Hi Rene, thanks for the clarification about Marci's position at the court.
To me, it seems unlikely that Mnišovský ever owned the VMS, even in a passing fashion. The reason for that is that, as I wrote above, nothing is said about that in the Marci's letter. it is quite explainable why Marci could omit other particulars of the pre-Baresch history of the VMS, but while explicitly mentioning "Dr. Raphael", he would certainly note that the book was at sime point of time owned by this Raphael.
But the scheme that you propose can evade this my argument. Suppose it was Mnišovský who went to de Tepenecz's library and "confiscated" the VMS, later presenting it to Baresh. I do not know what were the foundations and rules of confiscation of property of the deceased back then. I suppose that, generally, not all property was to be confiscated, and, furthermore, confiscating did not mean that the confiscating person transfers confiscated objects into his own pocket. In other words, if the VMS was ever confiscated, it would go to the crown, to the church, whatever, but not to Mnišovský or Baresh. This means that if Mnišovský took the book from de Tepenecz library, he did it in illegal fashion. In this case it is quite understandable why, in the first place, the discussion about the VMS ever took place between Marci and Mnišovský, and, in the second place, why Marci does not disclose the particulars to Kircher. In effect, this is a variation of my idea of Baresch obtaining the VMS in illegal way, only here he does not do that directly, but via Mnišovský.
However, there are serious counter-arguments to this. First, I do not think that Mnišovský was a person to perform such outright violation of the law. Second, if it were Baresh (and not Marci) for whom Mnišovský stole the book (which automatically implies that Baresch and Mnišovský knew each other quite well), then why it was Marci (and not Baresch) who was discussing the book with Mnišovský? Marci would have written to Kircher not "retuit mihi Dr. Raphael", but "Dr. Raphael told the owner of this book that..." (sorry for my absent Latin). Third, if Mnišovský's source of information about the VMS was its direct "theft" (or the like) from de Tepenecz's house, then whence would Mnišovský know that the book ever belonged to Rudolf?! So, in either case (be that your scheme or otherwise) we have to admit that Mnišovský had some source of information about the VMS beside the book itself. Because it is not written in the VMS that it belonged to Rudolf.
And the key point in this is that Mnišovský never was himself at the court of Rudolf (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this, cause it's the crucial point).
Respectively, I would like to propose another scheme, which, although speculative as well, does not imply that Mnišovský owned the book himself. What did Mnišovský do, and where, in the late years of Rudolf II and early years of Matthias? He studied abroad, and then he was Klesl's secretary in Austria. Melchior Klesl was not only a diplomat, priest and governor, he was one of the most important people at the court. In 1585, he was appointed imperial councillor by Rudolf II, in 1611 Matthias placed Klesl at the head of his privy council (both facts from Wikipedia). In other words, he was for sure a very informed man. Beside that, I guess that ties between Prague and Graz were very close in those days, and, if I'm not mistaken, Graz lay on the road from Prague to Rome, so whoever traveled from Prague to Rome or backwards stopped in Graz. In other words, Graz was a good place to gather news and rumours.
So my first guess is that Mnišovský, while in Klesl's service, heard about the VMS either from Klesl himself or from any people revolving around Klesl or maybe passing Graz and paying visit to Klesl.
May the book even have been in Klesl's possession before or after de Tepenecz? This needs further consideration and aligning timelines of events.
The fact that Mnišovský did not tell anything to Marci about Klesl can be explained. Klesl died in 1630, and the Report may have occured before that date, when Klesl was still alive. So if the information was of a confidential nature, Mnišovský probably did not want to somehow compromise his former patron by mentioning him in connection with the VMS.
To me, it seems unlikely that Mnišovský ever owned the VMS, even in a passing fashion. The reason for that is that, as I wrote above, nothing is said about that in the Marci's letter. it is quite explainable why Marci could omit other particulars of the pre-Baresch history of the VMS, but while explicitly mentioning "Dr. Raphael", he would certainly note that the book was at sime point of time owned by this Raphael.
But the scheme that you propose can evade this my argument. Suppose it was Mnišovský who went to de Tepenecz's library and "confiscated" the VMS, later presenting it to Baresh. I do not know what were the foundations and rules of confiscation of property of the deceased back then. I suppose that, generally, not all property was to be confiscated, and, furthermore, confiscating did not mean that the confiscating person transfers confiscated objects into his own pocket. In other words, if the VMS was ever confiscated, it would go to the crown, to the church, whatever, but not to Mnišovský or Baresh. This means that if Mnišovský took the book from de Tepenecz library, he did it in illegal fashion. In this case it is quite understandable why, in the first place, the discussion about the VMS ever took place between Marci and Mnišovský, and, in the second place, why Marci does not disclose the particulars to Kircher. In effect, this is a variation of my idea of Baresch obtaining the VMS in illegal way, only here he does not do that directly, but via Mnišovský.
However, there are serious counter-arguments to this. First, I do not think that Mnišovský was a person to perform such outright violation of the law. Second, if it were Baresh (and not Marci) for whom Mnišovský stole the book (which automatically implies that Baresch and Mnišovský knew each other quite well), then why it was Marci (and not Baresch) who was discussing the book with Mnišovský? Marci would have written to Kircher not "retuit mihi Dr. Raphael", but "Dr. Raphael told the owner of this book that..." (sorry for my absent Latin). Third, if Mnišovský's source of information about the VMS was its direct "theft" (or the like) from de Tepenecz's house, then whence would Mnišovský know that the book ever belonged to Rudolf?! So, in either case (be that your scheme or otherwise) we have to admit that Mnišovský had some source of information about the VMS beside the book itself. Because it is not written in the VMS that it belonged to Rudolf.
And the key point in this is that Mnišovský never was himself at the court of Rudolf (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this, cause it's the crucial point).
Respectively, I would like to propose another scheme, which, although speculative as well, does not imply that Mnišovský owned the book himself. What did Mnišovský do, and where, in the late years of Rudolf II and early years of Matthias? He studied abroad, and then he was Klesl's secretary in Austria. Melchior Klesl was not only a diplomat, priest and governor, he was one of the most important people at the court. In 1585, he was appointed imperial councillor by Rudolf II, in 1611 Matthias placed Klesl at the head of his privy council (both facts from Wikipedia). In other words, he was for sure a very informed man. Beside that, I guess that ties between Prague and Graz were very close in those days, and, if I'm not mistaken, Graz lay on the road from Prague to Rome, so whoever traveled from Prague to Rome or backwards stopped in Graz. In other words, Graz was a good place to gather news and rumours.
So my first guess is that Mnišovský, while in Klesl's service, heard about the VMS either from Klesl himself or from any people revolving around Klesl or maybe passing Graz and paying visit to Klesl.
May the book even have been in Klesl's possession before or after de Tepenecz? This needs further consideration and aligning timelines of events.
The fact that Mnišovský did not tell anything to Marci about Klesl can be explained. Klesl died in 1630, and the Report may have occured before that date, when Klesl was still alive. So if the information was of a confidential nature, Mnišovský probably did not want to somehow compromise his former patron by mentioning him in connection with the VMS.