Ar Gotfrydas Ostermejeris išties laikytinas istorijos diletantu?

LTStraipsnyje aptariami Gotfrydo Ostermejerio praeities tyrimai mėginant įvertinti, kiek jo istorijos veikaluose būta diletantizmo ir moksliškumo. Taip pat svarstoma, kada istorija susiformavo kaip mokslas ir atskira disciplina, ar Švietimo epochoje veikusius praeities tyrėjus apskritai galima laikyti profesionaliais istorikais. Ostermejeris save laikė istorijos diletantu. Straipsnyje siekiama nustatyti jo istorijos darbų lygį, įvertinti bendrame to laikotarpio Prūsijos praeities tyrimų fone, apžvelgti, kaip jie buvo traukiami į vėlesnę mokslo apyvartą ir kiek aktualūs šių dienų mokslininkams. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Gotfrydas Ostermejeris; Istorijos mokslas; Lituanistikos tyrimai; Švietimo epocha; Prūsija; Prūsų ir lietuvių mitologija; Giesmynų istorija; Diletantizmas; Gottfried Ostermeyer; History science; Prussia; Lithuanistic research; Mythology.

ENThe paper focuses on historical studies by Gottfried Ostermeyer (1716–1800) with the aim of assessing the extent of amateurishness and scholarship in his historical works. The emergence of history as a field of study and as a separate discipline and of the issue of whether the scholars into the past of the Epoch of Enlightenment can be seen as professional historians are also addressed. The author attempts to assess Ostermeyer’s works against the general background of the studies into the past in Prussia during the particular period and to determine how his works were engaged in the academic circulation by scholars of later times and to what extent his works are relevant to present-day researchers. Before the early nineteenth century, history had not been formed as a field of study and as an academic discipline. It means that professional history researchers and scholars were not trained. The past used to be investigated by persons who had studied theology, law, or Classical languages, thus, formally, none of the prominent history researchers, even if they had written outstanding historical works by the end of the eighteenth century, could be referred to as professional historians. To a certain extent, they all can be seen as amateurs, some of them more scholarly than others. Ostermeyer described himself as an amateur historian, which shows he did not consider himself an academic history scholar: to him, studies into the past were just one of favourite intellectual activities. His opponents, who disagreed with conclusions of his research, called him an amateur as well. [...].In general, Ostermeyer’s works contain considerable elements of the academic approach, which are, nonetheless, outbalanced by qualities characteristic of an amateur researcher, or a dilettante. Ostermeyer successfully engages linguistic elements, in particular etymology, in his historical studies, but then he starts to depend on them too much and to explain many historical aspects exclusively through etymology. The portrait of Ostermeyer as a researcher is of many layers: he is a historian, a linguist, and a theologian. Quite often a tangible rivalry between Ostermeyer-historian and Ostermeyer-linguist is felt. It is this factor that makes one raise the question whether Ostermeyer can in general be treated as a historian alone, without associations with the linguist. It would probably be most accurate to describe him as a cultural historian who was ahead of his time and who displayed prominent qualities of an interdisciplinary researcher.