Lisa Mann (asker) May 21, 2018:

Sorry this got so heated Thanks everyone for your contributions. I very much liked Marie Wilson's suggestion as well, though I chose to go a different route.

Charles Davis May 17, 2018:

I assumed it must have been the way I expressed it in my comment that you found rude. Saying that what you said was irrelevant, as I have here, isn't rude in itself. Explaining to people why they're mistaken isn't rude.

I think you're making your point very clear, but I think that point is mistaken. There's no "logical disconnect", unless you think every sentence has to limit itself to repeating what the previous one said in different words. The first part of the second sentence adds new information (another reason why he abandoned the project, apart from the main one just mentioned); the second part explains in what sense he was not a "luchador a campo abierto" in this instance.

It seems to me that you are applying an arbitrary and preconceived notion of what the relationship between the sentences must be and it is preventing you from seeing what this expression actually means. I don't think there's a plausible interpretation of it that includes the idea of the missing librettist (pace Robert Forstag).

philgoddard May 17, 2018:

There's not much point deleting your comment if you then repeat it below. "Your comment was indeed irrelevant and I thought it was important to make that clear, in case others were misled into thinking it was a legitimate objection."

You're still missing my point. If you say "He was unwilling to court controversy. He lost his librettist" is a logical disconnect: the second statement doesn't follow from the first.
Anyway, let's see what Lisa thinks...

Charles Davis May 17, 2018:

However, since you object, I've deleted that part of my comment.

Charles Davis May 16, 2018:

@Phil I don't think I was being rude. Your comment was indeed irrelevant and I thought it was important to make that clear, in case others were misled into thinking it was a legitimate objection. It is based on an unwarranted assumption: that the question term must refer to both Bellini's reasons for not pursuing the project. Since not being a "luchador a campo abierto" refers to what distinguished him from Hugo, and bearing in mind what Hugo was like and the nature and reception of Hernani, I am sure it means that Bellini was not by nature inclined to stick his neck out (which Hugo was, in spades).

What actually happened was that Romani promised to do him a libretto for Hernani, but then went off and did one for Donizzetti instead, leaving Bellini temporarily without a librettist. Bellini got cold feet (because of the prospect of trouble with the police) and when Romani was free again (very soon afterwards) they did La Sonnambula instead, rather than resuming the Hernani project, which they could perfectly well have done.

It wasn't a question of having Romani's moral support; he simply couldn't write an opera alone.

philgoddard May 16, 2018:

Charles There's no need to be rude: my comment is not irrelevant. "Unwilling to court controversy" doesn't work in my opinion: he abandoned the project for two reasons, only one of which was fear of censorship. The meaning of the Spanish is that he gave up easily.

philgoddard May 16, 2018:

FYI Hernani is a play by Victor Hugo.