Ariel

Fiction | Poem | Adult | Published in 1965

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Poem Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Themes

Female Creativity

Links between femininity, fertility, and creation are among the oldest in Western art and narrative. Fertility deities such as Demeter in ancient Greece and Brigid in pre-Christian Ireland are represented as women and play dual roles as Gods of harvest and of childbirth. These connections rely primarily on the fact that biological females tend to be able to give birth, creating another life. Figures of divine creativity, like the ancient Greek muses, play on this connection between femininity and creation. The act of horseback riding is also associated with female independence and sexuality, particularly in Regency and Victorian literature.

“Ariel” draws on a number of these associations, including the broader connection between human and agricultural fertility. The poem’s speaker and their horse “grow” (Line 5) into “one” (Line 5) before passing through a “furrow” (Line 6) that “[s]plits” (Line 7) as they pass through. This moment of birth plays on the agricultural connections to female genitalia and reflects the moment of insemination at the poem’s end (See: Analysis).

Plath extends and solidifies many of these connections through Ariel, the horse in the poem. By changing Ariel from a male spirit to a female horse, Plath simultaneously feminizes and materializes Ariel’s creative powers. The supernatural feats of theater that Ariel performs in The Tempest manifest through the speaker’s horse. Like the ancient Greek concept of muses, Plath’s speaker merges with Ariel and her creative potential as part of their creative journey. The queering of Ariel, and the ambiguity of the poem’s speaker, remove masculinity from the creative equation. Though the poem relies on ancient ideas of femininity and generation, it also looks forward to a fully feminized creative force.

Nakedness, Power, and Revelation

Between the two moments of female creation that bookend “Ariel,” the speaker does their own creative work. While Plath’s speaker does not identify themselves, Confessional poets tend to blur the lines between them and their speakers. The speaker suggests their femininity through their modes of creation. The speaker describes how they “unpeel” (Line 20) themselves like a “[w]hite / Godiva” (Lines 19-20). The speaker’s nudity as they become “[f]oam to wheat” (Line 23) suggests that, like in female reproduction, nudity is a requisite part of their creative acts. The poem relies on this suggestion to move from the speaker’s nude creation to a “child’s cry” (Line 24).

The speaker’s identification as a “[w]hite / Godiva” (Lines 19-20) underlines the poem’s connection between nudity and power. The speaker, like Lady Godiva, realizes their (See Symbols & Motifs) power and potential through revealing their body. Rather than a voyeuristic pleasure, this shedding of clothes is a rejuvenation. As Plath’s speaker states, they remove “[d]ead hands, dead stringencies” (Line 21). Their emphasis on stringencies, or certain strict, disciplined ways of being, suggests that their clothes and hand inhibit and restrict them in unnecessary ways. The stringencies could also refer to societal expectations that oppress the speaker. By removing these things, the speaker is able to free themselves from their identity as they become a creative force. This “unpeel[ing]” (Line 20) is also a requisite step to the speaker’s eventual rebirth in “the cauldron of morning” (Line 31).

The Fragmented Self

The speaker embodies “Ariel” in a series of disconnected images (See: Literary Devices). The poem coheres into a larger narrative about the speaker’s creativity, sense of self, and rebirth as they ride into the morning sun, but the fragments used to communicate this narrative are often left unresolved. The fragmentary form of “Ariel” points toward larger fragments in the speaker’s psyche.

The speaker’s fragmented psyche is most salient when the speaker attempts to discuss themselves. In the first half of the poem, the speaker only describes themselves through negation, mentioning the “neck I cannot catch” (Line 9) or how “I unpeel” (Line 20). These negative attempts at description show that the speaker struggles with a coherent identity. This struggle also takes place when the speaker particularizes their “[t]highs, hair; / [f]lakes from my heels” (Lines 17-18) as they fly through the air. The speaker’s inability to articulate a whole body or identity is a result of their fragmented sense of self.

When the speaker can identify with whole objects, the connection is often broken by the poem’s form. In the ninth and 10th stanzas, the speaker’s attempts to affirm that “I / [a]m the arrow” (Lines 26-27) or “now I / [f]oam to wheat” (Lines 22-23) separate the speaker’s “I” from what they identify with. Ariel is the only exception to this rule—the speaker grows into “one” (Line 5) with the horse. But this identification, too, is partial. The speaker experiences their connection through the “[p]ivot of heels and knees” (Line 6) instead of their whole, shared bodies. Grammatically, the speaker’s only sure identification is with “Godiva” (Line 20). The speaker might also identify with the “[e]ye, the cauldron of morning” (Line 31), but distances themselves using the homophone “eye” rather than “I.”