Page 258 - the-trial

use.” “He didn’t ask him before that,” said the priest, “and
don’t forget he was only a doorkeeper, and as doorkeeper he
did his duty.” “What makes you think he did his duty?”
asked K., “He didn’t. It might have been his duty to keep ev-
eryone else away, but this man is who the door was intended
for and he ought to have let him in.” “You’re not paying
enough attention to what was written and you’re changing
the story,” said the priest. “According to the story, there are
two important things that the doorkeeper explains about
access to the law, one at the beginning, one at the end. At
one place he says he can’t allow him in now, and at the other
he says this entrance was intended for him alone. If one of
the statements contradicted the other you would be right
and the doorkeeper would have cheated the man from the
country. But there is no contradiction. On the contrary, the
first statement even hints at the second. You could almost
say the doorkeeper went beyond his duty in that he offered
the man some prospect of being admitted in the future.
Throughout the story, his duty seems to have been merely to
turn the man away, and there are many commentators who
are surprised that the doorkeeper offered this hint at all, as
he seems to love exactitude and keeps strict guard over his
position. He stays at his post for many years and doesn’t
close the gate until the very end, he’s very conscious of the
importance of his service, as he says, ‘I’m powerful,’ he has
respect for his superiors, as he says, ‘I’m only the lowliest of
the doormen’, he’s not talkative, as through all these years
the only questions he asks are ‘disinterested’, he’s not cor-
ruptible, as when he’s offered a gift he says, ‘I’ll only accept