Hatching (heraldry)

The system of heraldry has two main methods to designate the tinctures of arms in uncolored illustrations: hatching and tricking. Hatching, i. e. exertion of lines and dots, is the most common method to designate colours on uncoloured surfaces, like printings, seals, and coins.

File:Vonalkázás.png

Our present day hatching system was developed during the 1630s by Silvester Petra Sancta and Marcus Vulson de la Colombière. Some earlier hatching methods were also developed, but did not get on.

The Origin of Hatching Systems

Hatching was a method of screening in the Renaissance painting. For such the great copperplate engravers and artists such as Zangrius and Franquart it served as a natural method to designate tinctures of the arms. Thus, it can be concluded that this way to designate the tinctures originated by all probability from the artists (copper plate engravers) and not the heraldists. As part of the techniques of hatching, artists used various lengths, angles, mutual space and other properties of lines.

The copper plate engravers were always seized of the problem of properly picturing the black (dark) and white (light) surfaces. They also dealt with the problem on producing the coloured illustrations. It is around the middle of the 17th century that the first tests of the colour in copperplate engraving were done by François Perrier (1590-Paris, 1650). According to some views, the multi-coloured copperplate engravings were invented by Abraham Bosse as described in his 1645 treatise.

Heralds did not like hatching, and the College of Arms gave preference to tricking even beyond the 17th century, sometimes even on the coloured and hatched images. It was so because tricking was a simpler way to the drawer than hatching to designate the tinctures. Otto Titan von Hefner maintained that the first traces of hatching on the woodcuts began during the 15th and 16th centuries. Both tricking as well as hatching was applied by the Benedictine monk, philologist and outstanding historian Vincenzio or Vincenzo Maria Borghini (Florence, Oct. 29, 1515 – Aug. 18, 1580, Florence). He drew a difference between the metals and the colours on the woodcuts of his work by leaving the places blank on the arms for all metals; similarly all colours were hatched by the same way, as the colour vert is being used today. Besides this, tinctures were designated in the fields and on the ordinaries and charges by tricking: R–rosso–gules, A–azure–azure, N–nigro–sable, G–gialbo–yellow (or), and B–biancho–white (argent). Notably, the vert was not present on the arms presented by him.

During the 15-18th centuries, painting and graphics were on a very high level in the Low Countries. For this reason, it isn’t accidental that different hatching methods were emerged in the system of heraldry in these territories. The earliest one and then the majority of these systems were developed in the Low Countries (mainly in the Duchy of Brabant) such as the method of Zangrius (1600), Franquart (1623), Butkens (1626), and de Rouck (1645). So, four out of the eight authors of the seven known hatching systems came from the Low Countries and the remaining four authors – de la Colombière, Petra Sancta, Gelenius, and Lobkowitz – also had close connection with the heraldists and artists of these territories.

File:Vonalkázási rendszerek,.PNG

The earliest hatching system was developed by the outstanding copper plate engraver, publisher, typographer and bookseller Jan Baptist Zangrius (†1606) of Leuven in 1600 and was seen at the armorial chart of Brabant. Inasmuch as the hatching systems of Petra Sancta and de la Colombière differ from the method developed by Zangrius only in the way of hatching of the colour Sable, as it almost seems evident that Petra Sancta or de la Colombière modeled their systems after Zangrius‘ hatching table.

The Dispute of Petra Sancta and de la Colombière

The 1627 screening method of Corbelletti

The 1639 hatching method of Corbelletti

The concentration of different hatching systems in Brabant and the neighbouring countries

File:HefnerX.png

Table X. of Hefner with different hatching systems

File:Lobkowitz Portugal.jpg

Hatched arms of Portugal from the book of Lobkowitz, Philippus Prudens (1639)

Another hatched arms of prince Henry from the book of Lobkowitz, Philippus Prudens (1639)

The primacy of developing a hatching method belongs undoubtedly to Zangrius. In comparison to his system, Petra Sancta and de la Colombière made only minor changes to Zangrius‘ system such as different hatching for the colour Sable, and developing hatching for the colour Purpure. It seems that de la Colombière preceded Petra Sancta and the armorial chart of Zangrius published in French could possibly be known to him pretty well. The artists from the Spanish Low Countries (where by all probability the heraldic hatching systems were invented), that is to say from the neighbouring territories to France, visited Paris very often.

We have only some fragmental data about the life of Marcus Vulson de la Colombière. By all probability, until 1635 he was staying in Grenoble as he was a royal counselor in the Dauphiné parliament. He also published a book in the spirit of the Gallicanism in Geneva that year. Colombière’s ideas suited the king’s taste too, as a result he left Grenoble and settled down in Paris, where he devoted his entire energy to study heraldry. His next book was published in Paris in 1638. He had wide-ranging correspondence with the most renowned heraldists of his time. For this reason, it could perhaps be concluded that de la Colombière was right in claiming the title of the inventor of the hatching system, and accusing Petra Sancta of copying his method and incorrectly publishing it in his 1638 work (Tesserae gentilitiae, Rome 1638), one year before the same hatching system was published by de la Colombière (Recueil de plusieurs pièces et figures d'armoiries..., Paris 1639). On page 37 of his title La Science Heroїque (1644), Colombière maintains that Petra Sancta simply copied his system without any changes. De la Colombière also mentions the book publishers and copperplate engravers as the users of the hatching system.

Ottfried Neubecker maintains that the hatching system in heraldry was invented by de la Colombière and not Petra Sancta who only popularized the system through his second treatise titled Tesserae gentilitia, published in 1638. On the other hand, it’s also true that Silvester Petra Sancta provided though preliminary, comprehensive studies on his heraldic work in Germany and the Netherlands and that it’s very likely that he was acquainted with the idea of hatching and the earlier existing hatching methods from the Dutch engravers before he developed his own hatching system. He was the confessor of the Cardinal Pier Luigi Carafa (1581-1655). Between 1624 and 1634, Petra Sancta stayed with his lord in Cologne where he fought against the rising Protestantism through his sermons and religious discussions, including through two of his emblematic books published in 1634 and 1638, respectively. Later he settled down in Rome and published his famous treatise on heraldry there, but during late 1620s and the early 1630s he stayed in the Spanish Low Countries and the neighbouring territories. In 1634 he published his first book touching the topic of heraldry in Antwerp; his main heraldic work containing the hatching system was published in 1638 in Rome.

The Contribution of Engravers in Development of Hatching Systems

According to the data from the Plantin-Moretus archive, the emblems of Petra Sancta's 1634 book were prepared by artist-engravers in the service of the Jesuit monks first and then between December 1631 and June 1634 it was redone by André Pauwels (Andries Pauli, 1600-1639) for Batlhasar Moretus (1574-1641). The allegorical title page of this book was prepared by Rubens. Petra Sancta's 1638 book was published by Francesco Corbelletti in Rome.

The woodcuts from one of the publications of Corbelletti dated 1627 (Giovanni Antonio Brandi, Cronologia de' sommi pontefici ...., Rome: Francesco Corbelletti, 1627) are good examples of stripping applied for screening. One of the woodcuts (no. 152) in the book shows even a kind of a screening with hatching. Moreover, the arms on the title page of one of the Corbelletti’s 1639 publications (Francesco Liberati, La perfettione del cavallo... Rome: Per gli Heredi di Francesco Corbelletti, 1639) already represents a complete example of heraldic hatching. That means Corbelletti took over the heraldic hatching system already in the next year after the 1638 system of Petra Sancta appeared. If we consider the time needed to prepare the engravings and the approval by the censure, Corbelletti must know the hatching system of Petra Sancta even before 1638.

Thus it’s obvious that Petra Sancta got the model for his heraldic hatching system from the illustrators and publishers of his books in the Low Countries. It is possible that these engravers also knew at least two earlier hatching systems by Zangrius in 1600, and Francquart in 1623. The techniques of heraldic hatching might have even been carried forward by the guilds of engravers one after another. Certainly, Petra Sancta must have at least held consultations with the engravers who were preparing illustrations for his books to explain to them his concept or to develop a coherent method to designate tinctures by mutual agreement.

Designation of tinctures by hatching needs copperplate engravings as the tiny places of the escutcheons need lines close to each other, which is impossible to be realized by using woodcuts. And copperplate engraving was the most developed form of hatching in the Low Countries, especially in Antwerp, while until the 1630s it was almost unknown in some other countries, including Paris. So, the heraldic hatching was developed as a result of the cooperation between heraldists and copperplate engravers and artists.

Other Hatching Systems

The French heraldist Imbert de la Phalecque and his Italian counterpart Goffredo di Crollanza claimed that the work of Philippe de l'Espinoy was the first one that adopted the hatching system applied in the blazon. His two-volume book was published in Douai in 1631 and in 1632 respectively. (A facsimile of l’Espinoy’s book titled Recherche des antiquités et noblesse de Flandre was published in 1972.) This city, now in France, was then part of Flanders. The illustrations in this book include 1,121 escutcheons, standards and seals of armorial bearings, on wood, besides 58 copperplate illustrations that at first sight appear to have hatchings. If one however compares these "hatchings" with the descriptions, then one finds out that there isn't any system in it at all. For instance Gules is alternately indicated by horizontal or vertical or diagonal lines or is left blank. It seems l'Espinoy considered lines and dots merely as a sort of artistic additions which he put in at random. There is no hatching table at all.

Most other known hatching systems also originated in the Low Countries. The tiny hatching table of the above-mentioned Jacob Franquart, to be found in his Pompa funebris Alberti Pii Austriaci (1623), was the earliest hatching method after Zangrius. The Cistercian abbot from Antwerp and historian and genealogist Christophe Butkens also developed his own system, but it was used by him in an inconsequent way which led to the misunderstandings and the resultant sudden disappearance of this system. The hatching table of Thomas de Rouck was radically different from that of Zangrius. Aegidius Gelenius was one of the most respected Cologne historians of his time. He developed a late hatching system but it did not gain popularity. Gelenius was deeply influenced by Petra Sancta and both the men met personally several times in Cologne. Gelenius also studied the coats of arms and antiquities of the Rhenish nobility in the territory neighboring the Low Countries. However, Gelenius’ hatching system is identical only at two points with Petra Sancta, indicating that he consciously tried to develop an independent system but failed to make a serious cut, or it can also indicate that Petra Sancta's system was not yet fully developed when they met in Cologne. If this is true, it makes certain the primacy of de la Colombière as the inventor of the hatching system.

On the table X of his work, Otto Titan von Hefner published still another system of hatching from 1639, attributed to Lobkowitz. His book titled Philippus Prudens contains as many as 27 engraved portraits of the Portuguese kings, but only two of them have engravings with coat of arms there, and no hatching table at all. However, the mentioned arms are evidently provided with hatching. In all probability, Hefner used these coat of arms to construct the hatching table of Lobkowitz. However, the hatching system of Lobkowitz should not be attributed to him but to the engravers and artists creating the illustrations for the mentioned work.

In 1632 he was sent to the Low Countries where he became a renowned preacher and missionary. His first book Steganographia ars orthographia was published in 1636 in Brussels when he was a professor at the Leuven University – the same city where Jan Baptist Zangrius was also active. Here Lobkowitz published a major work titled Theologia Moralis ad prima, eaque clarissima principia reducta printed by Perus Zangrius (Lovanii, typis ac sumptibus Petrus Zangrius, 1645). His book titled Philippus Prudens containing some hatched arms was published in 1639 by Balthasar Moretus in Antwerp. The coats of arms were engraved by Cornelis Galle Sr., after the drawings of Erasmus Quellinus Sr (Liège, 1584 - Antwerp, at the end of 1639 or in the beginning of 1640), a Flemish Baroque Era painter, and the engraving of the frontispiece was made by Jacob Neeffs (Antwerp, June 3, 1610-1660).

Christoffel Plantin (1520-1589), grandfather of Balthasar Moretus, set up his printing shop called 'De Gulden Passer' (Golden Compasses) in Antwerp in 1555, publishing both Catholic and Protestant literature. This Frenchman, who fled his native country to Antwerp to escape the persecution during the 1540s, was the best-known printer of his time. Moretus was also a close friend to Rubens who made several illustrations for the company‘s publications. This company also published a work by Justus Lipsius in 1604 using the same portrait of Lipsius that was engraved by Zangrius in 1601. Zangrius had also some Parisian connections. The Parisian Book Society knew several representatives of a number of leading engravers originating from the Netherlands, for instance, the famous Jodocus Badius (1462-1535) from Asse, and the not-so-famous Johannes Lodoicus Tiletanus (1566-1581) from Tielt. He started off as a corrector at Badius, married the sister-in-law of Badius' daughter Madeleine and became an uncle to Petrus Zangrius.

The Hatching of Additional Tinctures

Out of these systems, Otto Titan von Hefner published some further hatching methods at table X of his above cited book, presenting hatching methods for some additional tinctures as well. Some additional tinctures already appeared in the theory of heraldry in the early 15th century, which were then soon applied in practice. The heraldic literature named de la Colombière as the inventor of hatching system for some additional tinctures. The German jurist and heraldist Eucharius Gottlieb Rink (1670-1746) introduced hatching for the gray (Eisen) and proper (Naturfarbe). The German heraldist Christian Samuel Theodor Bernd (1775-1854) introduced hatching for some other tinctures such as Umbra, Rotgelb, Stahlblau and Blutfarbe.

Besides the traditional metals (or and argent) some other metals like copper, lead, bronze etc also emerged over the years. Hatching for the iron (it: ferro) and steel (it: acciaio) were introduced by two Italian heraldists Guelfi Camaini and Goffredo di Crollanza, but these were rarely used.

The heraldic furs (ermine, vair) do not need a special hatching method, as they have a special pattern that is easily recognizable even on the uncoloured illustrations. Nevertheless, there exited two heraldic furs that had their own hatchings. Also, there are in use (mainly in the Czech heraldic literature) furs like zibeline and marten. The colour and hatching for zibeline is the same as the sable (black) tincture, and the colour and hatching of marten is identical with the gules (red) tincture. So, in some countries these tinctures are also held as furs (mainly in the Czech heraldic traditions, but not in real use, and sometimes also in the German heraldry, which is also not in real use today).

Zibeline (in German Zobelfell, in Czech sobol, and in Hungarian coboly) was already used in the ancient times of heraldry. Some minnesängers applied the word Zobelfell for the black tincture, and the arms of the count von Zollern also contained zibeline (Zobelfell). The colour and hatching of marten (in German Marderfell, in Czech kunina, and in Hungarian nyest) is identical with the red (gules) tincture. The origin of the word gules is from the Medieval Latin word gula, which means the mouth of a carnivorous animal, and in some cases the goules are made of the marten fur (one text says goules de martre). Maybe its reddish tint came to the heraldry from the fur of pine marten. In the poem of Konrad von Würzburg we can read kelen rôt (line 985) transformed into modern German as pelzrot. (Furthermore, we can read there phrases like vîz hermelin (405), which is hermelinweiß, and zobel (400) as well.) Though the Webster's Dictionary defines the meaning of pine as a white, yellowish timber and the Cambridge International Dictionary defines it as a timber usually pale in colour, no source, including heraldry textbooks, mentions it in connection with heraldry.

brown

sanguine

earth-colour (Umbra)

iron-grey

water-colour

flesh-colour (carnation)

ashen-grey

orange

File:Természetes szín.png

colour of nature (proper)

Hatching table of additional tintctures and hatching variants

Colour scale of all tinctures used in heraldry (as we can see, some of them are spare)

white	argent	iron	steel	platinum	silver gray	ashen-grey	iron-grey	lead	sable	zibelline
purpure	crimson	murrey	navy- blue	(dark) horizon blue	azure	bleu celeste	water- colour	(green-) aquamarine	(light) horizon blue	teal
vert	or	bhagwa	tenné	orange	gules	marten	amaranth	Kenya-red	sanguine	crimson- red
earth- colour	red ochre	brown	ochre	bronze	(light) earth- colour	copper	buff	carnation	rose

Other modern usages

The basic Petra Sancta system was adopted in the modern world by industrial engineers as a standard system of colors and hatch patterns for use in planning factories and material handling systems.

Further reading

tricking (heraldry), tincture (heraldry)