The Cask Of Amontillado Montresor Murder Essay

Is protecting the family reputation a valid motive to commit murder? In the story The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allan Poe, it begins and ends with a recounting of a fateful night where Fortunato is subsequently murdered by Montresor for “the thousand injuries caused by Fortunato” (Poe 31). What was the cause for the murder? Baraban argues that it was caused by jealousy and Hirsch argues that it was caused by Montresor trying to complete the last criteria needed to exact revenge. Through the story, Montresor has given us numerous statements that include the argument that suggest that a lot of time has passed. Therefore Hirsch’s statement; “By his own definition of revenge, he has fallen short” (Hirsch 4) is correct. This could imply that

the entire story was simply a death bed confession, where the scenes of that fateful night were replayed again in order for Montresor to complete his act a revenge.
The Montresor family has a certain criteria for what makes an act of revenge complete. In the beginning, Montresor states “I must not … punish with impunity. A wrong is undressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is … undressed when the avenger fails to make himself felts such to him who has done the wrong” (Poe 31). This shows that there are two criteria’s that must be meant in order to complete the act revenge. The first one is that the person who is being murdered must know why they are being murdered and the second one is that the avenger must also get away with the crime that they committed. These two must be fulfilled in order to complete the act of revenge. However, there is one flaw to this criteria when it comes to actually committing the act of revenge. In order to complete the second criteria, you must tell somebody about the murder. As David Hirsch stated “what kind of vengeance has he had if neither the victim nor the world knows of it?” (Hirsch 4). The last step that he needed to complete was to tell someone what he had done. However at the same time, he needed to ensure that he did it in a way that he would not be jailed or executed because this would not satisfy the criteria needed to exact revenge.
Throughout the story, Montresor has suggested statements that imply that a lot of time has passed. Montresor never states how old he was and does not give a clue as to how old he is. In the story, he states “for half of a century no mortal has disturbed them” (Peters 37). This signifies that at least fifty years have passed since the crime was committed. Therefore, if you add fifty years on top of the age that he committed the murder, then it is reasonable to believe that he must have been around sixty or seventy years old by the end of the story. Since so much time had passed, Montresor must have been at a point where his life was about to end. Taking into consideration his old age and the criteria that he needed to complete the act of revenge, it is plausible to believe that the story is simply the recounting of what occurred in the past before he died. By Montresor recounting what occurred in the past while on his death bed, it is possible for him to get away with murder while at the same time telling someone what occurred in the past, thus completing both requirements for revenge.
In the story, Montresor also mentions a person next to him that he does not specify as being whom, he only addresses him as “you.” Montresor states “you, who so well know the nature of my soul” (Peters 31). The “you” could have been a priest as he never gives us hints as to who is that “you.” A priest is usually present at the time when someone is dying. It is something symbolic and spiritual, the priest is there to give the dying person comfort. Taking into consideration the years that have past and the criteria needed to exact revenge, it is reasonable to believe that Montresor could have been thinking that if he confessed his crimes at a very old age, then there would not be a valid reason to prosecute him for the crimes that he committed because he was at a point of dying. Thus getting away with murder and completing the two criteria’s needed to exact revenge.
Baraban argues that the motive for the murder might not be entirely clear and simple to figure out.

She states that “the reader is perplexed by a seeming absence of the motive for this crime” (Baraban 47). Therefore, she poses two arguments, the first one is that Montresor was getting revenge against Fortunato for insulting him. The problem is that the audience does not know what extent the insults were, which leads the audience to wonder if the insults were either said jokingly or actually addressed towards Montresor and his family. The second argument that Baraban poses is when she states “instead, Montresor maliciously subverts his role as a repentant sinner when he says “In pace requiescat!” (Baraban 57). The second argument that Baraban is raising is that he was insane by depriving Fortunato of his last confession and using the phrase “In pace requiescat!” against Fortunato. Rather than being on his death bed, he was actually gleaming and boosting his crime to someone because he felt proud of the crime that he committed. However, according to Hirsch “Montresor must make the crime public, not to confess his guilt, but to finish what was began so many years before” (Hirsch 4). This means that Montresor was never boosting his crime to someone, but what he was doing was simply trying to finish the last criteria that he needed to do in order to complete the act of

revenge.
Since the criteria for a successful act of revenge was to let the person know why they were being killed and the second being getting away with the murder. Montresor had no other choice but to complete both requirements. The first one being simple, while the second one a little more complex. As a result, in order to ensure that he was not punished for the crime that he committed, he waited until he was almost unable to move or talk to tell somebody about what he had done all in the name of protecting his family’s honor.