Edmond Dantes' concept of justice

Hi guys, I need some help. Right now, I am analyzing about Edmond Dantes' changing concept of justice. Can you tell me another concept of justice used by Edmond Dantes aside from Lex Talionis (Eye for an eye.......)???

I got a sense that Edmond's last concept of justice is based on Matthew 5 (Turning the other cheek....). The idea that I have in mind is that Edmond's early concept is based on revenge while the latter concept is based on love. It's mostly like a change from the old testament to the new testament. What do you think about it???:nod:

Thx before:yawnb:

That is what I think, but an eye for an eye is not totally true. But it adheres to the principle:

You see, Villefort, Danglars, Morcerf and Caderousse bring it onto themselves with the treacherous qualities that allowed them to commit the injustice in the first place. Edmond never does anything himself. The biggest thing he does is putting the means at their disposal. That they commit suicide, is not his decision.

Villefort's second wife, who Dantès knows is very jealous of Valentine because she will inherit the great fortune, gets the means to poison her implicitely from the Count with the display of the very mysterious medicine. The Count knows that Villefort will see it his duty to prosecute her once he finds out how Valentine died, and so indirectly, the murder his wife committed will also backfire on his honour. Not to mention his father's letter and the past (the killing of Baron d'Epinay) that resurfaces again.

Danglars gambles himself to death (figuratively). After the false rumour he does not cease to lose money because he is too much focused on it. As money is Danglars's biggest joy (also the thing his marriage is based upon), he loses te will to live without it.

Morcerf is a little exception as he is the one whose punishment is dragged from the past: the murder of the Sultan of Janina. It dishonours him profoundly. Dantès knows that that is unbearable for a man like him, an for his son.

Caderousse got a second chance because Dantès believed him to be quite innocent (as he was drunk at the time they finished their plot, although that is a severe weakness), but he proves himself a criminal and low-life in the end. Not worth the friendship (as he proved on that day in the past). He is good with words, but what prevented him to alert Dantès or the police of the plot in the first place? In the end he will die because he has just such a friend: Cavalcanti who shoots or stabs (? please fill me in) him after the burglary in Auteuil went wrong.

But what you say of Matthew 5 is right, I believe. Committing revenge (or at least handing the others the means to bring themselves down) might have brought the four to justice, but has it made Dantès a better person or has it brought him a more peaceful heart?

Nope. That is why he forgives Danglars and lets him live. Although he still punishes him by taking his money away, Dantès leaves him a small amount so he can start again (and hopefully honorably). In a sense the evil Danglars has done to one person is now rectified by gving all his money to charity. It was not really a voluntary thing, but nonetheless...

Thanks for your reply.

Although Edmond isn't directly responsible for their decision to commit suicide, still, if we take a look at the damage caused by Edmond to them, it actually reflects "the eye for an eye principle".

Here is the conclusion that I got:
Villefort --> Edmond destroy his career as a prosecutor
Danglar --> Edmond destroy him financially
Morcerf --> Edmond takes away his family

Here is the crime that Villefort, Danglar, and Morcerf commits:
Villefort --> He reverses Justice to save his career / Justice as the theme
Danglar --> He takes away Edmond's bright career / Money as the theme
Morcerf --> He takes away Mercedes from Edmond / Love as the theme

When we take a look at it, eye for an eye is quite true to this extent.

I don't think that Edmond think about Caderousse as an enemy though, he's not responsible for Edmond's imprisonment.

Another thing that I have in mind is that Fear is actually behind Edmond Dantes' changing his concept of justice. I notice this when I read Villefort's part. What do you think about it????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoronoaZoro

Thanks for your reply.

Although Edmond isn't directly responsible for their decision to commit suicide, still, if we take a look at the damage caused by Edmond to them, it actually reflects "the eye for an eye principle".

Here is the conclusion that I got:
Villefort --> Edmond destroy his career as a prosecutor
Danglar --> Edmond destroy him financially
Morcerf --> Edmond takes away his family

Here is the crime that Villefort, Danglar, and Morcerf commits:
Villefort --> He reverses Justice to save his career / Justice as the theme
Danglar --> He takes away Edmond's bright career / Money as the theme
Morcerf --> He takes away Mercedes from Edmond / Love as the theme

When we take a look at it, eye for an eye is quite true to this extent.

I don't think that Edmond think about Caderousse as an enemy though, he's not responsible for Edmond's imprisonment.

---

While I agree that Dantès's heart is inspired by 'an eye for an eye', I don't quite agree about Caderousse:

When Caderousse has broken into the Count's estate and got stabbed by Andea, because that one hoped that he had killed the Count in order to inherit, and would then get rid of Caderousse because he is the one who knows about his illegitimateness and the fact that he was in prison, Priest Busoni takes him back inside (chapter LXXXIII):

He had told him that if he returned home safe and sound, he would give him a lifelong pension, if Caderousse stayed on the straight and narrow. Seeing that Andrea comes out of the shades to stab Caderousse, he does not tell him tat and lets Caderousse get murdered. When Caderousse asks him why:

'Non, car dans la main de Benedetto je voyais la justice de Dieu, et j'aurais cru commettre un sacrilège en m'opposant aux intentions de la Providence.'

'No [I did not warn you], because in the hand of Benedetto [aka Andrea Cavalcanti] I saw God's Justice and I believe that I would have committed sacrilege if I opposed myself to the intentions of Providence.'

...

'Ecoute, dit l'abbé en étendant la main sur le blessé comme pour lui commander la foi, voilà ce qu'il a fait pour toi, ce Dieu que tu refuses de reconnaître à ton dernier moment : il t'avait donné la santé, la force, un travail assuré, des amis même, la vie enfin telle qu'elle doit se présenter à l'homme pour être douce avec le calme de la conscience et la satisfaction des désirs naturels ; au lieu d'exploiter ces dons du Seigneur, si rarement accordés par lui dans leur plénitude, voilà ce que tu as fait, toi : tu t'es adonné à la fainéantise, à l'ivresse, et dans l'ivresse tu as trahi un de tes meilleurs amis.'

'Listen,' said the priest, laying his hand on the wounded man as if he was imploring him to believe, 'hear what God has done for you; God, whom you refuse to know in your last moment: he gave you health, strength, a steady place to work, even friends, in short a life that makes a man soft with tranquility in his conscience and satisfaction in his natural desires; instead of using these presents of God, that are so rarely given in such abundance, here is what you have done with them: you have given yourself to lying, drunkenness and in that drunkenness you have betrayed one of your best friends.'

and he goes on:

'Ecoute, continua l'abbé : quand tu as eu trahi ton ami, Dieu a commencé, non pas de te frapper, mais de t'avertir ; tu es tombé dans la misère et tu as eu faim ; tu avais passé à envier la moitié d'une vie que tu pouvais passer à acquérir, et déjà tu songeais au crime en te donnant à toi-même l'excuse de la nécessité, quand Dieu fit pour toi un miracle, quand Dieu, par ses mains, t'envoya au sein de ta misère une fortune, brillante pour toi, malheureux, qui n'avais jamais rien possédé. Mais cette fortune inattendue, inespérée, inouïe, ne te suffit plus du moment où tu la possèdes ; tu veux la doubler : par quel moyen ? par un meurtre. Tu la doubles, et alors Dieu te l'arrache en te conduisant devant la justice humaine.'

'Listen,' continued the priest: 'after you had betrayed your friend, God started warning you; you fell to misery and you went hungry; you had already lived half a life you could have spent acquiring, and already you were thinking of crime and giving yourself the excuse of necessity. When God did a miracle for you; when God, with His hands, sent you, in the deepest of your misery, a fortune, brilliant for you, miserable, who had never possessed anything. But this unexpected fortune, unhoped for, uncanny, was not enough for you, from the moment you posessed it; you wanted to double it: by which means? By murder. You did double it, and God took it away from you by sending you to be judged.'

After Caderousse has died:

'« Un ! » dit mystérieusement le comte, les yeux fixés sur le cadavre déjà défiguré par cette horrible mort.'

'One,' said the Count mysteriously, his eyes fixed on the body, already disfigured by its horrible death.

In short, the priest, aka Monte Cristo, aka Dantès has given Caderousse three chances to become a better man. Caderousse has started by betraying his friend in his drunkenness; he was too cowardish to warn anyone of the impending plot (not even on the moment itself when Edmond is arrested), and has finished with wanting to rip the Count off. Despite his soft spot, Dantès is slowly getting enough of this 'poor me'-mentality and concludes that also Caderousse was a little involved in his arrest, as Villefort was not directly involved, but did it to save his skin... Caderousse did not warn anyone of the plot because Danglars told him he would be arrested too as an accomplice (chapter V):

'Tais-toi, malheureux ! s'écria Danglars en saisissant la main de Caderousse, ou je ne réponds pas de toi-même ; qui te dit que Dantès n'est pas véritablement coupable ? Le bâtiment a touché l'île d'Elbe, il y est dendroïde, il est resté tout un jour à Porto-Ferrajo ; si l'on trouvait sur lui quelque lettre qui le compromette, ceux qui l'auraient soutenu passeraient pour ses complices. »
Caderousse, avec l'instinct rapide de l'égoïsme, comprit toute la solidité de ce raisonnement ; il regarda Danglars avec des yeux hébétés par la crainte et la douleur, et, pour un pas qu'il avait fait en avant, il en fit deux en arrière.
« Attendons, alors, murmura-t-il.
- Oui, attendons, dit Danglars ; s'il est innocent, on le mettra en liberté ; s'il est coupable, il est inutile de se compromettre pour un conspirateur.'

'Hold your tongue, miserable!' cried Danglars, taking Caderousse's hand, 'or I cannot answer for my actions; who says that Dantès really is not guilty? The ship did halt at Elba and for a whole day at Porto-Ferajo; if they do find some letter on him that compromises him, the ones who have supported him will be held for his accomplices.'
Caderousse, with the instinct of selfishness, understood all the solidity of the argument; he looked at Danglars with dazed eyes of fear and pain, and, for the one step he took forward, he now took two backwards.
'Let's wait, then,' he murmured.
'Yes, let's wait,' said Danglars; 'if he is innocent, he will be left in freedom; if he is guilty, it is useless to compromise oneself for a conspirator.'

In other words, Caderousse was drunk when the letter denouncing Dantès was written, but even at the engagement party he is too cowardish to tell anyone, out of fear for his own skin. This does not make him directly culpable, like Danglars who was the brains behind the whole thing, but it at least makes him an accomplice. So was Fernand. He was too soft to think of it himsef, but when the opportunity offers itself in the posture of Danglars, he takes it with pleasure.

I don't know if it is really taking his family away that induces Fernand to suicide, I think it is rather the fact that he lost his aristocratic honour. Do not forget that for a person like that: soldier who came to fortune and fame, was even made Pair de France (permanent member of the senate), and man of the 19th century, he has lost all when the dirty details about his conduct in Janina come to the surface. All his titles and functions will be taken away and he will be shunned by anyone considerable in society. His wife and son are the least. That is bad, yes, but never being able to show your face at all anywhere without being noticed and having people whispering, is much worse. In my mind, he was aready going to commit suicide when he ran away from Monte Cristo who has revealed himself as Dantès to him. He does not even take notice of the carriage, does not implore Marcédès or Albert to stay, he just runs up to the bedroom and kills himself. That the leaving of his wife an dson and his suicide happen at the same time is not really an argument for causality.

I don't know if it is fear that induces Edmond to forgive Danglars.

I think it is rather his discussion with Mercédès about the free will:

'Vous savez, Edmond, que je ne suis plus une créature pensante ; de détermination, je n'en au pas, sinon celle de n'en prendre jamais. Dieu m'a tellement secouée dans ses orages que j'en ai perdu la volonté. Je suis entre ses mains comme un passereau aux serres de l'aigle. Il ne veut pas que je meure puisque je vis.
S'il m'envoie des secours, c'est qu'il le voudra et je les prendrai.
- Prenez garde, madame, dit Monte-Cristo, ce n'est pas ainsi qu'on adore Dieu ! Dieu veut qu'on le comprenne et qu'on discute sa puissance : c'est pour cela qu'il nous a donné le libre arbitre.
- Malheureux ! s'écria Mercédès, ne me parlez pas ainsi ; si je croyais que Dieu m'eût donné le libre arbitre, que me resterait-il donc pour me sauver du désespoir ! »
Monte-Cristo pâlit légèrement et baissa la tête, écrasé par cette véhémence de la douleur. '

'You know, Edmond, that I am not a creature of thought; determination I have not, only determination not to do anything. God has knocked me about so much in His wild storms that I have lost all will. I am in His hands like a passerine in the clutches of an eagle. He does not want me to die as I am alive.
If He sends me help, it is that He wants it, and I will take it.'
'Be careful Madam,' said Monte Cristo, 'it is not like that that one adores God! God wants that we understand Him and that we discuss His power; it is just for that that He has given us Free Will.'
'Unhappy one!' cried Mercédès, 'Do not talk to me in that way; if I thought that God had given me Free Will, what would then be left for me to save me from despair!'
Monte Cristo went a little pale and let his head drop, crushed by this vehemenence of pain.'

She asserts she has no free will and so she was dragged into her lot (abandoning Edmond and marrying Morcerf) by sircumstances. He does not agree and tells her she chose it herself. In a sense that is true, but there, he blames himself for the deaths of the people that now have died. If he had not done all these things, they would not have committed suicide and endured hardships. When she throws it back at him by asking him how she can stay away from total despair if she acknowledges her own free will in the whole situation, he suddenly relises that he also will have to deal with a lot and indirectly will need forgiveness to have any success in life (because goes around what comes around). In the back of his head Vampa who is starving Dangars to his last penny, on the orders of Monte Cristo, he starts to doubt the health of his soul. Because being able to watch people suffer, is that not the mind of cold-hearted criminal?

If it is fear, it is fear of himself, and not recognising himself anymore in this person who can stand and watch others suffer.

In Matthew 5, it does say about prayer:

'For if you forgive others the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, then the wrongs you have done will not be forgiven by your Father.

Mercédès has already forgiven Edmond for the hand he had in the death of her hudband (in the end it was him who disclosed the whole matter), but Edmond is still taking revenge. The others dead or mad, he cannot say that he feels at all better. Nor that he will become happier after the whole thing has concluded. Mercédès, atlhough profoundly altered is still tolerably happy and trusts in her Lord and Saviour to bring her happiness. Edmond does not trust in anyone. For him, the last ten years have focussed on that revenge only. In the Arabic countries he has resided and learned everything that made him a grand prince so that he could take revenge upon his betrayers and could reward the only peson who had helped him: Morrel. After this revenge has taken its course, he will have no aim and he will only be able to think of what he has done, like he reproached Morcerf the fact that he must have regularly seen Edmond's face in his dreams at the thought of what he did not do for him. Edmond also has a free will, and he has chosen to become Monte Cristo, to make others unhappy. And that is what he must conquer, because after the revenge taken, there is no need for Monte Cristo anymore and what will become of Edmond then? Will he get tortured by this thought of having indirectly killed four people? Karma did certainly come around for the others. What about himself? Who will be the hand of God for him?

I think the main theme is forgiveness and peace of mind. If there is hope (like Mercédès indicates by pointing to the sky), there is certainly hope for him when he sails off under that vast sky with Haydée. One needs to have a clear heart in order to be content. Edmond did not have a clear heart from the time Faria made clear how the matter stood until he goes back to the prison and concludes that punisment was just, but that he must now become human again, and forgive in order to be forgiven. Only then, if he can love himself again, he can love properly a woman. And after he has alighted from the boat, he pronounces Haydée's name 'with an expression of tenderness that was almost love'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I don't know if it is fear that induces Edmond to forgive Danglars.


If it is fear, it is fear of himself, and not recognising himself anymore in this person who can stand and watch others suffer.

---

That's what I think, I agree with it.

"There, Edmond Dantes!" he said, pointing to the bodies of
his wife and child, "see, are you well avenged?" Monte
Cristo became pale at this horrible sight; he felt that he
had passed beyond the bounds of vengeance, and that he could
no longer say, "God is for and with me."

That phrase is clearly stating Edmond Dantes' fear; about himself, about his justice, about his role as agent of providence. He fears that his action has gone too far.

From that point, after he sees that his action has gone out of control, I think that's the reason why he decides to let Danglar lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Edmond also has a free will, and he has chosen to become Monte Cristo, to make others unhappy. And that is what he must conquer, because after the revenge taken, there is no need for Monte Cristo anymore and what will become of Edmond then? Will he get tortured by this thought of having indirectly killed four people? Karma did certainly come around for the others. What about himself? Who will be the hand of God for him?

---

By this phrase did you mean "emptiness"????

About your thought for Caderousse, it is very convincing. I think I need to think about it. Thx!

I don't quite agree with the translation there and I think it puts a different interpretation forward than could be read from the original French version:

'Tiens ! Edmond Dantès, dit-il en montrant au comte le cadavre de sa femme et le corps de son fils, tiens ! regarde, es-tu bien vengé ?... »
Monte-Cristo pâlit à cet effroyable spectacle ; il comprit qu'il venait d'outrepasser les droits de la vengeance ; il comprit qu'il ne pouvait plus dire :
« Dieu est pour moi et avec moi. »
Il se jeta avec un sentiment d'angoisse inexprimable sur le corps de l'enfant, rouvrit ses yeux, tâta le pouls, et s'élança avec lui dans la chambre de Valentine, qu'il referma à double tour...'

'Look! Edmond Dantès,' [Villefort] said pointing to the dead bodies of his wife and son, 'look! are you well evenged?...'
Monte Cristo went pale at this horrible spectacle; he understood that he had just gone beyond the rights of vengence; he understood that he could no longer say:
'God is for me and with me.'

I think the word 'droit' in the French version is very important as it is in no way a 'boundary', but something that expresses the right to take revenge and the righteousness of the situation. It is interesting to note that Villefort at this point addresses Edmond by his name, and that Dumas keeps Monte Cristo as Edmond's non-sensitive revengetaking alterego. When the Count thinks he has gone beyond the rights of vengence, he does not consider that he went too far as such, but that his actions have had consequences he could not have foreseen, but consequences that are in themselves despicable. So the righteousness of the situation is in danger, while the revenge in itself is still justified. He had intended to avenge himslf by disnonouring Villefort by having his wife kill people so he would have to face her in court in his function of King's Prosecutor (the same mechanism of dishonouring as was the case with Morcerf). That his daughter was also a victim (or was going to become that), was a necessary evil (like he tells Mercédès in the end). Although, he saves her to make Morrel happy. At the point where Villefort has finally worked all the murders out, he faces his wife and gives her a choce: either she kills herself or she will face the guillotine because there is no way Villefort is going to cover this up. That is what Monte Cristo intended that Villefort was going to do. What neither he, nor Villefort could have foreseen, was that she was going to commi suicide taking her son too, who had nothing to do with the whole matter. Monte Cristo did not consider that, and pities the small boy who was killed for nothing.

He went beyond his rights by indirectly taking that innocent child and tries to save it. He did not pass boundaries as such, but he has gone beyond the rightful implications of his actions, although unforeseen. Indeed, he can no longer say with confidence: 'This was the Hand of God' because God does not take an innocent child. Although, Villefort does put it down to God and the fact that Monte Cristo can in no way revive Edouard might also be an indication that God was not willing to save the child.

The title of the chapter is Expiation (atonement). In a way Villefort has now atoned, but karma is coming back to Monte Cristo too by killing people that should not have been killed and thus oppressing his conscience. Maybe for the first time he considers the effect on others of his vengence and considers that he also has to atone for certain feelings... In a sense, the words of Busoni to Caderousse come back: 'God started to warn you.' Maybe that is what happens in Expiation: it is a warning towards Monte Cristo. 'I can also do things that go against your conscience and that are not part of your free will and that will not leave peace in your conscience until you have forgiven.' Is that mabe why Monte Cristo decides to drag Danglars all the way to Italy, away from his family? In order not to harm them? Or taking the threat away from them?

As to the last thing you wrote:

What did you mean by emptiness? Edmond will certainly lose his goal in life, but the negativity in his heart will need to disappear in order to leave room for positivity.

I meant that Edmond, like the others, will have to face judgment and that maybe that judgment might catch up with him like it caught up with the rest...

Thanks kiki, I got more than enough from you. Thx.
I'll post something if I find some trouble:nod:

I am glad I could help. :)

What was it for anyway?

I need some idea for my thesis and I'm analyzing about Edmond's changing concept of justice for the essence of society using psychological analysis. Need to draw a line about Edmond's concept of justice in the story first before combine it with psychological aspect and social justice:nod:

Boom, I got the idea about Matthew 5 concept of justice; Utilitarianism, and restorative justice. For this one, I need to find by myself:angel:
My raw Matthew 5 was rejected by my advisor:( He told me to find concepts of justice based on matthew 5 and I found these:ladysman:

I'm glad I could help ;).

For the line the conversation between Faria and Edmond where Faria explains how the plot worked, is very important. It is in the beginning in the prison somewhere. At least that is where Edmond feels he has to take revenge, though Faria then regrets telling him how the plot worked, 'because [it brought] revenge into his heart' (Matthew 5).

Other than this, as to the 'justice' performed on Edmond, it needs to be asked whether Edmond was not really guilty of conspiracy.

I don't say this because I think that myself, but after all people were sent to prison then for less clear offences or only rumours of conpiracy. The times were dangerous: Napoleon (the big bad wolf) had been imprisoned on Elba (near Italy), but rumours were growing about the fact that he wanted to come back (he really did come back to conquer France for about 100 days. They also call it The 100 Days in French history). As such, the captain of the Pharaon, is actually helping Napoleon by delivering a letter (or only taking a letter?) and going to bring it to Mr Noirtier (turns out one of the prime members of a Napoleonic committee in Paris, a man who murdered Baron d'Epinay in a forbidden (?) duel, a notorious royalist man). They were planning to bring Napoleon back and help him. Sadly, the plan went wrong and the captain falls ill on the Pharaon. The come-back of Napoleon is a at stake. At the point of dying, the captain uses his authority over his first crew member (Edmond) to ask him to do this, despite knowing that Edmond has no clue what the political danger is of stopping at Elba.

Now, Villefort asks Edmond what he knows about the letter and discovers the poor boy does have the letter, but is too naive to realise what is at stake here. Villefort is very very benevolent actually, because other figures in French literature that are part of the police force (for one Javert from Les Misérables) are not that benevolent. They usually see only fact (there is a letter, like these people wrote, in connection with Napoleon, that is prison, my friend). Villefort is more philosophical about it and decides because Edmond does not know what the implications and reasons for the letter are, that he is in fact not guilty (intention vs fact). It is only when Edmond mentions the name Noirtier (Villefort's father and republican) that he decides to cover the whole thing up and lock Edmond up, because the matter could damage his career if Edmond should blab. Edmond is lucky that he has initially Villefort for his examiner, or maybe it is that Villefort feels akin to Dantès because both are having their engagement-party.

The fact remains that Edmond, out of naivety, was a part of the conspiracy to bring back public enemy nr1 Napoleon. With other members of the police force, he would certainly have faced prison, without question. Villefort was prepared to leave it on the basis of 'what he does not know, he cannot do'. Sadly, selfishness (as with Caderousse) got in the way (fact vs intention).

This idea though, could throw the whole thing about Dantès's revenge in the air. Because that is why, when he sees Villefort's son dead, he feels guilty (feels he went past the rights of revenge). Had he also considered that 'what I have not intended, I cannot do, so I cannot feel guilty for' (intention vs fact), he had not felt the situation was not righteous and tried to save the boy, blaming himself for his death. Although Dantès has not committed crimes as such taking his revenge, he still feels guilty and needs to be forgiven to find peace... because of the fact, not the intention.

Hope that was not too confusing...

His talk with Abbe Faria if i'm not mistaken is the hint to the eye for an eye too.

Yes.

You obviously meant the line between 'an eye for a eye' and Matthew 5?

I think the true line, despite his doubts after the death of Edouard, is his conversation with Mercédès at the Allées de Meilhan (his old house he now puts at her disposition to use) about the free will.

About the conversation between Edmond and Mercedes, yes, I agree with you Kiki. That scene is the turning point of Edmond's justice. The conversation, I believe, cast a doubt upon Edmond.

'Unhappy one!' cried Mercédès, 'Do not talk to me in that way; if I thought that God had given me Free Will, what would then be left for me to save me from despair!'
Monte Cristo went a little pale and let his head drop, crushed by this vehemenence of pain.'

However, for some reason, I think it can be used if the topic is Edmond's role as Agent of providence not justice. For now, I can't find some strings that relates the conversation to Justice.

Yes, but Justice is not a God on its own, though.

The laws concerning justice came from Yahweh to Moses (Exodus 21 (Laws concerning acts of Violence) verses 23-26):

'Wherever hurt is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.'

It is Yahweh Himself who tells Moses this.

In Matthew 5 it is Jesus who speaks. As He is theologically one with God (the Holy Trinity Father-Son-Holy Ghost), He is also the same as He who told the first law.

In that, the Agent of Providence is the same as the Agent of Justice as the laws on Justice come straight from God.

(Sorry for the theological bit)