However, it's not the case that there were no advances. None of the “cures” provided an effective remedy, especially against the later stages of the disease. Such claims often went unchallenged because in Victorian society attitudes toward sexuality and the human body tended to preclude open discussion of venereal disease. All sorts of fantastic “remedies” were being sold. It's thought that the condition may have contributed to his mood swings and occasional disagreeablness among his close associates.īy the the mid-nineteenth century, mercury was still widely used by physicians. He had the condition for about 6-7 years before his death in November 1828. However, it had little effect except in possibly retarding its development and mitigating the symptoms in the early stages. Schubert received mercury treatment in the Vienna hospital several times. For more than three centuries up to the early 20 th Century mercury was applied as an ointment to syphilitic lesions. There were several false dawns in the treatment of syphilis. The following summarises my researches some time ago when I was researching a piece I wrote elsewhere on Schubert (although I didn't use all of this detail). Several web sources set out the slow progress in finding a cure for syphilis. Robinson playing the famous doctor, based on that SUCCESSFUL "606" cure for syphyllis?īefore this thread dies, let me answer your question the best I can, bearing in mind that I'm not medically qualified. So I think I am right on my choice of definitions. It was not until penicillin was introduced in 1943 (I believe) that syphilis was finally conquered with an effective "cure" which had a high probability of success without significant adverse side effects. In general, all those arsenic based compounds carried severe risks if mis-applied. Because it was so unsafe, its successor Salvarson 914 (introduced in 1912) was introduced but it was less effective, and some medical opinion questioned its value over the previous mercury treatment. In fact, it could be positively dangerous if mishandled, and while some patients were "cured" other people suffered from severe side effects, including liver damage and in some cases death. I had understood that, while Salvarsan 606 worked in some cases, it was not a safe cure. I didn't say "partial cure" or "possible cure". That's the normal definition, I believe, of "cure". I take the point that Salvarson 606 (introduced in 1910) was more effective than the previous mercury treatment, but by “cure” I meant medication with virtual guarantee of success in returning the patient to good health. It depends on one's definition of "cure". ![]() I researched all this some time ago in connection with Schubert. Not correct: Salvarsan 606 did work although not as effectively, of course, as penicillin. Unfortunately, he was 115 years too early for penicillin. No doubt about it that Schubert would have been undisputed King of Classical (he is already for me, but I mean in terms of more general appreciation). My sense is that they are all in synch with the general issue of the difficulty of making retroactive diagnoses based on modern knowledge, plus a factor I think exists but has not been adequately addressed by historians of science: Causes of illness and death change over time in a far more complex way than the usual oversimplifications will allow.Īnasazi wrote:And why do we care about this?īecause it's fun to speculate how a couple of well-placed shots of penicillin could have changed the course of history! Mysterious deaths and descents into madness plague the arts of the 18th and 19th centuries. Doesn't sound like syphillis to me.īeethoven, who no one can convincingly demonstrate was not a virgin, surely did not die of syphillis. ![]() We have to remember that Schumann had a healthy wife with whom he produced a number of healthy children in a vigorous sex life that she actually wrote about in her diaries. Schumann is a huge mystery, on the order of Nietzshce though for different reasons (Schumann had a sex life enviable by the standards of any time Nietzsche was an ascetic). Schubert died of syphillis we just have a lot of trouble accepting it, as we should. ![]() I only make an exception for Wolf because it is certainly true. I do not know and could care less about Smetana, Joplin, or Donizetti, not to mention Paganini or Cellini (did you mean Benvenuto?). My dear relatively new friend, you are really re-hashing this? Schubert, Schumann, Smetana, Delius, Hugo Wolf, Scott Joplin, Donizetti.īut I am not completely sure about the following: Piston wrote:The record is pretty clear about the following composers being infected with, and ultimately dying as a result of, syphilis:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |