Notes to accompany the transcription of Romeo and Juliet

Note: If the phonetic alphabet is not displaying properly for you on this page, please download these notes as a pdf document.

1 The transcription is a mixture of phonetic transcription (IPA) and traditional orthography. I have transcribed phonetically only those elements of Early Modern English (EME) pronunciation which are clearly different from today. It is devised for actors who already know the lines by heart, and who have performed their parts in modern pronunciation several times already. It is not a question of their needing to read the lines from scratch, therefore, but of having an aide-memoire for those sounds which will be pronounced differently from what they are used to.

2 Before looking at the transcription itself, please note some general points:

2.1 The general level of articulation in EME was more casual and rapid than we would expect on a stage today. The elisions shown in texts (usually by apostrophes, as in i’th’) are a familiar indication of this – as well, I suppose, as recommendations like ‘speak the speech … trippingly upon the tongue’ or ‘no mouthing’. My transcription therefore portrays a generally colloquial style, in which (for example)
- unstressed and would be pronounced [@n]
- unstressed being as [bIn]
- unstressed for as [f@R]
- unstressed he as [@] (often represented by ’a in the text) or [I]
- unstressed I as [@]
- unstressed my as [mI]
- unstressed mine as [mIn], thine as [thIn]
- unstressed of as [@v] or [@]
- unstressed them as [@m]
- initial [h] in unstressed him, her, etc would be dropped. (Note that there was no feeling of sloppiness or uneducatedness attached to the dropping of h, as there is today. h is more likely to be dropped for emotional reasons – as when Capulet is angry, 3.5.167 – but as this would mean me reading in a dramatic interpretation, I have not omitted them in such parts of the transcription. The option is there if you want to use it.)
- consonants would be dropped, especially at the ends of words: frien(d)s, woulds(t) thou, clo(th)es, em(p)ty, gran(d)sire, as(k)ed, foun(d)st, mus(t), etc.
- especially in the prose passages, medial vowels would be dropped: Gregory [GregR@I], measuring [meazRin], unworthiest [unwoRthIst], livery [livR@I], variable [vE:Rible], natural [natRal], etc.
- vowels sometimes run together, as in the exchange [thIxche:nge].
All of these features are still used today, in everyday colloquial conversation; what is different is that we are not used to hearing such casual pronunciations in poetry on stage. It is open to the director to depart from this principle, if he feels it is warranted – giving a normally unstressed word a bit more stress.

2.2 I have paid careful attention to the demands of the metre, in poetic lines, so that if one of the above words occurs in a stressed syllable, I have left it with a fuller value. Again, it is possible to depart from the underlying metre, if theatrical effect suggests it, and this should be born in mind when reading such lines as I.iv.15:
With nimble soles. I have a soul of lead
With nimble so:les. @I have a so:l @ led
I have left have stressed, the same strength as soul and lead; but the line could of course be said with the have unstressed [@v], leaving just soul and lead strong.
In longer words where there is an unfamiliar stress pattern, I have underlined the strong syllables, as in fantasy [fantas@I], disparagement [dispaRagement].

2.3 There are some general features which account for much of the auditory ‘feel’ of the pronunciation, and these are used by all characters.

2.3.1 Chief amongst these is the pronunciation of an -r sound after vowels (as in car). This sound was not the same as the r- before vowels (as in red), so I have given it a slightly different symbol, [R]. It is a sound which was beginning to disappear from some people’s pronunciation in EME, but most people probably still used it, with varying degrees of strength. Some people would have pronounced it very strongly, in a way which is closest to West Country accents today; others would have pronounced it quite weakly, with just a hint of [R] resonance. These alternatives can be used as character-notes – I would expect older or lower-class characters, such as the Nurse or the servants, to have a stronger [R] than the younger upper-class characters, such as Mercutio or Tybalt, who would be in the van of pronunciation change (new tuners of accent, indeed). In my transcription, I have transcribed everyone in the same way, leaving it up to the director to decide how much attention to pay to these nuances.

2.3.2 The loss of -g in the -ing ending of words was another general feature, as in [amblin] and [dancin]. You can see it in such Folio spellings as Poprin Peare – for poppering. Here too there was no suggestion of any class distinction, whether upper-class (as in huntin’, shootin’ an’ fishin’) or lower-class.

2.3.3 Another consonant feature was the use wh- instead of w- in such words as why and whistle. Modern RP speakers pronounce whales and Wales in the same way. In EME, they would be different. Many present-day speakers still make this distinction (I do, for instance), but it was widespread in EME, so I have transcribed them as [hw] and [w] respectively. However, things were beginning to change, so it is possible to use this as a class-distinction feature – see more below.

2.3.3 A very noticeable feature was the way some modern diphthongs were pronounced as pure vowels. In Modern English, words like say, go, fear, tour, and where have two audible elements, which in transcription could be shown as [seI], [g@U], [fi@R], [tu@R], and [wE@R], respectively. In EME these were long vowels: [se:], [go:], [fi:R], [tu:R], and [wE:R]. You can hear some of these pronunciations in modern dialects, of course.

2.3.4 The remaining diphthongs stay diphthongs, but they have a different quality, and this is perhaps the most noticeable vowel feature of all in EME. In Modern English, lie, now, and joy would be [laI], [nAU], and [jOI], respectively. In EME the first part of the diphthong is articulated in the centre of the mouth, with the sound that we usually hear in the or in the last vowel of sofa: [l@I], [n@U], [j@I]. This last one is especially distinctive, when it occurs, and is the source of many puns which we’ve lost these days (as in loins in the Preface, which would have sounded like lines).
I have used the [@I] transcription also at the ends of words, in such cases as lively, ready, happy, chastity, and so on. In most such cases, the diphthong is in an unstressed syllable, and should be sounded very weak and quick – just a hint of [@] on the vowel. Although this was probably a bit old-fashioned in 1600, the quality has to be there, other the rhymes don’t work (e.g. remedy and die in 3.5.243, 4.1.66, etc.).

2.3.5 The vowel of Modern English RP cup, love, thus, etc is quite open, and is usually today transcribed with the symbol [V]. In EME, the sound was much more central and further back (there are different opinions about how much), and I have shown this by using the symbol [G]. The suggested quality is close to the sound of present-day Northern cup [kUp] but without the lip-rounding. Or, approaching it from another direction, it is a bit like [@], but further back in the mouth.

2.3.6 Notes on the other vowels

Other short vowels
- The [I] in such words as sit, kin, whipped, etc is the same as today.
- The [e] in such words as set, well, fresh, etc. is the same as today.
- The [a] in such words as man, hand, manner, etc. is similar to today, but more like the northern [a] than the fronter sound in RP. This is also the sound used in such words as many and any – and in these cases, where the modern spelling is with a, I have had to use the [æ] symbol, to indicate the difference.
- The [Q] in such words as hot, not, long, etc. is similar to today, but a little more open and not so rounded - more like the American pronunciation than the British, or a shortened version of the [A:] in RP father. For younger people, I have not changed the usual spellings, in these cases. However, older speakers (see further below) use a sound further forward in the mouth, also without any lip-rounding, and I have transcribed this as [a] – [nat, lang], etc.
The same sound is also used after [w], in such words as what, want, watch, and I have drawn attention to this by replacing the conventional a spelling with a different symbol: [hwAt, wAnt], etc.
- The [U] in such words as put, foot, etc. is the same as today.
- The unstressed vowel [@], in such words as the and a is the same as today.

Other long vowels
- The [u:] in such words as shoe, do, true, etc. is the same as a conservative RP today (i.e. lacking the young trend to turn this sound into a diphthong and make it further forward in the mouth, so that two comes out as ‘tyoo’).
- The [A:] in such words as laugh, staff, father, car, heart is further forward, and has been transcribed as [a:]. This is an important point to get right, as otherwise accents will sound very like RP.
- The [O:] in such words as saw, law, all, brawls, etc. is similar to today, but a little more open. When followed by [R], in such words as sort, form, short, there is controversy about what value to use, as two pronunciations seem to have been possible in ENE (the choice probably depending on the history of the words). I have gone for an [o:] pronunciation here (rather than [A:]). After [w], though, the vowel is indeed more open, and also it is not lip-rounded, as with the short vowel above: warm is [wA:Rm]. In a few words with a different history, such as daughter, it is [A:].
- The [@:] in such words as bird, heard, person, mercy, etc. also seems to have had (at least) two pronunciations, one as today, and the other with an [a:] – ‘ma:rcy me!’. I have used the modern one in this transcription in the interests of striking a balance (from the audience’s point of view) between old and new.
- For the [i:] vowel, see below.

2.3.7 Some distinctive words
- I have used a [j] to remind people that such words as the following shouldn’t have an etxra syllable – Benvolio, rebellious [Benvo:lyo:, rIbellyous] – not ‘ben voh lee oh’, etc.
- note the extra vowel in words like ancient [e:nSIent], affections [affecSIons].
- apothecary as [apotecr@I]
- boy has its modern pronunciation, especially as a call (as in 5.3.1).
- Capulet with no rounding on the middle vowel: [Capy@let]
- cousin as [cQzin]
- devil as [di:l]
-est (as in biggest) has an [I] vowel, as does the past tense -ed ending, when it is pronounced as a separate syllable , unless there is clear evidence for a rhyme (as in punished [pGnished]).
- fault, shoulders – no [l] – [fQ:t, sho:deRs]
- fellow, morrow, etc. have [@] at the end (as in the modern nonstandard spellings, such as fella).
- film (1.4.66) as [fil@m] - it is spelled Philome in the original texts.
- hour, flower, etc. have [o:R], thus allowing an interesting possible pun in 1.3.12, where hour sounds like ‘whore’.
- loathsome, Balthasar, and a few others with [t] not [th]
- nature, torture, etc. have no ‘ch’ in the middle: [ne:t@R], [to:Rt@R]; similarly no -zh- in pleasure [plez@R], etc.
- neither, either with a short vowel: [nether, Ither], and sometimes the th disappears.
- none, one, nothing as [no:n, o:n, no:thin] – note how this is needed for the rhyme at 2.6.36-7.
- off, often and a few others with a long [Q:], as heard in some modern accents [come awff it!]
- once as [Qnce] – no initial [w].
- other as a single syllable: [Q:R]; another similarly: [anQ:R ]
- prove with a short vowel [prGve], to rhyme with dove.
- quoth as [kQth] – no [w]; also banquet as [bankIt ].
- Rosaline ending has to rhyme with mine - as required at 3.2.39-40.
- shall as [shQl], especially when stressed.
- to with no rounding, unless stressed: [t@].
- tomb, womb, with a short vowel – [tUmb, wUmb]
- woman as [wo:man] – but women as today
- ye as [y@]
- yes, yet, yesterday with an [I] not [e] (compare modern Australian)
- zounds as [zwu:ns] – spelled zwounes in the Quarto (3.1.48 ).

Note words with two pronunciations, depending on the metre:
- Mantua – both 2-syllable mantwa] and 3-syllable [mantyua]
- Romeo both 2-syllable [Ro:myo:] and 3-syllable [Ro:meo:] – NB the juxtaposition in the same line at 3.2.41
- marriage as 2-syllable ‘maridg’ and 3-syllable ‘mari-ahge’
- prayer as one syllable and two in 1.5.102 and 105 respectively.

Many of the rhymes only work if you allow that there were two (or more) pronunciations in use at the time. In Shakespeare, love, for example, is made to rhyme with dove, move, and grove. On the whole, I have left rhymes which are close (like love and move) with their modern pronunciations, rather than making them identical.

2.4 We know from contemporary accounts that pronunciation was changing rapidly at that time, and that there were several competing pronunciations of words. There was probably a great deal of inconsistency – this was an age when a single pronunciation standard did not exist. The actors may well have said a given word in different pronunciations (just as today, at one moment a person might say schedule with a sh- and the next with a sk-). I have assumed a consistent accent, for each character, but suggested different accents for different groups of people, depending on their age and class.

2.4.1 I have given the older characters a slightly more conservative accent, identified by the following features.
- Younger people say words with [i:] (as in see, teen, sea, peace) like today; older people use an open form of [e:], so that see, for example, sounds more like the first syllable of Sarah. Note that I have not differentiated modern [i:] words with distinct histories in Middle English, as some approaches do (making see sound different from sea).
- Younger people say words like not and God much like today; older people use a vowel more like [a], and these words are transcribed [nat, Gad] in the text.
- Younger people were beginning to say words like musician with the c bit sounding ‘sh’ [S] like today; older people still used the [s] sound – ‘mu zi see an’ – and I have shown this by using the [I] symbol after the [s], as in [musisIan].
- Older people dropped the f in after.
Because the first two of these features are quite frequent, the overall effect should be noticeable. It can even be made a dramatic point, if the director wants. For example, when Mercutio meets the Nurse, I have made her pronunciation of Peter old-fashioned: [pe:teR]. Mercutio would normally say [pi:teR], but I have suggested he might imitate her here (2.4.104), and also with e’en (107). This would be a way of drawing the audience’s attention to the fact that there are different accents involved. Revert to [pi:teR] if the idea doesn’t appeal.

2.4.2 I have given lower-class characters a different accent from upper-class ones. They would certainly have sounded different, but how exactly? I see them as not being in the modern swing of things, so I have given them the following features:
- [a] instead of [Q] in words like God
- [@] instead of [G] in words like sun
- [w] instead of [hw] in words like when
- [a] for unstressed I and he
- [tha] for unstressed thou
- everybody at the time dropped consonants, especially at the ends of words (see above), but lower-class characters would drop them more than upper-class ones, who would be more likely to pronounce words as they were spelled (as many contemporary writers recommended – remember the Holofernes scene?).
- h-dropping was probably commoner in London than elsewhere, so I have given it to the servants and other lower-class characters, including Nurse, as a means of helping convey the social divide to modern ears.
- I have also given Nurse a distinctive pronunciation of words like all: [A:].
In all these cases, the other pronunciations can be used if the director wants to avoid making a difference.

3 The pronunciation represented is (my intepretation of) an underlying system for Early Modern English. Its aim is to show the major differences between then and now. It is not an attempt to show the phonetic detail of each sound. Any one of the sounds shown could have been articulated in a variety of subtly different ways – just as today, the sound in, say, two can be said with slightly more or slightly less lip rounding, slightly higher or slightly lower in the mouth, and so on. Doubtless at the time the actors (who came from different parts of the country) brought their individual accents to their parts. The same can happen with this production. There should be no effort made to make everyone sound exactly the same. Mercutio and the Friar both say the word nature, for example. As long as they say it in an Elizabethan way (as ‘nay-ter’ than modern ‘nay-chur’), the essential feature of the early pronunciation is respected. That still leaves room for a Scots actor playing one part to say it in a Scots way, a Cockney actor playing the other part in a Cockney way, and so on.

23 April 2004

---