Fitzgerald’s painting allows the reader a deeper understanding of Ariel in a way words cannot perform. Without context, the painting resembles a girl swinging in a tree; one might even consider the figure to be an angel. The figure has feminine features, including long blonde hair, a lean body, and bright wide eyes. Flowers and birds, more feminine details, surround the character. Finally, the color scheme is light and dewy. It resembles a spring day. This scene can be interpreted to represent Act V Scene 1, in which Ariel describes a time in which he is laying on a branch of flowers. He sings, “Where the bee sucks, there suck I, In a cowslip’s bell I lie; There I couch when owls do cry. On the bat’s back I do fly After summer merrily. Merrily, merrily, shall I live now, Under the blossom that hangs on the bough,” (Shakespeare, 269). In this scene, Ariel is dressing Prospero as he sings; he is performing an act of servitude. However, he is singing about his desire of freedom. He wants to be able to do as he please, which in this scenario is lie on a branch enjoying the scenery as the painting displays. The next line after Ariel’s song is yet another reference to Prospero’s promise of freedom, which he never blatantly fulfills. Prospero states, “Why that’s my dainty Ariel! I shall miss thee, But yet thou shalt have freedom,” (Shakespeare, 269). The painter chose this scene in order to show the reader how Ariel would live if he were exempt from servitude, and he illustrates the false hopes and dreams held by Ariel. Through the details of the painting, and the scene in which it relates to, the reader just only begins to understand the longing for freedom Ariel has, and then develops a sympathetic feeling for him, as the reader understands this may never come true.
0 Comments
The details of Ariel’s style of bat riding point to the unwelcome influence that Ariel’s time with humanity exerts on the scene. In the painting, Ariel holds the bat by means of a sparkling chain, but the light source stops illuminating the stars of the chain by the point where it presumably attaches to the bat (Fuseli). In obscuring this detail, Fuseli emphasizes Ariel’s use of the chain, rather than its effects. After all, as Ariel is a former slave, it is indeed paradoxical that he would choose to bind another living creature with a chain, particularly since this method does not help to control the bat. Ariel also wears other bits of metal: he has a bright bracelet and anklet centered over the bat (Fuseli). Despite Ariel’s plans for living amongst flowers, he wears more human accessories than floral items, indicating the continuing influence of humanity on him. Moreover, the bracelet and anklet do not help Ariel in his goals: both are aligned unnaturally over the bat, indicating that they are constricting the options that Ariel has for his balancing act. All of the previous items are very visible in the painting, but Ariel also holds a shaft aloft in the shadows above his head (Fuseli). This is an intentional placement: Ariel takes great care to bend his arm backwards in order to obscure the tip, which is impossible to identify for a viewer. There is nothing that the shaft, whether it is a wand, trident, whip, or something else, can do in that position, and so Ariel is attempting to hide it rather than use it. Yet, Ariel is clearly unable to let go of the unwelcome object. The various non-natural objects that Ariel employs do not solve the problem of the impracticality of bat riding, and in fact both make it worse and serve as uncomfortable reminders for Ariel of his former time spent among humans.
More specifically, it is Ariel’s time under Prospero’s enslavement that forces him to carry items reminiscent of the mage’s control and limits his ability to carry out his plans. For, below Ariel, Miranda and Ferdinand embrace on a rocky shore, despite the fact that they ought not to be present after the spirit is freed (Fuseli). Meanwhile, the presence of the ocean in the background indicates that all of the characters are still on the island, placing them within the context of The Tempest’s themes. But, as Miranda’s face is completely hidden, and Ferdinand’s is very crudely drawn, there is not enough detail for them to exist as a representation of lovers (Fuseli). Instead, they as a pair represent Prospero’s control, as it was the mage that engineered their relationship. Since Prospero’s control is a theme in the painting, this is what is responsible for Ariel’s inability to let go of the shaft and other human implements, as opposed to a more general contamination by humanity. Prospero’s specific method of enslavement, in which he requires that Ariel carry out his plans “to point,” and even memorize and deliver speeches with “nothing bated” from his script, is then relevant (Shakespeare 1.2.94 and 3.3.85). Even though Ariel is allowed to exercise his powers under slavery, Prospero insists on doing every aspect of the planning, thus reducing potential creative tasks to menial labor. For this reason, Ariel is unable to see that riding a bat is not a viable plan, and is unable to think of how he himself might approach the problem of riding a bat, since he instead uses Prospero’s strategy of relating to the bat as a slave master. On a physical level, Ariel’s former status as Prospero’s slave keeps him from being able to shed the traces of humanity and achieve his goals, and on a mental level, the lack of creativity under a master who plans as much as Prospero stunts Ariel’s ability to think his ideas through. 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. William Hogarth's painting, A Scene from "The Tempest" (c. 1730), depicts the lines that happen when Miranda sees Ferdinand for the first time and declares him, “A thing divine” (1.2.422). Hogarth’s illustration not only draws attention to the human drama unfolding but also relies heavily on the religious undertones in the play. In the Hogarth image, Ariel appears like a cherub. Although Ariel’s fairy wings are visible, Hogarth is clearly drawing on religious iconography of childlike angels akin to Raphael’s cherubim in the Sistine Madonna. Ariel is also periphery to the action of Hogarth’s painting. Everyone in the painting looks at Miranda—the miraculous—whereas she looks intently on Ferdinand. The colors she wears and the iconography associated with her, such as a lamb, make her into a strangely Marian figure; the scene, therefore, approximates the Epiphany, which is fitting since Ferdinand is discovering this wonder for the first time. Hogarth’s reading of this scene highlights the religious language of the text, but it downplays a more sinister side to the scene. In Shakespeare’s play, Ariel not only draws Ferdinand toward him with the tempting “sweet air” (1.2.397) but also threatens him with horrifying taunts about his father’s seeming demise: “Full fathom five thy father lies; / Of his bones are coral made; / Those are pearls that were his eyes” (1.2.400-402). In contrast, Hogarth’s Ariel appears wholly unthreatening as a childlike angel, and a lone angel at that (unlike the Dadd painting, wherein we see a bacchanalian community of spirits). Hogarth thus presents a strangely anesthetized version of the moment in the play, and he renders Ariel into a nonthreatening character. His religious interpretation suppresses the subversive pagan dance that Dadd suggests.
Anne Blythe Davis
The position of Ariel relative to the remainder of the scene depicted in Hogarth's painting emphasizes his detachment and omnipotence with respect to the rest of the play. A storm rages in the background of the painting, causing the human characters to take cover under a large rock. Ariel, on the other hand, hovers above the shelter of the rock. By foregoing shelter during the storm, Ariel proves his ethereality by withstanding the tempest without constructed refuge. Furthermore, Ariel is physically distanced from the rest of the characters; the space between them represents the gap in power between their humanity and Ariel’s spiritual status. Of the other characters, Ariel is closest to Prospero, who holds the most of power of the humans. Ariel’s separation from the humans characters echoes the capacity he shows earlier in the scene when he describes the storm he created to “[disperse] them ‘bout the isle” (1.2.220). Additionally, he is furthest from Caliban, who is arguably the least human of the cast; he has many animal characteristics, setting him farther apart from Ariel than the additional characters. Caliban also has a pack of branches on his back, weighing him down. As described previously in the comparison of Ariel with Prospero, Ariel has wings and is floating above the scene. This gradient of humanity shows that Ariel is distant in terms of power from the rest of the characters. In addition to his separate position, Ariel’s features also provide insight into Hogarth’s interpretation of the text. Ariel appears to be averting his eyes from the scene below; a variety of reasons could exist for this expression. One possibility is that Ariel, as an omniscient character disconnected from the cast, is already aware of what will occur in this scene of the play. He has no need to watch it, as he already knows what will happen. This omniscience could refer to Ariel’s lines later in the play that appear to predict the future, such as in Act 3, Scene 3, where he prophesizes to Alonso, Sebastian, and Antonio, describing his visions as their “clear [lives] ensuing” (3.3.82). An additional explanation for Ariel’s lack of attention towards the other characters is that he could be embarrassed about or otherwise negatively inclined towards their emotionally driven actions. As a being with emotional needs distinct from those of the humans in the play, Ariel is portrayed as disconcerted by the characters’ behaviors. Ariel is also playing a lute in the painting. By providing background music to the scene, he sets the mood while establishing himself as separate from the story. Ariel’s unique actions and features reflect his distance from the human happenings of The Tempest. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|