The Translation of The Voynich Manuscript: Folio 1r

[ReneZ]

On the positive side, I would like to give high marks for the effort that was put into this. However, I immediately ran into something strange. In the very beginning of the earlier paper:

Our primary source for Rudolf II's ownership comes from a 17th-century letter discovered by Wilfrid Voynich, the 20th-century antiquarian who purchased the manuscript (Clemens, 2016). This letter mentions a sale to Rudolf for 600 ducats, a significant sum suggesting the high value placed on the manuscript. However, the lack of corroborating evidence from the imperial court records raises questions about the letter's authenticity (Schmeidler, 2019).

This isn't entirely logical. This should not question the letter's authenticity, but it may question its
correctness. On the other hand, absence of corroborating evidence is hardly something unusual.
However, more interestingly, a source is quoted for this, and this is:

Schmeidler, S. (2019). Book transactions of Emperor Rudolf II, 1576–1612: New findings on the earliest ownership of the Voynich manuscript. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3313, 201-212.

Something went wrong here, because the title and reference (CEUR workshop proceedings) are those
of Stefan Guzy's presentation at the Malta workshop in 2022: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

That paper leads to quite the opposite conclusion: there are records of a sale of a book to Rudolf for 600 gold pieces (which may or may not be the Voynich MS).

I remain curious whether a 2019 paper by S. Schmeidler exists, but this is more out of curiosity.