After presenting the history of the problem, the present author focuses on three main underdiscussed or unsolved issues: (1) can Old Russian and Old Czech spellings suggesting a voiced spirant be reasonably explained away as secondary? (2) can a (near-) homonymous and potentially motivating appellative be found in the Polish or Slavic lexical traditions? (3) and why was the prince named in such way? The answer to the first question is negative, while the second one cannot for the moment be answered with certainty and needs further scrutiny. The author concludes that the name was *Mьžьka (as previously supposed by Fenikowski, Bańkowski, Mańczak, Sucharski and Witczak) and originated probably as a protective name aiming at preventing the child from ominous vision problems.