I don't understand why age 52 would be considered premature in 1616 or
whatever it was. Has anyone ever made an educated guess at the
mortality rate (on whatever basis) during the Tudor and early Stuart
periods? Were there any effective treatments for anything back then?
The real exception appeared to be William Cecil, Lord Burghley, who
lived to a month short of 80 years, a practically unheard of feat--all I
can think is he must've had some phenomenal genes. One report I read is
that Elizabeth was so upset she attempted to feed the dying old man from
her own hand.
It seems hard to set a rule. Among writers, Ben Jonson made it to 65,
Webster (with question mark dates) was in his 40s, Cyril Tourneur may
have been 51, Thomas Middleton was 47, John Ford seems never to have
died (no known end date), Milton was 66, Marvell was 57, and Rochester
was 33...but not having seen the film of his life, I have no idea
whether he died of syphilis, TB, or falling down a flight of stairs
while drunk, a la Fritz Wunderlich the late German lyric tenor.
Well, it is my birthday, 62, so I've beaten out everyone but Burghley,
Jonson, and Milton. Sure I have....
Ken
-----------------------------
Ken Wolman
Miercom
www.mier.com
609-490-0200, ext. *8-14
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
> poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
Bircumshaw
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Shakespeare died of cancer?
>
> On the news this morning: scientists comparing the four "known"
> contemporary portraits of Shakespeare (it should be alleged, or
claimed,
> or believed, but anyhow) state that comparison indicates he had a
tumour
> over his left eye which indicates a cancer that lead to his early
demise.
>
> Yuck. Just what you want to hear over breakfast. As the news usually
is.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
|