Nixon’s portrayal of the true identity of Ariel reveals a theurgist view of the character, which gives readers a surprisingly more effeminate, compassionate, and enlightened spirit than commonly portrayed in productions of the Tempest (common interpretations of Ariel are characterized by the words ominous, masculine, controllable, logical, and fear). Since Ariel portrays the Shakespearean society theurgist, Nixon seems to associate Ariel with a more compassionate spirit, rather than a selfish, logical spirit. The effeminate, angelic portrayal of Ariel suggests that Ariel may have more of an opinion on his magical doings than Shakespeare credits him. Shakespeare shows Ariel constantly begging for freedom, only to be shut down by Prospero for fear of being placed back in the tree to which Sycorax confined him. He speaks of his work very logically and appears very distanced from the miracles he performs, saying, “I prithee / Remember I have done thee worthy service, / Told thee nolies, made thee no mistakings, served / Without or grudge or grumblings. Thou did promise / To bate me a full year” (I.2. 247-51). Since theurgists are associated with choice in the miracles they produce, Nixon calls Prospero’s true power over Ariel into question. In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Ariel is portrayed only executing Prospero’s magic demands for the selfish goal of freedom. Associating Ariel with theurgy gives Ariel much more opinion and control over his actions than often portrayed. Perhaps the confusion involving the positive or negative energy of the light surrounding Ariel in Nixon’s painting suggests an internal conflict within Ariel over whether he identifies with theurgy or goety. Nixon’s central portrayal of Ariel as an angelic figure suggests Ariel sees himself as a benevolent magician with control over his actions, but the hellish light around him may suggest he feels controlled by the irrational spirits of goety (i.e. Prospero). This internal conflict within Ariel over theurgy and goety in his true nature gives depth to Shakespeare’s largely unexplored portrayal of Ariel.
The man on the right-hand side of the painting literally represents Ferdinand being washed away by Ariel’s tempest, but his cowering body language and centering figuratively represent the way Shakespearean society viewed, feared, and damned any magic (both theurgy and goety). The very line Nixon portrays involves Ferdinand crying, “Hell is empty, And all the devils are here” (Temp. I.2. 214-15). However, in the painting, Ferdinand appears to flee from Ariel’s, the “devil’s”, presence rather than trying to escape the waters around him. Ariel’s arms stretch open, controlling the Tempest, but his angelic arms also stretch open toward a cowering Ferdinand, who symbolizes King James’ reasoning for rejecting magic: fear of magic bringing about curiosity far beyond what God has given to humans. Ferdinand cowers from an angelic Ariel, symbolizing King James’ ignorance. Ariel and Ferdinand are also placed on completely opposite sides of the painting, neither in the center; the whirling waters between them symbolizing the separation between the two sides of this argument. On one side of the painting, Ferdinand tries to clamber up the side and become evenly level with Ariel, who levitates higher than Ferdinand. This represents a fear the English society had of the power of the theurgists, highlighting another reason many of the English feared all magic: the society didn’t understand the difference between theurgy and goety in relation to human choice in the magic performed. Ariel represents theurgy, which allows magicians to keep the power of human choice when deciding which magical acts to perform. However, Ferdinand cowers away from the theurgy, assuming it is goety (which involves the power of choice being stripped of humans by the unreasonable spirits upon which goety calls). In Nixon’s painting, Ferdinand also seems to attempt to climb upward and out of the simultaneously angelic and hellish colored water with which Ariel has surrounded him. The calmer, dark sky and waters (the colors of which match Ferdinand’s clothing in the painting) that Ferdinand seems to clamber upward toward represent the ignorance/reality of the English world in which Shakespeare’s society cocoons themselves. Ferdinand’s struggle represents Nixon portraying Shakespearean society as it wished to escape magicians (devils in hell) and return to the dark reality and ignorance of Earth. Nixon not only styles the atmosphere of the painting to symbolize the debate over theugy and goety in Shakespearean society, but he also uses the placement and coloring of the characters to make a statement on their true intentions, whether they be in ignorance, control, or miraculous deeds.
Nixon’s portrayal of the true identity of Ariel reveals a theurgist view of the character, which gives readers a surprisingly more effeminate, compassionate, and enlightened spirit than commonly portrayed in productions of the Tempest (common interpretations of Ariel are characterized by the words ominous, masculine, controllable, logical, and fear). Since Ariel portrays the Shakespearean society theurgist, Nixon seems to associate Ariel with a more compassionate spirit, rather than a selfish, logical spirit. The effeminate, angelic portrayal of Ariel suggests that Ariel may have more of an opinion on his magical doings than Shakespeare credits him. Shakespeare shows Ariel constantly begging for freedom, only to be shut down by Prospero for fear of being placed back in the tree to which Sycorax confined him. He speaks of his work very logically and appears very distanced from the miracles he performs, saying, “I prithee / Remember I have done thee worthy service, / Told thee nolies, made thee no mistakings, served / Without or grudge or grumblings. Thou did promise / To bate me a full year” (I.2. 247-51). Since theurgists are associated with choice in the miracles they produce, Nixon calls Prospero’s true power over Ariel into question. In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Ariel is portrayed only executing Prospero’s magic demands for the selfish goal of freedom. Associating Ariel with theurgy gives Ariel much more opinion and control over his actions than often portrayed. Perhaps the confusion involving the positive or negative energy of the light surrounding Ariel in Nixon’s painting suggests an internal conflict within Ariel over whether he identifies with theurgy or goety. Nixon’s central portrayal of Ariel as an angelic figure suggests Ariel sees himself as a benevolent magician with control over his actions, but the hellish light around him may suggest he feels controlled by the irrational spirits of goety (i.e. Prospero). This internal conflict within Ariel over theurgy and goety in his true nature gives depth to Shakespeare’s largely unexplored portrayal of Ariel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|