One of the many books about Kafka, Franz Kafka: Representative Man by Frederick Karl, boasts a peculiar anomaly. On page 149 he argues that in The New Attorney Alexander's battle horse is deprived of his original rôle and seeks solace in law offices. On page 556 Karl's reading is different: in The New Advocate "the advocate, Dr. Bucephalus, shares the name of Alexander the Great's horse". This inconsistency highlights the dual aspect of the story's meaning.

The anecdote about the priest in the Russian Revolution, who cuts a cross in his hand has a hidden twist. We assume that the priest succeeded in quietening the crowd, but nothing is said about that. The point of the story is the gesture. Gestures are very significant in Kafka. We might consider the line in The New Advocate, "Many carry swords but only to brandish them..." Regardless of the effect he has the priest is brandishing the sign in question. (Incidentally I do not mean sign specifically in the semiotic sense: I am using the term merely as a makeshift.) Indeed the whole story could be seen as a brandishing. That could explain why Kafka thought it was so important.

At the root of the story lie two points of ambiguity. The first is in the sentence, when the father says, "I sentence you now..." The sentence is rendered peculiarly equivocal by the word 'now': the sentence is for this time only; at another time another sentence might be pronounced. This is interestingly reminiscent of another early ambiguity: "For in the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die." (My emphasis.) Of course they do not die, giving rise to innumerable explications. In The Judgement of course there is no prohibition that is transgressed: Georg has been devilish, but is not guilty of any actual wrongdoing. The implication is that if Georg carries out the sentence that is his decision, that the sentence is purely contingent.

The second ambiguity comes in the ending. Georg "let himself drop." Unlike in Metamorphosis and In the Penal Colony we do not see the death of the main character. It is possible that despite the sentence he does not die, for example he does not drown or his fall is cushioned in some way. If he does die it is out of the scope of the story. In reading Kafka we must remember that he was a lawyer by profession and consequently that every word counts, both what he says and what he does not say. It is quite appropriate that we do not see Georg's death, given that he does not commit any actual sin, and the deceitfulness of the letters and Georg's coming clean both take place before the story begins. Something similar happens in The Knock at the Manor Gate. On the one hand it is hardly a crime that has been committed, to knock on a gate, and it is not committed by the narrator but by his sister; and if it is a crime it does not deserve torture such as is prefigured by the half-operating table the narrator is shown. On the other hand no torture or punishment takes place in the extant fragment, we are merely shown its possibility.

The subject of The Judgement is how the situation changes, that Georg can be driven to the point of throwing himself in the river. In omitting the main character's death Kafka focuses our attention on that. Because we do not know see Georg die but only assume that it happens, because of that silence, we add something to the story. The story as it is written is perfectly balanced; thus our decision that Georg dies at the end is our personal addition. It is not wrong, but it is not actually in the scope of the story. We have to look at what happens in the story.

The story consists of a single clear image, which is undermined and removed completely. The image is Georg's success and happy life.

What is interesting about The Judgement is that in the other stories the appearance we at first see is obviously ambiguous from the outset. Only in The Judgement are we lulled into thinking that the first appearance is specific and fixed.

And so our understanding of the character and the story can change as we come back to the story, simply because of what we add to it when we read. There is an ambiguity at the heart of the writing of which those are merely examples (where it can be clearly seen). Because of this ambiguity Georg's character can change according to the reading, and his father's character can change. Is Georg guilty? Is his father right? Is his father partly right? There is no final answer to these questions. For this reason we should not expect to find a final answer, but look rather at how we read the story, at the possibilities of the story.

Set up 07 March 1999

Last updated 07 March 1999

© R. Millar 1999