116v

[Hubert Dale]

I think that quite often there are two "flawed" directions in these marginalia interpretation. Either one proposes something valid in terms of language but ignores the way the letters are inscribed, or one is correct (to the degree possible) with the letters, but suggests something not very propable in terms of language.

I think that's a very fair expression of the problem.

Tweaking Dr Damschen's reading slightly to:

árchicon Oladabás, multos de cárcere pórtas

you can get a perfectly comprehensible verse which would mean 'Ruler Oladabas, you carry many men out of prison.'

This means assuming Oladabas is a proper name, which seems something of a cop-out.  But it allows us to read 'multos' rather than 'multas', which seems to fit the letter-forms better.  It also means we can take 'portas' as the verb of the sentence rather than splitting 'oladabas', and in any case I don't see why one would use the imperfect 'dabas' rather than the perfect 'dedisti' to mean 'you gave.'

And I'm sure I read somewhere last night that Dr Damschen had explained 'archicon' as a word derived from the Greek 'archon' meaning 'ruler,' although I can't immediately see where.  In my ignorance, I wonder if it may be some kind of magical title used to address spirits, good or bad?  My Latin is okay, but my school didn't offer demonology as a subject so I'm only guessing!

But for an incantation or release spell, physically or metaphorically to mean deliverance from the bonds of sickness, does this look vaguely plausible?