Why did he go to Italy?
Why did he leave Fanny to go to Italy when he knew he was dying? If it was for his health why didn't he take Fanny with him?
shareMy niece has my copy of the DVD at the moment, so I hope someone will correct me if I get some of this wrong.
Due to the state of medicine in those days, it was believed that if Keats stayed in England he would surely die, but if he went to the climate of Italy he would have a chance at survival. His voyage to Italy and his rooms there were made possible by his circle of friends, who pooled all the resources they could spare. A male companion (named Severn) from that circle went with him to help and watch over him.
It would have ruined Fanny's reputation forever to go to Italy with Keats if they weren't married. So the next question would be, why didn't they marry in England and go to Italy together? Couldn't Keats' friends have paid her way instead of sending Severn?
Well, a very poor young wife with a desperately ill husband would have found Italy a dangerous place, particularly if Keats died and left her a widow there. As Fanny's mother points out, what would happen to her if she were left alone there in her grief, with no knowledge of Italian, no way to make a living and no money to get home? A young, beautiful but penniless widow would have been very vulnerable - to violence, exploitation ....
Fanny and her mother spoke to Keats as though they believed his health would be restored in Italy. At their last breakfast together, when Keats gave every member of the Brawne family a copy of his last book, Mrs. Brawne asked him to heal, then return to England, live with them and marry Fanny. It's up to interpretation whether Fanny's mother really believed he would survive; Fanny certainly needed to believe it. Did Keats believe it? My own reading of Whishaw's performance is that he had become resigned to his eventual death many weeks before, but knew that if others believed that Italy would heal him, he must take advantage of their kindness, allow for the possibility and give it his best. And he knew that a man, not a young woman, must go with him, because of the desperate situation I described above. And besides, if he was very, very lucky, Italy WOULD heal him, and he could return and marry Fanny. What a tragedy that that did not happen.
Thanks for making that more clear for me. I thought health was the main reason, but I wasn't sure why Fanny didn't go. Thanks!
shareBeautifully expressed, kressie. Yes, there is no question that Fanny could not accompany him. It would scarce have to be said. There were no instant messages, nor phone calls, not even telegraphs. Letters were so random in delivery time that ones announcing arrivals often came at the same time as the visit. Fanny would have been left to her own resources at a very vulnerable time.
As for why Keats agreed to go... Although there was a slim chance that Italy could do him any long term good, the winter of England would surely have killed him. Italy provided an extension of his time. Keats believed in the holiness of every moment and every experience. It was an opportunity, although it also sealed his fate to be far, far from those he loved at the end. Maybe Keats wanted to spare Fanny what he suffered watching his mother and brother fade away.
Believe it or not, it is written in Keats biography that not only Keats' friends but also Keats himself thought that part of his problem was love sickness and that removing him from Fanny would strenthen him. In those days when the causes of most illnesses were unknown, much less a cure, one could see how people would grasp at straws.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Keats believed in the holiness of every moment and every experience. It was an opportunity, although it also sealed his fate to be far, far from those he loved at the end. Maybe Keats wanted to spare Fanny what he suffered watching his mother and brother fade away.
Believe it or not, it is written in Keats biography that not only Keats' friends but also Keats himself thought that part of his problem was love sickness and that removing him from Fanny would strengthen him. In those days when the causes of most illnesses were unknown, much less a cure, one could see how people would grasp at straws.
I never thought of it that way GuiltySoul and it really seems plausible. Thank you.
"I have BEeN Whishawed"
Thanks to Ruin
share
Keats was no fool; he knew he was soon to die. There is some speculation in most of the biographies about Keats that Mrs. Brawne was resigned to the marriage, would "farm" Samuel and Margaret out to one of their aunts (Mrs. Brawne had three sisters - one was the mother of George "Beau" Brummell), and that she and Fanny would accompany Keats to Rome. The end result is that Keats talked her out of the idea because he did not want to subject Fanny to the torment/torture of his death. He knew how awful it would be, having nursed both his mother and his brother, plus the medical training he had cerrtainly made no fool of him, nor resulted in any disillusions about "surviving" consumption. When Dr. Clark performed a partial autopsy on Keats, he was horrified to see that this poor, beautiful man had absolutely no lungs left -- nothing in there but a blackened, soggy mess, and was surprised Keats had been able to "hang on" for as long as he did. Given that, I'm sure those last final weeks/months must have been horrible. One has only to read Severn's letters from Rome to understand what a traumatic experience that death must have been, for both of those men--the dying and the care-giver. There was no way Keats would have allowed Fanny to be a part of that.
sharethank to you all
shareSuch suffering. Death must have been such a relief, and not just to Keats but to Severn as well.
share