Omissions Cotradictions

Omissions and Contradictions in Kafka's Trial
Author(s): Ignace Feuerlicht

Source: The German Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May, 1967), pp. 339-350
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Association of Teachers of German
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/402393
Accessed: 04-01-2018 04:29 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@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Association of Teachers of German, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The German Quarterly
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.244 on Thu, 04 Jan 2018 04:29:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
OMISSIONS AND CONTRADICTIONS
IN KAFKA'S TRIAL
Ignace Feuerlicht
The great effect of Kafka's Der ProzelS is based to a l

on the things that are not there and those that contradict e
These real or apparent gaps and inconsistencies may ha
origins and purposes and deserve a special study.
The first omission which a reader notices is that of the last name
of the protagonist, who is simply called Josef K. The lack of his
last name can be taken and has been taken as a sign and accusation
of his emptiness, lifelessness, or of the anonymity and fragmentation
of modern life, especially that of the middle class. But Rabensteiner
or Miss Montag, for instance, are not more alive or greater individ-
ualists than K., in spite of their full last names. Another "accused"
man is actually the only one in the novel to have a first and a last
name (Rudolf Block). K.'s antagonist, the assistant director, has
no name at all; nor are the names of the director, the priest, or
any high Court official, or the Court itself mentioned.
There is another explanation for the "hero's" surname; it, too,
seems to indicate that the author did not think much of him. In
a diary entry of a day when he might have been working on th
Trial (27 May, 1914), Kafka writes that he finds the "K" ugly
almost nauseating. "And yet I write it down, it must be characteri
of me" (T, 375).1 To be sure, the passage refers only to the lette
"K" as written by Kafka, and not to any symbolic or philosophi
meaning which it might have for Kafka or for his novel.
Kafka may have called his "hero" K. to hint that he is relate
to or even identical with himself. Indeed "K" as read in German
has all the sounds of "Kafka" except the "f," which, however,
last letter of the first name. K., to be sure, is in some respect
to Kafka. He is employed by a large firm, is single, and has a d
experience at the age of thirty (Kafka had a literary breakth
when he wrote "Das Urteil" at about that age). But he is in m
ways Kafka's opposite. Unlike Kafka, he does not suffer f
"father complex" or from an "infinite" guilt (H, 196), but is
of self-confidence. He does not seem to possess any creative abi
He is a self-made man and quite satisfied with his job and sta
339
340 THE GERMAN QUARTERLY
While K. probably is of average height (he is shorter than Willem

and taller than Block), Kafka was six foot tall. Unlike K., Kafka
frequently suffered from insomnia and headaches, often was late
for appointments, did not wear heavy clothing in winter, and did
not drink any liquor.
If one wants to equate K. with Kafka, one might just as well
equate him with Herrmann Kafka, Franz Kafka's father, for like
K., Kafka's father was a self-made man, had an oratorical flair,
looked down on people below his social rank, was of robust health,
had frequent fits of anger, and was superficially religious. He, too,
had an experience at the age of thirty that started a new chapter
in his life: He opened a store in Prague. And, for the benefit of those
who believe that "the man from the country" in the Tiirhiiterlegende
corresponds to K., Kafka's father was literally a man from the
country. But in spite of the similarities and in spite of the initial
"K," Josef K. is neither a dehydrated Franz Kafka nor an emasculated
Herrmann Kafka, but a literary figure in his own rights and with
his own life.
Kafka does not give the name of the country or city in which
the plot of the Trial unfolds (the only country mentioned in the
novel is Italy), perhaps to increase the air of generality. But with
some close reading one can find which city he had in mind.
K. lives in a country which is at peace and where law and
order prevail (12). Words, such as Elektrische (47), bloBfiiBig
(48, 173), Verkiihlung (223, 238), and the use of sein in the perfect
of stehen (90, 224) and sitzen (160) point to Southern Germany
and Austria, but are indicative of Kafka's rather than K.'s country
of origin. The phrase mit keinem Heller bezahlen (138) and the
fact that Captain Lanz greets Miss Montag by bowing to her and
respectfully kissing her hand (100) suggest more strongly the old
Austro-Hungarian Empire.
More important, Miss Montag is introduced as a German woman
(94), the country in which the "trial" takes place cannot therefore
be Germany. K., however, lives and works in a "capital" (112)
where German is spoken, judging from the first names and family
names (Elsa, Karl, Leni, Hasterer, Biirstner, Rabensteiner) and
from the name of the one and only street mentioned (JuliusstraBe).
Many or most of the inhabitants of that capital are Catholics since
KAFKA'S TRIAL 341
the Cathedral is Catholic. This excludes Bern, the Protesta

of Switzerland. The last chapter of the novel mention
on a river with a park on it. This excludes Vienna, Li
Salzburg, Klagenfurt, and Innsbruck and leaves only P
capital of Catholic Bohemia, where German was an officia
and spoken by the German and Jewish minorities, and w
spent most of his life. People, very familiar with Prague,
indeed certain sections of the city, the Kampa Island, th
Bridge, and especially the Cathedral Square and the Cath
its silver statue of a saint.2 It is also possible that the three s
bank employees witness the arrest of K. because "tog
German Rabensteiner, the Czech Kullich, and the Jew
represent the three nationalities of Prague."3
The most important and challenging omission in the
that of the nature of K.'s guilt. Kafka, in his diary (T, 4
Josef K. guilty, but he never, neither in the novel nor in
nor elsewhere, specifies what Josef K.'s guilt is, and since
at the beginning of the novel, declares that K. did not do
wrong (Boses) and the allegedly infallible Court punis
having him executed, the reader must wonder what
might have been.
One answer offered is that K. is guilty simply because
This is called a "purely religious, completely transethical g
has its roots in cosmic spheres."4 The assumption of an e
guilt, sometimes called biological guilt,5 has, of course, som
to the belief in original sin or "human sinfulness."6 The n
in existential guilt or original sin may argue that human
is generally beset by sickness, fear, frustration, weakne
justice, and constantly threatened by death, to which it
after a short while, so that man should not have to consid
guilty because of his mere existence and should not have
his existence,"7 especially since he did not will his existe
first place. To the priest K. declares unequivocally: "But
guilty." "Wie kann denn ein Mensch iiberhaupt schuldig
sind hier doch alle Menschen, einer wie der andere" (253)
thus not only his personal guilt, but existential guilt, as Mart
the main exponent of the theory of existential guilt in
recognizes.8
The advocates of existential guilt also contend that K.
have confessed his guilt, that man must take the "general gu
upon himself,9 that his non-confessing makes him guiltier o
it makes his guilt even grow infinitely and demands his execut
His confession would have released a hitherto secret order in the
world of disorder and absurdity." Thus he would have been saved
by Heaven.12 However, even if one assumes that K. is guilty and
that he knows his guilt, one must realize that it is only the promiscuo
maid that urges him to confess, not Titorelli, nor the lawyer, n
the Catholic priest, whose professional duty, after all, it should ha
been to ask the guilty man to do so.13 Nor do we hear of any co
fession or any specific guilt of an accused person. Neither Block n
any of the people waiting in the offices of the Court think or spe
of confession or repentance. Leni, moreover, promises no great things
that would come from a confession, only the possibility of "sneaki
away," and that with the right help only (132-133). It cannot
said, therefore, that a confession is "demanded of K."14
Many readers see another "general guilt" in K.'s life: not existence
as such, but impersonal existence. They consider him guilty, because
he does not live a genuine, "authentic," full life, knows no true
friendship, love, or any "higher" human feelings, but is just "correct,"
cool, and reduced to a mere function in the world of business.15
K., they argue, is alienated from life's real values, duties, joys, and
pains. He has lived in "bad faith" and has "not taken his total 'I'
into account;"16 he has succumbed to routinel7 and "rationalist sloth."l8
Hence he deserves punishment.
However justified this view may be, one must realize that K.'s
lack of deep friendship or of passionate love or of a truly uplifting
ideal is punishment in itself and does not have to be punished
by violent and ignominious death; that no other person in the novel,
and that includes the judges and even the priest, seems to have a
full, warm, worthy, and inspiring life; that many Court officials are
completely cut off from real life; yet nobody is punished but K.
Alienation, moreover, is the price man has to pay not only for
profit, power, and prestige, but also for simply staying alive in a
competitive society. The "guilt" of not being one's true self would
imply that one could and should swim against the historical and
social current of functionalism and standardization, a rather difficult
task. Since K.'s arrest is sometimes taken as a mere warning that he
had better start a new and "real" life, his execution after the "trial"
KAFKA'S TRIAL 343
had lasted only one year would also imply that one cou
recover one's "true self" rather quickly, which makes
so much more difficult.
Some critics believe that it is K.'s ignorance of the "Law" that

makes him guilty.19 While ignorance of the law does not protect
from punishment, it is not guilt in itself. When the guard exclaims:
"Look, he does not know the Law, but he claims to be innocent,"
he only wants to say that anybody who does not know the Law
cannot be sure he is innocent.
When K., at the end of the novel, says to himself that it was
wrong of him to have always wanted to reach with twenty hands
into the world and moreover for an improper goal, he does not
confess any guilt, certainly not a guilt punishable by death, nor a
guilt that he feels brought about his fall. After offering some hopeless
and useless resistance to his captors, he merely reproaches himself
for often being too impulsive instead of acting according to his
calm and analytical reason. What his "improper goal" is or was
he probably does not know himself. He does not blame himself for
excessive greed or ruthlessness, as some critics think. He does not
display these qualities and does not use "twenty hands" in his office
nor in his trial, though he tells the Chaplain that he tried everything
he could (252). While walking with the executioners, he tries to
remain rational and to rationalize his submissiveness to the Court,
weighing it against his customary agility and energy, which he grossly
exaggerates. It is rationalization, too, when he declares that now,
at the end of his trial, he does not want to start it all over again,
since at its beginning a year ago he wanted to have the trial end
quickly: At first he was sure of being acquitted by the Court quickly,
whereas now he finds himself condemned. Up to the very end he
does not confess, he does not "become aware of any guilt,"20 and
there is no "confusion of guilt feelings."21
The fact that K.'s guilt is not spelled out is connected with
other omissions. Not one law is mentioned. There is no accusation
and no investigation. The only "interrogation" consists of a wro
rhetorical question ("You are a house painter?"). There is no
prison (only a "prison chaplain"), no trial session, no defense, no
witness, and no verdict. K.'s "trial" seems to be a misnomer indeed.
His seemingly brazen remark to Titorelli that one executioner could
replace the whole Court (185) has some justification. If the "Cour
or the author are proceeding by omission, it is perhaps because K
himself is guilty of an omission, of omitting his true self.
Some figures only appear once or twice in the novel not to b
heard of again. Miss Montag is only seen in Chapter IV, the man-
facturer only in Chapter VII. Of the two men called central figure
by some critics, the painter Titorelli only appears in Chapter VII
and is not even mentioned anywhere else, and the Chaplain is show
only in Chapter IX and not even alluded to elsewhere. In the last
chapter, except for a reference to Miss Biirstner, not one person
known to K. (or the reader) is mentioned or alluded to, not even
Mrs. Grubach or her maid when the two executioners enter the
apartment. This striking omission conveys to the reader the impressi
of K.'s loneliness and helplessness and, in general, of man's solit
at death.
It is noteworthy that animals play an utterly insignificant role

in the novels of an author of important animal stories. The only
living animals in the Trial are the rats scurrying into the gutter in
front of Titorelli's house (169). Dogs are used only as metaphors o
human degradation (108, 213, 233, 272). The lawyer calls Block
"wretched worm" (222), K. thinks of horses in connection with an
old man's limping (247) and of flies struggling away from a flypape
(268). Finally there is the comparison with a thirsty animal when K
kisses Miss Biirstner (42). None of these occurrences involves an
animal's strength or beauty.
Plant life is not well represented in the novel either. The only
living plants are the trees and bushes on the little island; but their
foliage is seen by K. only from a distance and at night (269). Then
there are the "weak" trees and the dark grass in Titorelli's painting
(196), the few blades of grass in an altar painting (246), and th
sculptured foliage of the main pulpit in the Cathedral (246). There
is neither beauty nor fragrance nor vitality in the plant life of th
Trial.
The sun, probably not by mere accident, is only shown twice;

once not as a source of light, but as the source of the oppressive
heat in the attic offices (85) and another time in an inconspicuous
passage-between two dashes-as shining on an opposite house (100).
In addition, there is the sunset in Titorelli's paintings (196).
KAFKA'S TRIAL 345
The afternoon is only mentioned twice in the T

which somehow corresponds to the almost total "eclips
K.'s uncle arrives at the office in the afternoon (112) a
returns to the office from his visit at Titorelli's studio in the after-
noon (199). While precise time indications are given for events in
the morning (seven, eight, nine, nine-thirty, ten, eleven o'clock), in
the evening and early night (eight, nine, nine-thirty, ten, eleven,
eleven-thirty o'clock), no hour of the afternoon is given.
Names of weekdays and months and figures of years are omitted
in the Trial, perhaps for the sake of vagueness. But a certain con-
tradiction in the temporal setting of the novel is more intriguing
than the omissions and near omissions of certain specific time indica-
tions. Though the novel has been called "timeless,"22 the fact that
gas lighting is still in use, while electric lighting, taxis, telephones,
electric streetcars, and gramophones are already a matter of course,
clearly points to the time in which the novel was written (1914).
But candlelight is used in the novel more than was the actual case
at that time, and some people address others with the pronouns
du, ihr, and Ihr (18, 63, 81, 104, 229, 252 f.) where the linguistic
usage required Sie. This antique patina on a contemporary setting
produces a curious Verfremdungseffekt and is perhaps intended to
suggest that the novel is not concerned with strictly contemporary
phenomena.
This contradiction is only one of the many in which the novel
abounds. Two contradictions have been discussed by critics. K.'s uncle
is called Karl by the author (112), but then he calls himself Albert
and is called so also by his longtime friend, the lawyer (122, 128).
Another discrepancy has played a part in the controversy about the
proper arrangement of the chapters, specifically the relative order of
Chapters VII and IX. Chapter VII starts on a "winter morning"
(137), but the manufacturer later speaks to K. about an "awful
autumn" (162). This, however, is not a real contradiction and does
not have to be the result of "heedlessness or a mistake in copying,"23
since some days before the winter solstice are often called winter
days, especially when, as in Chapter VII, it is cold and snowing.
A literary illustration can be found at the beginning of Keller's
"Kleider machen Leute." An "unfriendly day in November" is said
to be a winter day and only a few pages later a fall day.24
There are quite a few discrepancies in K.'s words and actions.
When he re-enacts the scene with the inspector, he mentions to Mi

Biirstner that the inspector called him by his name as loudly as
he had to waken him out of his sleep; and then he shouts in
long-drawn out way "Josef K." (40). Actually, the inspector only
asked him, "Josef K.?" (20); and he apparently spoke in a quiet
voice since K. was not startled. A possible explanation of the con-
tradiction is that K. may have allowed himself to be carried away
from truth by his dramatic instinct.
According to K.'s assertion before the examining magistrate,
Mrs. Grubach recognized that an arrest such as his was not to be
considered more serious than some prank committed by street urchins.
Mrs. Grubach had said nothing of the kind. During the same interroga-
tion K. also declares that he is making his stand for many other
people who are the victims of a misguided procedure (57). Later
he truthfully tells the usher's wife that he would not have lost any
sleep over the need for reforming the Court and that he is forced
to intervene only to protect his own interests (66). Both remarks at
the interrogation spring from his oratory or his desire to impress the
audience rather than from an intention to deceive it. When he tells
the examining magistrate that he had asked the inspector why he
was being arrested (58), whereas he really had asked him by whom
he had been accused and which authority was conducting the pro-
ceedings (21), he (or Kafka) may not even have been aware of
the discrepancy. In the Cathedral he carries a flashlight but tells the
Chaplain that he cannot find his way alone in the darkness. If
this is not Kafka's oversight, or if it is not intended to be a parallel
to K.'s way out of the attic offices, K. may be, consciously or un-
consciously, motivated by his desire to stay longer with the priest.
K. tells Mrs. Grubach that he knows Miss Biirstner very well
(33), while in reality she has moved into the apartment only recently;
he has exchanged only a few greetings with her (19) and he cannot
even recall what she looks like (34) or what her first name is (42).
But then again, a few days later, after he has had a long talk with
Miss Biirstner and has kissed her all over the face, he calls her a
stranger (fremdes Mddchen) before the same Mrs. Grubach (95).
He tells the usher's wife that he does not bribe anybody (69), yet
he does try to bribe the whipper. One may explain these apparent
breaches of his habitual truthfulness by the fact that he cherished
strong and strange feelings for Miss Biirstner (or by Kafka's tortured
KAFKA'S TRIAL 347
emotions for Felice Bauer) and by his almost overpowe

passion for the two warders who were to be whipped.
thinks that he could discuss his arrest only with an old wo
as Mrs. Grubach (30), but shortly afterwards he visits Miss
a young girl, to discuss the matter with her. This discrepa
also have arisen from his peculiar feelings for Miss Biirstne
If K. shows any inconsistencies in words or actions, h
course, entitled to them as a human being. But there a
few contradictions in Kafka's novel that cannot be reconciled that
easily. According to the beginning of the Trial, Mrs. Grubach's "cook"
ordinarily serves K. breakfast, while according to a later passage it
must have been the "maid" (94; the standard English translation
omits here the word "maid"). Franz once maintains: "See, Willem,
he . . . claims he's innocent" (15). This, however, K. had not done
yet. K. sees that there is no seat in the living room except the chair
beside the window on which Willem is sitting (11), but only a little
later both warders are sitting in that room near the window (14).
The man watching K. from the opposite house has a reddish beard
(20), which, however, a few pages later is called blond (26; the
English translation keeps "reddish"). During his "first interrogation"
K. is interrupted toward the end of his speech by the shrieking of a
man who has drawn the usher's wife into a corer and is clasping
her in his arms (61); but a week later the usher's wife tells K. that
during the end of his speech she was down on the floor with the
student (66).
K. tells the whipper he would never have mentioned the names
of the two warders, if he had known that they would be punished
(106). Actually he did not mention their names during the first
interrogation. According to one passage, K. clearly sees the whipper's
eyes glittering at the sight of the banknote (108f.), while, hardly
three pages before, K. takes out only his billfold, not a banknote,
and does not look at the whipper (106). Erna writes her father that
K. sent her a box of candy for her saint's day (Namenstag, 114),
while only a few lines later K. calls it a "birthday" (115; the English
translation has "birthday" in both cases). The maid's room in the
lawyer's apartment has, according to the author, no window (218),
but according to the description Leni gives the lawyer in the same
chapter (incidentally, the lawyer should hardly need somebody to
tell him what a room in his apartment looks like), it has a window
that looks out on an air shaft (233). According to Chapter III,

the "information giver" is the first to deal with the "clients" of th
Court (88); but this is not true in the case of K. The usher's wife
tells K. that her husband happened to be off-duty on a certain Sun
day (70), while the husband himself tells K. that he does not have
to work on Sundays (77-78). The plate that Leni brings the lawye
(Teller, 205) is later referred to as a cup (Tasse, twice on 206,
215; the English translation has "bowl" in all cases). K. locks th
door of the lawyer's bedroom with a key so that Leni may no
follow him (220); but when the lawyer rings the bell, she ente
almost at the same moment (227).
All contradictions and omissions in the novel can be "explained"
if one takes them to be parts of dreams. To be sure, the novel
contains episodes that suggest dreams, such as the sudden and un-
explained arrest, the "washerwoman" that shows K. the right way
in spite of his wrong question, the mass meeting in the medium-sized
room, K.'s oratorical firework, which makes him feel superior, the
sudden discovery of the badges, the examining magistrate reaching
the exit faster than K., the love scene in the court room, the offices
in the attic, the two whipping scenes in the closet of the bank, Mrs.
Grubach's apartment, which is an architectural impossibility, K.'s
inability to see Miss Biirstner although she lives in the same apart-
ment, the little student carrying the plump woman to the attic,
the two pornographic books on the courtroom table, and the assistant
manager leafing through the Italian dictionary for no reason whatever.
However, to regard the novel as a series of dreams,25 or "projections,"
or "reflections,"26 or paranoic delusions,27 is to put the Court's arbi-
trariness, dirt, absurdity, and cruelty into K.'s mind, to rob the Trial
of much of its terror and aesthetic impact, and to endow K., who
is generally considered a plain, rationalistic, and conventional average
person, with an unusual and arresting imagination.
It is more difficult, but also more challenging and rewarding to
see the many significant omissions and contradictions of the Trial
as "real" rather than as symptoms of a dream or a hallucination.
They seem to fall into three groups. Some are factual, some are
subjective, such as the contradictions stemming from K.'s oratorical
bent, and some are essential or existential, such as the omission of
the nature of K.'s guilt. Some of the discrepancies may have been
intended to stress the contradictory or paradoxical nature of the
KAFKA'S TRIAL 349
Court or of the Law, while others might have been

had Kafka prepared his manuscript for print. Some om
symbolize the haphazard or dreamlike nature of huma
and human life, while others may be a result of the un
of the novel. Many gaps and discrepancies help to crea
phere of loneliness, insecurity, bleakness, and danger. M
and contradictions disconcert the reader, provoke his ratio
arouse him to ask question after question, in short, act
the "trial" does on Josef K. They are the firm basis of
enigma.
State University College

New Paltz, N.Y.
1Page numbers without letters refer to Franz Kafka, Der ProzeB

(Berlin, 1951). H stands for Hochzeitsvorbereitungen auf dem
Lande (New York, 1953) and T for Tagebucher (New York, 1948).
2 Pavel Eisner, "Franz Kafkas ProzeB und Prag," GL&L, XIV (1960-
61), 18, 23.
3 Heinz Politzer, Franz Kafka: Parable and Paradox (Ithaca, N.Y.,
1962), p. 186.
4 Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Franz Kafka and Modern Man," Universi-
tas, V (1962), 237.
5 Felix Weltsch, Religion und Humor im Leben und Werk Franz
Kafkas (Berlin, 1957), p. 44. See also the "crime of being born a
man" in Norbert Fiirst's biological interpretation of the novel:
Die offenen Geheimturen (Heidelberg, 1956), p. 38.
6 Ingeborg Henel, "Die Tiirhiiterlegende und ihre Bedeutung fur
Kafkas ProzeB," DVLG, XXXVII (1963), 58.
7 Beda Allemann, in Der deutsche Roman, ed. Benno v. Wiese, II
(Diisseldorf, 1963), 258; K. H. Volkmann-Schluck, "BewuBtsein
und Dasein in Kafkas ProzeB," Die neue Rundschau, LXII (1951),
41.
8 Martin Buber, Schuld und Schuldgefiihle (Heidelberg, 1958), p. 55.

9 Gerhard Kaiser, "Franz Kafkas ProzeB," Euphorion, LII (1958),
139.
10 Schoeps, p. 237.
11 Buber, p. 52.
12 Schoeps, p. 238.
13 Eliseo Vivas, however, thinks that the priest does try to tell K. that
the situation requires of him an admission of his guilt and genuine
contrition: "Kafka's Distorted Mask," in Kafka, ed. Ronald Gray
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1962), p. 139.
14 Buber, p. 52.
15 Max Brod, Verzweiflung und Erlosung im Werk Franz Kafkas
(Frankfurt, 1959), pp. 43-44; Wilhelm Emrich, Franz Kafka
(Frankfurt, 1961), p. 260; Helmut Richter, Franz Kafka (Berlin,
1962), p. 200; Kurt Weinberg, Kafkas Dichtungen (Bern, 1963),
p. 139.
16 Rene Dauvin, "The Trial: Its Meaning," in Franz Kafka Today, ed.
A. Flores and H. Swander (Madison, Wis., 1958), p. 152.
17 Weltsch, p. 57.
18 Philip Rahv, Image and Idea (Norfolk, Conn., 1957), p. 124.
19 Emrich, p. 259.
20 Brod, Verzweiflung, p. 57; Edmund Wilson, "A Dissenting Opinion
on Kafka," in Kafka, ed. Gray, p. 95.
21 Hannah Arendt, Sechs Essays (Heidelberg, 1948), p. 133.
22 Max Brod, Franz Kafka (Fischer Biicherei, Frankfurt, 1963), p.
187; Georg Lukacs thinks that all of Kafka's writing is timeless and
above history: Wider den miBverstandenen Realismus (Hamburg,
1958), p. 87.
23 Herman Uyttersprot, Eine neue Anordnung der Werke Kafkas
(Antwerp, 1957), p. 31.
24 Gottfried Keller, Sdmtliche Werke, ed. Jonas Frankel, VIII (Erlen-
bach-Zurich, 1927), 7, 12, 19. Uyttersprot's reasoning that Chapter
IX with its "fall weather" must precede Chapter VII with its
"winter morning" is therefore not well founded.
25 Erich Fromm, The Forgotten Language (New York, 1962), pp.
249-250; Simon O. Lesser, "The Source of Guilt and the Sense of
Guilt-Kafka's The Trial," Modern Fiction Studies, VIII (1962), 48;
Mark Spilka, Dickens and Kafka (Bloomington, Ind., 1963), pp. 223,
227.
26 Henel, p. 59; Ronald Gray, Kafka's Castle (Cambridge, Eng., 1956),

p. 138; Emrich, p. 265; Frederick J. Hoffman, "Kafka's The Trial:
The Assailant as Landscape," Bucknell Review, IX (1960), 93;
Marion Sonnenfeld, 'Die Fragmente Amerika und Der ProzeB als
Bildungsromane," GQ, XXXV (1962), 42; Weinberg, pp. 84, 138,
139.
27 Friedrich Beissner, Der Erzdhler Franz Kafka (Stuttgart, 1952),

p. 39.

Omissions Cotradictions

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Omissions Cotradictions

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Omissions and Contradictions in Kafka's Trial

Author(s): Ignace Feuerlicht

American Association of Teachers of German, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to

The great effect of Kafka's Der ProzelS is based to a l

While K. probably is of average height (he is shorter than Willem

the Cathedral is Catholic. This excludes Bern, the Protesta

Some critics believe that it is K.'s ignorance of the "Law" that

It is noteworthy that animals play an utterly insignificant role

The sun, probably not by mere accident, is only shown twice;

The afternoon is only mentioned twice in the T

When he re-enacts the scene with the inspector, he mentions to Mi

emotions for Felice Bauer) and by his almost overpowe

that looks out on an air shaft (233). According to Chapter III,

Court or of the Law, while others might have been

State University College

1Page numbers without letters refer to Franz Kafka, Der ProzeB

8 Martin Buber, Schuld und Schuldgefiihle (Heidelberg, 1958), p. 55.

26 Henel, p. 59; Ronald Gray, Kafka's Castle (Cambridge, Eng., 1956),

27 Friedrich Beissner, Der Erzdhler Franz Kafka (Stuttgart, 1952),

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi