Otto and Aurelia Plath as a Couple

Boston University Women's Building, once Aurelia's refuge, now the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies

"She was not happily married; she thinks because of her husband's incipient illness, which he refused to have treated, made him emotionally unbalanced, leading to loss of temper." Aurelia Plath in 1953 was describing her eight years of marriage to her late husband Otto, twenty-one years older than she. The transcript continued, "Age difference too great. He led narrow life; no entertaining, no outings." [1] 

That meant Aurelia led a much narrower, more isolated life than she was used to as a student and dedicated teacher. The only visitors Otto allowed at their house were her parents. Aurelia couldn't entertain old or new friends. Within a year of their wedding, with Sylvia a newborn, Aurelia famously decided she "had to become more submissive," adding, "although it was not in my nature to be so." She quit arguing and trying to reason with Otto and, within the limits of safety, began subverting him, going as far as having secret dinner guests while Otto taught night school.

The couple did go on a few outings, but with one exception those on record were Boston University German-language events such as the annual College of Practical Arts and Letters variety show (1933, 1934), emceed by Marshall Perrin, Aurelia's favorite professor of German. At the college's annual scholarship banquet the Plaths and fellow German teachers the Haskells were guests of honor. When the Plaths moved to Winthrop and attended a civic banquet, the news clipping called them "Mr. and Mrs. O. E. Plath representing Boston University." [2]

Limited to university-related functions, Aurelia created for herself a Boston University social life. Before marriage she had represented her college for the university alumni association, and continued to do so while pregnant and after Sylvia was born. [3] Both Marshall Perrin and Mrs. Haskell died in 1935, depriving Aurelia of allies who had known her as the shining star of her college class. At BU's Faculty Wives' Club, Aurelia confessed to at least one woman that Otto was a tyrant and hurt her. [4] This woman sympathized and introduced Aurelia to Mildred Norton, a future best friend and decisive influence on Aurelia's parenting.

Aurelia had another baby, who was sickly, and Otto's health declined. She had to serve as nurse to both. In 1937 Aurelia wrote to Mrs. Helen Gaebler:

". . . I haven't been in Cambridge once during the last three years. Usually I can slip away on the average of once a week . . . At the Women's Building of Boston University, where the wives of the faculty members meet, I thoroughly enjoy my connection with these women, for we have much in common, and these monthly gatherings comprise all the social life I have." [5]

Aurelia then wasn't counting as "social" her recent election as recording secretary to BU's Boston alumni association, or the banquet in Winthrop with 500 attendees. She wanted friends who were intellectual peers. Otto in their courting days promised her an ideal partnership and failed to deliver. If in the 1930s  your husband was controlling or abusive you were pressured never to say so -- except Aurelia did.

I don't think it was Otto's death and the burden he left her that Aurelia was bitter about. I think it was what she underlined in Sylvia's copy of Middlemarch: "Only those who know the supremacy of the intellectual life -- the life which has a seed of ennobling thought and purpose within it -- can understand the grief of one who falls from that serene activity into the absorbing soul-wasting struggle with worldly annoyances." She was not so much bitter as grieved about what might have been.

[1] McLean Hospital intake interview with patient's mother Aurelia Plath, page 2.

[2] Winthrop Review, 21 Oct 1937, "Tercentary Banquet of Deane Winthrop House Monday."

[3] Boston Globe, 13 December 1932.

[4] C. Loring Brace to Linda Wagner-Martin, 13 July 1984, Lilly Library.

[5] ASP to Mrs. Helen Gaebler, 9 December 1937, Smith.

This Ghastly Archive: Remembering a Plath Superfan

Claim to Fame

 

Like many dying women she spent her time making collages.

I mean it. Stuffed between oversized scrapbook pages,

  clashes of greeting-card images cut

from the times she had been greeted or congratulated.

None is attractive or makes any sense.

It was late in life that she became an artist and no less;

finally we all get around to making art,

the language when language ends, and the motionless track

travels on while the train puts us out

onto the platform that at any hour is inadequately lit.

 

A boy named Sawyer his mother calls Soya

  brings chimneys of magazines seventy percent advertising,

exactly life’s proportion. Mary Ann must make her mark.

Neighbors interrupt her making-for-posterity

collages, edge-to-edge frustration, a series of barren wants

coupled with annoyances. In her thirties she had written

letters to celebrities asking them for money and tried to sell

to rare-book dealers their angry or astonished replies, events

not in the collages. No words are. Language couldn’t root in them.

The colors red and black did. Frowning, she concentrated.

 

Collage as a claim to fame. If only it had the body’s depths

of bone, sinew and fat. Remarkably she had gone from shameless

begging to graduate school in her fifties, choosing a place

she could go entirely mad, a comparative arts program,

where no one said anything and no judgment was final. Ginsberg’s

penpal, she called herself; everyone knew she was lying.

Ginsberg had replied that her letter was stupid. She ran and begged

Sylvia Plath’s mother to “Tell me something secret about her,”

as Mrs. Plath backed out of her Wellesley driveway

in 1977. She clings to the historical record by fingertips.

 

That is what she approached with scissors and what

she approached the scissors with. To acquire the few letters

from the famous in her files, the archive had to take the lot

and store acid-free cartons of late-in-life collages

in bulk, uninteresting and unattractive, dated,

made daily as she tried to live, Mary Ann Montgomery,
old and sick and living on Social Security in a house

in Michigan she had inherited, magazines to its ceiling, every

scrapbook filled to the limit of its binding with images.

Tired of words and reading, she tried collages, wanting

her name in an archive’s collection, and succeeded.

 

Mrs. Aurelia Plath was usually generous with the Sylvia Plath fans and mourners who came unannounced to her house on Elmwood Road, but one morning in September 1977 Aurelia could not stop to talk with a would-be visitor parking a motor home with a Michigan license plate. The stranger was a 47-year-old ex-nun, music teacher and divorcee trying to live by selling famous people's letters, and obsessed with Sylvia Plath. Terribly hurt that Aurelia didn't speak with her, she sent Aurelia a letter and, each having ulterior motives, they kept up an unctuous correspondence from 1978 to 1989: eleven years. Some of Aurelia's replies include useful biographical information. 

 

Mary Ann Montgomery early on begged Aurelia for "something of Sylvia's, even a letter or scrap" and for Aurelia to tell her something secret that Aurelia had never told anyone else. Aurelia declined. Montgomery sent Aurelia a poem comparing her own life to Sylvia's; she sent unwanted gifts such as flowers (once) and cassette tapes of her piano playing, refusing to take seriously Aurelia's statements that she didn't have time or energy or eyesight enough to correspond. Montgomery visited twice, once bringing a priest friend, once sick with a cold or flu that Aurelia caught.

 

Plath superfan Mary Ann Montgomery, Ph.D. (1931-2022) in the 1990s distinguished herself as a university teacher and donated her letters collection and more to the Lilly Library at Indiana University. Viewing her archive there moved me to write the poem "Claim to Fame," which takes poetic license, but the boxes of collages are real.

"Loyalty"

Young Aurelia Schober was Winthrop High School Class of 1924's salutatorian and at graduation had to give a speech. She chose the topic "loyalty" and her speech was what anyone there would have expected, in no way radical. Although "obedience" and "virtue" and "Woodrow Wilson" today would seem strange coming from an 18-year-old, the text is so boilerplate classic I got AI to write me a 21st-century graduation speech about loyalty for comparison.

"Loyalty," by Aurelia F. Schober, salutatorian, Class of 1924, printed in The Winthrop High School Echo 1924, pp. 30-31.

 

Loyalty

 

Aurelia: Loyalty is that quality which makes a man a friend and a worthy citizen, for loyalty is fidelity to our superiors, to duty, and to love. No man can be of any true value in this world unless he is loyal to God, to his fellow men, and to his own highest ideals. It is the one requisite demanded of every human being that he be loyal to the one great Master who made him. No real friendship can exist without loyalty on both sides. It is the duty of everyone to guard his friend’s interests as though they were his own. How far should this loyalty go? We all remember the answer of Christ when asked, “How often should I forgive my brother? Seven times?” Christ’s answer, “Until seventy times seven,” means, as we all know, that there should be no limit to one’s forgiveness.

 

AI: Today, as we stand on the threshold of a new chapter in our lives, I want to take a moment to reflect on a value that has been pivotal in shaping our journey together: loyalty. In a world that often prioritizes speed, convenience, and individual achievement, loyalty remains a steadfast anchor, reminding us of what is truly important. Loyalty is not merely a word; it is a commitment to those we care about, to our values, and to the principles that guide us. As we celebrate our accomplishments today, let us consider how loyalty has woven itself into the fabric of our experiences here.

 

Aurelia: In the same way there should be no limit to our loyalty to our friends. If we are loyal to the good and  noble characteristics of friendship, loyalty should be bounded only by our friend’s need and our power. As we demand that our friends “ring true” we should first be sure that we are giving them the one great gift of friendship—loyalty.

 

AI: To our families, thank you for your unwavering support and guidance. You have stood by us through our triumphs and challenges, reminding us that loyalty is not just about being present during good times, but also about being there when the road gets tough. Your belief in us has inspired us to push through adversity, to strive for excellence, and to remain steadfast in our goals. Today, we celebrate not only our achievements but also the unwavering loyalty you have shown us.

 

Aurelia: Conflicting loyalties in friendship often occur. Should we forsake our own sense of honor in order to be loyal to our friends? Lovelace expresses this thought in the oft-quoted couplet:

 

“I could not love thee, dear, so much

Loved I not honor more.”

 

AI: To our teachers, your dedication to our education has been a testament to the loyalty you hold for your profession and for your students. You have invested your time, energy, and passion into shaping our minds, nurturing our talents, and cultivating our character. Your loyalty to our growth has ignited a flame of curiosity within us, encouraging us to explore, to question, and to learn. As we leave this institution, we carry with us the lessons you have imparted, and we are grateful for the loyalty you have demonstrated to our futures.

 

Aurelia: In friendship we give our loyalty to those we love, but there is a loyalty that is demanded of us—loyalty to our superiors. This means we must obey those to whom obedience is due. If this were not an unbreakable rule, no army could endure for a day. The quicker and better we obey orders the more quickly and certainly shall we show ourselves fitted to give them when the time comes. The man or woman who cannot obey can never govern.

AI: As we navigate the complexities of adulthood, we will inevitably face choices that test our loyalty. In a rapidly changing world, it is essential to stay true to our commitments—to our loved ones, our friends, and our values. Loyalty requires courage; it requires us to stand by our principles even when the winds of change threaten to sway us. It asks us to remain faithful, not only to others but also to ourselves.

 

Aurelia: Loyalty means obeying orders in the spirit as well as in the letter. To be successful in life one must be loyal to one’s self. This loyalty is usually termed “self-respect.” Unless we have self-respect, we cannot hope to win the respect of others. Above all, we must be true to ourselves. 

 

AI: Let us remember that loyalty is a two-way street. It thrives on mutual respect, trust, and understanding. When we are loyal to others, we inspire loyalty in return. We foster relationships built on a foundation of integrity, and we create environments where collaboration and support flourish. In our personal lives and professional pursuits, let us always strive to be individuals who honor our commitments and uplift those around us.

 

Aurelia: There is not a better place to begin this loyalty than in school. There we meet the temptation, probably for the first time, to do a thing in a way that is easier although not quite so “square” as the right way. By overcoming those sometimes termed “insignificant” temptations, we become loyal to the unwritten law of “fair play” and it is the surest display of proper school spirit. Every temptation overcome strengthens the character and helps us to be victorious over even greater battles. Well has Shakespeare said, “To thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day, thou cans’t not then be false to any man.”

 

AI: As we embark on this new journey, I urge each of you to carry the spirit of loyalty with you. In a world that often feels fragmented, let us be the glue that binds. Let us cultivate loyalty in our friendships, our families, and our workplaces. Be the person who shows up, who listens, and who stands by others, for it is in these moments that we forge lasting connections that enrich our lives.

 

Aurelia: Loyalty when practiced in everyday life helps us to answer the call of a great cause during a great crisis—the call of loyalty to our country in time of war. Here is where small practiced loyalties in school and business help us to obey greater and more difficult orders. The habit of loyalty and obedience, when once fixed, may save thousands of lives or turn a defeat into a victory.

 

AI: Together, let us embrace the future with loyalty in our hearts and determination in our souls.

 

Aurelia: One of our greatest helps in learning to face duty rightly and to prevent conflicting loyalties is to review the lives of those who lived in the past, and thereby profit by their example. This is the value of true hero worship. Abraham Lincoln was true to God, true to his fellowmen, and true to himself. Loyalty was the secret of his success. Honesty and his name have become proverbs. Woodrow Wilson was loyal to his highest ideals, and, while he did not live to accomplish his end, he died working for his ideal. Surely the world must be getting better when future generations have such noble influences as may be gained by loyalty to the heroes of the past. A great man [Daniel Webster] has said, “If we work upon gold, it will perish; if upon brass, time will efface it; if we raise temples, they will crumble into dust. But if we work upon immortal minds—if we imbue them with high principles, with the just fear of God, with manhood and womanhood and the respect of it—we engrave on those tablets something which no time can efface, but which will grow brighter through all eternity.”

 

Aurelia: If loyalty has played and yet plays such an important part in all lives, may not loyalty be called the “summum bonum” or greatest thing in the world? Unswerving loyalty means courage; and courage is an essential of a high character. If you wish to be successful, you must be loyal. The upright man, the loyal man, fears not to meet and cope with whatever difficulties are in store for him.

 

AI: Together, let us embrace the future with loyalty in our hearts and determination in our souls.

 

Aurelia: Phillips Brooks [Boston-based Episcopal clergyman, 1835-1893, famous preacher] expressed this sentiment when he said, “Do not pray for easy lives! Pray to be stronger men! Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers; pray for powers equal to your tasks! Then the doing of your work shall be no miracle but you shall be a miracle. Every day you shall wonder at yourself, at the richness of life which has come in you by the grace of God.”

 

AI: In conclusion, as we celebrate our graduation today, let us not only commemorate our accomplishments but also the lessons learned along the way. Loyalty will be our guide as we navigate this uncharted territory. May we always remain loyal to our dreams, our communities, and to each other. Thank you.

 

[Aurelia's speech was followed by a speech on “The importance of athletics.”]

Your Genius I.Q.

A modern IQ puzzle designed for non-English speaking children, ages 7-8.

 

 

Stanford-Binet intelligence testing kit, 1937-60, like the one used on Sylvia and Warren Plath; Science Museum Group Collection,
© The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum

Most of us believe that an IQ of 130 or above means "genius," and although intelligence testing did away with that category in 1937, nearly a century ago, the word enchants us more than ever, especially if our own score is in that neighborhood. 

The Stanford-Binet IQ test, standardized in 1916, reduced human intelligence to numerals, stirring up the racists and nativists with its convenient two- or three-digit proofs that people of color and immigrants scored lower than whites, and those categorized as "feeble-minded" should be sterilized. Twenty years later, the test's second edition walked back the idea -- so seductive -- that a quotient from a sit-down test identifies "genius" (etym., "to beget"). They clarified that "IQ" measures cognitive ability or potential, and "genius" is an aptitude or gift that manifests if opportunity allows.

Sylvia Plath, age 12, took the Stanford-Binet intelligence test for children, second edition [pictured], in 1944 and scored "about 160." Today her IQ category is called "very gifted or highly advanced." Plath's IQ score first appeared in print in Sylvia Plath: Method and Madness (1976); the source was a student teacher who gave tests for practice. [1] Aurelia Plath told psychiatrist Ruth Beuscher Warren Plath's IQ was 185. [2] She didn't mention Sylvia's. However, Warren was two and a half years younger than Sylvia, and test scores were relative to the ages of the test-takers, so the siblings' IQs can't be rightly compared. The third edition (1960) resolved that problem but then faced accusations of cultural bias. Same with its rival test, "the Wechsler," for children and adults.

A whole bunch of people now call intelligence testing pseudoscience or a measure of how well one takes tests.

Aurelia Plath gave IQ tests, but not to her children. Concerned that Boston University, her employer, might ax its Secretarial major and her job, in 1959 she enrolled in evening courses seeking another subject she might teach. Aurelia struggled in a German refresher course. Then, at friend Miriam Baggett's suggestion, Aurelia switched to studying how to teach remedial reading. To identify students in need of remedial guidance, Aurelia had to practice giving IQ tests. By then IQ tests for children and adults had become a craze and big business as the U.S. competed with Russia in the Space Race.

 

Aurelia wrote Baggett on 15 December 1961:

How often I have thought of you while giving these Binet and Wechsler tests! I find this work fascinating. My whole neighborhood is co-operating with me and nearly as excited as I am. I had a fine letter from Dr. Cole this fall, wherein he said that he would be glad to have me work with them in the department when I was ready. I hope my program will be such that I can give some time there in the fall of 1962.

All along, Sylvia Plath, from her home in England, cautioned her mother not to "lash'' herself through night courses and unpaid practice-teaching while working full-time. Fall 1962 brought such awful crises to mother and daughter that Aurelia never started a remedial guidance career.

[1]  Edward Butscher, author of Sylvia Plath: Method and Madness (1976), p. 27, interviewed Dorothy H. Humphrey, in 1944 "a senior in Boston University's School of Education, taking a course on 'ability testing' during the 1943-44 school year" who chose to practice-test students at Perrin School, where Sylvia was a sixth-grader. Humphrey said she could not recall the exact score but it was around 160.

[2] When giving Dr. Ruth Beuscher Sylvia's history in 1953, Aurelia Plath said that Warren's IQ was 185. When or where he was tested is not known. Typed transcription by Harriet Rosenstein of "McLean Hospital Record #17878, Sylvia Plath," Collection 1489, Box 3, Folder 10, Stuart Rose Library, Emory.