtags. The escutcheon was divided by a wedge (heraldic chapé) into three fi elds. The wedge was charged by a bird facing to the right (a cockerel?). Both upper fi elds contained rosettes. The shield was surmounted by a closed, barred helmet with a coronet and mantling. The crest was the aforementioned bird between a pair of oliphants. Three roses issued from each oliphant (fi g. 2). We do not yet know the tinctures (colours) of the coat of arms, but we hope to fi nd the Feyrtag grant of arms. Arms of this kind and content were typical for the Renaissance period, or the period between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Joachim Feyrtag kept nothing of his personal mark in his new noble arms. This was not unusual and, as we have mentioned, it is consistent with other ennobled Bratislava families who used merchants' marks in the past.
Other families managed to enter noble ranks in the Early Modern Period, some even from the densely populated suburbs of the Hungarian capital. We have chosen the Welligrands (Beligrond) as an example where we can also trace a change in heraldry. The earliest known ancestor of this burgher family was George Welligrand ( †1594), who lived, together with his sons Matthew and Michael, on Danube Street (Thonaugasse) in the suburbs. 26 This street was inhabited by numerous burghers who made their living on the river -boatmen, millers or fi shermen. The Welligrands were also originally a fi shing family. The Danube branches, richly stocked with fi sh, enabled the local fi shermen to prosper within the Bratislava burgher community, both materially and socially. The guild of fi shermen and fi sh merchants was one of the oldest in the city, with its statutes published by the city in 1511 and 1543. 27 The wealthiest master fi shermen used their own personal marks, probably also depicted in the billboards hanging outside their shops, and certainly in their personal seals. Their heraldic signs depicted the symbolism of their craft -most commonly fi sh in various confi gurations. 28 The Welligrands were no exception. We know of three seals pressed by George's son Matthew, from 1601 (fi g. 3) and 1610. 29 All show the same image: a shield charged with two crossed fi sh, accompanied by four rosettes. Above the shield, at the top of the seal fi eld, are the initials M. W. Since two or three crossed fi sh was a common charge of fi shing guilds, it is probable that Matthew was infl uenced in his arms by guild heraldry. 30 In the fi rst third of the seventeenth century, the Welligrand family rapidly achieved social prominence. They moved into the city centre where they owned two houses, and Matthew's brother Michael Welligrand ( †1644) was chosen as Bratislava's town winery mountain master (Pergmeister). By then Michael's two sons, Andrew and Paul, had adjusted themselves to their higher social status and they abandoned their traditional work. Both became linen merchants and city dignitaries, and fi nally gained Hungarian nobility. The highest position in the city was achieved by Paul's eponymous son Paul Welligrand the younger ( †before 1684) who was a member of the senate in 1670-1672. Noble status enabled the family to gradually distance themselves from town life. In the eighteenth century, the Welligrands were prominent principally in Moson, Győr and Trenčín counties. They even reached royal service, including Andrew Welligrand ( †1751) who headed the royal toll station in Trenčín. His seal from 1745 depicts the noble family arms. 31 This family coat of arms was granted to the Welligrands when they were raised to noble status by a grant of nobility, published by Ferdinand II on 6 January 1633. The shield was charged by a dove, issuing from a coronet on a trimount, and holding a branch in its beak. The crest depicted a griff on issuing from a coronet, grasping a branch in its claw. 32 It is interesting to see that there is no trace of the original burgher symbolism of the family (fi sh, rosettes). It appears that the Welligrands were loath to return to the artisan (fi shing) past of their ancestors and, indeed, by adopting completely new charges in their noble coats of arms they projected a future as part of the noble community.

Using a hereditary family burgher coat of arms
An as yet little-studied phenomenon of Hungarian burgher heraldry is that of armigerous urban families, in other words non-noble but hereditary arms in towns. Older research suggested that these kinds of families were rare, particularly in large towns, both during the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern period. 33 Clarifi cation of this issue is complicated by two factors. One of these is the relatively widespread ennoblement of town elites; particularly from the fi nal third of the sixteenth century, many prominent urban inhabitants enjoyed nobility and noble arms, even if their way of life remained dependent on their civic status (as merchants, scholars or artisans). We usually know the precise date on which the grant of arms and ennoblement was published by the Hungarian monarch. We must consider these kinds of grants as unquestionably noble arms of ennobled burghers and not as part of urban, burgher heraldry. cases are those where it is uncertain whether the family was in fact ennobled, as many families died off relatively early and we miss genealogical data. Often the royal grants for these burghers are missing or lost. The second factor undermining a clear understanding of the issue is the fact that some Hungarian burghers, namely those of German ethnicity, petitioned not for Hungarian, but Imperial nobility, which they gained as burghers of Hungarian towns. We have several examples, including the Schiff erers of Krupina (ennobled 1583), Liechtenpergers of Banská Bystrica (1604) and Partingers of Bratislava (1583). 34 Other Hungarian burghers of Imperial extraction brought their nobility from their homeland. Even if they lived civic lives in Hungary, not as noblemen, they quite legitimately continued to use the hereditary noble coats of arms of their ancestors. A useful diff erentiating tool in the study of heraldic charges of ennobled burghers is the formal appearance of their arms. These are almost always complete achievements -with shield, helm, crest and mantling. Important, however, is that the helms are surmounted as a rule by the coronet, as a sign of noble status.
But apart from the arms of ennobled burghers with coronets we have also found hereditary arms of burghers that lack this kind of helm coronet. They are known to have existed since the Middle Ages, namely the fourteenth century. While the Bratislava mayoral Jakub family still represented a specifi c status as burghers -and patricians holding noble property -the younger Gailsams of Bratislava and Jungs of Banská Bystrica were defi nitely burghers. Both these families not only used complete coats of arms, but with the Jungs we also have sigillographic proof that their heraldic blazon of three shells was hereditary. 35 Similarly, but later, in the sixteenth century, heraldic charges (three postal trumpets and half an arrow) were also hereditary in the wellknown Banská Štiavnica burgher and mining family, the Schalls. 36 Again, we know this through discovering their heraldic seals -that of Conrad Schall from 1542 for instance, or of Elias Schall in 1570. 37 Both these patricians of Štiavnica bore arms without the noble coronet. Since the family moved to Banská Štiavnica from Swabian Stuttgart, their hereditary coat of arms was clearly an Imperial import. We have found similar types of arms borne by other families from the mining town regions, including the Lindacher and Riedtmüller families.
The Lindachers are documented since the sixteenth century and they worked in mining towns as miners and mining offi cials. The fi rst signifi cant member was Christopher Lindacher, who began as a mining master in Boca in Liptov county (1564-1569); he is then mentioned in 1571 as a successful chief steward of the private Brenner mining venture in Banská Štiavnica. His 1569 seal depicts an unusual coat of arms (fi g. 4). 38 Its formal appearance suggests a hereditary coat, but its charges point to personal burgher marks. The shield is divided vertically. The right fi eld contains a cut branch from whose right side grows a living shoot with leaves. The left fi eld depicts two melter's pincers side by side. The escutcheon is surmounted by a tilting helmet with mantling, but lacking a coronet. Two outspread eagle's wings form the crest. The hereditary quality of this coat of arms is confi rmed by an earlier seal (1586) of a diff erent family member -Elias Lindacher of Banská Štiavnica. 39 It depicts a very similar blazon, again without a coronet. The only diff erence is represented in the right-hand fi eld of the shield, where the branch and shoot are replaced with an entire tree. It is doubtless a canting charge -the linden tree (die Linde in German). The left fi eld is once more fi lled by the melter's pincers, which we may assume to represent the bearer's profession. Pincers were used to drain ore and melt precious metals. We do not have any evidence that the Lindachers enjoyed Hungarian nobility. Since both heraldic achievements lack a coronet, we can assume that they were true burgher arms.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Riedtmüller family belonged to the city elites of Kremnica and Banská Štiavnica. As their surname implies, as does their coat of arms, the family's ancestors were artisans -millers. In the environment of mining towns, from the second half of the sixteenth century, the Riedtmüllers were miners ("Waldbürgers") and offi cials of the mining chambers. But there is no evidence that they were granted Hungarian nobility. And yet the extant seals are proof that they used hereditary arms with a noteworthy charge -in two variants. It consisted of a heraldic eagle placed in the shield with a millstone on its chest; or an eagle issuant from a half millstone in the bottom part of the shield. This charge recurred in the crest. It is fi rst seen on seals of John Riedtmüller from 1570 and 1576, who used a full achievement with helmet, mantling and crest. 40 Subsequently, the coat of arms was used with variations by John's descendants during the entire seventeenth century, including the family's most important member -Matthew Riedtmüller ( †after 1672), the mayor of Banská Štiavnica. But all the variants lack a helm coronet; this is sometimes replaced by a torse, and sometimes there is no helm covering at all. This is consistent with burgher arms. The arms used by Christopher Riedtmüller ( †1611), treasurer of the Banská Štiavnica mining chamber, is somewhat curious. His seal from 1609 shows the family coat of arms that, in formal terms, is comparable to noble arms of the period. 41 The employment of a tilted Gothic shield, a pagan helm coronet and a cloak instead of mantling was fashionable particularly with the aristocracy and noble scholars in the fi rst third of the seventeenth century. 42 But the careful viewer will notice that Riedtmüller's coat of arms once more lacks the helm coronet (fi g. 5). Since this is repeated with every member of this family, we suspect this is intentional. We are thus dealing with a hereditary burgher coat of arms. It is again probable that the arms are of Imperial origin and were brought to Hungary by the Riedtmüllers from their homeland.

The double cross in burgher heraldry
From a heraldic perspective, the burgher family of Khuen is similarly interesting. Several artists and scholars came from this family, and the earliest known ancestor is the master goldsmith John Khuen (Khien), a member of the Banská Bystrica town council, who in 1555 and 1574 sealed with a curious personal heraldic sign (fi g. 6). 43 It consisted of a personal mark inserted into an escutcheon. Its basis was a double cross of arms of equal width. The bottom part of its vertical arm, however, was split into a rounded crocket (a so-called Sparrenfußschaft in German). Since the goldsmith and engraver John Khuen was a native of Levoča in Spiš county, we can legitimately ask whether his personal mark's conceptual source may have been the arms of his native town. 44 Indeed, Levoča used a double cross in its arms in the fi fteenth and at the beginning of the sixteenth century; singly, or later in the well-known canting variant supported by a pair of lions. 45 The fact that the double cross, derived from the Hungarian royal symbol, appears in noble heraldry as well as in the arms of many of the oldest and most important royal towns, is a well-known and thoroughly studied phenomenon. 46 It has been less studied in connection with Hungarian burgher heraldry. We are aware of its existence in the Middle Ages as one of the several variants of the personal merchants' marks. The fi rst evidence of this type of mark is in Košice, on a heraldic tombstone from the fourteenth century. 47 It is generally assumed that these burgher marks were derived from masons' marks and so-called house signs (Hausmarken). They are widespread throughout Central Europe, together with similar other marks based on the arrow, cross, hooks, or number cipher. 48 As a result, they should not be directly related to the Hungarian royal double cross, even those seen in Hungary itself.
However, the most recent sigillographic fi nds cast this theory in a new light. In the event that a burgher's mark was infl uenced by the heraldic symbol of his home town, then it was indirectly derived from the royal arms. Indeed, Khuen the goldsmith is not an isolated case. His contemporary, the Zvolen burgher Stephen Sielnický, sealed in 1585 with a similarly created personal heraldic mark, inserted into a Renaissance-style shield. Its basis was the double (patriarchal) cross, very similar to the contemporary depiction of the royal double cross. But it was augmented with a new, transversely diagonal arm that connected the bottom of the cross with its lower right arm (fi g. 7). Judging from his surname, this burgher came from Sielnica near Zvolen. The former town did not have a double cross in its arms, but the latter used it as a charge since the town's inceptionincluding during the life of Stephen Sielnický. 49 It is therefore possible that this Zvolen burgher derived his personal mark from the very arms of his town. It is interesting that another contemporary of these two burghers from the Zvolen region used arms featuring a double cross: a certain S. Schlaher who pressed a seal in 1584 at Vígľaš castle near Zvolen. 50 We do not know much about this individual, but the millstone in his heraldic sign implies that he could have been a miller -a burgher or descendant of such a family. Schlaher's arms, which depict a Hungarian royal double cross growing out of a millstone between two leaves, is heraldically very powerful (fi g. 8). Again, it could relate to nearby Zvolen, or potentially the bearer of this seal was in royal service. We shall see what future genealogical research might show about the Schlaher family.
In relation to the hereditary quality of burgher arms, we must return to the goldsmith Khuen and his heraldic sign. Personal marks were not usually hereditary, but they could sometimes be transformed into hereditary coats of arms. John Khuen was the founder of an important artistic and scholarly dynasty of burghers, which during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries produced a number of exceptional artists -painters, sculptors and engravers. 51 John's son James Khuen ( †after 1619) became a relatively well-known Renaissance painter who worked principally in central Slovakia. He also used heraldic seals with his own coat of arms, which was made in a curious way. Into the escutcheon fi eld, between three smaller shields which always symbolised artists (painters and engravers), he inserted his father's personal mark. The sign of the double cross thus became hereditary. The arms included a tilting helm with a coronet (!), mantling and crest. The latter consisted of a pair of deer antlers, surrounding a demi-female fi gure without arms and with a torse on her head. We have published this coat of arms depicted in James's seal from 1615 (fi g. 9). 52 Even though it had the appearance of a noble coat of arms, it was once again burgher heraldry. The helm with coronet is a little confusing in this instance. The coronet does not denote noble status, but was borrowed from guild heraldry. In fact the painter James Khuen created his arms by assuming the complete arms of the painters' guild and augmenting them with his father's sign. 53 A generation later the family really did gain Hungarian nobility. The monarch granted the Khuens (Khien) a noble coat of arms featuring griffi ns, again without any connection to the symbolism of burgher heraldry. It would certainly be very interesting to focus research on the heraldic development of further generations of the Khuen family. It remains to be seen whether the double cross mark was truly forgotten, since younger members of the family remained painters, making it possible that they used their personal painters' marks alongside their noble coat of arms.

Curiosities of burgher heraldry -the executioner's arms
The content and symbolism of burgher heraldic signs was often infl uenced by social standing within the urban community, as well as type of activity or profession. With masters of traditional crafts (such as butcher, miller, furrier, tailor or cobbler) we mainly encounter heraldic motifs that derive from an artisanal, professional symbolism. Thus, the products were depicted, or perhaps the tools pointing to the particular craft of the burgher. This symbolism was used in both guild and burgher heraldry, and both closely infl uenced and enriched each other. 54 The above-mentioned symbolism was of a relatively unifi ed and universal character, but it nevertheless managed to create 50 ŠA BB, Spisy,box 100,fasc. 326. 51 GARAS,Schlachtenbilder und fremde Maler,[342][343][344][345]Spisy,box 70,fasc. 269. RAGAČ,Maliar Jakub Khien,[247][248][249][250][251][252][253][254][255][256] The following study discusses the blazon of the painters' guilds' coat of arms in several Imperial cities since the Middle Ages: NAGYBAKAY, Zunftwappen mit Helmzierden,141,154. 54 VRTEĽ,Osem storočí,[163][164][165][166][167]195. a large number of original variations and combinations. And so, each urban craftsman was able to choose a unique symbol for his personal sign. This has been noted by several older heraldic studies. We can confi dently identify and describe a good number of these professional charges; others, especially of lesser-known professions, are yet to be properly discussed. 55 But urban communities were also home to relatively uncommon or specialized professions. Their members usually worked in towns as individuals and were therefore not organized into guilds. Sigillographic research of these persons' seals reveals their heraldic signs, which often contained unusual and noteworthy symbolism. Though rare and unusual, they signifi cantly contribute to our knowledge of Hungarian burgher heraldry and to a general understanding of the relationship between Hungarian burghers and their heraldic signs.
For this reason, we have decided to include an example of a heraldic curiosity -the arms of the town executioner. Executioners have not yet been examined closely in heraldic research. Sigillographic sources, however, confi rm that they also used seals. This is particularly interesting in light of their ambiguous social standing. On the one hand, they were usually pushed to the edges of society due to their repulsive and morally suspect profession. On the other, their services were extremely valued. Without them, it would have been impossible to enact the most serious judgements (torture, physical punishments and execution itself), which were the bases of feudal legal power and justice. But executioners were also charged with important hygienic services, such as the removal of corpses or catching stray dogs. Urban or county representatives thus always made sure to pay an executioner well, and they were often accommodated and even fed on their account. 56 The chronic existence of executioners on the edges of society and the marriage relations between their families, as well as their relative wealth, made it possible for the growth of executioner dynasties. It is a phenomenon worthy of closer study by heraldists as well as genealogists.
The earliest personal sign of an executioner known so far is from Bratislava, the then Hungarian capital. It survived on the seal of the executioner Christopher Feuler from 1563. It has a beautiful heraldic form and unusually powerful symbolism. The shield contains a large sword wreathed by two snakes. 57 The snakes here symbolise sin, while the sword means just punishment. The sword traditionally represented justice. Together with a pair of scales it is present in depictions of the Roman goddess of justice -Justitia -as well as of the Archangel Michael. 58 It was simultaneously the executioner's professional symbol and his working tool.
One of Feuler's successors in the Hungarian metropolis was the executioner Nicholas Amon. We know that he was from Vienna. Some brief inscriptions show that he worked in Bratislava, but also had paid work in the nearby towns of Svätý Jur and Pezinok. His seal from 1635 is undoubtedly a curiosity (fi g. 10), since we fi nd not a personal burgher sign, but a complete heraldic achievement. 59  a (fi ery?) sword in his right hand, and a pair of scales in his left. A tilting helm above the shield supports a torse with mantling. The crest represents a double-tailed lion, issuing and turned to the right. His right paw wields a sword and his left holds a human head. This executioner's coat of arms also had clear symbolism -justice in the shield and punishment in the crest. The shield charge probably represents St Michael. This archangel's role on the Day of Judgment was to weigh the good and bad deeds of human souls on a pair of scales, and banish the unworthy from heaven with his sword. 60 But the attention of heraldic experts must focus on the manner of appearance of these arms, since it is identical to hereditary family arms. The use of a torse instead of a coronet rules out the possibility that the family is noble. If the Amons were a family of executioners, the coat of arms suggests that they also bore hereditary arms. The question remains whether these arms were merely assumed or whether they obtained a grant of arms for them. Its publication by the Imperial chamber is not likely, but it might have come from the offi ce of one of the lesser-known Imperial palatines. A wealthy family of executioners, working for generations in the most important cities and doubtless also for royal justice, could have obtained such a palatine grant without too much publicity. It is, of course, only a hypothesis that will have to be confi rmed by genealogical research.
Finally, we would like to return to the importance of further developing research into burgher heraldry and point to primary sources. As with noble heraldry, the nature of these varies. As we have already mentioned, in Slovak (Hungarian) research we clearly miss grants of arms, and we only have imports of Imperial privileges. 61 This means that perhaps the most acute problem is determining the exact tinctures of burgher arms. An alternative primary source for these may be decorated heraldic diaries (germ. Stammbuch). 62 Also signifi cant are sources in museums or on monuments -seal rings, seal matrices, artisanal signs, guild chests and guild memorial cups, as well as house marks or sepulchral monuments (tombstones and epitaphs of burghers). 63 These, however, are usually only sporadically extant, and most of these primary sources are not indexed in any meaningful heraldic way. It is therefore likely that the most important source material for burgher heraldry is sigillographic material -seals of burghers themselves. Many are to be found in our archives, and each seal can be precisely dated and attributed to an individual, which markedly facilitates genealogical identifi cation.
We therefore believe that the publishing of more comprehensive collections of sigillographic material in the future will help hugely in researching the use of heraldic signs in urban contexts. A possible goal for the near future would be a comprehensive, scholarly monograph that would introduce burgher heraldry in Slovak (and Hungarian) towns in more depth.