Britten's Heart Pathology

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

..this may be of interest to followers of the composer's life story ... and the assertions made by Kildea

[Flosshilde]

Interesting & pretty conclusive, I would think.

[Mary Chambers]

I read this article some time ago.

The simple truth seems to be that nobody knows, and in the case of Hywel Davies, there is a strong element of "He would say that, wouldn't he?", since he was, I think, the source used by Kildea. He is 90-ish now.

Basil Reeve, a friend of Britten's when they were teenagers, always comes across as homophobic, and he disliked Pears, possibly because he felt he was the one who finally shared his life with BB and thus advertised the fact that BB was definitely gay. It's quite difficult for us now to remember how deep homophobia used to be, and how ignorant people were about homosexuality - yes, even doctors. There was a common assumption that ALL gay men were promiscuous. It was via Basil Reeve that I first heard the syphilis theory (quoted in something I've read - can't offhand think what) long before Kildea publicised it further.

It seems to me surprising that neither Pears nor Britten exhibited any real symptoms for so long - Pears not at all, ever. Britten's general health was always poor, and there must have been some reason for his family's belief that he had heart problems in childhood. I am no medic, but there do seem to be coincidences and contradictions in this story.

In the end, it doesn't matter at all, one way or the other, but the striving for sensationalism (because that's what it is) irritates me.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the piece linked to is dated at the 14th June 2013 Mary Chambers; has the NS lifted it from somewhere else? or is Davies responding to criticisms arising at the time the Telegraph published an extract from Kildea's work?

[Mary Chambers]

the piece linked to is dated at the 14th June 2013 Mary Chambers; has the NS lifted it from somewhere else? or is Davies responding to criticisms arising at the time the Telegraph published an extract from Kildea's work?

14th June is some time ago in the world of journalism, isn't it? I can't remember exactly when I first read it, but it's not a brand new article. As far as I know it has only been in the New Statesman.

I'm pretty sure the first time I read about the syphilis theory - just mentioned in passing as a possibility proposed by Basil Reeve - was in John Bridcut's Faber Pocket Guide to Britten, published in 2010.

[Flosshilde]

Much as I respect Mary's interest in & knowledge of Britten & his music I do think that her reaction to the syphilis theory is rather an over-reaction. I wouldn't have thought that Hywell Davies would risk his reputation by asserting, fairly forcefully, that it is highly likely that Britten did have syphilis. To say that "He would say that, wouldn't he?" is a bit dismissive (& what has his age got to do with it - are you suggesting that his article is the ramblings of an old man with a dim memory?).
I don't think that it's 'sensationalism' to explore the possibility in a biography - or only if you think that biographies should present a sanitised version of someone's life. There might have been a stigma attached to syphilis, but then so there was with any venereal disease; there is less now & it can hardly be called 'sensationalism' to suggest that someone had it - it wasn't particularly unusual before penicillin was discovered.
Given that the cause of his death was heart failure the possible cause/s of his heart problems would, I would think, be of central importance to a biography. To avoid discussing a possible, or likely, cause because some might consider it 'distasteful' or 'sensationalist' would be a failure by the biographer.

[Mary Chambers]

I agree with you for the most part, Flossy, and as I say I'm no doctor. I agree that it is quite reasonable to discuss causes of death in a biography. It is not sensationalist in itself, but it has been presented as such (by Kildea as much as anyone) and of course taken up by the press in a way that would never have happened if Kildea had claimed that Britten died of tuberculosis or cancer, or indeed anything that didn't have a sexual connection. I certainly don't think that biographies should be sanitised, but I do think they should be balanced, and should not present as fact something that they had insufficient evidence for. Davies now has more evidence, but he still only refers to 'a major diagnostic possibility', which is fair enough.

Other doctors connected with the case have "risked their reputation" by saying they thought the opposite.

[amateur51]

This article offers for the first time to my knowledge evidence that Donald Ross asked for tissue biopsies. The absence of this information hitherto had made me suspicious of the story. If the biopsies came back positive for syphilis then that is an end to the matter.

I understand Mary's reaction, especially as the article tells us that Kildea had known for many years prior to publication but chose to record it only when he had a new biography to sell.

Syphilis, like TB in previous generations, was the HIV /AIDS of its day in terms of scandal-mongering & social regard for the patient. My only interest in Britten's syphilis is whether there was any evidence in his nervous system that might have influenced his ability to write music - this might have been a positive or a negative influence of course. Otherwise, like Mary, I really don't care.

Like Britten, Donald Ross was a hero of mine and I'm glad to find that his clinical probity has stood up to scrutiny.

[Ferretfancy]

Ams

I agree, he died didn't he ? What he achieved before he died is what should interest us.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm not sure whether we should bother with the ravings of Kildea. We may as well give credence to Enid Blyton, Michael Gove or fortune tellers.

[Sir Velo]

credance

?

[Flosshilde]

ravings

?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Michael Gove

[LeMartinPecheur]

fortune tellers

{magic}

[Barbirollians]

I still find Ross's failure to tell those treating Britten on a day to day basis utterly incredible - this was 1973 not 1937 .