Towards a poetics of self -representation: Anne Bradstreet, Emily Dickinson and Sylvia Plath

Re1úta de Estudios Norrea111erica11os.11 ." 5 ( 1997 ),pp. 113 -99 TOWARDS A POETICS OF SELFREPRESENTATION : ANNE BRADSTREET, EMILY DICKINSON AND SYLVIA PLATH M AR ÍA A NTONIA ÜLJ VER AND MTREIA Th ENCHS Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona The qucstion whether women are and have been able to express their ow n subjectivity through la n guage has been the cause of much debate amongst feminist critics. Th ey ha ve undermined the notion that women 's nature is to account for women 's social and literary co nstraints and have described the cultural forces that account for women 's linguistic oppression and exp r ess ion. As members of a culture, women make u se of th e sa me linguistic resources as men. However, suc h use may be different when th ey fe el or consciously realize tha t the existing dominan! uses of such resources fail to express their subjectivity. C hr is W ee don, Julia Kristeva and Iris Zavala, amongst many others, hav e appropriated the post-structuralist notion that meaning, though unfixed, is always cu lturally constructed. They have thus challenged the lin guistic determinism of previous critics and in t um produced nonessentia li st theories of subjectivity and sex.uality. According to th eir new mode of cr iticism, «feminine difference» in language involves any kind of r es is tancethrough amb iguit y, contradiction or transgr es sion-to the gen eral co nsensual me anin gs that pr event the ex.p ression of a given female consciousness. Such consideration has its philosophical origin in the co n cept of language as discourse as pr oposed by Bakhtin (Bakhtin; Voloshinov), othcr li terary theo ri sts (Fowler; Kr ess and Hodge; Pecheux), lan guage philosophers (Austin; Sea rl e) and linguists and sociolinguists (Halliday; Gumperz and Hymes ). By di sco urse th ey understand a se t of individual utterances whose meaning is shaped by the specific social and cultural conditions of the speaking or writing subj ec t. Words are therefore not rnonolithic meaning cntities, but units that, because constantly exchanged betw een particular human subjec ts , acquire different rneanings and perfonnative effects. 84 María A111011 ia Olfrer and Mireia Trenchs Taking as our departing point the notion that language is not to be disassocia ted from the ideological and communicativc context in which it is produced, we cannot s ce thc stylistic analysis of litcrary texts as an aim in itself. Wc rather view itas a way to idc nti fy the ways in which language alters or maintains thc idco logi ca l pa r am eters of a given historical moment. Thus, the co mmon New England tradicional Puritan backgrou nd of the three American female poets that con cem us-Anne Bradstreet (161272), Emily D ic kinson (1830-86) a nd Sylvia Plath ( 193263)- should come through with the analysis of their respective poems: «For De li vcran ce from a Fever ,» «I Meas u re Every Grief/ I Meet ,» and «Fever 103~ » (See Appendixes A, B and C). They al! describe thc extreme physical or psychical suffcring of a female speaker as a result of the tension betwcen the elements of a binary opposition: the flesh and the spirit, or the earth ly and the divine, in Bradstreet 's; «the Lo ve » and the pain in Dickinson 's, and paradisc and he ll in Plath 's. Thc way the tension between th ese elements is resolved generates a language sorne ofwho se semantic, syntactic. rh etorical and fi gurative features spring out of the speakers' concept of themselves in rc lati on to an oppressive painful situation. Being the speaker's r cl ation to pain the thema ti c focus of our analysis, we do not claim to say cveryth in g about these texts: we will rather con ce ntrate on th ose linguistic features that point at our central concern. First of al!, a clo se look at the common linguistic character is ti cs , if any, in the prcsentation of thc thr ce fcmale poetic personas should allow us to talk ab out a «difference» in language. Our use of the term «difference» does not assume th e exist ence of an «écriture femi ni ne» or a biologically-based female culture essentially different from th e general cultW'e. It rcfcrs to these writ ers' discursive rclationship to the domina nt ideology, their «powcrs of protest and change» (Yaeger 18). Our objec ti ve is to look at th e possible individual strategies ofprot est a nd dissention in these texts unveiling «the systcm of differcnccs and the repressive powcrs, as we ll as the t ec hnologies of exclusion» (Zavala 220) (our translation), as well as to establish a dialogue between the texts by exploring how they differ from and resemble each other in such unveiling. In thc first four lines of « For Dcliverance from a Fever,» the speaker briefly recapitulates a previous painful plight from which Go d relcased her. Alr ea dy in th e first stanza of the poem she prese nt s he rself as an object through the reiterative use of the object pronoun 'me': «When sorrows had begirt me round» (! ), « Th en didst Thou rid me out» (4) (our italics). Such prescntation is reinforced through the personification of «S orrows» and «pains» in the same stanza. The use of the passive voice («no pan was found» [ 3)) together with the re fe rence to h er body parts as personified indepcndent entities («My burning ílesh in swcat did boil» [50), «My aching head did br eak» [6]) demonstrate a deliberatc avoidance of the su bj ect pronoun a nd highl ig ht the inaction and objectification of the speake r. H er agony and powerlessness is conveyed through bo th the intcnsification of the verbs denoting ph ys ical suffering (h oil and hreak) by means of the preceeding auxiliary «did ,» and through th e textual weakness of the «l.» Whenever the first person subject pronoun is used, it is befare verbs of struggle ( «I Tmrnrds a Poetics of Selj -represemation 85 toil») or verbal phrases indi ca ting oppression («So fa i nt I could not speak»[8J, «Nor cou ld I rcad my cvidenee» [ 11 ]). Further weakcni ng the personal pronoun are the syntaetic constructions of sorne lines, whcrc it us ua lly ap pears embedded af ter an hyperbaton or an adjective: «Fro rn side to side fo r case J toil/ So faint I could not speak» (7-8). In the third stanza (9-12) the speaker i nt roduces th e soul, the second element of the dichotorny around which the poem evo\ves. The first and only enjambment of the pocm (« Bccloudcd was my soul with fear/ ofThy displeasure sore» [9-WI), serves to emp hasize the object of her soul's fcar and to indicatc a mornent of crisis. «My soul» can be rcad as a metonymy for thc speaker's «l,» her self, but since it is mentioned right af t er «My burning flesh» and «My aching head» for co ntrast, it also acquires certain autonomy. The fragmen ta tion of the sp eaker into differcnt parts. h er inner con!lict be tween th e physical and thc spiritual. the human and thc divine, is reproduced in the structurc of the stanza: thc poetic persona experien ces fear as a consequence of the physical pain an angry God pu1s her through, while she also questions thc existence of the divinity: «Nor could I read rny evidence/ Which oft I read befare» (11-12). In thc context of Puritanism the «evidence» can be interprcted as the «visible proof of the existcnce of God» through creation (S tanford 50). The speake r looses faith rn o rn entarily and therefore questions the prevailing Calvinist dogmas. In the fourth stanza of the poem (l ines 13 -1 6) th e mood changes fro rn selfdeprecation to irnprecation. So far thc speaker has becn ad dressing God as « Tho u,» a pronoun commonly used for intirnacy with God in the six tcenth and ea rly seventeenth ccnturies (Ronberg 76). but the use of imperatives ( « Hide not,» «From burnings keep rny soul») makc h er address more outspoken, anc i her dcsperation more acule. In spite of the intensity of her physical sufferi ng , she fin ali y tries to depersonalize it: she ceascs to refer to h er own body and us es the general «flesh» ( 18). In objectifying «ílcsh» shc retums to the Puritan imerpretation that suffering is God 's tria! of her spiritual cndurance. Jn the last lin cs of the stanza shc rcasserts her faith with an acknowlcdgment of her absolutc dependance on 1he de it y: «I on Thy rnercies roll» (16) The process of bringing herself back to God continu es with thc spcaker's recognition of the insignificance of her body and of thc infinitely superior worth of her soul ( «What though in dust it shall be la id/ To glory t'sha ll be brought» [ 19-20)). Such recogni ti on is concomitant to her release from pain by God. In the last stanza of the poem the speaker goes b ac k to th e institutiona li zed, mor e unpersona li zed rhetoric of Puritan hymns. The apostrophc or invocation befare li turgical phrases (<<O, p ra ises to my migh ty God » (25)) and the use of the third person to refer to God signa! a more indirect com munication style with the deity, as we ll as the poctic persona 's return to a religious cornrnunity frorn which she had been temporarily detached. Bradstreet does not believc herself to be in possession of free will, and therefore sees God as the ultimate ca use of both her suffering and her spiritual redernption. In contrast, in «I measure ever y Grief/ I rneet» Emily Dickinson does not scek Godas her 86 María A11111nia O/iver and Mireia fre11chs so urce of con so la tion. While Bradstreet begins h er pocm asan address to God, Dick in so n does so with the «I» so often eluded or weakened in Bradstreet. The poetic persona is active, curious and eager to probe into the nature of suffering by looking closely at it. Shc notes, mcasures and wonders. As thc abounding lexicon rcl atc d to knowledge and perception indicates, her scientific mcthod is inductive: she hopes to reach sorne con clusion out ofthe empiri ca l observation of facts. Her analysis is qualitative. as shown in the first two stanzas, in which she wonc.lers about the weight. size and duration of the grief she observes in olhcrs in orc.ler to be able to compare them to her own: I wonder if It weighs like MineOr has an Easicr size. 1 wonder if They bore it longOr did it jusl b egin- (4-8) Like Bradstreet"s sp ea ker, she is an ob server of the natural world. While Bradstreet's persona presents a single mo ment of doubt wh en she cannot read «the cvidencc» oftcn rcad before and then brings hcrsclf home to God , Dickinson 's curiosity seerns to ha ve no boundaries: the recurren! use of t he verb « wonder » and of the hist orie present indicates that her mood is permanently interrogating. Tn the third st an za her inquisitivencss ccnters around how ot hers cxpcricnce life: I wonder if it hurts to liveAnc.l if they have to tryAnd whcther -could Theychoose betweenTt would not be-Lo c.lie -(12-16) By means of her self-interrogation about other pcople ·s experiences the speaker dwells on threc characteristics of life according to the Calvinisl dogma: life as pain ( 12), rcsignation ( 13), and inevitable human fatc (14l 6). Thc use of the conditional («could they» 1141) ind ic a te s the impossibi liLy to changc things, but it also implies a wish to do so. Through her em pathic curiosity about whether others find it hard to acce pt life as it is, the sp eaker indircctly presents her ow n existential prec.licamcnt. Such an attitude is co nt rary to the Calvinist faithful's exclusively individual dealings with God. Also antagonistic with regard to Calvinism is her occasionally unconvcntional use of Bíblica! references. In the fourth stan za of lhe poem the speaker uses a mixed metaphor to refer to the restoration of faith: a renew ed smilc ( 19), characterized as light with the Biblical image of the lamp-light. The lraditional image of the lamp full of oil fo1rnrds a P orties of Self-represellfati011 87 symbolizi ng the blazing light of Christian faith (Matt. 5, 14-16; Mali. 25, 113) is slightly transfmmed through modificrs («Al! imitatio11 11{ a ligh t/ That ha s so little oil» [20-21] [our italics)) that diminish its cffect and draw attcntion to th e temporariness of «the smilc» symholizing joy, faith and ho pe. One of Dickinson 's life-long efforts was to express her indignation ata God that gave human heings a life of constan! deprivation and pain. Beeause Diekinson never saw God's mer ey on earth. shc rcfused to helieve in thc pleasures of an after-life. «Unlike her se ntimental poetess-peers she could not erase this pain in gratitude for lifecver lasting-nor. likc thc Puritans, could shc accept it as dcserved punishment for sin» (Bcnnet 71 ). The only words in the text that could be associated lo God 's benign power («Light,» «Enlightened» and «Lovc») are used ambiguously despite their clear Bíblica! implications. The rcadcr is faced with thc gap bet ween the positive Bib li cal connotations of the word « Enlig ht encd >H:< mventionally refe JTi ng to the expe ri enee of divine spiritual ins ightand rhe negative connotalions of its objcct, «a larger Pain.» Dickinson clarifies the origin of su ch increase in pain by merely sayi ng th at it emerges out of the «Con tra st with the Lovc» (32). Howevcr. the nature of such !ove remains unspeeified and open for intcrpretation. The definite article would indicate that «the Love» is eommon knowlcdge for both the speaker and thc reader, but thc reader still does not know whether it is earthly or divine. Be it one or the other, «Love» is nota «Balm»; it intensifies pain. Thc speaker is cithcr demythifying divine love by diminishing its power to relieve her pain. or pointing at the uselessness and insignificancc of an eart hl y !ove when in pain. Charles R. Anderson intcrprets the dual meaning of Dickinson 's wo rds as the result of the tcnsion of two powerful oppositcs («!ove and death, ecstasy and despair») and sheds sorne light 011 the particular value of !ove and pain in <d Measurc Every Grief l Meet»: « ... in place of the Puritan vicw that eai1hly suffering is t he ordained path to a heavenly reward of bliss. she makes the momentary glimpse of ecstasy both measure and cause ofthe despair that is th e essence ofthe human condition» (Anderson, «Despair» 33). The fre4uenr allusions to suffering in eontrast wi th the scarcity of those to pleasurc and relief certai nl y confi1ms the suprcmaey of despa ir ovcr ecstasy in the text and shows, as Andcrson has also noted. that thc correlation bctween ecstasy and despair is not exact. The precminence of death over !ove is also show n in the speaker 's grim view of death. Dcath. mentioned as one of th e causes of suffering (36), «is but one-And comes but once» (36-37). The speaker uses severa! resources to emp hasize the distinctiveness of Dcath: first. the choice of two similarsounding words whieh denote singularity ( «one» and «once»); seeo nd . their plaeement at th e end of the lines, which makes th em more prominent-the same effcct is achi eved in thc third sta nza with the is olation of the verb « to Die» placed between das he s ar the end of both a line and a stanz a-; and third, the repetition of thc adverb «but» before those two words. The cffcct of thesc poetic strategies is to present Death as a rolund event as well as to point at its finality: it «only nails thc Eyes» (38). Out of her wide catalog of refcrences lo pain drawn out of Biblical terminology. the speaker uses the nail, a Christian symbol of 88 Mw·ía Amonia Oliver and Mireia Trenc/rs sacrifice, to prcscnl a concept ofDeath which differs from the Christian one: death does not bring salvation but only paralysis and mutilation. With dcath the speaker wo uld lose the «analytic e yes» that enable h er Lo scrutini zc the mysteries of naturc, th at i s, her powcr to observe. Dcspair. a noth er cause of gricf, is also given an idiosyncratic meaning. Andcrson says that in Dickinson 's poetry dcspair may be understood, in the Christi an sense, as the «loss of hope in the merey of God.» or, in a more secular way, as «the extremes! fo rm of mortal suffering» (15). Through thc invcrted commas and the use of reported speech thc speaker creates a distancing effcct and, thcrefore. disclaims any familiarity with the feeling of «Despair» as others may define and pcrceivc it. In this case. Dickinson 's persona could be implying that she does not expcrience «Despair» in a Christian, but ra th cr in a secular scnsc. Although she dctachcs hersclf from the prevailing notion of despair. shc rcsorts to thc common Christian rcligious image of the Calvary to rcfer to li fe as suffering. Calvinists would find relief from their grief in God, but the speaker finds comfort in noting «the fashion s-of the/ Cross-/ And how they're mostly worn» (46-48). that is, in knowing t ha t others may be expericncing thc same Grier as hcrs. In thc last stan za of the poem the word «Cross,» isol ate d in linc 47 after an cnjambment, provides the vchiclc of a metaphor whose tenor is «gr ief.» Initiated in the first stanza (I wonder if lt weighsl like mine [our italicsl [45]), it is extend ed through thc seco nd (1 wo nd er if They hore it l ong [our ital i cs [ [71}, and finally specified in «fash ions-or thc Cross -a nd how thcy're mostly worn.» «Cross» is apparently used as a co nve ntiona l metaphor for pain and sacrifice previous to heavenly gl ory and rc demp tion. Yct. it is in open co nfl ict with t he afore -mcntion ed ambivalent use of religious r efe ren ces and wi th thc poctic persona's selfintcrrogation about the Ca lvinisl dogmas. The usual connotations of re li gious concepts inte rmingl e with the persona l mcanin gs shc wants Lo infuse thcm with, which alters their significance within the pr eva ilin g ideology thal produce d such terms: «instcad of sur f ace borrowings she plunder ed them outright, stealing the secrets by whi ch they gave li fc and power to words, but transvaluating them so as lo creatc an idiom of her own» (Anderson, «Words» 145). Sylvia Plath also attempts to cr eate an idiom of her own al the expense of a rcligious tradition. Yet her thematic focus is nol a general concept. but a particular experience. Dickinson's creative engine is the «Heavcnly Hurt» that the natural world brings upon her, the lack of hannony between inside and outside. The idea of deprivation in general wi th no partic ul ar attention to a given object or person is central to her poetry, whereas Plath \ is specific and personal. Dickinson 's mood rellects one of curiosity whi le Plath ·s one of agony. If Diekinson ·s persona interrogates herself but never questions things op enly, Plath 's begins «Fever 10 3<1» by <lirectly qucstioning thc existence of purity («Pu re'! What does it mean?»). The directness and simplici ty of these initial rhetorical questions draw the reader's attention to «pure» to which the poet proceeds to jux tapose contrasting, penetrating images. Towards a Poetics ofSelf-represemarion 89 Sickness, hcll, physical agg ression as well as psyc hological ago ny are a li set off against purity ( 1) and !ove ( 11 ). Plath uses the tech niq ue of metaphor by juxtaposition: shc places images drawn out o fmy t ho logy (Cerbcrus kceping Hades' gate) an dPuritanCalvinist imagery ( «h ell,» «thc ti n der crics»), bcsides images of modem Ji fe (lsad ora Duncan 's death. Hiroshima ash, radiation) a nd physica l sensations ( «indelible smell» ), lctti ng their co nnotations have their effect on the rcader. Ev il haunts the tormcnted consciousness of lhe de li rious speak er that crams togcthe r scauered i mp ressions and blen ds various sens itive per ce ptions ( «smell,» « snuffe d,» «licking,» «tongu e,» «wheeze» ). Thc conncction by visual analogy bc tween t he im ages drawn from different soun:es works to build a cohesive whole out of them all ( «Longue,» «tendon.» «ro li s» of «Smoke,» «scar f" » ). The scnse of agony is prolonged through thc cxtension of t he mct ap h oro fl sado ra 's scarf which chokcs «thc aged,» «thc meek,» «thc wcak hot housc baby» and «the ghastly orchid» whose weakness the speaker shares. Through a simultaneous metaphor and similc (25-27) she merges the idea of adultery and the horror of Hiroshima's atomic bomb while still ex lending thc image of he ll («radiation,» ki li , «ash» ). Thc associa ti on of images (Hiroshima/ adultery) culminat es in another refcrence to «The sin» (27), which charact er izes thern ali. The repetition of this n oun phrase signals a rnajor syntactic break and cataphorically refers to the s ou rces of her agony. The speakcr's troubled co n sc iou s ness has bccn revealed t hroug h vivid i mages. b ut the reasons for h er psychological agony are not yet definite. He l en McNei 1 argucs th at the function of thc subjcctive lyric voice of Plath 's later poems is «to mask the acts of a d ee p er sclf while sirnultaneously tracing thcir prescncc by an ot hcrwi se inexplicable vehcmcnce» (471 ). Si ncc the facts underlying the spcaker's cmotional outpourings are taken fo r granted, the intcraction or the connota ti ons of the multiple images has a pierci ng effect on thc rea der, bu t makes it still diffic ul t to guess what the p oem is exactly about. Like Dickinson, Plath conceals whatcv er it is tha t is hurting her, but her motives to do so are very differen t. Bennet argues that «providing a center (wheth er or not frorn h er own biograph y) should have rcstricted [Dickin son's] poem's meaning am i thus rcduced the range of ap plicability it could havc» ( 130). If Dickinson 's language is riddlelike, if t he rneani ng of «Cross» and «Love» is arnbivalent, it is because, as Axelrod says, she «explores the capaci ty of language to represen! and disguise the world.» In contrast, « Pla th exp lores its capacity to revea! and conceal a self» (Axelrod 144). A t onnented self lies behind the im per so nal rhetoric of emotion and the powerful irnages of the first part of the poem ( 1-33 ), but the speaker <loes not lay bare the reasons for her own privale agony u nt il t he last two stanzas of this first part (28-33), whcre she makes recurrent allusions to adultery. In spite of her addressing a «Lovc,» a « Da rling,» she never po ints di rec tl y at that person as the agent of such an offence. A generalizing plural ( «adulterers») and an indefinite article («a lech er's kiss») eviden ce h er reluctan ce to dir ect h er re proach to her loved one. Axelrod says that Plath saw herself and her hu sba nd Ted Hughes «as doubles in 90 María /\111011ia 0/frer ami Mireia Trenchs ordcr to crcate grounds for marriage and then in order to save their marriage (orto evade il)» ( 15). Sylvia 's my th of thc doublc vanish ed wh cn her marriage collapsed, but she continued to use it in h er literary productions in ordcr to illustrate her inner divisio ns through language ( 196-197). She was torn between the side of her that wanted to be thc pcrfect su bm issive wife and thc side that wanted to be free. In the first pa1t of the pocm the yellow smo k es rolli ng «From me li ke Jsadora 's scarves ... « ( 12) which will t hen « ... catch and anchor in thc whecl» ( 13) cvokc thc imagc of somebody who is being prevented from speaking. In the contex.t of Plath 's lifc. the pocm can be interprcted as her strugglc to cut the ties wi th her old choking domes ti c lifc, with her husband and with her silencc. Thc sccond parl of thc puem enacts thc crcation of a new self with a new language and could be said to correspond to what Axclrod sees as an altem pt to rcaffirm ami recreate herse lf through words aftcr her husb and 's dcsertion and thc humiliation it involved. In the las! scven stanzas of «Fcvcr 103º» (3454 ) the tone ce ases to be denunciatory or lamcnling and beeomes powerfully self-assertive. lf in the first lincs of the poem the speaker denies the existence of purity through ant ithetical, apocalyptic images. shc now finds a source of purity in herselL The new «l.» addrcssing an unknown «you.» is « LOO pu re for him or anyone» (25). She <loes not diminish the significance of her suffcri ng as Anne Bradstreet <loes befo re God . but ma gnifies it to th e point of co mparing her pain to divine suffcring: Your Body Hurts me as the world hurts Gocl ... (35-36) The new persona of the poem emerges out uf Plath 's pr ívate myths and images. Her metaphoric sel f-representation as permanent light. splen dor and heat, contrasting with prcvious imagcs ( «I ha ve been llickering off, on, o!T. on» [29]) signals her suddcn transformation into an increasingly powerful, valuable and bcautiful heing. The rciteration of present paniciples linked by polisyndeton (42) cm ph asizes the risi ng of h er encrgy. Thc rhctorical question, in fact an assertion, «Docs not my heat astound you. And my light» (40) is a proof of h er sclf-confidencc. reinforccd with the recurren! refcrences to the first per son ( «I am,» «my,» «myself» ). Concerning thc origin of Plath 's images, Susan Bassnct has said that she found inspiration far her languagc a nd h er art in the myths she appropriat ed and reereated to suil her personal vision (47). However . as Louis Simpson argues. Plath 's images are sur realist. «They make an im pression thal eannot be accounted for by Jooking to their sources of mythology or the li fe of lhe poet. The image is itself, a ncw thing» (126). This is ccrtainly tme of most of the images in this last section. drawn out of clifferent mythol og ical sourees and merged to produce innovative surprising effects. Ex.otic images li ke «A lantern» (36), "ª moon/ of Japanese paper» (37-38), «my gold beaten skin» (38), are in deep co ntras! with Christian referenccs: «Yirgin/ Attended by roses» (47- Towards a Poerics of Sclf-rcprcsematio11 91 48). Thc i co ns of different traditions coalescc and resu lt in the emergcnce of a personal mythology, in which personal idiosyncratic ass ociations also have a place: «acetylenc/ Virgin» (46-47). Thc rising momentum and ecstatic tone ofth c pocm («l think I am going u p-/ I thi nk I may rise» [ 43-44]), culminare in the asccnt of thc poetic persona, who draws on the image of thc Assumption of the Virgin Mary to illustrate her own spiritual grace. Dcpcnding on whet he r we consider Plath 's persona 's ascent an «Assumption» or an «Ascension» wc w ill see her as a more or lcss au t onomous being. Following thc tenets of Catholicism, thc fonner, applied to the Yirgin Mary, invo lv cs God's intervention, whereas the latter, applicd to Christ, in vol ves ascent by one 's own divine power. It is nev er explicitly stated that the speaker ri,es on her own, but s he emerges as powcrful and autonomous («A li by myself» 14 1 J) . Thc mythical figure of the V ir gin is uscd to cm phasize the purity of thc new self and to rc jc ct thc victimizcd, repulsive old sclf, her «old whore pctticoats» (53 ). The speaker reconstructs hcrself through t he image of th e rising Yirgin as purc and fragile, but also as a single entity, independent from the «you» and the «híms» (5 1-52). According to Judith Kroll, Graves's The White Goddess inspircd Plath in thc creation of h er poctic sel f: ... thc White Goddess, the source of a ll poc try and of ali life, the sublime use, stands in direct con trast to the male fatherly God of Christianity and rationalisrn. She is not co ns tant and fixed but fluid and in perpetua! movement, symbolized by the phascs of the moon. The moon goddess is, simultaneously, goddess of three stagcs of femalc existence-she is thc virgin huntress of the new moon, the pregnant mot her of the fu ll moon and the wild hag of the ncw moon (Bassnctt 48). The first two phases of the Whi te Goddess co rrcspond to thc two si des of Plath 's poetic persona in thc sccond part of the po em. She is bot h pure and delicate, but also strong enough to produce her own rebirth through her poetic language. She is therefore both poet ancl muse. Frazcr's The Golden Bough also helped Plath co nstitute her poetic philosoph y. The work famí li arized Plath with thc notion of the inward soul as understood by pre - industrialized communities, «'a bird ready to ta ke !lig ht' .» Fo r her it became h er own re al creative self whosc absence meant death, an inner self that was the double of her outcr self. Werc she to lose the capacity to look at lhe world from this double lense, which might havc happened right bcforc her suicide, shc would die (Axelrod 205). This interpretation of Plath 's old/new self as a «mo dem variant of Fr azer's God who annually died and rose again fr om the dead» (205), is in line with Judith Kroll's id ea that Plath «was always trying to 'transcend' the life she ac tu ally had» (Simpson 106), and with the final images of «Fever 103º .» Creative powcr, not conventional religious faith, 98 María Antonia O/i v er and Mireia Tr e nchs APPENDIXC 'Fever 103g', by Sylvia Plath Pure? What does it mean? 2 The tongues of hell 3 Are dull, dull as the triple 4 Tongues of dull, fat Cerberus 5 Who wheezes at the ga te. Incapable 6 Of licking clean 7 The aguey tendon, the sin, the sin. 8 The tinder críes. 9 The indelible smell 1 O Of a snuffed candle 11 Love, love, the low smokes rol! 12 From me like Isadora's scarves, I'm in a fright 13 One scarf wi ll catch and anch or in the wheel. 14 Such yellow sullen smokes 15 Make their own element. They will not rise, 16 But trundle round the globe 17 Choking the aged and the meek, 18 The weak 19 Hothouse baby in its crib, 20 The ghastly orchid 2 l Hanging its hanging garden in the air, 22 Devilish leopard 23 Radiation turned it white 24 A nd killed it in an hour. 25 Greasing the bodies of adulterers 26 Like Hiroshima ash and ea ting in . 27 The sin. The sin. Towards a Poetics of Self-representation 99 28 Darling, ali night 29 1 have been flickering, off, on, off, on . 30 The sheets grow heavy as a lecher's kiss. 31 Three days. Three nights. 32 Lemon water, chicken 33 Water, water make me retch. 34 I am too pure fo r you or anyone. 35 Yourbody 36 Hurts me as the world hurts God. I am a lantern37 My head a moon 38 Of Japanese paper, my go ld beaten skin 39 Infinitely de licate and infini lel y expensive. 40 Does not my heat astound you. And my light. 41 Ali by myself l am a huge camellia 42 Glowing and coming an d going, flush on flush. 43 I think 1 am going up, 44 1 think I may rise45 The beads of hot metal fly, and I, !ove, I 46 Ama pure acetylene 47 Virgin 48 Attended by roses, 49 By kisses, by cherubim, 50 By whatever these pink things mean. 51 Not you, nor him 52 Not him, nor him 53 (My selves dissolving, old whore petticoats)- 54 To Paradise.