[DCRM-L] Printers' widows

[Kathie Coblentz]

I am glad that I'm not the only one who finds this issue confusing.

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."

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):

"Jusqu'en 1766, travaille en association avec son gendre Claude Fosse, qui
a épousé sa fille Marie-Madeleine Mongé
"Libraire
"Nom de jeune fille : Marie-Jeanne Largentier
"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"

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:

"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.'''

Therefore, the correct AACR 2 form when the heading was set up was
"Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne."

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"."

"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.

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.

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."

--------------------------------------------------------
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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu>
> To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:12:46 +0000
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Printers' widows
>
> Kate,****
>
> 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. ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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?). ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 *
> *some** sort of correct AACR2/RDA form, so we retain it even when we have
> better information?****
>
> ** **
>
> I hope I haven’t confused things more. This is a pretty confusing issue. *
> ***
>
> Ted Gemberling****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130909/c46fa364/attachment.html>