Makarenko, actor Terentyuk and personality trepanation

In the commune named after Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, a homeless boy named Terentyuk was brought up. On the stage of the Communard Theater, he showed an outstanding acting talent. As Anton Semyonovich writes, “the talent of a very rare fullness of a comedian, extremely subtle, witty, with excellent vocal cords, rich facial expressions, such a smart comedian” (Makarenko A.S. Soch. in 7 vols. — Vol. 5. — M ., 1958. — S. 119).

Both Anton Semyonovich himself and the whole commune had no doubt that Terentyuk would choose the profession of an actor. But the unexpected happened. In those years, the profession of an engineer was the most fashionable and prestigious, and Terentyuk, unfortunately, was a straight A student and, despite advice and persuasion, entered the Technological Institute, hoping, probably, that any educational sea for a round A student was no higher than knee-deep.

Dejected by this decision of one of the best and smartest pupils, Anton Semyonovich writes: “And so he went to the Institute of Technology with my deepest conviction that we are losing a wonderful actor. I gave up, I have no right, in the end, to make such a breakdown … ”(Ibid. — P. 119-120).

Six months have passed. Anton Semyonovich’s prediction that if Terentyuk became an engineer, it would be very mediocre, was confirmed before everyone’s eyes. The guy had to be urgently saved from a catastrophe for life. And here Anton Semyonovich can’t stand it: “I thought and thought and decided — I called him to a meeting of the Communards, I say that I am filing a complaint against Terentyuk: he did not obey discipline and went to a technological university. At a general meeting they say: “Shame on you, they tell you, but you don’t obey.” Decided: “To expel him from the Institute of Technology and assign him to the theatrical college” (the team “suppressed” the personality. — V.K.). He walked very sad, but he could not disobey the team — he received a scholarship (100 USD from the commune — an addition to the state scholarship. — V.K.), a hostel in the team. And now he is a wonderful actor, he is already playing in one of the best Far Eastern theaters, at the age of two he has traveled the path that people do at the age of 10. And now he is very grateful to me” (Ibid. — p. 120).

Then I ask you to follow every word, every comma and every quotation mark. Years passed. Terentyuk successfully plays in the theater. But Anton Semyonovich is still tormented by doubts. He returns to this case again and again and honestly admits that he failed to substantiate his decision as a pedagogical law and that he does not know whether such a law can exist or not: “But still, if NOW before me there was such a task, I would be AFRAID of solving it — who knows what RIGHT I have to commit VIOLENCE? Here is the right to produce such BREAKING — the question for me is NOT RESOLVED. But I am deeply convinced that before EVERY TEACHER (and not before a “scientific psychologist” or before his identical twin “scientific philosopher” — V.K.) such a question will arise — does the TEACHER have the right to interfere in the movement of CHARACTER and direct it there, where it should be, or should it passively follow THIS character? I believe that the issue should be resolved in the following way: it has the right. But how to do that? In each INDIVIDUAL case, this must be decided INDIVIDUALLY, because it is one thing to have the right, and another thing to be able to do it. These are two DIFFERENT problems. And it is very possible that in the FUTURE (!) the training of our cadres will consist in teaching people how to perform such breaking. After all, they teach a doctor (that’s it! — V.K.) how to perform a craniotomy (at that time, such an operation was as responsible as today — bypass surgery or transplantation. — V.K.). Under our conditions, MAYBE, they will teach the teacher such a “TREPANATION” (is it clear why the QUOTATION MARKS appeared? — V.K.) the only light in the window is the “state educational standard”! — V.K.), but how, FOLLOWING THE QUALITIES OF THE PERSON, FOLLOWING ITS INclinations AND ABILITIES, to direct THIS personality in the direction most necessary for HER (!) Direction ”(Ibid. — S. 120.).

That in such a “trepanation” one can see seditious, not a single person who is able to think and reason “within the normal range” will say. Moreover, for more than forty years ago, and to be exact, on November 24, 1950, Literaturnaya Gazeta published my article “More about the Lomonosovs, talent and vocation”, in which I also mentioned the case with Terentyuk. The article received many responses. One of them, written by the actor A. Yevtushenko, was handed over by the newspaper to the magazine «National Education», where it was published. A. Yevtushenko wrote that, taking such a responsible decision, the general meeting and Anton Semyonovich were not mistaken. Dmitry Filippovich Terentyuk actually became a wonderful actor. In just three years, he played on the stage of the theater in the city of Engels about a dozen difficult roles. Here is Orgon in Tartuffe, and Nikita In the Power of Darkness, and Pavel Petrovich in Petrarch’s Sonnet.

Colleagues at work admired Terentyuk both out loud and secretly, but he was never pleased with himself. “So clear in the images he created, he seemed to us extremely incomprehensible in everyday life. If he looks, then without fail with sadness, if he is silent, then without fail for a long time. He is silent when the dispute, like a fire, is thrown from neighbor to neighbor, embracing everyone who is capable of igniting and burning. You look at him and think: indifferent.

Not true! And a thousand times more false! I saw how once he did not leave stone unturned from the arguments of the secretary of the city committee A., who ordered to throw out from the play «Petrarch’s Sonnet» a scene in which a bad party worker and a decomposed young violinist were shown «(Yevtushenko A. Makarenko was not mistaken. — People’s Education No. 3, 1963).

And further: “He was a man, “whose spiritual gunpowder did not depend on the weather and always remained dry. He did not enter into disputes because their significance seemed to him doubtful.

… At fifty years old, D.F. Terentyuk met his mother for the first time. “He experienced the meeting surprisingly quietly. It was only noticeable that in such a situation it is difficult for a person to give joy.

… In the three years that D.F. Terentyuk served in the theater of the city of Engels, he only once, and then at the insistent request of the city committee of the Komsomol, sparingly spoke about himself: “I was homeless. They took him off the train and brought him to Anton Semyonovich. I stand at the threshold, and he sits at the table and writes. Zero attention to me. It is difficult to stand straight without habit, and I leaned against the jamb, standing in a waddle. And as if he was just waiting for this, he asks:

— What is the joint for?

— Of course, — I say — to keep the door.

Either he liked my answer, or for some other reason, but he didn’t read the moral for my “breakdown” to me. He asked for his name. Do I want to live in a commune?

… And then what was written in his books began. Learned the craft, learned to make friends. In short, they learned to live. There were many of us, but he knew everyone. He knew who was breathing. For example, after school I went to the Institute of Technology. Studied medium. Anton Semyonovich believed that my vocation was to be an artist, and soon my fate was decided by the general meeting of the Communards. Now I’ve been working on stage… for many years.”

Well, why not a guarantee? If it’s not enough, I’ll add one more. In 1961, Dmitry Filippovich and I met at the dacha of Anton Semyonovich’s wife. As usual, they took a glass and started talking. I recalled the case in the commune. He laughed and put his head up to me: “You can joke, the stitches will be left out (You can search, the stitches should remain!).