Negative Capability and the Art of Medicine.

On December 21, 1817, John Keats wrote to his brothers George and Tom about a literary discussion he had recently had with the critic Charles Dilke, after which “several things dove-tailed in my mind.”1 Keats continued, “At once it struck me what quality went to form a ManofAchievement, especially inLiterature, andwhich Shakespeare possessed so enormously—I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable searching after fact and reason.”1 The young physician then went on to cite Samuel Taylor Coleridge as a poet whom he considered deficient in negative capability because he was “incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge.”1 What exactly didKeatsmean?ThatColeridgewas toocuriousor too intellectual tobeagreat poet?We’ll never knowbecauseKeats,whodiedof tuberculosis less thanfouryears later, never referred to negative capability again, either in his letters or other writings. A single mention in a private letter is not much of a pedigree. Nevertheless, Keats’ casual turn of phrase has generated many writings by others in the centuries that followed. Literary critics generally interpret negative capability to mean being open to the world without having preconceived theories, a willingness to suspend judgment, or the ability to function imaginatively in the face of incomplete knowledge. Notable psychoanalysts and philosophers have championed