It is the center piece of Kafka's unfinished novel The Trial. We'll watch some of Orson Welles' film adaptation featuring Anthony Perkins as Joseph K. Welles recites a condensed version of the parable Before The Law which alone makes the film worth seeing.
Consult my revised essay "Kafka's Parable Before The Law" originally published in The Germanic Review, May, 1964 copied below.
Please consult also the chapter "The Missing First Page" from Alberto Manguel's A History of Reading, Viking. Here is more information. The parable "Before the Law" and its context, the chapter "In the Cathedral," have long been recognized as the center piece of Kafka's unfinished novel The Trial [1]. It may, with some qualifications, be considered a key to Kafka's work. Various critics have treated it at length, the interpretations of Wilhelm Emrich and Heinz Politzer and, most recently, Ingeborg Henel's brilliant and comprehensive study being among the most profound [2]. Although these critics differ on many issues, their opinions are not mutually exclusive on all points and it would, therefore, be naive to state that the following pages will propose something so different as to have nothing in common with interpretations already suggested. Yet I believe that, by eliminating two errors which have plagued previous critics, this article can point to additional--and different--aspects. One error, I feel, is the assumption of guilt on K.'s part, which I fail to recognize; the other consists in singling out individual statements made by the priest and pronouncing them correct readings of the parable, whereas the priest insists that he is only listing various opinions (p. 200).
At first glance, the story is both simple and mysterious. The plot is so self-evident that it apparently defies further explanation. It involves a man trying in vain to gain the desired entrance; he spends the rest of his life waiting for permission which is never granted. But although the action is logical, its setting is not at all identical with our reality. Nor do we recognize the characters. The man from the country has been narrowed to the personification of a persistent desire, the doorkeeper is limited to the function of an obstacle, the identity of the Law remains hidden. However, once we accept the kind of reality defined by these limitations, the narrative poses no problem. Yet it is obviously intended to be a parable. This is suggested by its very position in the context of the Trial. Some technical devices characteristic of a parable are easily recognized (e.g., the absence of proper names, the concentration of the plot, the pointe at the end). Although the details of the plot are self-explanatory the story as a whole certainly calls for interpretation. If it is a parable it must "mean" something. What, then, does it mean?
A popular approach to Kafka is to treat his works as allegories, that is, to search for the second and concurrent meaning beneath the surface story [3], a meaning limited in scope, applicable to only one problem, one class, one historical age, etc. Trying to reveal the identity of the doorkeeper, of the man from the country and the Law we would proceed to search for something that fits the pattern of the plot, say, man in pursuit of happiness--he never achieves it, man in search of God--he never comprehends him, the artist waiting for inspiration or public recognition which never comes. A given number of imaginative readers would be able to arrive at as many different so-called keys to the story. How do we know which key is the correct one? Obviously the one which sounds most probable. It need hardly be stated that this is no interpretation at all but a more or less undisciplined guessing game, however interesting. It would not be based on the narrative but merely on its pattern, on the radius of our knowledge and the whim of our imagination. In any case, we would be looking behind the story rather than into it. Hope this helps!
