Cask of Amontillado

Sex is an extraordinarily controversial topic, particularly in literature and media. Youth

grows up believing sex is performed mutually and happily between two people in love. Media does not help this image, considering most media deepens this concept of sex and love being virtually inseparable. This is what a majority of humanity sees in their journey for love and lust. Most choose to stay ignorant, or blind, to most of the not-so-great parts of sex. This includes rape, the unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of another person with or without force and without the consent of the victim. This also includes sex with friends and

having “no strings attached”. Homosexuality also tends to be overlooked in media, along with woman dominance. All of these are often ignored because they aren’t the most dominant source controlling the media (excluding literature) and they don’t happen every day to everyone and some are too horrible or offensive to think about regularly. While some aspects of these themes are being shown more and more readily, many still choose to ignore their existence. Literature, however, has nearly always elaborated on the truth of strong feelings involved in “sex” and intercourse and continues to say what goes unsaid. Even though the popular culture displays sexual relationships as loving and mutual, literature portrays sex more accurately in the elaboration of a certain violence and disorder that may be seen throughout the sexual relationship.

The Cask of Amontillado is a brilliant short story written by Edgar Allan Poe. Initially, the story opens with a strong and direct idea. Montresor, the narrator of the story makes it very known that the story is about punishment and is greatly shown through the direct and repetitive nature of his speaking. Revolving around the intense pleasure or regret gained from the true hatred from the narrator of his “friend” (Poe, 2), Fortunato, the story takes great pride in its originality and depth. Fortunato seemingly did nothing to Montresor besides become successful

and “happy, as once [Montresor] was.” (Poe, 2). One may infer that Poe could have intended

Montresor to gain a seeming sexual pleasure from the intense hatred being released and appeased in his mind. One of the quite unique takes on this story is the potential for closeted homosexuality. In the Periodical Research in the American Classroom written by Jeffery Charis- Carlson, the writer elaborates on the potential of blatant homosexuality between Fortunato and Montresor in The Cask of Amontillado. This is shown through Montresor’s symbolic femininity and Fortunato’s evident masculinity. Montresor is associated throughout this story with femininity because of his way of speaking and his submission to Fortunato throughout the story until the very end. Poe likely intended the reader to find Montresor feminine by associating him with typically feminine traits. These roles may potentially be why Montresor became jealous and attempted to switch roles with Fortunato. It also states that Montresor means “my treasure” and is a term of endearment to “the fortunate” Fortunato. Richard Rust write a book called Punish

with Impunity that explains the potential origins of Poe’s short story as this work brings a better and stronger insight into the writings of Poe, showing that people most likely aren’t just guessing what Poe meant while he was writing. His inspiration for the short story may have rooted from his encounters with a man named English that would back the true revenge on the tale, bringing a greater understanding of the emotions and confusion of love, lust, and hate formed within. This all boils down to the way we view sex, and sex does not always need to be deemed as coitus.

Sex, in reality, isn’t always perfect and loving. Poetry captures this truth in the divinest sense. Sappho wrote a very short poem called With His Venom. Despite the size of this brilliant work, it’s sharp, impactful, and bursting with truth. She swept the nation with her poems that expressed the truth of desire, braking many expectations and boundaries because of the depth and truth of her work. However, many controversies arise from her writing due to the underlying

interpretations of gender divide and homosexuality, seeing that Sappho was often equated to a lesbian. Gender seems to “complicate” and perhaps even “subvert the underlying paradigms of intertextuality” according to Rosenmeyer in Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici, meaning because she was a homosexual woman in this time period, most readers were not able to take her seriously. However, looking past bias views of the writer that many had, she had a fantastic way of expressing true emotion and unbiased views on real issues in her writings. In this poem specifically, she informs her readers that his “venom” is “irresistible and bittersweet” and explained that his love strikes her down. She is unafraid to make people aware of the bittersweet and addictive nature of love and romanticism, which here, could be plutonic or sexual. Sex is easily conceptualized in one specific way, as we spoke about in class.

Most literature can easily capture more aspects of sex and love and strong emotions than most popular media, because of who tends to be in charge of it. Seemingly, media’s goal is to make sex as mainstream as possible and to sell to as many viewers as possible. Literature is written and published by nearly anyone who wishes to write and the goal seems to be to capture truth. With his Venom is not too dissimilar 85 written by the legendary Catullus in the way that both heavily rely on the idea that there is a strife in the love and desire. He explains that he “hate[s] and love[s]” and he doesn’t know why. Much like the speaker in With His Venom, they’re both in “bittersweet” “torment” with their burning love and hate for the desires they feel. While both of these may seem like very simple and short poems, there’s a lot more to the both of them than meets the eye. Bishop elaborates on the true depth of 85 in his book, Latomus. He spends this chapter explaining the structure of this poem and clears up many possibilities about the true meaning of the poem. Looking into the meaning more deeply, he indicates that love and hate are emotions revolved around a definite object, much like sexuality in his opinion. He also

mentioned that there is no definite object in the poem, making the poems center no longer about external conflict but “interior turmoil”.

All in all, both of these brilliant poems are much deeper than they appear to be. They are more than two different people speaking about their issues finding true delight in sex, they detail much further in the true aspects of sexual relations; that they’re not perfect and much more realistic than media views them to be. The difference between the societal and media portrayals of sex and the nature of the actual act is a lack of emotional attachment. Societal expectations of sex are always tied to love and consent, completely ruling out other, less desirable aspects of sex such as rape and emotionless, “no strings attached❞ sex. Further, gender and sexual orientation bias are quite prominent throughout all aspects of society, whether it be in person, in the media, or even the readers of books upon the writers. Literature, on the other hand, more accurately portrays the darker sides of sex as exemplified by the works mentioned above by Edgar Allan Poe and Sappho. These authors, as well as many others, are unafraid to expose and detail the true nature of sex, proving what we’ve discussed; that sex and intimacy has more to it than just romanticism and feelings of love and commitment as many believe.

References.

Bishop, D. (n.d.). Catullus 85 Structure, Hellenistic Parallels, and the Topos Latomus with

Societe D’Etudes Latines De Bruxelles. (3rd ed. Vol. 30 pp. 633-642).

Charis-Carlson, J. (2002). Periodical Research in the American Classroom. (Vol. 12, pp. 198-

207). Ohio State UP.

Dern, J. Poe’s Public Speakers: Rhetorical Strategies in “The Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Cask of

Amontillado” In the Edgar Allan Poe Review. (2nd ed. Vol. 2. Pp. 53-70). Penn State UP. Greene, E. (1996). Re-reading Sappho: Reception and Transmission. (Revised ed., Vol. 3).

University of California.

Poe, E., & Shaw, B. (1909). The Cask of Amontillado. In Selected tales of mystery. London:

Sidgwick & Jackson.

Rust, R. (2001). Poe, Thomas Dunn English, and “The Cask of Amontillado”” The Edgar Allan

Poe Review. In Punish With Impunity (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 33-52). Penn State UP. Sappho. (n.d.). With His Venom.

Drunk

A male’s inherent power pales in comparison to that of a female. Nature, or God

or whomever, bestows upon women the ability to hold and birth what human

consciousness contemplates over and over as the greatest enigma-life. Nature, or (again)

God or whomever, in an ironic turn of events, yearns for equilibrium. And so, males attempt to compensate for their innate inferiority by means sometimes horrendous (e.g. rape, abuse), sometimes “dignified” (e.g. overwork, insistence of being the provider) and sometimes absolutely asinine (e.g. war). But, no matter the means, males manufacture an artificial power for themselves in order to counteract their natural pitfalls. However, male compensation is not a proper means of achieving yin and yang in nature because it opposes nature itself. Males try to match the female inherent power by fabricating power for themselves, causing them to lose touch with their identity as their lives become centred on lies. Yet, the trend of power mongering continues and males enter a breeding process in which competition is the crux and there not only becomes an imbalance between males and females, but also an imbalance between males and males. If one man has garnered the title of king and another man is stuck with the title of commoner, the man called king has power over the man called commoner. In essence, there is only a difference in titles yet, in existence, there is a complex power dynamic between the king and commoner. Although the commoner may be naturally more gifted than the king both mentally and physically, he may feel some disdain for his counterpart rooted in the difference of power, even though the commoner is essentially better than the king. It is in this disparity between essence and existence of men that Nature begins to teeter. The male ego is a dangerous thing and male power compensation only makes it more volatile.

Poe depicts the unjust king-commoner relationship and the dire consequences it

has on the equality of essence and existence in his short story “The Cask Of

Amontillado.” The narrator, going only by “Montresor,” is the intellectual superior to his comrade (and murder-plot victim) Fortunato, yet Fortunato is presented as “a man to be respected and even feared” (62). Lacking power to match his intelligence, Montresor seems to view himself in the image of god to counteract the inequality between his essence (natural intelligence) and existence (more of a common man than counterpart Fortunato). He plays a jubilant game of cat and mouse with Fortunato, guiding the foolish man through his vaults using an unflinchingly accommodating tone, though the mood of the story grows darker and darker as the dramatic irony becomes unbearable. He egotistically proves his godliness to himself with every false word to Fortunato, as he turns the man into his puppet. Montresor however, is simply seeking balance. His talents in analysis and incredible intuition seek a certain amount of power for balance but men like Fortunato, undeserving of power, are the keepers of it.

Thus, Montresor takes control of Fortunato’s life, giving himself power over a man more powerful than him in order to balance his intelligence. Despite his natural ability, Montresor still feels inadequate as males are measured by their amount of power. He has only a flawed hierarchical system in which fools such as Fortunato are given positions of power and respect. Thus, Montresor’s lack of power (and feeling of inferiority), coupled with his sprawling intellect, have created for him a god complex in which he asserts his dominance by taking the lives of men in power. Montresor must separate Fortunato’s humanness from his power, though, in order to kill him. And there lies the problem, Montresor still has an innate human sense of empathy and sympathy and fear yet a social injustice drives him to

act in the nature of a psychopath, as his male ego and need for a balance of power within himself leads to a deterioration of his sanity. Poe uses the peculiar relationship between Montresor and Fortunato in “The Cask Of Amontillado” to illustrate the inevitable destruction of the male psyche when there is an imbalance of power and worth.

The unusually high diction and complexity of Poe’s opening paragraphs deliberately establish Montresor as a figure brilliantly analytical in nature and aware, almost to an extent nearing omniscience. Montresor first acknowledges his audience while giving them concise reasoning behind the absolute necessity of killing Fortunato then proceeds with eloquence to explain the exact circumstances necessary to gain such great power over Fortunato. His revenge fantasy then reaches its climax in a rather anticlimactic, definitive statement: “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” (62). Montresor flashes his analytical brilliance with his deduction of an ordinary detail about Fortunato actually reflecting Fortunato’s Achilles Heel. The wonder, really, is the pure accuracy of Montresor’s analysis. He lures Fortunato, drunk and coughing, through winding, mold-covered vaults solely with the promise of a taste of rare, out of season wine because that is the one thing, of all human desires, Fortunato cannot resist. He is able to consciously pick apart every facet of Fortunato’s personality and arrive at the most accurate conclusion. However, despite Montresor’s clear intelligence, Fortunato is the man presented as powerful, not Montresor who seems to only “not differ from him materially” (62). This displacement of power is senseless. Montresor displays this boundless intellect yet, in the same sentence, displays, not himself, but Fortunato as the “man to be respected and even feared” (62).

Montresor’s intellect does not allow him the deserved amount of power simply because power, in most human societies, is not dispersed based on intelligence, instead, superfluous measures are instituted to decide who gets power and just how much they get. Fortunato is the “man to be respected and even feared” despite his fatuity (62). For Montresor to then attain the necessary power to balance his intelligence, he must, at least he thinks he must, give himself power over the man undeserving of his own, Fortunato. His and Fortunato’s extensive search for amontillado through the vaults is therefore not just a device used to create suspense, for it is also integral to Montresor’s robbery of Fortunato’s power. Montresor already has his plans to kill Fortunato, but he cannot just go into some alley and stab Fortunato in the back á la Caesar. He must let the man prove his foolishness so he is “punished with impunity” (62). For Montresor’s murder of Fortunato would be unjust if he had not allowed the man an audition, giving him the opportunity to prove he is possibly deserving of his power. Misfortunate Fortunato, however, rejects Montresor’s offer to leave the horror movie scene he is walking into thrice. Montresor tells Fortunato three times that they should return to the festival as Fortunato’s persistent cough will not bode well with the nitre-covered vaults. Montresor even goes as far as implying sinister motives, revealing a spade from behind his roquelaire. And still, Fortunato insisted on marching on, confirming the correctness of Montresor’s analysis that wine is Fortunato’s greatest temptress, while also affirming Fortunato’s inferior analytical skills. Fortunato proved his incapacity to recognize any threat by walking tragically into Montresor’s trap, even ironically pronouncing a man “ignoramus” while entering what will be his grave (66). This incapacity sustains Montresor’s conclusion that the power of Fortunato is undeserved and that the murder,

the final seizure of all control over Fortunato’s life, is in fact necessary and just for

Montresor to gain the necessary power to balance his intellect. Montresor’s ability to both accurately analyze and succeed in taking control over the life of Fortunato feeds also into his god complex, giving his belief of himself as god some evidential support.

There are, however, two moments where Montresor reflects first a sense of fear, then regret about killing Fortunato. These glimpses of mortal humanity are not a reaction to the actual committal of murder, but a recoil at the possible flimsiness of his godliness. His god complex relies entirely on his superiority over all people. Every character of the story is shown successfully manipulated by Montresor. He wants his servants gone from his house so he can kill Fortunato with no possible witnesses… so he tells them to not leave all night while he’s away. Though seemingly contradictory, Montresor infers that the best way to make sure his house is empty of servants is to tell them not to leave as he’ll be away all night because he has noticed a certain disobedience within their characters. The disobedience along with the fact that it is a time of partying in the country ensures that his servants will definitely be gone from the house all night. Montresor deceives Fortunato, the only other character with any sort of background in the story, until he speaks no more. However, Fortunato is drunk during most of Montresor’s deceptions and it is when he is not drunk that Montresor’s superiority is presented as fallacy. As Montresor entombs Fortunato, he notices “that the intoxication of Fortunato had in a great measure worn off” (67). A series of screams follow the realization of Fortuanto’s loss of drunkenness, screams very clearly expressing immense suffering of the human soul. When presented with this aggressive display of Fortunato’s humanness, “[Montresor] hesitated – [he] trembled” (67). Fortunato’s ability to inspire fear in

power

Montresor threatens Montresor’s god complex as no man should be able to hold over god but Fortunato does, if only for an instant. Montresor’s natural instinct to cower in the presence of a tortured spirit reveals to Montresor that he is not in nature a god. Thus, in defense, he “unsheath[es] [his] rapier…[and] began to grope with it about the recess❞ rejecting his natural human instinct and attempting to protect his belief of his nature being godly (67). He soon realizes the utter absurdity of using a rapier against the abstract force of his humanity and instead reupholsters his god complex by taunting Fortunato, giving the perception that he has remained unfazed. It is a futile attempt, however, because it requires Fortunato’s acknowledgement of Montresor’s superiority and retention of “deserved” power yet, when Montresor replies to Fortunato’s exclamation of “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MONTRESOR!”” with a parallel “Yes… for the love of God!”” there is no reply (67). Montresor’s change of tone in his reply asserts that “for the love of god” is not actually a plea in Fortunato’s tragic situation but is in fact the reason for Fortunato’s death. He must die for the love of god who, in Montresor’s mind, is Montresor. And yet, Fortunato does not confirm this for Montresor, who had already been losing faith in his godliness by merely needing Fortunato to confirm its legitimacy for him in the first place. But Fortunato only responding with a “jingling of bells” seals Montresor’s fate as a mortal, flawed human (68). Despite the revelation of his humanness, Montresor cannot take back the murder despite his newfound sympathy. He must live with a “heart [grown] sick” and the possibility that he may very well be undeserving of the power stolen from Fortunato.

Montresor’s establishment of god complex, then tearing down of it displays the downwardly spiraling sanity of powerless men stricken with great intellect too common

power,

in our world’s egocentric male society. Montresor is a character in a position fluctuating between antagonist and protagonist as the reader can connect with his qualities and general nature but his villainous actions and descent into psychopathy present him as an archetypal antagonist. There is no definitive nature to Montresor’s character and thus, his sanity becomes lost in translation, traversing back and forth between protagonist and antagonist, holding a belief that he is a god between splices of inevitable instinctual mortality to compensate for a lack of power. Poe provides a provocative portrayal of the debilitation caused by unjust male power imbalance with this non-definitive nature of Montresor. Men try tirelessly to compensate, as Montresor does, for their lack of calculating their actions based on a power struggle rather than intuition or intellect. Montresor is clearly intelligent enough to realize the falseness of his godliness and futility of murdering Fortunato, but he is a man in search, as all other men are, for sufficient power. Poe’s resolution though, does not present a triumphant Montresor, despite his success in taking for himself Fortunato’s power. Instead, Montresor is in a state of denial and insanity at the end of the story accomplishes nothing more than a complete loss of sanity. This conclusion is not just applicable to “The Cask of Amontillado” though. It applies to all power conflicts between men and the inherent wrongness of the imbalanced power hungry male culture present in society. This culture only achieves a growing distance between essence and existence, not correcting the imbalance but instead making it more formidable. Men must exist as they are in essence in order to cultivate a balance from male to male. Yet males continue their quest for

power, giving in to temptation and impulse, as Montresor does.

There are other characteristics that set these stories apart from each other. These two stories are similar because they both have a plot to murder someone which is hidden from the reader. They are different in the way each narrator goes about handling the murders.

Poe’s short story is one of revenge and secret murder. It’s a tale of terror starring two main characters: Montresor and Fortunato. Montresor is the narrator and the murderer. Fortunato is a wine connoisseur and the victim. The story begins with Montresor explaining that his friend named Fortunato done many horrible things to him throughout their time together, but last insult was the final blow that had forced him to seek revenge against his “friend”. He continues to make it aware to us that he has given Fortunato no insight to the fact that he is plotting to kill him, and he plans to use Fortunato’s knowledge of wine to lure him to his death. Very quickly, Montresor persuaded his friend Fortunato to come over to his home so he can show him the new case of Amontillado that he recently received.

Montresor continues to say that his servants are gone from the house for the night, so the men can have the house to themselves. Montresor’s home is very large. When they arrive, they go down a winding staircase to enter the catacombs. It becomes aware to Montresor that Fortunato is very drunk, and he begins coughing. Montresor shows empathy and concerned for the man’s well being and feeds him more alcohol. Fortunato begins do act even more drunk, shaking with all of his movements, and accuses Montresor of not being a mason. Montresor states he can prove that he certainly is a mason and pulls out a trowel. Eventually they come to the very back area of the catacombs, they find a smaller opening that is filled with human bones. Next to them they see a recessed area, about four feet deep, three feet wide, and seven feet high. Fortunato continues in the area with Montresor’s almost pushing him into the smaller corner.

However, Fortunato, who has been drinking heavily, is confused as Montresor chains him to the area. Fortunato is still asking for the Amontillado while Montresor goes to get more bricks. However, once Montresor starts building a wall at the entrance of the small area, Fortunato begins to realize what really is taking place. Montresor describes the sounds he hears as he builds such as, the jingling of Fortunato’s bells and the clanking of the chains. Once the wall is about half-way up, Fortunato begins screaming, and Montresor mocks him. Montresor. humors him for a moment, but soon Fortunato realizes it’s not a game. He screams, ‘For the love of. God, Montresor,’ and Montresor repeats his words. There is silence (Poe).

Othello’s Iago is called a master manipulator and Machiavel, a man with no real motive to

destroy the lives of his commander and wife. Why does Iago act the way he does? Is it because he is pure evil, or was there something substantial behind his actions? In contemporary society, evil sometimes emerges in the most surprising and shocking forms. For instance, take the Columbine shooting in 1999 where two students took the lives of 13 others before killing themselves. What motive did these young men have for ruining the lives of countless others? While I certainly do not condone these actions, I believe that it was not a motiveless crime — much like Iago’s behavior in Othello. It was borne of real injuries sustained, of real human needs denied.

Much like Montresor, in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado,” Iago vows revenge for the “the thousand injuries” he had suffered at the expense of Othello and of society at large (191). In Poe’s tale, Fortunato belittles Montresor in an implicit way — making the sign of the Masons which he knew that Montresor would not understand. Much like Montresor, Iago is constantly belittled throughout Othello.

An Extraordinary Honest Man,” an article

written by Western Babcock for the Shakespeare Quarterly, the implicit insults to Iago’s character are explained. “That Shakespeare was careful to make a distinction between you and thou is shown by analysis of his uses of the two words in Othello. […] [Thou], thy and thine are applied to lago 55 times throughout the play. In contrast, thee is used to Cassio but once” (299). Of course, in Shakespeare’s day, “you” was the formal, used when addressing people of equal or greater station, and “thou” was the informal. According to this evidence, Iago must have been smarting (probably for a while, even before the play started) from the constant implications that he was not as good as everyone else.

Psychologically, the intelligent Iago has needs that are unmet. According to

Deviance, Terrorism And War by John Burton, eight basic human necessities determine personal motivations and behaviors. These needs are: the need for others’ response, stimulation, security, recognition, distributive justice, the need to appear rational, need for meaning to be deduced from consistent response, and the need for a sense of control (72). Where Iago lacks one of these basic human necessities, he lashes out in order to gain them from those around him. Of the eight, one of the needs he seems to have is the need to appear rational. While his motivations may not seem clearly defined, he at least maintains that appearance of rationality to his peers throughout the majority of the play. The other does not seem to lack is “the need for meaning to be deduced from consistent response.” He seems to understand the meaning behind the consistent responses from others, but even this has its negative connotations.

It seems from the beginning of Othello that Iago had not received the type of response he wanted from others. He expresses his rage in the first act when he says, “I know my price, I am no worse a place.” He got passed over for promotion by Othello, and had to watch as Cassio got the spot he so desperately wanted. And, to add insult to injury, it seems that no one else is cognizant of the blatant snub, as if lago were never even in the consideration for the promotion. Writes AC Bradley in his essay “Othello,” “In his first words in Act I, we are invited by Iago to ‘abhor him’ (1). It seems that Iago greatly desires people to feel an intense response to him, just to get any response; he is simply tired of being ignore be d. By craving others” hatred, he acts in a deliberately malicious way in order to gain this missing basic human need.

Barbara A. Shapiro writes for The Johns Hopkins University Press in an article called “Psychoanalysis and the Problem of Evil,” “Iago alludes twice to his suspicions that both Othello and Cassio may have slept with his wife: ‘I do suspect the lusty Moor / Hath leaped into my seat’

(2.1.295-6); and only parenthetically, ‘(For I fear Cassio with my nightcap too)’ (2.1.307)” (1). Iago is unsure of his wife’s honesty. But why? It seems that he is not getting the stimulation he desires. His wife is very much alive: animated, sincerely engaged with the happenings around her, and satisfied with her position in society, just like Othello and Cassio. Iago seems out of the loop, not only invisible, but also comparatively dead inside within his social circle. He desires the same sort of stimulation, but has not received it. For this reason, he seeks it out in a perverted way, looking for a way to substitute for this need. Iago does this by referencing the dark side of others’ sexuality, first by conjuring up the images of “the beast with two backs” and “an old black ram” who is “tupping [Brabantio’s] white ewe,” and then by referencing the marital bed of Othello (“happiness to their sheets”). The language he uses represents his unmet need for

stimulation.

John C. McCloskey, in his article “The Motivation of Iago,” writes, “Intellectual, crafty, subtle, and efficient as he is, Iago cannot, however, control his jealous suspicion” (26). Jealousy is the tool that lago uses to undo Othello, and Iago knows that it will work because of Othello’s insecurities. How would he know this? Because Iago has the exact same insecurities without anyone bringing them to the surface. The fact is he does not feel like he has a sense of security: not with his wife, and not with his comrades, and certainly not with his job. Beyond not getting the promotion, his job involves a very real relationship with death; any moment during battle could very well be his last. This basic human need is unmet, and he lashes out causing Othello to doubt Desdemona’s chastity, because he wants Othello to feel what is in his own heart all the

time.

John W. Draper writes in his essay, “Honest Iago,” “Until the very end of the play, the talk and actions of all the other characters constantly imply that Iago has always been all that one

could wish in a courageous soldier, and esteemed companion, and a man of honor. Emilia, who should have known his inmost character, even at the dénouement, can hardly credit his part in the tragedy” (725-726). According to this observation, Iago seems like the pinnacle of a great man. It seems strange that he was not picked for the promotion that Cassio received based on this evidence. Cassio, younger and with less self-control, is recognized while Iago is completely passed over and ignored. It is obvious that Iago lacks the proper recognition that his otherwise (until that point at least) upright character deserved. Therefore, it makes sense that he would try to win Cassio’s position; he is only trying to provide a need that has been denied him.

Iago says, concerning Othello, “Nothing can or shall content my soul / Till I am even’d with him, wife for wife.” Iago deeply suspects, and perhaps genuinely believes, that Othello and Emilia were sexually involved with each other. Then Othello becomes husband to one of the most beautiful women in Venice. It is easy to see why Iago would question exactly how fair the circumstances were. It seems he desperately and inwardly needed justice in his life — it being a basic necessity unmistakably absent. Scholar Alexander G. Gonzalez, in an essay about Iago writes, “When Othello is deliberating the means of Desdemona’s death, Iago commands him, ‘Do it not with poison’; rather, ‘Strange her in her bed, even though bed she hath contaminated”” (37). The reason Iago does this is to obtain distributive justice. By manipulating Othello into executing his innocent wife in her bed, Iago ensures that Othello will have the same unpleasant associations that Iago has about his “contaminated” bed. The means by which he got Othello to believe this lie also insured for distributive justice: he took down Cassio with the same plot, securing justice for how wronged he believed he was.

One of the most often applied adjectives to Iago is the word “honest.” He seems to understand the meaning behind this consistent response toward him. Writes Western Babcock,

“In Elizabethan and in more recent usage, the word honest, when used as an appellation with a person’s name, carries a tinge of condescension. Honest Jim, or Honest Old Tom, or Honest Iago implies that the user of the appellation feels socially superior to the one so-called” (297). Iago is consistently referred to by the others as “thou” instead of the more formalized “you.” This slight was not taken lightly by Iago. How could he show those so-called “superior” people that he was not the inferior person they thought he was? The answer is simple: by bringing them down to his level, which he easily does. “Iago is making characters speak and act like himself throughout the play” (Gonzalez 37). Had lago been ignorant of the small slights others seemed to heap on him, he would not desire the vengeance that destroyed the superiors who snubbed him. If he had lacked the comprehension of the meanings behind the consistent responses this seventh basic

need

his bitterness would likely be nonexistent.

Writes Marvin Rosenberg in his book Masks of Othello: The search for The Identity of Othello, Iago, and Desdemona by Three Centuries of Actors and Critics, “Iago is a silver-tongued charmer who manipulates his victims like pawns. Rather than directly challenge those who oppose him, he leads them to believe that he is their only friend, while secretly instigating their ruin. This game feeds his immense ego, satisfying his desire for an almost God-like power” (58). The reason that Iago craves this ultimate power is because he has been made to feel powerless. The last basic human need — control — had been too long denied Iago. While he certainly “knows his price,” his ego is not overwhelmingly immense as suggested by Rosenberg. Dr. Greenfield of the American Psychiatric Association rights concerning people like Iago, “Research indicates that chronic targets of peer harassment become increasingly withdrawn and depressed.” A small percentage of these react with “hostility and aggression” (1). In the first scene lago is malcontent, it is implied that he has been feeling that way for while — becoming depressed. Finally, the straw

that breaks the camel’s back

Cassio’s promotion puts him over the edge into “hostility.” Iago

realizes what he had suspected all along

that he could not turn Othello’s “preferment” to

himself; he does not have the control, so he behaves in a way that will get him that control that

he believes he deserves.

Iago was not acting on a whim when he planned to take down his peers; he did not do it because there was nothing else to do. It was not motiveless. Iago had been dealing with feelings of inferiority for quite awhile, and it was the blow of the Cassio promotion that pushed him over the edge. Had not Cassio been promoted, Iago would still be in a state of silent suffering, and would not have actively planned the destruction of those nearest to him. His behavior was determined by the absence of six basic human needs: necessities denied him by the other characters. Iago is essentially a broken person who tried to fix himself, but instead of building himself up, he focused on taking everyone else down, though malicious, the motivation behind his actions can be perceived as having several causes.

Works Cited

1. Babcock, Weston. “Iago — An Extraordinary Honest Man.” Shakespeare Quarterly 16.4 (1965):

   297-301.

2. Western Babcock is an educator and writer well-versed in the studies of Shakespeare, and he addressed the intended audience of people familiar with Shakespeare’s works in his article. The article contained a detailed analysis of Iago’s motivations, with knowledge of the nuances of Shakespearean dialogue and vocabulary. As I was reading Othello, I was constantly aware of the uses of you versus thou, and was pleased that this article elaborated on that; the entirety was important my paper as it digs deeply into the motivations of Iago.

3. Burton, John W. Deviance, Terrorism and War. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 1997.

4. This book goes into the psychological reasons people commit acts of terrorism, and what are the conscious and unconscious reasons for what we do. I found a great way to apply Iago’s

   motivations in a psychological aspect.

5. Draper, John W. “Honest Iago.” PMLA 46 (1931). 05 Dec 2005

   <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici-0030-8129%28193109%2946%3A3%3C724%3AHI%3E2.0.CO

   %3B2-1 >.

6. I love how this article cut to the heart of the matter, really capturing the character of Iago,

   without being overly biased one way or the other.

7. Gonzalez, Alexander G. “The Infection and Spread of Evil: Some Major Patterns of Imagery and Language in Othello.” South Atlantic Review 50 (2005). 01 Dec 2005 <http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici-0277-335X%28198511%2950%3A4%3C35%3ATIASOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6>.

8. The source relied mainly on imagery and language, but provided useful insights behind Iago’s

   motivations sometimes.

Fortunato followed me deeper in the catacombs, his mood growing merrier the deeper we went. He wrapped his arm around my neck, pulling me closer. “Montresor, I must admit it has been a long while since I’ve tasted Amontillado, but the taste is something I remember as clear as the day. I have tried to get my hands on it but to no avail, yet here you are with a pipe no less! To think if you had found Luchresi first I would have lost this opportunity. Lady Luck has smiled down on me!” He proclaimed, patting my chest. I could not help but chuckle.

“Fortunato you get ahead of yourself, we do not know if the pipe is really Amontillado. I did not check first, but how could I know?”

“Nonsense Montresor, I have faith. Tonight we shall drink until we can no longer lift our glasses!” He laughed loudly. To me it seemed that he was far from his goal. I could already tell that he, like many others had spent most of the night drinking; in fact I could smell the alcohol on him. We walked for only a while longer before we came upon a door.

“It’s in here”

“Then let us not waste time”, he motioned for me to open the door. I nodded my head. The door had a rusted padlock on it. I pulled the key from my pocket and unlocked it. The lock was incredibly old, so I had to pull quite hard before it popped open. Twisting the doorknob I pushed the door open wincing as it creaked. As we entered the dark room I lit the torches on the wall, bringing light to the room. “Here it is,” I pointed to the pipe of Amontillado.

“Ha-ha! Amontillado! Amazing Montresor,” He embraced me tightly. “You haven’t tasted it yet.” I laughed, taking a step away. I walked over to the pipe of Amontillado, where two wine glasses sat on the top. I grabbed one of the glasses and poured the Amontillado.

“Thank you for joining me down here. I think it only fair that you have the first taste.” I handed him the glass.

“To Amontillado”, he raised his glass. “To Amontillado”, I agreed. He drank all the wine it one go. “Montresor, I can confirm with confidence that you have not been duped. You indeed-” He didn’t finish his sentence. His face turned red as he began coughing uncontrollably. His eyes began to bulge as he started to scratch at his throat. “Mon-tre-sor”, He gasped for air, falling to ground. Fortunato’s body began to convulse as he desperately reached toward me. I kicked his hand away.

“Nemo me impune lacessit.”(pg. 118 line 59) I left him withering in pain. Before leaving, I turned around. His body was shaking and foam formed in his mouth. “I hope you enjoyed the Amontillado Fortunado.” I shut the door behind me and put the padlock back. He was there for half a century no one ever found him.

The original ending for the Cask of Amontillado Montresor chains Fortunato to a wall before enclosing him inside another wall. Fortunato hopes that Montresor is joking, he laughs saying that it was a good joke and that they laugh at over their wine. Even though he clearly sees what is happening he still holds on to the idea that he will receive the Amontillado that he was promised. On the other hand, I ended the story with Fortunato receiving the Amontillado he was promised, but dying right after. The end of the story is already ironic because Montresor keeps telling Fortunato to turn around because he fears for his health, yet in the end it was all a part of his plan to kill him. With my ending the story is even more ironic, because it the Amontillado that Fortunato wanted so much that ends his life. Out of everything that could have killed him like his cough (pg. 118 lines 34) it was the thing he wanted most that ended his life.

Poe’s style of ending the story was full of twisted irony, dark themes and symbolism. The fact that Montresor took Fortunato into the catacombs which in a way is the land of the dead during Carnival, which is a celebration of life showed his evil intention. “Their descent underground was Fortunato’s descent to hell.” Even the idea that Fortunato who was very much alive was left in a place full of death showcases Poe’s use of irony. Even though Fortunato dies in both the original story and mine the way he dies in Poe’s story invokes a more chilling feel than mine.

My ending is indeterminate because in the end Montresor got the revenge he craved. Fortunato insulted Montresor to the point where he felt it necessary to murder him. That would make it a happy ending if Fortunato’s situation wasn’t so pitiable. Throughout the story he was given every opportunity to walk away but chose to continue, in hopes that he would taste the esteemed Amontillado. In my ending he eventually did, but it was his lust for the wine that ended his life. It is because of these facts that the story is neither a happy one nor sad one.

1. Mays, Kelly J. The Norton Introduction to Literature. W.W. Norton & Company, 2017.
2. “Poe’s Short Stories Summary.” SparkNotes, SparkNotes, www.sparknotes.com/lit/poestories/section11/.