Szilágyi András (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 24. (Budapest, 2006)
István SIMONYI: Questions and answers. An attempt at defining the so-called „Bethlen-Násfa"
Owners in 1884 and in 1896 • count Edmund Zichy (násfa no. 11) count Jenő Zichy • count Lajos Tisza {násfa no. 12) the násfa in the 1896 catalogue count Lajos Tiszát* . count Antal Zichy (násfa no. 13) golden násfa count Antal Zichy . count Manó Andrássy (násfa no. 14) (?) count Géza Andrássy* • count Ferencz Berényi (násfa no. 15) wife of count János Zichy* . ? Hung. National Museum • indicates the persons who loaned pieces to the 1896 exhibition. If the data are to be given credence, the Hungarian National Museum acquired the item in 1887; therefore the catalogue of 1896 indicated it as an independent owner. How come there are two násfas that are each other's spit images? Is perhaps one of them a copy? Is one a later, or contemporaneous, replica? Unfortunately, the confusion about the provenances does not help answer this question. First, the jewel should be more thoroughly examined. Because of the unusual elements on the násfa, which she believed to be alien to the 17 ,h century, Erika Kiss presumed that the object was a 19 lh century copy. 17 For the above-mentioned reason I am unable to contribute to this issue. Instead, I am going to present my experiences gained from the scrutiny of the násfa in the Museum of Applied Arts. Some of these experiences will hopefully apply to the násfa in the Hungarian National Museum as well. I base this assumption on the immense similarity between the two jewels in Hungary and on several formal and technical parallels. The jewel in the Hungarian National Museum also has an unusual chased "supplemental back" with the above-described tubular distance-consoles added to the reverse of the jewel. The question of originality could only be decided by further investigations. It was raised as a "suspicious" circumstance questioning the 17"' century origin that the reverse of the jewel is not elaborated. That, however, holds true of a great part of 17"' century works, even of the ones made of gold. The násfas in question are made of silver, so it would actually be surprising if their backs were also richly wrought. In fact, the crucial problem is that the násfas were made of silver (!). The násfa is a type of jewel that was exclusively made of gold in the 16" 1 -17 ,h centuries because wearing them was the exclusive privilege of the topmost layer of society, the aristocracy. Owning them also served the tendency of accumulating wealth implied by their position. The material was therefore a typically rich - 18-22 carat - gold, because apart from its value, the enamels used at that time stuck to it better. Artistic enamels, similarly to the mounted polished gemstones, multiplied the gold value of the jewel. 18 Silver could not fulfil this function. Its value was - and still is - a fragment of that of gold. There was no need to economize on the metal. That is what explains the robust forms. Silver is a very bad base metal for enamelling. The enamel colours produce quite different hues on silver than on gold. It is in vain to expect to see the customary pure enamel colours on silver. What one has are ultramarine blue, lilac, orange and unusual transparent red and green. Besides, enamel is hard to stick to silver, and the enamel colours applied with great difficulty peel of with the passage of time, owing to the excellent heat conduction of silver. That is why so much enamel is missing from the two jewels in Hungary, especially as compared with the gold násfa in Dresden. The gilding of the jewels was justified by the protection of the silver surfaces and, of course, the presentation of a golden effect. Gilding has considerably worn off by now. Despite all these peculiar features, I think the jewel in the Museum of Applied Arts, which I have studied, is an authentic násfa from the 17 lh century. Based on style critical characteristics it might be dated perhaps to the 1620s. Interrupting the train of thoughts, I cannot
