[DCRM-L] printers' widows

[Lapka, Francis]

Dear list colleagues,

I’ve recently reacquainted myself with guidance on authorized access points for printers’ widows, in LC-PCC PS 9.19.1.1: http://original.rdatoolkit.org/lcpschp9_lcps9-196.html. The same guidance (and some confusion therein) was the topic of a discussion on this list in 2013: https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2013-September/thread.html#3234.

If a printer’s widow is identified in manifestations as “widow of” but her personal name is known, her personal name is used as the preferred name, as in these examples:


  *   Verseyl, Elizabeth, -1726: https://lccn.loc.gov/no2012043138
  *   Orwin, Joan, active 1593-1597: https://lccn.loc.gov/nr98019565
  *   Cussac, Anne-Élisabeth, active 1816-1825?: https://lccn.loc.gov/no2013116120

If I’ve understood application correctly – and perhaps I haven’t – this outcome is different than other cases where a woman is identified in manifestations in the form by (or about) Mrs. Husband’s Name, and the name as it appears in manifestation(s) is used as the preferred name, as in these examples:


  *   Cowie, Harrison Lee, Mrs., 1860-1950: https://lccn.loc.gov/no2015128982
  *   Cupples, George, Mrs., 1839-1898: https://lccn.loc.gov/n90672060
  *   Ames, Ernest, Mrs., 1853-1929: https://lccn.loc.gov/no2015054850
Is this an inconsistency? That is, why isn’t something like “Orwin, Widdow, active 1593-1597” the preferred name? If it is inconsistent, what is the principle behind it? As often the case, I may be missing an obvious explanation.

I appreciate your thoughts.

Francis


Francis Lapka
Senior Catalog Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203-432-9672  ·  britishart.yale.edu<http://britishart.yale.edu/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20241008/b47c805c/attachment-0001.htm>