Birthplace of King Matthias, restoration, Kolozsvár

The restoration of this two-storey medieval urban house—traditionally regarded as the birthplace of King Matthias—represents a pioneering example of the historically accurate conservation of medieval Kolozsvár. The false solutions of the earlier 1896 “restoration” were corrected, and the façade was reconstructed in its presumed “original” state, combining Renaissance and Gothic elements. Interior partition walls were removed and the ceiling beams exposed in order to restore the large first-floor halls to their original spatial form. The planned Renaissance garden for the inner courtyard was never realized.

The restoration initiated on the basis of Károly Kós’s plans was interrupted by the events of the Second World War.

In the summer of 1945, students of the Móricz Zsigmond College undertook the completion of the building. Benkő Samu recalls Kós Károly’s instructions from that period in the following account:

“I first shook hands with him in the vaulted gateway of King Matthias’s birthplace. This distinguished monument, after the devastation of the world war, stood empty. The restoration begun according to Károly Kós’s plans had been halted by wartime events. For the time being, no one laid claim to it, and so when the students of the Móricz College occupied the building—perpetual property of the city—in the summer of 1945, everyone simply took note of the fact. The authorities were even relieved that the students were not pressing them for housing, but instead were taking it upon themselves to restore an uninhabitable building in order to create a home.

We ourselves did not yet realize the magnitude of the task we had taken on, for making the house habitable was no small undertaking. A modest sum of money was obtained for us by Edgár Balogh, chief cultural officer of the Hungarian People’s Alliance, and by Lajos Csőgör, rector of the university. They sent us off with the advice to act wisely and swiftly. I believe it was István Szabó, the student director, who approached the writer-architect—especially beloved in student circles—and asked him to come to King Matthias’s birthplace and instruct us on what should be done.

He came willingly. We waited for him in the gateway, and scarcely had he shaken our hands when concise, forceful sentences began to pour from his lips, listing the tasks ahead. When preparing the restoration plans, he said, he had considered everything except the possibility that this medieval burgher house might one day serve as a student residence. In truth, it was not really suitable for that purpose, but we could live there for a time if the most essential works were carried out—by our own hands, since the small amount of money obtained should be spent only on materials and on paying the supervising craftsmen.

He did not deceive us with promises of comfort, but he did find it reasonable that, under such difficult circumstances, we had settled in this half-restored building. After reviewing the most urgent tasks, he gave precise instructions: the house needed to be connected to the water supply; washbasins and showers installed; stoves built in the rooms; and additional doors and windows fitted on the courtyard side. He advised us to build the stoves from ordinary bricks, as that was the cheapest solution, and to obtain firebricks for lining the firebox from the porcelain factory—preferably as a donation. He directed us to acquaintances of his, honest craftsmen from Kolozsvár, whom he knew would carry out the work at a reasonable cost, based on his plans and with our assistance as unskilled laborers.

The students of the Móricz Zsigmond College—this small intellectual free corps preparing for service to the people—chose the birthplace of the just King Matthias as their symbol (even commissioning a drawing of the house as the emblem of their publishing venture), and they set to work with enthusiasm.

Our efforts to create a home pleased Kós. Cheerful and productive communal labor began: university professors, writers, and visual artists rolled up their sleeves among us and helped with the construction work.

It is true that we were also present at every major initiative and action of the emerging people’s democracy. We enthusiastically campaigned for Kós Károly and his fellow candidates during the preparations for the first democratic parliamentary elections, accompanied them to campaign meetings in factories and villages, and joined them at the Petőfi commemorations in Segesvár, where we affirmed our commitment to tradition and to social progress.

It was precisely Kós Károly who, in his lectures at the Móricz Zsigmond College, most clearly articulated the dialectical relationship between tradition and progress, social renewal and the preservation of national identity. We were passionate debaters who rejected arguments from authority, yet I do not recall ever having a serious dispute with him.

He was a wise man, and we were inclined to heed his words.”

(Benkő Samu: Conversations of Benkő Samu with Károly Kós, Kriterion, 1978, pp. 8–9.)