I would like to revisit the last page of the Voynich manuscript, namely f116v. Here below I reproduce the proposed analysis offered by Johannes Albus at the Voynich 100 conference in Italy in May 2012. One reason for reproducing it here is that it seems to me relatively unknown. I have tried to find out more about Albus and his research, but with no success.
Albus’ transcription and gloss is as follows:
(Transcription with abbreviations and omissions in square brackets)
L1 poxleber umen[do] putriter.
L2 + an[te] chiton olei dabas + multas + t[un]c + t[an]ta[a](?) cer[a]e + portas + M[ixtura] +
L3 fix[a] + man[nipulis] IX + mor[sulis] IX + vix + alt[e]ra + matura +
L4 … … (two ciphered words) pals [ein]en pbrey so nim[m] gei[s]smi[l]ch O
Translation (Johannes Albus)
Billy goat´s liver for wet rot
At the membrane you gave oil, then you bring a lot of the much(?) wax, in a
fixed mixture: 9 hands full, 9 morsels (from) the only just double mature
… … (two ciphered [Voynichese] words), squash it into a paste, then take goat´s milk.
The fact that the text contains two words in ‘Voynichese’ is significant, since it means that it was not simply a later addendum by an unrelated scribe, but is linked at least tangentially to the rest of the VM.
So what do you make of it? I was impressed by the analysis, which fits the picture of a goat in the margin. It is also interesting that the first three lines are in Latin (according to the analysis) while the fourth – after the Voynich words – is in German, which is more convincing than if the German and Latin were mixed together in each line. I’m not a German speaker so I can’t say how convincing that last part is.
Any constructive views or ideas? I say ‘constructive’ to avoid mere attacking and derogatory comments which – sadly – are so typical of Voynich discussions!! Any thoughts?