Kafka's Chaplain
Author(s): Ignace Feuerlicht
Source: The German Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, (Mar., 1966), pp. 208-220
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Association of Teachers of
German
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/403290
Accessed: 10/04/2008 05:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
Ignace Feuerlicht
Of all the Court officials in Kafka's Der ProzeB, the Chaplain
is the most articulate and, some may think, the most appealing. But,
like much of the novel and particularly anything connected with the
Court, he, too, is shrouded in mystery. Literally and figuratively he
speaks in total or almost total darkness. The verger has extinguished
all the candles, the Chaplain's lamp goes out by itself, and K.'s flashlight is forgotten. The end of Chapter IX is the darkest part of the
Trial. K., as well as the reader, have great difficulty in finding their
way. Is the Chaplain an ideal figure, a sort of authentic Kafka,
who wants to enlighten K., as some think,1 is he a representation
of K.'s true "humanistic" conscience,2 or is he, on the contrary, a
devilish creature, bent on confusing K.,3 as others think? At close
reading one can see that the whole episode of the Chaplain, which
contains some of Kafka's most famous pages, is beset with too many
inconsistencies, omissions, and ambiguities as to allow any such clearcut judgments.
K. himself does not doubt the "good intention" of the Chaplain,
whom he holds to be an exception among Court officials (255).4 He
says he can be frank with him and with him only. Twice he calls
him very friendly (255, 265) though he always keeps a certain air of
"solemnity" (which, too, makes him an unusual Court official). K.
speaks of the Chaplain's "gentle nature" and the narrator credits
him with "great delicacy of feeling" (264). K. hopes that the Chaplain may advise him how to escape the trial altogether. He paces up
and down with him in the Cathedral for quite some time, as if they
were old acquaintances or even friends; first in a long conversation,
that includes the legend of the doorkeeper, then in silence. When
K. leaves, the Chaplain shakes his hand, as he did when he had
1Rene Dauvin, "The Trial: Its Meaning," in Franz Kafka Today,
ed. Angel Flores and Homer Swander (Madison,Wis., 1958), p. 156.
Erich Fromm, The Forgotten Language (New York, 1962), p. 254.
3 Gerhard Kaiser, "Franz Kafkas ProzeB," Euphorion, LII
(1958),
40; HermannPongs, Franz Kafka: Dichter des Labyrinths (Heidelberg, 1960), pp. 35, 43.
4 Page numbers in parentheses refer to Franz Kafka, Der ProzeB
(Berlin, 1951). T stands for Tagebiicher (New York, 1948).
2
208
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
209
descended from the pulpit. According to-his own words, he "has
as much time for K. as he needs" and he had to speak from a distance
at first because he is "too easily influenced and tends to forget his
duty." Even his shouting after K.'s uncomplimentary remarks about
the Court denotes sympathy with K.'s plight.
K. has come to the Cathedral to meet an Italian business acquaintance. After he has been waiting for this Italian for an hour, he
discovers a priest at the foot of a pulpit, ready to mount, his eyes
fixed on him. Why the priest does not address K. at this point is not
understandable. Nor is it clear why the Chaplain or the Court have
to use the lengthy maneuver with the Italian to lure K. into the
Cathedral. That K. actually is maneuvered into the Cathedral and
does not meet the Chaplain by chance, can be seen by the strange
behavior of the verger and by the Chaplain's remark to K. "I summoned you here" (252).
When K. is about to leave the Cathedral, since he is not interested
in a sermon and has already been away from the office too long,
the priest calls out "Josef K.!". K. could still leave, without bothering
about the priest. But his thinking and attitude become quite irrational.
If he were to turn around, he thinks, he would be caught, for that
would amount to an admission that he was the person addressed
and that he was ready to obey. This is obviously not true, for anybody could or would have suddenly turned around if he heard that
loud voice. K. now waits for the priest to call his name a second time,
for then he "would certainly have left." This does not make much
sense either.
In spite of his previous thoughts and intentions, he cannot help
turning his head and when he sees the priest beckoning him to come
nearer, he even hurries toward him with long "flying" strides. It is
baffling to see the conscientious Herr Prokurist, who has a certain
measure of status-consciousness and who has to go to his office,
stop when the unknown young priest impolitely shouts "Josef K.!"
and then even run toward the priest. It is equally baffling to see him
move twice in obedience to gestures made by that priest as if he
were a child or an animal, or to see him, in another fit of curious
overzealousness, throw away the album he was holding in his hand
when the priest tells him to lay it down.
One may be tempted to explain K.'s docility to the Chaplain's
words and gestures by his frequently alleged "fascination" with the
210
THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
Court.5 K., however, shows his meekness toward the priest before
he knows of that priest's connection with the Court. In general, it
is very doubtful whether K. is really spellbound by the Court, whether
he does not feel happy when the supervisor tells him that he is free
to lead his ordinary life, and it is even more questionable whether
he "likes being on trial."6 He certainly is not fascinated, for instance,
by the Kanzleidirektor in the lawyer's bedroom. And when he learns
that he was not arrested in the ordinary way, he feels very confident, even defiant, thinks he could "play with the Court officials"
(24), and even calls the supervisor's "duty" stupid (25). His arrogant
attitude at the first investigation, his commiserating with the procedure
(55), his desire to fight the Court (68, 75, 109), his calling the
lower Court officials names (108), his vows to punish the higher
Court officials (110), his contempt for the trial (69, 152), and the
indifference he feels for months at a time are certainly not signs of
any "fascination." His desire to make the first interrogation his last
one (45), his hope to live "outside the trial" (254) or to crush the
whole Court with one blow (296), his refusal to accept Titorelli's
proposal of an indefinite postponement, or to call for police protection in order to prolong the trial, clearly indicate that he does not
"like being on trial."
The
priest reveals himself as "the" Prison Chaplain, which
K.'s status as that of a prisoner at large, though,
confirms
probably
of course, a prison chaplain does not address only prisoners. He
makes mainly three points in his non-sermon. First, he tells K. that
his case is going badly, second, that he is looking too much for
outside help, and third, that he is deluding himself about the Court.
His information, however, does not seem useful at all. K. even calls
most of it more harmful than useful (254).
When the Chaplain tells K. that his case is going badly, K. is
5 Charles Neider, The Frozen Sea (New York, 1948), p. 109; A. K.
Wilson, "Null and Void," GL&L, LXIV (1960-61), 168; Beda
Allemann in Der deutsche Roman, ed. Benno v. Wiese, II (Diisseldorf, 1963), 247; Walter H. Sokel, Franz Kafka: Tragik und
Ironie (Munich, 1964), pp. 241, 288.
6 Neider, p. 109. According to Ingeborg
Henel, "Die Tiirhiiterlegende
und ihre Bedeutung fur Kafkas ProzeB," DVLG, XXXVII (1963),
57, K. feels uncomfortable in his freedom. It is questionable whether
he "agrees to his arrest and his trial," Michel Dentan, Humour et
Crdation litteraire dans l'oeuvre de Kafka (Geneva, 1961), p. 96.
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
211
not at all surprised. He merely maintains his innocence in a rare
case of metaphysical flight: "How can any man be called guilty?
We are all men here, one as much as the other." The Chaplain's
retort, "That is true, but that's how all guilty men talk," is defective
in three ways. First, it is patently not true that all guilty men use K.'s
reasoning that no man can be guilty. Second, it is obviously illogical
to admit that no man can be guilty, but also to speak of "all guilty
men." And third, the Chaplain's intimation that K. is probably
guilty only makes K. ask him whether he, the Chaplain, also is
prejudiced against him, like the other Court officials.
As to outside help, the priest warns K. not to rely too much on
it, particularly when it comes from women (253). However, he does
not reject the idea of outside help, as some critics think.7 The Chaplain's warning is rather confusing since at the time of his conversation
with the priest, K. is not counting a great deal on outside help and
has none to speak of. He dismissed the lawyer, did not engage
Titorelli, failed in his efforts even to see Miss Biirstner, did apparently
not see the usher's wife a second time ("I don't want to see you
again," 75), and could not get Leni's help since he remains "recalcitrant." K.'s answer to the Chaplain's warning is hypothetical and
almost phantastic. He says if he could move some women he knows
to join forces in working for him, he would win, especially with this
Court, which consists almost entirely of philanderers.
K.'s ideas about outside help are confused and confusing, more
than the Chaplain and some critics assume. At times he abhors any
suggestion of outside help and that to such an extent that he even
walks to the first investigation instead of taking a taxi (47). At
other times he seriously thinks of approaching some people for help.
But, strangely enough, these people are insignificant women, such
as the little typist, the utterly unreliable usher's wife, and the lawyer's
maid. He himself does not look for a lawyer or a "fixer." His two
potential men helpers (the lawyer and the painter) are recommended
to him by people who want to help him (his uncle and the manufacturer). But after a few months, K. dismisses the lawyer, whom
he engaged only to please his uncle (224), and wants to write his
own petition. He apparently also rejects Titorelli's offer, because it
would not bring about his definite acquittal. Only in the very be7
Wilhelm Emrich, Franz Kafka (Frankfurt,
Henel, p. 53; Sokel, p. 356.
1961), pp. 276, 282;
212
THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
ginning does he think of requesting the help of the district attorney
Hasterer, his friend; and only at the very end does it occur to him
he might be able to block the mysterious Court by simply asking the
regular police for help. It is rather puzzling that he does not look
for help where and when he could easily obtain it.
The Chaplain's "disapproval" of K.'s looking for the wrong
kind of help is itself not helpful since it remains purely negative;
there is no hint what "true help" is. K., furthermore, does not seem
to be swayed a great deal by the priest's warning.
The third, by far the longest and apparently also most important,
part of the Chaplain's talk concerns K.'s allegedly wrong opinion
of the Court. When K. brazenly contends that the Court consists
almost exclusively of petticoat chasers and that the Chaplain may
not know what sort of Court he is serving, the Chaplain first remains
silent for some time, but when K. adds that he did not mean to
insult the Chaplain, the priest shouts at him: "Can't you even see
two paces in front of you?" As the narrator adds, "it was an angry
shout, but at the same time sounded like the unwary cry of someone who sees another fall."
Another period of silence follows, the priest then steps down
from the pulpit at the request of K., and when K. makes another
provocative remark about the Court ("You are an exception among
all who belong to the Court"), he tells him that he is in error
about the Court, and, in a Kafkaesque "run-together" sentences,
begins the legend of the doorkeeper, which belongs to the writings
prefacing the Law and which deals with that particular error. The
legend, however, does not deal with any court, does not even use
the word "court," and does not make it clear who is in error (the
"man from the country" or the doorkeeper), nor what the error
consists of.
Many critics share the Chaplain's view that K. is wrong about
the Court. The air of the Court, for instance, in which he feels
stifled, is thought to be pure. He also allegedly "mistakesits magnificent chambers for dingy tenement rooms."8 Some even hold him
accountable for the repulsive or absurd features of the Court. They
purify the Court by heaping its dirt on K. The seemingly absurd
and impenetrable Court is said to be nothing but K.'s life.9 It is he
8
Philip Rahv, Image and Idea (Norfolk, Conn., 1957), p. 136.
9 Emrich, p. 265.
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
213
who places the interrogation in a tenement house that is as "dingy
and decayed as his own mind" and it is he who makes the Court
employees the way they are-weak, ignorant, and corrupt.'0 He is
even said to be guilty of his own execution by "conspiring with the
assailant" (i.e. the two executioners) "in the act of his death.""l
It should be noted, however, that it is the lawyer, not K., who calls
the Court officials "disloyal, corrupt, vengeful, ruthless, without any
real understanding of human relations" (141, 143, 146); it is Titorelli
who calls the judges vain (176); it is Leni who even calls them
madly vain (132), and it is a Court official, the "information giver"
himself, as well as Block, who speak of the foul air in the Court
offices (87, 209).
Critics who hold the Court in a much higher esteem than
K. will find it difficult to explain the two pornographic books on the
magistrate's table which arouse K.'s indignation. As to the book
entitled How Grete Was Plagued by Her Husband, it is supposed
to contain only the records of the Court about very trivial everyday
events.l2 The book, however, is called a novel by the author, not a
case history, and its contents are obviously of a sadistic nature. The
other book, with the picture of the naked man and woman, is supposed to point at the "naked existence and the elementary interpersonal relations."'3 But it becomes clear from the same chapter
that the "bare" facts and elementary interpersonal relations in which
the magistrate is extremely interested, refer to a young female body.
The indecent picture is also said to be a "reflection of what was
already in K.'s mind" and K.'s indignation is considered to be illfounded since "within a few minutes he is close to being in such a
position with a woman himself."l4There is, however, quite a difference
between a young bachelor who thinks of starting an affair with a
promiscuous woman and a magistrate who has an affair with the
wife of a lower official and gets some of his inspiration and guidance
from pornographic books in the very courtroom.
10 Henel, p. 59.
Frederick J. Hoffman,"Kafka's The Trial: The Assailant as Landscape," Bucknell Review, IX (1960), 103-104.
12 Wilhelm Emrich, "Franz Kafka," Deutsche Literatur im 20.
Jahrhundert, ed. Hermann Friedmann and Otto Mann, II (Heidelberg,
1961), 196.
1
s1 Allemann, p. 257.
14
Ronald Gray, Kafka's Castle (Cambridge,Eng., 1956), pp. 129, 139.
214
THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
Unlike K., the Court officials are only rarely blamed for things
they have not done or for faults they do not have. Franz and Willem
do not steal K.'s underwear;l5 they only try to (58). They are not
illiterate either;'6 Willem reads a book (10). Kafka does not tell
us that Franz and Willem have been whipped day after day;17 we
only know of two days. Nor do we read that the "high-ranking
judge" who was painted while sitting on a kitchen stool, is "corrupt"
and a "lecher";l8 he is not even a high-ranking judge (131-132, 176).
The Chaplain tells his "story" of the doorkeeper to K. so that
the Prokurist may not "deceive himself" in the Court. At first, however, K. (and the reader) thinks that the story proves his, K.'s, point
or point of view, and even strengthens it. It is not the "man from
the country" who deceives himself, but the doorkeeper who deceives
him. The array of different opinions which the Chaplain then quotes
furnishes an impressive list of virtues which the doorkeeper supposedly has: He fulfills his duty, he is scrupulous, conscious of the
importance of his office, respectful to his superiors,he is not garrulous,
is not to be bribed, not to be moved to pity or rage when performing his duty, he is friendly, patient, magnanimous, sympathetic,
and even full of admiration for his customer.
But in spite of the doorkeeper's many virtues, K. does not seem
to change his mind about the Court officials, nor his attitude toward
them. He does not even promise he would consider changing it.
In the chapter following his encounter with the Chaplain, the last
chapter of the novel, he still judges the officials by their appearance
and manners. When he sees the two executioners, he takes them
for "third-rate old actors," asks them at which theater they are
playing, and feels nauseated at their sight. To be sure, he addresses
them as Herren (296), while the two wardens were only Mdnner,
but the narrator, too, always calls them Herren, perhaps as a parallel
to the over-politeness of the two men (the girl in the last chapter is
also called Frdulein, 268-269, while Miss Montag and Miss Biirstner
15 Despite Emrich, Franz
Kafka, p. 240; Dauvin, p. 158; Helmut
Arntzen, Der moderne deutsche Roman (Heidelberg, 1962), p. 97;
Kurt Weinberg, Kafkas Dichtungen (Bern, 1963), p. 74.
16 Hans Siegbert Reiss, Franz
Kafka (Heidelberg, 1956), p. 155.
17
18
Allemann, p. 280; Wilhelm Emrich, "Die Bilderwelt Franz Kafkas,"
Universitdtstage (Berlin, 1960), p. 128
Emrich, "Die Bilderwelt," p. 129.
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
215
were called Midchen, 95). The Chaplain, an allegedly central figure,
his allegedly crucial legend, and its "moral" are not even spoken of
or alluded to in the last chapter.
It has usually been assumed that K. should have learned a more
profound lesson than the "fact" that the lower Court officials are
not the scum he thinks they are, though the Chaplain hardly hints
at any other lesson. K. does not even sense any deeper meaning in
the Chaplain's legend. His only metaphysical or near metaphysical
comment, "lying becomes a universal principle," develops from the
Chaplain's exegesis rather than from his legend. He may be said not
to understand the story, but he can hardly be blamed for this, since
the legend finds so many different and contradictory interpretations
in the "exegesis" of the Chaplain himself and in the critical aftermath and since it took Kafka himself more than a month to comprehend it (T., 448, 460).
K.'s inability to understand the legend is foreshadowed-in the
same chapter - by his inability to understand the Italian in the
office and the old man in the Cathedral and by a profusion of
words such as verstehen (four times on p. 240, twice on p. 241, three
times on p. 242, also on pp. 245, 248, three times on p. 251), miBverstehen (245), sich verstiindigen (240), verstindlich (240, 241),
Verstdndnis (241, 242), Verstand (247, 249), unverstdndlich (247,
248), begreifen (241), and auffassen (242). He himself recognizes
that the Chaplain's unfamiliar train of thought is better suited for
Court officials than for him (264).
The Chaplain's story of the doorkeeper is usually called a parablel9 and sometimes considered the centerpiece of the novel20 and
even of Kafka's work.21 Since the novel itself-like Kafka's other
writings-is also often called a parable, the story of the doorkeeper
19 Walter Benjamin,
Schriften, II (Frankfurt, 1955), 208; Martin
Buber, Schuld und Schuldgefiihle (Heidelberg, 1958), p. 56; Reiss,
p. 57; Herman Uyttersprot, Eine neue Anordnung der Werke
Kafkas (Antwerp, 1957), p. 37; Andre Nemeth, Kafka ou le
mystere juif (Paris, 1947), p. 77; Gray, Kafka's Castle, p. 142;
Johannes Urzidil, "Das Reich des Unerreichbaren,"GR, XXXVI
(1961), 167; Heinz Politzer, Franz Kafka: Parable and Paradox
20
21
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1962), p. 177; Henel, p. 54; Herbert Deinert, "Kafka's
Parable Before the Law," GR, XXXIX (1964), 192.
Deinert, p. 192; cf. Politzer, p. 180.
Urzidil, p. 167.
216
THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
would be a parable within a parable. Actually its connections with the
trial proper are rather tenuous. Originally it may not even have
been intended to form part of the novel. The very term "parable,"
as applied to the Chaplain's story, is subject to argument. Kafka
seems to use only the terms Geschichte (twice on p. 257, twice on p.
258, pp. 260, 262, 263, twice on p. 264; T., 460) and Legende (310;
T., 448)22 It has been noted that while a Biblical parable points to
some definite meaning, Kafka's parables point to a world without
definite values.23 Equally important and less controversial perhaps:
A Biblical parable is based on everyday facts and commonplace
events known to everybody, and is meant to make a general truth
obvious to everybody, easier to grasp and to remember (not to veil
it, in spite of Mark, 4: 10-20 and Luke, 8: 9-10) .24 A parable
should ordinarily not require any exegesis, but should be part of
the exegesis itself. The Chaplain's story, however, is unreal in many
respects, incomprehensible or dubious in its very elements. If the
parable of the Prodigal Son, for instance, contained equally vague
elements, the reader would wonder whether it was a real son or
whether he ever came back. In Kafka's "parable" of the doorkeeper
a man spends years just sitting and waiting, another one just standing;
both have apparently no ordinary human needs; there are no other
people to be seen or to be heard in the world of the story. It is not
clear what the "Law" is, who hired the doorkeeper, who, apart
from other doorkeepers, lives in the "Law," what it means to live
in the "Law," etc. The "door" is, therefore, open to many interpretations, paradoxical or contradictory as they may appear, such as:
The doorkeeper stands just there to be ignored; standing with his
back to the "Law" he shows disrespect (how else does a guard stand?).
The man from the country can only enter the Law by breaking it.
The Chaplain's story is thus an example of what is called a
"modem parable," which proves the impossibility of generally accepted guiding principles and has as many interpretations as there
22
23
24
This use of the term "Legende"is in line with the now generally
accepted definition. See Hellmut Rosenfeld in Reallexikon der
deutschen Literaturgeschichte, II/1 (Berlin, 1959), 31.
Emrich, Franz Kafka, pp. 76-77.
The Interpreter's Bible, VII (New York, 1951), 700; VIII (New
York, 1952), 148; The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New
York, 1962), p. 652.
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
217
are interpreters.25Sometimes it also seems to prove the impossibility
of any interpretation. The difficulty in interpreting the Chaplain's
legend seems to be increased by some omission or omissions in the
text. When K. answers the legend stating, "So the doorkeeper deceived the man," the priest tells him not to accept someone else's
opinion without testing it, and K. replies that the priest's first interpretation was right (257-258). The published text, however, offers
neither someone else's opinion nor the priest's first interpretation.26
The metaphysical or moral speculations around the Chaplain's
legend are generally based on the identification of K. with the
man from the country. K., however, is not a man from the country,
since he spent his early childhood in the city (244), nor is he the
man from the country,27but almost his opposite. He does not give
up his ordinary life of his own free will to enter the "Law," but
wants to get rid of his trial which was forced on him and to resume
his ordinary life. He is not a patient man, but utterly unable to
endure years of just sitting and waiting. He rushes out of Mrs.
Grubach's sitting room, out of his "first interrogation," out of the
offices, out of the lawyer's bedroom, and out of Titorelli's studio.
He even rushes towards his execution. Unlike the man from the
country, he is not afraid of the Court officials, he feels superior to
them, he criticizes and insults them, and does not bribe them. His
attempt at bribing is not intended to save himself. He is perhaps
too self-confident, while his opposite number in the legend is too
timid. While the man from the country should perhaps have courageously disregarded the doorkeeper,28K. is courageous from the beginning, or at least in the beginning, and ignores the Court for some
time.
The metaphysical views of the legend are encouraged by the
fact that it is told by a priest in a cathedral, who tells K. to lay
down his album because it is not a prayerbook (252) and who uses
words that could have a religious connotation, such as Gesetz (255,
25
Heinz Politzer, "Versohnliche Entgegnung," GQ, XXXIV (1961),
26
Speaking perhaps of an editing problem, one may be allowed to
point to another one. Lippe in "die Augen des Friulein Montag auf
seine Lippe gerichtet zu sehen" (99) should probably read Lippen.
Comparep. 210, where Lippen is used six times in a similar context.
In spite of Kaiser, p. 44, and Neider, p. 159.
Urzidil, p. 170.
238.
27
28
218
THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
torah?) and Schrift (257, twice on 258, 260, scripture?). But, interestingly enough, after the Chaplain has already been twice called
a Geistlicher (248, 249), there is the remark that he is a Geistlicher
"beyond doubt" (249), which only arouses some doubts about his
true status. At any rate, there is no indication that the "young man
with the smooth dark face" wears any ecclesiastical garment or performs any ritual act. Although he calls himself a prison chaplain,
there is no prison in the novel, at least not in the ordinary sense,
and there may be no chaplain either. K., who speaks of his "alleged
arrest" (22, 66) and of the "alleged Court" (60), might just as well
have spoken of the "alleged priest." For the Chaplain never mentions sin, expiation, repentance, confession, forgiveness, salvation, soul,
or God. He is connected with a Court which is not religious at all,
which meets on Sundays and makes no reference to God, religion,
or any church. Incidentally, the ridiculous and pathetic Block is the
only person in the novel to use the word "sin," and that only in an
angry outburst at K. when he quotes an old legal saying (230).29
Kafka apparently employed the "Christian symbols in his
Cathedral scene solely as scenery and costume, as props in a play
of his imagination."30 The Cathedral and especially the pulpit are
used by the author or the Court or the Chaplain as a very effective
stage setting. The lighting, or rather the darkening, is particularly
well done in this scene. So are the sound effects, and even more so
the effects of silence. The question is only what the play is about
and what role the Chaplain is playing in it.
The Chaplain concludes his remarks as well as the Cathedral
scene by a provocative statement: "The Court wants nothing from
you. It receives you when you come and it dismisses you when
you go." These two sentences can be viewed from at least five angles.
First, they may formulate the "law of the Law." The Court, therefore, "has broken this law by the very act of arresting K." and the
Chaplain has violated it too "by calling K.'s name as soon as he sees
him."31 There is, of course, no proof that the Chaplain actually
discloses to K. the "fundamental law" of the Court or that the mys29
30
The lawyer's "Wenn ich mich nicht an meinen Klienten . . . ver-
siindigen wollte" and his "bereueich" (226) are far removedfrom
any religious connotation.
Politzer, Franz Kafka, p. 176.
31 Politzer,
pp. 168-169.
KAFKA'S CHAPLAIN
219
terious Court has any fundamental law or goes by any laws.
The Chaplain's statement may even be viewed as a pretentious,
pompous, and almost unbelievable lie. It is contradicted by K.'s
arrest, by the Court's maneuver to get him into the Cathedral, and
particularly by the fact that the Court does not dismiss K. when
he wants to "go" (get rid of the trial). He is not "dismissed" and
the man from the country is not "received." The Chaplain might
just as well have added another untrue remark about the magnanimity
of the Court: "And it does not have you executed unless you apply
for it."
Thirdly and most likely, the Chaplain's pronouncement can
be viewed as a parallel or an answer to K.'s statement in the closing
minutes of the scene that the Chaplain has "explained to him everything." Actually, K. hardly learned anything from the priest's legend
and exegesis and received anything but a "detailed explanation of
his situation."32 He makes his acknowledging remark out of sheer
friendliness toward the priest, with whom he wants to stay longer
and whose help he hopes to engage. The Chaplain makes an equally
conciliatory statement, which springs from his previously mentioned
friendliness, chimes with his previously mentioned solemnity, and
closes the dark scene on a hopeful, albeit false note. K.'s and the
Chaplain's remarks, therefore, almost approach an exchange of social
pleasantries befitting the end of a long conversation.
Fourth, the fact that the Chaplain's final statement is obviously
contradicted by reality may be explained as an expression of the incomprehensible and total "otherness" of whatever the Chaplain
stands for, an "otherness" already suggested in more than one way
by the weird legend of the doorkeeper who does not admit the man
from the country.
Fifth, that contradiction between the Court's practice and its
alleged principle may be viewed as just one of the many inconsistencies in the novel. Some of these may be the result of the fragmentary state of the Trial; all of them contribute to its baffling
character.
However one views the Chaplain's final pronouncement, the
whole day as seen through K.'s eyes is certainly one of frustrations.
He cannot stay and work in the office, he does not understand the
32
Gray, Kafka's Castle, p. 142; cf. also "alles aufhellende Worte des
Geistlichen," Emrich, Franz Kafka, p. 282.
220
THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
Italian in the office, he does not meet the Italian in the Cathedral,
he does not understand the Chaplain's story, and he does not get
his help. Perhaps the Chaplain feels frustrated too, since he cannot
help K. or make him change his ideas and attitudes in spite of all
the stage effects, of the legend, of the long exegesis, in spite also
of his personal involvement, which he speaks of himself, his friendliness, which K. mentions, and his "finesse of feeling," which the
narrator affirms. But one cannot be sure about the Chaplain's frustration, since one is not certain about his true intentions and knows
nothing about his duty.
Some time before his encounter in the Cathedral, K. thinks
that "to ask questions is the main thing" (138). But Kafka does
not have him ask the Chaplain the questions which common sense
seems to dictate, such as, referring to the Chaplain's three topics:
"What is my guilt?", or "Who or what can help me?", or "Who
or what is this Court?". And so, in spite of the long talk and in spite
of the symptoms of his personal interest in K.'s fate, this prison
chaplain, who is neither shown in a prison nor to be fulfilling a
chaplain's duty, nor even to be religious, remains to the very end,
and precisely because of the very end, as impenetrable as the Court,
whose unquestioning servant and apologist he apparently is.33
State University College
New Paltz, N. Y.
33 Only Fromm sees a basic difference between the Court and the
Chaplain,pp. 254, 261-262.