Page 36 - GALIET KAFKABEL JOB, KANT AND MILTON: Omnipotence, Impotence and Rebellion IV+
P. 36
Galiet & Galiet
enlightened thinker suspects the Court’s trespass against rights. Not only does he abhor the slightest criticism of his private affairs by the Court’s Wardens, The Court of Inquiry, his Uncle, Leni, Huld and the priest, but also has “...an aversion to even the slightest help in this affair of his” (T38). When Job and Josef K are accused of hubris, their enemies ignore that Job and Josef K’s arrogant struggle aims to assert their innocence and autonomous rights. Their adversaries and prosecutors have no right to pass rash judgments in their private affairs. In so doing, their Republicanism is as lofty as Christianism. Job, a ‘precocious Christian,’ augurs, and K, a ‘lapsed Christian,’ implicitly grasps Christ’s maxims against rash and harsh judgments, “don’t judge so that you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven” (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37). What’s more, in his defense of rights, Job and Josef K’s arguments that the ‘possible error’ is personal, resonates marvelously with Jesus’ message, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matt 7:3). These teachings, implicit in Job and K’s counterarguments, defend their autonomies by refuting the imbalance of power imposed by the tyranny of the majority. Job and Josef K’s hubris is justified in light of the Court’s arbitrary oppression, despotism and absolutism. Their affair, neither a public nor an institutional one, is a private and direct one between Yahweh and Job, and the Judge and Josef K.
To G•Scholars and to Lasine, The Trial’s Court is “neither oppressive, bureaucratic or representative of strict, absolutejusticewithoutmercy.”166 TheCourtmakesgenerouseffortstoreachKusingmanyintermediaries,along with the kind priest-prison chaplain, a caring man.167 G•Scholars, like Job’s friends, praise the Court as impeccable, just, benevolent168 and courteous169 (T17, 35). The priest-prison-chaplain, kind and concerned (T214), points to Josef K’s guilt and gently acquaints him with the Parable of the Law.170 The Warders are considerate (T7-9), and K is not only arrogant and self-destructive (T7-8), but also deluded in his sentiments. The Court really does not tyrannize Josef K. In misperceiving the Court, he is just as deceived as Job. G•Scholars persist that F•Scholars focus on K’s distorted Court-view. F•Scholars, says Lasine, “...generally accept K’s distorted perception of the Court as corrupt and nefarious, if not his perception of himself as an innocent victim.”171 Yet the Court’s corruption is neither an appearance nor a distortion.
166 Lasine, Stuart. “The Trials of Job and Kafka’s Josef K.” The German Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 2, Focus: Jews and Germans/Jewish–German Literature (Spring, 1990), 195
167 Dodd, William. Der Prozess. Scotland: University of Glasgow French and German Publications, 1991. 41
168 Dodd, William. Der Prozess. Scotland: University of Glasgow French and German Publications, 1991. 37. Marson, too, argues this in his text. Marson, Eric. Kafka’s Trial: The Case Against Josef K. St. Lucia, Queensland: U Of Queensland Press, 1975. 159. See also Scott, Len. Josef K.: Kafka’s Anti-Job. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2010. 10. The Court of Inquiry Inspector invites K to contemplate his life and not the Court’s or that of its magistrates: “I can at least give you some advice: think less about us and what’s going to happen to you, and instead think more about yourself. And don’t make such a fuss about how innocent you feel; it disturbs the otherwise not unfavorable impression you make. And you should talk less in general; almost everything you’ve said up to now could have been inferred from your behavior, even if you’d said only a few words, and it wasn’t terribly favorable to you in any case” (T14). The priest-prison chaplain too says, “You seek too much outside help, particularly from women. Haven’t you noticed that it isn’t true help?” (T213).
169 The Court of Inquiry does not seek to inconvenience K unnecessarily: “On the one hand, it was in the general interest to bring his trial to a rapid conclusion; on the other, the inquiries must be thorough in every respect, yet never last too long, due to the strain involved. Therefore, they had selected the expedient of this succession of closely spaced but brief inquiries. Sundays had been chosen for the inquiries to avoid disturbing K’s professional life. It was assumed he would find this acceptable; if he preferred some other fixed time, they would try their best to accommodate him” (T35). The Court of Inquiry’s Examining Magistrate generously concedes to examine K when he arrives late (T35). The Court of Inquiry resists hindering K. As soon as K meets the inspector, he is told the Court of Inquiry does not wish to hinder him in the course of his daily affairs. “And to facilitate that, and to render your arrival at the bank as inconspicuous as possible, I’ve arranged for three of your colleagues here to be placed at your disposal” (T17). This is ironic. To disturb three colleagues on a Sunday is a trespass on private life and invasive. K is correct in his interpretation that it is meant to spread the news of his arrest, damage his reputation, and undermine his position at the bank (T48). Moreover, the Court of Inquiry assaults him indirectly with many intermediaries.
170 The priest-prison chaplain yells at K, “Can’t you see two steps in front of you.” His abrupt, raging cry aims to prevent K from falling even further (T214).
171 Lasine, Stuart. “The Trials of Job and Kafka’s Josef K.” The German Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 2, Focus: Jews and Germans/Jewish–German Literature (Spring, 1990), 187
36
