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.
