In Act 1, the Son declares that the Father will bring up the Demon of Experiment, which becomes a metaphor for the diabolically productive force of creativity:
[...] owing to the disappearance of that extraneous family, we too find ourselves strange to one another. We find we are living in an atmosphere of mortal desolation which is the revenge, as he [Indicating SON.] scornfully said of the Demon of Experiment, that unfortunately hides in me.
Prior to this scene, the Father calls the Son a cynical imbecile for suggesting the Demon of Experiment, but he eventually agrees and admits that the Demon "unfortunately hides in [him]." This demon most obviously refers to storytelling and serves as a metaphor for chaotic creativity. However, it also evokes the Father's sexual experimentation and links creativity to sexuality (in that both urges are encouraged by sinful sources). In both interpretations, the introduction of a demonic force absolves the Father from taking responsibility for his actions.
Throughout the play, Pirandello questions whether there is an agent behind the process of creation in which an author molds and consults with their own characters. The “Demon of Experiment” could be such an agent—a strangely productive conflict among the storytelling Characters, interpretive Actors, and the Manager who must move the story forward. This metaphor serves two purposes: to suggest the dark sides of creativity and sexuality and to say that creativity is an unstoppable, often chaotic, force. The play gives a clear impression of the chaos caused by disorganized creativity and unstoppable desires, and the Demon of Experiment becomes the Father's scapegoat for all the chaos in his life.
In Act 1, the Step-Daughter uses the metaphor of crocodiles' tears to describe the false remorse felt by adulterous men:
When a man seeks to "simplify" life bestially, throwing aside every relic of humanity, every chaste aspiration, every pure feeling, all sense of ideality, duty, modesty, shame...then nothing is more revolting and nauseous than a certain kind of remorse—crocodiles’ tears, that’s what it is.
Here, the Step-Daughter describes the Father's wish to "'simplify' life bestially"—i.e., to follow his animalistic desires above all else in life. When he does so, he throws aside "every relic of humanity" in favor of satisfying his sexual needs. The "crocodiles' tears" refer to the apparent sadness of men who make this choice. They might make excuses to elicit sympathy from others, but the Step-Daughter knows that their tears are fake. She declares her disgust for men who pretend to be remorseful after excusing themselves from "the philosophy that uncovers the beast in man."
When crocodiles spend enough time out of the water, their eyes dry out, and their tear ducts begin to secrete water to keep lubricated. Crocodiles are also dangerous predators—another level of this metaphor suggests that sexually deviant men are just as dangerous. The phrase was originally inspired by the myth that crocodiles cry after catching their prey—just as immoral men might express sadness after committing crimes against humanity.
"Crocodiles' tears" can also be called an idiom because it is a set phrase with a figurative meaning. It was first found in Latin writings and later became part of the Italian and English lexicons. The phrase in Pirandello's original Italian text is lagrime di coccodrillo, which directly translates to the English idiom. Literary translators must often find close approximations or substitutes for idioms in the original language, but in the case of Pirandello's play, the idiom of crocodiles' tears has the same meaning in both translations.
In Act 1, the Father gives a lengthy speech about the nature of morality. In this speech, he compares the experience of a single moment to being caught briefly on a hook:
THE FATHER [...] So we have this illusion of being one person for all, of having a personality that is unique in all our acts. But it isn’t true. We perceive this when, tragically perhaps, in something we do, we are as it were, suspended, caught up in the air on a kind of hook. Then we perceive that all of us was not in that act, and that it would be an atrocious injustice to judge us by that action alone, as if all our existence were summed up in that one deed. Now do you understand the perfidy of this girl?
Here, the Father states that a single person can have many different personalities, and every instant of existence represents a different "self." So, the Step-Daughter's claim would be an "atrocious injustice" because she judges him based on a single action. This metaphor's significance is that it absolves the Father from moral responsibility, or from being judged for his immoral actions. The Father committed an atrocious misdeed by sleeping with the Step-Daughter, but he chalks up his own behavior to a combination of bad luck and lapsed judgment. Thus he was "caught on a hook" and the moment was, he claims, beyond his control.
