Edgar Allen Poe's "Cask of the Amontillado": Interpretive Disagreements

by Chris Haviland

           Scholars and critics of Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” have differing opinions on how to analyze the short story. One critic, Graham Scott, believes that the story holds religious context and creates connections between each part of the story and religion. Another critic, Patrick White, analyzes the short story by highlighting the fact that families are political units. These two analyses by two different scholars of the “The Cask of Amontillado” are very different.

            Scott draws connections between each part of the story and religion. He first analyzes the names of the two main characters. Montresor can be translated to “my treasure” and Fortunato can be translated to “fortune”. Scott then argues that Montresor is God-like in his ability to manipulate his servents, his indifference to suffering, and vengeance. After establishing this information he claims that Montresor can be seen as God’s agent and therefore God’s treasure. He believes that Montresor is only executing God’s will and wrath on Fortunato. Graham Scott believes that “The Cask of Amontillado” is a religious parable showing the conflict between fortune and religion.

            The second scholar, Patrick White, attempts to make a defense for Montresor’s actions in “The Cask of Amontillado”. He claims that a family unit in the time and place of this story was a very strong political unit. This is indicated by the pride in house crests and mottos. White likens loyalty to the family unit to loyalty of one’s nation in our time. Therefore, he concludes, that Montresor’s act of retaliation on a family enemy can be seen as a patriotic act – similar to killing for one’s country now. In further defense of Montresor White examines the family motto, “no one attacks me with impunity.” It is pointed out that this is the same motto used by a Royal house in Scottland. Montresor’s coat of arms is also a foot crushing a serpent which is strikingly similar to the American Revolution crest. Both of these real world connections lend validity and dignity to the actions of Montresor on Fortunato. He claims that Montresor is the snake and Fortunato is the foot crushing him. The snake, Montresor, is biting back and inflicting as much damage onto the foot as possible. Another analysis by White shows that Montresor’s actions are for “God and Family” dictating that his actions are a divine commandment.

            Despite the different analysis from each critic, they both have small similarities between them. Both scholars offer a defense for Montresor and try to justify his actions for trapping Fortunato and leaving him to die. The two critics also attempt to reference real world examples to give validity to Montresor’s actions. Scott makes religious references while White draws social and political references to lend dignity to the murder.

            Regardless of the defenses presented by the two scholars, I believe that Montresor’s actions should be condemned even if the evidence is accepted. Is there any way that Montresor’s murder of Fortunato could be acceptable? Do you agree that Montresor should be sympathized with after hearing a defense for his actions?

Works Cited

White, P. (1989). “The Cask of Amontillado”: A Case for the Defense. Studies In Short Fiction,             26(4), 550-555.

St. John Scott, Graham. (2004). Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado. Explicator, 62(2), 85-88