It'sthe question, if this would have rescured him. The tb-immunisation is not 100 % effective and has got some risks - because of this in germany only old aged, pregnants and children get this vaccination, when they live in an area with tb-risks. But today the tb-infection isn't as dangerous, as in his time.
I wondered, if he could be rescured, when he had visit italy earlier.
I know a nurse, who is weak since her tb-infection, too. Tb is a disease which steals into the body - thats right and makes it more dangerouse than others. There are articles about Tutenchamun (I'm not quite sure, but I think he was it) with the tb-bacterias in his corps.
Mh - maybe the tubercle would be encysted, when he had left the cold and wet climate earlier and his body has got the chance to regain it's strength - thats it, what I think about. The Chance is small, but maybe this could have happened
All of this is so true, eating properly, medicating properly (as far as one could back then), but the whole starvation and blood-letting business is nothing short of torture.
When an individual coughs up blood, for gosh sakes, it's certainly not the stomach or the mind that's the problem. Keats's three (or more) doctors were doing the best they could, I suppose, considering the time (in history) and the knowledge they didn't have.
Ennis wrote:Keats wasn't a stupid man; he may have been medically trained, but he was raised in the country by his "granny-good." Surely, he knew of these herbal remedies (or comforts, I guess, depending . . . ). Why didn't he "help" himself (other than the "sneak" sips of laudanum - if that really a help. Eased the mind, I suppose, but that may be it). Maybe he wanted to die . . . ? Maybe it was ordained that he suffer . . .
I don't either, really. Just being melodramatic. I'm pretty sure he didn't want to die -- maybe near the end, he did.
The other comment: well, for me, it's just the easiest way for me to accept the tragedy of his dying (how prolonged and suffering it was) and his death. He was a gift to us, for all time, so why did he need to suffer the pain and the heartbreak?
I know in the "Vale of Soul-Making" letter to George he writes of how necessary a world of pain is to make a soul, how the heart must "feel and suffer in a thousand diverse ways." But I still find it very difficult at times to get my mind around it all.
I know it just IS, but sometimes, I want MORE, don't you? Is it ever just enough to accept that it just IS!?!
Keats means so much to me
the man, the letters, the poetry that I sometimes can't understand it all: the tragedy of his young life, the ill-fated love, the lack of success of his poetry (or so he thought), the almost-lonely death, the emotional despair he had to have felt in Rome - away from Fanny and his friends and his only family left. I need to understand sometimes (when i allow myself to dwell on this) WHY it happened? It can't be just because it IS or WAs!?!
Is that our way of coming to terms with the tragedy and the unbearable sadness of it all.
Hi everyone, I was so excited upon finding this forum that I had to sign up for an account right away! Soo I guess I should introduce myself. My name is Faith, I'm 22 and going to be a senior in college (took a year off, so I'm a year behind), where I am an English and Fashion Design major.
My love of Keats began this past semester, actually, while I was taking a British Lit survey course and read some of his poems for class. I couldn't get enough of him. I have never before read poetry that moved me in such a way as his did during that first reading, and continues to do whenever I peruse his collection of poetry.
Hobbies include reading, writing, and designing/sewing clothes.
I also like to draw and paint, although I haven't painted in a while and it makes me sad; I suppose I just haven't been very inspired lately. My favorite authors are Mark Twain and Charles Dickens.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest