![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
desperanceSo I am reading a book. This is, I know, no news. It is also a position of privilege - the book's not published until next year, and I have a very early copy - which I am trying not to abuse, hence the lack of identifying detail at this time. I intend to say more later.
But here is a thing that intrigues me. Being English, I am of course more than accustomed to the royal and the editorial we: that assumption of plurality in utterances from above, ex cathedra. We are, notoriously, not amused (it is indeed sometimes called the Victorian we, as though it had not existed theretofore).
In this novel, though, the author is using what I have decided to call a courtly we. The imperial court is entangled with tradition and formality, and even in private conversation, everyone adopts a plural in talking about themselves: his secretary to the emperor no less than the emperor to his secretary. I am not conscious of having seen this before, but I may of course be missing classic examples in literature that I have either forgotten or merely not yet read.
So: does this ring any bells at all, for anyone?
But here is a thing that intrigues me. Being English, I am of course more than accustomed to the royal and the editorial we: that assumption of plurality in utterances from above, ex cathedra. We are, notoriously, not amused (it is indeed sometimes called the Victorian we, as though it had not existed theretofore).
In this novel, though, the author is using what I have decided to call a courtly we. The imperial court is entangled with tradition and formality, and even in private conversation, everyone adopts a plural in talking about themselves: his secretary to the emperor no less than the emperor to his secretary. I am not conscious of having seen this before, but I may of course be missing classic examples in literature that I have either forgotten or merely not yet read.
So: does this ring any bells at all, for anyone?