"Ar iš balos tas gražumas mano prigimimo?". Mintys, kilusios skaitant tradicinei lietuvių valstiečių vyrų aprangai skirtą monografiją : recenzija

LTPirmasis Lietuvos etnologijoje apibendrintas, grįstas daugiausia įvairia literatūrine medžiaga tekstas apie pagrindinius lietuvių valstiečių vyrų drabužių elementus, šukuosenas, apavą, kai kuriuos aksesuarus buvo paskelbtas moterų drabužių tyrinėtojos Marijos Mastonytės (Miliuvienės) 1964 m. (Mastonytė 1964: 370–382). Tačiau netrukus, 1966 m. pradžioje, Lietuvos etnologai buvo įtraukti į „Pabaltijo tautų istorinio etnografinio atlaso“ (toliau šį darbą vadinsime vienu žodžiu – Atlasas) rengimą. Šiame kontekste viena esminių temų tapo vyrų tradicinių valstiečių drabužių mokslinis tyrimas, kurio vykdytoja beveik dešimtmečiui tapo Vida Kulikauskienė. Keletą mėnesių ekspedicijose dirbęs šalia, o baigiantis darbams prie Atlaso ir vėliau buvęs Kulikauskienės kolega, džiaugiuosi pagaliau sulaukęs galutinio tyrimo apibendrinimo – monografijos Tradicinė lietuvių valstiečių vyrų apranga. Tačiau nors monografija yra fundamentalus mokslinis darbas, ji sukėlė įvairių minčių ir straipsnis recenzija yra ne vien siekis aptarti monografiją, bet ir galimybė pažvelgti į darbą autorės atliktų mokslinių vyrų tradicinių drabužių tyrimų kontekste. Monografijos leidybos iniciatyva, kruopštus rankraščio parengimas, iliustracijų atranka, nuorodose esančių pastabų ir paaiškinimų kūrimas teko etnologėms, drabužių tyrėjoms ir žinovėms – Lietuvos istorijos instituto mokslo darbuotojai dr. Irmai Šidiškienei ir muziejininkei, Lietuvos dailės muziejaus Liaudies meno skyriaus vedėjai Daliai Bernotaitei-Beliauskienei. Kartu su mokslininkėmis knygos pribuvėjais tapo Lietuvos istorijos institutas bei Lietuvos dailės muziejus. Tačiau skaitant iškilo klausimas, kodėl Kulikauskienė pratarmėje neaptarė užsitęsusios monografijos leidybos ir aplinkybių.Nebandydamas nuspėti knygos rengimo ir leidybos peripetijų priežasčių, noriu pasakyti, kad iki sovietmečio pabaigos kaip buvęs autorės kolega žinau apie XX a. 9 dešimtmečio pradžioje parengtą kartu su Miliuviene valstiečių drabužiams skirtą monografiją. Vėliau į leidyklą pateko atskirai vyrų ir moterų drabužius nagrinėjančių knygų rankraščiai, kurie taip ir nebuvo išleisti. Taigi tikėjausi surasti bent remarką šia tema. Būtų tapę aiškiau, koks ir kada parengtas tekstas tapo aptariamos mokslinės monografijos pagrindu. Knygos parengėjoms spaudai teko nemažai įdėti darbo, todėl logiška, kad monografiją praturtina pabaigoje skelbiami Šidiškienės ir Bernotaitės-Beliauskienės straipsniai. [...]. [Iš teksto, p. 181-182]

ENThe author of the review discusses the debatable aspects of Vida Kulikauskienė’s monograph ‘Traditional Clothing of Lithuanian Peasant Men’. First, he highlights the value of the book. He notes that the book is the result of Kulikauskienė‘s longterm research into traditional peasant men’s clothing, and the reconstruction and creation of the Lithuanian national clothes in relation to it. Ethnographic fieldwork, which began in the 1960s, took place within the context of the preparation of the ‘Historical Ethnographic Atlas of Baltic National Clothes’. Until then, research into women’s traditional clothing, which had been carried out for several decades, and the well-established picture of their regional sets, contrasted with men’s clothing as depicted mostly in a variety of fragmentary literary texts. After a few years, the ethnographic information covering the entire territory of Lithuania began to appear in Kulikauskienė’s articles published in various local monographs. After supplementing the data gathered during the ethnographic field-trips with literary material, and researching in museums and archives, Kulikauskienė wrote and sucessfully defended her doctoral dissertation. At the same time, an introductory text for the ‘Historical Ethnographic Atlas of Baltic National Clothes’ was written, and maps were compiled. The atlas was published in Riga in 1985. Before that, Kulikauskienė published a series of articles on clothing, and wrote a manuscript for this monograph. The ethnologists Dr Irma Šidiškienė and Dr Dalia Bernotaitė-Beliauskienė took the initiative and prepared the final version of the manuscript, selected illustrations, and wrote footnotes and explanations. The monograph is based on rich ethnographic fieldwork.Kulikauskienė has also used valuable, often unique, written sources as well as museum and iconographic material; therefore, the analysis of the traditional Lithuanian clothing of peasant men and its elements is of the best scientific quality. The initial part of the review examines Kulikauskienė’s various scientific publications, and analyses the book in the context of her research into traditional men’s clothing. It focuses on debatable aspects of the monograph, and draws the attention of the potential reader to statements and conclusions presented in other publications which are not addressed in the monograph itself. The reviewer emphasises that Kulikauskienė’s aim to study the clothing set of middle economic status peasant men as a traditional Lithuanian set has not been fully accomplished in the book, especially in the illustrations. Although the monograph is richly illustrated with various pieces of iconographic material and photographs of museum exhibits, the clothing of the people depicted in most of the illustrations does not reveal their economic status. Finally, when the museum material was collected, it had the purpose of revealing the aesthetic aspect of the clothes or parts of them. Thus, although the monograph’s illustrative material is impressive and complements the text, it is often one-sided, and does not rely on fieldwork data. It was not gathered during the ethnographic field-trips that took place in the second half of the 20th century, as peasant men’s traditional clothing disappeared in the late 19th century. At the same time, it is noticeable that the data from the fieldwork was sufficient to create valuable and informative maps. However, the monograph lacks a clear relationship with previously published cartographies, the data in which are not commented on.Some of the maps previously published in other publications that may have extended the analysis do not appear in the monograph; therefore, Kulikauskienė misses the opportunity to highlight the value of her book more clearly. In this way, differences arise with her previous scientific output. Also, the novelty of approaches is not explained in the book. ovelty of approaches is not explained in the book. The main part of the review focuses more on the debatable elements of the monograph, and less on the results of the research into elements of clothing. In her monograph, Kulikauskienė presents a modern understanding of ‘clothing’ and singles out its main elements, which include hairstyles, clothing, headwear, shoes, vests, socks and accessories. The author directs her attention to little-studied parts and topics of clothing: headwear, vests, the colours of men’s outerwear called sermėga, and the historical development of individual styles of clothing. The chapters discuss in detail the historical development of specific items of clothing. Although the chronological boundaries of the monograph run from the 16th to the 20th century, museum collections and most of the illustrative and fieldwork material are from 19th-century (often the second half) traditional peasant clothing. The reviewer notes that although Kulikauskienė presented the main features of four regional men’s clothing sets in the ‘Historical Ethnographic Atlas of Baltic National Clothes’, the features of the five clothing sets discussed in the conclusions of the monograph are missing in the text itself. The description of the fifth clothing set attributed to Prussian Lithuanians is rather weak, based more on reconstructions resulting from interpretations than on real factual material (this shortcoming is observed in the description of other sets as well). [...]. [From the publication]