"Knowing I lov'd my books,
he furnish'd me . . ." (The Tempest 1.2.167)

Are You Shakespearienced?

Test Your (Shakespearean) Literacy!

A Self-Testing Quiz



  Guess What? You chose the correct answer!

Oh, thou sagacious maven of Elizabethan English, you are most correct.  An "incontinent varlet" is (c) a sexually promiscuous rogue.

The line occurs in Troilus and Cressida when the bitter and backbiting Thersites calls all his Greek friends "all incontinent varlets!" (5.1.106) Thersites is a pretty nasty fellow, all things considered, who generally hates everybody. But, come to think of it, there is a lot of sexual promiscuity in that play, so he's not wrong. A LOT of sexual promiscuity. (How's that for a not-too-subtle nudge to get you to read the play?)

As for the language, once again, we find ourselves musing on the bodily functions, don't we. Well, there is good reason for that, since Elizabethans had perhaps a greater fascination with bodily functions and fluids than we have in the modern age when science has supposedly explained it all to us. True, "incontinent" even in Shakespeare's day could describe one who could not control bladder or colon, but sexuality was also thought to be a bodily function that came under similar jurisdiction of one's wits and wisdom. One needed to hold off the sexual functions as much as one possibly could, in the cultural "wisdom" of the Renaissance, even in marriage, since it was generally thought that giving in to sexual urges caused a man to lessen his lifespan, every time one indulged in the physical release of the bodily fluids associated therewith.

A "varlet" actually comes from the same root as "valet" in the Old French, meaning a lowly attendant. In Shakespeare's day, a "varlet" could mean a servant, yes, or it could also mean a rogue, a knave, a rascal, a lowlife, a scum, a sewer-sucker, a cut-purse, a pickpocket, a scalawag, a n'er-do-well, a guttersnipe, a . . . well, you get the idea.

And so it is, my friends, that we come once again to notice how the Early Modern English language betrays its class biases. Clearly, it was assumed that being born into a lower class made you more likely to be given to dishonesty and thievery and that being born into the upper class made you given to virtue. And if you were born into royalty, then you were given to wisdom as well as virtue, and you were asked to rule the country.

This line of thinking is, of course, to be markedly distinguished from today, when we not only suspect it but have seen it proved to us, many times over, that those who rule the country are actually the incontinent varlets.

Come to think of it, those who ruled in those days were the incontinent varlets, too.  It was just against the law to say so.


http://courses.missouristate.edu/mfb137f/images/shsm.jpgReturn to Home Page of Are You Shakespearienced?