<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Does everyone remember the fruitful discussion we had on the topic of printers' widows about a year ago? The original question concerned how to interpret the rather confusingly worded LCC-PC PS for 9.19.1.1, the section on "Printer's widows" (sic, and the confusion begins here; surely it's a rare printer who has more than one widow?)</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">That PS was derived from an earlier LCRI (from 2002), which was more clearly worded but still left some room for interpretation. Basically, we came to the conclusion that there are three possible cases, each with a different format for use in constructing the authorized access point:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">1) A widow's personal name is known either through usage in resources or through reference sources: use format [Widow's surname, widow's forename]. Example: Ruremund, Catherine van</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">2) A widow's personal name is not known and she is known only as the widow of a printer whose personal name is known: use format [Widow of husband's name] in direct order. Example: Viuda [sic; should be "Vidua"] Gothofredi Liebernickelii</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
3) A widow's personal name is not known and she is known only by the term of address "widow" or the equivalent and a surname: use format [Surname, $c Widow]. Example: Cuthbert, $c Widow</div><div class="gmail_extra">
(Just as an aside, I am unable to determine that there actually ever existed a book which included in the imprint the words "Printed by the Widow Cuthbert.")</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">If a widow's personal name was not known when the AAP was determined, but was later discovered, that would not provide sufficient justification to change the AAP to be in accordance with Case 1. However, in the example we were discussing last year, the widow's personal name was in fact known and included in the information in the reference source cited when the NAR was created (which was under AACR 2, and subsequent to the date of the LCRI). Therefore, the record was changed. (See: Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne, $d -1773.)<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">In Connexion's version of the NAF, a search for "veuve or widow or viuda or vidua or witwe" in PN and RDA in Descriptive Conventions today produces a result of 100. The majority are set up in accordance with Case 1, i.e. the widow's personal name is known and was used to establish the authorized access point. There are are only around 20 that are done another way--among them, I count only 10 where the widow's personal name was in fact known but was not used for the authorized access point. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">When I come across one of these cases now, that is the record is coded for RDA but the widow's personal name, though known, was not used as the basis of the AAP, am I justified in changing the AAP?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">And just what should be considered a widow's "personal name"? In the case of French names, in reference sources such as the BnF authority file and Arbour's Dictionnaire des femmes libraires en France, the ladies are identified by their husband's name or surname plus "widow of", with their maiden name added in a note. That is, you do not find a widow's forenames together with her husband's surname, as in "Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne." BnF has as AAP "Bordelet, Veuve de Marc (16..?-1773)" and Arbour has its entry under "Bordelet, Marc (Vve), née Marie-Jeanne Largentier." Are we justified in preferring the form [husband's surname, widow's forename] when it is a combination not found in resources nor in reference sources but must be extrapolated from information in the latter? (The examples found in NAF today usually use the husband's surname in the AAP, but some have used the maiden name.)</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>These queries are inspired by an actual case I have; the name in the imprint reads "la veuve Pissot." She was the widow of Noël Pissot and her maiden name was Catherine Bauchon. The form used in the several hundred resources in World Cat where her name appears as publisher/bookseller is invariably "la veuve Pissot." She is found in BnF as "Pissot, Veuve de Noël (16..-1753)" and in Arbour she is listed as "PISSOT, Noël (Vve), née Catherine BAUCHON." Other VIAF institutions except LC/NAF have "Pissot, veuve de Noël," "Pissot, Noel, Witwe" or similar. LC/NAF is alone in using "Veuve de Noël Pissot, -1753"--a form not found in any imprints, and which would not have been correct under either the LCRI or the LC-PCC PS, if we have interpreted the text of these documents correctly, since her maiden name was noted in the record when it was created in 2007. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>Would I be justified in changing the AAP to "Pissot, Catherine, -1753", which would follow the pattern used by the majority of RDA NARs for widows?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I now have serious reservations about whether the LCRI/LCC-PS PS solution for this problem is really the most appropriate, but that could be a topic for another discussion. For now, I would appreciate people's thoughts on the case of la veuve Pissot.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">--------------------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">5th Avenue and 42nd Street</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">New York, NY 10018</font></div><div><a href="mailto:kathiecoblentz@nypl.org" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">kathiecoblentz@nypl.org</a><br>
</div></div><div><br></div><div style>My opinions, not NYPL's</div>
</div></div>