Sylvia Plath's Astrology

Pleased that the U.K.'s Urania Trust asked permission to reprint my article "Sylvia Plath's Fixed Stars" from Plath Profiles, and you can read it on their webpage here. But at holiday time let's talk generally about Sylvia Plath's birth horoscope. Birth horoscopes, basic to astrology, are literal sky maps unique to each person and through symbolism show talents and tendencies.

• Sylvia Plath, like most Americans of her time, knew her Sun sign, Scorpio, but astrology was not pop-culture until around 1970, and it's the 1990s before the mainstream knows their Moon sign, and we can thank Internet astrology sites for that.
  
• Astrologers say a person's Sun sign reveals what they want, the Moon sign what they need, and the "rising sign" (a.k.a. "ascendant") how they go about getting it. Sylvia took pride in her Sun sign, Scorpio: intense, including a Scorpio's always Tragic Backstory.™
• Sylvia's Libra Moon made her artistic, dextrous, and judgy. Her rising sign was Aquarius, so her modi operandi were to be brilliant and eager for acclaim, and try to hide that she was socially and emotionally fragile as a teacup.
  
• Re "Venus in the Seventh": Sylvia abandoned her first novel, and all that's left of it is one chapter titled "Venus in the Seventh." Sylvia's horoscope indeed had the planet Venus in the astrological seventh house (or sector), which represents marriage and partnership, so she wanted and loved the security and intimacy of marriage. Neptune also in the seventh house inflated her expectations. Ted Hughes, her house astrologer, told Sylvia this and also told his sister, who used this info against her.
  
• Sylvia and her mother Aurelia, a Taurus, were exact astrological opposites, and astrology says astrological opposites have a bond whether they like it or not.
  
• Assia Wevill was a Taurus. 
• Otto Plath was a Mason, but Masons are not astrologers and never were.
• Otto's and Aurelia's wedding horoscope (4 January 1932, Carson City, Nevada, 1:30 p.m.) is the most threatening wedding horoscope I have ever seen.
• Astrologically, Plath's Hollywood counterpart is not Marilyn Monroe but Audrey Hepburn. They share the fixed star Regulus, the "royal star," on their charts' western horizon, so they have some interesting biographical parallels.
• There's a crater on the planet Mercury named "Plath."
• Shura Wevill's birth horoscope is the most angular I have ever seen.
  
• Astrology is metaphor. It has no scientific basis, yet is said to augur the future. Freudianism is metaphor. It has no scientific basis. Yet it's said to augur the future.
  
• Sylvia's heliacal fixed star is Spica, astrological granter of glittering talent, often world-class.

Do "fixed stars govern a life"? Not really. Stars are only one factor in astrology, and humans govern our own lives according to our lights. Does Sylvia's chart say she'll die early? No. Birth horoscopes are about life and character. They do not foretell death.

• 

  Sylvia Plath's birth horoscope chart [above], like her life, is a popular case study. If the chart looks technical, that's because all horoscopes are. Learning to interpret horoscope charts takes years, but it's fun, and there's always more to learn.
  

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.

Book Review: Loving Sylvia Plath by Emily Van Duyne

I could treat you to the notes I took as I read and re-read Loving Sylvia Plath: A Reclamation, by Emily Van Duyne.

Or I could tell you my opinion, but it'd be only one of many.

Then I wondered, what is the purpose of a book review? I learned early on that reviews exist so readers can pretend to have read recent books, preparing themselves for cocktail conversations or the MLA.

What value does criticism have after a book is published? It's as Gertrude Stein said, "Criticism always comes too late."

I could link you to an article I wish I had written, about the trend toward literary "auto-criticism" that does not pretend to objectivity but loves its subject. We know that "emotionless" "objectivity" always granted the reviewer liberty to savage the book or damn with faint praise or embed little digs at the book or its author, or complain (as I wished to) that the book took insufficient notice of my point of view. Some reviews are weapons against a certain school of thinking, or showcase how erudite or in the Zeitgeist the reviewer is.

To review a Plath book is also a chance to "whatabout" my pet concerns such as Sylvia Plath's privilege and amorality and Ted Hughes's blaming the solar system for the couple's fate. Or I could harp on critics' suspension of judgement or squelching of inquiry because Plath is too special, holy, smart, for mortals to judge or edit, gung-ho to publish every word she wrote, much of it like Elvis's Greatest Shit, an LP compiling the King's most ludicrous recordings such as "Do the Clam" (from Girl Happy) and studio outtakes. 

Critical "objectivity" has guessed Plath killed herself having all sorts of diseased or existential motives. An early one, taken seriously by Al Alvarez and others, was "Her poetry killed her," a statement so absurd I wonder why no one jeered -- while proscribing inquiries such as: Why does Loving Sylvia Plath, so eloquent and persuasive about Plath's experience of domestic abuse and the silencing of abused women in general -- erase Sylvia's mother? Aurelia Plath was a woman too, in an abusive marriage. That's not my opinion or new discovery. Aurelia -- she who wrung her hands about what the neighbors thought -- described her abusive marriage at length in Letters Home, published fifty years ago. Critics labeled her a "martyr," the bad kind.

There is evidence that Plath's domestic abuse is part of a family pattern: quick, defiant weddings followed by brutalization, traceable through five generations of Greenwoods and Plaths. Domestic violence is Plath's heritage and remains a family concern. A poem by her daughter Frieda Hughes, who like Plath uses poetry as expose and retribution, describes being "livid" with bruises and seeking shelter with her stepmother, who won't take her in. [1] Frieda's cousin Susan Plath Winston, who is Warren's daughter, is a lawyer representing victims of domestic violence. [2]

Loving Sylvia Plath focuses on Plath and Assia Wevill as victims of Ted Hughes, whose own mental warp required vows of silence from everyone he knew and, in partnership with sister Olwyn, hiding or destroying evidence of intimate partner violence or his portion of responsibility for intimate partners' suicidal despair. As far as I know, critics have not explored the likelihood that Hughes came from a violent family, information about his father, William, being exceptionally scarce. (Maybe more will come to light when Hughes-worshipping gets old.) Loving Sylvia Plath does say Olwyn, tireless tormentor and manipulator of lots of people, had an abusive alcoholic boyfriend and married him. [p. 185]

And a small example of inexplicable Aurelia erasure:

Van Duyne writes [p. 114] that the church sexton witnessed the wedding of Plath and Hughes. Aurelia Plath was a witness too. That's fact. Go look at the photograph of the registry (courtesy of scholars Di Beddow and Ann Skea). Why is the sexton credited as a witness but Aurelia not?

There are more such erasures, but I want to avoid nits and off-topic arguments such as, "Whoa, there; Plath's achievement is not equivalent to Virginia Woolf's." [p. 21] Better, "If Van Duyne read Harriet Rosenstein's acidic notes about her interview with Aurelia Plath, notes archived at Emory, Van Duyne surely read in that same document Rosenstein's notes about Sylvia's maternal great-grandmother":

“Miss Meyer (Beyer? What was her first name, Esther?) was married by grandfather, Greenwood, who felt that he’d stooped.” . . . “ONE OF THE FEW TIMES SHE [Aurelia] SHOWED STRONG EMOTION. BRUTALITY OF GREENWOOD. Treated Grandmother wretchedly. She bore nine children, raised seven of them, ran the store in Vienna. He did nothing but be charming and feel destroyed by improvident marriage. BRUTAL, IRRESPONSIBLE, CHARMING MEN" [3]

Possibly the editors suggested Van Duyne cut out Aurelia or family stuff. So domestic abuse looks as if it hit Sylvia from out of the blue.

I changed my approach to: "What can I offer that might build on this book's many merits, such as good scholarship, an unusual approach, and bold argumentation?"

I'll link you to that thoughtful article about the trend toward book-length "auto-criticism," which discusses Van Duyne's open affinity with Sylvia Plath, and addresses the problems of the auto-critical approach. (Every approach has problems.) [4]

I am not persuaded Sylvia's "violent marriage" was always violent and that in life she was only a victim. She married Ted Hughes knowing he "bashed people around," admired "such violence, and I can see why women lie down for artists." Plath knew she fused Hughes's personal presence and power with what she recalled of her father. So her family had a role in her choice of mate and marriage dynamics, and it's worth looking into.

Her family's gift to her, as far as we can prove, because physical abuse at home was not then a crime -- was verbal abuse. Sylvia Plath raised verbal abuse to a fine-art form. That's why we love the Ariel poems and The Bell Jar and Journals. That's why we get our dopamine ya-yas no matter how many times we read her.

Those who in life loved Sylvia Plath got burnt really badly.

[1] "Twenty-Third Year, 1982," pp. 45-46 in 45: Poems (Harper Collins, 2006).

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-plath-winston-899896206;  https://www.wral.com/story/sylvia-plath-a-postwar-poet-unafraid-to-confront-her-own-despair/17403369/

[3] Harriet Rosenstein's notes on her interview with Aurelia Plath (1970), p. 2, Manuscript Collection 1489, Stuart Rose Library, Emory.

[4] Lindemann, Frances. "Reading Oneself: Auto-Critics and the Sylvia Plath Problem," The Drift, issue #13, 19 July 2024.

Scary Prussian Art

Plath family heirloom c. 1881, 24" wide. Click to enlarge.

Otto Plath left Prussia before he was old enough to serve in the Imperial German army, but his uncle Emil Adolph Plath (b. 1859) had served, and as a parting gift the army gave Emil this personalized lithograph with three uniformed Emils posed in three phases of his service. 

Each pose has an identical face, cut from duplicate photographs of Emil, and pasted where his face ought to be. Headgear was hand-painted on. The leftmost figure's original face peeled or tore away and was restored but without headgear.

Cross the popular American prints by Currier & Ives with the typically heroic paintings of Prussian battle scenes and you get this official military lithograph, c.1881, a fantasia abristle with weapons and heraldry. [1] Crown Prince Frederick, Emperor Wilhelm I, and another noble occupy the lunettes. The white ribbon at bottom center says, "A reminder [memento] of my service." At the very bottom, barely visible in this photo, is the name Emil Plath. Descendant Rod Pope told me Great-Grandfather Emil had served with the palace guards and the background aligns with that.

In 1885 Emil Plath, honorably discharged, with his parents and sister Maria left an increasingly militant Imperial Germany for the U.S. [2] Emil married Martha Ebert in 1889 and they were the first whites to settle in Maza, North Dakota, where much of the Plath family story unfolded. Otto's mother Ernestine and his five siblings traveled from Prussia to Maza in 1901. [3] Otto's father Theodor, already in the States and traveling for work, had told Ernestine to lie to immigration officials that Emil was her husband. She did. [4]

A blacksmith, the family profession, Emil died in in 1922, leaving his customized work of art to his descendants who hid it during World War II. It was rescued from a closet where it spent the past quarter-century.

This family photo of Emil Plath in Maza, at right, was probably taken around 1920 when he sold his smithy and moved to Oregon. Old newspapers say his business had survived a tornado, blizzards, and the drought years that plagued Maza's short life as a North Dakota boomtown. Joyriders also stole Emil's car and drove it to Minnesota. He got it back.

There's a lifetime of hard work in Emil's face. Does he look at all like his nephew Otto Plath?

[1] The only similar German military portrait lithograph I found appears on eBay and is precisely dated "1881."

[2] Ship's manifest, heritage.statueofliberty.org, 1885, ship: Belquenland; passengers John Plath, 60, Carolina Plath, 60, Emil, 25, Maria, 17; all from Budsin; destination Chicago.

[3] Hadler, Mabel Lyles Jacques, North Dakota: Towner [County] Genealogies, 1700-1900, Image 711, calls Emil Plath "first resident of Maza." "Maza" is a Lakota word meaning "metal" or "iron." A Lakota named Chante Maza ("iron heart") operated a general store near the site of Maza, ND.

[4] Ship's manifest at right, 1901.

Thanks to Rod Pope for sharing the family photos and history.