tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post2141104764447532327..comments2024-03-17T18:57:54.001+01:00Comments on Limited, Inc.: and the document was sweet in my mouthRoger Gathmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-72779205845208961262009-05-12T00:16:00.000+02:002009-05-12T00:16:00.000+02:00No, it was a verbal renunciation - or so the text ...No, it was a verbal renunciation - or so the text would seem to imply. However, the background of that renunciation is in the earlier play, the Barber of Seville. I should look that up.Roger Gathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-40634815892644134822009-05-11T21:53:00.000+02:002009-05-11T21:53:00.000+02:00A prosaic question about the French:
I understand...A prosaic question about the French:<br /><br />I understand that Figaro thought that the Count had abolished the droit de seigneur in his domains, but in fact he hadn't. But I don't get how "en se mariant" fits in. Did Figaro think that it was by the Count's act of getting married that the droit honteux was abolished? How was that supposed to work?Alannoreply@blogger.com