Page 76 [76]
OCR
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 immediately 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 Ori38 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
