16-11-2016, 03:31 PM
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, Koen Gh.
As I see it there are three issues at play here: clarity, brevity and neutrality, and these can sometimes be at odds.
For example if I refer to the "zodiac" section, everybody will clearly understand what I am referring to, even though they may disagree that the section in question is a zodiac.
If I refer to it as the "central roundels with nude figures around them" section, that's more neutral, quite clear, but very cumbersome.
If I refer to it as "section 3" (or section III or section C) that is completely neutral and brief, but it may be confusing to newcomers, (actually, it also carries the assumption that the current order of sections reflects the manuscript's original intended order, which is uncertain).
I don't know if a perfect solution exists.
As I see it there are three issues at play here: clarity, brevity and neutrality, and these can sometimes be at odds.
For example if I refer to the "zodiac" section, everybody will clearly understand what I am referring to, even though they may disagree that the section in question is a zodiac.
If I refer to it as the "central roundels with nude figures around them" section, that's more neutral, quite clear, but very cumbersome.
If I refer to it as "section 3" (or section III or section C) that is completely neutral and brief, but it may be confusing to newcomers, (actually, it also carries the assumption that the current order of sections reflects the manuscript's original intended order, which is uncertain).
I don't know if a perfect solution exists.