Further to yesterday's post, I'll continue with my defense of Shakespeare's use of puns by having a look at a scene from Hamlet which shows how they are often used in argument. In this case (1.3), Polonius is questioning Ophelia about the nature of her relationship with the prince, and receives the reply: "He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders/ Of his affection to me". Both the answer and the word "tenders" infuriate him, and he becomes fixated on it and attempts to use it as a way into Ophelia's way of thinking. Thus we get the following, in which he puns on the word three times, while showing that he's aware of the device (almost apologizing for it), and repeating another word of Ophelia's ("think") which he also attempts to twist to his advantage:

LORD POLONIUS

Do you believe his tenders, as you call them?

OPHELIA

I do not know, my lord, what I should think.

LORD POLONIUS

Marry, I'll teach you: think yourself a baby;

That you have ta'en these tenders for true pay,

Which are not sterling. Tender yourself more dearly;

Or--not to crack the wind of the poor phrase,

Running it thus--you'll tender me a fool.

I'd argue that it's a mistake to think of punning as no more than a stylistic choice. Rather, it's an integral part of conversation and argument, and happens all the time.

One aspect of Shakespeare's writing that has received quite a bit of attention, and a lot of it unfavourable, is his use of the pun. Samuel Johnson, a very astute Shakespeare commentator, thought it was his tragic flaw: "A quibble is to Shakespeare what luminous vapours are to the traveller! he follows it to all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way, sure to engulf him in the mire. It has some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible." On another occasion he compared Shakespeare's punning to Cleopatra's rejection of the world for love, which is a bit hyperbolic, but it does get his point across. Personally, I'm of two minds on the subject. At times, in certain plays, the wordplay seems to be a bit too prevalent, to the point of interfering with what's going on otherwise. At others, of course, it can be funny and/or thought-provoking. But I'm also starting to think that Shakespeare's decision-making process was similar to that of a great musician: he'd set up the situation (or problem) and let it resolve itself naturally according to the laws of physics and/or psychology. And the force in play in regard to puns is simply this: they are very, very important, an integral part of conversation and thought, and a source of generation for language itself. Over the next week or so, I'll be trying to support these contentions, and to demonstrate why they were so important to Shakespeare.