The notion of madness in literature is not a new one. One could even make the argument there is no reason even to write about it anymore since “it” is been written about enough. But madness is a diachronic phenomenon and can be approached as such since madness for Poe may not be the same kind of madness for Fowles. In Poe, Montresor’s (mon-trésor: my treasure) motive is allegedly being insulted and his obsession with being slighted, or the perceived notion of being slighted, contributes to the logical condensation of his madness. The National Institute of Mental Health defines “Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as a common, chronic and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.” One can only assume that Montresor has been obsessed by something Fortunato has said or done and that behavior is palpably apparent from the outset, which creates a testament to his madness and, at the same time, a mystery as to why he is that way.
The “thousand injuries” Montresor had borne are never clearly established at any time in the text so there appears to be no obvious motive for his actions until Fortunato (“lucky”) ventures upon an unsubstantiated “insult” and based on that alleged insult revenge needed to be carried out and with “impunity.” Therefore, Poe establishes three things that are linked here: injuries, insults, and wrongs. As the OED indicates, injuries are wrongful actions or treatments; insults are scornful utterances or actions intended to wound self-respect; while a wrong is that which is morally unjust, unfair, amiss, or improper. In other words, there is nothing that is fundamentally different in the meanings of each of these words. They all imply maltreatment or, in Montresor’s case alleged maltreatment, of one sort of another, but what they all have in common is the notion of being abused in some manner. What that manner may be is never clearly established and the basis for the injury, insult, or wrongdoing is purely subjective since the underlying notion is that of unfairness and unfairness needs to be countered with vengeance.The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge. You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that gave utterance to a threat. At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely, settled—but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk. I must not only punish but punish with impunity. A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong. (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/cask.html)
Montresor also states, “At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely, settled—but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved precluded the idea of risk. I must not only punish but punish with impunity.” If it is “at length” then one can conclude he does it with premeditation. Utterance of a threat would be spontaneous, an act of passion. This act is not. In the end, there is no reasonable justification for the acts to follow since they are based on a fragile type of unfairness.
He had a weak point—this Fortunato—although in other regards he was a man to be respected and even feared. He prided himself on his connoisseurship in wine. Few Italians have the true virtuoso spirit. For the most part their enthusiasm is adopted to suit the time and opportunity, to practise imposture upon the British and Austrian millionaires. In painting and gemmary, Fortunato, like his countrymen, was a quack, but in the matter of old wines he was sincere. In this respect I did not differ from him materially;—I was skilful in the Italian vintages myself, and bought largely whenever I could. (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/cask.html)
One is still left with the question of motive. What would be Montresor’s motive for doing what he plans to do? The focus of this paragraph falls on wines. Wines contain alcohol. Alcohol is an intoxicant. Intoxicants contain poison. The irony is that Fortunato never actually drinks the Amontillado, but one can only assume that, perhaps, the alleged insult has something to do with a dispute dealing with the apparent connoisseurship of wines since Montresor states that Fortunato has an undefined “weak point” and “was a quack.” Presumably, that weakness and “quackiness” may be linked to his alleged appreciation or understanding of wines which, since Fortunato is a foreigner (aka Italian), does not appeal to Montresor. It is apparent that Montresor can feel slighted by the simplest action and being a poseur when it comes to the appreciation of wines could be significant enough of an insult to him that revenge would not necessarily be out of the question.
It was about dusk, one evening during the supreme madness of the carnival season, that I encountered my friend. He accosted me with excessive warmth, for he had been drinking much. The man wore motley. He had on a tight-fitting parti-striped dress, and his head was surmounted by the conical cap and bells. I was so pleased to see him that I thought I should never have done wringing his hand. (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/cask.html)
It is not serendipitous that Montresor waits until the “madness” of carnival to initiate the plan though one has no idea what the plan is; however, the fact that this occurred during the “supreme madness of the carnival season” implies that the plan had to have been premediated and was only going to be initiated during the chaos of carnival. The alleged insult had to have been uttered at some time in the past and the “slight” had been something Montresor must have obsessed over until the time of carnival because he knew that it would be the most propitious time to undertake his plan.
It is not serendipitous that the costume Fortunato wears is unmistakably that of the Fool from the Tarot and the selection of this dress really shows how brilliant Poe is in the dispensation of “facts.” The Fool’s dress is uncannily similar to that worn by Fortunato as he strides negligently across a rocky landscape without appearing to pay any attention to the dog that follows him. He leans upon a staff, while he rattles an image of himself on stick. He has one foot on terra-firma and another that dangles over the abyss. The carelessness and folly of the man are not due to the natural and passing heedlessness of youth since he is not a youngster. “The card symbolizes the folly and degradation of man which, having no fixed place or time of manifestation, being subject to no rules of reason or logic, will fall unexpectedly across even the most carefully ordered life and bring the luckless subject to unhappiness or destruction” (Fortune Telling by Playing Cards).
Montresor continues:
I said to him—“My dear Fortunato, you are luckily met. How remarkably well you are looking to-day. But I have received a pipe of what passes for Amontillado, and I have my doubts.”“How?” said he. “Amontillado, A pipe? Impossible! And in the middle of the carnival!”“I have my doubts,” I replied; “and I was silly enough to pay the full Amontillado price without consulting you in the matter. You were not to be found, and I was fearful of losing a bargain.”“Amontillado!”“I have my doubts.”“Amontillado!”“And I must satisfy them.”“Amontillado!”“As you are engaged, I am on my way to Luchresi. If any one has a critical turn it is he. He will tell me—”“Luchresi cannot tell Amontillado from Sherry.”“And yet some fools will have it that his taste is a match for your own”.“Come, let us go.”“Whither?”“To your vaults.”“My friend, no; I will not impose upon your good nature. I perceive you have an engagement. Luchresi—”“I have no engagement;—come.”“My friend, no. It is not the engagement, but the severe cold with which I perceive you are afflicted. The vaults are insufferably damp. They are encrusted with nitre.”“Let us go, nevertheless. The cold is merely nothing. Amontillado! You have been imposed upon. And as for Luchresi, he cannot distinguish Sherry from Amontillado” (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/cask.html)
Montresor lies to Fortunato about a pipe or cask of “what passes for Amontillado.” And in that exchange between them, Fortunato expresses in exclamation three times: Amontillado. Montresor appeals to Fortunato’s vanity, but since the latter is busy, Montresor says he will talk to Luchresi. But Fortunato’s response is that Luchresi cannot tell Amontillado from sherry, which prepares us for a later statement when he says he cannot tell sherry from Amontillado. Once again, there is an irony here in what Fortunato says about sherry. An often overlooked category is that of fortified wine, of which the four best-known examples are Sherry, Port, Madeira, and Marsala. Sherry is made in styles ranging from dry to sweet, known as Fino, Manzanilla, Amontillado, Oloroso, and Cream sherries. In other words, Amontillado is a sherry. As grades go, Amontillado is generally the most nut-like, about mid-range in heaviness, and a bit on the dry side of the Madeira spectrum. The fact Fortunato does not know they are the same thing is something Montresor must have anticipated since he alluded to Fortunato’...