The Trial, Franz Kafka [primary phonics .txt] 📗

knee so that he could put it back on again as soon as the conversation was over. He had hardly done this when one of the girls called out, “Now he’s taken his coat off!” and they could all be heard pressing around the gaps in the planks to see the spectacle for themselves. “The girls think I’m going to paint your portrait,” said the painter, “and that’s why you’re taking your coat off.” “I see,” said K., only slightly amused by this, as he felt little better than he had before even though he now sat in his shirtsleeves. With some irritation he asked, “What did you say the two other possibilities were?” He had already forgotten the terms used. “Apparent acquittal and deferment,”

said the painter. “It’s up to you which one you choose. You can get either of them if I help you, but it’ll take some effort of course, the difference between them is that apparent acquittal needs concentrated effort for a while and that deferment takes much less effort but it has to be sustained. Now then, apparent acquittal. If that’s what you want I’ll write down an assertion of your innocence on a piece of paper. The text for an assertion of this sort was passed down to me from my father and it’s quite unassailable. I take this assertion round to the judges I know. So I’ll start off with the one I’m currently painting, and put the assertion to him when he comes for his sitting this evening. I’ll lay the assertion in front of him, explain that you’re innocent and give him my personal guarantee of it. And that’s not just a superficial guarantee, it’s a real one and it’s binding.” The painter’s eyes seemed to show some reproach of K. for wanting to impose that sort of responsibility on him. “That would be very kind of you”, said K. “And would the judge then believe you and nonetheless not pass an absolute acquittal?” “It’s like I just said,” answered the painter. “And anyway, it’s not entirely sure that all the judges would believe me, many of them, for instance, might want me to bring you to see them personally. So then you’d have to come along too. But at least then, if that happens, the matter is half way won, especially as I’d teach you in advance exactly how you’d need to act with the judge concerned, of course. What also happens, though, is that there are some judges who’ll turn me down in advance, and that’s worse. I’ll certainly make several attempts, but still, we’ll have to forget about them, but at least we can afford to do that as no one judge can pass the decisive verdict.

Then when I’ve got enough judges’ signatures on this document I take it to the judge who’s concerned with your case. I might even have his signature already, in which case things develop a bit quicker than they would do otherwise. But there aren’t usually many hold ups from then on, and that’s the time that the defendant can feel most confident.

It’s odd, but true, that people feel more confidence in this time than they do after they’ve been acquitted. There’s no particular exertion needed now. When he has the document asserting the defendant’s innocence, guaranteed by a number of other judges, the judge can acquit you without any worries, and although there are still several formalities to be gone through there’s no doubt that that’s what he’ll do as a favour to me and several other acquaintances. You, however, walk out the court and you’re free.” “So, then I’ll be free,” said K., hesitantly. “That’s right,” said the painter, “but only apparently free or, to put it a better way, temporarily free, as the most junior judges, the ones I know, they don’t have the right to give the final acquittal.

Only the highest judge can do that, in the court that’s quite of reach for you, for me and for all of us. We don’t know how things look there and, incidentally, we don’t want to know. The right to acquit people is a major privilege and our judges don’t have it, but they do have the right to free people from the indictment. That’s to say, if they’re freed in this way then for the time being the charge is withdrawn but it’s still hanging over their heads and it only takes an order from higher up to bring it back into force. And as I’m in such good contact with the court I can also tell you how the difference between absolute and apparent acquittal is described, just in a superficial way, in the directives to the court offices. If there’s an absolute acquittal all proceedings should stop, everything disappears from the process, not just the indictment but the trial and even the acquittal disappears, everything just disappears. With an apparent acquittal it’s different.

When that happens, nothing has changed except that the case for your innocence, for your acquittal and the grounds for the acquittal have been made stronger. Apart from that, proceedings go on as before, the court offices continue their business and the case gets passed to higher courts, gets passed back down to the lower courts and so on, backwards and forwards, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, to and fro. It’s impossible to know exactly what’s happening while this is going on.

Seen from outside it can sometimes seem that everything has been long since forgotten, the documents have been lost and the acquittal is complete. No-one familiar with the court would believe it. No documents ever get lost, the court forgets nothing. One day - no-one expects it - some judge or other picks up the documents and looks more closely at them, he notices that this particular case is still active, and orders the defendant’s immediate arrest. I’ve been talking here as if there’s a long delay between apparent acquittal and re-arrest, that is quite possible and I do know of cases like that, but it’s just as likely that the defendant goes home after he’s been acquitted and finds somebody there waiting to re-arrest him. Then, of course, his life as a free man is at an end.” “And does the trial start over again?” asked K., finding it hard to believe. “The trial will always start over again,” said the painter, “but there is, once again as before, the possibility of getting an apparent acquittal. Once again, the accused has to muster all his strength and mustn’t give up.” The painter said that last phrase possibly as a result of the impression that K., whose shoulders had dropped somewhat, gave on him. “But to get a second acquittal,” asked K., as if in anticipation of further revelations by the painter, “is that not harder to get than the first time?” “As far as that’s concerned,” answered the painter, “there’s nothing you can say for certain. You mean, do you, that the second arrest would have an adverse influence on the judge and the verdict he passes on the defendant? That’s not how it happens. When the acquittal is passed the judges are already aware that re-arrest is likely. So when it happens it has hardly any effect. But there are countless other reasons why the judges’ mood and their legal acumen in the case can be altered, and efforts to obtain the second acquittal must therefore be suited to the new conditions, and generally just as vigorous as the first.” “But this second acquittal will once again not be final,” said K., shaking his head. “Of course not,” said the painter, “the second acquittal is followed by the third arrest, the third acquittal by the fourth arrest and so on. That’s what is meant by the term apparent acquittal.” K.

was silent. “You clearly don’t think an apparent acquittal offers much advantage,” said the painter, “perhaps deferment would suit you better.

Would you like me to explain what deferment is about?” K. nodded. The painter had leant back and spread himself out in his chair, his nightshirt was wide open, he had pushed his hand inside and was stroking his breast and his sides. “Deferment,” said the painter, looking vaguely in front of himself for a while as if trying to find a perfectly appropriate explanation, “deferment consists of keeping proceedings permanently in their earliest stages. To do that, the accused and those helping him need to keep in continuous personal contact with the court, especially those helping him. I repeat, this doesn’t require so much effort as getting an apparent acquittal, but it probably requires a lot more attention. You must never let the trial out of your sight, you have to go and see the appropriate judge at regular intervals as well as when something in particular comes up and, whatever you do, you have to try and remain friendly with him; if you don’t know the judge personally you have to influence him through the judges you do know, and you have to do it without giving up on the direct discussions. As long as you don’t fail to do any of these things you can be reasonably sure the trial won’t get past its first stages. The trial doesn’t stop, but the defendant is almost as certain of avoiding conviction as if he’d been acquitted. Compared with an apparent acquittal, deferment has the advantage that the defendant’s future is less uncertain, he’s safe from the shock of being suddenly re-arrested and doesn’t need to fear the exertions and stress involved in getting an apparent acquittal just when everything else in his life would make it most difficult. Deferment does have certain disadvantages of its own though, too, and they shouldn’t be under-estimated. I don’t mean by this that the defendant is never free, he’s never free in the proper sense of the word with an apparent acquittal either. There’s another disadvantage. Proceedings can’t be prevented from moving forward unless there are some at least ostensible reasons given. So something needs to seem to be happening when looked at from the outside. This means that from time to time various injunctions have to be obeyed, the accused has to be questioned, investigations have to take place and so on. The trial’s been artificially constrained inside a tiny circle, and it has to be continuously spun round within it. And that, of course, brings with it certain unpleasantnesses for the accused, although you shouldn’t imagine they’re all that bad. All of this is just for show, the interrogations, for instance, they’re only very short, if you ever don’t have the time or don’t feel like going to them you can offer an excuse, with some judges you can even arrange the injunctions together a long time in advance, in essence all it means is that, as the accused, you have to report to the judge from time to time.” Even while the painter was speaking those last words K. had laid his coat over his arm and had stood up. Immediately, from outside the door, there was a cry of ‘He’s standing up now!’. “Are you leaving already?” asked the painter, who had also stood up. “It must be the air that’s driving you out. I’m very sorry about that. There’s still a lot I need to tell you. I had to put everything very briefly but I hope at least it was all clear.”

“Oh yes,” said K., whose head was aching from the effort of listening.

Despite this affirmation the painter summed it all up once more, as if he wanted to give K. something to console him on his way home. “Both have in common that they prevent the defendant being convicted,” he said. “But they also prevent his being properly acquitted,” said K.

quietly, as if ashamed to acknowledge it. “You’ve got it, in essence,”

said the painter quickly. K. placed his hand