Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1626
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Literate or illiterate or semiliterate and receiving money
This Money Transfer Form / Domestic Money Order for 1 ruble was sent in 1906. Please feel free to add information or provide corrections.
From: Drogichin II, Grodno gub. 12 August 1906, serial 2. Listed as being on the Polesskiya railways in 1915.
To: Antopol', Grodno gub., arriving 13 August 1906. Note the large and small postmarks for receipt and dispatch using different serial numbers.
Antopol' was approximately 16 miles from Drogichin.
Both are listed as small towns in 1915/1916. According to Robinson and Kiryushkin, Drogichin and Anatopol' changed status to a PO in 1891 and to a
PTO in 1900. Both are in Belarus today.
When delivering the money, the addressee had to sign for it. One encounters many auxiliary marks used by the various office with the same basic
information. If the person was not literate and could not write, we often note the phrase "negramotnii/aya" in manuscript, if the person could not
sign for the item.
The cachet on this form presents a slightly different picture, i.e., a person could be literate (gramotnii), illiterate (ne-gramotnii), or only a
semiliterate (malo-gramotnii). The cachet reads:
na _____ rub. _ kop.
vydan po/malo gramotnomu poluchatelyu ---
(manuscript) pod rospisku na povestke -----
Nachal'nik Pochtovo-
???
signed
Since the part about literacy has been crossed out in total, I still do not see a signature from the addressee. What did the Russians use to evaluate
the 3 levels of literacy back then?
Thanks for any help. Front of MTF below
|
|
|
Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1626
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
back of form
|
|
|
Unhinged
Major Philatelist
Posts: 117
Registered: 11/8/2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't know anything about levels of literacy, but I do notice that the stamp in the lower right of the front has had part of it crossed out. Why
would the "tel." part have been obliterated on this one stamp? It sure doesn't look like an accident.
|
|
|
Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1626
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The tel. otd. part of the postmark pocht. tel. otd. could have been over inked or there was a piece of debris that got in the way. See the
cancellation on the indicium since it looks OK.
|
|
|
David Jay
Major Philatelist
Posts: 417
Registered: 1/24/2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Interesting -- what does the Roman numeral II at the top mean?
Does it match the serial two, or indicate a second office, or?
|
|
|
Gary
Deceased
Posts: 1626
Registered: 10/18/2002
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
According to Robinson and Kiryushkin, Drogichin II was located in Grodno gub. in Kobrin uezd. Drogichin (no letter) was located in Grodno gub. in
Belostok uezd, but did not become a PTO until 1916. In the postal guides/lists, Drogichin is listed from 1871, while with a "I" or a "II" only from
1911 (source Reverse Sort).
In the 1915 Postal Guide, Drogichin is located as a stop on the Polessliya railways line from Brest to Elets at a distance of 91 v. from Brest.
Drogichin II is listed as a small town (mestechko) with a PTO located 7.25 v. from Drogichin.
The 1916 Postal List helps clear it up a bit.
Drogichin I: a provincial town that has lost its status as an administrative center. Located on the route Drogichin I to Semyatichi (P.T.K.).
Drogichin II: a small town close to a location with the same name station on the Brest-Bryansk line of the Polesskiya Railways.
|
|
|
![[*]](./images/samovar/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
