<div dir="ltr">I am glad that I'm not the only one who finds this issue confusing.<div><br></div><div>I would like to mention again one thing that was in my original post. It may have gotten overlooked in all the theorizing. The widow's personal name (her forenames and her maiden name) was already available in the original source cited, at the time it was cited. That is, the CERL online thesaurus, "viewed May 8, 2009." </div>
<div><br></div><div>The entry in the CERL thesaurus for "Bordelet, Veuve de Marc ( - 1773)" was last changed on "2004-02-09." Here are the "General Notes" from that entry (which is from the BnF): </div>
<div><br></div><div>"Jusqu'en 1766, travaille en association avec son gendre Claude Fosse, qui a épousé sa fille Marie-Madeleine Mongé<div class="">
<div class="">"Libraire
</div>
<div class="">"Nom de jeune fille : Marie-Jeanne Largentier
</div>
<div class="">"Épouse en 1res noces Joseph Mongé, qui la laisse veuve avant
1723 (cf. notice Mongé, Veuve de Joseph). Épouse en 2es noces Marc
Bordelet, cousin de son défunt mari. À son second veuvage (nov. 1754),
reprend l'affaire. En 1755 encore, fait paraître au moins 2 éd. sous le
nom de son mari. En faillite en mai 1760" </div><div class=""><br></div><div>When the NAF record for "Veuve Bordelet, d. 1773" was created in 2009, under the LCRI to AACR 2 22.2, the instruction was in effect the same as under RDA: </div>
<div><br></div><div class="">"If the personal name of the widow of a printer is used in the item being cataloged or in reference sources (cf. LCRI 22.1B) but [she] is also referred to as the widow of a printer, establish the printer under her personal name. Make a see reference from the personal name of the printer qualified by 'widow of.''' </div>
<div class=""><br></div><div class="">Therefore, the correct AACR 2 form when the heading was set up was "Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne." </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">As an aside, I want to reiterate my belief that the dates of her late husband have no place in the variant access point (or "see reference") that uses his name, and could only lead to confusion. In the LC-PCC PS version of the LCRI quoted above, it says: "In the authority record add a variant access point consisting of the husband’s name followed by 'widow of"." </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">"Husband's name" here cannot be taken to mean "preferred access point for the husband." If dates are added as a qualifier to an access point, they have to be dates associated with the person in the access point, not some other person in another access point.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Finally, if it makes a difference whether the usage in resources published by the widow is ever anything other than her husband's surname alone: She does in fact use the form "Apud viduam M. Bordelet" in at least two resources. However, by far the most frequent form found is just "veuve Bordelet," which would fall under what the LCRI calls using the word "widow" "as a term of address" and the LC PCC PS calls the case where a widow is "identified only by a surname and term such as 'widow'." That is, the form found in resources associated with her does not identify her as the widow of a printer, but only as someone named "Bordelet" who is a widow.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">In that case, the original entry, if her personal name was not known (which in fact it was), should have been "Bordelet, veuve," not "veuve Bordelet." </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">--------------------------------------------------------<br>Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger<br>
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing<br>The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building<br>5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313<br>New York, NY 10018<br></span><a href="mailto:kathiecoblentz@nypl.org" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><span lang="EN-GB">kathiecoblentz@nypl.org</span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
<br>My opinions, not NYPL's</span><br></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Ted P Gemberling <<a href="mailto:tgemberl@uab.edu">tgemberl@uab.edu</a>><br>To: DCRM Users' Group <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:12:46 +0000<br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Printers' widows<br>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Kate,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">It does seem that case 2 only becomes meaningful if we use a form like “Veuve de Marc Bordelet.” Otherwise there is no real difference between the information
we’re conveying between Bordelet, Veuve (Bordelet, widow in RDA?) and Veuve Bordelet.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">However, if the form “Veuve de Marc Bordelet” or “Veuve Marc Bordelet” doesn’t actually occur on title pages, I wonder if it’s appropriate to make it up. Maybe
we’re stuck with case 3, Bordelet, Veuve (or Bordelet, widow?). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Was Richard saying that because Veuve Bordelet was correct based on the information available when the authority was created, it does not need to be changed
now even though we know her full name? In other words, it was *<b>some</b>* sort of correct AACR2/RDA form, so we retain it even when we have better information?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I hope I haven’t confused things more. This is a pretty confusing issue.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Ted Gemberling<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><br></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>