Matas Pretorijus Klaipėdietis apie tris XVI–XVII a. baltiškus tekstus
Matthaeus Praetorius of Klaipėda on Three Baltic Texts from the 16th–17th Centuries

Summary/Abstract: In the five-chapter volume XVI entitled Lingua Prussica (The Prussian Language), which was partially published in his work Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne (The Curiosities of Prussia, or The Prussian Spectacle), Matthaeus Praetorius of Klaipėda (c. 1635–1704) examined the origin, alphabet, and dialects of the Old Prussian language. He explored its relationship with other European languages, delving into language classification, the attribution of Old Prussian to other language groups, the state of the Prussian language in the mid-17th century, and the historical circumstances that led to its decline. Praetorius regarded languages as a defining trait of the ethnic identity of a community. For 23 years, he served in Lithuanian churches of Lithuania (Prussia) Minor, in Klaipėda and Nybudžiai (Ger. Niebudschen). This article examines new information he provides about three Baltic texts: a 17th-century catechism in the Nadruvian language; insights into the Our Father prayer in the Verulian/Herulian language; and a report about Melchiorus Schwabe’s editing of the Lithuanian translation of the Bible by Jonas Bretkūnas. Based on two surviving manuscripts of volume XVI, The Prussian Language, the article presents the text of the catechism in the Nadruvian language and the Our Father prayer in the Verulian/Herulian language. The study investigates the language that Praetorius referred to as the Nadruvian language, concluding that he claimed it was the 17th-century Prussian Lithuanian language used in the historical Prussian regions of Nadruva, Skalva, and Sūduva, whose original language was Old Prussian altered through contact with other languages. A comparison of the catechism’s Ten Commandments and the Our Father prayer, as published by Praetorius with the corresponding texts in the 1612 catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas–Lazarus Sengstock and the 1709 quadrilingual catechism, demonstrates that Praetorius’ version was an independent translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism into the Prussian Lithuanian language, with some Prussian words inserted. The following conclusions are drawn: the catechism was a manuscript translated and distributed at the initiative of the clergy; it was translated by one or more unknown Lutheran clergymen serving in Lithuanian churches in the historical regions of Nadruva, Skalva, and Sūduva, i.e., in the central, northern, and eastern parts of Lithuania (Prussia) Minor; and the preparation of this manuscript reflects clerical efforts to compensate for a 58-year period during which Lithuanian catechisms were not printed. It is suspected that one of the translators may have been Melchiorus Schwabe, a priest from Valtarkiemis (Ger. Walterkehmen). It is also proposed that the text of the catechism published by Praetorius should be regarded as a resource for studying the history of 17th-century language, the processes of language change and convergence in the territories of Nadruva, Skalva, and Sūduva, and the linguistic context of the time. The article examines Praetorius’ reflections on the Our Father prayer in the Verulian/ Herulian language, reprinted in Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia (Basel, 1550) and Wolf- gang Lazius’ De gentium aliquot migrationibus, sedibus fixis, reliquiis, linguarumque initiis (Basel, 1600). It has been established that Praetorius copied the prayer from Lazius’ book. Praetorius concluded that the prayer was written, in his words, in the so-called Curonian – or Kursenieki – language; he claimed that “this language is still used in Riga and throughout the stretch between Riga and Klaipėda, even as far as Labguva in Prussia, and also in Skalva.” Since he had been assigned to serve in villages on the Curonian Spit where the Kursenieki language was spoken, and considering the 1684 list of parish villages of the Klaipėda Lithuanian Church compiled 23 years after Praetorius served there, it is assumed that his parishioners spoke Kursenieki, and he was likely familiar with the language as well. The article presents Praetorius’ thoughts on the translation of the prayer into the Kursenieki language (Book XVI, Chapter II, § 8). He argued that the Prussian, Lithuanian, and Curonian languages were closely related, and believed them all to be derived from Old Prussian. The article concludes that Praetorius demonstrated independent reasoning in determining the language in which the text was written; he contributed new information about the use of the Kursenieki language in the second half of the 17th century and hypothesised that it may also have been spoken by fishermen in Sambia. He also proposed his own hypothesis on how speakers of this language might have ended up in Mecklenburg. His observations on the text constitute an underused source for the history of research on the Prussian, Curonian, and Lithuanian languages. Finally, the article also examines Praetorius’ knowledge about Melchiorus Schwabe’s editing of the Lithuanian translation of the Bible by Jonas Bretkūnas. It has been determined that this information is new and confirms the suggestions made by Gottfried Ostermeyer and Michael Mörlin about Schwabe’s work on the Bible translation, while also increasing the likelihood that the manuscript of Schwabe’s compiled work entitled Hortulus Biblicus (The Little Garden) indeed existed. Volume XVI of Praetorius’ work The Curiosities of Prussia, or The Prussian Spectacle is a valuable historical source for understanding the 17th-century lexicon of Prussian Lithuanians, the processes of language change, the history of Lithuanian written culture, and the history of Baltic linguistic research.

• Details
• Contents