• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Marginalia
  • Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.
• Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

• Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  Koen G > Yesterday, 12:33 PM

  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:
  

  1. The minced oath is already spelled with "x".
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. It is understood as a mangled version of the name of the Creator.
     
  4. 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":
  

  1. 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?
     
  2. 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?
     
  3. 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.

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  MarcoP > Yesterday, 04:47 PM

  Hi Koen, thank you for finding this interesting passage!
  
  I extended and slightly corrected my previous transcription. A few words are missing and it certainly isn't 100% correct.
  
  Ex quo patet primo / quod valde reprehendendi sunt qui / jurant ad omnia verba, et false per / creaturas ut "poxplwt samerpox umgel", putando se non peccare, non obligari, ... ex dictis ... graviter / errant.  Secundo patet plus / sunt reprehendendi qui iurant per turpes /  creaturas similiter se non putantes obli/gari ut "pox grmt poxgrint* poxlaus / zais", quod in istis omnibus creator earum / relucet, ... sunt per ista falsum / iurant sunt periuri et peccant / graviter. Tertio patet quod ad huc / sunt plus reprehendendi qui iurant / per ea que non sunt nec erunt / putantes se non obligari, sicut / qui dicunt "sam mir pox gamiger / gamer", nullus enim hyrcus habet[?] / supplicium suppliciorum, nec in istis / deus relucet, unde videntur dupliciter / peccare, quod peyorant et quia / invocant testem quod nec in se nec / in eo relucente testificari potest.
  
  In the line starting with "gamer", the "bock" (hyrcus) is explicitly mentioned.
  
  *poxgrint, see next comment
  
  EDIT: I realized that "supplicium suppliciorum" likely translates "gamiger gamer". "Sam mir gamiger gamer" - (if I lie) may I be cursed by bock's (instead of God's) eternal torment.

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 04:56 PM

  poxgrmt is: "poxgrint" Scabs, crusts, encrusted skin – typically smallpox scabs (i.e., the crusts/scabs associated with smallpox). you can see the dot
  
  I had pox = smallpox  “Poxleber” as a swear word/curse word in connection with the reading “Lutzifer” as the last word of the marginalia. But then I rejected it again because I wasn't sure whether this rather English term had already arrived in Germany around 1430. So very interesting.

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 05:15 PM

  poxplwt = poxplivr??  could be a phonetic spelling of blîver / blîven (“to remain”). As far as I know, the p and b are sometimes interchanged in handwriting. then it would come out as something like pox blîver.
  
  “May smallpox remain (with you)” – in other words, “smallpox upon you” or “lasting smallpox.”
  
  But I'm not sure!

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  Bluetoes101 > Yesterday, 05:20 PM

  It's funny that this actually works better in English. "I said "goat" not "god", so it doesn't count!".
  That's the vibe I get from the below, maybe it is not a good translation (google)?
  
  I'm not sure you would literally write down the words of a false oath? It seems to defeat the point?   
  Or is the issue of people literally swearing on false names?
  
  I'm having trouble matching "the scribe is swearing a solemn oath by God's liver." with "swear by vile creatures", "swear by things that do not exist nor will exist", "for no goat has[?] the punishment of punishments"
  
  Is this just a bad translation or am I not following correctly?
  
  "From which it is clear,
  
  first, that those who swear by all words, and falsely by creatures such as "poxplwt samerpox umgel",
  thinking that they do not sin, are not bound, ... from what has been said ... are gravely / mistaken.
  
  Secondly, it is clear that those who swear by vile creatures similarly not thinking that they are bound, such as "pox grmt poxlaus / zais",
  which is reflected in all these, their creator, are more to be blamed. ... they swear falsely by these, they are perjurers and sin gravely.
  
  Third, it is clear that to this point, those who swear by things that do not exist nor will exist, thinking that they are not bound, such as those who say "sam mir pox gamiger / gamer",
  for no goat has[?] the punishment of punishments, nor does God shine in these, whence they seem to sin in two ways,
  which they do worse and because they call upon a witness who can testify neither in himself nor in him who shines."

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  MarcoP > Yesterday, 05:31 PM

  I guess that peyorant is a weird spelling for perjurant. So the last passage could mean:
  
  "Thirdly, it is clear that still more blameworthy are those who swear by things that neither exist nor will exist, thinking themselves not bound [by their oath], such as those who say 'sam mir pox gamiger gamer' [curse me by the goat’s torment of torments]. For no goat has the torment of torments, nor does God shine forth in these words [since they are meaningless]. Therefore they seem to sin doubly: because they commit perjury and because they invoke as witness something that can testify neither in itself nor through [God] shining forth in it."

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 05:32 PM

  For non-Germans/Austrians.
  
  Pox gamiger: gamiger = “worthless/futile/nonsensical (stuff, thing)”.
  
  samerpox = sam/sâme/samer means
  “the same, this very one, exactly this one” like the English word “same”.

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  JoJo_Jost > Yesterday, 05:41 PM

  Duplicate after editing, so deleted

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  Koen G > Yesterday, 05:57 PM

  Thanks, Marco!
  
  

  (Yesterday, 04:47 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the line starting with "gamer", the "bock" (hyrcus) is explicitly mentioned.

  
  Excellent, this confirms my understanding of the passage you translated before: they understood the reference to "God" and the fact that it had become an animal's name simultaneously.
  
  Jojo: I am certain the reference to the disease is entirely out of place here, this is entirely about Gott's physicality (i.e. Jesus) and swearing by it. Please read the Latin passage. If there is reference to wounds, then it's probably those of Christ.
  
  poxplwt = Gotts blut

• RE: Everything about "pox leber" as a minced oath, and an earlier source.

  RobGea > Yesterday, 06:22 PM

  pox liber => By Jove this book is hard to read 
• Next Oldest Next Newest