I have 4 records from Hoheneiche, from 1667, 1668, 1680, and 1684, that give the basics for 3 generations of a family. I've not found any other records for this family. However, I'm also unable to connect them to any known Schweitzers in northern Hesse; all other known Schwei(t)zer families were at least 10 km away from Hoheneiche. However, that area of Hesse had quite a few Schnitzer families in all of the neighboring towns. I'm wondering if my transcription of these entries is in error. Is the name in these entries "Schweizer", or "Schnitzer"?

enter image description here

d. 1 th 7bris Hanß Rudolphß Söhnl. durch seinen pattern Henrich Georg Schweizer Sohn: nach Jungen gesellen zur Hoheneiche

enter image description here

d. 5t. Novbr. Juvenis Johannes Christoph Kauffmans [itzig?] Meyerß zu Hornel eheleibl. Sohn u. Virgo Anna Sidonia Georg Schweizer geweßenen einwohnerß zur Hoheneiche ehel. Tochter.

enter image description here

5 July Henrich Schweizers tochter Elisabeth

enter image description here

13th 7br Juv. Henrich, Jost Schwitzerß seel. Shrebmüllerß ehel. sohn

Here's an example of what is definitely "Schweitzer" in Kurrentschrift (from Bebra in 1871): enter image description here

  • Doesn't that squiggly thing usually mark a 'u'?
    – JPmiaou
    Commented Feb 8 at 14:32
  • If you mean the O with the \/ horns on top, that's a capital "S" in Kurrent script.
    – BrianFreud
    Commented Feb 8 at 20:24

1 Answer 1


This isn't really an answer, but I don't think I can do images in comments, so.

In a couple of those examples, I'm seeing the squiggly-thingy that normally marks a 'u'.


I also don't see any sign of a letter that could be 'w' in any of the examples, so whatever those names are, I don't think Schweitzer is it.

  • It's definitely difficult; www.kurrentschrift.net/index.php?s=alphabet has the Kurrent alphabet. In that alphabet, 'w', 'n', 'm', and 'e' can all look very very similar, especially if the priest was writing quickly or sloppily. Those "squiggles" could indicate umlauts, or they could be a line over a letter indicating that the letter is doubled (n with a line over it = nn), but in these cases I think they're just the dot on the letter 'i'.
    – BrianFreud
    Commented Feb 11 at 19:24
  • Latin used the squiggle for doubled letters, yes, but in Kurrentschrift, I've never seen it for anything other than marking a 'u'. (Dunno why they didn't feel it necessary to mark 'e' versus 'n'.)
    – JPmiaou
    Commented Feb 12 at 0:54
  • In that first screenshot, it's clearly not the dot on the 'i', since that's there next to it.
    – JPmiaou
    Commented Feb 12 at 0:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.