[DCRM-L] Printers' widows

[Kathie Coblentz]

I am having trouble with the LC-PCC PS for RDA 9.19.1.1, the section on
"Printer's widows." (First question: shouldn't this be "Printers' widows"?
Unless one printer has more than one widow who used his name?)

Basically, we find two forms in imprints. A widow might be called "The
widow of [deceased printer's full name]," or she might be called "The widow
so-and-so" [deceased printer's surname]. In either case, we may or may not
know the widow's full name (that is, her forename(s) and possibly her
maiden name), and in the second case, we may or may not know the deceased
printer's full name.

 The PS apparently attempts to cover every situation. But given the way it
is written, I am hard put to understand what I should do in some cases.

As the PS is written, there are three possibilities:

 "1. If a woman is referred to as a 'printer's widow' in the resource being
cataloged and/or in reference sources and her personal name is known ..."

"2. If the widow of a printer is identified only as the widow of the
printer ..."

"3. If the widow of a printer is identified only by a surname and term such
as 'widow,' ..."

I'm confused by the use of "is referred to as" in Case 1, where Cases 2 and
3 have "is identified only as." The quotation marks around "printer's
widow" in Case 1 also baffle me, because the example is in Latin, and the
lady isn't even called the Latin equivalent of "printer's widow"; she is
called the Latin equivalent of "the widow of Christoffel Ruremund."

I believe the author of the PS must have meant "is identified only" in Case
2 to be shorthand for "is referred to in the resource being cataloged and
cannot not be further identified through reference sources," because
otherwise, I don't see the difference between Case 1 and Case 2. In the
examples for both, we have a term for "widow" and the full name of a
printer. In Case 1, we know the lady's forename; in Case 2, we evidently do
not.

But is this also true of Case 3, for which the example is "Printed by the
Widow Cuthbert"? Would we also apply this if we knew the late husband's
full name from reference sources, or perhaps if the lady is known to use it
on other resources? ("Widow Cuthbert" and "widow of John Cuthbert"?) And if
we know through reference sources that the widow Cuthbert's given name is
Mary, is it still Case 3 that applies, or do we go back to Case 1?

 And what do we do if one and the same lady is the widow of two printers,
and has been active in the trade successively under both their names? (This
is not a hypothetical question.)

Thanks for your insights.

(I submitted this question originally last Friday, but it was not posted; I
think I've corrected the problem with my e-mail that may have been
responsible.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Kathie Coblentz, Rare Materials Cataloger
Collections Strategy/Special Formats Processing
The New York Public Library, Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
5th Avenue and 42nd Street, Room 313
New York, NY  10018
kathiecoblentz at nypl.org

My opinions, not NYPL's
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130827/041c8b86/attachment.html>