A Life Of Lorenzo Da Ponte: Talent Flies; Practical Reason Walks

Among the world’s favorite operas, we find three of them with a libretto penned by Lorenzo Da Ponte and music by none other than the astonishingly delightful Viennese ear-confectioner Mozart. The list is a delight in itself: The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovann, and Cos์ Fan Tutte.

We learn in the new book, The Librettist of Venice, by Rodney Bolt, that Da Ponte grew so close with the unequalled Mozart – both of whom, we learn, were not only talented but vain, insecure and ambitious – that while writing Don Giovanni, they worked in adjoining lodges and shouted to each other through their windows.

Da Ponte even dared to contend with Mozart, who believed the text should be subservient to the music, while Da Ponte was certain that the words should be primary, in fact, that without his poetry even Mighty Mo’s music would be nothing.

Yet how Da Ponte tumbled from the heights. Hard as it may be to imagine, he wound up in New York, running, at one time, a grocery store on the Bowery.

Brilliant as an artist, he was apparently, in his personal life, a managerial moron. Or, said another way, while talent flies, practical reason just plods along, like a relative moron.

Da Ponte, born Jewish, was, as a result of his father’s having decided the family should become Catholic for the easement of a life of trade, ordained a priest. But his real vocation was married women. His exploits, we learn, rivaled Casanova, who became his pal and, if we believe such a thing is possible in the category at hand, his mentor.

Da Ponte himself admitted a shortcoming in comparison with his rival for insincere relationships: he didn’t have Casanova’s purported talent for fleecing the women he falsely wooed. In fact, Da Ponte claims he actually loved the ones he made out with.

He also considered himself adroit politically, but his moves were disastrous. He upset the successors of Joseph II so much he was exiled from Vienna.

Now,still technically a priest he was married to a younger but more wisely practical woman named Nancy Grahl, but even she was unable to keep the man out of bankruptcy in London and again in America, where they moved in 1805, because her family had settled here.

He attempted to establish Italian opera companies when English-speaking audiences had little interest in them. To add onions to opera, the grocery business failed.

He finally became a teacher, bookseller and wannabe impresario.

On the positive side, New York turned out to be the most agreeable spot for him. It was relatively liberal, and Da Ponte found himself a favorite of the cultural elite.

He became the first professor of Italian at Columbia University. While the position was pretty much ceremonial, Da Ponte has the double distinction of having been the first Jew and first priest on the school’s faculty.

He lived on into his 80’s, revered but regarded as eccentric.

He was charming man who made a profession of being European when such a state was still considered novel.

Yet when one compares his everyday doings with his winged collaboration with Mozart, one can only shake his head with the recognition of how quicksilver brilliant the remarkable syntheses of talent are, way up in mental processes we can only hope will drop answers into our expectant consciousness, compared to the "first we do this and then we do that" plodding of the practical but still invaluable mind.

A Cialis A Day Keeps The Uncertainty Away

The maker of Cialis will apply to the FDA for approval of a once-a-day version of its ED treatment. The company maintains that a daily dose will allow the benefactor to enjoy more spontaneous delight than he can with what the manufacturer refers to as its "on demand" version.

The company maintains that side effects of the new dosage are mild and consist primarily of an inexplicable bulge in the pantaloons.

Dr. Ira D. Sharlip, professor of urology at the Univesity of California, San Francisco, stated, "For patients who are more sexually active, which generally means younger patients, whose sexual activity is more spontaneous, it will be an attractive alternative, provided the cost is not prohibitive."

Until now, men had to take Cialis and other impotence drugs thirty minutes or more before they flung themselves into the arms of their lovers. Now they’ll be ready at the drop of a belt.

Some analysts doubt that millions of men will take the drug every day, since the biggest users of the therapy generally have sex only a couple of times a week.

Insurance companies may also refuse to pay for a daily dose.

Interestingly, a Cialis a day may also have cardiovascular benefits, since the enzyme that Cialis, as well as other impotence drugs, inhibits, flows in all the body’s blood vessels. As a result, the drug may be an effective treatment for high blood pressure.

An expert stated, "There may be a much bigger picture than just for erectile dysfunction."

He certainly chose his adjective well, since “bigger” does seem to be the operative word here, except in regard to the one item Cialis does, at its best, reduce the size of, and that is, of course, the performance anxiety, or uncertainty, of the aspiring lover.

A Bomb For A Bomb And A Rocket For A Rocket; What Hath Terrorism Wrought But A New Code Of Hammurabi

Look far and wide, and what do we see? The most civilized nations, at least, the ones we've got at this point in our nascent human development, having made an uneasy accommodation to behavior that they would historically wretch at as downright repellent.

It’s none other than the law of Hammurabi, or tit for tat, writ in TNT.

So we arrive at the big question. What hath terrorism wrought?

These merciless scoundrels have compelled us transform our own sense of right and wrong into a workable counterpoint to their own beastly behavior. We have been compelled to consider killing them as a regrettably acceptable ethical necessity and, if a few thousand civilians happen to get in the way, what else can we do by keep the bombs and rockets flying.

This transformation of our own generally commendable ethical sense is, other than killing and maiming us physically, the most deleterious result of the murderous amorality of the terrorists. It is, if you will, their second-saddest triumph.

Here we are, the hope of the world, in terms of nations whose conduct is preferably guided by the mutually nourishing principle of the sanctity of life, compelled to wreak death and destruction.

Must we be reduced to combating it in the murderously unethical mud out of which terrorism launches its salvos or is there a way to remain on a higher plane while we contend with it for world domination, truth, justice, and American TV?

Can we, in fact, triumph over what, at present, appears to be the illicit accomplishment of our faux-religious foes?

Would we be the folks in the white hats, albeit soiled, if we couldn't?

But how might we achieve what presents itself as an unlikely distinction?

Why, simply by abstaining from being as unconscionably ruthless as the terrorists.

Sure, we have to defend ourselves, not to mention our precious infrastructure, which is, at its best, part of the common achievement, enhancement, and promise of the human race. Yes, we have to hunt them down and kill them before they kill more of us. But we don’t have to stoop to the level of savage immorality that they do when they kill or capture us.

Tempting as it is to disregard them as an inconvenience, we should abide by the most recognized rules of engagement, that is, the Geneva Conventions. Abide by them even though we realize that the ill-informed and immoral assassins and torturers we're presently at war with do not qualify as enemy combatants, most justifiably because they themselves do not recognize such relatively humane agreements about how we should do battle with one another.

It is by putting ourselves firmly on the high ground of right conduct that we can remain above the terrorists, do what they may, and make them look, in the eyes of all unprejudiced humanity, like the lowdown criminals they have condemned themselves to be.

To go on a bit, with your patient indulgence at the brief suspension of laughter, in the defense of life, we must do our best never to harm and demean it and all we can to preserve and respect it. It is by being the champions of life that we can diminish and defeat those who have no care for it.

Let life be for life and death for death; then life must win, and death, in time, die.

Isn't that right, me hearties?