# Marriage certificate



## PocketWatch

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p181/EdwardDocumentary/polishpaper3.gif

Can someone tell me what this paper is reffering to, like who wrote it or anything that it might imply? I believe it relates to a census paper, as one user told me. So what exactly is this particular section dealing with? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Piotr_WRF

PocketWatch said:


> Can someone tell me what this paper is reffering to, like who wrote it or anything that it might imply? I believe it relates to a census paper, as one user told me. So what exactly is this particular section dealing with?


It's an excerpt of a marriage certificate. I'm not really good at reading the handwriting so you'll have to wait for someone else to translate the whole paper.


----------



## PocketWatch

Oh really? Wow I was quite off. Well if anyone else can read that I would greatly appreciate it. What does it imply of a marraige certificate?


----------



## vodevilja

It's in Russian ;]


----------



## Q-cumber

Very bad script, indeed. And a bit cut on the right side.



> "No 255
> Took place in Warsaw, in a chancery of a "Civil State " clerk for non-Christian confessions of a forth Vlyanskogo (?) district...July 27th August 8th <dates in two styles > in the year of 1899 at 11 in a morning. It was announced that in presence of the witnesses - David Amzel, 38 years old, a clicker <profession заготовщик? > number 1815 and Aaron Zelihover, 26 years old baker <пекарь or, perhaps, лекарь - physician> number 2305..."


 That's all.... I can't understant the heading well. Is it in Polish? I guess the document tells about a  marriage registration between Jewish people. But there is actually not enough information to make sure...


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Q-cumber said:


> I can't understant the heading well. Is it in Polish?


Yes, the heading is in Polish. It says "Wypis aktu małżeństwa". I haven't realized that the rest is in Russian.


----------



## Gulfstream

Q-cumber said:


> Very bad script, indeed. And a bit cut on the right side.
> 
> That's all.... I can't understant the heading well. Is it in Polish? I guess the document tells about a marriage registration between Jewish people. But there is actually not enough information to make sure...


 
Agree with Q-cumber. Just one correction - "in the year of 1899".


----------



## Q-cumber

Gulfstream said:


> Agree with Q-cumber. Just one correction - "in the year of 1899".



Sure thing. Sorry for the mistype.


----------



## Q-cumber

Piotr_WRF said:


> Yes, the heading is in Polish. It says "Wypis aktu małżeństwa". I haven't realized that the rest is in Russian.



Funny, the writer uses the same symbol to represent Russian "т" (t) and Polish "m". Now, after your explanation, I can recognize the words too.  Interesting.

PS Now I am sure the profession of Aaron Zelihover was a baker, not a doctor.


----------



## vodevilja

I've also been taught to write the Russian "т" as "m"  The "m" like symbol is a smaller version of the upper case "T" written like a "П" with three bars (or "Ш" upside down )


----------



## PocketWatch

I have parts 2 and 3 of the document, if anyone has a spare moment to see if this is anything different than the other page I'd greatly appreciate it once more--

Page 2:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p181/EdwardDocumentary/polishpaper4.jpg

Page 3:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p181/EdwardDocumentary/polishpaper5.jpg

If they are different than the other page I would love a translation. Thanks!


----------



## Anatoli

I can make out some words written using old Russian spelling rules but what's the importance? It is really difficult to read. The worst thing I may not be able to figure out the names if you after them. Some personal names are written in Polish (in Roman letters), e.g. "Morgensztern" on page 2, which is weird, since the text is in Russian. The city of Lublin is written in Cyrillic.


----------



## Anatoli

The first page is important but it's not complete - cut on the right and at the bottom.


----------



## Q-cumber

Very interesting! I'll "translate" it, when I'll have some free time. The document is all in Russian, but official headers and footers are in Polish.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

The footer on the third page says:



> Za zgodność ni-
> niejszego wypisu z ory-
> ginałem duplikatu
> świadczę.
> Warszawa dn. 18 grudnia 1920 r.
> Zarządzający Archiwum
> Akt Stanu Cywilnego m. Warszawy



Loosely translated this means:
_ I certify that this copy is identical with the original.
Warsaw, December 18th 1920.
Manager of the archives of the public registry records in Warsaw_


----------



## Q-cumber

....Melomet Morgenshtern <in latin transliteration>, 20 years old, an unmarried <бронзовщиком Bronzovshhikom> bronze maker, born in the city of Lublin and temporarily residing in Warsaw under number 1797, a former <”б.”?> son of deceased Lev and Haya-Golda, nee Coopershtain, a married couple – Morgenshtern, with <here is  “a” (but) in the text, but I suggested a typo - “c”> a maiden Etka Semyatytska <both latin and Cyrillic transliterations are provided, but they somewhat don't match >17 years from the date of birth, being kept under control of her father <при отце содержащаяся>, born in Warsaw, permanently residing under number 1797 <the same number as above – another error?  > and the daughter of David and  deceased Martem (?), nee Goland  -  a married couple of  Semyatytskie. This marriage was preceded by three publications (announcements) – on 19th June 1st June, 26th June 8th July and th<ird>... 

That's is the second part of the text. I am not sure about the names' spellings tho.


----------



## Q-cumber

The third piece of text: 
...performed by the ecclesiastic <духовный> of the forth Vlyanskogo (Blyanskogo) district Judel Segal (?). This deed was read aloud to those present by us and is was signed by the newlywed couple only / the rest <of the people> are illiterate <can't read or write>. The master <ведущий> of the Civil State Book of the 4th Vlyansky (Blyansky) district, Shtabs-captain Sankov, the ecclesiastic J. Segal, Shal (?) Mendel Morgenshtern....

This is the end of story, folks.


----------



## PocketWatch

Q-cumber said:


> son of deceased Leva and Hai Golda


Thank you, no one in our family knew his parents names (not even his surviving son). So that means that both of his parents were deceased at the time of this marriage correct? And I am not an expert in European names, is Hai Golda the mother's first and maiden name?


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> Thank you, no one in our family knew his parents names (not even his surviving son). So that means that both of his parents were deceased at the time of this marriage correct? And I am not an expert in European names, is Hai Golda the mother's first and maiden name?



The word Deceased (умершего - masculine gender) is only related to the father - Lev. So I suppose the mother was still alive at the time of the marriage.  As to the names, I transliterated these under declensions, sorry for the misleading *(corrected the above)*. The *first* names (in nominative) are - Lev (Лев) and Haya (Хая) Golda (Голда) - double name.

Lev Morgenshtern &  Haya-Golda Morgenshtern, a maiden name - Coopershtain


----------



## PocketWatch

Oh, I see. What is the 'nee Coopershtain,' is that the mother's maiden name?


> The first page is important but it's not complete - cut on the right and at the bottom.


I don't believe I scanned it all the way, I will see if I can scan it any better.


----------



## PocketWatch

And does anyone know what those numbers mean...numbers like the 1797? Are they identification numbers or something?


----------



## Piotr_WRF

I wonder what the 4th _Vlyanskogo_ (is this in genitive case?) district would be today? Maybe the district of _Wola_ (_wolskiego_ = adjective in genitive)?


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> And does anyone know what those numbers mean...numbers like the 1797? Are they identification numbers or something?



Yes, some identification / registration numbers.


----------



## Q-cumber

Piotr_WRF said:


> I wonder what the 4th _Vlyanskogo_ (is this in genitive case?) district would be today? Maybe the district of _Wola_ (_wolskiego_ = adjective in genitive)?



Yes, it should be Vlyansky or so in nominative. I can't recognize the first two letters well. Need more time to compare. More likely: B<.>lyansky


Nope, the first letter is definitely Russian "V". The same letter is used in Варшава (Warsaw) *V*<.>lyansky   

PS The word is "ВЕЛЯНСКОГО"! *VELYANSKOGO* (VELYANSKY or WELYANSKY) Does it make any sense for you?


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> Oh, I see. What is the 'nee Coopershtain,' is that the mother's maiden name?



Yes. Sorry, I forgot this was actually a French word.  "nee" = a woman's maiden name

PS Do you have any other old documents in your pocket?  It's interesting to read them.


----------



## PocketWatch

I'm sure I do somewhere, when I find some more I will put them up. Any others will most likely be in Polish.


----------



## PocketWatch

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p181/EdwardDocumentary/polishpaper1new.jpg?t=1178763392

There's a better scan of image #1 with the cut off part.


----------



## Q-cumber

I just realized it: This is a *copy* of a document. Can you imagine _how_ this and other copies of documents were created in the year of 1920?


----------



## PocketWatch

Yes, the user vodevilja pointed that out to me a few days ago before the thread was started when I sent him the cover of these papers (cover is in Polish), he told me that it is a copy of a marriage certificate needed for an internal passport.


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> Yes, the user vodevilja pointed that out to me a few days ago before the thread was started when I sent him the cover of these papers (cover is in Polish), he told me that it is a copy of a marriage certificate needed for an internal passport.



I meant that this copy is *handwritten*! Someone had to duplicate the text by hand, word by word.  Thus typos in the copy might occur.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Q-cumber said:


> The word is "ВЕЛЯНСКОГО"! *VELYANSKOGO* (VELYANSKY or WELYANSKY) Does it make any sense for you?


On old maps from around 1900 I've found that the district of _Wola_ was called _Воля_ in Russian. If _волянский_ is its adjective (can someone confirm this?) than I guess that there's a typo in the copy and it's indeed the district of _Wola_ that the text refers to.


----------



## Q-cumber

*Piotr_WRF*
The second letter of the word looks very odd. It can virtually reperesent every second letter. However, I zoomed the picture in and made sure that *exactly the same* symbol was used for "Е" in the word "испов*Е*даний"; as well as in the word "свид*Е*телей". This symbol can't represent "O", because this letter is used twice in the same word and it looks pretty standard. It is very unlikely there might be a typo, because this word is used many times in the document and it is always written in the same manner. Moreover, it seems the copier knows this word very well, as he writes is kinda "automatically", like a signature.

PS The word is an adjective, indeed.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Q-cumber said:


> This symbol can't represent "O", because this letter is used twice in the same word and it looks pretty standard. It is very unlikely there might be a typo, because this word is used many times in the documents and it is always written in the same manner. Moreover, it seems the copier knows this word very well, as it writes is kinda "automatically", like a signature.


I see. I don't know how to interpret this. Maybe it's not the district of _Wola_ after all.


Q-cumber said:


> The word is an adjective, indeed.


Yes, but is _волянский_ the correct or "natural" adjective of _Воля_?


----------



## PocketWatch

> The first page is important but it's not complete - cut on the right and at the bottom.


The first page is up and scanned again, if anyone can read it I wonder if it includes an answer to the Wola thing. Could someone please check, because it seems like an interesting subject.


----------



## Q-cumber

Piotr_WRF said:


> Yes, but is _волянский_ the correct or "natural" adjective of _Воля_?



Hmm...It is generally possible, yet we can't be sure about this. The original noun might be "Воляны" (Wolyani) or "Волян" (Wolyan) or "Волянск" (Wolyansk), etc.


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> The first page is up and scanned again, if anyone can read it I wonder if it includes an answer to the Wola thing. Could someone please check, because it seems like an interesting subject.



What is the link? In fact there is a gap between the second and third pages.


----------



## PocketWatch

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...g?t=1178763392


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...g?t=1178763392



Error 404! Page not found


----------



## Piotr_WRF

PocketWatch said:


> http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p181/EdwardDocumentary/polishpaper1new.jpg?t=1178763392
> 
> There's a better scan of image #1 with the cut off part.


The link in this post works.


----------



## ljn1222

Hi,  
After reading that the 2nd letter looks like *E *I think this is _*Б*елянский_ from Bielany/ adj: bielański (pl) - but for me it looks more like *Y* (?)
The first letter significantly differs from the first letter of Warsaw (especially further in the text capital letter *B* (ru) is less ornamental).

As for me better adjective from _Воля _would be _Волский, _don't you think?

If it is not big problem for you, *Q-cumber* could you write this text in Cyrillic? I would like to read it in Russian, but I can't manage with the handwriting


----------



## Q-cumber

ljn1222 said:


> Hi,
> After reading that the 2nd letter looks like *E *I think this is _*Б*елянский_ from Bielany/ adj: bielański (pl) - but for me it looks more like *Y* (?)
> The first letter significantly differs from the first letter of Warsaw (especially further in the text capital letter *B* (ru) is less ornamental).



Yes, it might be "B" as well, I am not 100% sure about this letter. As to the "Warsaw", it always written a bit differently. I refered the first "Warsaw" on the first page. 



> As for me better adjective from _Воля _would be _Волский, _don't you think?



Yes, maybe. But this text is old enough, and the adjective might be of Polish or Russian origin.



> If it is not big problem for you, *Q-cumber* could you write this text in Cyrillic? I would like to read it in Russian, but I can't manage with the handwriting


No problem. But now I am at work. I'll try to do that tonight. 

Here below is a more complete transltion of the page one:



> "No 255
> Took place in Warsaw, in a chancery of a Civil State clerk for non-Christian confessions of a forth V(B)elyanskogo (?) district...July 27th August 8th <dates in two styles > in the year of 1899 at 11 in a morning. It was announced that in presence of the witnesses - David Amzel (Давид Амзель), 38 years old, a clicker <profession заготовщик? > number 1815 and Aaron Zelihover, 26 years old baker <пекарь> number 2352... both living in Warsaw," the religious marriage union has been concluded, on July 5  (17) of this year; between Shasya Mendel Morgenshtern <Шасю Менделемъ Моргенштернъ...then goes latin transcription of the name, which continues on the page two>"


Page two:


> ....Mendel Morgenshtern <in latin transliteration>, 20 years old, an unmarried bronze maker <бронзовщиком Bronzovshhikom> , born in the city of Lublin and temporarily residing in Warsaw under number 1797, a former <”б.”?> son of deceased Lev and Haya-Golda, nee Coopershtain, a married couple – Morgenshtern, with <here is “a” (but) in the text, but I suggested a typo - “c”> a maiden Etka Semyatytska <both latin and Cyrillic transliterations are provided, but they somewhat don't match >17 years from the date of birth, being kept under control of her father <при отце содержащаяся>, born in Warsaw, permanently residing under number 1797 <the same number as above – another error?  > and the daughter of David and deceased Martem (?), nee Goland - a married couple of Semyatytskie. This marriage was preceded by three publications (announcements) – on 19th June 1st June, 26th June 8th July and th<ird>...*here is a piece of text missing*


Page three:


> ...performed by the ecclesiastic <духовный> of the forth Vlyanskogo (Blyanskogo) district Judel Segal (?). This deed was read aloud to those present by us and it was signed by the *bridegroom* only / the rest <of the people> are illiterate <can't read or write>. The master <ведущий> of the Civil State Book of the 4th Vlyansky (Blyansky) district, Shtabs-captain Sankov, the ecclesiastic J. Segal, Shal (?) Mendel Morgenshtern....



Correction: the document was signed by the bridegroom only


----------



## Piotr_WRF

ljn1222 said:


> After reading that the 2nd letter looks like *E *I think this is _*Б*елянский_ from Bielany/ adj: bielański (pl) - but for me it looks more like *Y* (?)


_Bielański_ was my second guess, but _Bielany _only became a part of Warsaw in 1915, so I thought that it would be a little odd to refer to it as a district of Warsaw in 1899.


----------



## cyanista

You can see a clear "B" on page 3 of the document. (Бѣлянскаго участка...) The second letter is "yat". It doesn't exist in the modern Russian alphabet and is replaced with "e". So it almost surely corresponds Bielański in Polish.

Perhaps we've just made a historical discovery, Piotr!


----------



## Q-cumber

cyanista said:
			
		

> You can see a clear "B" on page 3 of the document. (Бѣлянскаго участка...) The second letter is "yat". It doesn't exist in the modern Russian alphabet and is replaced with "e". So it almost surely corresponds Bielański in Polish.
> 
> Perhaps we've just made a historical discovery, Piotr!


I agree: "Б" on the third page is more or less clear.

As to the "ять" (yat'), it  rather represented a diftong "ие" ("ie"), thus , indeed, it should be - Bielański
The letter was not in use anymore, at the moment the copier was performing the copy, this might be the reason his "yat'" looked somewhat odd.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

After reading the translations again I see that there isn't explicitly said that the _4th Bielański region_ is a district of Warsaw. It's written that the marriage took place in Warsaw though, in a chancery of the _4th Bielański region_ and that both the captain and the ecclesiastic were from the _4th Bielański region_.

I think that _Bielany_ were close enough that it could be considered as being in Warsaw at that time.

Now, I would like to know which part exactly was the 4th region of _Bielany_.


----------



## Q-cumber

Piotr_WRF said:


> After reading the translations again I see that there isn't explicitly said that the _4th Bielański region_ is a district of Warsaw. It's written that the marriage took place in Warsaw though, in a chancery of the _4th Bielański region_ and that both the captain and the ecclesiastic were from the _4th Bielański region_.



Small correction: the document says that the *office * of a Civil State clerk ... of a forth 4th Bielański region is located in Warsaw.  However this doesn't necessary  mean the borough itself belongs to Warsaw.


----------



## Q-cumber

* ljn1222*
*The text in Russian (a bit adapted to the modern spelling):*

Состоялось в Варшаве, в канцелярии Чиновника Гражданского Состояния Нехристианских Исповеданий четвёртого Белянского участка двадцать седьмого Июля восьмого Августа 1899 года в одиннадцать часов утра. Объявлялось что в присутствии свидетелей Давида Амзель тридцати восьми лет заготовщика под номером 1815 и Арона Желиховер двадцати шести лет пекаря под номером 2352 в Варшаве проживающих заключён религиозный брачный союз пятого семнадцатого Июля сего года между Шаею Менделем Моргенштерн <latin transcription>  двадцати лет холостым бронзовщиком родившимся в городе Люблине временно проживающим в Варшаве по номером 1797 б. сыном умершего Лева и Хаи Голды урождённой Куперштайн супругов  Моргенштерн – а девицею Эшкою Семятыцкою <latin transcription>  семнадцати лет от роду при отце содержащеюся родившейся в Варшаве постоянно проживающею под номером 1797 и дочерью Давида и умершей Мартем (?) урождённой Голянд супругов  Семятыцких. Браку сему предшествовали три оглашения девятнадцатого Июня первого Июня двадцать шестого Июня восьмого Июля и тре.........

...совершал духовный  четвёртого Белянского участка Юдель Сегал. Настоящий акт присутствующим прочитан нами и новобрачным только подписан //остальные неграмотные. Ведущий Книги Гражданского Состояния IV  Белянского участка штабс капитан Санков, Духовный Ю. Сегал,  Шая Мендель Моргенштерн.


----------



## PocketWatch

Q-Cumber, I found the missing gap between pages 2 and 3:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p181/EdwardDocumentary/pol5.jpg

What does it say?


----------



## Q-cumber

*PocketWatch*
OK then:

<This marriage was preceded by three publications (announcements) – on 19th June 1st June, 26th June 8th July and th>ird fifteenth July this year. The newlyweds announced that there were no marriage contract between them. The religious ceremony was <performed by the ecclesiastic  of the forth Bielański  district Judel Segal.> 

...<Браку сему предшествовали три оглашения девятнадцатого Июня первого Июня двадцать шестого Июня восьмого Июля и тре>тьего пятнадцатого Июля сего года. Новобрачные объявили что между ними брачного договора не было. Религиозный обряд<...совершал духовный четвёртого Белянского участка Юдель Сегал>.


----------



## PocketWatch

> The newlyweds announced that there were no marriage contract between them.


Wait what exactly does that mean? Does that mean previous marriage contract?


----------



## Q-cumber

PocketWatch said:


> Wait what exactly does that mean? Does that mean previous marriage contract?



    Yes, I guess so. This part isn't very clear to me. However, please notice that more likely the "marriage contract" (брачный договор) here isn't what you normally realise upon hearing these words.
    My version is as follows: At the mentionioned time, it was allowed to choose between several religious (and, perhaps, non-religious - official) marriage ceremonies. However, "double-registrations" were not allowed. Thus newlyweds had to declare there were no previous marriage contracts (areements) set between them.


----------



## ljn1222

A lot of thanks, *Q-cumber*. Now I can add something more to your translation, please correct it if you think I am wrong.
- the name of the groom is Shaya Mendel (Polish declension also confirms this) 
- I think that the second name of the groom's mother was Galda (_Г__а__лда_): connection of _ол_ is different, like in: _холостым, Голянд_
- the name of bride's mother might be Marta, I don't know Russian declension, is the right case_ Мартем_? or alternative (more convincing for me): Maria, in text: _Мар.*i*.ем _?, is it a mixture of a Cyrillic and latin alphabet ?, acc. to me this dash doesn't belong to 't' but to _и_ in _Давида_ above (I think the position of dash differentiates written _п-и_ and _т-ш_).


----------



## Q-cumber

ljn1222 said:


> A lot of thanks, *Q-cumber*. Now I can add something more to your translation, please correct it if you think I am wrong.
> - the name of the groom is Shaya Mendel (Polish declension also confirms this)
> - I think that the second name of the groom's mother was Galda (_Г__а__лда_): connection of _ол_ is different, like in: _холостым, Голянд_
> - the name of bride's mother might be Marta, I don't know Russian declension, is the right case_ Мартем_? or alternative (more convincing for me): Maria, in text: _Мар.*i*.ем _?, is it a mixture of a Cyrillic and latin alphabet ?, acc. to me this dash doesn't belong to 't' but to _и_ in _Давида_ above (I think the position of dash differentiates written _п-и_ and _т-ш_).


Hi *ljn1222*!
Yes, Shaya (Шая) is correct. Shasya was just a typo in English variant 
Re.: "Galda". Indeed, the word looks more like "Galda", but I've never ever heard such a name. At the same time, Golda is a quite common Jewish name. However, should the name Galda exist, we might consider it correct here. 
>  Маriem (Марiемъ) is possible. Your suggestions seem to be reasonable. By the way, the letter *"i"* existed in the old Russian alphabet, both with one and two dots.


----------

