Page 76 [76]
significance remained in the royal palace.*** Based on our above considerations,
despite Csapodi’s extensive argumentation,**’ we recommend that future research
should not exclude the possibility of remaining books as a working hypothesis. It
is difficult to imagine that the Hungarian Jesuits, the emperor’s diplomats, or the
Transylvanian princes would not have been informed about what they wanted to
obtain before trying to secure the pieces of the library. We make this claim despite
the fact that, after the liberation of Buda from the Ottoman occupation, Luigi
Ferdinando Marsigli found only undecorated paper codices in the castle.*“° That is
why I myself examined the literature of the Marsigli bequest, and spent a few days
studying the Hungarian related manuscripts in the military engineer’s bequest
kept in Bologna.
It is a well-known fact that during the liberation of Buda, Luigi Ferdinando
Marsigli, a passionate collector, wandered through the smoking ruins of the city
and took a number of books from the Ottoman library in Buda and the remains of
the bibliotheca in the palace, helped collect them and transport them to Vienna.
Presumably in Vienna he also picked out further volumes for his own collection.
Later, in 1711 he donated his entire library to the new Bologna Institute of Science
(Istituto delle Scienze). Four copies of the catalogue of the books found in the Buda
Palace are known, two of them are almost contemporary, and two others are later
editions. In addition, a number of small fragments of lists and purchase records of
Marsigli’s books have survived, as well as his manuscript and printed catalogues.
Nevertheless, the Marsigli legacy cannot be considered processed today. Not even
in terms of the Hungarian related context.**! We can also only report on the recent
results of the Hungarica research and outline the tasks ahead.*” Aron Szilády spent
an extended period of time in Bologna in 1898, where he worked, among other
things, in the Marsigli collection of the University Library.’ I would immedi¬
ately like to underline that neither Szilädy, nor Endre Veress, who later researched
there,*** could rely on the fundamental works of Ludovico Frati. Nor could they
depend on the catalogue of the Latin codices,** nor the most complete catalogue
of the Marsigli legacy to date,*** since these were published later. Apparently, the
printed donation lists published in the early 18th century,*” the catalogue of Ori¬
38 Csapopt 1984, 43-51. és 81-82.
39 In addition, Csapodi does not refer to the cited travel account of Edward Brown, who also reports a
fire in 1669.
Tus matches what Peter Lambeck saw in 1666. An inventory was made of the books found by Marsigli,
of which three manuscript copies are known today. It was published three times during the period:
Priucius 1688a; Priucius 1688b; Priucius 1703. Modern edition of the inventory: Csapop1 1984.
Tue Hungarian research history of the bequest was summarised by Nacy Lev. 2017.
342 Monok 2009.
383 SzıLApy 1898, 128-142.
VerEss 1906.
35 FRATI 1909.
346 FRATI 1928.
INSTRUMENTUM donationis Illustrissimi Domini Comitis Aloysii Ferdinandi di Marsiliis favore Illustrissimi
et Excelsi Senatus et civitatis Bononiae in gratiam novae in eadem Scientiarum Institutionis. Print, sine
340
34
à
3
34
È
a
347
dato, sine loco, sine typographo, in 4 maiore. (but most certainly Bologna, 1711 — because the preface
74