The usual thing to do is to name a ms. after the library where it is keept plus the shelf märk, e.g. BSB München clm xxx, you forget the BSB ... because a clm (no capitals) is always a codex latinus monacensis of the BSB.The VMs should ne called something like BRBL ms. 408
I'm not so sure about the Munich case.
I take the name Munich, which means " bei den Mönchen".
The most important thing for the monks was not books but beer.
Shouldn't it then be " Beer No. 408 "?
Sometimes they are named after the patron or the person who received the manuscript as a gift (among the nobility, manuscripts were often given as wedding gifts).
If "Voynich Manuscript" is not neutral enough for you, you can still use the catalogue number MS 408 (without any additions). Some do, but when you name it after Voynich, everyone knows what is meant. This has just become so common that a renaming is practically impossible.
Since the donor to the Beinecke Library was Hans Peter Kraus, the manuscript could have been named after him.
Yes, the Prague manuscript or the Kircher manuscript makes more sense.
I have nothing against Polish names or English names, but neither seem relevant to the manuscript. I am not saying this as a result of any prejudice towards Polish people or as sign of a particular fondness for Italian people. My prefer for the origin of the manuscript has always been Georgia or Armenia (Caucasus), but unfortunately I very much doubt that is the case.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]It's important to remember the "The Voynich Manuscript" is just a nickname used for convenience. But there's no way, at this point, that any other nickname could be adopted. The manuscript is one of the most famous medieval objects in the world, known worldwide as The Voynich Manuscript. That's won't ever change. But in formal publication, it should always be referred to at least once by its formal name, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library MS 408. Or, even more properly, "Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library MS 408"[/font]
It would be like trying to call the Book of Kells by another nickname. Won't ever happen.
Newbold calls it "the Voynich manuscript" in his 1921 essay in addition to calling it "the Voynich cipher manuscript" and "the Voynich Bacon manuscript".
"The Bacon manuscript" would have caused all different kinds of confusion.
(18-05-2020, 12:45 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the Prague manuscript
It occurs to me that Prague is Czech so I wonder why that would be preferable over Polish.
(18-05-2020, 02:38 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (18-05-2020, 12:45 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the Prague manuscript
It occurs to me that Prague is Czech so I wonder why that would be preferable over Polish.
There is a historical connection between Prague, i.e. the first known whereabouts of the manuscript, and the manuscript itself, but no known historical connection between Poland and the manuscript. Personally, I would prefer the name of the first known owner to the first known location.
(18-05-2020, 02:03 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."The Bacon manuscript" would have caused all different kinds of confusion.
Yes, that would have been a terrible idea. I suppose a descriptive name such as the "gallows script manuscript" could be possible.
(18-05-2020, 08:10 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That lucky guy Vespucci just got his name unfairly attached!
Yes, that was an example that occurred to me, although I think
Amerigo Vespucci is believed to be the first to recognize intellectually the "Americas" and a distinct and "new" continent. Clearly an indigenous name would seem to be more appropriate, though I assume that no such precise consensus name existed.