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)

Ah yes, forgot the rest...

It is mentioned at the end of Exodus that the Israelites at the bottom of Mount Sinai were afraid of the thunder and lightning. Moses goes down and tells them that it is only God testing them and instilling fear into their hearts so that they may refer from sin out of fear for Yahweh.

God gave Man Free Will, but to choose the right way. Milton put the words in God's mouth that he gave Man Free Will in order to choose to beiieve in him because there would be nothing gratifying if they believed because they had to. Adam and Eve were free to choose to eat from the Trees, but they were not allowed

In that, the discussion about the Free Will goes further into the fact whether it was right to give Morcerf, Villefort, Danglars and Caderousse an eye for an eye.

God gave Man a free choice, but man is supposed to obey the laws because otherwise God will become angry. Edmond chose to obey the laws of the OT, where Mercédès chooses to obey the laws of the NT. Although his revenge is right (he chose the right path), he has to complete:

Matthew 5

Jesus and the Law:
'Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven nd earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has happened.' (The coming of the Kingdom of Heaven)

Fear has been taken over by Love. (hey, also in Monte Cristo!) God wanted to be feared by the Isrealites and made Laws that induced fear (an eye for an eye). Yet, now, it is the ones that love and not fear who will go into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mercédès, in the end, does not fear, but hopes and waits (attendre et espérer, one of Dumas's greatet philosophies). Monte Cristo, or Edmond, does not want to wait and hope nor in prison nor outside of it and obeys the old laws of fear in an attempt to make the others repent of their deed. Yet, this will not bring him peace, but only fear of his own possible humanity (foregiveness) and of another possible eye for an eye (because who will revenge his wrongs? Although he does not kill himself, there is for example Mercédès who has reasons to avenge herself).

It is also striking that when he goes back to the prison, he realises that he was afraid to forget, as he sees his own inscription on the wall:

'Mon Dieu, conservez moi la mémoire.' (God, please, conserve my memory).

He was clearly afraid of forgiveness at that point and wished to remember, so he could take revenge.

Sorry for not being in this thread in such a long time:ladysman:
I'm still confused though but i get the most of it:brickwall

Besides the event on Villefort's house, do you think that there are another event that shows Edmond's fear????

One more:

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

What is the quotation that shows this argument???

Man, this is interesting. It makes me think. I always have to get into it again.

I'll think about it and then post. ;)

I'll be waiting, Kiki:angel:

Kiki, can you help me show the passage when Edmond makes Danglars goes bankrupt. In which chapter??? Thx

Here is what I think after re-reading somewhat :

Two fears oppress Monte Cristo when he sees Edouard de Villefort dead:

1. Fear of God who will become angry because he took the wrong way
and believed God behind him

2. Fear of himself, or let’s say, fear that Monte Cristo is not him, Edmond Dantès who has somehow disappeared and made place for Monte Cristo. I.e. it has become impossible to become kinder, to become a man again (a man who can love, who does not live for vengeance alone); it has become impossible to leave this feeling of vengeance forever behind him one it is done.

As to the first point:

I have already addressed the discussion about the Free Will that dictates that God (as Milton put it) wants man to be able to choose, but only to choose the right way (believe in God). As such, eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is wrong and God becomes angry, because they have chosen the wrong way, the way of evil.

Monte Cristo, or Edmond, fears that he has taken the wrong way (has passed the rights of vengeance), after he sees Edouard dead:

Chapter CXI: Expiation

‘Et, comme s'il eût craint que les murs de la maison maudite ne s'écroulassent sur lui, il s'élança dans la rue, doutant pour la première fois qu'il eût le droit de faire ce qu'il avait fait.
« Oh ! assez, assez comme cela, dit-il, sauvons le dernier. »
En rentrant chez lui, Monte-Cristo rencontra Morrel, qui errait dans l'hôtel des Champs-Elysées, silencieux comme une ombre qui attend le moment fixé par Dieu pour rentrer dans son tombeau.
« Apprêtez-vous, Maximilien, lui dit-il avec un sourire, nous quittons Paris demain.
- N'avez-vous plus rien à y faire ? demanda Morrel.
- Non, répondit Monte-Cristo, et Dieu veuille que je n'y aie pas trop fait ! »’ (chapître XCI, Epiation) (after the death of Edouard de Villefort)

‘And, as if he was afraid that the walls of the cursed house would collapse upon him, he ran into the street, for the first time doubting that he had had the right to do what he had done.
‘Oh! Enough, enough of this,’ he said, ‘let’s save the last one.’
Returning to his residence, Monte-Cristo met Morrel, who was roaming the Champs-Elysées house, quietly like a shadow that waits for the moment determined by God that will return it to the grave.
‘Get yourself ready, Maximilien,’ he told him with a smile, ‘we will leave Paris in the morning.’
‘Do you have nothing more to do here?’ asked Morrel.
‘No,’ answered Monte-Cristo, ‘and God willing, I have not done too much!’

So, Monte-Cristo here for the first time doubts that he had the right to do this, and he even wants to stop it, before it is too late. But the fact that he fears that the house will collapse on him, points to a fear of revenge from God (as Villefort is not pulling the place down, or there is no hint as to the collapsing state of the place). And this is not the only spot that that issue is indicated. One is the one already quoted in the conversation with Mercédès.

Chapter CXII: Le Départ/The Departure

‘Monte-Cristo pâlit légèrement et baissa la tête, écrasé par cette véhémence de la douleur.’

‘Monte-Cristo went a little pale and let his head drop, crushed by this vehemence of pain.’

In other words, as I have said before, if he wanted Edouard to die, he went the wrong way, because he feels he has done wrong.

But this feeling goes on and is further explained by Dumas in the next chapter, Le Passé/The Past, however, there starts point 2 (fear of not being able to become Edmond again, fear of not being able to be a man):

‘Depuis la mort du petit Edouard, un grand changement s'était fait dans Monte-Cristo. Arrivé au sommet de sa vengeance par la pente lente et tortueuse qu'il avait suivie, il avait vu de l'autre côté de la montagne l'abîme du doute.
Il y avait plus : cette conversation qu'il venait d'avoir avec Mercédès avait éveillé tant de souvenirs dans son coeur, que ces souvenirs eux-mêmes avaient besoin d'être combattus.
Un homme de la trempe du comte ne pouvait flotter longtemps dans cette mélancolie qui peut faire vivre les esprits vulgaires en leur donnant une originalité apparente, mais qui tue les âmes supérieures. Le comte se dit que pour en être presque arrivé à se blâmer lui-même, il fallait qu'une erreur se fût glissée dans ses calculs.
« Je regarde mal le passé, dit-il, et ne puis m'être trompé ainsi.
« Quoi ! continua-t-il, le but que je m'étais proposé serait un but insensé ! Quoi ! j'aurais fait fausse route depuis dix ans ! Quoi ! une heure aurait suffi pour prouver à l'architecte que l'oeuvre de toutes ses espérances était une oeuvre, sinon impossible, du moins sacrilège !
« Je ne veux pas m’habituer à cette idée, elle me rendrait fou. Ce qui manque à mes raisonnements d'aujourd'hui, c'est l'appréciation exacte du passé, parce que je revois ce passé de l'autre bout de l'horizon. En effet, à mesure qu'on s'avance, le passé, pareil au paysage à travers lequel on marche, s'efface à mesure qu'on s'éloigne. Il m'arrive ce qui arrive aux gens qui se sont blessés en rêve, ils regardent et sentent leur blessure, et ne se souviennent pas de l'avoir reçue.
« Allons donc, homme régénéré ; allons, riche extravagant ; allons, dormeur éveillé ; allons, visionnaire tout-puissant ; allons millionnaire invincible, reprends pour un instant cette funeste perspective de la vie misérable et affamée ; repasse par les chemins où la fatalité t'a poussé, où le malheur t'a conduit, où le désespoir t'a reçu ; trop de diamants, d'or et de bonheur rayonnent aujourd'hui sur les verres de ce miroir où Monte-Cristo regarde Dantès ; cache ces diamants, souille cet or, efface ces rayons ; riche, retrouve le pauvre ; libre, retrouve le prisonnier, ressuscité, retrouve le cadavre. »’ (chapître XCIII, Le Passé)

‘Since the death of little Edouard, a big change had taken place in Monte-Cristo. As he had reached the top of his vengeance by the slow and winding slope that he had followed, he had seen on the other side of the mountain the abyss of doubt.
And there was more: this conversation he had just had with Mercédès had awakened in him so many memories in his heart, that they had to be fought themselves.
A man like the count could not float for long in this melancholy, that makes the most vulgar spirits live by giving them a seeming originality, but that kills superior souls. The count told himself that In order to almost blame himself, there had to be an error in his calculations.
‘I view the past badly,’ he said, ‘and I cannot have been mislead so much.’
‘What!’, he went on, ‘the goal I posed myself would be insane! What! I would have gone the wrong way for ten years. What! One hour would have sufficed to prove to the architect that the work of all his hopes was a work, if not impossible, at least sacrilegious.’
‘I do not want to get used to that idea, it would drive me insane. That what lacks in my reasoning of today, is the exact assessment of the past, because I look at that past from the other side of the horizon. In fact, the more one goes forward, the past, like the landscape through which one goes, erases itself as one moves further away. What happens to people who are hurt by a dream now happens to me, they see and feel their wounds and they do not remember how they received them.
‘Come, you regenerated man; come, you rich extravagant man; come, you awakened sleeper; come, you almighty visionary; come, you invincible millionaire, take back for one moment that deadly perspective of miserable and starved life; go again the roads where fate has pushed you, where misfortune has driven you, where despair has received you; too many diamonds, too much gold and luck shine today on the glass of the mirror where Monte-Cristo looks at Dantès; conceal the diamonds, soil the gold, erase the rays; rich one, find back the poor man; free one, find back the prisoner, resurrected one, find back the body.’

Now, I have three remarks about translation. The three words that I marked italic are ‘se tromper’, ‘funeste’ and ‘ressuscité’. ‘Se tromper’ can also be ‘to be wrong’, ‘to err’, ‘to be deceive’ and such things. Of course, being wrong oneself is of lighter consequence than being mislead, which is another possible translation. I took mislead because it suits the context of doubt as to the course one follows much better than just being wrong. As to the second word (‘funeste’) there are also several possible translations (‘disastrous’, ‘harmful’, ‘deathly’, ‘fatal; lethal; deadly; mortal’ (all literary)), but I took deadly because Monte-Cristo also talks about ‘ressuscité’ (revived after death) and ‘cadavre’ (dead body). I took ‘resurrected’ for ‘ressuscité’ because he has resurrected himself as Jesus. Not in a positive light, but in spirit and body. Edmond has not physically stayed in the prison, while his spirit has gone somewhere else, no he resurrected with his body too.

It is clear until the fifth paragraph (starting with ‘What!’) that he fears he has gone the wrong way. Now, we all know what happens to people who go the wrong way, don’t we (certainly with Genesis in the back of our heads…)? Going the bad way implies to a certain extent he has followed evil, i.e. the devil. In that case, what will become of him? He has died and has sold his soul to the devil in order to become invincible; he will be doomed. But as the text goes on, the focal point shifts from the Edmond(/Monte-Cristo)-God perspective to the Monte-Cristo-Edmond perspective. When he acknowledges that there are ‘too many diamonds, too much gold and luck shin[ing] on the glass of the mirror where Monte-Cristo looks at Dantès’ (I have taken ‘luck’ instead of happiness, which the word ‘bonheur’ can also mean because ‘happiness’ does not fit with Monte-Cristo. He is not a happy man, he has had and still good fortune in avenging himself (meating the right people, finding the treasure in the first place), he is actually saying that Dantès, has become totally unknown to him, ironically to himself as Edmond is Monte-Cristo. Monte-Crsito’s feelings are the result of something indistinct (as he was saying about the landscape) and now he cannot be sure anymore of how Dantès feels. He can only be sure of what Monte-Cristo feels, but he is the result of the wounds inflicted on Edmond. So he needs to sort the distinction Monte-Cristo-Edmond out by learning his story again. And, all through the story of the jailer, Monte-Cristo seems to have feelings as if he cannot believe that what he perceives as the past, is in fact truly true. Monte-Cristo becomes Edmond again to a certain extent in that cell where the jailer leaves him in the dark. When he reads his own inscription ‘Mon Dieu, conservez-moi la mémoire’ (‘God, please conserve my memory’), he realizes that indeed God has kept him his memories and that he has take the right way, that God will not be angry, that his memories are right and not distorted; that the bad things that came upon Villefort, Morcerf, Danglars and Caderousse were The Hand of God. He only needs one final proof and that he prays for in Faria’s cell when the jailer has gone off again to fetch the book. Up until then he has heard the story of Edmond, and he acknowledges that he did not exaggerate, so the feelings of Monte-Cristo are real; the person Edmond made of those feelings is real. The only thing left for him now is to ask God if he did go the wrong way and committed revenge by himself, or that God led him. And that is what he reads in the book.
The fact that every time Monte-Cristo is left in the dark, in my mind, symbolizes the darkness that Edmond felt in that prison. Edmond’s time there, before Faria came who could read time and who had more light in his cell, was a time of darkness and despair. It is described in chapter CV. He could see light (God), but did not make use of it; only turned to Him in total despair and when he had tried everything else. When that does not work either (he is not freed), he turns to ascetism and tries to get something out of that and gains Faria. Faria brought him light (the candle) and knowledge (his philosophical works and practical teachings). Every time the jailer leaves him in the dark, Monte-Cristo experiences again the total desolation that moved Edmond to think a certain way, and even sees figures from the past (among which his jailer who is no longer there) The concept of the dark that took ten years to be able to see in, returns when Monte-Cristo who has been living for ten years only for revenge, suddenly sees the light of love. It is interesting that the jailer and his torch do not clarify much for Monte-Cristo: he only recognizes Edmond’s cell when darkness returns. Faria brought him indeed the light, but a light that was different from the jailer’s light now (a torch does not give the same amount of light as a little candle made of meat-oil). Darkness obviously is still important, despite the light, but now, the light is all; despite the torch, he does not recognize his cell (too much light, the place is not the same to him as it was then. He can only recognize it in the dark).

I looked up on the internet about darkness in the bible and look what it says in the First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (chapter 5):
from verse 4 to 8

‘But you, my friends, are not in the dark, that the day should overtake you like a thief. You are all children of light, children of day. We do not belong to night or darkness, and we must not sleep like the rest, but keep awake and sober. Sleepers sleep at night, and drunkards are drunk at night, but we who belong to daylight, must keep sober, armed with faith and love for coat of mail, and the hope of salvation for helmet.’

Now, normally I would not really get struck by this, but fact is that Dumas writes also about sleep. Monte-Cristo tells himself he has suddenly awakened, and that in combination with the dark-light thing would be a very big coincidence if it were not taken somehow from this text or from the Bible in general. Dumas was certainly religious and Catholic being a Frenchman. He displayed that in his musketeer-novels very much. So Faria brought the light, like Jesus came into the world of darkness (Gospel of John), but Edmond had fallen asleep and as such awakens ten years later at the death of Edouard. In the Gospel of John it says explicitly (chapter 1; verse 5): ‘And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.’ (King James) Now, there are different translations, but the French versions says: ‘La lumière luit dans les ténèbres, et les ténèbres ne l’ont pas reçue.’ (‘The light shines in the darkness, and darkness has not received it.’ Although ‘recevoir’ in French can also mean, to welcome like one does a guest.). So, here my conclusion is that Edmond was brought the light by Faria (who brought him knowledge and faith to a certain extent, and also brings him himself (like Jesus brought man Himself)), but he has not accepted it as such. It is important that Faria says that he regrets that he told Edmond how his situation was built up (as to the plot), because that now revenge got into his heart. Faria wanted to bring him hope, love and faith (by being with him and trusting I God), but instead, he brought him deep feelings of revenge. Just because Edmond sleeps. Like this conversation between Edmond and Faria says in chapter XVII: La Chambre de l’Abbé/The priest’s room indicates:

‘Hélas ! mon enfant, dit-il, la science humaine est bien bornée, et quand je vous aurai appris les mathématiques, la physique, l'histoire et les trois ou quatre langues vivantes que je parle, vous saurez ce que je sais : or, toute cette science, je serai deux ans à peine à la verser de mon esprit dans le vôtre.
- Deux ans ! dit Dantès, vous croyez que je pourrais apprendre toutes ces choses en deux ans ?
- Dans leur application, non ; dans leurs principes, oui : apprendre n'est pas savoir ; il y a les sachant et les savants : c'est la mémoire qui fait les uns, c'est la philosophie qui fait les autres.
- Mais ne peut-on apprendre la philosophie ?
- La philosophie ne s'apprend pas ; la philosophie est la réunion des sciences acquises au génie qui les applique : la philosophie, c'est le nuage éclatant sur lequel le Christ a posé le pied pour remonter au ciel.
- Voyons, dit Dantès, que m'apprenez-vous d'abord ? J'ai hâte de commencer, j'ai soif de science.’

‘Alas ! my child,’ he said, ‘human knowledge is very narrow, and when I will have taught you mathematics, physics, history and the three living languages I speak, you will know all I know; so, all that knowledge will take me only two years to pour from my spirit into yours.
‘Two years!’ said Dantès, ‘you think I could learn all those things in two years?’
‘In their application, no; in their principles, yes: learning is not knowing; there are the knowing and the learned: it is memory that makes the first, it is philosophy that makes the others.’
‘But can one not learn philosophy?’
‘Philosophy cannot be learned; philosophy is the union of all acquired knowledge by the spirit that uses it; philosophy is the shining cloud on which Christ put His foot to rise back to heaven.’
‘Let’s have a look,’ said Dantès, ‘at what you can teach me first? I am eager to start, I am thirsty for knowledge.’

I find it very much enlightening that Faria makes a distinction between knowledge and wisdom/philosophy. He can teach Edmond a lot, but it will depend on Edmond himself that he will become wise. In that, the Light can be there, but the ones that do not want to see it and comprehend it (like the King James Bible says) still live in darkness. Edmond, up until then has gone through life without knowledge whatsoever, and so it should indeed be clear that Faria will ‘enlighten’ (literally bring him light) Edmond (also with respect to the plot that got him into prison). However, that does not mean that Edmond will use it. There is a difference between knowing indeed and dealing with it. As such, I argue that Edmond was asleep, although he had been enlightened. I think also, as to the darkness, that chapter XV: Le Numéro 34 et le Numéro 27/Number 34 and Number 27 is interesting as to quotes considering his state of mind.

Then there is still the fact that Monte-Cristo doubts his role and status towards God:

‘Madame, répliqua le comte en lui prenant les deux mains, tout ce que vous me diriez ne vaudra jamais ce que je lis dans vos yeux, ce que votre coeur a pensé, ce que le mien a ressenti. Comme les bienfaiteurs de roman, j'eusse dû partir sans vous revoir ; mais cette vertu était au-dessus de mes forces, parce que je suis un homme faible et vaniteux, parce que le regard humide, joyeux et tendre de mes semblables me fait du bien. Maintenant je pars, et je pousse l'égoïsme jusqu'à vous dire : Ne m'oubliez pas, mes amis, car probablement vous ne me reverrez jamais.
- Ne plus vous revoir ! s'écria Emmanuel, tandis que deux grosses larmes roulaient sut les joues de Julie ; ne plus vous revoir ! mais ce n'est donc pas un homme, c'est donc un dieu qui nous quitte, et ce dieu va donc remonter au ciel après être apparu sur la terre pour y faire le bien !
- Ne dites pas cela, reprit vivement Monte-Cristo, ne dites jamais cela, mes amis ; les dieux ne font jamais le mal, les dieux s'arrêtent où ils veulent s'arrêter ; le hasard n'est pas plus fort qu'eux, et ce sont eux, au contraire, qui maîtrisent le hasard. Non, je suis un homme, Emmanuel, et votre admiration est aussi injuste que vos paroles sont sacrilèges. »’ (chapître CXII, Le Départ)

‘Madam [Julie, sister of Morrel],’ answered the count, taking her two hands, ‘everything you can tell me would never be as much as what I can read in your eyes, what your heart has thought, what mine has felt. Like the benefactors of novels, I should have left without seeing you again; but that virtue was above my strength, because I am only a weak and vain man, because a humid, joyous and tender expression of my fellow man does me good. Now I leave, and I push the boundaries of selfishness by telling you: ‘Please, do not forget me, my friends, because probably you will not see me again.’
‘Not see you again?’ cried Emmanuel, while two large tears rolled on Julie’s cheeks; ‘not see you again! But then it is not a man, then it is a god that leaves us, and that god will go back to heaven after having appeared on the earth to do good!’
‘Do not say that,’ answered Monte-Cristo sharply, ‘do not ever say that, my friends; gods never do evil, gods stop where they want to; coincidence is not stronger than they are, and it is they, on the contrary, who control coincidence. No, I am only a man, Emmanuel, and your admiration is as unjust as your words are sacrilegious.’ (chapter CXII: Le Départ/The Departure)

It is striking how he refuses to accept what Emmanuel says about him. As he goes on, it is clear that he regards the coincidental death of Edouard as an act of God who did not want to stop. As such, he has now felt his own limitation. Before, he believed God was with him and left everything up to him (he wants to save Valentine, he does), now he feels how small he is in comparison with God, because he did not want Edouard to die and yet he died, even when he tried to save him as he did Valentine. As he says ‘weak and vain’, it is also clear that he feels he has been vain to believe that he was invincible, that no-one was able to hurt him, that no-one could get to him. Edouard (again) has proved him wrong.

The darkness to me represents his state of obeying the old laws of God (an eye for an eye) where the light represents wisdom and philosophy, completion. Where he lives in fear before (fear of wanting to forgive, fear of forgetting), he then gets enlightened to feel kindness and love. This also happens when Morrel comes to tell him that Valentine is dying in chapter XCIV: L’Aveu/The Confession (which title could be taken for both Monte-Cristo and Morrel. Morrel admitting to Monte-Cristo his love for Valentine de Villefort, but Monte-Cristo equally admitting to himself some wrong as the passage below indicates). He gets the start of the same feeling as he has with Edouard:

‘Malheureux ! s'écria-t-il en se tordant les mains à son tour, malheureux ! tu aimes Valentine ! tu aimes cette fille d'une race maudite ! »
Jamais Morrel n'avait vu semblable expression ; jamais oeil si terrible n'avait flamboyé devant son visage, jamais le génie de la terreur, qu'il avait vu tant de fois apparaître, soit sur les champs de bataille, soit dans les nuits homicides de l'Algérie, n'avait secoué autour de lui de feux plus sinistres.
Il recula épouvanté.
Quant à Monte-Cristo, après cet éclat et ce bruit, il ferma un moment les yeux, comme ébloui par des éclairs intérieurs : pendant ce moment, il se recueillit avec tant de puissance, que l'on voyait peu à peu s'apaiser le mouvement onduleux de sa poitrine gonflée de tempêtes, comme on voit après la nuée se fondre sous le soleil les vagues turbulentes et écumeuses.
Ce silence, ce recueillement, cette lutte, durèrent vingt secondes à peu près.
Puis le comte releva son front pâli.’ (chapître XCIV: L’aveu)

‘Unhappy one !’ cried [Monte-Cristo] wringing his hand in his turn, ‘unhappy one! You love Valentine! You love that girl of a cursed race!’
Never had Morrel seen such an expression ; never had such a terrible eye blazed in front of his face, never had the spirit of terror, that he had seen appearing so many times, either on the battlefield, or during the killing-nights in Algeria, rocked around him with more fire.
He recoiled in terror.
As to Monte-Cristo, after this outburst and noise, he closed his eyes for a moment, as if dazzled by inner flash of lightning: during that moment, he collected himself with such strength, that one could see the wavy movement of his chest, swelled with storm, calming like one can see the turbulent and foaming waves blend together under the sun after the storm.
This silence, this collecting, this struggle, went on for twenty seconds more or less.
Then the count lifted his pale face.’ (chapter XCIV: The Confession

Danglars does not go bankrupt. He almost goes bankrupt, but not totally. In chapter CXI: Expiation Monte-Cristo declares ‘let’s save the last one’ (‘Sauvons le dernier’) and he does! Here is how:

In chapter CIV: La Signature Danglars/Danglars’s Signature, Danglars has a bond on his desk for 5 million francs. It is the last of his money and he is to give it to the widows and orphans who have sent Mr de Boville to collect it for them. Unforeseen, however, Monte-Cristo walks in and, having taken up already 900 000 of his 6 million credit, he demands the remaining 5 100 000 francs. Big disaster for Danglars, because he cannot pay up. Although, (big disaster again), Monte-Cristo sees the bond for 5 million on Danglars’s desk and after some discussion Danglars relinquishes it. The count had already prepared a receipt for his 5 100 000 and now gives it to Danglars with the message he can keep the 100 000 and cash the bond with Thompson&French in Rome. After that, Mr de Boville of the widows and orphans walks in and demands his 5 million. This of course Danglars can pay if he cashes the bond in Rome. So he tells Mr de Boville to wait two days and the latter goes off. Danglars’s intention, though, was not to cash and pay, but to cash only and disappear with the 5 100 000 of Monte-Cristo. However, Monte-Cristo being Tompson&French (it is not clear how he became it, whether it was due to the purchase of the bank, or just by founding the bank himself or just acting as an agent… Despite that, it is clear that he is Lord Wilmore of Thompson&French) learns obviously that Danglars has cashed his bond of 5 100 000, but apparently also learns that the widows and orphans have not received any money, because he then informs Vampa, his robber-friend in Rome, to capture Danglars and cheat him out of his money. So that one does and Monte-Cristo deals with Danglars later. He lets him go with the last 50 000 so he can make another fortune, but fairly.

I hope I helped you, or maybe confused you more. :D

You got me there, more confused :lol: I'm going to study it for a while:eek2:

One thing that I want to ask you is that why it is fear of God? Edmond believes that God is with him but now he fears God, don't you think this idea is very weak?? When we think the fact that He believes that God is with him, how come he suddenly feels fear of God??? I think it is more to belief that God doesn't agree with him/accept his action.

Indeed, at first he believes God with him, because everything goes as he had planned. But, when Morrel comes to tell him about Valentine (a death he was planning, or at least indirectly), everything does not go as planned, because if she dies, Morrel will commit suicide (like Monte-Cristo prevents in the end) because of unhappiness. Thus, he will also wrong a good guy which is not his game. His game was to reward old Morrel (save his business by giving back the Pharaon), help daughter Julie and Emmanuel to a marriage with money ad help Maximilien to happiness. That is not possibleif he lets Valentine die. The saving of Valentine was still on time, and went as planned, so God was behind it (Monte-Cristo believes). As Edouard dies, though, he cannot save him and decides God did not want to save him, but why not if Monte-Cristo himself wanted to save him? Then, surely, God does not agree with him this time? But as God does not agree, has he then gone the wrong way, has he then moved off the good track and gone the bad one? After that, he talks to Mercédès and then certainly starts to doubt blatantly if he went the wrong way for ten years. However, this doubt has already been in existence for longer than at the death of Edouard.

It is clear that Monte-Cristo develops from total conviction on the revenge-front (in the prison after Faria tells him of the plot) to slight apprehension (Valentine's impending death and Morrel unhappy), to doubt (Edouard's death) to total doubt (conversation with Mercédès) to conviction on the peace/love-front (foregiveness) (partly after the death of Edouard, but totally as he returns from the Château d'Îf).

It is not a weak idea. His doubt does not come on him all of a sudden. Although I only discovered that two days ago. :)

As to his fear of God. As he believes that God was with him, he believed himself invincible. The others were punished by God for their bad actions. But what if he has acted badly? He is going to get punished too. Again, the darkness that God represents in the Old Testament turns to light in the New. However, the OT mentions God as frightening the Isrealites in order to keep them from sin (do not do it, otherwise He will become angry), whereas the NT mentions God as light and forgiving (God will foregive you if you show remorse). It is a totally different concept. The first God instills fear, the second instills love. People who do not believe do not have to fear, they will only not get into the kingdom of heaven. It is the same with the enemies: do not become their enemy, turn your other cheek to them and God will have mercy on you. The rich man has to give away all his money, not because it will make God happy explicitly, but because the rich (or then poor man) will be happy. God does not require offerings anymore becaus he does not need to be made happy He is already hppy, if you are yourself.

So, if we apply this to Monte-Cristo, as he hears from Faria how the plot worked, he withdraws into the darkness of his own cell to think and makes a resolution of revenge that is to read on his face (Faria tells him so at their next meating). So he has put the law 'an eye for an eye' into practice (or at least in his mind). As he comes out of prison, he puts it into real practice and lives for ten years preparing for the revenge. All through the story, Monte-Cristo goes into the shadows, stands in the dark, (for one as Lord Wilmore in Morrel's office, at the first meating with Mercédès) and rolls himself in his cloak. It is only at the end as he is returning from the Château d'Îf that light becomes important as it shines wonderfully on the Catalan's village of Marseille and when he whispers the name of Haydée.

The end of the story shows that he went the right way and through forgiveness is forgiven by God (Valentine has woken up, and Morrel is not dead yet; surely this thing could have turned into a tragedy with Valentine dying anyway and Morrel still committing suicide on his own). The light has entered his heart and God show mercy by having Haydée profess her love for Edmond. And the two sail off under a clear blue sky and the white sails shining under the sun.

However, we must also add that he gives away the rest of his fortune or the biggest part of it, so that is an additional factor to prove his intention of comprehending the light.

It's not that difficult. Read Matthew 5 again and do a litte research on Bible sites on the internet. It is easy because you can search the whole of that book without endless ly looking through it. And get yourself maybe an e-text of Monte-Cristo, because it is easier to look things up if you still remember the words of the sentence.

Kiki, in what chapter that explain why Madame de Villefort wants to kill Valentine? I completely forgot each of the chapter because I read it just once...

I believe it must be chaper CVIII Le Juge/The Judge where Villefort formally accuses his wife of all the murders in his house (Mme de Saint-Méran, Mr de Saint-Méran, Barrois and Valentine whom he thinks dead but who is not).

I'll have another look later as to the why. I'm not sure it is in there, as it would have been obvious for all readers.

I read that chapter twice before, but I couldn't find that. So I don't think that's the part. I notice this part somewhere but I couldn't remember it. I believe it has something to do with Edouard and Noirtier...

In chapter LXXIII La Promesse/The Promise, after the death of Mme de Saint-Méran, doctor d'Avrigny asks Villefort in the garden if anyone had any interest in Mme de Saint-Méran dying. Villefort answers that that is not the case as Valentine is the only heir.

If we follow this line, then Valentine at that point possesses the entire fortune of the marquises of Saint-Méran. Firstly Mr de Saint-Méran suddenly collapsed after a brief period of 'suffering'. Then Mme de Saint-Méran a brief three weeks later (?). Noirtier had been getting some kind of poison from the doctor for his paralised body, and he had asked Valentine to do the same, increasing the small dose every day. Barrois, in the meantime is poisoned as he dies, but if we follow the line of what is said about the inheritance, then Barrois was a mistake (the dose was not big enough for people used to it as Mr d'Avrigny states in the chapter above, but was good enough to kill Barrois who wasn't used to it). As Valentine dies, Villefort is then her heir as she has no children or husband, and so he would be next on the list as Mme de Villefort is the heir of Mr de Villefort and after that, Edouard will be her heir and will inherit the two combined fortunes of de Saint-Mérans and the Villeforts.

I looked into the chapter with Valentine's seeming death, but there was nothing. Only Morrel talking of what he heard in the garden (chapter above). I'll have another look tonight.

Kiki, I have my own explanation for Edmond Dantes' fear of God. Please take a look at it:yawnb:

Edmond Dantes’ reason in changing his concept of justice is fear of God. Edmond Dantes is afraid that God is angry with him because he misuses His name for revenge. “He realized that he could no longer say: God is for me and with me” (1181). Before doing the punishments to his enemies, Edmond Dantes has a belief that God accepts what he will do to his enemies. However, he can no longer say that again after he completes or nearly completes the punishments.
The reason why Edmond Dantes cannot say that “God is with him” again is because his plan in punishing his enemies is intertwined with his plan to reward his friend; everything is mixed and it creates fear of God for Edmond Dantes. Then, the results of his punishments exceed the limitation of equal punishment, his own concept of justice: Edmond Dantes’ actions actually are more than equal. What he really wants from his enemies is only equal pain and suffering but his actions causes more than pain and suffering. Because of his actions, there are innocent people getting dragged.
An example on Edmond Dantes’ fear of God can be seen on Valentine’s case; where he almost done his punishment to Gerrard de Villefort. Edmond Dantes’ plan in punishing Gerrard de Villefort is intertwined with Edmond Dantes’ plan in rewarding the Morrel.
“I love passionately, I love madly, I love like a man who would give his life’s blood to spare her a tear, I love Valentine de Villefort who is being murdered at this moment” (1026).
Maxmillien Morrel is the son of Monsieur Morrel, whom Edmond Dantes has moral debt as he saves him a lot at the past. He loves Gerrard de Villefort’s daughter, Valentine, whom Edmond Dantes includes to his plan in punishing Gerrard de Villefort. Instead of giving the Morrel a reward, Edmond Dantes gives him pain through Valentine’s suffering; a suffering which Edmond Dantes has planned from the beginning. After Edmond Dantes knows about Maxmillien Morrel’s affection toward Valentine, he feels the anger of God.
“See how, my dear friend, how God punishes the most boastful and the most detached of man for their indifference to the frightful scenes that He displays before them. I, who was watching the unfolding of this dreadful tragedy as an impassive and curious spectator; I, who, like the fallen angel, laughed at the evil that man do when they are sheltered by secrecy – and secrecy is easy to preserve for the rich and powerful – now I myself am bitten by that serpent whose progress I was observing – bitten to heart!” (1026).
Edmond Dantes feels that his plan to punish Gerrard de Villefort is bouncing back at him with sudden news about Maxmillien Morrel’s affection toward Valentine. He feels that God disapproves his action by giving him this news as he is now confused in choosing to punish Gerrard de Villefort or rewarding Maxmillien Morrel.
“Monte Cristo put a hand to his forehead. What was going on inside that head, so heavy with its terrible secrets? What were the angel of light and the angel of darkness saying to that mind, at once implacable and humane? Only God knew” (1027).
If God approves Edmond Dantes’ action, there will be no such thing as this news and Edmond Dantes’ plan in punishing Gerrard de Villefort will go smoothly. However, everything does not go as he has planned so it casts doubt in his mind whether God approve his action or not. Edmond Dantes fears that God is angry with him by giving this news.
Edmond Dantes’ fear of God can also be seen after he has done the punishment to Gerrard de Villefort. Edmond Dantes’ punishment to Gerrard de Villefort is not only creating pain and suffering for him but it is also taking the life of innocent child: Edouard de Villefort, Gerrard de Villefort’s son. “My Child!’ Villefort cried. ‘He is stealing my child’s body! Accursed man! Woe betide you!” (1181). Edmond Dantes has no intention to kill Edouard de Villefort but certainly, Edouard de Villefort is killed because of Edmond Dantes.
“A good mother does not go away without taking her son with her!’ … He dragged himself towards Edouard’s body and examined it with the minute attention that a lioness gives to study of a dead cub. Then he gave a heart- rending cry” (1179).
As stated in the previous part (2.1.2), Edmond Dantes wants Gerrard de Villefort to feel the pain of being played by justice. Edmond Dantes forces Gerrard de Villefort to judge his own wife then get the pain and suffering because of it and that is the only thing that he wants to do to Gerrard de Villefort. However, the result exceeds his estimation; Madame de Villefort commits suicide and she brings her son too. Because of this, Edmond Dantes’ punishment to Gerrard de Villefort is more than equal. This event creates fear inside Edmond Dantes’ heart, fear of God’s wrath because he kills innocent child.
There are two explanations for Edmond Dantes’ fear of God that can be seen from the passage above. Those two reasons are related to God’s Ten Commandments to Moses; the second law and the fifth law. “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name” (Exodus 20: 7). As written in the previous part (2.1.4), Edmond Dantes thinks of himself as an agent of providence while doing the punishments to his enemies. As an agent of providence, it is his job to carry out justice, and importantly, follows God’s commandment. However, Edmond Dantes does the reverse of what he should do. Instead of carrying out justice, he does injustice to Maxmillien by giving Valentine suffering through poison. Then, instead obeying God’s fifth commandment: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), Edmond Dantes disobeys that commandment by killing Edouard de Villefort. Because all that happens, Edmond Dantes realizes that he is wrong because justice will not do all of that and come to the realization that he disobeys the second law: “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name” (Exodus 20: 7). That is why he cannot say “God is with him” again and he fears God’s anger for misusing His name for revenge.

I think it's fine, but it needs some attention to vocab and grammar. There were a few mistakes in it, and sometimes you repeat the wording too much.

Other than that:

Madame de Villefort did not commit suicide unforseen by Villefort himself. In an attempt to save himelf from dishonour (which he had already experienced in the trial with Cavalcanti, or Benedetto who was the son of Villefrt and Madame Danglars), he gave his wife the choice: either I will prosecute you or you help yourself with your poison. He certainly wasn't planning on covering the whole thing up like she wanted, but planned to cover it up for himself. The punishment of Gérard de Villefort maybe consisted in just having to live the idea that he was once married to a wrong-doer (somebody who belonged to an inferior race of wrong-doers so to say). Villefort is ruthless and used that trait to put Dantès in prison. Yet, now, he will have to choose: either prosecute his wife in public or cover it up but have to live together with the murderer of his daughter o at leat knowing that his wife as his daughter's murderer.

Before Edouard and Valentine, justice is black or white for Dantès: guilty or not. It is never grey, but it becomes grey as soon as Morrel professes his love for Valentine.

The question is though if God is truly with Dantès or that that is just a fantasy of Dantès. What he sees as The Hand of God, is maybe just fate nd has nothing to do with himself and would have happened without him too. He possibly never got a 'mission' from God (knowingly) that he should take revenge. What he did get is a strong urge to avenge himself and put into his head that he should for God's sake. The fact that he could escape succesfully and find the treasure added to that idea, but that idea is crumbling under his feet from Valentine on. I think he feels the power of God over him and realises his limits a human beig under God. He sees that the principles of a vengeful God are really not constructive (it is rather destructive) and in the end decides to move on from it (from OT tot NT).

The commandment-thing is a good touch. It could indeed be a violation of 'thou shalt not use the name of the Lord in vain'.

Ic ic, thx!!!! Need to check the grammar more carefully, hahahahha

Kiki, about the conversation between Mercedes and Edmond Dantes, which chapter is it????

I presume their last conversation...

chapter CXII Le Départ/The Departure

Hahaha, thanks Kiki. I passed my thesis exam. :thumbs_up

Sorry, didn't see your reply there!

Congrats and I am glad I could help!

No problem :))
You're more than a help. Thx again!