Calderón de la Barca certainly had a sense of humour, along with most of his audience. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions remain concerning exactly why an audience may have laughed at certain moments. Psychologists have theorised much about why people laugh, tell jokes and the circumstances under which they feel they can or cannot do either of these. A psychological study, without attempting to plumb the depths of an abstract and/or collective unconscious, could still be valuable in discovering further unwritten rules (derived from behavioural observations) for telling jokes onstage. Such an investigation can also demonstrate how these rules may relate to the audience’s own expectations of what can and cannot be done, as well as the emotional satisfaction that comes from (directly or vicariously) following, breaking or circumventing these rules. Psychological studies can also be helpful, particularly those regarding humour and group dynamics. One such study has demonstrated that a crowd is more likely to laugh at humorous performances if it has recently undergone a similar experience – such as being caught in the rain – that creates some sort of sympathy among the group. Such data may help us better imagine how different audiences might have responded to the same joke. Yet this information also humbles us by proving that something nearly impossible to ascertain in historic terms, such as the weather, could have been the determining factor in the success of an entremés.

I mention this example, and the following one, because while we know that humour does not exist in a vacuum, we must be careful whenever examining the phenomenon in wider contexts, particularly after becoming aware of the complexities in the ‘vacuum’ of the works themselves. Sociological, anthropological, philosophical, religious, etymological, gastronomical and any other approaches to humour in the comedias and teatro breve of Calderón are intriguing and certainly should be carried out, but they should also be accompanied by a consideration of the generic and literary conventions at work. Whether one wishes to demonstrate that, at a given time, humour (trying to get a laugh) is a tool for social control, subversion, self-reflection on language or merely an excuse to wear a hat made of sausages, the most convincing arguments will be those that include the context of the teatro breve and comedia as works of art, along with social contexts.