Archivum Lithuanicum

The biography of Philipp Ruhig the Younger (1675–1749), pastor, Bible translator, and dictionary author, has been preserved only in fragments, with his childhood and early youth in particular remaining shrouded in mystery. The newly discovered Chronicle of the Parish of Kattenau by Hermann Pilzecker, who was pastor in Kattenau from 1924 to 1937, documents details of his family’s precarious living conditions due to the early death of his father, Philipp Ruhig the Elder. Given that Philipp Ruhig, as his later academic work suggests, nevertheless received a very good school education and was ultimately able to complete a university degree, it can be concluded that he had access to a corresponding network, which was presumably also facilitated by family connections. This article therefore traces the genealogical relationships of the paternal line, while the maternal line must be disregarded due to the frequency of the surname Schultz. Based on the facts known to date about Philipp Ruhig’s genealogy, in particular the fact that his great-grandfather George Ruhig was mayor of Liebenwerda in Saxony, he was identified in the historical sources of the town of Liebenwerda and the role of the Ruhig family in the history of this town was investigated. In this context, it was also possible to trace the origin of the surname Ruhig back to (Lower) Sorbian. In addition, traces were sought of the family of Philipp Ruhig’s grandmother, Barbara Siller, whose brother Martin Siller and nephew of the same name were found to have lived in Rostock (Mecklenburg).

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.

Narodowa w Warszawie), a letter was found written in 1742 by famous London-based polyglot and native of Klaipėda David Wilkins (1685–1745), addressed to the Prussian General Superintendent Johann Jacob Quandt (1686–1772). It reveals new information about the Meletema – a study of the Lithuanian language by Philipp Ruhig (1675–1749), a priest based in Walterkehmen. The work was sent to London in 1735 but was not published, and the manuscript was not returned; for a long time, it was unknown whether it had even reached the recipient. The first publication of Meletema, including a facsimile, transcription, and translation into Lithuanian, was prepared in 1986 by Vytautas Jurgutis and Valerija Vilnonytė, with translation by Vytautas Jurgutis and Kazys Eigminas. The manuscript is now kept in Vilnius, at the National Museum of Lithuania. Ruhig’s linguistic manuscript was intended to be printed in a multilingual Bible, for which Wilkins was already collecting texts and the necessary typefaces. Wilkins informed his friend Quandt about the project in a 1742 letter, asking him to send studies by Prussian scholars on the origins, dialects, and relationships of four languages – Polish, Muscovite, Estonian, and Latvian – which he planned to include at the beginning of the volume. He wrote that he had already collected biblical texts in 21 European languages and that he already possessed “the dissertation on the Lithuanian language by the famous Mr. Ruhig, a priest from Insterburg, both excellent and learned”. These circumstances raise doubts about whether Ruhig’s Meletema reached London through Quandt.

Philipp Ruhig (1675–1749) played a key role in the development of the Lithuanian language in 18th-century East Prussia, both through his work on Bible translation and as a lexicographer. No less important is his book Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache (Königsberg, 1745), in which he attempted to define the origins of the Lithuanian language. This work was one of the first scholarly attempts to compare languages, and the first to include data on the Lithuanian language in such an analysis. The aim of this paper is to establish Ruhig’s comparative method, with particular attention paid to his approach to historical phonetics.

This article explores the extent to which Philipp Ruhig’s Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache (1745) features basic elements of a historical-comparative grammar of the Baltic languages, and thereby anticipates later developments in the discipline. It is demonstrated that Ruhig’s approach to the question of the history of Lithuanian in particular, and Baltic more generally, is conceptually akin to our modern approach: he conceives of Lithuanian as an entity with a particular history. While also making use of non-linguistic data, he then employs a comparative approach to try to establish this history, comparing linguistic data from different languages (such as Lithuanian, Old Prussian, Slavic languages, and Greek) with the help of correspondence sets. At the same time, it must be conceded that Ruhig’s approach is underdeveloped in the sense that he does not attempt to go beyond what he subjectively perceives as obvious similarity in order to establish clear-cut, systematic regularities and processes of language change. In this he deviates considerably from our modern methodology, instead aligning with the scholarly traditions of his predecessors and contemporaries. It can thus be shown that, while he does indeed approach Baltic language history more comprehensively than his predecessors, Ruhig is still very much a child of his time.

A quiet discussion on possible “theological” corrections in the oldest Baltic texts has been unfolding among scholars since the late 20th century. To date, such corrections have been identified in an episodic and unsystematic manner, and a unified effort is likely to emerge only once a critical mass of cases has been gathered, making evident the need for a structured investigation. William R. Schmalstieg discussed several such corrections distinguishing the first and second Old Prussian catechisms (1545), while Letas Palmaitis, in comparing the Creed across all three editions, raised the possibility that the first catechism may have been banned as heretical. By extending the scope beyond Old Prussian, another potential instance of “theological” correction now emerges in the case of Mažvydas’ Lithuanian Forma Chrikſtima (1559), which I have shown, contrary to prevailing opinion, was translated from the German Form der Tauff (1559). Viewed in this light, specific lexical choices made in Mažvydas’ translation may now be reconsidered as intentional theological corrections.

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.

This article examines whether Samuel Bogusław Chyliński used forms from the Eastern Aukštaitian dialects in his Bible translation that are not characteristic of his native Western Aukštaitian dialect. Four such words have been identified in the Old Testament: ąsa (acc. du. usi, gen. pl. uſu), brandalas (gen. sg. brundała), lęšis (gen. pl. liszu), and randas (nom. sg. rundas). A comparison with the different editions of Konstantinas Sirvydas’ dictionary shows that these forms may have been taken from the 3rd edition. In the case of the verb tyst, it is unclear whether it corresponds to the standard language verb tęsti (and thus would also be an Eastern Aukštaitian form) or tįsti. The Polish equivalents of most of these words in the Polish Gdańsk Bible do not match the Polish terms used by Sirvydas, which suggests that Chyliński himself translated the Dutch words into Polish and then searched for their Lithuanian equivalents in the dictionary. No Eastern Aukštaitian dialect forms appear in the New Testament. The presence of Polish words (mosiądz ‘copper’, tęcza ‘rainbow’, słoniowa kość ‘ivory’) as well as blank spaces indicates that Chyliński did not use Sirvydas’ dictionary to translate this part of the Bible. The corresponding terms in the Old Testament (skaistavaris ‘copper’, kilpinis dangaus ‘rainbow’, elefanto kaulas ‘ivory’) match the 3rd edition of Sirvydas’ dictionary.

Recent advances in Kristijonas Donelaitis (1714–1780) studies have substantially enriched the biographical and documentary record of Donelaitis’s life and work, bringing to light a remarkable volume of previously unknown archival materials from repositories in Germany and the United States of America. These newly identified sources – ranging from administrative correspondence and parish registers to autograph manuscripts – significantly expand our understanding of Donelaitis’s social environment, professional activity, and private life. Among the most revealing findings are official reports from Stalupėnai (Ger. Stallupönen) describing him as frail and in poor health, contrasted with his own later notes that depict him as vigorous, industrious, and remarkably resilient, suggesting a strategic rather than factual use of illness rhetoric. Equally important are discoveries concerning his wife, Anna Regina: parish registers confirm that before marrying Donelaitis she had been the wife of the Stalupėnai school rector Gottlieb Jacob Gehrich, with whom she had a daughter for whom Donelaitis himself served as godfather – an entirely new biographical insight. Furthermore, the rediscovery of three complete photographic copies of the long-lost Tolminkiemis (Ger. Tollmingkehmen) baptismal register (1725–1754), preserved in Leipzig and Salt Lake City, represents a major addition to Donelaitis scholarship, reproducing over 1300 baptismal entries and numerous marginal notes in his own hand. Newly published archival materials also illuminate Donelaitis’s practical and artistic activities, including documents on collaboration with the renowned organ builder Adam Gottlob Casparini, several German-language autographs concerning church repairs and liturgical objects, and records linking his brother, the Königsberg goldsmith Friedrich Donelaitis, to the making of a new communion chalice for the Tolminkiemis church. Together, these discoveries offer a richer and more nuanced portrait of Donelaitis as both pastor and cultural figure within the Prussian Lithuanian milieu of the 18th century.

In the Surinkimininkai (worshipers of the home-prayer services) hymnal Maʒos Giesmju Knygeles (Tilsit, 1819), which was likely prepared by preacher and teacher (Lith. šulmistras) Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis (c. 1775–before 1856), there is an eight-stanza anonymous hymn marked as No. 8 entitled “Aß tikt driſu, apie ta Sʒlowe”. An unknown translator rendered this hymn from the hymn “Ich wills wagen :,: von der schönen pracht”, which was published in the hymnal Kern Alter und Neuer geiſtreicher Lieder (Königsberg, 1752) by Königsberg Pietist and professor of theology Franz Albert Schultz (1692–1763). It has been established that the author of this German hymn was the spiritual leader of the Moravian Brethren and a Pietist, Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700–1760). The text published in Schultz’s hymnal, from which the Lithuanian version was translated, is compilatory. It comprises four different hymns attributed to Count Zinzendorf: “ICh wils wagen :,: von der ſchönen pracht”, “UN ſre ʒeiten :,: ſind in deiner hand”, “HErʒenskönig :,: unſer ʒeugenchor ſagt dir wenig”,“HErʒ der triebe :,: hier iſt eine ſchaar”. With some essential editorial changes, the translation of Zinzendorf’s hymn “Aß tikt driſu, apie ta Sʒlowe” was reprinted in the main hymnal of the Surinkimininkai movement: Wiſſokios Naujos Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai (Tilsit, 1825). In the second half of the 19th century, this translation also appeared in other Lithuanian hymnals. However, unlike in the Surinkimininkai hymnals, the translation was abridged and structurally altered. The superintendent of Tilsit, Karl Wilhelm Otto Glogau (1805–1875), decided not to include the full text in the school hymnal 64 Gieſmes […] Sʒuilēms (Tilsit, 1862); he printed only the fifth stanza, beginning with the words “Pilnos Rankos”. Another instance of abridgment occurred in the collection of melodies Gieſmiu Balſai (Heidelberg, Tilsit, 1894), prepared by, among others, the superintendent of Tilsit, Karl Theodor Waldemar Hoffheinz (1823–1907). The compilers of both books treated this hymn as a shortened variant of the “Aß tikt driſu, apie ta Sʒlowe” hymn of German origin. The shorter version presented in these books was likely a reflection of the singing practices of the Surinkimininkai.