[DCRM-L] Printers' widows

[Ted P Gemberling]

Kathie,
I looked at the old LCRI 22.2, and it does seem that it was clearer than the current LC-PCC PS. Case 1 reads “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 is also referred to as the widow of the printer, establish the printer under her personal name.” I wonder why the LC-PCC PS reversed that to “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 …” Maybe someone just screwed up in transposing some of the phrases when it was adapted for RDA.

The LCRI provides three very clear examples:

1)      Bonhomme, Yolanda (personal name)

2)      Vidua Gothofredi Liebernickelii

3)      Vandenhoeck, widow

That implies to me that the phrase in direct order (case 2) is usable only when you have more than the surname of the deceased printer.

Richard’s response:

“In that case, la veuve Bordelet is not identified only by a surname and term such as “widow,” but rather is identified only as the widow of the printer …”

seems to conceive Veuve as if it might be some sort of forename. But you can’t be a widow without being a widow of someone, so I think the distinction between 2 and 3 must lie in whether you have the deceased printer’s full name.

I agree with you that Bordelet, Marie-Jeanne is the most appropriate form for the case you brought up. The personal name is especially appropriate for this case since she was widow to more than one printer.

Best, Ted Gemberling

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Kathie Coblentz
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 5:10 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Printers' widows

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<mailto:kathiecoblentz at nypl.org>

My opinions, not NYPL's

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>>
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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/20130910/d2c5ab1a/attachment-0001.html>