The Devoted Friend: Foil 1 key example

Early in the story, the two main characters' names hint at their contrasting identities. An element at times found in children's stories and nursery rhymes, their names begin with the same letter. Moreover, the names Hans and Hugh consist of the same number of letters and syllables. However, the two names look very different on the page and have differing sounds.

Their names are also paired with epithets and descriptors that give very different impressions of them as characters. Whereas the Linnet frequently refers to Hans with the epithet "little," adjectives like big and rich precede the Miller's name. Besides, it is worth noting that people do not typically refer to the Miller by his first name, but rather by his occupation. His identity is thereby directly linked with his professional and societal roles, both of which make him stronger than Hans. The Miller is known for what he does and what he makes money on. The poor, innocent Hans is merely identified as little. These varying descriptors represent their differing levels of power and integrity. The little Hans is vulnerable and seeks to do good by others. The big Miller is domineering and consistently disregards others—especially those with less power than him.

Another element reinforcing the two characters as foils for one another is their contrasting family and material situations. The Miller is wealthy and has a large material safety net to fall back on. He also has a wife and a son. All of these factors shield him from destitution and loneliness. Hans, on the other hand, only has his garden. For a portion of the year, he subsists on his flowers and fruit. In the winter, he suffers because he has very little to eat and no one comes to see him.

Finally, and perhaps most essentially, Hans and the Miller are characterized by different personalities and behavioral patterns. The one talks, the other listens. The one takes, the other gives. The one exploits, the other is exploited. However, it is worth considering that despite establishing Hans as the pitiful one of the pair, Wilde isn't necessarily seeking to leave the reader with the simple, singular takeaway that he deserves sympathy. It is clear that one of them is more vulnerable while the other has more power, but both characters are ignorant in their own ways. Although Wilde undoubtedly sympathizes with victims—rather than perpetrators—of manipulation and exploitation, he is nevertheless critical of Hans for failing to question the Miller's grand ideas and his inability to advocate for himself.