When two events are disjoint, they have no common outcomes and cannot occur together. Have you wondered how this definition plays a role in The Crucible?
For two disjoint events, the probability that one or the other occurs is the sum of the probabilities of the two events. In The Crucible, Judge Hathorne and the Deputy Governor, Judge Danforth, are the two characters that serves as foil for each other.
In Act 3 in The Crucible, Judge Danforth holds and displays the power and dominance he has in the court. However, this makes his anxiety clear that he centers on his reputation to the majority. Therefore, it makes his decision biased, or that his decision can be altered easily based on the majority’s opinion.
Judge Hathorne doesn’t worries about his reputation because he has the majority’s trust. The minority who does not agree with him doesn’t matter. However, he does not trust the accuracy of his opinions. As the service of foil, Danforth trust himself as a fair-minded, which allows the court to be processed. Even though the two characters have completely opposite character traits, it allows the play to rise in plot, but doesn’t cross the line. If they have the same character trait of Judge Hathorne, the purpose of the court serves nothing. If they have the same character trait of Judge Danforth, there will be arguments arising between the two judges and the dominance control over the court.
“Power and Dominance in the Court” by quimono via Pixabay
HATHORNE, astonished. She have robbed you?
PARRIS. Thirty-one pound is gone. I am penniless. He covers his face and sobs.
DANFORTH. Mr. Parris, you are a brainless man! He walks in thought, deeply worried. (117)
The emotion and context Harthorne and Danforth serves is completely different in the court. Hathorne doesn’t make much opinions about the case while Danforth bursts out his thoughts.
HATHORNE. Excellency, she is condemned a witch. The court have–
DANFORTH, in deep concern, raising a hand to Hathorne. Pray You. To Parris. How do you propose, then? (118)
The power and dominance of the court surely is being hold by Danforth, that he has the power to cut off Hathorne’s words.
The connection to characters that serves as foil to each other, isn’t necessarily disjoint about the characters, it’s about their character trait. To me, each and every family are disjoint because they each have different ways of doing things and things that they are used to do. Family members are complement to each other which also serves as foil to each other about their placement in the family. Some family members take up more and the others will receive less, but the probability that one or the others occur is the sum of the probabilities of the all the family members, 1.
The definition also allows the rule that one cannot entirely take over the other, in other words, to replace. If Judge Hathorne doesn’t have Danforth, he will have no control over the court, because nobody’s in control if Danforth’s gone. In another perspective, if a family member takes over another’s spot in the family, it’s not a family because someone is there but stands zero in the probability of 1.
MLA Citations:
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible: A Play In Four Acts. New York : Penguin Books, 1976. Print.
Hi Brian, after reading your blog about character in the Crucible serving as foil for each other, I realized how much people’s differences might cause tension between two people, as well as how their difference can cause a significant impact on the system they are in, like the court in this case. I found it particularly interesting when you compared the relationship between Danforth and Hathorne to two distinct family. I found it interesting because it helped me process the relationship between Danforth and Hathorne more effectively as I also realized how often these events occurs everyday life. your connection also allowed me relate the tension between Danforth and Hathorne to my personal experience making it easier to understand your blog. after reading I realized its important to have two distinct character like Danforth and Hathorne as they balance each other out to control the court. After reading The Crucible I think that other character like hale also helped in balancing the court as both Hale and Danforth has great authority however Danforth act as if he is superior above Hale and isolated himself from Hale’s words when Hale is trying to minimize the corruption in the court, what do you think about that, do you think that Hale might have act as a better foil for Danforth or do you still think Hathorne is Danforth’s foil.
Hi Brian Lin, after reading your blog post of The Crucible, I kind of agree and understand that everyone has there own personality which means that they have their opinion and thought, but rarely people have the same personality and ideas. In The Crucible I think I get it why will Arthur Miller bring out two judges and indicates their personality and perspective in a different way. But I don’t really agree that the two judges were served as a foil for each other. Even though the two judges have different personalities and opinions don’t mean that they are a foil to each other. I personally think that Arthur Millier brings out the two judges is because she wants to indicates the two perspectives of the judges’ thoughts, which can attract the readers more and also make the readers think deeply. The most interesting thing that I found in your blog post is the way how you compare the two judges which is Danforth and Hathorne with the family. The connection really helps me to understand about your topic and support your blog post background information a lot. I personally think that people were born to have different identities and ideas and having different identities which help to balance things and make more ideas and conclusions. So I think it’s possible to not have the same ideas as others. Least but not last, I have a few questions to ask. After reading my comment do you still think that Arthur Millier brings out the two judges is because he wants to show that the two judges foil each other? Or the Author just wants to show the two judges’ opinions and to attract the readers’ attention?