Parish name or town name in certificates from German churches

By mawyn on Fri, 12/16/2022 - 11:32

Forums

I have several items written by German parish offices that certify information from church book entries. Some of them are completely typewritten. Others make use of preprinted forms with the information either typed or written in. These items provide the necessary information for use with the guidelines given in "Derivatives: Copies & Compilations" in EE 7.24 and 7.25 on pages 340-1.

Most churches in Germany have official names, like "St. Paulus". Most of the items in my collection, however, name only the town where the church is located and do not include the name of the church. For example in front of me I have a filled out, preprinted certificate that states the information is from the "ev.-luth. Kirchengemeinde Lachem", i.e. the Lutheran parish in Lachem. I looked this up in the Internet and determined that the congregation's name is "St. Paulus".

I see two options for formatting this item:

Amalia Charlotta Heise baptism entry (1754); certified abstract issued 1959 by Edwin Wegner, Pastor, St. Paulus (Lachem, Hessisch Oldendorf, Landkreis Hameln-Pyrmont, Niedersachsen, Germany), citing Geburts- und Taufregister 1754, no. 14, 15 July 1754; privately held by XYZ, Berlin, Germany. Photocopy supplied by XYZ 1998.

or:

Amalia Charlotta Heise baptism entry (1754); certified abstract issued 1959 by Edwin Wegner, Pastor, Lachem parish (Lachem, Hessisch Oldendorf, Landkreis Hameln-Pyrmont, Niedersachsen, Germany), citing Geburts- und Taufregister 1754, no. 14, 15 July 1754; privately held by XYZ, Berlin, Germany. Photocopy supplied by XYZ 1998.

In order to be able to localize Lachem precisely I had to research the internet to find the exact administrative entities. Similarly, I had to research the internet to determine that the congregation's name is "St. Paulus".

My personal preference would be to use the version with the congregation's name because it provides more detailed information, but by doing so am I really "citing the source I used"? As an alternative I could use the second option and add a note about the church's name:

Amalia Charlotta Heise baptism entry (1754); certified abstract issued 1959 by Edwin Wegner, Pastor, Lachem parish (Lachem, Hessisch Oldendorf, Landkreis Hameln-Pyrmont, Niedersachsen, Germany), citing Geburts- und Taufregister 1754, no. 14, 15 July 1754; privately held by XYZ, Berlin, Germany. Photocopy supplied by XYZ 1998. According to online research the church's name in Lachem is "St. Paulus".

I suppose that is probably the most precise way to do it, but I would still personally prefer to use the first option. What is EE's take on this?

 

Similarly, the online images of the German "Nebenkirchenbücher" (official church book copies) normally only specify the name of the town and not the actual name of the church. Is it preferable to specify the name of the church (EE 314), or merely the name of the town and maybe add the church's name in a note? Again, my own preference - not only because it's more helpful but also because it's shorter - would be to use the church's name.

 

Thanks for your input,

Matthew

 

 

Submitted byEEon Sat, 12/17/2022 - 13:59

mawynon, your alternative citation would be the most accurate. Always, it is good to research the entity and the locale. But the information we find, and add, may or may not be accurate for the time period in which the record itself was created. Churches do change their names across generations and centuries.

EE would use your alternate citation with perhaps the modifications below:

Amalia Charlotta Heise baptism entry (1754); certified abstract issued 1959 by Edwin Wegner, Pastor, Lachem parish (Lachem, Hessisch Oldendorf, Landkreis Hameln-Pyrmont, Niedersachsen, Germany), citing Geburts- und Taufregister 1754, no. 14, 15 July 1754; privately held by XYZ, Berlin, Germany.  photocopy supplied by XYZ 1998. The current name of the Evangelical Lutheran church in Lachem is "St. Paulus".

With regard to the "privately held by ..." phrase that you used, the statement seems to say that the register you just identified is privately held by XYZ.  If that is the case, certainly it should be reported in your citation. But if you meant to say that the certificate you received is "privately held" then that phrase should be deleted.  As corollaries:

  • If we cite a published book we would not be expected to add that the book is privately held by us, would we?
  • If we cite a certificate or abstract sent to us by an archive and we cite the archive that holds the original and sent us the copy, then we add no value to the citation by saying that that the copy is privately held by us. That's the given most readers would assume.
  • If we inherit a piece of paper as a family artifact, then we describe it as an artifact and say that is is privately held by XYZ.

Submitted bymawynon Sun, 12/18/2022 - 05:08

Thanks for your input.

In 1998 when the owner of the certificate sent me the photocopy I now own, the original was indeed in his own personal collection. It is now 24 years later and to be honest I don't even know if the man is still alive. Should I mention that in the note? Maybe something like this:

...; privately held by XYZ, Berlin, Germany in 1998. Photocopy supplied by XYZ 1998

mawyn, if we did not personally receive the certificate from the church--but, rather, obtained it from another person--we definitely want to identify the channel through which we received it. That is a habit that serves us well in unexpected situations. While your own source may have been scrupulously reliable, the research world is littered with "documents" created and/or altered and then put into circulation by individuals with something to
"prove" that could not otherwise be proved.

Your addition would be wise. It might also be combined into one statement by saying "provided in 1998 by XYZ of Whatever Locale, to ZYX of Wherever," with you being ZYX.