Pilypo Ruigio jaunesniojo ir Mato Pretorijaus Klaipėdiečio asmeniniai, visuomeniniai ir intelektualiniai saitai
Connections Between Philipp Ruhig Jr. and Matthaeus Praetorius of Klaipėda

Summary/Abstract: This article examines the connections between Philipp Ruhig Jr (Pilypas Ruigys, Philippus Ruhigius, 1675–1749) and Matthaeus Praetorius of Klaipėda (Matas Pretorijus Klaipėdietis, Matthaeus Praetorius Memelensis, c. 1635–1704). The biographical details of Ruhig and Praetorius provide a basis for the exploration of the personal ties between their families. The study discusses their professional backgrounds, the significance of their cultural activities, and their contributions to Lithuanian studies. It is established that Ruhig relied on three of Praetorius’ works: his book Orbis Gothicus, the now-lost manuscript of the biography of Theophilus Schultz, and volume XVI of Deliciae Prussicae (1731), which concerned the Prussian language. The conclusion is reached that both men and their backgrounds were connected by shared goals, collaborative work, the ability to respond to the challenges of their time, the questions that they posed, and the work that they produced. Finally, both belonged to what sociology refers to as a small social group, united by service in Lithuanian churches, the preparation of Lithuanian texts, and efforts in shaping the Lithuanian written language. This was the most important link between them, despite the generational gap. Based on an analysis of the books that Ruhig and Praetorius used in their works, conclusions are drawn about their professional and intellectual ties. It is established that both relied on the major works of chroniclers from the 15th–17th centuries, European historians, and authors from Antiquity, descriptions of the customs of European societies and of the Duchy of Prussia, as well as philological works. It is also concluded that Ruhig and Praetorius relied on an intellectual perspective shaped by scholars of European national histories and philology. However, Ruhig worked independently in expanding his selected bibliography, compiling it competently, and adapting it to the more specialised study of language; he drew more heavily on the works of European – particularly English – philologists from the 16th–17th centuries. The article thus investigates the questions on which the two shared common views and those of Praetorius’ claims and perspectives that Ruhig debated. A comparison of their writings on the Prussian and Lithuanian languages demonstrates that Ruhig adopted from Praetorius a model for describing languages which was characteristic of European cultural historians, applying it to the study of the Lithuanian language in the same manner that Praetorius used to describe the Prussian language. For both, issues of language kinship, language classification, and the search for the proto-language of Prussian and Lithuanian were important. Ruhig often reflected on Praetorius’ ideas – sometimes adopting them, sometimes simply recounting them, and sometimes challenging them. Their opinions diverged on the origins of the Prussian and Lithuanian languages and their classification into language groups, as well as on the definition of language and dialect. However, both approached the concept of a proto-language. Ruhig made use of and sometimes significantly expanded the lists of lexical examples from Lithuanian and other languages that Praetorius had compiled for comparative purposes. The two men were also connected by their fascination with folk culture. Ruhig adopted Praetorius’ historiographical position that the folk culture of the Prussian Lithuanians (Lietuvininkai) was valuable; an idea that later fostered discussions among subsequent generations about the status of the Prussian Lithuanian language. Their shared conviction and main thesis – that common speech should form the basis of written language – arose not only from specific needs for the renewal of the written language, but also from the recognition that this language was inherently valuable.

• Details
• Contents