Hanna Herman stated on December 12, 2011 that the Stus Museum would move to Donetsk after 15 years in Horlivka. Now, her words have come true. The museum will be opened on December 20, 2012, and housed in the Krupskaya Regional Library building. However, it will be reshaped to emphasize Stus’s literary achievements, while the institution in Horlivka was created to show the poet’s civic virtues.
Ukrainian community of Donetsk was outraged, seeing the Krupskaya Library as a completely inappropriate place to house the Stus Museum [Krupskaya was the wife of Lenin, the man who founded the system that later killed Stus. – Ed.]. Besides, it was allotted just one room in its new accommodation, without enough storage rooms, a conference room, etc.
In an interview with Den earlier in 2012 Oleh Fedorov, the founder of the Stus Museum in Horlivka, said: “Most people think and live now in the same way as they did decades ago. The world is changing around them without any impact on their worldviews. The old ideas and principles are stronger than the forces of progress. The situation can be overcome through cultural work.” It is currently hard to say if the Stus Museum in Donetsk will become a part of such cultural work effort. The uncertainty makes it worthwhile for us to return to an initiative to rename Donetsk National University after Stus, which was actively supported by this newspaper. It was in 2008, and most of its student supporters and campaigners have already left the university. Yurii Matushchak was then a leader of the Impetus NGO, very active at the time. Its members created a youth civic activities center, staged mass events, literary evenings, Christmas puppetry festival, and published the Impetus newspaper. The Day spoke to Matushchak about the current developments and the Stus Museum’s move to Donetsk.
“The Krupskaya Library is a totally inappropriate place to house the Stus Museum,” he began. “It is not even because of the library’s name. The very format is wrong, no museum should be housed in a library. It will not be even a full-fledged museum, able to conduct tours, as we need entirely different premises for such purpose. This is the first question. The second question is whether the museum should be in Donetsk and where exactly should it be housed in this city? We have the Stus Gymnasium, and the museum could be housed on its premises, for example. Then there is the university philology department, where Stus once studied. Of course, the museum would attract more visitors if housed there, especially the young ones. In addition, a lot more people would know about it then. I have grave doubts whether young people will even know that the museum exists in the Krupskaya Library. Therefore, Donetsk needs such a museum, but not in the format it would be created in. It seems to me that it is only done for appearances’ sake.”
The initiative to rename Donetsk National University after Stus started years ago. People who actively promoted it have already left the university. Today’s students do not continue with it. Why? Has the idea faded?
“Any idea must have its organizers, that is, the people who dedicate themselves to it to some extent and are its driving force. We had such people when it was started. Most of them belonged to the Ukrainian patriotic democratic milieu, were members of our Impetus organization or simply consciously Ukrainian young people. It turned out there were much more such people than we thought. Then we and our friends became the driving force that pushed for the idea’s implementation. Subsequently, the idea was publicized nationwide. I am convinced that such Ukrainian patriotic democratic groups do exist among the student masses, but they are likely too disorganized to do much. This is not about a particular organization, but about the understanding that you are not alone, contacts and mobility. We all knew then who was active, full of initiative and reliable. Accordingly, there were such people before we came to the university, they were during our studies, they are now, and I am confident that there will be such youths after us. It is typical of the young people in general and this university in particular. They are hampered, though, by the lack of communication and consolidation.
“There are two more important points. Why the idea was strongly opposed at the time by various pro-Communist organizations, members of the Party of Regions, etc.? Because Stus is a symbol of the citizenry’s yearning for justice, Ukrainian patriotism and firm stance. All these are problems of today, because both government and NGOs do not further these values. Even in 2008, during Viktor Yushchenko presidency, the real power in Donetsk was the same as always, that is, it belonged to the Party of Regions, Communists, etc. They accordingly saw this idea as alien and dangerous. Secondly, some people who remember Stus still work at universities, and some of them slandered him then.
“Certainly, should the university carry Stus’s name on its banner, it would convey a very powerful meaning, as Donetsk would then have an educational establishment bearing the name of this person and producing new citizens. It would clearly have a big effect not only for eastern Ukraine, but for central and western Ukraine, too. These would be beginnings of new meanings. The university would assume new meaning and its own identity. Plus it would make eastern Ukraine look better.”
The Day will cover in its coming issues how the Stus Museum, to be opened on December 20, will look like, and whether the local students will be ready to self-organize to continue the renaming initiative.
