Kalla Zsuzsa: Beszélő tárgyak. A Petőfi család relikviái (Budapest, 2006)

Rita Ratzky: Sándor Petőfi, his tastes and style

‘who, although a soldier, does not wear a shako or a cap but an ordinary hat with a three-coloured feather in it’ (Barabás 1904, 517). This attire may have been a revolt against army discipline or against its meaningless formalities, which also manifested itself in his resigning from his rank as an officer many times, and a show of simplicity declaring solidarity with ordinary soldiers. All this was accompanied by the prosaic fact that as an officer he was required to provide himself with a uniform, but Petőfi had money for neither a uniform nor a horse.

These recollections are confirmed by Orlay Pet- rics’s last painting, Petőfi in Mezőberény, of which there are two versions. This painting is particularly significant as the clothes and the background were in all probability chosen by the poet, himself. He sat for this painting in July 1849 when he and his family were guests at the home of Orlay’s parents. The picture, which radiates tranquillity, bears no resemblance to the usual image of Petőfi at the end of the century, which depicted him as a revolutionary soldier astride a galloping charger, and made no distinction between the various phases of the last year of his life. In the centre of Orlay Petrics’s picture a young man in shirtsleeves is sitting at ease in the sunshine. One of his hands is resting on a book on his knee, while the other, in a somewhat posed position, is holding a long-stemmed Turkish pipe. He is wearing a pair of tight, black trousers, a shirt of fine material, perhaps silk, and a wide, red scarf around his waist. His green cloak is lying on the chaise longue in background, and on top of the cloak is his dark hat, which, it is thought, resembles hunting hats of the time. It has a ribbon around it with a buckle and a red feather. Petőfi’s curved sword in its scabbard is clearly visible. On the poet’s left is a modest table on which are a few books, an ink-well, a pen and sheets of paper covered in writing. Petőfi’s clothing is colourful but harmonious. It was unusual for him to choose to be painted in shirtsleeves and emphasises the naturalness of the moment. Orlay Petries may have been uncertain as to the best way to create a homely feeling, as in one of the versions Petőfi is wearing boots, in the other a pair of comfortable slippers. The composition is well balanced, but obviously carefully worked out; everything is rather rigid and bright. The face is somewhat expressionless, especially in the second of the two versions, which Orlay Petries painted from memory, and reveals a painter working near the limits of his ability. The

composition of the painting, which painter and sitter almost certainly decided on together, suggests that poetic life is of greater importance than military service, the latter being only a transitory state.

The information which has been gathered regarding the clothes Petőfi wore shows why, even decades later, people were able to recall minute details about his appearance. When finances allowed, he gave his appearance more attention than was usual at the time, and took great care when selecting important items of clothing. His youthful, wilful desire to be noticed gradually calmed, but the way he dressed always revealed his individual style, while at the same time reflecting the changing fashions and tastes of Hungarian society as a whole: German and French fashion trends being supplanted by the national costume.

There are, as yet, no writings on Petőfi’s tastes regarding the decoration of the places in which he lived. On 29th May 1971, writer and translator Gyula Illyés told the paper Esti Hírlap: ‘Mrs Béla Varjas, director of the 19th-century department of the Petőfi Museum, and I are editing an album which will show Petőfi’s world through period objects. The album will endeavour to show how he viewed Hungary, the poverty that surrounded him and what made him become a revolutionary. At that time everything was made by peasants using their own tools, carving things with an axe or a knife. Chairs were made from tree-trunks, spoons were a shell with a cane handle. Carved knives, forks, spoons and bowls like these may have been used in Petőfi’s father’s inn. Pitchers and mugs like these could have been used to serve drinks.’ The album, however, was never completed, and neither could we trace any of the preparatory work. The interview suggests that the album would also have contained objects not necessarily related to Petőfi and his family. It is clear that Illyés associated Petőfi’s and his family’s material environment with that of poor peasants. However, the conclusions we have been able to draw based on the material collected, differ from those of Illyés.

In spite of the family moving frequently from one rented property to another, a number of pieces of furniture from the parental home have survived. This furniture reveals the tastes of the well-to-do peasant-bourgeois couple, and the industrial history collection of objects from the house in Szalk- szentmárton gives an idea as to how the butcher’s shop, the inn, the cellar and the farmyard were

212