Mato Pretorijaus mitinės medžiagos apie ąžuolą verifikacija

LTStraipsnyje apžvelgiama ir verifikuojama Mato Pretorijaus (Matthäus Prätorius) veikale „Prūsijos įdomybės, arba Prūsijos regykla“ (Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne, XVII a. pabaiga) pateikta mitinė informacija, tiesiogiai susijusi su ąžuolu. Lygia greta aptariamos žymesnių XX ir XXI a. tyrėjų, nagrinėjusių Pretorijaus užfiksuotą medžiagą apie ąžuolą, interpretacijos. Remiantis Pretorijaus užfiksuotų mitologinių duomenų apie ąžuolą analizės rezultatais, išskiriami penki pagrindiniai autoriaus interpretacinės sistemos bruožai. XX ir XXI a. tyrimų kontekstas atskleidė, jog ankstesnių laikotarpių mokslininkai nagrinėjamos Pretorijaus mitinės medžiagos patikimumo nesvarstė arba svarstė fragmentiškai. Tyrimas taip pat atskleidė Pretorijaus aprašytų mitinių duomenų, tiesiogiai susijusių su ąžuolu, nevienodo patikimumo tendenciją. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Autentiškumas; Baltų religija ir mitologija; Matas Pretorijus; Mato Pretorijaus autentiškumas; Romava; Ąžuolas; Authenticity; Baltic religion and mythology; Matthaeus Praetorius; Oak; Religion and mythology of Balt's; Romava; The authenticity of M. Praetorius.

ENPerdoytus, Wejopattis, Gardouten, Bangpjtjs, Luobgelda (partly Bardoayts) in the context of the 16th–17th centuries was already in the focus of some previous publications. The performed research revealed certain tendency of information noise manifesting in transmission of inaccurate data / ideas / thoughts – information X – to another person; therefore, it makes sense to continue analyzing the reliability of the mythical material by Praetorius. The article aims at verifying the reliability of the mythical information about the oak provided in the work by Praetorius, as well as reviewing and evaluating the interpretations on the oak by the well-known researchers of the 20th–21st centuries, who have analyzed the selected data of Praetorius. According to the results of the analysis, the aim of the articles is also highlighting the main features of the individual authors’ interpretative system. As revealed by the analysis of interpretations of Praetorius’ mythical material, the researchers of the 20th–21st centuries used and viewed Praetorius’ information in two ways. They either (1) did not consider the issue of authenticity of the Praetorius’ mythical data on oak, regarding it as sufficiently reliable and suitable to use in their scientific publications (Petras Klimas, Jonas Bertulaitis, Aukusti Robert Niemi, Marija Gimbutienė, Pranė Dundulienė, Nijolė Laurinkienė, Elvyra Usačiovaitė); or (2) understood the problem of verification of the material and tried solving it to some extent (Zenonas Slaviūnas, Gintaras Beresnevičius, Dainius Elertas). Before assessing the authenticity of Praetorius’ mythical material on oak, it must be said that most of the information provided in the first chapter of the fourth book of the work are inauthentic rewrites, but the sixth and twenty-sixth subchapters and the twenty-fourth subchapter of the fifth chapter are considered to be authentic mythical data.As for the reliability of sketches, the sketch of "Romava ąžuolas" (Romava Oak) as well as the painting of "Ąžuolas Ragainės lauke" (The Oak on the Ragainė Field) are considered partially authentic. Regarding the features of the Praetorius’ interpretative system, it may be said that: 1) written sources are used; 2) they are viewed in three ways: positively / negatively / ambiguously; 3) mythical data is interpreted linguistically; 4) assumptions are constructed using information from the chronicles and material from the contemporaries; 5) sketches of mythologemes are made. [From the publication]

• Etnologija / Ethnology
• Kalbotyra / Linguistics