1999

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1698  Thursday, 7 October 1999.

[1]     From:   Michael McMahon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Oct 1999 18:42:47 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

[2]     From:   Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Oct 1999 15:41:32 +0100
        Subj:   Re: Richard's "we"

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 06 Oct 1999 14:19:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

[4]     From:   Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Oct 1999 15:19:03 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

[5]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 6 Oct 1999 09:23:15 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael McMahon <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Oct 1999 18:42:47 +0100
Subject: 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

Prolepsis?

Michael McMahon

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brian Haylett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Oct 1999 15:41:32 +0100
Subject:        Re: Richard's "we"

>In that famous soliloquy that begins the play, Richard uses "our" and
>"we" freely, but the referent of the pronoun is left vague

Richard uses 'I' freely later in the speech, so he is not assuming any
kingly role. What he is doing, with heavy irony, is to speak for the
society he finds himself in; and because he is being so ironic, he can
take the audience in on the joke.

Brian Haylett
Caister-on-Sea

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 06 Oct 1999 14:19:49 -0400
Subject: 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

I think that Richard's repeated use of the first person plural in the
early part of the speech is intended to contrast dramatically with his
repeated emphasis of "I" in the latter part.  The "I" strikes us as more
significant after we have been lulled by all those soft "our"s.

Larry Weiss

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Oct 1999 15:19:03 -0400
Subject: 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

For a non-royal "we" (not even a pre-royal "we") consider Isabella's
"More than our brother is our chastity."

Dana (Shilling)

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 6 Oct 1999 09:23:15 +0100
Subject: 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1689 Re: Richard's "we"

> Roy Flannagan asks who are Richard of Glouster's "we" in R3.

This is a locution perhaps more common in academic than dramatic
circles.  A colleague of mine described it aptly as "the use of the
collusive 'we' " -- (Addressed to students): "We all know that [dubious
statement of choice] ..."

Robin Hamilton

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.