[DCRM-L] Printers' widows

[Ted P Gemberling]

Kathie,
I think you might be overanalyzing this. I think the LC-PCC PS is basically giving us permission to follow three different practices depending on how much information we have.


1.)    If we know the real name of the widow, we enter by that name.

2.)    If we know her husband's full name but not hers, we set it up as a "phrase in direct order" (in other words, in the order we find it on the title page), with a reference with his name in inverted order, followed by "widow of."

3.)    If we don't know his full name, we set it up with the phrase in inverted order as, say, "Cuthbert, Widow," with a reference in direct order as "Widow Cuthbert"

I'll admit I was a little surprised by #3, because I expected the use of direct order there, as in #2, also. Apparently they're following RDA 9.2.2.9.3, "Persons Known by a Surname Only,"
using inverted order. When you have that little information about someone, I suppose the surname is the most distinctive thing about them.  But since in both cases you're including a 400 for the other form in the authority record, you are not really losing any information by choosing direct order or inverted order as the established form. A user will be able to retrieve the name by either "widow" or Cuthbert. That shows the importance of authority records.

At any rate, I think it's clear that the three scenarios are distinguished by how much information we have about the person. In #1, we have the widow's full name; in #3, we only have her husband's surname.

I think you can read between the lines and assume that if we knew from reference sources what her husband's given name was, we would use #2 even if that name wasn't given on the title page.

The more information we have, from any source, the more likely we are to use #1.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library


From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:06 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Printers' widows

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<mailto: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/20130827/4f9caf80/attachment-0001.html>