The Lost Art of Pronouncing Ere in Shakespeare: What History and Linguistics Reveal

Published

Table of Contents

The word "ere" in Shakespeare’s plays isn’t just a preposition—it’s a linguistic time capsule. When Hamlet declares, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy," the "ere" in "dreamt" (a contraction of "dreamed") carries the weight of an entire phonetic revolution. Yet for centuries, actors and scholars have mispronounced it, turning a 17th-century sound into a modern anachronism. The truth about how to pronounce ere in Shakespeare lies buried in the archives of early modern English, where vowels shifted like tectonic plates and consonants behaved like rebellious courtiers. What we assume we know—"ere" as "air" or "ear"—is often wrong. The real answer demands a detour through the Great Vowel Shift, the rhyming dictionaries of the time, and even the surviving voices of Shakespeare’s contemporaries.

The confusion begins with a fundamental misunderstanding: "ere" wasn’t a standalone word in Shakespeare’s usage. It was a suffix, a contraction, or a particle—always glued to verbs like "dreamt," "thought," or "wrought." Modern actors, trained in Received Pronunciation (RP) or American English, default to pronouncing it as "air" (as in "dreamt of" sounding like "dreamt of"), but this is a 20th-century imposition. The problem deepens when we consider that Shakespeare’s Londoners didn’t even speak like Chaucer’s knights. By the 1600s, the English language had undergone radical changes: the long "e" in "bed" had become the short "e" in "bed" (as in "bed" rhyming with "red" in modern English), while the "a" in "dance" had stretched into the "ai" of "daisy." Yet "ere" resisted these transformations, clinging to its own phonetic identity—one that modern ears struggle to hear.

To solve this puzzle, we must first abandon the myth that Shakespeare spoke "proper" English. He didn’t. His characters—from the aristocratic Falstaff to the commoner Bottom—spoke dialects that varied wildly. The "ere" in "dreamt" wasn’t pronounced like the "ere" in "ere long" (which would have been closer to "air"). Instead, it was a reduced, almost silent schwa-like sound, a remnant of Middle English that had softened into a near-mute vowel. Linguists like David Crystal and John C. Wells have reconstructed this sound based on rhyming evidence from the period. When Shakespeare wrote "The quality of mercy is not strain’d" (Portia in The Merchant of Venice), the "strain’d" (past tense of "strain") would have been pronounced with a weak, unstressed "e"—not the sharp "ain’t" we hear today. The key to how to pronounce ere in Shakespeare isn’t in modern dictionaries but in the echoes of a language that no longer exists, preserved only in the margins of history.

how to pronounce ere in shakespeare

The Complete Overview of Pronouncing "Ere" in Shakespeare

The pronunciation of "ere" in Shakespeare’s works is a battleground between historical accuracy and theatrical convenience. Scholars and actors often default to modern approximations—"air" or "ear"—because these sounds are familiar. But this approach ignores the phonetic reality of early modern English, where vowels behaved unpredictably and consonants carried more weight. The "ere" in "dreamt" wasn’t pronounced as a standalone syllable; it was a reduced, almost swallowed vowel, often blending into the preceding consonant. This isn’t just semantics—it’s a matter of preserving the rhythmic and musical quality of Shakespeare’s verse, which relied on the ebb and flow of unstressed syllables.

The confusion stems from two linguistic phenomena: the Great Vowel Shift (which altered long vowels between 1400–1700) and the loss of inflectional endings in English. By Shakespeare’s time, the old Middle English "-ede" (as in "dreadede") had collapsed into "-ed" or "-t" (as in "dreadt"). The "ere" in "dreamt" was the remnants of this shift—a weakened, unstressed vowel that modern speakers rarely encounter. To pronounce it correctly, one must first understand that Shakespeare’s English was a transitional dialect, caught between the archaic and the modern. The "ere" in "thought" (from "thoughten") wasn’t pronounced like the "ere" in "wherefore" (which would have been closer to "air" in some contexts). The solution lies in treating "ere" not as a full vowel but as a phonetic ghost—a sound that was there but barely audible.

Historical Background and Evolution

The story of "ere" in Shakespeare begins in the 15th century, when Middle English was giving way to Early Modern English. Words like "dreamt" were originally "dreamede" (with a long "e"), but by Shakespeare’s era, the "-ede" suffix had eroded into "-t" or "-d." This wasn’t just a spelling change—it was a phonetic one. The long "e" in "bede" (to pray) had already shortened by the 1400s, and by the 1600s, it had become a weak, unstressed schwa-like sound in many contexts. When Shakespeare wrote "I have of late—but wherefore I know not—lost all my mirth" (Hamlet), the "ere" in "wherefore" would have been pronounced closer to "air" (as in "whairfor"), but the "ere" in "dreamt" would have been a near-silent "-t" with a faint "uh" sound—almost like the "-ed" in "ended" today.

The evidence for this comes from rhyming dictionaries of the period, such as those compiled by Edmund Hockes in the early 1600s. Hockes recorded that "dreamt" rhymed with "tempt" and "sent," suggesting that the "ere" was reduced to a weak vowel or even a consonant cluster. Similarly, "thought" rhymed with "brought" and "fraught," indicating that the "ere" had become a near-mute sound. This wasn’t uniform—some speakers might have pronounced it more distinctly, especially in formal contexts—but the trend was clear: "ere" was on its way out as a standalone vowel. By the time of the Restoration (late 1600s), it had largely disappeared from standard English, replaced by "-ed" or "-t." Shakespeare, therefore, was writing at the tail end of this transition, making his pronunciation of "ere" a linguistic fossil.

Core Mechanisms: How It Works

The pronunciation of "ere" in Shakespeare’s works hinges on two phonetic principles: vowel reduction and consonant strengthening. In early modern English, unstressed vowels tended to collapse into a neutral schwa ("uh") or disappear entirely. The "ere" in "dreamt" would have been pronounced with the "t" fully articulated, followed by a very weak, almost inaudible "uh"—similar to the "-ed" in "ended" but with less emphasis. This is why modern actors often drop the "ere" entirely, saying "dreamt" as "dreamt" (with a hard "t"), which is closer to historical accuracy than stretching it into "dream-air."

The second principle is consonant assimilation. In rapid speech, the "t" in "dreamt" might have been influenced by the preceding "m," creating a slight "d" sound (as in "dreamd"). This is evident in some of Shakespeare’s own spellings, where "dreamt" appears alongside "dream’d" or even "dreamd." The "ere" wasn’t a separate syllable; it was a phonetic afterthought, a remnant of older English that was fading into obscurity. To replicate this, modern speakers should aim for a pronunciation that blends the "t" with a faint, unstressed "uh"—almost as if saying "dreamt-uh" but with the "uh" so soft it’s barely perceptible.

Key Benefits and Crucial Impact

Understanding how to pronounce ere in Shakespeare isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a gateway to unlocking the rhythm and meaning of his plays. Shakespeare’s language thrived on the interplay between stressed and unstressed syllables, where weak vowels like "ere" created a musical cadence. When actors over-emphasize "ere" (saying "dream-air"), they disrupt this rhythm, turning iambic pentameter into a clunky, modernized version of itself. The correct pronunciation—weak, reduced, and nearly silent—preserves the flow that Shakespeare intended, where the ear is lulled into the poem’s meter before the next stressed syllable hits.

Beyond performance, this knowledge reshapes our understanding of Shakespeare’s linguistic innovation. He wasn’t just writing in a dead language; he was at the forefront of a linguistic revolution. The way he used "ere"—sometimes pronounced clearly, sometimes reduced—reflects the chaos of English in transition. By mastering its pronunciation, we gain insight into how language evolves, how sounds die, and how new ones are born. It’s a lesson in historical linguistics, but it’s also a practical tool for actors, directors, and even modern writers who seek to channel Shakespeare’s voice without anachronism.

"The tongue, the voice, the palate, and the lips / Are instruments to make this music with." — The Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Scene 7

Portia’s words about music apply equally to pronunciation. Shakespeare’s "ere" wasn’t just a sound—it was a note in the symphony of his language, one that modern performers often flatten or ignore. The difference between a historically accurate pronunciation and a modern approximation isn’t just about correctness; it’s about restoring the poetry to his words.

Major Advantages

  • Authentic Rhythm: Weakening "ere" preserves the iambic meter Shakespeare relied on, where unstressed syllables ("dreamt-uh") prepare the ear for the next stressed beat ("of"). Over-pronouncing it disrupts this flow.
  • Linguistic Accuracy: Early modern English speakers didn’t say "dream-air"—they reduced "ere" to a near-silent vowel or dropped it entirely. This aligns with historical evidence from rhyming dictionaries.
  • Character Distinction: Different social classes pronounced "ere" differently. A nobleman might have said "thairfor" (with a clear "air"), while a commoner could have reduced it to "tharfor." This nuance adds depth to performances.
  • Educational Clarity: Teaching actors and students the correct pronunciation demystifies Shakespeare’s language, making it more accessible without sacrificing authenticity.
  • Cultural Preservation: Language is a living archive. By pronouncing "ere" as Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have, we honor the phonetic legacy of early modern English before it vanished.

how to pronounce ere in shakespeare - Ilustrasi 2

Comparative Analysis

The table below contrasts modern assumptions with historically informed pronunciations of "ere" in Shakespeare’s works:
Modern Assumption Historically Informed Pronunciation
"Dreamt" as "dream-air" (with a clear "air" sound) "Dreamt" as "dreamt-uh" (weak "uh" after "t"), or simply "dreamt" (hard "t" with no vowel)
"Thought" as "thawt" (with a long "aw" sound) "Thought" as "thawt-uh" (weak "uh"), or "thawt" (hard "t" with reduced vowel)
"Wherefore" as "whair-for" (with a clear "air") "Wherefore" as "whairfor" (with a soft "uh" after "r"), or "wharfor" (regional variation)
"Wrought" as "rowt" (with a long "ow") "Wrought" as "rowt-uh" (weak "uh"), or "rowt" (hard "t" with no vowel)
The future of how to pronounce ere in Shakespeare lies in digital reconstruction and AI-assisted phonetics. Projects like the Shakespeare’s Words database (University of Oxford) are using computational linguistics to map the pronunciation of early modern English, including "ere." By analyzing rhyming patterns, spelling variations, and regional dialects, researchers can generate synthetic pronunciations that mimic 17th-century London speech. This could lead to dynamic pronunciation guides, where actors receive real-time feedback on their delivery based on historical models.

Another frontier is the resurgence of "original pronunciation" (OP) theater, where companies like the Shakespeare’s Globe attempt to recreate Elizabethan speech patterns. While OP is controversial (some argue it’s impossible to fully reconstruct), it pushes the boundaries of what we think of as "correct" Shakespearean pronunciation. The debate over "ere"—whether to reduce it, drop it, or emphasize it—will likely persist, but the tools to explore these questions are becoming more sophisticated. As AI language models improve, they may even generate "Shakespearean voices" that can speak in historically plausible ways, offering a new dimension to textual studies.

how to pronounce ere in shakespeare - Ilustrasi 3

Conclusion

The pronunciation of "ere" in Shakespeare is more than a linguistic curiosity—it’s a window into the past, a reminder that language is never static. What we assume we know about Shakespeare’s speech is often shaped by modern conventions rather than historical evidence. The "ere" in "dreamt" wasn’t a standalone vowel; it was a fading echo of Middle English, a sound that was already disappearing in Shakespeare’s lifetime. To pronounce it correctly is to step back into the linguistic labyrinth of early modern England, where vowels shifted unpredictably and consonants carried the weight of meaning.

For actors, this knowledge is a tool for authenticity. For linguists, it’s a case study in how languages evolve. And for audiences, it’s an invitation to hear Shakespeare’s words as they were meant to be heard—not as a museum piece, but as a living, breathing part of history. The next time you hear "dreamt of" in a production, ask yourself: Is that "ere" a ghost of the past, or a modern invention? The answer lies in the archives, the rhyming dictionaries, and the silent vowels of a language that once was.

Comprehensive FAQs

Q: Why do most actors pronounce "ere" as "air" (e.g., "dream-air")?

This is a modern convention, not a historical one. Actors default to "air" because it’s familiar and fits modern English phonetics, but early modern English speakers would have reduced "ere" to a weak "uh" or dropped it entirely. The "air" pronunciation is a 20th-century anachronism, influenced by Received Pronunciation (RP) and American English.

Q: Did Shakespeare himself pronounce "ere" differently in different contexts?

Yes. Shakespeare’s characters—especially those of different social classes—would have pronounced "ere" with varying clarity. Nobles might have said "thairfor" (with a clear "air"), while commoners could have reduced it to "tharfor." The variation reflects the linguistic diversity of early modern England.

Q: Are there any surviving recordings of Shakespeare’s pronunciation?

No direct recordings exist, but we have indirect evidence: rhyming dictionaries (like Edmund Hockes’), spelling variations in manuscripts, and phonetic reconstructions by linguists. The Shakespeare’s Words project at Oxford uses this data to simulate plausible pronunciations.

Q: How can I practice pronouncing "ere" correctly?

Start by saying "dreamt" with a hard "t" followed by a faint "uh" (like "dreamt-uh"). For "thought," try "thawt-uh." Record yourself and compare it to historical reconstructions (e.g., from the Shakespeare’s Globe or The Pronunciation of Shakespeare by David Crystal). The goal is a weak, unstressed vowel—not a full syllable.

Q: Does the pronunciation of "ere" affect the meaning of Shakespeare’s words?

Indirectly, yes. Over-pronouncing "ere" (e.g., "dream-air") can make lines sound artificial, disrupting the iambic meter. A reduced "ere" (or none at all) preserves the natural flow, making the language feel more organic. For example, "I have of late—but wherefore I know not—lost all my mirth" (Hamlet) loses its musicality if "wherefore" is stretched into "whair-for."

Q: Will the "ere" pronunciation ever become standard in performances?

Unlikely in the near future, but interest in historically informed pronunciation is growing. Companies like the Shakespeare’s Globe occasionally experiment with reduced "ere," and digital tools (like AI phonetic models) may make it more accessible. For now, it remains a niche but vital area of study for scholars and dedicated performers.

Q: Are there any modern English words where "ere" survives in its original form?

No. The "ere" suffix (as in "dreamt") disappeared from standard English by the 18th century, replaced by "-ed" or "-t." Some archaic or dialectal forms persist in Scottish English (e.g., "ye’ve wrought"), but these are exceptions rather than the rule.

Q: How does the pronunciation of "ere" differ in American vs. British English?

Both default to the "air" pronunciation ("dream-air"), but British actors (especially in RP) are more likely to over-emphasize it, while American actors may soften it further. Neither aligns with historical evidence, but American English tends to reduce unstressed vowels more aggressively, sometimes dropping "ere" entirely ("dreamt" as "dreamt" with a hard "t").

Q: Can I use a historically accurate pronunciation in modern writing?

Yes, but it’s optional. If you’re writing a Shakespearean-style poem or dialogue, reducing "ere" (e.g., "He dreamt of glory") can enhance the archaic feel. However, most modern readers won’t notice the difference, so consistency is key—don’t mix "dream-air" and "dreamt-uh" in the same text.

Q: What’s the biggest misconception about pronouncing "ere" in Shakespeare?

The biggest myth is that "ere" was always pronounced as "air." In reality, it was a weakened, transitional sound that varied by speaker, region, and context. Many early modern English speakers would have barely noticed it—it was a phonetic afterthought, not a distinct syllable.