Petőfi not only became (remained) an extremely popular figure in the literary, journalistic, and critical discourses of the 1850s, but his figure and literary heritage – in addition to national pantheonization and widespread popularization – also became a competition for the appropriation of competing memory constructions and commemorative communities. The dilemma arises: how could personal grief be given a public voice in this communication dumping? Were the media, discursive and genre frameworks of the era at all suitable for the literary representation of the depths of grief? Or do media noise and public forms necessarily empty private dimensions? If we ask these questions, perhaps the seemingly suffocating atmosphere of Hungary in the middle of the 19th century does not seem so distant and foreign.

Petőfi not only became (remained) an extremely popular figure in the literary, journalistic, and critical discourses of the 1850s, but his figure and literary heritage – in addition to national pantheonization and widespread popularization – also became a competition for the appropriation of competing memory constructions and commemorative communities. The dilemma arises: how could personal grief be given a public voice in this communication dumping? Were the media, discursive and genre frameworks of the era at all suitable for the literary representation of the depths of grief? Or do media noise and public forms necessarily empty private dimensions? If we ask these questions, perhaps the seemingly suffocating atmosphere of Hungary in the middle of the 19th century does not seem so distant and foreign.