“A Just Price for a Costly Garment”

I took my title from the exchange between the mother and the goat herder when he offers her the dress for sale. I think it nicely summarizes two interesting ideas coming from the movie itself and the reading from Girard – the symbolic importance of Karin’s dress in the plot and the ideas of justice and revenge.

The story of Karin and her shift “stitched by 15 maidens” bears a striking resemblance to the biblical story of Joseph and his coat of many colors in Genesis 37 and following. Consider the main elements of the biblical story: a favorite child, sibling jealousy, talk of dreams, a precious garment, a mundane journey, a surprise attack on the innocent, a moral dilemma among the wrongdoers, parents learning of their loss by being shown the precious garment, and a confrontation between the wrongdoers and an offended party. Most elements of the comparison are readily apparent, but I think the latter examples are the most interesting.

In the story of Joseph, after the initial act of violence is done, two of his brothers face a moral crisis and speak up in defense of the victim. First Reuben: “But Reuben heard this and rescued him out of their hands and said, ‘Let us not take his life.’” Then Judah: “Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it for us to kill our brother and cover up his blood?” This deflection of violence, to use the language of Girard, lessens the evil intent of the jealous brothers and leads to Joseph’s sale to the slave traders instead of his death.

In the film, the boy in his innocence is appalled at the violent actions of his brothers against Karin. When he is left behind to watch the goats, he vomits and is otherwise clearly in moral anguish. He repeats this response after hearing the father repeat Karin’s prayer - vomiting and throwing away his food in disgust. I could not stop myself from wondering what was happening to cause his brothers to hit him in the night. Is it possible that he spent the night crying out in moral anguish? Or even that he actually spoke out in accusation against his brothers? Those actions would certainly fit with his function as the innocent in the plot. He is powerless to stop the evil, but is morally aware enough that not responding ought to be viewed as being complicit to the crime.

The exchange of the garment from the wrongdoers to the parent is also an especially moving scene in both stories. From Genesis 37:

“and they sent the varicolored tunic and brought it to their father and said, “We found this; please examine it to see whether it is your son’s tunic or not.” Then he examined it and said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!” So Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. Then all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. And he said, “Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son.” So his father wept for him.”

Karin’s mother is equally grieved by the discovery of her daughter’s death. She knows immediately it is Karin’s and struggles for words with her killer. She manages to say that she will ask her husband what would be “a just price for such a costly garment”, a phrase foreshadowing their revenge on the goat herders.

Ultimately, both tales end with a confrontation between the wrongdoers and the offended party. In the film it is the fateful encounter of Karin’s father and his butcher knife with the three goat herders. In Joseph’s case, the confrontation occurs after he has risen to power in Egypt. In Genesis 42-44, Joseph exacts something akin to revenge on his brothers, forcing them to go through a number of tests, but ultimately in Genesis 45, he forgives them and saves his entire family from famine. From that encounters: Then Joseph said to his brothers, “’Please come closer to me.’ And they came closer. And he said, ‘I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. Now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.’” The ultimate end, divine use of the evil act for good, is seen in the salvation of Joseph’s family and in the redemption of Karin’s family.

Lastly, on the topic of justice, Girard makes several interesting points, while several others are off the mark. I think his rule of distinguishing cultures as primitive or civilized based on the presence of a legal system is misguided and could better be stated in terms of the relationship between guilt and punishment. The mark of civilization, and of justice itself, is that the guilty individual is punished for his or her actions. That is the Western ideal of “equal justice under law” and the biblical axiom of “that which you sow, you shall also reap”. The presence of a court system alone does not make something just or even civilized, and examples from history of legally sanctioned wrongdoing and violence is far too long to list here. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. makes this case sublimely in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In the famous words of Dr. King, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’”. There is and must be a higher criterion for justice and civilization than mere men in robes.

- Corey Landry