Klaipėdos universitetas

In the context of XVI–XVII centuries written sources, this article provides an overview and evaluation of authenticity of to the Balts pantheon and the water sphere attributable deities Perdoytus, Wejopattis, Gardouten, Bangpjtjs, Luobgelda (partly Bardoayts) that were described in Matas Pretori­jus (Matthäus Prätorius) work “Sights of Prussia, Or Prussia’s Observation Place” (Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubϋhne) (the end of the 17th century). The focus of this article is on the analysis of authenticity Perdoytus (Gardouten ↔ Bardoayts) and opposition between Wejopattis ↔ Bangpjtjs mythologemes. In order to assess the validity of data the author uses in-depth comparative research whose core is in the comparison of the original and secondary material, allowing to determine who, when and what kind of mythical material changes were made. The study revealed that the mythical information provided by M. Pretorijus and other ancient written sources from XVI–XVII centuries are overshadowed by redundant and unauthentic information or interpretations of chroniclers. The author attempts to define this multi-level mental and physical phenomena by introducing a new term information noise in the verification process of ancient written sources.

In analyzing the pre-Christian culture of the Balts, the nucleus of which consists of pagan religious logic and mythology, there is a problem of the value and reliability of the recorded writings about it. The article reviews and verifies the mythological information having a direct relation to the sowing celebration that Matthaeus Praetorius (Matthäus Prätorius) recorded in the source “Deliciae Prussicae oder Preussische Schaubühne” (Deliciae Prussicae or Prussian Theater, late 17th century). In succession, the paper discusses the interpretations made by the 20th to 21st century researchers who analyzed the mythological material recorded by Praetorius about the sowing festival. The context of the research made in 20th to 21st century has revealed that the scholars of earlier periods gave different assessments to the reliability of the aforementioned mythological material provided by Praetorius: they did not question authenticity, but considered the information to be quite reliable, and used it in their works; the scholars sensed the problem of authenticity of the mythological material, but hesitated to solve it; the scholars noticed the authenticity problem and more or less tried to solve it. The analysis suggests to determine that the mythological material related directly to the sowing festival recorded by Praetorius is to be considered authentic and reliable.

The analysis of the pre-Christian Baltic culture, in the centre of which there is a pagan religious logic, reveals the issue of credibility of its records. Therefore, the article attempts to review and to verify mythical material directly related to fir tree and pear tree, described by Matthaeus Praetorius (Matthäus Prätorius) in his manuscript “Deliciae Prussicae or Prussian Theater” (Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne, the end of the17th century). In parallel with this, the article discusses interpretations by more significant researchers of the 19th–21st centuries who were concerned with Praetorius’s mythical material on fir tree and pear tree. The context of the researches of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries has shown that the researchers of earlier periods did not consider the question of reliability of Matthaeus Praetorius’s mythical material. The present research also allowed to trace the varying tendency of reliability of Praetorius’s described mythical data directly related to fir tree and pear tree.

The article reviews and attempts to verify mythical information provided by Matthaeus Praetorius (Matthäus Prätorius, the end of the 17th century) in his work “Deliciae Prussicae or Prussian Theater” (Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubϋhne), which is directly concerned with childbirth and christening rituals, at the same time the role of Laimė, Laumė and the Blessed Virgin Mary in the mentioned customs is revealed. In parallel with this, the article discusses interpretations by more significant researchers of the 19th–21st centuries who were concerned with M. Praetorius’s mythical material on childbirth and christening. The context of the researches of the 19th–21st centuries has shown that researchers of earlier periods did not consider the question of reliability of M. Praetorius’s mythical material. The present research has also revealed that mythical information on childbirth and christening described by M. Praetorius is reliable and that patrons of human birth – Laimė / Laumė / the Blessed Virgin Mary – should be treated as some kind of (each other’s) continuation or as a constant and variables. Human birth is a constant which is made meaningful by rituals that, taking into account historical and religious context, are patronised by a certain variable.