Senior Portfolio: Critical Essay
By: Kendra Housel
Throughout the entire cannon of his works, William Shakespeare has played with the idea of mirroring. He takes characters, events, and phrases, sometimes within the same story and sometimes across different works, and purposefully creates similarities in order to make a subtle point. This can be seen in the way Oberon and Titania (A Midsummer Night’s Dream) and Lady Macbeth and Macbeth (Macbeth) both have relationship dynamics that are built around a power struggle, or in how Romeo and Juliet (Romeo and Juliet) had a similar impulsivity to the pursuit of their relationship like Claudio and Hero (Much Ado About Nothing). In this mirroring, however, Shakespeare often draws similar lines together in order to also illustrate difference. One prime example of this use of mirroring can be seen in the penning of the characters of Puck from A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Ariel in The Tempest. Though both Puck and Ariel seem nearly identical upon first examination, if one looks to their motivations, their relationships with their masters, and their forefront character qualities, one can see that they are widely and intentionally different.
There are many similarities between Puck and Ariel that are worth noting. They are both, quite obviously, magical, pixie like creatures. They both serve masters (Ariel serving Prospero and Puck serving Oberon) who are also magical to some degree. Their masters are also both men who are in charge of the land that they inhabit. Puck and Ariel both conjure up much of the mischief in their stories and even play pinnacle roles in the overall business of the plays. Ariel is the entire reason that the ship is stranded on the island, which brings about the romance between Miranda and Ferdinand, the conception/destruction of Caliban’s betrayal, and the reconciliation between Prospero and the band of lords. Puck, too, creates the main catalyst of the play, in multiple story lines, as he is the one who changes Bottom’s head into that of a donkey, as well as the one who puts the love juice from the flower in the eyes of Titania, Lysander, and Demetrius. Though each of these reasons for finding those two creatures similar is essential and are foundational to the way Shakespeare mirrored Ariel and Puck across plays, it is important to dig deeper into their makeup and realize that they are quite different.
One of the most distinct ways Puck and Ariel differ is in the way each of them operate under different motivation throughout their particular stories. This can be understood through variety of examples from each play. A solid place to begin in understanding the nuanced juxtaposition between their motivations is in the basic fact that Ariel is working towards freedom while Puck is not. In The Tempest, the audience is clued in on the backstory of why Ariel is in servitude to Prospero; Ariel had been trapped in a tree without hope of release after his former master, the evil witch Sycorax, imprisoned and enslaved him, then died before releasing him. He is rescued by Prospero with the added obligation of living a life of service, which he is okay with since Prospero is not cruel in the way that Sycorax was. Out of this happenstance, he is bound to serve for an allotted time, that will also be shortened if he does his work well and without complaining. He is essentially an indentured servant. Ariel, then, is working out of a conflict, a “conflict between his desire for freedom and his grateful will to serve the master who delivered him from the spell of Sycorax” (Boughton 540). In contrast, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Puck does not come with a backstory. This perhaps illustrates the fact that he was literally created to be as he is: in service to the fairy King, Oberon. Puck is not working for the sake of himself—for his freedom or to repay a debt— he is simply working for Oberon out of devotion, and a sincere delight (Derrin 429). He has the ability to deeply enjoy the work that he does, since his work to him is the end, instead of the means to an end that it is to Ariel.
Another way to understand the different motivations that Puck and Ariel bring that serve to contrast one another can be found in the different dynamics they have with their masters. These unique dynamics are in part born out of the fact that Puck serves Oberon out of devotion and Ariel serves Prospero (at least to an extent) out of a desire to someday no longer be subservient to him. However, Puck and Ariel’s differing motivations for servitude are not the only elements that impact the dynamics they have with Oberon and Prospero, respectively. Puck is more naturally in a partnership with Oberon whereas Ariel is very much in the role of a servant. This is evident in the way each spirit interacts with their master. Puck is actively engaged in the mischief that Oberon conjures up, not just in the carrying out of orders (which he does) but also in the planning of said mischief. This can be seen in the way that he has a natural impulse to mess with the mechanics. Puck is also free to mess up and possibly fail. His relationship with Oberon is good enough that there seems to be an established trust and understanding. Even when Puck does fail to enchant the correct lover in the woods (originally enchanting Lysander rather than Demetrius), Oberon is unconcerned and does not gets angry, but knows that his faithful sidekick will fix the chaos he has created. Ariel on the other hand, while he does carry out many of the orders for Prospero, does not play a part of the conception of them. The closest he comes to helping with the planning process is when he and Prospero go together to plant the fancy clothes as a trap for Caliban and his gang. They act in partnership through action, though it was still conceived of by Prospero. It is worth observing also, that Oberon and Puck do not carry out any of the plans they concoct together in tandem, which adds a layer to their relationship. This could be for similar reasons as to why Puck is in his true form all of the time but Ariel is only seen in his natural state with Prospero; Ariel is less formal with Prospero and trusts him because he knows he can one day become his equal (through the acquisition of his freedom), while Puck is the same level of informal with everyone he interacts with, but is especially respectful to Oberon out of devotion and fittedness.
A final important element to consider in the way Puck and Ariel have different relationships with their masters is in the potential for change mentioned previously. Just as Ariel has hope that his situation will change in respect to Prospero, he also approaches his master with a heart of compassion that allows Ariel to see him as someone who does have room for growth. Though he does not directly confront him verbally about growth, Ariel does not idealize his master, and he sets an example for him in his actions. Ariel’s compassion for the lords who come to the island, and general kindness and devotion to fulfilling all his terms of service are a large part of what motivates Prospero to give up his magic, according to the scholar Robert F. Willson (Willson 68). Puck, in contrast, views Oberon as a higher being who is to be respected and admired, and does not do anything, directly or indirectly, to move Oberon to change. This difference can be described as Ariel’s tendency towards mercy and Puck’s basic bend towards mischief (Gibbons 314). While Ariel is more relationally minded, and thus has the potential to change others and show them sincere compassion, Puck is more concerned with the action he is performing and focuses less on his relationship with his master than he does on the fun that will ensue through the plans they enact together.
Along with the ways Puck and Ariel differ in motivation and relation to their masters, they also differ in the general way Shakespeare characterized them. One place their differing characterization is actually in the type of magical being they are. Though they seem very similar, both servant-sprites, they are quite different when observed with careful detail. First of all, many scholars attribute demonic qualities to both of them. Winifred Schleiner says that “Puck is deeply imbued with dark conceptions of devilish sprites” (Schleiner 68). While they can both be considered in such a way, there is far more scholarly evidence to suggest that Ariel is more of a demon-esqu spirit while Puck is what one would consider a more traditional folklore faerie. Scholars like Robert R. Reed assert that Ariel fits the characteristics of a stereotypical water demon, air demon, and fire demon, within the realm of traditional literary demons (Reed 62). Others, like Rutland Boughton, have taken a slightly kinder approach and assigned him the significance of being a “deliberate personification of the spirit of music” because of the dynamic way he is able to affect change in people (Boughton 538). Either way, Ariel is a spirit with an intense and clear agenda, affecting change for a specific purpose. Puck, on the other hand, is most often thought of as a stereotypical faerie because of his more nonchalant, jovial approach to life and his great love for chaotic mischief (Green 89). Scholar Roger Lancelyn Green specifically Puck as a brownie, or a “jocular spirit who … [does] odd jobs about a house, throws stones and other objects, and [is] apt to provoke curiosity rather than alarm” (Green 93). One can understand, then, that Puck is characterized in a lighthearted way to make him more of a faerie spirit while Ariel is more of an intense creature making him more prone to being understood as a demonic spirit.
The other element of their characterization that illustrates their differences is in their actual presence in the plays they appear in. It is important to recognize that both of them are not merely stock characters. Puck, as Winifred Schleiner, in reference to Katherine Brigg’s idea, put it, is “not a puck instead of Puck,” but is fully and completely Puck, the unique and very nuanced character (Schleiner 66). The same could be said about Ariel. This, however, is where similarities come to a more stagnant halt within how Shakespeare’s handled the way they were both written into their plays. Though he wrote them both without creating stock characters, their personalities were developed in differing directions. Ariel’s personality is more pleading and subservient while Puck is more commanding and intense. This can be very obviously seen in the way the Puck breaks the fourth wall nearly every time he is present on stage. Puck serves as a narrator of sorts, so the audience has to develop a certain level of trust and admiration for him, in order to believe the story that is before them; Puck not only played a pinnacle role in the events, but he also becomes a lens through which the audience understands and interprets the events. His monologue at the end of the show is very quintessential expression of Puck’s personality and of his role within A Midsummer Night’s Dream; he is actively involved in the story and in its telling, while also wanting to entertain and charm everyone he interacts with. Ariel on the other hand is not a device for the audience but is simply a character within the story. He does not interact with the audience (or largely anyone other than Prospero). Within his role in The Tempest, Ariel becomes an accessory to his master, rather than an actual presence in the show. Ariel is less involved in what goes on onstage than Prospero is. His involvement is entirely tied to Prospero, his will, and his presence; he is in the play significantly less often than Prospero. In this, Ariel becomes an accessory—an essential, personal one—but an accessory to Prospero none the less. Puck, on the other hand, is present in the play far more often than Oberon is, and carries out activities on his own accord as well as at his master’s will; he is not there merely as an extension of Oberon’s power and will, but is important and active without Oberon.
The idea of mirroring is important to keep in mind when one reads anything written by William Shakespeare, and especially when engaging with more than one of his works. Puck and Ariel, though riddled with similarities, are incredibly different, in characterization, relationship, and motivation. Though it is easy to read two pieces like A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest and instantly equate Puck with Ariel, to truly understand the brilliance of Shakespeare and his ability to nuance every character he wrote, there is always more to consider than what initially meets one’s mind. Shakespeare uses mirroring in a way that showcases his brilliance, in that he is able to point out similarities that run through his plays while also making those similar elements incredibly different under the surface. In this, Shakespeare makes a profound statement about life in general; many situations, people, and experiences may appear incredibly similar, but when one comes to intimately understand those things, one can develop a richer understanding that nothing in life is ever so similar that it becomes identical to something else. This can help people have compassion for one another, in understanding that no matter how much you feel like you understand someone else’s circumstances or feelings, you have never dealt with the exact same thing, and must be sensitive to the difference even as you acknowledge the mirroring.
Kendra Housel is a graduate from Indiana Wesleyan who majored in English and Honors Humanities. She has worked as a published writer for the past three years for IWU’s alumni association and is currently serving as the writing intern at World Gospel Mission.
Work Cited
Boughton, Rutland. “Shakespeare's Ariel: A Study of Musical Character.” The Musical Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 4, 1916, pp. 538–551. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/737937.
Derrin, Daniel. “The Humorous Unseemly: Value, Contradiction, and Consistency in the Comic Politics of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare, vol. 11, no. 4, Dec. 2015, pp. 425–445. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2016580299&site=ehost-live.
Gibbons, Daniel R. “Inhuman Persuasion in The Tempest.” Studies in Philology, vol. 114, no. 2, Spring 2017, pp. 302–330. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/sip.2017.0011.
Green, Roger Lancelyn. “Shakespeare and the Fairies.” Folklore, vol. 73, no. 2, 1962, pp. 89–103. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1258609.
Schleiner, Winfried. “Imaginative Sources for Shakespeare’s Puck.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, 1985, pp. 65–68. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=0000305403&site=ehost-live.
Reed, Robert R. “The Probable Origin of Ariel.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, 1960, pp. 61–65. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2867432.
Willson, Robert F., Jr., et al. “William Shakespeare: The Dramatist.” Salem Press Encyclopedia of Literature, 2017. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=125599288&site=eds-live.