ABSTRACT

Fleshing out the complex dynamics of this system requires some ingenuity. While some information is available about the variety of roles boys may have played, much of our information is perforce indirect, gleaned from readings of the "theatrical intentions" of the extant playscripts (McMillin "Sharer" 244). Indeed, scholars such as Richard Madeleine, Catherine Belsey, and the late Scott McMillin have begun to produce new readings of some of Shakespeare's plays based upon a renewed attention to the roles of boys. Madeleine has argued that "it is time to approach Shakespearean boy actors in a way that recognizes the implications of their apprenticeship and its influence on the attitudes of the dramatists and adult actors to the boys and their roles" (225). Belsey notes the relative profligacy with casting small boys in Shakespeare's plays and shows that the part of Arthur, repeatedly described as written for a very "little" boy, can be seen as a training role for the young actor. For much of the play, he has very few lines or is silent, making his one major scene the more striking.