A new possibility of interpreting “dead march” used in Shakespeare's plays

Abstract

This essay attempts to re-examine the use of “dead march”?a form of funeral procession?in Shakespeare’s plays and its effects on the interpretation of his audiences. I argue that, unlike our common understanding of the function of dead march on Shakespeare’s stage as a means to create a solemn, heavy, religious atmosphere, there are some ingenious ways of interpreting Shakespeare’s intent in those plays as Hamlet and Coriolanus. It is not my intention to dismiss the functional effects of dead march to overcome early modern theater’s practical constraints such as emptying the stage in the final scene, or purging the feelings of pity and sorrow in the audiences of a tragic drama. However, when we compare Shakespeares dramatization of dead march on the stage with funeral music appeared in the real world, we can see that there is a difference between actual and expected feelings, which is seemingly contradicting our expectation of the use of the funeral music on the Shakespearean stage. For this end, this essay first examines one of the most important pieces of extant evidence?the funeral procession of Sir Philip Sidney described by Thomas Lant in 1588?regarding the early modern funeral ceremony in order to demonstrate the discrepancies between the real practice and Shakespeare’s representation of it. And then, it, through the examination of certain music produced by William Byrd, attempts to provide further evidence for Shakespeare’s unfamiliar use of the dead march in order to demonstrate the extent to which Shakespeare raised some questions about the interpretation of the concept of compassion in the political and religious settings in which the Reformation took place. In conclusion, this essay suggests that Shakespeare did not simply replicate the politically and religiously motivated contemporary funeral practices, and that he might have problematized those funeral practices used as a form of propaganda by foregrounding the contradiction between what the audience hear and what is seen, or achieving congruence between what is heard and what is seen, which does not exist in the real world.