[DCRM-L] Printers' widows

[Kate Moriarty]

In collaboration with Kathie Coblentz, LCCN # no2009079894 has been
replaced.

Thank you, everyone, for your input.

-Kate


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

>  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
>
> 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****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
>


-- 
Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS  |  Rare Book Catalog Librarian  |  Associate
Professor  |  Pius XII Memorial Library  |
Saint Louis University  |  3650 Lindell Blvd . |  St. Louis, MO 63108  |
(314) 977-3024 (tel)  |  (314) 977-3108 (fax)  |  moriarks at slu.edu  |
http://libraries.slu.edu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130920/869dbe67/attachment.html>