Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

Anti-Semitism as an Issue in the Trial of Kafka's Joseph K.

Author(s): Joseph J. Waldmeir
Source: Books Abroad, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter, 1961), pp. 10-15, 4
Published by: Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
Stable URL: [Link]
Accessed: 04-01-2018 04:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Books Abroad

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 Anti-Semitism as an Issue in the

Trial of Kafka's Joseph K.

By JOSEPH J. WALDMEIR
p* [I %}he critical interpreters of Franz Kaf- the accusation. There is no talk of pun-
|| ka's allegorical examinations of a cha- ishment, no talk of incarceration. Society
JL otic modern world have identified and
merely informs him of a fact. But the fact
proposed three distinct, occasionally even implies an anti-Semitic judgment, and it
antagonistic, interpretations : the metaphys- is this which K. fights here and throughout
ical-religious-mystical, the Freudian, and the novel. He refuses to acknowledge the
the generally social-cultural. A few of them, accusation, refuses to confirm or deny his
including Max Brod and W. H. Auden, Jewishness, refuses even to laugh the whole
have taken a turn toward a somewhat dif-
business off, as he is aware he could easily
ferent interpretation on the evidence that do. Stubbornly, he challenges the legal
Kafka was a Jew, and that his notebooks right of his accusers to arrest him for a so-
and letters betrayed great concern with the cial crime. Here, for the first time, K. re-
anachronistic problem of the Jew in mod- sorts to the argumentative device he is to
ern society. But none of his critics has fol- use throughout the book. He attempts to
lowed through with an overall investiga- force society back to its major premise. But
tion and exegesis of Kafka's fiction in terms since society reaches its conclusions more
of this concern.
often emotionally than rationally, and rea-
The present paper is the result of a close sons, if at all, not syllogistically but enthe-
exegetical examination of The Trial (Lon- memically, K. succeeds only in erecting an
don. Penguin Books. 1953) from this point impossible barrier to communication.
of view. Such an interpretation can contrib- Society cannot understand why, if he
ute valuably to a clarification of Kafka's is not a Jew, K. does not say it, prove it, and
world view, for if Joseph K. is a Jew then the be done with it; or if he is a Jew, why he
Kafka hero is not so much a sensitive indi-
does not simply admit it and go on about
vidual out of tune with his God, with his his business. From society's point of view,
psyche, or with society in general as he is a it is K. who acts irrationally. The whole af-
member of a group actively opposed by a fair is extremely simple; there is nothing to
specific external agency, anti-Semitism. He argue about or even to discuss. When K.
is trying unsuccessfully to find his place in produces identification, the Warders reject
an antagonistic society while maintaining it as being of no consequence in the matter
his dignity and worth as a human being. at hand. When K. protests his innocence by
More than this, futile though they may be, asserting that the Law governing his crime
his actions are not wholly self-conscious and exists only in the Warders' minds, one War-
negative, but are assertive and positive as der answers: "He admits that he doesn't
well.
know the Law and yet he claims he's inno-
The tone of the novel and the nature of cent." When he challenges the authority
the problem are apparent in the first epi- of the arresting officers, he is advised by the
sode of the first chapter. Society, in the Inspector to "think less about us and of
person of the two Warders and the Inspec- what is going to happen to you, think more
tor, confronts K. with the accusation that he about yourself instead." When he offers to
is a Jew, and waits for K. to acknowledge consider that the accusation has not been

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 TRIAL OF KAFKA'S JOSEPH K. 11

made, the Inspector declines, then departs,

obscene, pornographic stories and pictures.
While of
leaving K. in the frustrating position he be-
is present, the Magistrate, a vi-
ing unable to deny his guilt, and cious really
lecher, sends a Law student to kidnap
the
forced to admit it in order to argue Courtthe
from Attendant's wife (she has been
untenable position that his guilt the
should not unwilling mistress) for his
student's
be considered guilt. own use. Following them K. learns that
the Offices
And the frustration takes the form of a of the Law are located in the
attic of
bitter choice between blind acquiescence theto
same old house that contains
the Interrogation
society's wishes or hopeless struggle against Chamber. K. enters, and
them in the Fraulein Biirstner isepisode
almost suffocated
of by the stale, strangling
air. When
the chapter. Fraulein Biirstner 's role a skylight is opened to alleviate
in the
novel is extremely important thoughthe situation,
she isclouds of soot fall through it.
actively present only in the first K.,chapter.
growing ill, is assisted out of the Offices
by two
She represents K.'s desire to be a part ofattendants
so- who grow equally ill
as they
ciety in spite of its unworthiness. catch a breath of fresh air at the exit.
Imper-
fect, tainted, cowardly though sheNeither
may argument
be, with nor acquiescence
she is a goal for K. In her own frightened
to such a Court is possible for a self-respect-
interview with him as well as in K.'s inter-
ing man. The Court, if not the Law itself,
view with her Friend, it is apparent that heobscene, foul, disgusting, and
is capricious,
shall never attain her as long as he struggles
rapacious. It has no legal sanction : witness
against society's Judgment. Butitsthe judg-to the attic of an old house
relegation
ment is stupid. It is impossible(later
forK.K. to that its branches are pres-
learns
yield, to admit his guilt; but it is ent
equally
in mostim-
of the old houses of the city) . It
can certainly
possible for him to reject his desires. In fact,have no moral sanction. More
simply because Fraulein Biirstnerfirmly
is denied
convinced than ever that he is right
him, his desire for her is almostand
desperate.
the anti-Semite is wrong, K. must de-
cide on some
Motivated by this desire, K. attends thesort of action. "While he
First Interrogation. The Chamber is locat-
stayed quietly at home," he thinks, "and
ed in the back room of an old went
house; thehis ordinary vocations he re-
about
meeting is informal, is somehow clandes-
mained superior to all these people and
tine. Angered by the feeling that he clear
could is ex-any of them out of his path with
pected to debase himself in such dismal
a hearty kick." But it is as impossible for K.
surroundings, K. insists that he be accepted
to remain quietly at home as it is impossible
by society on his own terms. He forprotests
him to dignify his opponents by disre-
so volubly against the accusation itself
garding them.-
avoiding any admission or denial of it -
As K. realizes the growing insecurity of
that he convinces his hearers of his
his guilt.
position the necessity to strike back be-
But guilt or innocence is not comes
the issue
stronger. After his visit to the Court
and, dissatisfied with his inability to con-
Offices he finds that he is to be cut off per-
vince the interrogators that not the question
manently from Fraulein Burstner, and his
frustrated
of his Jewishness but why Jewishness desire takes the form of the
is bad
should be debated, K. returns to Whipper
the cham- revenge daydream. K. is extreme-
bers a week later. It is empty, but K. finds
ly ashamed of the dream but he cannot rid
evidence that convinces him both that all himself of it. All that the Warders had done
argument is useless and that yielding is, was to accuse him of the truth, for K. is a
for him, out of the question. He examines Jew. The Warders are not responsible for
the Law books left behind by the Examin- any of the implications in the accusation; to
ing Magistrate and finds them filled with punish them is senseless. Yet, faced with a

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
12 BOOKS ABROAD

Law and a Court and Officials

K.'s affair such
with Lenias those
signifies his desire
to yield;
he has already dealt with, in fact, Leni
what interprets the affair
alternative
in those terms. But in his more sober mo-
had he? Ashamed of the vengeance day-
dream or not, like his ments K. reaffirms
desire for his stubborn
Frauleinnon-capitu-
lation. "Above all,"
Biirstner, this is something that K. cannot he thinks, "if he were
resist or abolish. to achieve anything, it was essential that he
should eliminate from his mind the idea of
At this, his most discouraging moment
possible
so far, his Uncle enters theguilt. There was
scene, andno such
K.'sguilt."
hope and confidence areStill, his stubbornness
partially has seriously far-
restored.
reaching ramifications. HisK.
The Uncle has two suggestions: position
canat the
leave the environment as the Uncle had bank has been placed in jeopardy, leading
the Manufacturer, one of his erstwhile cli-
done twenty years before, thus avoiding the
ents, to suggest that he attempt to get the
problem, or he can avail himself of certain
artist Titorelli to intercede for him. The
legal weapons at his disposal to fight the
presence of his Uncle has reminded K. that
case. K. refuses to retreat to the ghetto, and
hopefully chooses what appears to be ener-his family is somehow involved in the case,
getic action. It turns out to be action intoo,
a that though he fights alone he may not
vacuum; K.'s hope is false, his confidence or lose alone. This latter responsibility
win
misplaced. is far more terrible than his responsibility
to himself, and K. is not permitted to for-
Almost immediately K. suspects that the
get it. He is motivated to go to Titorelli by
sickly and weak Advocate to whom his
the weakening of his authority at the bank,
Uncle introduces him will prove ineffec-
out the torments he suffers at the hands of
tual. When he discovers that the Clerk of
the little crippled girls attached to Tito-
the Court has been lurking in the shadows
relli's boarding house are haunting remin-
of the Advocate's room, signifying that the
Advocate is in intimate contact with the ders that his actions may be responsible for
the fate of the whole family of Jews.
Court in charge of K.'s case and is therefore
Titorelli is the artist who in a sense has
anti-Semitic, K.'s suspicions become cer-
tainties and he abruptly leaves the [Link] the Examining Magistrates of the
Leni, the Advocate's nurse-housekeeper-Court by falsifying their stature, their dig-
mistress, attempts to seduce K. into yieldingnified mien, and their judicial surroundings
to the wishes of the Court. "You can't put in his portraits of them. While K. waits,
up a resistance to this Court," she says; Titorelli elaborates on a portrait of Justice
"you must admit your fault. Make your until she is changed into a likeness of the
confession at the first chance you get. Un- Goddess of the Hunt in full cry. In spite of
this
til you do that, there's no possibility of get- warning by the master dissembler, and
in
ting out of their clutches, none at all." These spite of the warning implicit in the Fu-
sentiments are echoed later by the Advocate ries' pursuit of him up the stairs to Tito-
who explains to K. that "The only sensible relli's studio, K.'s hopes rise when the artist
thing was to adapt oneself to the existing accepts his assertions of innocence.
conditions. . . . Anything but draw atten- Titorelli points out and defines three pos-
tion to oneself from above! One must be sible solutions to the case of an innocent
low, no matter how much it went againstman: Definite Acquittal, which is theoret-
the grain." To try to alter things was to in- ically possible but actually impossible,
vite destruction, since the organization though legends indicate that such acquittals
would not really change, "unless, indeed,may have taken place in the ancient past (a
which was very probable, it became stillprobable reference to the vindication of the
more rigid, more vigilant, more severe. ♦ . ."Jews as Chosen People in the Old Testa-

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 TRIAL OF KAFKA'S JOSEPH K. 13

ment) ; Ostensible Acquittal in fromwhich thehis case is being tried before

Block that
charge is lifted for a short time a or
Low until
Court, and
a that the function of the
new arrest is made (a reference to LowtheCourtpos-
appears to be to work unceasing-
sibility that the Jew may win over part of
ly to prevent the accused, like Block and K.,
society but never all of it) ; and from
Indefinite
carrying his case to the High Court;
Postponement in which the accused that society
may go actively prevents final judg-
ment, the examination
on with his life in a probable conviction that of the major prem-
his case will never come to a conclusion (a the recalcitrant Jew. And
ise, in the case of
reference to the apparent acceptance
finally,of the
witnessing Block's debasement by
Jew into society as a Jew) . the advocate, K. learns that "the Advocate's
methods,
Throughout Titorelli's exposition the toFu-which K. fortunately had not
ries clamor outside the door and long
theenough
studio been exposed, amounted to
this : and
becomes stiflingly, disgustingly hot that the client finally forgot the whole
air-
less. In spite of a tremendous world and lived only in the hope of toiling
lethargy
along
which settles on K., in spite of anthis false path until the end of his
over-
whelming desire to yield, K. has case
the should
cour-come in sight." His new knowl-
edge only
age and wit to see through the two serves to entrench K.'s stubborn-
possible
proposals. " 'Both methods have ness,this
to makeinmore adamant his refusal to
common/ " says Titorelli, " 'thatyield.
they He save
unequivocally dismisses the Ad-
vocate.
the accused from coming up for sentence.'
'But they also prevent an actual acquittal,'
Betrayed, trapped, once again alone in his
trial, [Link]
said K. in a low voice, as if embarrassed is assigned the responsibility of
guide for
his own perspicacity. 'You have grasped thean Italian official whom he can-
kernel of the matter,' said thenot understand well enough to converse
painter
quickly." with. The Italian, clearly a representative of
With Titorelli's admission, K. manages historical Christianity, suggests that they
to rouse himself sufficiently to leave the stu- meet at the Cathedral to begin their tour.
dio. But first he buys three of Titorelli's K. arrives first, and while waiting, decides
paintings, all exactly the same, as all three to evaluate the paintings in the Cathedral.
suggested solutions have been exactly the The first and only one which he examines,
same. To escape the Furies, K. leaves by a and that dimly, in the flickering light of his
different door, and finds himself in another pocket torch, is of Christ being laid in the
branch of the Law Court Offices to which sepulchre while an armored knight stands
Titorelli's studio is actually an adjunct. The guard.
musty, sickening air becomes more nause- The painting is a revelation. Implicit in
ating, and K. dashes through and out of the it is the major premise for which K. has
Offices closely pursued by the Furies who sought so eagerly throughout the trial: the
have managed somehow to reach him. Law is the curse of the Christian God upon
Bewildered, misled by his Uncle, by the the Christ-killer Jew. Society effectively
Advocate, by the painter, K. resolves to con- enforces the curse simply by guarding the
tinue his struggle without help. He meets tomb, that is, by being Christian. There is
Block, the Commercial Traveler, in the Ad- no need for K., the Jew, to examine the oth-
vocate's home and learns that at least part er paintings in the Cathedral; there is no
of his trouble is founded on superstition. need to wait longer for the Italian official.
Block tells him of the general belief that But K. hesitates. The argument of the
one's guilt is betrayed by a certain facial painting seems to him not absolute and
characteristic, not the size and shape of his irrevocable. He is disturbed by society's
nose, but the set of his lips. K. also learns role as unreasoning enforcer of the curse,

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
14 BOOKS ABROAD

and by serious doubts is a sufficient

as tojustification for his actions,
the validity
of the premise. Thusirrational
he is though they may appear to
summoned to be.
the pulpit to have his The Law exists above
questions and beyond and re-
answered.
gardless
His case is progressing of society; the
badly, the doorkeeper
priest is dis-
tinct from the Law
tells him. " 'You are held to be guilty. Your even though he serves
case will perhaps neverit. This
get is the most deadly
beyond a point
lower of all. In
the parable the Jew
court. Your guilt is supposed, for the pres- cannot achieve even a
minimum converse
ent at least, to have been proved.' 'But I am with the doorkeeper,
not guilty/ K. [Link] alone 'It's
the Law,a either by pleading, argu-
misunder-
ing, or gift-giving.
standing. And if it comes to that, how But even if the
can door-
any man be called guilty ? We are all sim-even
keeper were to change in his attitude,
ply men here, one asifmuchK. were to be asaccepted
the unqualifiedly
other.* into
'That is true/ said thesociety, there would
priest, 'but follow no ultimate
that is
change"in the Law. The Jew, as the priest
how all guilty men talk.'
puts it, is not really barred by the doorkeep-
No argument is possible, as none had
er; he is merely not admitted.
been possible at the beginning of the trial.
The Law is vulnerable; it has to be. A
The Court's decision is a foregone conclu-
major premise
sion either with or without theso intimately
premise; connected with
but
irrationality cannot
granting the premise, the case is even more stand firm against the
attack of reason. K. strikes at its weakest
hopeless and struggle is useless. Neither
K.'s legal nor extra-legal, point: formal
he asserts that the doorkeeper
nor infor- is
mal machinations can serve to resolve the either simple-minded or a swindler. The
chaos resulting from his stubbornness and priest answers that to doubt the doorkeeper
society's prejudice. The Jew must simply is to doubt the Law, since the doorkeeper
accept his place on the perimeter of society, serves the Law. K., not yet ready to de-
even though accepting it gains him nothing nounce the Law, denies only that it is a
but the absence of struggle. The priest proper justification: "'I don't agree with
points out that K. has hurt his cause specif-that point of view,' " he says; " 'for if one
ically by seeking outside help, particularly accepts it, one must accept as true every-
the help of women. K.'s reply, that the na- thing the doorkeeper says.' 'No,* said the
tures of the Court and of the lecherous ex- priest, 'it is not necessary to accept every-
amining magistrate are such that the inter-thing as true, one must only accept it as nec-
cession of women might conceivably aid his essary/ "
cause, betrays a misunderstanding of soci- Cornered now, K. realizes that he cannot
ety's function and motivation, betrays a con- defeat the Law, vulnerable though it may
fusion of the Law with the Court. be, since it exists so potently simply by vir-
"Can't you see anything at all?" the tue of its vulnerability. The Court, society,
priest shrieks. is separate from the Law, can never under-
He then attempts to explain to K. the stand the premise justifying its acts, could
complex relationship among the Law, so- accomplish nothing even by understanding
ciety, and the Jew by reciting to him the it or by acting differently - yet to disavow
parable of the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper society is to disavow the Law and to invite
destruction. K. does not hesitate. With
is society, or the Low Court, authorized by
the High Court to stand between the Jewdesperate courage he answers the priest.
and the Law. He does not know why he "A melancholy conclusion," he says. "It
stands there. He has not, nor ever can have,turns lying into a universal principle."
any direct knowledge of the Law. But he Society must destroy any man, but espe-
does have the Law's authorization, and this cially the Jew, who forces it back to the basic

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 TRIAL OF KAFKA'S JOSEPH K. 15

premises upon which it rests itsthe argument here have been justly used to
prejudices
and actions, and who then flatlysupport
dismisses
the other arguments as well. Thus
the premises as lies. K's brave denunciation
for example the Cathedral episode is cli-
of the Law has sealed his fate. mactic on all levels. It contains not only the
symbolic
But K.'s courage gives way briefly justification for society's tyran-
to de-
nical
pression. As he is being led to his anti-Semitism, but it also justifies sym-
execution
in the final chapter he catches bolically the tyranny of conformity under
a fleeting
glimpse of Fraulein Biirstner,which not only the Jew, but modern man in
hurrying
generaland
away from him, still unattainable, lives.
he And it is at the same time
"suddenly realized the futility ofthe House of Kierkegaard's tyrant God,
resistance."
and of Freud's
But just as suddenly the depression is re-tyrant Father.
placed by a reborn courage; This isToo the first
many Kafka critics, in their enthusi-
time he has seen Fraulein Biirstner since asm for their own interpretations, have oc-
early in the trial, and though she is moving casionally forgotten that his work is alle-
away from him she is no longer cut off from gory, and that it is in the nature of allegory
him by her Friend or Captain Lance. He to be ambiguous. The allegorist examines
has refused to yield, to admit his guilt even metaphorically the causes and conse-
in the vain hope that he could thereby quences of a human condition, in Kafka's
achieve his goal. The goal has been removed case, the chaotic condition of the modern
farther and farther from him because of hisworld. The metaphors become levels of
stubbornness, but now suddenly it is there meaning, and the allegory owes its artistry
before him, not clearly perceptible, hurry-to the consciously intricate mingling and
ing away, still unattainable - but there meshing of the levels. The allegory is ulti-
nonetheless, as if his very stubbornness it- mately clear only in terms of the metaphors;
self had forced it to appear. the critic must treat its ambiguity with re-
His courage and defiance renewed, K. spect. When he submits the work, as I have
asks himself: "Am I to leave this world as a The Trial, to a close and careful exegetical
man who shies away from all conclusions ? examination from the point of view of one
Are people to say of me after I am goneof its levels, he must constantly be aware
that at the beginning of my case I wanted that the other levels exist, or he in effect de-
it to finish, and at the end of it I wanted it stroys the allegory.
to begin again? I don't want that to be The object of this paper has not been to
said." He must be destroyed, but if headd to and enrich Kafka criticism, but to
meets his fate bravely, defiantly, protesting-clarify his allegorical argument and con-
ly, placing the onus of it on society, then hisclusions by emphasizing the richness in the
death shall not have been in vain, for histexture of his work. Reading The Trial, or
dignity and manhood will be restored. HeThe Castle, or America, or many of the
refuses to place the knife in his own throat,short stories as considerations and condem-
and as society drives it home, he dies "Like nations of society's vicious persecution of
a dog!" pointing a prophetic finger at so-the Jew does not weaken their artistry but
ciety, crying out the words "as if he meantstrengthens it. The chaos is not resolved
the shame of [them] to outlive him." here. But simply hearing in the work, how-
The interpretation of The Trial offered inever faintly, a note of protest, a defiant cry,
this paper is, in spite of its singularity, per- a hopeless prophecy is to discover a new,
fectly consistent with the three standard in-more optimistic dimension in Kafka's
terpretations as they are in fact perfectly world view, and a greater depth of meaning
consistent with one another. The various in his allegory.
episodes and incidents cited in support of Michigan State University

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 FRANZ KAFKA

(Courtesy Austrian Information Service, N. Y.)

(see page 10)

This content downloaded from [Link] on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]