How is [x] used in medieval German?

[Koen G]

Koen, "pox" is not a minced form of Gotts. It is a minced form of "bocks". "Bocks" transgressing into "pox" is a linguistic phenomenon.  Pox being used as an euphemism for Gotts is, I believe, a cultural one.

I'm not sure if I understand you here. When they say something like "pox pauch", i.e. God's belly, how did pox come to mean God? I would just see it as a minced version: pox sounds like gotts, so it is used instead. There is no thematic connection between God and a "bock" or anything similar.


Regarding the phrase "may God's ... harm you", you are right, it seems to have been used more generally. However, the instances of "God's Liver" I've seen have all been in the "may God's liver cause you harm" context.

The paper you link is interesting in that it does provide the context where we might expect these curses to be written. Here's a rough translation of the relevant paragraphs:

In German carnival plays, there is a lot of cursing and swearing, not least by the members of God [i.e. the curse involves pars of God's body]. Quite uninhibitedly, a fool's character on the stage can confront the Antichrist with a "Pox grind!". 

The specific context of using the oath varies greatly. For example, a man responds with a swear to the praises of a quack for a miracle cure:
"Pox pauch, [God's belly] may that be a good doctor for my bellyache, who complains about his belly and hasn't farted in eight days."

In this case, the swear marks an exclamation of surprise. Of course, its real piquancy comes from the fact that the divine belly is mentioned in the same breath as the neighbor's flatulence.

An unmistakable focus of the oaths is on situations where excitement, conflicts, and aggressions dominate the field. Let's take, for example, a peasant play in which a troubled man is at the center, pursued and reviled by his quarrelsome wife. Another farmer tries to support him and put the woman in her place with strong words:

"Pox haut [God's skin], I mean, you're not clever, That you fuel such irrationality, And yet every man is a man..."
"If you were my wife," he continues, "I would teach you obedience." When she threatens him, he persists in challenging her:
"Pox leichnams willen [something like by God's dead body], just go ahead and tear at me!"
This doesn't go well for him, as he is so maltreated by the strong woman that he quickly has to call for help:
"Oh, help, dear friends, for the love of all that's sacred!"

The affirming, self-confident swearing quickly turns into a ridiculous cry for help - undoubtedly a consciously employed stylistic device to expose the protagonist's boasting.

What these have in common is the following contexts:
* Carnivalesque: more is allowed around carnival, and there can be swearing by certain characters
* Boorish or mocked characters: a fool, a farmer, a boastful man
* Dialogue, direct speech: it is not the scribe or author himself swearing like this! It is the character. This is clearly not behavior to be emulated.

Therefore, it seems very unlikely that the person who wrote the marginalia decided to swear on the page. We only see these curses after the 15th century in comical, carnivalesque or mocking dialogue, uttered by characters that are not to be respected.

Add to that the fact that there is some context on the page that suggests the writer was into recipes (so nim), and I think the case for "goat's liver" as an ingredient is a bit stronger.