The Deception of Language and Religious Hypocrisy

Oscar Wilde’s story “The Devoted Friend” falls in the genre of fairy tales for children. Nevertheless, the metaphorical approach adopted by the author has generated discussions touching on moral issues about friendship, the meaning of friendship, and the use of important aspects of friendship to advance evil quests. The story also highlights the exploitation of the innocence of others for selfish gains. The plot of the story revolves around the relationship between the two lead characters, the Miller and Little Hans. The former exploits the latter’s innocence for selfish reasons. The Miller expressed no regrets after deceitfully overworking Little Hans to the extent of drowning and dying. Critical aspects that emerge in the relationship between the two is the use of language in deceit and exploitation, and the hypocrisy associated with religiosity.

Q1. How Language is used to Effect Deception in Friendship in the Story 

Wilde sets the tone in the use of language as a tool for deceit in friendship in the initial conversation between the old Water-rat and the mother of the little ducks. According to the Water-rat, friendship ranks higher than love, an argument they advanced by observing, “Indeed, I know of nothing in the world that is either nobler or rarer than a devoted friendship” (Wilde, 2013, p. 301). The Water-rat answer to the question about a devoted friend’s duties is that they expect their devoted friend to be devoted to them. The answer of any reasonable explanation and reflects the naivety expressed by not only the Water-rat, but also Little Hans. It is this hypocrisy that the author builds on through the narration of the story of Little Hans, The Devoted Friend. The Little Hans espoused exceptional levels of naivety and innocence in their friendship with the Miller. The description of the Miller’s devotion to Hans falls short of the true measure of friendship. The Miller nudged the kindhearted Hans into believing that devotion meant “real friends having everything in common” (Wilde, 2013, p. 302), a concept that the Miller himself never practiced. Hans perceived Miller as having noble ideas about friendship, which they believed were reflected in Miller’s action of plucking sweet herbs or filling their pockets with plums and cherries whenever they passed by Hans garden. Unknown to Hans, this was Miller's strategy of deception and exploitation. The rich Miller never gave Hans anything in return. Hans only purported gain was the pleasure they drew from listening to Miller’s misinformed preaching on the unselfishness of true friendship.

Miller appears to have a mastery of reverse psychology, which they use on the Little Hans with astounding success. It is important to point out that Miller’s ideas about friendship are genuine, but the contradiction is that they practice the opposite. Miller’s last words after the funeral of Little Hans point to the one-sided approach to friendship they harbor. They have no concern or remorse for the plight of Little Hans despite the fact that they are the cause of Han’s demise. Miller’s wife shares the ideologies of her husband’s exploitative friendship with Hans. Miller observes that Hans is a great loss to them at any rate. However, their perspective is that informed by selfishness. In the statement, “I will certainly take care not to give away anything again. One always suffers for being generous” (Wilde, 2013, p. 308). It can be argued that Miller’s opinion is that death robbed them of a great friend in Hans and they are likely to suffer because their pledge to give Hans the wheelbarrow is the cause of this misfortune. The Miller’s sole regret is that they would not have Hans to exploit anymore. The pledge to give Little Hans the wheelbarrow is used by the author to develop the use of deceitful language in the story. Whenever Hans questioned Miller’s decisions, they are tricked into performing tasks because of the belief they had in the foundation of their friendship. Little Hans died while trying to live to the values of the deceitful friendship they shared with Miller.

Q2. The Role Religion Plays in Exposing Hypocrisy in the Lead Character 

The theme of religion and hypocrisy in The Devoted Friend can be summarized using the phrase that the clergyman preaches drinking water, yet they drink wine. The observation by Miller’s wife about the clergyman paints a clear picture of the source of hypocrisy in their husband, who is the lead character in the story. The wife, in praise of her husband’s nobility, notes, “… the clergyman himself could not say such beautiful things as you do, though he does live in a three-storied house, and wear a gold ring on his little finger” (Wilde, 2013, p. 302). Through this phrase, the author informs the reader that Miller’s concept of friendship has a philosophical foundation in religion. Miller and the clergyman share similarities in relation to their love for materialism. They have mastered the art of hiding behind religion when perpetrating exploitation of the unsuspecting members of the community. Miller’s wife appears to harbor reservations about her husband’s lack of moral conscientiousness in relation to the non-existent connection between their words and actions. However, Miller is very apprehensive of his actions as can be seen when he chastises the son for suggesting that the family invites little Hans to visit during the winter.

Religion is used by the author as a tool for propagating inequality and exploitation, vices on which Miller’s devotion to Hans is founded. It can be noted that Miller is resolved to keep Hans oblivious of his wealth. Miller is afraid that Hans will become enlightened if allowed to visit. Miller observes that, “… if little Hans came up here and saw our warm tire, and our good supper, and our great cask of red wine, he might get envious, and envy is a most terrible thing, and would spoil anybody's nature” (Wilde, 2013, p. 303). Miller understands the power of naivety and wants to keep Hans in the dark. This is evident in his rather ironical statement that, “I am his best friend, and I will always watch over him, and see that he is not led into any temptations” (p. 302). One can argue that Miller’s understanding of the gospel is skewed to favor individualistic goals. The wife sarcastically compares the way Miller talks to being in church because of the drowsy feeling. This can be taken to imply the vagueness in the husband’s words that are not backed by corresponding action. Contrary to the gospel which advocates for action as a reflection of an individual’s personality, Miller considers talking a better gift, something that many people lack. They even scold their child for trying to act well. The egocentric behavior highlights Wilde’s strategy of using language as a tool of deceit in Miller and Han’s friendship, which is founded on the former’s misinformed understanding of religious teaching with regard to the moral values that must be demonstrated in any friendship.

Conclusion 

The author has used simple language to express the happenings in the story. It is a good read since it brings out the theme of deceit and falsehood in matters relating to friendship. Apart from that, hypocrisy associated with religion is explored. The use of characters further aid in the development of the tale.

Reference

Wilde, O. (2013).  The happy prince and other tales . Hachette UK.