Pokonferencyjna

Keywords: literary criticism, class-ideological approaches, literary-aesthetic ap-
proach, social analysis, vulgar-sociology.

---

  25 
PHILOLOGY,  SOCIOLOGY AND CULTUROLOGY №14
The early articles which announced 
about Choolpon: there was a discussion 
on the issue: Whose poet is Choolpon: is 
he a poet of the poor or intelligentsia. 
This issue which is seemed harmless the 
first articles suddenly became a serious 
blame in the article of Ayn. While ex-
pressing attitude to the point of view, 
there is given the following political 
blame: “Choolpon is the poet of the poor” 
… he is the poet of nationalist, pessimist 
intelligentsia. His ideology is their ideol-
ogy, he tried and intended on the way of 
this ideology. These are the things which 
have been inspired him.”
The critic accused Choolpon of a na-
tionalist, a dreamer. It seemed him that 
Choolpon had written only about his 
dream world, created by himself, he didn’t 
want to sing the positive changes which 
had been taken place after the October 
revolution. Its reason depicted in the arti-
cle as following:“Choolpon agreed in the 
revolution, but he didn’t agree with Rus-
sians, their stay of the native land. He gave 
his opinion and unusual definition about 
the national republics, and activities 
which are gone there”
It is clearly seen in the copies that the 
critic correctly understands the motives 
patriotism and nationalism that is specific 
to the poetry of Choolpon, but in its in-
terpretation he blamed the poet as a na-
tionalist. It is showed that he did this ac-
tion under the influence of Soviet criti-
cism. This is the beginning, the prelude of 
the accusation which is given Choolpon 
as “nationalist”, “people’s enemy” the 
whole period of Soviet criticism.
Ayn approaches to the Choolpon’s po-
etry with the class criteria. He came into 
conclusion by giving sample passages 
from the fiery poems of Choolpon which 
are full of with the sorrow of people and 
nation, “not separating the people into the 
origin saying “I fired for people”, as equal 
to say “I’m nationalist”
This article was the center of the atten-
tion of Literature scholars during and af-
ter its period. The Soviet critics who are 
going to criticize Choolpon really often 
addressed to this article.
Young poet Oybek joining the discus-
sion went contrast against the claims of 
Ayn and defended Choolpon. In his arti-
cle “Choolpon. How to check the poet”
2
 
while rejecting the claims put for Chool-
pon as he is not a people’s poet, national-
ist, dreamer, pessimist, spoilt ideology, he 
considered to approach to the issue on the 
scientific bases. Here the poet preferred 
that without taking into consideration 
outer factors  – social changes which are 
caused to be formulated the outlook, it is 
impossible to speak about his ideology. 
Choolpon couldn’t be a poor proletarian 
poet, because he grew up the other envi-
ronment, such poets “came out from the 
young generation who gained the healthy 
ideology by fighting” – wrote Oybek.
Oybek stood against for the opinion 
that Choolpon was a dreamer. He stated 
that the dream needs not only for creating 
artworks, but it is also necessary for sci-
ence and technology.
Oybek also considered literature cate-
gorical as Ayn. But when interpreting the 
poems of Choolpon he considered one 
should draw attention the beauty of art. 
2   Newspaper “Qizil O’zbekiston”, May 17th, 1927

---

26 
MONOGRAFIA POKONFERENCYJNA
For this he took Russian poet Pushkin as 
an example. As to the view of Oybek, 
“Pushkin didn’t write a poem for the 
poor”. But he created the highest literary 
samples of the Russian poetry. That’s why 
all the Russian people read Pushkin with 
pleasure. So do Choolpon. “The ideology 
of Choolpon is not read, but his literary 
inheritance to be read. They are not re-
jected.”
After the article of Oybek, the critic 
called Usmonkhon interfered to the dis-
cussion. In his article “Critic’s criticizing”
3
 
he completely supported Ayn. They criti-
cized young Oybek blaming for defend-
ing Choolpon. As to his claim, Oybek 
approaches to the literature from the 
point of bourgeois view and far from the 
view of Marxisizm: “… “Marxist” Oybek 
is definitely far from Marxisism. It is nec-
essary to say here that Oybek didn’t reject 
the ideology of Choolpon was the bour-
geois, nationalist ideology. …Oybek paid 
special attention to the Choolpon’s “sam-
ples” besides his “ideology”. At first Oy-
bek loved the ideology of Choolpon and 
that he liked its formation.”
It is clear from this that the author of 
the article accused of not only Choolpon, 
but he blamed young poet Oybek unfairly 
who was ready to support. The critic who 
supported Ayn didn’t glance at young 
poet. And he also expressed his attitude to 
Choolpon’s creativity with arrogance. But 
Oybek didn’t keep silence. He published 
his article “To the author of the article 
“Critic’s criticizing”
4
 Young writer fol-
3   Newspaper “Qizil O’zbekiston”, June numbers 
22-23-27
4   Newspaper “Qizil O’zbekiston” August 28, 1927
lowed the other way distinguishing from 
the critic Usmonkhon. In some places he 
stood against the opinion of the author. 
But in some places he recognized his un-
fair. The same time refusing the claims of 
Usmonkhon he expressed his negative 
attitude to some ideas in the article of 
Ayn: “It is not true to connect dreamer 
with the nationalist. Certainly, during the 
time dictatorship of the poor the impact 
of being nationalist was high. Besides the 
systematic structure and others influence 
was also high.”
In fact as to the statement of the 
scholar Bahodir Karimov, “… on the issue 
method and category young Oybek is not 
gone far from the Marxist “Ayn” and 
Usmonkhon”
5
Oybek had several different features 
from those “the red” critics. That is he 
understood well the essence of the literary 
artworks and he felt its beauty in deep 
heart. This is clearly seen in the articles 
which gone into the discussion and his 
creativity.
The political structure which was es-
tablished in 1917  seemed frailness after 
the October revolution strengthened its 
cruel policy day by day and it ruled over 
70  years. During that time many repre-
sentatives of government Fayzulla 
Xo’jayev, Akmal Ikromov and of the Uz-
bek intelligence Mahmudxo’ja Behbudiy, 
Abdulla Qodiriy, Abdurauf Fitrat became 
a victim of chorism executioners with 
vary blaming. The dangerous one was the 
idealistic quarrel. The head ideology 
made literary criticism to serve it together 
5  Bahodir Karimov, Choolpon and criticism, T.:, 
2004. p.9

---

  27 
PHILOLOGY,  SOCIOLOGY AND CULTUROLOGY №14
with the policy of might. The great poet of 
the 20
th
 century Uzbek literature Abdulh-
amid Sulaymon o’g’li (son of)– Choolpon 
was also one of those sacrificed people. 
There was a big contribution of the liter-
ary criticism which became “the reddish” 
day by day. Above mentioned interpreta-
tions are the proofs of our opinions.