Criticism directed at those who confine themselves to external analysis can only be considered justified insofar as it highlights the limitations inherent in an approach that lacks a deep understanding of a work’s inner content.

Beyond the Surface: Uniting External Analysis and Inner Depth in Liter

Criticism directed at those who confine themselves to external analysis can only be considered justified insofar as it highlights the limitations inherent in an approach that lacks a deep understanding of a work’s inner content. On one hand, external analysis serves its scientific function by strictly adhering to historical truth and by objectively reproducing what is observed, as emphasized in the following statement:

"Criticism is a scientific function, and science must serve only the truth. It should reproduce the writer under study exactly as he is known in reality, adding nothing of its own, neither omitting nor excluding any trait that inherently belonged to the writer and had been noted by previous critics. It is precisely these conditions—a strict dedication to historical truth, the absence of invention, abstention from arbitrary fantasizing, and the deliberate embellishment of one’s narrative—that distinguish criticism as a scientific function from free poetic creation."
(source: link txt)

On the other hand, literature demands the transmission not only of a fixed external form but also of the profound emotional and subjective experiences that may lie outside the scope of a limited external analysis. As noted further:

"One cannot in any way agree with this view: great works, in terms of their content, are, so to speak, bottomless, and each subsequent century must have its own say about them. Subjective criticism is proposed by Mr. Merezhkovsky, apparently as a novelty. He advises the following: to take the writer’s living soul—a unique form of his being that never repeats itself—and then depict the effect of this soul on the intellect, heart, and will; on the entire inner life of the critic as a representative of his generation; and to delve into how the critic understands the writer’s personality. Any criticism truly worthy of its name conveys to the reader a work that has been thoughtfully and passionately considered by the critic—thus transmitting the critic’s own emotion, which cannot but be subjective. In our age, criticism, while gradually perfecting itself, has become highly psychological."
(source: link txt)

This citation emphasizes that a true understanding of a work requires penetrating its internal content—that is, the ability to feel and experience the subtleties that are not always accessible through an analysis focused solely on external forms. It is also worth noting that even external criticism often relies on psychological approaches, which allow one to perceive the living artistic intuition behind the formal elements of a work. This is expressed in the following remark:

"Therefore, the author is not unfamiliar with a certain, entirely appropriate, critic-aesthetic dogmatism. Psychological foundations here play, of course, the primary role, yet one can sense behind them a vivid artistic intuition leading to various conclusions. For instance, he describes the digression in 'The Noble Nest', which is devoted to the past of Lavretsky and the history of his family, as excessive. This evaluation of the architecture of the novel is evidently based on the concept of an external symmetry obligatory to any artistic work. In our literature, where the completion of external form often leaves much to be desired even among the foremost masters, such observations are more than appropriate. Criticism that does not replace analysis with imaginative play, but rather does not confine itself to a purely scientific, objective investigation while remaining open to the writer’s moods—criticism that is psychological because the inner processes of the writer and his creations exhaust the content of the work; and historical, because only in the process of becoming (im Werden) is the essence of a phenomenon recognized."
(source: link txt)

Thus, it can be concluded that criticism focused exclusively on external aspects has its justified reasons in terms of objectivity and scientific rigor. However, it becomes inadequate if it does not eventually transition to an exploration of the internal content, which allows for a deeper understanding of the author’s intent and the emotional power of the work. If specialists who engage in external analysis in the future expand their attention to include an investigation of the internal content, the earlier criticism might seem premature and not entirely adequate.

In summary, criticism aimed at external analysis is justified within the context of the requirements for a complete and emotionally rich understanding of a work, yet it should be acknowledged that an external methodology is an important starting point that can evolve into a more profound analysis of the internal content.