To summarize, we now know of two 16th century anti-clerical writers who use b/pox leber as a vulgar oath in satirical dialogues.
Correction: they use (a spelling variation of) the full curse "so mir box leber".
Yes, Niklaus Manuel did the same thing in Switzerland that Hans Sachs did in Germany. Both were Reformation dramatists (and comedians). Stylistically very similar. I wonder if they influenced each other.
If we indeed accept the hypothesis that the VM poxleber scribe was influenced by the works of Manuel or Sachs, it must have happened after 1500. I think Sachs started becoming active after 1510, Manuel's works were printed from 1524 onwards. That of course doesn't mean the expletive wasn't known way before that.
I still regard the expletive hypothesis as highly problematic, maybe even more so after this genre confirmation.
- LFD, Marco and myself are in agreement that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. handwriting points to a period roughly contemporaneous with that of the radiocarbon dating.
- Both attestations have identical genres, which could not be further removed from the genre of "scribe's marginal annotation in an early 15th century codex".
- The impact of the oath is not just that of "goddammit", which has lost all impact on us. To feel the impact, think of the must vulgar curses you can imagine in your language.
- The 15th century reference to pox-swearing I found earlier is a strong condemnation thereof, in the spoken language of the commonfolk (does not mention "leber").
- As far as I'm aware, the full expletive includes the "so mir" part (sammer, sommer, whatever). We don't know if anyone was yelling "pox leber!" in isolation.
- OCR heavily skews towards printed texts, increasing our chances to find the (still rare) 17th century uses.
And perhaps most importantly: even in the 16th century, "poxleber" is only used in dialogues. The author does not say "So mir pox Leber, ich liebe den Pabst nicht!". He has farmers say it, or even the decadent pope himself.
I was no longer concerned with the text above, but rather with the word "sommer boxleber" and with Hildegard von Bingen, who clearly identifies the pox liver as a remedy...
[
attachment=16955]
(02-08-2026, 08:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- LFD, Marco and myself are in agreement that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. handwriting points to a period roughly contemporaneous with that of the radiocarbon dating.
I must note here that the comparative dating of the handwriting assumes that whoever wrote those words was using his customary contemporary handwriting, and not trying to imitate "old handwriting". You know why I think the latter was probably the case here.
On the other hand, I think that the conclusions about the
geographical range are significant, because the author of that text would hardly have known what the 15th century "French" or "Italian" or "East German" handwriting would be like, and would have no good reason to imitate those anyway. He surely used used the local handwriting, more or less "oldified".
All the best, --stolfi
(02-08-2026, 08:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I still regard the expletive hypothesis as highly problematic, maybe even more so after this genre confirmation.
- LFD, Marco and myself are in agreement that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. handwriting points to a period roughly contemporaneous with that of the radiocarbon dating.
- Both attestations have identical genres, which could not be further removed from the genre of "scribe's marginal annotation in an early 15th century codex".
- The impact of the oath is not just that of "goddammit", which has lost all impact on us. To feel the impact, think of the must vulgar curses you can imagine in your language.
- The 15th century reference to pox-swearing I found earlier is a strong condemnation thereof, in the spoken language of the commonfolk (does not mention "leber").
- As far as I'm aware, the full expletive includes the "so mir" part (sammer, sommer, whatever). We don't know if anyone was yelling "pox leber!" in isolation.
- OCR heavily skews towards printed texts, increasing our chances to find the (still rare) 17th century uses.
And perhaps most importantly: even in the 16th century, "poxleber" is only used in dialogues. The author does not say "So mir pox Leber, ich liebe den Pabst nicht!". He has farmers say it, or even the decadent pope himself.
Valid points.
I still consider the hypothesis that the author of the marginalia was the VM artist as a valid possibility. Which also does not go well with a 16th century setting.
However I'd like to point out that we are dealing with very unusual marginal annotations. Which do not look like they were produced by a scribe. But rather by someone who had quite some trouble writing. I am aware that the poxleber expletives were - heavy. But considering the VM was likely a personal project and the person who wrote it (or at least made the drawings) might indeed have been - of rural origin, I would not rule that out. We have very little personal notes from 15th century barely literal people. Still it is odd that Hans Sachs and Niklaus Manuel Deutsch used this same swearword. What connects them is the same time frame, genre, religion and political view. What does not connect them is geography. Hans Sachs was active in Germany and Austria and spent some time in Innsbruck, Tyrol. Niklaus Manuel was in Switzerland and Italy. The fact that both used the same term in printed works rules out that poxleber was a regionally confined variant.
So what gives? Both wrote popular Fasnachtsspiele for common folk. Sachs lets a farmer swear, Manuel the pope. Obviously the usage of this term was discouraged and should label the character as extremely vulgar. Where did they pick it up? Was it just a popular swearword at this time in the early 16th century? Or was it a generally used expletive that simply was not recorded in literature before?
All in all, I'd say we still do not have enough data to decide whether we are dealing with a minced oath or animal parts in the VM. The drawings suggest the latter. But VM drawings suggest a lot.
I don’t understand this: First of all, a “Poxleber” is a food. Then it’s a remedy, which would fit into the context of the VBM—but for what? Precisely for stomach and intestinal problems—according to Hildegard von Bingen (1098 – September 17, 1179) You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
So why resort to this level of profanity?
The second word could well mean “pinen,” which is pain, torment
The third word, “putrifer”:
puter, putris, putre = “rotten, decaying, musty”
“-fer” is a regular Latin derivational suffix related to “ferre” (“to carry, to bring forth”)
Bearing rot/decay
Then there’s an alliteration, i.e., a memory phrase:
Poxleber pinen putrifer
Boxleber for pain and intestinal problems
That’s the simplest version with the fewest assumptions....
(02-08-2026, 08:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.tive includes the "so mir" part (sammer, sommer, whatever).
Could it be related to
so nim gas mich?
Maybe the whole You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is a dirty song?
(03-08-2026, 12:18 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All in all, I'd say we still do not have enough data to decide whether we are dealing with a minced oath or animal parts in the VM. The drawings suggest the latter. But VM drawings suggest a lot.
The drawings and the context. Charms are most easily found among recipes. And if you want to quickly find a ton of "so nim", grab a recipe book. They belong to "instructional literature", where a buck's liver is not out of place either.
Now, I agree that it's always prudent to keep all options open, but the options aren't equal.
