Shakespeare's mixing of comedy and tragedy was not popular with his contemporaries. Modern research on emotion, however, indicates that the combination of conflicting arousal sources will increase subjective reaction and, perhaps, audience enthusiasm. To examine this possibility, citation estimates of each play's popularity were compared with two examples each of sexual or intellectual pun frequency counts. Sexual punning frequency did not predict popularity, while increased frequency of intellectual punning accompanied increased tragedy popularity and decreased comedy popularity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MartindaleC., Romantic Progression: The Psychology of Literary History, Hemisphere, Washington, D.C., 1975.
2.
MartindaleC., Aesthetic Evolution, Poetics, 15, pp. 439–473, 1986.
3.
LevinH., General Introduction, in The Riverside Shakespeare, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1974.
4.
ReizenseinR., The Schacter Theory of Emotion: Two Decades Later, Psychological Bulletin, 94, pp. 239–264, 1983.
5.
SchacterS. and SingerJ., Cognitive, Social and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State, Psychological Review, 69, pp. 379–399, 1962.
6.
ApterM. J., The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of Psychological Reversals, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
7.
SolomonR. L., The Opponent Process Theory of Motivation: The Cost of Pleasure and the Benefits of Pain, American Psychologist, 35, pp. 691–712, 1980.
8.
ScheffT. J., Catharsis in Healing, Ritual, and Drama, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1979.
9.
DerksP. L., Shakespeare's Use of Humor in Tragedy: Comic Relief or Tragic Reversal?, in WHIMSY VI: World Humor and Irony Membership Serial Yearbook: Proceedings of the Sixth (1987) Conference, NilsonD. L. F. and NilsonA. P. (eds.), Arizona State University Press, Tempe, Arizona, pp. 51–53, 1988.
10.
SimontonD. K., Popularity, Content, and Context in 37 Shakespeare Plays, Poetics, 15, pp. 493–510, 1986.
11.
SimontonD. K., Shakespeare's Plays and Sonnets: Correlations of Differential Greatness, in Literary Discourse: Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological Approaches, HalaszL. (ed.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 193–200, 1987.
12.
HutchinsR. M. (ed.), Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, 1952.
13.
PartridgeE., Shakespeare's Bawdy, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1969, (original published 1948).
14.
McCallJ., William Shakespeare: Spacious in the Possession of Dirt, University Press of America, Washington, D.C., 1977.
15.
RubinsteinF., A Dictionary of Shakespeare's Sexual Puns and Their Significance, Macmillan, London, 1984.
16.
KokeritzH., Shakespeare's Pronunciation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1953.
17.
BatherF. A., The Puns of Shakespeare, Noctes Shakespeariance, pp. 69–91, 1887.
18.
BatherF. A., The Puns of Shakespeare, lecture presented at Wimbledon Public Library, Wimbledon, England, February 1923, (original manuscript in New York Public Library).
19.
BatherF. A., The Puns of Shakespeare, in Crosbie's Dictionary of Puns, CrosbieJ. S. (ed.), Harmony Books, New York, pp. 267–278, 1977.
20.
SimontonD. K., Shakespeare's Sonnets: A Case of and for Single-Case Historiometry, manuscript, University of California, Davis, 1988.
21.
MarinoM., Puns: The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful, Humor, 1, pp. 39–48, 1988.
