+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Marginalia (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. (/thread-5148.html)
RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. - Parker - 19-12-2025
Fascinating thread, thanks Koen for digging this up and sharing the details on "pox leber" as a minced oath/euphemism. Its a very interesting take.
This actually fits beautifully with the Parker Key interpretation of the manuscript as a practical 15th-century gynecological-alchemical chronometer focused on perpetual womb rites and vital flow restoration. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the final page) is what I call the "Master Prayer" or closing invocation, a rhythmic seal to the entire closed-loop process. Under the Key, it maps to repetitive Latin phrases invoking stellar blood flow, eternal administration to the womb layers, and a final "success log" for the perpetuity cycle.
The marginal "pox leber" (and surrounding text) has long been read as potential German/Latin mix, often "goat's liver" (as ingredient) or minced oath (avoiding direct blasphemy like "God's liver" or devil reference).
In my view, it's not coincidental, it's another reinforcement of the manuscript's functional safety theme. The author uses euphemisms and veiled language throughout (repetitive pulses instead of prose) to handle dangerous, perpetual rituals without "catastrophic error" (overcounting, mis-timing, or invoking taboo directly).
A minced oath like "pox leber" on the closing page could be a deliberate "safe vent", acknowledging the peril of the processes (eternal remedies risking imbalance or spiritual overreach) while avoiding direct profanity. It mirrors the 12x cap: count safely to completion, shift state, don't break the circle.
The Ebendorfer example (mid-15th century, complaining about "pox" swearing) places this exact euphemism right in the manuscript's era and region, strengthening the historical grounding.
This isn't marginalia unrelated to the main text; it's the final "hammer" ensuring the user ends the rhythm correctly. Ties perfectly into the pharma jars → balneological flows → rosettes map → stellar prayer loop.
Great find, great interpretation, more evidence the whole thing is a coherent, timed instructional system.
Best,
Jason Parker
RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. - Rafal - 19-12-2025
Quote:I first said that people resorted to minced oaths because the Church didn't like them swearing by God. But this sermon voices the opposite sentiment.
The second Commandment of God says "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain".
So you should use the name of God in serious matters but shouldn't overuse it and use it in triffle matters.
And people were probably doing exactly the opposite - talking about God all the time but avoiding it when it involved some serious commitment.
RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. - ReneZ - 23-12-2025
While reading up on some if this, I ran into a weird coincidence. I can't remember that this was ever mentioned in this context (but I could be wrong).
It turns out that "aller kotzen" is also a form of invective used by Hans Sachs. Is this in the margin of f17r?
Almost certainly just a coincidence, but weird nonetheless.
RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. - DG97EEB - 23-12-2025
(17-12-2025, 12:33 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For a long time, the only attestation of "poxleber" known to Voynich researchers was in a 16th century burlesque carnival play by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. In the dialogue, uncivilized characters use various compound words consisting of "pox-" combined with a body part. Pox belly, pox wounds, pox bones, pox liver...
Even in ancient cultures, the custom existed to swear oaths by the Gods, and this persisted in medieval and early modern Europe. The earlier practice was to swear by parts of God's body. If you swear something by Christ's five holy wounds, or any other part of his earthly manifestation, you're making it clear that you mean it.
Obviously the priest doesn't like it when you do this, so people come up with euphemistic "minced oaths" to avoid actually saying the word "God". In modern English we have "gosh" or "golly", in Dutch "pot" as in "potverdomme", in Frech the "bleu" in "sacrebleu". In 14th century English, "God" is replaced by minced forms like "gog" and "cock" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
The attestation in the 16th century Fastnachtspiele is such a case where "poxleber" is used as a minced form of "Gotts Leber", "God's liver". I have regularly opposed the relevance of this fragment for f116v, exactly because of this context. You can have a boorish carnivalesque character use "poxleber" in a dialogue, but that doesn't mean we should expect a scribe (any scribe) to use it out of the sacreblue. It's as if Henry Gray would write "D'oh! I used the wrong graph here!" in the margins while preparing his famous book on human anatomy.
Yesterday, I came across a sermon book by Viennese Theologian, professor and historian You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., active in the first half of the 15th century (a century before Hans Sachs). The MS is BSB CLM 293, f.310r (scan 623). You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I can't transcribe this kind of Latin, but luckily Marco was able to help:
ChatGPT translates the (incomplete) transcription like this:
Quote:There are to be reproved those who swear by shameful creatures, likewise thinking themselves not bound, as when they say “pox grmt poxlaus zais”, since in such words the Creator of those things still shines forth. Those who swear falsely in this way are perjurers and sinners.
I further observe that even more reprehensible are those who swear by things which neither are nor ever will be, thinking themselves not bound, as those who say “sam mir pox gamiger gameri”.
Why does this matter?
The "minced oath" interpretation of "poxleber" is still quite popular. But so far, we only had a century-late attestation in a dissimilar source. Now, we have a sermon by someone active in pre-1450 Vienna, complaining about "pox" swearing by the people.
What this passage teaches us:
- The minced oath is already spelled with "x".
- It is interpreted as swearing an oath, and the sin is false testimony, perjury. The message is: you shouldn't think you can get away with false promises by twisting the name of God.
- It is understood as a mangled version of the name of the Creator.
- It is also understood as the name of a creature, which means that they are aware of the "bock". Just like the "cock" in the English example mentioned earlier, "pot" in Dutch and "bleu" in French, the minced name of God drifted towards an existing "replacement" word.
What this means for the Voynich "poxleber":
- If you want to read it as "God's liver", it is unlikely to be a cry of anger or frustration: the scribe is swearing a solemn oath by God's liver. Which formulations do we expect when swearing an oath, and what is the scribe's vow?
- Swearing oaths like this was clearly done by people in the first half of the 15th century, but apparently frowned upon and mocked by the learned class. Would we expect this uncivilized form written by someone who has clearly had some education?
- The spelling "x" over "cks" is likely inspired by this oath-usage, but awareness of the animal was present in the oath. Since spelling was not standardized, would we not rather expect the ingredient in the VM?
What remains: the preceding paragraph also contains some pox, but I am unable to transcribe the Latin. Also, the German phrases appear to be renditions of spoken language and are hard for me to understand fully.
Edit: added MS link.
This is where the new Google Gemini 3 model is absurdly good at OCR.
"Based on the manuscript image and the accompanying printed transcription, here is the transcription and translation of the text.
This text appears to be a theological or pastoral treatise (likely from the late medieval period, given the script) discussing the sin of swearing oaths. It specifically condemns "minced oaths"—garbled or corrupted phrases used to swear without technically saying holy names—arguing that the intent still makes them binding and sinful.
Latin Transcription
The text below combines the visible manuscript text with the printed transcriptions provided on the right side of the image to fill in the difficult-to-read abbreviations.
> ...quod soli deo debetur aliam creaturam, sed creatori inquantum refulget in [ea] tamen.
> Ex quo patet primo quod valde reprehendendi sunt [illi] qui iurant ad omnia verba et falsa per creaturas ... putantes se non ... [obligari].
> [Secundo] patet quod plus sunt reprehendi qui iurant per turpes creaturas similiter se non putantes obligari ut "poxgrmt poxlaus zais", quod in istis verbis creator earum relucet. ... sunt per ista falsum iurant sunt periuri et peccantes.
> [Tercio] patet quod adhuc sunt plus reprehendi qui iurant per ea que non sunt nec erunt putantes se non obligari sicut qui dicunt "sam mir pox gamiger gameri", nulla enim habent [similitudinem?]...
>
English Translation
> ...[regarding that] which is owed to God alone [being given to] another creature, but [rather] to the Creator insofar as He shines forth in [that creature], however.
> From this it is clear firstly that those are to be strongly rebuked who swear at every word and falsely by creatures... thinking themselves not [to be bound/to satisfy the law].
> Secondly, it is clear that those are more to be rebuked who swear by shameful creatures, similarly thinking themselves not to be bound, such as [by saying] "poxgrmt poxlaus zais," because in these words their Creator shines forth. ... [if] they swear falsely by these things, they are perjurers and sinners.
> Thirdly, it is clear that those are still more to be rebuked who swear by things that are not [do not exist], nor ever will be, thinking themselves not to be bound, just as those who say "sam mir pox gamiger gameri," for these hold no [likeness/reality]...
>
Analysis of the "Strange Words"
The text highlights specific nonsense phrases that people were using to get around blasphemy laws or taboos. The author argues that even if the words are nonsense, the intent to swear binds the speaker.
* "poxgrmt poxlaus zais": These are likely phonetic renderings of Germanic or English minced oaths mixed with Latin syntax.
* pox is likely a corruption of Pax (Peace) or Potz (a German euphemism for "God's").
* grmt might be Gram (wrath/grief).
* It effectively functions like the modern "Gosh darn it" or "Zounds" (God's Wounds).
* "sam mir pox gamiger gameri":
* sam mir likely corresponds to "So me..." or "Saint Mary."
* gamiger gameri appears to be rhyming gibberish used to complete the oath ritualistically without using real words.
"
RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. - ReneZ - 23-12-2025
(23-12-2025, 08:34 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.grmt might be Gram (wrath/grief).
As JoJo_Jost pointed out a few posts ago, this should be read as "pox grint".
RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source. - DG97EEB - 23-12-2025
(23-12-2025, 08:44 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-12-2025, 08:34 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.grmt might be Gram (wrath/grief).
As JoJo_Jost pointed out a few posts ago, this should be read as "pox grint".
Thanks René.. Completely missed that
