Сучасні версії Шевченкового псевдобатьківства

• Published in: Слово і Час
• Date: 2022
• ISSN: 0236-1477
• Main Author: Боронь, О.
• Format: Article
• Language: Ukrainian
• Published: Інститут літератури ім. Т.Г. Шевченка НАН України 2022
• Subjects: Дискусії
• Online Access: https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/184801
• Journal Title: Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
• Cite this: Сучасні версії Шевченкового псевдобатьківства / О. Боронь // Слово і Час. — 2022. — № 3. — С. 88-99. — Бібліогр.: 21 назв. — укp.

На основі науково доведених фактів, документів, листування Шевченка
 спростовано дві гіпотези останнього часу про поетове батьківство щодо
 Софії Платонівни Закревської, у заміжжі Фелен (1845—?), і такого собі
 Федора Кириченка. Обидві версії, перша з яких претендує на абсолютну істинність, не мають реального підґрунтя. Їх автори вдаються до домислу, позбавлених логіки і здорового глузду припущень, оминаючи при цьому
 відомі реалії та обставини. Особливо прикро, що такі вигадки легковірно
 підхоплює вчительська громада, надаючи їм «прав громадянства» у публікаціях і в освітньому процесі. The creation of a new scholarly biography of Shevchenko is impossible without testing plausible
 assumptions and hypotheses prevalent in the mass consciousness. Most of them do
 not stand up to criticism and miss any detailed analysis, while others seem at first glance so
 convincing that they are perceived almost as a truth. Shevchenko‘s alleged paternity used to
 be one of the taboo issues but now it is fervently debated, attracting many — both admirers
 of his word and ill-wishers.
 In the media, popular editions, and even outlines of the lessons available on the Internet,
 the idea that the poet was the father of Hanna Zakrevska’s (1822—1857) daughter,
 Sofiia Platonivna, married Felen (1845—?), is being replicated. Volodymyr Syrotenko (Verbytskyi),
 Candidate of Technical Sciences, actively defends this view. Another hypothesis
 belongs to the writer Antonina Tsvyd who tries, in her research paper, to substantiate legendary
 folk stories about the alleged Shevchenko’s son Fedir whose mother was an unknown
 resident of Sedniv.
 The statements and assumptions made in the publications of these authors have been
 critically verified by comparison with dependable information, which showed that both
 versions do not have any real basis and contradict properly proven facts and documents.
 V. Syrotenko presents his conjectures as the purest truth, while A. Tsvyd, trying to find evidence
 for dubious legends, resorts to assumptions devoid of logic and common sense while
 leaving well-known circumstances without attention. Memoirs are also misinterpreted, in
 particular the ones of Oleksandr Chuzhbynskyi, and it once again testifies to the urgent
 need for a critical edition of a corpus of memoirs about Shevchenko. It is especially unfortunate
 that V. Syrotenko’s inventions are recklessly picked up by the community of teachers
 who ‘legalize’ them in publications and the educational process.